Dinosaurs

[SamuelJ]

It doesn't say they were visible. It says the sinews were tightly bound.

How would the author know they were there if he couldn't see them? People, especially back then, don't normally describe what they can't see

And there's no reason to accept your assertion that we are even talking about stones.
All because you say so?

And if a dino was sitting in a swamp, I reckon it'd be pretty easy.

Your arguments against dino are pretty weak.


:darwinsm: Keeping your options open, aren't you? Which of those has a "tail like a cedar"? That should narrow things down. :chuckle:

Personally I think it's a rhino. I'm just telling you the different animals that behave in this way. You seem to think only dinosaurs were capable of getting into water on a hot day.

The "tail like a cedar" is accepted to be metaphorical language telling how powerful this creature is.

Everything I've told you here is true. If you don't want to accept that, I won't make you

 

[Stripe]

I asked you to provide evidence outside of Job.

And I ignored you.

If you're not willing to consider God's word, you'll willingly accept anything in order to undermine scripture.

The Bible describes dinosaurs. This is evidence that dinos existed with men.

 

[Stripe]

The "tail like a cedar" is accepted to be metaphorical language telling how powerful this creature is.

Which is just you making excuses.

Sorry. The description doesn't fit a hippo. It does, however, fit a dino. :up:

Everything I've told you here is true. If you don't want to accept that, I won't make you.

 

[SamuelJ]

Which is just you making excuses.

Or it's me accepting what scholars have determined to be the case.

Sorry. The description doesn't fit a hippo. It does, however, fit a dino. :up:

No, it fits a rhino. I've given you plenty of reasons why it can't be a dinosaur.

Everything I've told you here is true. If you don't want to accept that, I won't make you.

I think most people would strongly disagree with you there

 

[Stripe]

Or it's me accepting what scholars have determined to be the case.

"Scholars" say it is a dino.

No, it fits a rhino.

:darwinsm:

I've given you plenty of reasons why it can't be a dinosaur.

Nothing that passes a cursory glance. And besides, couldn't I just wave off anything you might present that I can't answer as "metaphorical language"? :chuckle:

I think most people would strongly disagree with you there

I'm not swayed by what "most people" think. It takes evidence to sway me. When you've got some, let us know. :up:

 

[6days]

No, it fits a rhino. I've given you plenty of reasons why it can't be a dinosaur.

Do a word study of 'cedar trees' in scripture.... then have a little chuckle at how evolutionists think a rhino tail compares to a mighty cecrdar.

I think most people would strongly disagree with you there

Evolutionists think popular opinion matters to truth.

 

[SamuelJ]

Evolutionists think popular opinion matters to truth.

In matters of science, scientists' popular opinion matters. In matters of theology, religious scholars' popular opinion matters. Both groups agree that it is no dinosaur.


Btw evolutionists isn't a real word. Just for future reference

 

[Stripe]

Do a word study of 'cedar trees' in scripture.... then have a little chuckle at how evolutionists think a rhino tail compares to a mighty cecrdar.

There is also his assertion that pachad* must be translated as "stones." My sources tell me it should be translated "thigh," while it is the only instance of the word in scripture.

*פחד

 

[Stripe]

In matters of science, scientists' popular opinion matters.

Which is only a statement that shows you know nothing of science.

In matters of theology, religious scholars' popular opinion matters.

Nope. Popular theological opinion was once: "Crucify Him."

Evolutionists isn't a real word.

:darwinsm:

Merriam-Webster disagrees.

Dictionaries are pretty popular. :think:

 

[6days]

In matters of science, scientists' popular opinion matters.

Fortunately for us, truth is not based on the consensus)

In matters of theology, religious scholars' popular opinion matters.

Not very much.... religious scholars always have diametrically opposite opinions. What matters for absolute truth is what God's Word says.

Both groups agree that it is no dinosaur.*

Stripe already mentioned you are wrong about that. Scholars in religion and in science say that the creature in Job seems to be a dino.

Btw evolutionists isn't a real word.

Sure it is ...like evolutionism is a word...like creationism is a word.

 

[6days]

There is also his assertion that pachad* must be translated as "stones." My sources tell me it should be translated "thigh," while it is the only instance of the word in scripture.

*פחד

Almost every modern team of translators says it is 'thighs'... even the new KJV

 

[CabinetMaker]

And I ignored you.

If you're not willing to consider God's word, you'll willingly accept anything in order to undermine scripture.

The Bible describes dinosaurs. This is evidence that dinos existed with men.

Which is why everyone ignores you. Or trolls you. I do not believe that the Bible includes dinosaurs or unicorns or dragons as literal creatures. That doesn't mean that I don't believe scripture, it just means that I do not believe your interpretation of what scripture says. Leviathan and behemoth describe large animals. The literary style of Job does not lend itself to literal interpretation.

 

[SamuelJ]

There is also his assertion that pachad* must be translated as "stones." My sources tell me it should be translated "thigh," while it is the only instance of the word in scripture.

*פחד

Maybe you're right. How about you present your source here so that I can take a look?

 

[SamuelJ]

Stripe already mentioned you are wrong about that. Scholars in religion and in science say that the creature in Job seems to be a dino.

Then certainly you can find testimony from both a non-young earther scientist and religious scholar and post them here?

 

[6days]

Stripe already mentioned you are wrong about that. Scholars in religion and in science say that the creature in Job seems to be a dino.

Then certainly you can find testimony from both a non-young earther scientist and religious scholar and post them here?

Don't be so goofy.You want articles from evolutionists that support a young earth?

As Stripe told you scholars do say that behemoth in Job does seem to be a dinosaur.

 

[SamuelJ]

Don't be so goofy.You want articles from evolutionists that support a young earth?

As Stripe told you scholars do say that behemoth in Job does seem to be a dinosaur.

I want articles from anybody without a preconception of a young Earth supporting your theory. If you can't find any, shouldn't that tell you something?

 

[6days]

I want articles from anybody without a preconception of a young Earth supporting your theory. If you can't find any, shouldn't that tell you something?

No... you don't want honesty. You said you want opinion from a evolutionist.
Stripe simply said that scholars say behemoth was a dinosaur. He was correct. Now... keep pushing on those goalposts Kdall.

 

[Interplanner]

Watch for a post on Dawkins and super-infinity.

 

[Stripe]

Which is why everyone ignores you.

A bang-up job you're doing of it too.

I do not believe that the Bible includes dinosaurs or unicorns or dragons as literal creatures.

But you won't provide any good reasons in the face of the Bible describing creatures that sound a lot like dinos.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe scripture.

Sure, it does. The Bible also says "six days." You reject that too.

It just means that I do not believe your interpretation of what scripture says.

No interpretation necessary. You posted the passage yourself. It says what it says.

Leviathan and behemoth describe large animals.

Dinos.

The literary style of Job does not lend itself to literal interpretation.

And of course you are some kind of expert. Perhaps you can tell us what the details mean if they cannot mean what they plainly say.

Methinks you'll pass on that challenge too. As you have passed on every other question you've been asked.

Maybe you're right. How about you present your source here so that I can take a look?

:mock: kdull

 

[ok doser]

the biblical description of the behemoth could apply to any number of mammals. But only mammals. the behemoth has a navel and since dinosaurs were egg layers....

Google "yolk sac scar"