Dinosours

Anyone who claims science can with certainly tell what happened millions of years ago is acting on faith. Man's knowledge and understanding of even a few thousand years ago is limited at best.

 

Yes, it was written in poetic format, the main message being a tribute to God's power, not natural history. However, the phrase "tail that sways like a cedar" to me would not be indicative of an elephant or mammoth, or even a hippopotamus. Plus, the word "behemoth" generally refers to something of enormous size. A dinosaur would certainly qualify.

Another thought -- fossilized bones are dark in color, similar to oxidized bronze or iron.

It does sound like a turtle, except for the mention of its teeth, extremely large size, strong neck, and ability to strike fear in armed men. :imagestor

Some scholars have also suggested it might be a crocodile, however crocs are hardly impervious to swords and harpoons.

Whatever this is, it appears to me to be a very large reptillian with heavy scales and at the very least somewhat amphibious. Granted, most paleontologists suggest plesiosaurs had flippers, but that does not necessarily prohibit them from short excursions on land (i.e. seals and walruses).

 

So says carbon dating and the geological record.

However, estimates based on these two are hardly bulletproof. Carbon dating is essentially a method to estimate the age of an object based on measuring its carbon content, and then applying a mathematical equation to project how long it took to bring the object to that state. But like all mathematical equations, the result is heavily dependent on consistency, and that dependence increases proportionally with the length of time projected. In the context of millions of years, the margin of error is enormous.

The inconsistency of nature is also profoundly evident in the geological record. Trying to calculate lengths of time by counting layers of rock or silt is guesswork at best. Geologic patterns vary wildly from one area to the next. Again, inconsistency is the bugaboo.

That is not to say I'm a literalist when it comes to the Genesis account of creation. You might say I'm an agnostic of natural history. I don't believe there is any trustworthy means of calculating ages and eras much before recorded history. What's more, I tend to think that the events themselves are the things that are truly noteworthy, not necessarily when they happened.

 

Right, but when people all over the world discovered fossils and bones of such size that couldnt logically be explained at the time tales of mythical creatures arose. Most notably the Dragon, which is repeated in many civilisations.

18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.

Here, in Job, the description of a Dragon is painted pretty obviously to me. So i can understand, at the time of its writing such a beast been included, same goes the Unicorn mentioned earlier. What i do have a problem with is why the Lord, if he indeed spoke such words, would perpetuate such falsehoods. Why lie and use beasts he knows never existed and he never created?

Does this imply that the lord himself DID sin, by telling white lies to Job.

 

there's plenty of debate about dinosaurs and new information coming up all the time. but just because people can't agree whether something lived 100 million years ago or 125 million years ago, or whether the dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded, doesn't invalidate their existance.

 

Where are you getting this unicorn reference?

Can you really say unequivocally and absolutely that no large, fire breathing reptile ever existed?

If God lied to Job, then He isn't who He says He is, and the whole of Judeo/Christian doctrine comes unraveled.

 

enormous is relative. but again, "tail wings like a stick with some hair on it" doesn't exactly sound impressive. reading what others posted of job, it's clear you can't take this descriptions literally -- unless t rex was a fire breather.

kinda makes it sound like somebody found some fossils and tried to figure out what the heck they were, doesn't it?

who's gonna count its teeth when some enormous creature floats up from the deep and approaches your ship? there are reports of sea turtles 40 feet long and 30 feet wide and 30 feet tall. likely an exaggeration, but then, we're talking about a fishing tale compared to a fishing tale.

 

Can you say,unequivocally, that cookies aren't made in trees by elves?

 

Job 39

9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Its the King James version.

I had to read a few chapters ahead to get some context of what was going on.

No, but i do know that Dragons were the prevailent myth of past times for making sense of massive Dino bones.

Reading of such a beast in a man made book doesnt perplex me. What does is attaching the spoken words of God to such speach.

Exactly, and who would admit to that. But my common sense tell me somethings afoot. Now maybe translation has alot to so with it but my common sense tells me were talking about a fictional beast, the dragon.

There is some reference to this beast flying too, somewhere, some version.

 

34 He beholds every high thing;
He is king over all the children of pride.”

He could be talking about the Devil himself, no?