Dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible? Wrong...

[A_Son_of_God]

It has been used often in arguments by some who have heard things about the Bible, that dinosaurs are not mentioned in it.

Well, that's not accurate. Why not?

Because, although the Bible isn't an archaeological, nor a biological or zoological dictionary/encyclopedia, it does indeed mention dinosaurs.

There are two main reasons to prove this:

1)
Firstly, the book of Genesis, although not speaking specifically of the dinosaurs, does touch on this, when it states that there were the "great sea monsters" (Genesis 1:21).

Here is an example of a recent find in England, namely the Pleiosaur. Here is another, from Australia, a little earlier.

This isn't restricting "great sea monster" to these creatures though, as they may also mean the things like giant squid, that for many years were considered as myths, until they were finally collected and shown by way of the new technology, namely the photograph. Here's an article on those creatures.

2)
The second, and most important proof of dinosaurs being in the Bible is often overlooked.
Although Leviathan and Behemoth have been called dinosaurs by some, this is not what this article refers to. So what is it?

It is the explanation of Satan himself.

Satan is described as "the Great Dragon" (Revelation 12:9). In that same scripture, he is described as "the original serpent", referring to the snake that spoke to Eve in the garden of Eden. It shows that Satan had misled Eve by his angelic abilities, and tricked her.

But how does this relate to a dinosaur? Well, the representation of a dragon is often portrayed as a flying lizard kind of animal. In fact, in China, they have dragon festivals, and a whole different perspective towards what the dragon is. Here is an article, discussing dragons from different parts of the world.

So does this match "Dinosaur"?
Considering "Dinosaur" comes from words meaning "Terrible Lizard", I'd say so. Although Satan is not defined specifically as a lizard, it is fair to assume "serpent" and "reptile" are similar.

What do you think?

*Just because this article states that dinosaur may be mentioned in the Bible, it does not necessarily mean that I think they were all lizards, or reptiles. There are articles discussing the bone structure of these fossils, and some claim that they are more closely related to birds.

 

[Moriarty]

In my humble opinion, the sea, was a fecking big scary place back when the bible was written.
It was full of ungodly things.

I think it was a tool to stop people exploring to far because militarily they could'nt expland.
Only when trade was established did religion follow.

Lets be honest, the original serpent was god.

However you test the text, he allowed it to happen.

Just a thought

 

[Kev45]

'Jehovah Witnesses and Dinosaurs (10 silly claims they've made).'

"Everyone's heard of Jehovah's Witnesses, but few are familiar with the crackpot ideas about Earth's origins that influenced many believers to assume dinosaurs walked the earth only a few thousand years ago and may have lived alongside humans. In this special mini-documentary, I dig up some interesting "fossils" from my former religion's embarrassing creationist past."

9:32 Dinosaurs were reptiles. 15:25 There might have been dinosaurs on Venus. 16:52 Isaac Newton. 18:00 The valiant theory.

 

[Kev45]

"4,359 years ago, Jehovah killed the dinosaurs (image from the brochure "What Does God Require of Us?"–1996)"

 

[Kev45]

 

[Moriarty]

The bible is full of references to things greater than ourselves.
Be them ideas,feats of strenght or something that holds society together against a common enemy for survival

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

The largest animal ever to have existed on Earth is the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus).

This may change at a later date as palaeontological discoveries are made, but until then, the blue whale is the daddy!

The sauropoda dinosaurs, including Brontosaurus, Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and more, are, at the moment, classed as smaller than the blue whale. Sauropods had very long necks, tails and small heads. Large they may have been but not as large as the blue whale.

The great sea monsters = Cetacea = whales. Not dinosaurs, not tiny plesiosaurs. Blue whale is ginormous.

Plesiosaur is not a dinosaur, it is an extinct Mesozoic marine reptile. They are different creatures entirely.
Having a common ancestor but not a common evolutionary pathway.

Some plesiosaurs reached 55ft in length. The largest blue whale has reached 98ft.

William Stukeley first mentioned plesiosaur back in 1719. It was one of the first fossils of extinct reptiles to be named/recognised.

Archaeology is the study of human activity through excavation and analysis of remains.

Palaeontology is the study of life since 11700ya, pretty much before the Holocene period, including fossils.

Palaeontology borders biology and geology, and is different from archaeology because it excludes the study of human origins/anatomy.

Anthropogeny is the study of human origins/human evolution. From the history of primates to the emergence of homo sapiens.

Birds belong to the theropod dinosaur clade, which includes T. rex. Theropod = 'wild beast'. They have hollow bones and three toes and/or claws.

Satan is Santa with a typing error. Both are imaginary beings.

Okay, okay, Santa is real!!

 

[BlackMagicBabeXx]

In my humble opinion, the sea, was a fecking big scary place back when the bible was written.
It was full of ungodly things.

I think it was a tool to stop people exploring to far because militarily they could'nt expland.
Only when trade was established did religion follow.

Lets be honest, the original serpent was god.

However you test the text, he allowed it to happen.

Just a thought

In my very humble opinion its all a crock of poop

 

[Loubs]

It has been used often in arguments by some who have heard things about the Bible, that dinosaurs are not mentioned in it.

Well, that's not accurate. Why not?

Because, although the Bible isn't an archaeological, nor a biological or zoological dictionary/encyclopedia, it does indeed mention dinosaurs.

There are two main reasons to prove this:

1)
Firstly, the book of Genesis, although not speaking specifically of the dinosaurs, does touch on this, when it states that there were the "great sea monsters" (Genesis 1:21).

Here is an example of a recent find in England, namely the Pleiosaur. Here is another, from Australia, a little earlier.

This isn't restricting "great sea monster" to these creatures though, as they may also mean the things like giant squid, that for many years were considered as myths, until they were finally collected and shown by way of the new technology, namely the photograph. Here's an article on those creatures.

2)
The second, and most important proof of dinosaurs being in the Bible is often overlooked.
Although Leviathan and Behemoth have been called dinosaurs by some, this is not what this article refers to. So what is it?

It is the explanation of Satan himself.

Satan is described as "the Great Dragon" (Revelation 12:9). In that same scripture, he is described as "the original serpent", referring to the snake that spoke to Eve in the garden of Eden. It shows that Satan had misled Eve by his angelic abilities, and tricked her.

But how does this relate to a dinosaur? Well, the representation of a dragon is often portrayed as a flying lizard kind of animal. In fact, in China, they have dragon festivals, and a whole different perspective towards what the dragon is. Here is an article, discussing dragons from different parts of the world.

So does this match "Dinosaur"?
Considering "Dinosaur" comes from words meaning "Terrible Lizard", I'd say so. Although Satan is not defined specifically as a lizard, it is fair to assume "serpent" and "reptile" are similar.

What do you think?

*Just because this article states that dinosaur may be mentioned in the Bible, it does not necessarily mean that I think they were all lizards, or reptiles. There are articles discussing the bone structure of these fossils, and some claim that they are more closely related to birds.

The question is would they have known about the dinosaurs? We only now becuase we started digging into the earth so I'm not sure of any minning activity during these times and they may have just considered the remains were just dead animals. They werre afraid of the sea and it is well referenced that sea creatures we take for granted today were 'monsters' back then? Or they were taking hallucinogenic stuff to cope better with the fear and saw things?

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

size comparison - blue whale skull
.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

size comparison - blue whale heart
.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The question is would they have known about the dinosaurs?

Well, they were a lot closer to being in an environment than we are that has anything to do with ancient history. I mean in their day, their "The Last One Million Nine Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand Years" was a lot thinner.

We only now becuase we started digging into the earth

Yet, we're speaking about the reputation of what "dinosaurs" might have been. The word "dinosaur" wasn't even in use, and is now - as mentioned previously by one of our commenters (with thanks too, for your input) - a misnomer by definition, because we know now that some of these "dinosaurs" aren't "-sauros" at all.

so I'm not sure of any minning activity during these times

Fair enough. If you have a look at some history books though, you'll see that mining has been a large part of human existence.

and they may have just considered the remains were just dead animals.

They ARE just dead animals.

They werre afraid of the sea

Who was?

and it is well referenced that sea creatures we take for granted today were 'monsters' back then?

In some instances, yeah. Not all though. As referenced, the giant squid, or giant octopus was also thought to be a myth. But then they were able to collect evidence. No bones about that one! When they find the Loch Ness Monster in the future, it is true he may be renamed "Eunectys scottis wheretheheckyoubeenis", but we just don't know.

Or they were taking hallucinogenic stuff to cope better with the fear and saw things?

Really? Yet, I'm guessing you're stoned as you type this, yes?

 

[Altair]

The Egyptians Predate any religious groups.

They worshipped the SUN.

Quite rightly so.

Then come along the 3 Wise men?

Who turn the Egyptian beliefs and rituals into a fucking story.

Please. Give some respect to the Pharoes.

 

[Moriarty]

The Egyptians Predate any religious groups.

They worshipped the SUN.

Quite rightly so.

Then come along the 3 Wise men?

Who turn the Egyptian beliefs and rituals into a fucking story.

Please. Give some respect to the Pharoes.

To be accurate they worshiped the bringers of light, which could be the sun, their prophets or their rulers.

 

[Altair]

To be accurate they worshiped the bringers of light, which could be the sun, their prophets or their rulers.

To be accurate?

How can there be anything other than the SUN.

A fucking candle Moriarty?

Jeez.

 

[Moriarty]

Its an existential argument.
Light vrs dark.

The sun it the embodiment of light.

It was never a physical argument, it was mythical.

Like most things in religion or belief it it based one something being "Good" against something being "Bad" and how it can be used to foster belief

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Altair]

and

The traditional religion of ancient Egypt was polytheistic so they were themselves in fact religious.

And? Did I say that they were not religious?

Of course they were religious.

Stupid comment of the day...'Chip the viking'... get back on your boat and sail back under that rock you came from.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The problem is - see - that those who boast that the age of the earth is known are putting faith in theories that are flawed. Even the Bible doesn't state the age of the earth. It only dates it from where it already existed as a planet with water on the surface. And even then, these "days" are not defined in having exactly the same time frame. In fact, the "days" are even summed up as one "day" in the same series of verses. And the seventh day never ended! Yes! According to the Bible, the seventh day is still going! Read the first two chapters of Genesis.

But let's consider the point of view from someone who wishes to put their faith in the dating processes used in determining the age of things like the earth, or specific rocks. They are forced to concede to theories that are flawed.

For instance, the dating techniques used have been demonstrated as flawed in a number of ways. There is always a discrepancy that needs to be addressed, but often is not addressed, let alone even mentioned. Even the presumption of the existing state of how things were in the beginning is a fairy tale to start with. As time goes on, more and more of these are coming to air. For instance, there are things discussed like the existence of helium and argon isotopes in samples which contradict the ages claimed in the standard models used to test.

There are a few assumptions that much dating is based on. Let's look at one of these:

Assumption: The rate of decay is consistent and constant.

If the rate of decay is consistent, we have a problem in that certain volcanic eruptions have been sampled, and the newly formed rocks were dated much older than the actual age of the rocks, that the age of the rocks was determined based on a documented, dated eruption.

Here is an article for you to read - a website that calls themselves the "Institute for Creation Research". Yes, they start from the bias of believing in God. Unlike the OTHER bias where the person claims there is no God. There are many articles online showing these kind of problems. Here is one from a university arena.

...and if the issue is "Yeah, but it's the old gas coming through the rock", then that leads to the point of...how then, can you actually verify the age of the rock at ALL then, if the gas is coming through it? In fact, how can you determine ANYTHING using argon at all? These and many other articles show the FAITH that people put in what they like to view as scientific methods, but are actually pseudo-scientific methods. As good as astrology and psychology.