[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs and man coexisted

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Here is a picture of a cedar from the middle east (Lebanon) ( bushy tree picture )
Don't see the resemblance.

Since your picture resembles neither a tail or a ‘privy member’, I would guess that it is not the cedar mentioned in the passage, wouldn’t you? There are several kinds of cedars that would qualify and you pick the bushy type that support neither your nor my contention. Are you just looking to argue?

Perhaps the cedars mentioned are as scarce as the great pines of Maine that were all cut for ship’s masts and are no longer a notable feature in the forests there. The point is, your cedar in no way corresponds to the verse in anyone’s estimation, not even to your strange interpretation.


Barbarian wrote:

You're a bit upset that your "proof" evaporated. As you see, there are much more recent animals that would be more accurate. BTW, since dinosaur testicles were internal, there would have been no "stones" to comment on. The Behemoth would have to have been a mammal.

I’m not a bit upset. I find this whole conversation quite humorous, in fact. The lengths that you will go to in order to reduce a literal passage into allegory is amusing.
As for the dinosaurs stones being internal, would you say that they are wrapped together with his sinews as it records in Job 40:17? I bet the fossil record of dinosaur testicles is about as scarce as hen’s teeth, huh? But we trust your opinion since you clearly are the expert on this subject and I get all my information by watching old Flintstone cartoons. :wink: I did set my browser to ‘Baluchitherium’ and found out it is an extinct rhinoceros of the order Perissodactyla, class Mammalia, that lived during the late Oligocene and early Miocene epochs of the TERTIARY PERIOD (about 20-30 million years ago). So now I’m wondering why you would think this would be the animal in Job if you contend it can’t be a dinosaur. Is a 20-30 million year old mammal easier for you to accept? Curiousier and curiousier. Maybe if you go to the site below, you can read about these animals and get a better idea of which one is the behemoth of Job’s day. Look at the pictures and think about a giant cedar swaying as it is dragged behind. Now look at the pathetic tail of the Baluchitherium and wonder why anyone would even mention such a insignificant feature.
http://www.4to40.com/earth/geography/ht ... nimals.asp


Barbarian wrote in reply to my suggestion of the prophetic nature of Job 40:19:

Sounds pretty desperate to me. Doesn't say anything about extinction, either. "Dinosaur" and "extinct" are your additions. "Extinct" is a particularly weird addition, since scripture speaks of it in the present tense.

Or, since it lacks scriptural support, a fantasy.

There are some translations that don’t support that idea but I am not dogmatic on it anyways. I do think that is what it means and since the animal is obviously extinct, it’s not such an unbelievable concept. I wouldn’t expect you to agree.

Barbarian wrote:

Except when you feel the need to "improve" His word a bit.

Using common sense is definitely an improvement over the method you use to destroy the actual meaning of the passages in question. I think God expects us to use our brains when we read the scriptures and naturally we can’t read anything without adding our experiences and knowledge to understand what is being said. That is a vast difference to changing it to allow for millions of years and other inventions of evolutionary bias.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Here is a picture of a cedar from the middle east (Lebanon) ( bushy tree picture )
Don't see the resemblance.

Since your picture resembles neither a tail or a ‘privy member’, I would guess that it is not the cedar mentioned in the passage, wouldn’t you?

It's the kind of cedar existing in Israel and Lebanon at the time.

There are several kinds of cedars that would qualify and you pick the bushy type that support neither your nor my contention.

I specifically found the right species for you. That's the one.

Perhaps the cedars mentioned are as scarce as the great pines of Maine that were all cut for ship’s masts and are no longer a notable feature in the forests there.

Not in Israel. They are pretty much gone there. But some remain in Lebanon. That's the one I showed you.

The point is, your cedar in no way corresponds to the verse in anyone’s estimation, not even to your strange interpretation.

Here's a hint; cedar trees were renowned for the strength and durability of their lumber. The author is saying "sturdy." They also have thick trunks.

Barbarian observes:
You're a bit upset that your "proof" evaporated. As you see, there are much more recent animals that would be more accurate. BTW, since dinosaur testicles were internal, there would have been no "stones" to comment on. The Behemoth would have to have been a mammal.

I’m not a bit upset.

Maybe more than a bit, I suppose.

The lengths that you will go to in order to reduce a literal passage into allegory is amusing.

Technically, this is not allegory. It's called "simile"

A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in “How like the winter hath my absence been†or “So are you to my thoughts as food to life†(Shakespeare).

We're just discussing to what animals the simile could apply.

As for the dinosaurs stones being internal, would you say that they are wrapped together with his sinews as it records in Job 40:17?

If you saw a dinosaur, you couldn't say. But you could with an elephant or Baluchitherium.

I did set my browser to ‘Baluchitherium’ and found out it is an extinct rhinoceros of the order Perissodactyla, class Mammalia, that lived during the late Oligocene and early Miocene epochs of the TERTIARY PERIOD (about 20-30 million years ago). So now I’m wondering why you would think this would be the animal in Job if you contend it can’t be a dinosaur. Is a 20-30 million year old mammal easier for you to accept?

Just pointing out that even if you imagined extinct animals somehow survived, there are examples better than a dinsosaur.

A nine-ten-foot tail would be impressive in anyone's mind.

Barbarian observes:
Sounds pretty desperate to me. Doesn't say anything about extinction, either. "Dinosaur" and "extinct" are your additions. "Extinct" is a particularly weird addition, since scripture speaks of it in the present tense.

(suggests prophesy)

Or, since it lacks scriptural support, a fantasy.

Barbarian observes:
Except when you feel the need to "improve" His word a bit.

Using common sense is definitely an improvement

The commonsense interpretation is "elephant." But even if you go for more fantastic ideas, it's clearly not a dinosaur, which would have no external testicles.

I think God expects us to use our brains when we read the scriptures and naturally we can’t read anything without adding our experiences and knowledge to understand what is being said.

In this case, you added your misunderstanding of reptile anatomy.

That is a vast difference to changing it to allow for millions of years

Since it makes no claims about the age of the Earth, there is no changing required.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Here's a hint; cedar trees were renowned for the strength and durability of their lumber. The author is saying "sturdy." They also have thick trunks.

I looked up the cedar that is native to Lebanon today. Young specimens retain a pyramidal shape but the tree takes on a more open form with age, and also the number of trees in an area effects the shape. [/quote]

Looking at the pictures below, which do you think has a “strong,†“sturdy,†“thick†tail that would move like a cedar tree?
Try to be objective.

http://www.4to40.com/earth/geography/ht ... nimals.asp



Barbarian wrote:

The commonsense interpretation is "elephant." But even if you go for more fantastic ideas, it's clearly not a dinosaur, which would have no external testicles.

That’s why it is most probably a dinosaur. The Bible says his stones are wrapped up in his sinews… out of sight. I bet the only way you would see them is when you were cutting up the beast for supper.


Barbarian wrote:

In this case, you added your misunderstanding of reptile anatomy.

Yes, learn something every day whether you want to or not, huh? I do want to thank you for that inside information on reptile testicles. It really brings out the meaning in that statement about the behemoth’s stones being wrapped in sinews.

Barbarian wrote:

Since it makes no claims about the age of the Earth, there is no changing required.

Strange that the Bible goes to all the trouble to list names and ages of sons and fathers in all those genealogies as if God wanted us to be aware of the time frame we are working with and there is absolutely no mention of vast expanses of time having passed before, during or after the factual day by day account of creation.

Barbarian wrote:

Maybe more than a bit ( upset ), I suppose.

You are obviously projecting your own feelings and frustrations into my posts. I can assure you that I am neither upset or frustrated, but am actually feeling guilty of having too much fun with this silly topic.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Here's a hint; cedar trees were renowned for the strength and durability of their lumber. The author is saying "sturdy." They also have thick trunks.

I looked up the cedar that is native to Lebanon today. Young specimens retain a pyramidal shape but the tree takes on a more open form with age, and also the number of trees in an area effects the shape.

Doesn't seem to support your idea.

Looking at the pictures below, which do you think has a “strong,†“sturdy,†“thick†tail that would move like a cedar tree?
Try to be objective.

Remember, we are talking about an animal with external genetalia, that lived at the same time humans lived a few thousand years ago. So the only one that fits is an elephant.

Even if you imagine extinct animals lived in those times, a large mammal would fit, but dinosaurs wouldn't.

Barbarian observes:
The commonsense interpretation is "elephant." But even if you go for more fantastic ideas, it's clearly not a dinosaur, which would have no external testicles.

That’s why it is most probably a dinosaur. The Bible says his stones are wrapped up in his sinews… out of sight. I bet the only way you would see them is when you were cutting up the beast for supper.

you wouldn't see them at all. "Out of site is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
In this case, you added your misunderstanding of reptile anatomy.

Barbarian observes:
Since it makes no claims about the age of the Earth, there is no changing required.

Strange that the Bible goes to all the trouble to list names and ages of sons and fathers in all those genealogies as if God wanted us to be aware of the time frame we are working with and there is absolutely no mention of vast expanses of time having passed before, during or after the factual day by day account of creation.

In fact, the geneologies not complete histories, and scholars have known this for a long time. Some of them are even contradictory. There are two contradictory geneologies for Jesus, for example. Nothing in the Bible says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is something people added because the ancient pagans imagined it to be fairly young.

Barbarian observes that UT is upset:
Maybe more than a bit ( upset ), I suppose.

You are obviously projecting your own feelings and frustrations into my posts.

I read your denial, but your behavior is more eloquent. The topic is more serious than you suppose. Adding material to scripture is no small offense. You should avoid it in the future.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Doesn't seem to support your idea.

Cedar trees grown close together will have more of a tail-like appearance. That is the fact of the matter. Your tree looks like neither a tail nor a privy member. Do you read my posts at all? Proving that a cedar tree doesn’t look like a tail has no benefit to your argument as well.



Barbarian wrote:

Remember, we are talking about an animal with external genetalia, that lived at the same time humans lived a few thousand years ago. So the only one that fits is an elephant.

Even if you imagine extinct animals lived in those times, a large mammal would fit, but dinosaurs wouldn't.

Remember, you came up with “external genetalia†and I thanked you for your clarification of the obscured meaning of the portion that says his stones are wrapped together with his sinews. Since this is the actual case of dinosaurs anatomy, it becomes a proof of exactly what we are looking at. Or rather not looking at. Dinosaur stones are internally wrapped in sinews and not visible on the outside and that makes it a notable feature of the behemoth. You just keep your eyes on that elephant posterior and repeating ‘wrapped together with his sinews’ and eventually it will dawn on you.
If you had bothered to look at the site I posted, you would see exactly what would fit the expression, ‘move like a cedar‘. I envision that people of Job’s day cut down these tall trees, and dragged them to the building site. If you don’t mind a personal story, once after cutting down a Christmas tree, my grandson grabbed the trunk and began to drag it behind him, swaying it side to side, exclaiming, “look, I’m a dinosaur!†You can persist in your feigned insistence of dinosaur blindness, but the evidence is all in favor of Job’s behemoth being exactly that. Give it up, Barb.



Barbarian wrote:

In fact, the geneologies not complete histories, and scholars have known this for a long time. Some of them are even contradictory. There are two contradictory geneologies for Jesus, for example. Nothing in the Bible says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is something people added because the ancient pagans imagined it to be fairly young.

Good grief. Two contradictory genealogies for Jesus? What are you talking about? Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have. Since Mary was Joseph’s cousin, that makes Jesus in the same blood line. You seem prone to finding problems where there are none.

Sure, there are probably a few minor mistakes in the genealogies and I think they can be attributed to copyist error or to ambitious Jews who wanted to be part of the royal family by inserting a relative into the works. Minor stuff. I’m not interested in pinning the date down to the day and the hour, just a general time frame. Even a thousand year error is a lot closer than being off by millions.



Barbarian wrote:

I read your denial, but your behavior is more eloquent. The topic is more serious than you suppose. Adding material to scripture is no small offense. You should avoid it in the future.

Your attempts to taunt me are quite transparent and amusing. If you think for a moment that your charges of “adding material to scripture†are taken seriously by anyone, especially me, you are significantly deluded. These board writings are merely comic relief for me and I may be guilty of not taking them seriously enough but in my estimation when a poster is all cut and paste puff and bluster, it‘s just too funny. Nothing personal, you understand. If you want to get me riled, you’ll have to say uncouth things about my grandchildren. :wink:

 

[Barbarian]

Cedar trees grown close together will have more of a tail-like appearance.

So would most trees. It's an adaptation to crowding.

That is the fact of the matter. Your tree looks like neither a tail nor a privy member. Do you read my posts at all? Proving that a cedar tree doesn’t look like a tail has no benefit to your argument as well.

It merely refers to sturdyness, and possibly to size. As you learned, it refers to the "tail" along with "stones" and loins, so it's obvious it is a penis. However, as you also learned, dinsaurs would not have external genetialia, so they wouldn't even be mentioned.

Barbarian observes:
Remember, we are talking about an animal with external genetalia, that lived at the same time humans lived a few thousand years ago. So the only one that fits is an elephant.

Even if you imagine extinct animals lived in those times, a large mammal would fit, but dinosaurs wouldn't.

says his stones are wrapped together with his sinews. Since this is the actual case of dinosaurs anatomy,

Nope. They are internal, not "wrapped" as you see in mammals.

Dinosaur stones are internally wrapped in sinews

"Internally" is not part of scripture in this case, so we know it is not a dinosaur. It's another of your additions to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

Barbarian wrote: Quote:
In fact, the geneologies not complete histories, and scholars have known this for a long time. Some of them are even contradictory. There are two contradictory geneologies for Jesus, for example. Nothing in the Bible says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is something people added because the ancient pagans imagined it to be fairly young.

Good grief. Two contradictory genealogies for Jesus?

Yep. Matthew 1 has one and Luke 3 has another. And they don't agree.

Sure, there are probably a few minor mistakes in the genealogies and I think...

So we can write off geneologies as a way of dating the Earth, then.

Barbarian observes:
I read your denial, but your behavior is more eloquent. The topic is more serious than you suppose. Adding material to scripture is no small offense. You should avoid it in the future.

Your attempts to taunt me....

I'm quite serious. You should not add anything to scripture, no matter how innocent a change it might seem to you. I know how much you want your version to be true. But it can't be.

 

[unred typo]

You're going to like this one, lots of cut n paste...and it's a long tale.... :-D
Barbarian insists in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary:

It merely refers to sturdyness, and possibly to size. As you learned, it refers to the "tail" along with "stones" and loins, so it's obvious it is a penis. However, as you also learned, dinsaurs would not have external genetialia, so they wouldn't even be mentioned.

Remember, we are talking about an animal with external genetalia, that lived at the same time humans lived a few thousand years ago. So the only one that fits is an elephant.
Even if you imagine extinct animals lived in those times, a large mammal would fit, but dinosaurs wouldn't.

Unred typo wrote: Remember, you came up with “external genetalia†and I thanked you for your clarification of the obscured meaning of the portion that says his stones are wrapped together with his sinews. Since this is the actual case of dinosaurs anatomy, it becomes a proof of exactly what we are looking at. Or rather not looking at. Dinosaur stones are internally wrapped in sinews and not visible on the outside and that makes it a notable feature of the behemoth. You just keep your eyes on that elephant posterior and repeating ‘wrapped together with his sinews’ and eventually it will dawn on you.
If you had bothered to look at the site I posted, you would see exactly what would fit the expression, ‘move like a cedar‘. I envision that people of Job’s day cut down these tall trees, and dragged them to the building site. If you don’t mind a personal story, once after cutting down a Christmas tree, my grandson grabbed the trunk and began to drag it behind him, swaying it side to side, exclaiming, “look, I’m a dinosaur!†You can persist in your feigned insistence of dinosaur blindness, but the evidence is all in favor of Job’s behemoth being exactly that. Give it up, Barb.

But Barbarian continued in his insistence:

Nope. They are internal, not "wrapped" as you see in mammals.
"Internally" is not part of scripture in this case, so we know it is not a dinosaur. It's another of your additions to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

As I said before and you chose to ignore, the stones are said to be wrapped with sinews together.
Here is a quote from The History of Animals By Aristotle written 350 B.C.E :
“In the blooded animals some males are altogether devoid of testicles, and some have the organ but situated internally; and of those males that have the organ internally situated, some have it close to the loin in the neighbourhood of the kidney and others close to the belly. Other males have the organ situated externally. In the case of these last, the penis is in some cases attached to the belly, whilst in others it is loosely suspended, as is the case also with the testicles; and, in the cases where the penis is attached to the belly, the attachment varies accordingly as the animal is emprosthuretic or opisthuretic.

No fish is furnished with testicles, nor any other creature that has gills, nor any serpent whatever: nor, in short, any animal devoid of feet, save such only as are viviparous within themselves. Birds are furnished with testicles, but these are internally situated, close to the loin. The case is similar with oviparous quadrupeds, such as the lizard, the tortoise and the crocodile; and among the viviparous animals this peculiarity is found in the hedgehog. Others among those creatures that have the organ internally situated have it close to the belly, as is the case with the dolphin amongst animals devoid of feet, and with the elephant among viviparous quadrupeds. In other cases these organs are externally conspicuous.

We have already alluded to the diversities observed in the attachment of these organs to the belly and the adjacent region; in other words, we have stated that in some cases the testicles are tightly fastened back, as in the pig and its allies, and that in others they are freely suspended, as in man.

Of male animals that have their testicles placed frontwards, some have them inside, close to the belly, as the dolphin; some have them outside, exposed to view, close to the lower extremity of the belly. These animals resemble one another thus far in respect to this organ; but they differ from one another in this fact, that some of them have their testicles situated separately by themselves, while others, which have the organ situated externally, have them enveloped in what is termed the scrotum.


The sinews of animals have the following properties. For these also the point of origin is the heart; for the heart has sinews within itself in the largest of its three chambers, and the aorta is a sinew-like vein; in fact, at its extremity it is actually a sinew, for it is there no longer hollow, and is stretched like the sinews where they terminate at the jointings of the bones. Be it remembered, however, that the sinews do not proceed in unbroken sequence from one point of origin, as do the blood-vessels.

For the veins have the shape of the entire body, like a sketch of a mannikin; in such a way that the whole frame seems to be filled up with little veins in attenuated subjects-for the space occupied by flesh in fat individuals is filled with little veins in thin ones-whereas the sinews are distributed about the joints and the flexures of the bones. Now, if the sinews were derived in unbroken sequence from a common point of departure, this continuity would be discernible in attenuated specimens.

In the ham, or the part of the frame brought into full play in the effort of leaping, is an important system of sinews; and another sinew, a double one, is that called 'the tendon', and others are those brought into play when a great effort of physical strength is required; that is to say, the epitonos or back-stay and the shoulder-sinews. Other sinews, devoid of specific designation, are situated in the region of the flexures of the bones; for all the bones that are attached to one another are bound together by sinews, and a great quantity of sinews are placed in the neighbourhood of all the bones. Only, by the way, in the head there is no sinew; but the head is held together by the sutures of the bones.â€Â

From this description, you can see that even back then, much was known of internal “stones†and “sinews†and a scrotum is not the same as being wrapped with sinews. Sinews are internal, a scrotum is external.

As for your reasoning that since it is listed with the "tail" along with "stones" and loins, it must be a penis, you fail to realize that the belly, the navel, and the bones are also included in the list. The tail is a notable feature of a dinosaur and anyone who sees a penis here has some serious Freudian type issues to deal with. : I’m sure those who are unfamiliar with extinct animals or who are pushing the age of dinosaurs back a million years will have other biases that will change the interpretation to something less appropriate. Personally, I’m pretty happy with “dinosaur.â€Â


Barbarian wrote:

:
In fact, the geneologies not complete histories, and scholars have known this for a long time. Some of them are even contradictory. There are two contradictory geneologies for Jesus, for example. Nothing in the Bible says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is something people added because the ancient pagans imagined it to be fairly young.

Yep. Matthew 1 has one and Luke 3 has another. And they don't agree.

As I wrote before and you chose to ignore, Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have. Since Mary was Joseph’s cousin, that makes Jesus in the same blood line. You seem prone to finding problems where there are none. You also seem to be prone to ignoring answers that dissolve your arguments. You then take your original assertion and repost it as if no answer were given. This could be construed as dishonesty or self delusion, depending on one’s perception of your motivation. At some point, you may be hoping that your opponent gets tired of your cut n paste ad nauseum, and you get the last word and feel victorious. Techniques such as that are considered intellectually deceitful and immature. I hope you don’t think it is being clever. If you have anything new to add to your ‘penis/tail’ point, please do. Otherwise, I am not going to repeat myself on this topic just to be misquoted. I‘m not into those boring posting games and this is getting tedious. I'm easily amused but not that easily.


Barbarian wrote:

So we can write off geneologies as a way of dating the Earth, then.

No, on the contrary. As I said and you chose to ignore, there are probably a few minor mistakes in the genealogies and I think they can be attributed to copyist error or to ambitious Jews who wanted to be part of the royal family by inserting a relative into the works. Minor stuff. I’m not interested in pinning the date down to the day and the hour, just a general time frame. Even a thousand year error is a lot closer than being off by millions. That said, I don't think the genealogies are off more than a generation or two at most.



Barbarian wrote:

I read your denial, but your behavior is more eloquent. The topic is more serious than you suppose. Adding material to scripture is no small offense. You should avoid it in the future.

I'm quite serious. You should not add anything to scripture, no matter how innocent a change it might seem to you. I know how much you want your version to be true. But it can't be.

As I wrote before and you chose to ignore, your attempts to taunt me are quite transparent and amusing. If you think for a moment that your charges of “adding material to scripture†are taken seriously by anyone, especially me, you are significantly deluded. These board writings are merely comic relief for me and I may be guilty of not taking them seriously enough but in my estimation when a poster is all cut and paste puff and bluster, it‘s just too funny. Nothing personal, you understand. If you want to get me riled, you’ll have to say uncouth things about my grandchildren. :wink: If anyone is riled it is you, and you probably reflect your own attitude in your false estimation of me. Smile. It’s only a silly board. No one cares if you’re wrong. History will little note nor long remember what is written here. You can walk down the street with your head held high for no one knows you are ‘the Barbarian.’ It is ‘Barbie,’ though, isn’t it? :

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on Cedars:
It merely refers to sturdyness, and possibly to size. As you learned, it refers to the "tail" along with "stones" and loins, so it's obvious it is a penis. However, as you also learned, dinsaurs would not have external genetialia, so they wouldn't even be mentioned.

Remember, we are talking about an animal with external genetalia, that lived at the same time humans lived a few thousand years ago. So the only one that fits is an elephant.
Even if you imagine extinct animals lived in those times, a large mammal would fit, but dinosaurs wouldn't.

Since this is the actual case of dinosaurs anatomy, it becomes a proof of exactly what we are looking at. Or rather not looking at. Dinosaur stones are internally wrapped in sinews and not visible on the outside

The "not visible on the outside" is your addition to scripture. Obviously, the genetalia of the Behemoth are external, as Scripture points out.

Barbarian on dinosaur testes:
They are internal, not "wrapped" as you see in mammals.
"Internally" is not part of scripture in this case, so we know it is not a dinosaur. It's another of your additions to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

As I said before and you chose to ignore, the stones are said to be wrapped with sinews together.

So are yours, if you are male. But they probably aren't internal.

(Aristotle goofs, in assuming fish lack testes)

Yeah, he got some things wrong. If I remember, he thought women didn't have as many teeth as men.

He gets this right, though:
Of male animals that have their testicles placed frontwards, some have them inside, close to the belly, as the dolphin; some have them outside, exposed to view, close to the lower extremity of the belly. These animals resemble one another thus far in respect to this organ; but they differ from one another in this fact, that some of them have their testicles situated separately by themselves, while others, which have the organ situated externally, have them enveloped in what is termed the scrotum.

They are wrapped in sinew. (which is collagenous connective tissue) imagine that.

As for your reasoning that since it is listed with the "tail" along with "stones" and loins, it must be a penis, you fail to realize that the belly, the navel, and the bones are also included in the list.

But the loins, stones, and "tail" are mentioned together.

The tail is a notable feature of a dinosaur and anyone who sees a penis here has some serious Freudian type issues to deal with.

But we've already shown that it couldn't be a dinosaur, because it has external testicles.

I’m sure those who are unfamiliar with extinct animals or who are pushing the age of dinosaurs back a million years will have other biases that will change the interpretation to something less appropriate. Personally, I’m pretty happy with “dinosaur.â€Â

"Obsessed" would probably be a better word.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, the geneologies not complete histories, and scholars have known this for a long time. Some of them are even contradictory. There are two contradictory geneologies for Jesus, for example. Nothing in the Bible says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is something people added because the ancient pagans imagined it to be fairly young.

Yep. Matthew 1 has one and Luke 3 has another. And they don't agree.

As I wrote before and you chose to ignore, Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have.

But both are given as that for Joeseph. They can't both be right.

(lots of angry ad hom)

Barbarian observes:
So we can write off geneologies as a way of dating the Earth, then.

No, on the contrary.

Sorry. Until you can satisfactorily explain two conflicting geneologies for Joseph, that's not possible.

As I said and you chose to ignore, there are probably a few minor mistakes in the genealogies...

How do you know how "minor" they are?

Barbarian observes:
I'm quite serious. You should not add anything to scripture, no matter how innocent a change it might seem to you. I know how much you want your version to be true. But it can't be.

As I wrote before and you chose to ignore, your attempts to taunt me are quite transparent and amusing. If you think for a moment that your charges of “adding material to scripture†are taken seriously by anyone, especially me, you are significantly deluded.

I don't think you want to believe that it's what you are doing. But you've introduced a lot of new things to insert in scripture in this discussion. And I'm quite serious. If I was taunting you, it would be very obvious.

You can walk down the street with your head held high for no one knows you are ‘the Barbarian.’ It is ‘Barbie,’ though, isn’t it?

That, I suppose, is a transparent and amusing attempt to taunt.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

That, I suppose, is a transparent and amusing attempt to taunt.

Yes, yes it was. It’s what we know as parting with a ‘cheap shot.’ I thought you would enjoy it, since you seem eager to see me as upset. When you want to annoy someone, you see it is much more sporting to be direct and stop being coy. The most effective rebuttal is to ignore such childishness, however.

Your reply is fairly repetitive of all your previous thoughts so I thought I would interject some new information. Unless there is a doctor or vet in the house who can give us a clinical analysis of ‘stones’ and ‘sinews,’ it is apparent that you don’t know any more about the situation than I do. Since opinions are like belly buttons and everyone has one, we don’t need to see yours again either.

Behemoth-Dinosaur
We shall now state reasons for believing the behemoth described here was a plant-eating dinosaur such as a brachiosaurus or brontosaurus and not a river horse or hippopotamus. Some of the descriptions do fit an hippopotamus, such as large size, eating grass, lying in the water. But an hippopotamus does not fit the picture of the chief of the ways of God. A large dinosaur would spend much time in the water to hide from heat, and he would eat grass. A reptile might even seem less harmful to other creatures than an hippopotamus. A dinosaur could withstand raging water of the river and would be difficult to snare. Description of the tail as a cedar does not apply to an hippopotamus, but fits the dinosaur. Also, muscles woven together describe a sauropod more so than a mammal or ornithischian. We believe the creature was a dinosaur. The reason most commentators do not accept this is because they think Job lived after the era of dinosaurs.

Watson refers to Ed Colbert who says each of the dinosaur's main joints in the vertebrae of large sauropods is greatly expanded to allow as much area of contact as possible. They are also on ball and socket joints and are flexible and the area between joints is expanded. There are supplementary joints between the vertebrae, not found in other animals. Spines projecting from the vertebrae are very long, especially between front and hind limbs, and up from the hips. This gives attachment for extremely long muscles running along the top of the back and overlap like cables. This makes for very strong "loins" in sauropods. This is stronger than anything an elephant or hippopotamus has.
Watson makes a distinction between natural strength as he defines kocho and power in 'ono. He says the first word refers to power to do something. The picture is of power to do something. While Watson does not comment on genetic strength, he indicates there is a difference between strength and manly vigor. All this suggests unusual strength of the behemoth.
HIS MANLY VIGOR IS IN THE FIRM PARTS OF HIS BELLY:
The word we'ono is similar to the word for "strength" kocho in the first phrase. It is stronger and refers to manly vigor associated with genetic strength, as in Gen.49:3, where Jacob speaks of Reuben, his firstborn, as being the strength of his life. Bildad uses the word in speaking of strength of the wicked hungerbitten (18:7.12). Emphasis here is on strength of the behemoth. Job had shown strength in dealing with his friends, but God controls this creature and He controls Job.
The word for "firm parts" besheriyriy is used only this once in Scripture. It seems to be another poetic form for shor and applies to firm parts of the belly. Because it is in plural form, it cannot refer to the "navel" as the KJV translates. Shor is used for "muscle," "navel." Because it is plural, we read "muscles, sinews." Some translate it as "bones," but this does not fit. The idea conveyed is that its manly vigor and force of muscles is in this huge creature's belly. Dr. Carl Baugh in Tracks Step on Evolution notes that a large bone at the bottom of a large dinosaur's belly provides much strength and allows it to move its long tail like a cedar, This makes possible a large intake of food.
Watson takes it for granted that this refers to the navel and he proceeds to show that saurischian animals have the pubis bone of the pelvis extending to the area of the navel. This is not the case in ornithischian types of dinosaurs. It makes for better attachment of muscles for breathing. Thus, saurischians breathe more easily under heavy water pressure whereas humans can breathe without pain only under about three feet of water. This is not found in an hippopotamus or elephant. Elephants do breathe in deep water, but they use lung muscles, not pelvic muscles. If the word is translated as "sinews, muscles, firm parts" rather than "navel," Watson's conclusion would still hold.
Watson also suggests that because the strength of the behemoth is in the "navel" of his belly (as he translates) or in the "firm parts" (as we translate), its young develop in the belly rather than in eggs. He says eggs would need to be too large and the shell too difficult to break, and there would be a problem with necessary oxygen. This thought may be considered. According to Watson, the Bible offers us a scientific challenge to study dinosaurs to determine whether they were reptiles or mammals. We tend to believe they were primarily reptiles.
(v.17) HE BENDS HIS TAIL LIKE A CEDAR:
The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshito all translate yachepotz as "he stretches out" his tail. But the verb chaphatz seems to mean "to curve, to bend" and not "to stretch out." Delitzsch has a problem here because the tail of an hippopotamus, or river horse, is small and not good looking. It does not resemble a cedar tree which is long and stiff. Thus, Delitzsch says it refers only to branches, not the cedar tree itself. Obviously, this is not the tail of the hippo. A fit with a hippo here is awkward. According to Gesenius, background of the word refers to bending of wood.
Bending of the tail like a cedar tree indicates why this creature is chief of the ways of God (40:19) and explains why "behold now" is used twice here. This is a very large creature, indicating God's power and providence while also implying the need for a radical change for Job.
Watson describes the cedar tree as having one long trunk, tapering with stiff twigs and leaves. This fits a brachiosaurus which sometimes has a tail 19 feet in length and 4 1/2 feet across at the base. This demands a slow movement, not the twitching of a hippo or elephant tail. Such a tail would provide a brachiosaurus with defense and balance.
AND THE SINEWS OF HIS THIGHS ARE WRAPPED TOGETHER:
This means the muscles of his thighs are so strong they appear intertwined like a rope. Strength and size seem to be the chief points of comparison. "Sinews" gideey means "tied together." In 10:11 Job says as an embryo in his mother's womb, he was poured out as milk, curdled like cheese, then clothed with skin and flesh. Then are added bones and sinews. They give strength to the body.
The word for "thighs" pachadaw should be pechadaw with a long second "a." According to Delitzsch, this is an Aramazing form. We would say Ugaritic rather than Aramazing, but it might also make this a regular dual. Some translate "testicles" to show it is different from an elephant or hippopotamus. Their testicles are not wrapped with muscle but are in loose folds. We prefer the translation of "thighs" for pachadaw though Gesenius notes that the Chaldeans, Vulgate and KJV all translate "testicles." Already in 40:16b we have the thought of muscles woven together and here is somewhat the same word in verb form yesoragu. It is in the Piel form, strengthening the idea of muscles woven together. This depicts especially strength. Main point of comparison is strength.

Barbarian wrote:

But both are given as that for Joeseph. They can't both be right.
So we can write off geneologies as a way of dating the Earth, then.

Sorry. Until you can satisfactorily explain two conflicting geneologies for Joseph, that's not possible.

I did. You didn’t comprehend what I wrote. As I wrote before and you chose to ignore or could not fathom, Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have. If you do indeed have a mother and a father, your father has a set of past relatives as well as your mother. That gives you two sets of blood lines, and if your mother and father are from the same family, i.e. the royal line of David, the lines might be quite similar and even identical in places. Both the lines are Joseph’s but one is from Joseph’s mother and one is from Joseph’s father. Mary’s are not recorded but since we know she was also a daughter of David’s line and she and Joseph were kin, probably even quite close cousins, we know that Jesus is a son of David as well, even though he had no earthly father. To explain it further, I’m afraid I would need to get an interpreter for you.

Barbarian wrote:

I don't think you want to believe that it's what you are doing. But you've introduced a lot of new things to insert in scripture in this discussion. And I'm quite serious. If I was taunting you, it would be very obvious.

Fear not. God doesn’t care if we add our knowledge of animals and anatomy and use common sense to understand the scriptures. We read with our minds. We base our understanding on our knowledge and experiences. No problem. What problem is it if we arbitrarily change his normal use of seven days in Genesis and call it millions of years? He said he did his creating in 6 days and rested on the seventh, then he sanctified and hallowed it as a day of rest. You can squirm around those facts but that is what he said. I believe that is what he meant. So you may be right to have this fear but it need not be for me. I do appreciate your heartfelt concern, however. :wink:

 

[ThinkerMan]

Both the lines are Joseph’s but one is from Joseph’s mother and one is from Joseph’s father

hmmmmmmmm.....

Luke 3:23

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Matthew 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Nope.

 

[reznwerks]

huh?

Sorry. Until you can satisfactorily explain two conflicting geneologies for Joseph, that's not possible.

I did. You didn’t comprehend what I wrote. As I wrote before and you chose to ignore or could not fathom, Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have. If you do indeed have a mother and a father, your father has a set of past relatives as well as your mother. That gives you two sets of blood lines, and if your mother and father are from the same family, i.e. the royal line of David, the lines might be quite similar and even identical in places. Both the lines are Joseph’s but one is from Joseph’s mother and one is from Joseph’s father. Mary’s are not recorded but since we know she was also a daughter of David’s line and she and Joseph were kin, probably even quite close cousins, we know that Jesus is a son of David as well, even though he had no earthly father. To explain it further, I’m afraid I would need to get an interpreter for you.
Unred where do you get your info? There is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that Mary is decended from Davids line and YOU ADMIT it when you say it is not recorded. Talk about shooting from the hip. If I am reading your words correctly you are trying to solve the dilemma entirely through Josephs line. If so then you would have incest somewhere down the road. Regardless if you want to link Jesus with the blood of Joseph then Jesus can't be the son of God. You just can't have it both way, no way no how.

:[/quote]

 

[reznwerks]

more

I did. You didn’t comprehend what I wrote. As I wrote before and you chose to ignore or could not fathom, Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have. If you do indeed have a mother and a father, your father has a set of past relatives as well as your mother. That gives you two sets of blood lines, and if your mother and father are from the same family, i.e. the royal line of David, the lines might be quite similar and even identical in places. Both the lines are Joseph’s but one is from Joseph’s mother and one is from Joseph’s father.:

One more thing. You are trying to use the arguement of blood lines as confirmation of right. How many years was it after the supposed reign of David that Jesus was supposed to have existed ? Was it a thousand or more years? Well you correctly point out that each parent has two sets of blood lines . Now again I ask you to do the math and figure out just how diluted the blood lines became by the time Jesus was supposedly born.

 

[unred typo]

Thinkerman wrote:

hmmmmmmmm..... Nope

These people were genealogy fanatics. It was a normal occurrence for the mother’s name to be omitted from these lists. One genealogy is Joseph’s father, Heli, and the other is Joseph’s mother whose father is Jacob. Joseph’s mother is not listed but her genealogy list ends with her father, Jacob. Joseph is the grand son of Jacob. In the Jewish mind, Joseph is the son of Jacob, the son of David, the son of Adam. That’s how I see it. If that doesn’t do it for you, here’s another version:

Heli the Father of Joseph
Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deut., xxv, 5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, "The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

 

[Barbarian]

These people were genealogy fanatics. It was a normal occurrence for the mother’s name to be omitted from these lists. One genealogy is Joseph’s father, Heli, and the other is Joseph’s mother whose father is Jacob.

That's not what it says. On what grounds would you dismiss what it says?

Joseph’s mother is not listed but her genealogy list ends with her father, Jacob. Joseph is the grand son of Jacob. In the Jewish mind, Joseph is the son of Jacob, the son of David, the son of Adam. That’s how I see it. If that doesn’t do it for you, here’s another version:

Heli the Father of Joseph
Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deut., xxv, 5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, "The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

Interesting additions. But that's not what it says. To understand it (as opposed to making imaginative theories) you must limit yourself to what it actually says.

 

[unred typo]

: Who are you trying to kid? :

 

[Barbarian]

I'm very sincere. You should not add anything to scripture.

 

[unred typo]

Ured previous: I did. You didn’t comprehend what I wrote. As I wrote before and you chose to ignore or could not fathom, Joseph had a mother and a father. That gives him two genealogies, just like I assume you have. If you do indeed have a mother and a father, your father has a set of past relatives as well as your mother. That gives you two sets of blood lines, and if your mother and father are from the same family, i.e. the royal line of David, the lines might be quite similar and even identical in places. Both the lines are Joseph’s but one is from Joseph’s mother and one is from Joseph’s father. Mary’s are not recorded but since we know she was also a daughter of David’s line and she and Joseph were kin, probably even quite close cousins, we know that Jesus is a son of David as well, even though he had no earthly father. To explain it further, I’m afraid I would need to get an interpreter for you.
Reznwerks wrote:

Unred where do you get your info? There is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that Mary is decended from Davids line and YOU ADMIT it when you say it is not recorded. Talk about shooting from the hip. If I am reading your words correctly you are trying to solve the dilemma entirely through Josephs line. If so then you would have incest somewhere down the road. Regardless if you want to link Jesus with the blood of Joseph then Jesus can't be the son of God. You just can't have it both way, no way no how.

There is evidence that Mary was Joseph’s cousin. Since it is in only religious histories, you can’t accept it as true. It stands to reason that she would be of David’s line because God said Jesus would be born from this line and unless God is really just the giant marshmallow man, we can believe that he will keep his word, regardless of whether mankind has bothered to keep track of the records or not. There were no laws against incest until those laws were given to the Jews. Even then, marriage was allowed between cousins. The reason it is discouraged today is that the possibilities for genetic abnormalities are greater today than it was two thousand years ago.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

I'm very sincere. You should not add anything to scripture.

I'm very sincere. I didn’t. You should not add anything to scripture either.

Idn’t dis phun?

 

[Barbarian]

I guess for those who don't take scripture seriously. I still think you should show more respect for His word.

 

[reznwerks]

where

There is evidence that Mary was Joseph’s cousin.
Can you spell incest?

Since it is in only religious histories, you can’t accept it as true.
Where is it? Not even in the bible is it hinted that Joseph married his cousin and beyond that no evidence of their existance exists.

It stands to reason that she would be of David’s line because God said Jesus would be born from this line and unless God is really just the giant marshmallow man, we can believe that he will keep his word, regardless of whether mankind has bothered to keep track of the records or not.
Here is where it still gets sticky for you. If Jesus is born of Davids lineage then Jesus is not the Son of God as the bible plainly states that God impregnated Mary and Joseph had nothing to do with it. That is why the angel told Joseph everything was cool. Now we have as you admit no history of Marys lineage and Joseph is not involved can I ask do you at least think about what you write? It's in your book , just read it. Jesus can't be both the promised one born from the lineage of David and the son of God .


There were no laws against incest until those laws were given to the Jews.
Incest is incest no matter how you slice it.

Even then, marriage was allowed between cousins. The reason it is discouraged today is that the possibilities for genetic abnormalities are greater today than it was two thousand years ago.
I guess now you are a biologist but I shouldn't be surprised the U of Unred is a growing institution. LOL Surly you should be able to show where the bible prophesied that cousins would marry and bear a child and his name would be called Immanuel. Did you ever wonder why Jesus was never called Immanuel?