[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs and man coexisted

[BradtheImpaler]

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).[/b]

This is speaking of an inheritance as in physical property, not the continuation of lineage as in kingship or priesthood which only was through the male.

 

[Solo]

Well I am an atheist (i started reading the bible, pretty much finished the NT and half of the apostles, and gave up, I dont like horror books :-/)

If there is a higher being, A higher power. I dont think it is plausible, for them to be described in a man made book. A book that has been retranslated over and over, so some versions disprove genesis, and others let it work.

to me, the bible is just a folk story on paper. ANd after a while, peopel figured it would be a great way to scare others into doing what they wanted. Dont steal my cows, dont kill my friends, dont sleep with my wife, or you will go to hell.

I am srry for my post above this, my hands were sore from camping all day, and with my disability, it wasnt the easiet thing to type :/

Then you should probably leave this Christian forum, and find an atheist forum to grow in. This Christian forum has absolutely nothing for you. Unless of course you are intent on hassling Christians for the sheer joy of it.

 

[Solo]

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).[/b]

This is speaking of an inheritance as in physical property, not the continuation of lineage as in kingship or priesthood which only was through the male.

And you gather this tidbit of knowledge from where? You know that the inheritance is solely for physical property how?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

This is speaking of an inheritance as in physical property, not the continuation of lineage as in kingship or priesthood which only was through the male.

And you gather this tidbit of knowledge from where? You know that the inheritance is solely for physical property how?

I gather it, quite simply, by the context of the passage...

"So Moses brought their case before the Lord and the Lord said to him, 'What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them PROPERTY as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them" (Num.27:5 NIV)

Also read the preceeding chapter which accounts for the context in which these daughters argued for their "inheritance"...

"The Lord said to Moses, 'The LAND is to be allotted to them as an inheritance based on the number of names...what each group inherits will be according to the names for it's ancestral tribe'..."(Num.26:52,55 NIV)

 

[Solo]

This is speaking of an inheritance as in physical property, not the continuation of lineage as in kingship or priesthood which only was through the male.

[quote:305e4]And you gather this tidbit of knowledge from where? You know that the inheritance is solely for physical property how?

I gather it, quite simply, by the context of the passage...

"So Moses brought their case before the Lord and the Lord said to him, 'What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them PROPERTY as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them" (Num.27:5 NIV)

Also read the preceeding chapter which accounts for the context in which these daughters argued for their "inheritance"...

"The Lord said to Moses, 'The LAND is to be allotted to them as an inheritance based on the number of names...what each group inherits will be according to the names for it's ancestral tribe'..."(Num.26:52,55 NIV)[/quote:305e4]
What you would need to prove is that the inheritance is solely that of physical property, and does not refer also to any other inheritance of the father due his name, such as a male born into his lineage as inheriting the kingship of the tribe.

Deuteronomy 27:4 shows the concern that the daughters had in relation to the name of their father being withdrawn from the midst of his family.


1 And daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh son of Joseph, draw near -- and these [are] the names of his daughters, Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah -- 2 and stand before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes, and all the company, at the opening of the tent of meeting, saying: 3 `Our father died in the wilderness, and he -- he was not in the midst of the company who were met together against Jehovah in the company of Korah, but for his own sin he died, and had no sons; 4 why is the name of our father withdrawn from the midst of his family because he hath no son? give to us a possession in the midst of the brethren of our father;' 5 and Moses bringeth near their cause before Jehovah. 6 And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, saying, 7 `Rightly are the daughters of Zelophehad speaking; thou dost certainly give to them a possession of an inheritance in the midst of their father's brethren, and hast caused to pass over the inheritance of their father to them. 8 `And unto the sons of Israel thou dost speak, saying, When a man dieth, and hath no son, then ye have caused his inheritance to pass over to his daughter; 9 and if he have no daughter, then ye have given his inheritance to his brethren; 10 and if he have no brethren, then ye have given his inheritance to his father's brethren; 11 and if his father have no brethren, then ye have given his inheritance to his relation who is near unto him of his family, and he hath possessed it;' and it hath been to the sons of Israel for a statute of judgment, as Jehovah hath commanded Moses. Deuteronomy 27:1-11

 

[Quath]

Then you should probably leave this Christian forum, and find an atheist forum to grow in. This Christian forum has absolutely nothing for you. Unless of course you are intent on hassling Christians for the sheer joy of it.

This place provides a dialog for Christians and non-Christians. Most non-Christians do not come here to be converted, but come to understand Christians. This web site does an excellent job of that.

Quath

 

[Karma2Grace]

If there is a higher being, A higher power. I don’t think it is plausible, for them to be described in a man made book. A book that has been retranslated over and over, so some versions disprove genesis and others let it work.

Why it is not plausible? , However bible is not inspired by man but God. I don't see any verse to disprove Genesis.

Bible is not retranslated or corrected...It is just a Vague claim with out any support. Let us take the books of Isaiah , The dead sea scrolls of Isaiah (dated 120-100 BC) is very well go along with the modern translation which we have .

to me, the bible is just a folk story on paper. ANd after a while, peopel figured it would be a great way to scare others into doing what they wanted. Dont steal my cows, dont kill my friends, dont sleep with my wife, or you will go to hell.

So the first century Fisherman’s and Shepherds make a book of story which last up to 21st century and powerfully affects the lives of people? They jeopardize their lives for that book and even include passages to bring self damage like ' I betrayed my masterâ€Â, " I was naked and beaten...â€Â, ‘my master called me Satan’.. Finally Martyr domed for the same book? Is it plausible?

In case if you don’t know , Bible was written by 40 authors over the period of 1600 years (40 Generations) from three continents in three languages.

It was written for different moods and include all kinds of controversial topics (such as origin, end of man and universe, nature of man...Etc)...YET THERE IS A HARMONY AND CONTINUETY BETWEEN DIFFERENT BOOKS.

The bible is full of Prophecy, if you were to take the prophecy of Isaiah

Isaiah (800 - 700 BC) who worked with Uzziah (or Azariah) prophesized about Jesus Christ


On His Birth:
______

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuelâ€Â

Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, and The Prince of Peace.â€Â

Isaiah 9:7 “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform thisâ€Â

On His Death (Isaiah clearly depicts that Jesus will carry our sins on the cross) :
_____

Isaiah 53:3 “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.â€Â

Isaiah 53:4 “Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.â€Â

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed"


For ages the atheist blabbered that Christians changed the text of Isaiah about Christ’s birth and death, Now we have the dead sea scrolls dated very early to Christ’s birth (Even by 'liberal scholars') . It is God's way of saying 'SHUT UP’!!

Thanks

 

[unred typo]

Peace4all wrote:

Well I am an atheist (i started reading the bible, pretty much finished the NT and half of the apostles, and gave up, I dont like horror books :-/)

Life is a horror story since Adam chose to know both good and evil. I don’t think he’d make that mistake again. Unfortunately, we humans seem to prefer to learn the hard way. I think the whole point of allowing man to get himself into the mess we’re in is to show us that God the Father knows best.


Peace4all wrote:

If there is a higher being, A higher power. I dont think it is plausible, for them to be described in a man made book. A book that has been retranslated over and over, so some versions disprove genesis, and others let it work.

The book of Jasher collaborates most of Genesis and it gives more detail. It seems to be a curious blend of fact and legend however and some creatures mentioned in it sound like dinosaurs or mythological beasts. The Bible’s book of Job has a couple of animals that sound like dinosaurs, and we pretty much grilled them on this thread earlier on. What I don’t understand is the evolutionist’s indisputable contention that they could not possibly exist with man when some creatures who lived at the same time as dino still exist today. How can they be so sure that some didn’t survive to a few hundred years ago? Especially with all the reports of dragons and sea monsters.

Peace4all wrote:

to me, the bible is just a folk story on paper. ANd after a while, peopel figured it would be a great way to scare others into doing what they wanted. Dont steal my cows, dont kill my friends, dont sleep with my wife, or you will go to hell.

That is a plausible theory but you’re still left wondering the big questions. A well defined ecological system implies that a creative designer exists. Doesn’t it at least seem likely that a creator would be able to communicate with creatures born with communication skills?


Peace4all wrote:

I am srry for my post above this, my hands were sore from camping all day, and with my disability, it wasnt the easiet thing to type :/

It probably was easier to read than to type in that case. No problem.

Peace4all wrote:

Tou woudl think an all knwoing, all powerful god, wouldnt set himself up like this, to be proven false, or atleast his book false.

I am much mroe liekly to believe in a "higher power" however, believing the bible, is pretty difficult.

I think if you make a concentrated effort to communicate with the higher power, you will find the Bible is the closest thing we have to an eyewitness report of creation. Yes, it is difficult to believe but since you do have critical thinking skills, you should be able to discern the motives of those hell-bent on discrediting the Bible and discounting it from any truth value whatever. Religion, as you say, has been a powerful tool for manipulating the gullible masses but those charlatans who use God for fun and profit are true unbelievers. If the Bible were written purely for crowd control and power tripping, it would be more user friendly. It is exactly as it would be if it was a translation of a translation of actual historical events. The Jews are not portrayed as perfect, never at fault, chosen people battling totally evil forces. There they are, warts and all, shown as human beings falling in and out of favor with God.

As for our being able to prove God false, I would not characterize God as setting himself up for such failure. God has given man autonomy to make his own destiny and the value you or I place on truth will determine the amount of truth we find. Each of us has been fitted with a truth meter that we can choose to stultify into a murky dullness or hone to razor sharp.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

What you would need to prove is that the inheritance is solely that of physical property, and does not refer also to any other inheritance of the father due his name, such as a male born into his lineage as inheriting the kingship of the tribe

No, YOU would have to prove this inheritance would ALSO apply to kingship. You are the one trying to expand the example to include that.

 

[unred typo]

No, YOU would have to prove this inheritance would ALSO apply to kingship. You are the one trying to expand the example to include that.

No, the only requirement is that the Savior be born in the family of Abraham and David. Jesus receives his kingship from his true Father, God, who is the supreme ruler. It is God who calls him prince of peace, and who will bestow on him the title, ‘king of kings and lord of lords.’

 

[BradtheImpaler]

No, the only requirement is that the Savior be born in the family of Abraham and David. Jesus receives his kingship from his true Father, God, who is the supreme ruler. It is God who calls him prince of peace, and who will bestow on him the title, ‘king of kings and lord of lords.’

If the Messiah does not receive the lineage of kingship from being the "Son of David", why then the requirement that he must be descended from David?

 

[reznwerks]

lineage

No, YOU would have to prove this inheritance would ALSO apply to kingship. You are the one trying to expand the example to include that.

No, the only requirement is that the Savior be born in the family of Abraham and David. Jesus receives his kingship from his true Father, God, who is the supreme ruler. It is God who calls him prince of peace, and who will bestow on him the title, ‘king of kings and lord of lords.’

Are we on this again? As I explained many times before Jesus cannot be both decended from David and the son of God. It is quite clear from the bible that the angel told Mary that she was pregnant with the son of God. That means Joseph did not father the child. Wiggle all you want.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Are we on this again? As I explained many times before Jesus cannot be both decended from David and the son of God. It is quite clear from the bible that the angel told Mary that she was pregnant with the son of God. That means Joseph did not father the child. Wiggle all you want.

If you would read the answers instead of ignore them, you wouldn’t keep saying the same thing over and over.
Are you related to your mother by blood? Are you descended from your mother’s blood line? If your mother was in the line of David, and your father was God, would you be related to your mother’s ancestors or not?

 

[Jimbob]

Wow, this is great news! I've always wanted a pet T - Rex! : :P

 

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

Wow, this is great news! I've always wanted a pet T - Rex!

You might as well opt for a crocodile. T Rex probably has gone the Dodo bird trail and you’re too late to start the T Rex Rescue Foundation. But if they were still around, you probably wouldn’t even give one house room. I hear they’re impossible to paper train. :wink:

 

[reznwerks]

answers

Reznwerks wrote:

Are we on this again? As I explained many times before Jesus cannot be both decended from David and the son of God. It is quite clear from the bible that the angel told Mary that she was pregnant with the son of God. That means Joseph did not father the child. Wiggle all you want.

If you would read the answers instead of ignore them, you wouldn’t keep saying the same thing over and over.
Are you related to your mother by blood? Are you descended from your mother’s blood line? If your mother was in the line of David, and your father was God, would you be related to your mother’s ancestors or not?

========
The problem is the answers you give were not considered answers at the time of Jesus. These are answers that others have concocted to solve a very difficult dilemma. You are ignoring the simple fact that if Jesus was who he was supposed to be and if he ever existed the Jews were right there and able to discern by the "Messianic Prophecies" whether he was the one that was fortold. The only one who is ignoring the facts is you when you choose to ignore those prophecies and accept "so called " prophecies which were concocted at a later date and pulled out of the O/T to create a prophecy where none existed. To further answer your plight if anyone at the time of Jesus were to suggest that Jesus would have traced his blood line through Mary they would have been laughed out of town. Certainly if God was doing any fullfilling of prophecy he certainly had plenty of time to do the job right and have Jesus clearly decended from the blood line of David and through Joseph. You are standing on your head whistling Dixie and and juggling several pieces of fruit in order for your misconceptions to hold water. The bible doesn't support your premise anywhere. Here is another answer on another forum to help you.
You may not like where the answer comes from but facts are facts and all you have to do is the research.

"Thank you for writing to American Atheists concerning the genealogies of Jesus.

Before I forget, the name Heli does NOT mean son-in-law or father-in-law in Greek.

When the two biblical genealogies of Jesus were fabricated -- the genealogies which are now found in the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke -- the mythmakers contradicted each other almost totally, but did agree on one thing: they both traced Jesus' lineage through Joseph, even though one says Joseph's father was named Jacob and the other says Heli. For centuries the churches have lied about this, claiming that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary, and that the text really means to say that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. There is, of course, no evidence for this whatsoever. The text in English reads simply: "Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi," and so on. Now both the Hebrew and Greek languages have perfectly good words for "son-inlaw," and surely they would have used them if that's what they had meant. Furthermore, the only time the name Heli is mentioned in the entire Bible is here in Luke 3, verse 23. So apologists can't cite other texts to support the notion that Joseph was really Heli's son-in-law, or that the Greek word huios used here doesn't really mean "son."

But there is a funny side to this attempted imposture to save the inerrancy of Scripture. When one consults the Greek text itself, one discovers that the word SON is used only once in the entire genealogy! That is to say, when we read in English: "A, son of B, son of C," and so on, the Greek text actually reads: "A, son of B, of C, of D,": and so on. The phrase 'son of' is sort of dittoed by implication all the way through to the end of the genealogy. Applying the logic, so-called, of the apologists to the case, we would find that Adam was god's son-in-law, not his son! And since the word they say actually means son-in-law is only printed out once -- WHEN DESCRIBING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JESUS AND JOSEPH -- we would have to conclude that Jesus was actually the son-in-law of Joseph! And we never even knew that Jesus had been married! And if he had married a woman he couldn't have been born of a virgin, since due to chromosomal problems in mammals, only females can result from virgin births.

I hope my explanation of this amusing bible difficulty is of help to you.

--Frank R. Zindler, editor

American
So Unred can you tell all of us WHY IS IT that you seem to think you know more about Jesus than those in Matthew an Luke who plainly TRACED the geneology of JESUS through Joseph?HMMMMMM????? How could it be that they wrote matter of factly and with conviction that Jesus lineage would be through Joseph and not Mary. Again you premise holds no water and you still have a big dillema.

 

[Jimbob]

How did the topic of this thread go from dinosaurs to the geneology of Jesus?

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

So Unred can you tell all of us WHY IS IT that you seem to think you know more about Jesus than those in Matthew an Luke who plainly TRACED the geneology of JESUS through Joseph?HMMMMMM????? How could it be that they wrote matter of factly and with conviction that Jesus lineage would be through Joseph and not Mary. Again you premise holds no water and you still have a big dillema.

Because it was common knowledge that Mary and Joseph were of the same lineage, and Mary, being a woman, would not generally be the subject of the lineage. Matthew clearly states that Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary and that Jesus was born of Mary. He does not say that Joseph begat Jesus. Luke says that Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. The expression, ‘son of’ is more general than the term, ‘begat’. Jesus was often referred to as the Son of Man and the Son of David could be used for any descendant in David‘s line as could the term, ‘son of God.’ I believe that Heli was Joseph’s maternal grandfather, not his father in law. So you see your “bg dillema†is yet another big dud.
:roll:

 

[unred typo]

How did the topic of this thread go from dinosaurs to the geneology of Jesus?

Good question. The answer lies several long boring posts back so forgive me if I have forgotten as well. Rez seems to think he has gotten his teeth into something he can't let go of but I think it's just his own tail.

 

[reznwerks]

common knowledge

Reznwerks wrote:

So Unred can you tell all of us WHY IS IT that you seem to think you know more about Jesus than those in Matthew an Luke who plainly TRACED the geneology of JESUS through Joseph?HMMMMMM????? How could it be that they wrote matter of factly and with conviction that Jesus lineage would be through Joseph and not Mary. Again you premise holds no water and you still have a big dillema.

Because it was common knowledge that Mary and Joseph were of the same lineage, and Mary, being a woman, would not generally be the subject of the lineage. Matthew clearly states that Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary and that Jesus was born of Mary. He does not say that Joseph begat Jesus. Luke says that Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. The expression, ‘son of’ is more general than the term, ‘begat’. Jesus was often referred to as the Son of Man and the Son of David could be used for any descendant in David‘s line as could the term, ‘son of God.’ I believe that Heli was Joseph’s maternal grandfather, not his father in law. So you see your “big dillema†is yet another big dud.
:roll:

Yea thats why Matthew and Luke went to the trouble of ONLY documenting the lineage of Jospeph. LOL As I said if God was truly involved in fullfilling prophecy WHY would he go about it in such a convuluted way. As for it being common knowledge I think that unless you were there you need to provide a little more substantial evidence than your opinion. Even in your response you stated you "believe" which is not fact nor evidence of fact. I have no dilemma as I don't believe and I nor anyone else has any reason to believe the evidence or rather claims that you have put forth. No serious theologian takes what you have put forth with any grain of truth.