What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[__ Science __ ] Were Dragons Really Dinosaurs?

Edward said:
Scripture seems to talk about Dinosaurs in a couple places. In Job 40 it says,
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.../

Some say this is a Hippo, but it can't be a hippo because Hippos have little tails. I think this sounds more like a Brontosaurus.
Click to expand...

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

In the context of Job, "tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for genitals. And it would be difficult indeed for a brontosaurus to lie under trees. No, this was a large animal, but no where the size of a brontosaurus. And since reptiles have internal genitals, it wasn't a reptile.
 
Barbarian said:
Job 40

In the context of Job, "tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for genitals. And it would be difficult indeed for a brontosaurus to lie under trees. No, this was a large animal, but no where the size of a brontosaurus. And since reptiles have internal genitals, it wasn't a reptile.
Click to expand...

FYI, check the original language. It's not a euphemism. It's a translation preference.
The sages have much to say on these verses.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16442#showrashi=true
 
Barbarian said:
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

In the context of Job, "tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for genitals. And it would be difficult indeed for a brontosaurus to lie under trees. No, this was a large animal, but no where the size of a brontosaurus. And since reptiles have internal genitals, it wasn't a reptile.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure about that so said it seems to, lol! It's going to be interesting when we finally find out the truth and where exactly the evolutionists were wrong and where the creationists were wrong, and they they prolly both fit together somehow that we just don't get yet, lol. Gap, no gap who knows at this point except that the Lord had to create them sometime because scripture says that nothing was created that He didn't create.

They say Pterodactyls are dinosaurs and went extinct millions of years ago...but they have pictures from cowboy days where some cowboys shot down a Pterodactyl! Maybe there's some still around?
 
Edward said:
I wasn't sure about that so said it seems to, lol! It's going to be interesting when we finally find out the truth and where exactly the evolutionists were wrong and where the creationists were wrong, and they they prolly both fit together somehow that we just don't get yet, lol. Gap, no gap who knows at this point except that the Lord had to create them sometime because scripture says that nothing was created that He didn't create.

They say Pterodactyls are dinosaurs and went extinct millions of years ago...but they have pictures from cowboy days where some cowboys shot down a Pterodactyl! Maybe there's some still around?
Click to expand...






You hit the nail right on the head there brother. Everything that exists today was created. I find it rather amusing that atheists don't believe in the Bible and strictly in the big bang. Who do they think created the big bang in the first place? :tongue Lol! I think that just proves that God exists. :cross
 
StoveBolts said:
FYI, check the original language. It's not a euphemism. It's a translation preference.
The sages have much to say on these verses.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16442#showrashi=true
Click to expand...

I went down to the appropriate verse. Your link seems to be more explicit than I was.

his strength is in his loins: His testicles are squashed and concealed, and have not been completely torn off. in the navel: Heb. בשרירי, like (Song 7:3), “Your navel (שררך).” 17His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his testicles are knit together.

This is inconsistent with the behemoth being any kind of a reptile, which have internal genitalia.
 
Folk memory...

Dinosaurs -> Dragons

Dragons =/= Dinosaurs

Chinese whispers - reality to legend to myth to Puff the Magic Dragon ;-)
 
The idea of a big bang is half stupid, the other half is thinking there was physical material and space pre-existing to condense it all in the first place ..
 
Barbarian said:
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

In the context of Job, "tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for genitals. And it would be difficult indeed for a brontosaurus to lie under trees. No, this was a large animal, but no where the size of a brontosaurus. And since reptiles have internal genitals, it wasn't a reptile.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the large tails on some dinos were used like kangaroo tails both in defense and balance when lifting up on hind legs .. I've been hit with a 6' iguana's tail like a whip and it hurt
 
Imagine what it would be like with a thagomizer:
thagomizer.jpg
 
Barbarian said:
I went down to the appropriate verse. Your link seems to be more explicit than I was.

his strength is in his loins: His testicles are squashed and concealed, and have not been completely torn off. in the navel: Heb. בשרירי, like (Song 7:3), “Your navel (שררך).” 17His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his testicles are knit together.

This is inconsistent with the behemoth being any kind of a reptile, which have internal genitalia.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and that tail.... they are being polite...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top