Dinosaurs are not real :(

nikebee said:
For anyone wondering

Job said:
Stuff
Click to expand...

I always think that the Bible is a lot like the end of the world predictions or Nostradamus - it's written in such a way that it can be interpreted to mean absolutely anything you want.
Click to expand...

It was written thousands of years ago in ancient languages. The interpretation difficulties stem from that.

Anyway. My NIV Bible footnotes suggest that the "behemoth" is a hippopotamus, as I recall. I think there's other similar bits in Job which are thought to refer to elephants and rhinos.
 
Vonhelmet said:
If God exists, and the Bible is his word, then should aliens turn up, anyone who can't assimilate that into their understanding of God and the Bible is wrong. That is my point.
Click to expand...

Explain how the bible is considered 'gods word' is it not a collection of scriptures written by numerous people spread over several hundred years ?

Scriptures that contradict each other left right & centre?

Scriptures that the Vatican sifted through centuries ago & kept hidden the ones they didn't approve of?
Scriptures that have been translated & re-translated by people with a vested interest to make sure it says what they would like it to say & not what is actually written?
So much so that the original interpretation is lost
 
Vonhelmet said:
If God exists, and the Bible is his word, then should aliens turn up, anyone who can't assimilate that into their understanding of God and the Bible is wrong. That is my point.
Click to expand...

it's always good to see people 100% certain that others are wrong.


really brings a faith together.
 
Usher said:
Explain how the bible is considered 'gods word' is it not a collection of scriptures written by numerous people spread over several hundred years ?

Scriptures that contradict each other left right & centre?

Scriptures that the Vatican sifted through centuries ago & kept hidden the ones they didn't approve of?
Scriptures that have been translated & re-translated by people with a vested interest to make sure it says what they would like it to say & not what is actually written?
So much so that the original interpretation is lost
Click to expand...

The Bible was compiled over several ecumenical councils and over a period of a thousand years, with the first real concensus on Biblical Canon coming in the fourth century.

There was no Apostolic consensus on Christian Canon or scripture and it developed over time,

However the translations are largely done by academics and historical linguists, even in the past great care was taken to remove as much translatory bias as possible, in fact todays translations of the earliest manuscripts and those of the Targums, LXX, Masoretic Texts and the incidental transcripts such as those found in the Qumran texts and the various Codices from the C3rd onward along with greater understanding of the lingustic and historic context of those texts means that modern translations are more accurate today than they have ever been.

It is the interpretations of those texts that create the schisms and disagreements within Religions and individuals themselves and not the actual translations. There are exceptions such as the New World Translation for example, but they are generally not considered canonical or are openly criticised.

The Bible is not generally considered the literal word of God either, it is consided to be divinely inspired which is somewhat different. The Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and various other Gnostic texts that you claim were removed from Scripture simply is not the case, they were simply deemed to be non-canonical, or not given any specific status. As there was no specificity in Apostolic or Pre-Nicene scripture it is difficult to state what you did with any accuracy and is largely based on a relatively short period during the C16th when some gnostic texts and scriptures not considered divinely inspired were treated as being false or heretical....this is not something considered to be the case today and was largely based in political and spiritual maneuvering between the Catholic and Protestant movements during the 16th Century.

Anyone who has read works by Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian etc will realise that what you have said is false to a very large degree.
 
Last edited:
Vonhelmet said:
It was written thousands of years ago in ancient languages. The interpretation difficulties stem from that.

Anyway. My NIV Bible footnotes suggest that the "behemoth" is a hippopotamus, as I recall. I think there's other similar bits in Job which are thought to refer to elephants and rhinos.
Click to expand...

Not sure how they came to an agreement that the Behemoth was a Hippo or an Elephant? It is described as having a tail like the cedar, no animal alive today has one the size of a tree trunk.
 
lolreligion

What a Joke it is and I cant wait for the day its all been proven wrong and that day is coming sooner rather than later with Technology
 
jmc007 said:
Not sure how they came to an agreement that the Behemoth was a Hippo or an Elephant? It is described as having a tail like the cedar, no animal alive today has one the size of a tree trunk.
Click to expand...

The Behemoth's tail moves like a cedar or is a stiff as the cedar, or is strong as the cedar depending on the translation, it is not the size of a cedar.....

There is difficulty ascribing real-world examples to the Behemoth and other sources such as the Vulgate refers to Testiculorum with the obvious connotations that provides.

Prior to the 17th Century is was generally regarded (and to a large extent that is true today) to be a creation of the authors imagination as a symbol of Gods power.
 
Usher said:
Explain how the bible is considered 'gods word' is it not a collection of scriptures written by numerous people spread over several hundred years ?

Scriptures that contradict each other left right & centre?

Scriptures that the Vatican sifted through centuries ago & kept hidden the ones they didn't approve of?
Scriptures that have been translated & re-translated by people with a vested interest to make sure it says what they would like it to say & not what is actually written?
So much so that the original interpretation is lost
Click to expand...

Did you miss the "if" at the start of my sentence? I'm not interested in arguing that point. I'm treating it as axiomatic for the point of further discussion regarding how alien life would fit into interpreting the Bible.
 
Castiel said:
The Bible was compiled over several ecumenical councils and over a period of a thousand years, with the first real concensus on Biblical Canon coming in the fourth century.
Click to expand...

Hmm, full of eye witness accounts is it?

I'm sorry, the more people give information like this then the more incredibly unbelievable it becomes.

Castiel said:
The Bible is not generally considered the literal word of God either, it is consided to be divinely inspired which is somewhat different.
Click to expand...

Not considered by how many Christians would you think?
divinely inspired by who ? would that be your perception of god?
Same difference whichever way you look at it.
 
Usher said:
Hmm, full of eye witness accounts is it?

I'm sorry, the more people give information like this then the more incredibly unbelievable it becomes.
Click to expand...
being obtuse is simply childish. No one is asking you to believe anything, only to consider the accuracy of what you are stating.

Usher said:
Not considered by how many Christians would you think?
Click to expand...

why do you not count them?

However the largest mainstream denominations throughout Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and the Free Churches consider it divinely inspired and not the literal word of God. By definition it cannot be considered the Word of God in the same way as the Quran, simply reading it would illustrate why.

Usher said:
divinely inspired by who ? would that be your perception of god?
Click to expand...

my God?

What god would that be exactly.......an agnostic one?

I was speaking from an academic point of view, not a religious one.

Usher said:
Same difference whichever way you look at it.
Click to expand...

Actualy it is not. However as you are entrenched in your illinformed position, to you, I suppose it would appear that way.
 
Last edited:
Call me ignorant but I think the bible is a little like Chinese whispers, the further down the line you get the more unintelligible and distorted the words become.

I must say i'm not religious one bit but i am curious, and I feel in order to gain knowledge you first must have to learn before you can make snap-judgments about the subject in question. so sometime in the future i've decided to read the bible or one of its derivatives so I can pick it apart.:p That or I maybe converted:D

I know my first sentence is contradictive to the second but that's the way I feel at the moment.

Being open-minded about all possibilities is useful.

Sorry if i didn't make much sense.
 
kedge said:
[..]
Science can often explain clearly how things work, what scientific evolutionists can not do is explain the origin of the universe, earth science and life science as a fact, only as a theory, which by the way gets picked apart by other scientists.

[..]

Well, define evolution, because the molecules to man has never been observed, very little evolution as this one mentioned has ever been observed. I'm not ignorant and i keep an eye open for science and discovery, but i am aware there is only a theory of evolution like the one mentioned, and no actual factual evidence. i see this type of evolution as more of a philosophy that was propounded in the 1600-1800 time period, you know darwin, huxley period etc.
Click to expand...

I refer you to my earlier comment about squirrels, so I can save wasting my time.

You know nothing about science, not even what basic concepts (e.g. fact, theory) mean, nor do you want to know. Unless that changes or I am very bored and would find it amusing, there's no point in wasting my time replying.

For example...humans have been using evolution as a tool since well before recorded history (the earliest extant evidence has been dated to ~14,000 years ago, but you won't care about that so I'll restrict it to written records). Using evolution as a tool Your claim that evolution is a philosophy ~400 years old is ludicrous. Also, you use the term 'evolutionists', which just by itself would prove you utterly, deliberately and determinedly ignorant of the subject.

And I've wasted enough time on your deliberate lack of knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Vonhelmet said:
I know an awful lot of non-religious people of varying backgrounds and levels of education..... barely a single one ascribes to the logical approach such as described in your post.

It is extremely disingenuous to assume that the views stated by yourself are indicative of non-religious people as a whole.
Click to expand...

:D +1

Gackt said:
Just as it is to assume that the views of the people you know are indicative of religious people as a whole.
Click to expand...

Well, thats likely true, but I think that what the Bible says is more indicative of its religion as a whole as its followers are who cant even make their minds up on what is or isnt a correct interpretation of their own religion.

And according to the Bible, Dinosaurs never happened.

How such people genuinely believe that Mary gave birth as a virgin is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Actually i've recently been pondering this a lot.

Now, if what Christians and the Bible state is true, that Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, God was his father, and that Jesus was a man, then according to this, and along with the part that says 'God created us in his Image', God was / is a biologically human male that impregnated Mary.

How did such an organism gain magical universe and live creating powers? And how and where did / does it exist? :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom