lpetrich

However, why swallow that cedar-tree part whole while rejecting the supposed metallic composition of Behemoth's bones?

And even if dinosaurs had been present, their presence could have been the result of time-traveling pranksters.

See above about time-traveling pranksters -- IF those are pictures of dinosaurs and not some other beasts, whether real or fantasy.

Bait, time-traveling pranksters are a possibility; I suggest that you open your mind to it. Human-dinosaur non-coexistence is advocated for good reason: where are all the dinosaur bones found alongside human ones and human artifacts? Human ancestors of a few million years ago show evidence of having been eaten by predators, but those predators have much more in common with leopards than with carnivorous dinosaurs.

News to me. Richard Carrier has compared the cases for the existence of Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar, and found that the case for Julius Caesar is MUCH stronger. There is a book purportedly written by him, there are several people who discuss him from varying viewpoints, and there are inscriptions describing him and his activities.

Which of Pilate's writings have survived?

So what if Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, etc. had existed? A good historical-fiction writer will try to get the background correct, even if the foreground characters are pure invention. So while H, PP, and C had almost certainly existed, their existence says nothing about the question of the existence of Jesus Christ.

None of whom had had direct experience with Jesus Christ. Josephus made a few controversial comments that are much shorter than his descriptions of other self-styled prophets in the region. Others were later, and they could have learned of the existence of JC from his followers.

WHAT eyewitness reports? The Gospels were written well after JC had died, and might best be described hagiography on the level of Parson Weems's biography of George Washington. Yes, PW's bio is the first place that the cherry-tree story appears.

If believing in such fairy tales makes you happy, I won't stop you.

However, they had only one finger in the wing membrane -- the ring finger (I had goofed when I said it was the little finger). The rest were separate from the wing, making a pterosaur wing distinct in "design" from a bat wing.

You guys bring it upon yourselves by going to great lengths to avoid accepting that the Bible has errors.

WHAT evidence? And are you willing to consider evidence for any religion other than yours?

Who says that?

Geology, archeology, etc. are specialties, not rival schools of thought.

Bait

Yea, Hitler and his group.
Ron

Bait

Your supposition fails...your group are the ones claiming the behemouth had a penis...I say the proper translation is tail, based on a couple of thousand translators over the period of a couple hundred years verses the ONE translator saying penis, probably to just muddy the water.
Ron

Kosh

Below is a link showing, I believe, most of
the pictures/paintings which Ron is referring
to:

<a href="http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm" target="_blank">http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm</a>

Can anyone make corrections to any of them?

Don't have the time myself right now, and some
others here might be more familiar with how
credulous some of the claims are.

However, just a note on the American Indian ones (I'll
take that one personally since I have some N.
American blood in me....)...

The Havasupai drawing which is shown can be seen
in it's original form on the left. In the middle
is a "tracing" (to help us bridge the gap, I
suppose), and an artists rendering. It's clear
from the picture of the original painting that
the shape bears no resemblence to the picture on
the right. It looks to me more like a simple
geometric pattern (which are common in N. American
indian paintings... did you know the swastika
was actually borrowed from the Indians?). Once
it was traced, it does resemble a dinosaur more,
but only because the tracing was modified.

As to the very first drawing on the page, it's
amazing how much more detail ends up in the
artists rendering than that on the rock. I guess
that cave paintings, like the Bible, need a LOT
of interpretive help to say what the interpreters
want them to say....

Ah what the heck, here's a quick list:

1.Bernifal Cave (france) - see above. The artist/interpreter
has a good imagination

2.Sumatrans. LOL! Looks like chicken to me!

3. Babylon. These look to me like stylized
renditions of lions,with the tails and necks
elongated. The heads even look feline.
(the one to the right looks like the creature
in Dr. Seus "Put Me In the Zoo" - but that's
no Dino).

4. Caria. Monosouraus? Looks like an exagerated
Moray Eel! Or just a big snake.

5.Egyption cartouche. You see a Dino there? Looks
a LOT like a crocodile. Hmm, even the skin. Wonder
where the Egyptians would have seen something like
that!?

6. Roman mosaic. quite a reach to call a picture
of an imaginary sea serpent a dinosaur. Just
because sailors mistook the shapes of whales and
other creatures, doesn't make them dinosaurs.

7.Nile Mosaic. Doesn't that body look like a
tiger or lion? Can't see the head clearly.
Why does it seem that a "crocodile-lion" should
be interpreted as a dino?

8. Natural Bridges N.M. - The original rock paiting is just too vague to see what was actually
drawn. Could the "interpretation" be by the same artist as the first?

9. Havasupai (see above)

10.Egyptian seal. Looks another stylized egyptian
picture. Do you also believe that all the other
bizzare animals in Egyptian drawings really
existed?

11."Flying serpent". Hmmm, could that be, a
flying serpent? Someone imagines a snake with
wings? How'd they get to Dino from there? Oh
yeah, interpretation.

12. German. Yeap, those witch hunters NEVER made
stuff up. Give me a f*ckin break! Wait, don't
those look like badly drawn crows?

13. Rome dragon. Where's the fossil now?

14. Rhodesia. Looks like a crocodiles and salamanders to me. No Dino's in sight.

15. Africa. How'd you get from a Dachsund doing
90 mph to a dinosaur?

16. Roman artifacts. Why do we always have to
see the "artists rendition" to get the details
here? HOw about a close up of the actualy sword?

17. Cree indian. Can't really make out the detail
on the stone. And this "Inca Ceremonial Burial Stones that is likely from the Nasca culture".
Likely? Is that confirmed,or could it be modern?
Soapstone carvings are popular these days...

18. Mexico. Anyone got information on this? I
agree they look good. But, the text tells of
the questioning and lists investigations. But
doesn't give any details of the results! Jumps
straight from "there was an investigation" to
"his work has withtood numerous tests". And we
know those Cretinists readily admit they're wrong
when shown the facts. &lt;/Sarcasm&gt;. Slight of hand?
Any updates?

19. "Once properly poisitioned?"&gt; where's the
original evidence? LMAO!

20. Hierakonpolis. Why are those not feline style
animals with elongated necks?

So Ron, I see 3 (8, 13, 18) that may be hard to
explain. Out of 20? Not good odds. It would be
interesting to see others inputs or knowledge on
the claims made by 8, 13, and 18.

Dr Rick

They sometimes cited one's "duty" to God but never atheism as justification for their deeds.

Kosh

Ron, pop quiz! What was the inscription on the
Nazi belt buckles?

<a href="http://home13.inet.tele.dk/ash/buckles.htm" target="_blank">http://home13.inet.tele.dk/ash/buckles.htm</a>

MrDarwin

Ummm... hate to be a wet blanket, but I'd like to see the evidence that this statement is based upon. There is no direct evidence either for or against dinosaurs having penes, and I'm curious as to what indirect evidence there might be.

Kosh

Just look at all the caveman pictures of them,
do you see a penis anywhere?


Seriously, MD has a good point. Since we've
never found any dino's with soft tissue intact..

Mageth

Mr. Darwin is correct, there's no direct evidence that dinos had no penes. One can at most say, IMO, that dinosaurs probably didn't have external penes, and possibly had none at all. Indirect evidence for no penes is that most modern birds and reptiles don't have penes.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

daemon

Perhaps you should look at some other translators than simply the ones you'd prefer to believe.

<a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/gill/job40.htm" target="_blank">John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, Job chapter 40</a>, an older document which contains several items about the translation. See Verse 17.
Note that Gill has neatly footnoted his translation.
<a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/wesley/job40.htm" target="_blank">John Wesley's Notes on the Bible, Job chapter 40</a>, again, verse 17.
While discreet, I should think the meaning obvious, unless you think dinosaurs had erectile tails.

These are two relatively old commentaries on the book that lend credence to the concept. I'll endeavor to hunt up further documentation--this was all I could find with a quick net search that was credible--but according to several biblical researchers, it is widely accepted among Hebrew scholars that "tail" means "penis" in this instance.

Further, a quote from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262661659/103-8279890-4906232" target="_blank">Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against The New Creationism</a> regarding this very issue:
(Thanks to Jesse for this)

Also, if you could please be less antagonistic and divisive in your language, I'd appreciate it. You are the one who seems to think the Bible matters, and I am making the effort to speak to that. "My group" doesn't really care what the Bible says.