Posted on 04/14/2009 8:36:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur herd buried in Noah’s Flood in Inner Mongolia, China
by Tas Walker Published: 14 April 2009
An international team of scientists have uncovered graphic evidence of the deadly terror unleashed on a herd of dinosaurs as they were buried under sediment by the rising waters of Noah’s Flood in western Inner Mongolia (figure 1).[1]
Dinosaur bones were first discovered at the site, located at the base of a small hill in the Gobi Desert, in 1978 by a Chinese geologist. After about 20 years, a team of Chinese and Japanese scientists recovered the first skeletons, which they named Sinornithomimus, meaning “Chinese bird mimic”.
A few years later in 2001, the international team excavated the remains of more than 25 dinosaurs, creating a large quarry in the process as they as they followed the skeletons into the base of the hill. Remarkable excavation
As the team carefully mapped the location of the bones and strata that contained them (figure 2), it became clear that the dinosaurs were all within the same layer of mudstone (i.e. the same bedding plane), generally facing the same direction and remarkably well preserved.[2]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Yes, this was basically my point.”
It wasn’t clear. I won’t bother re-posting your comments but they are there for anyone else to.
There are many animals that exist today, even dangerous ones that are not mentioned specifically in the Bible. It could easily be argued that dinosaurs are. From the Behmoth to the Leviathan. In any case your assessment that it is a “strong indication that they were not there” is not really very scientific, now is it?
From the looks of it you’re an educator or a writer or possibly both. I just don’t see the reasoned logic in this argument. Help me out a little please?
Thanks.
How can Creation Museum put up characters riding dinosaurs with saddles when there is no mention of that in the bible?
“How can Creation Museum put up characters riding dinosaurs with saddles when there is no mention of that in the bible?”
I reckon that would be a good question to ask the Creation Museum don’t you think? What is this... amateur hour?
Check it in a good Interlinear Bible, and with Strong's Numbers.
Navel
OT:8306
OT:8306 shariyr (shaw-reer’); from OT:8324 in the original sense as in OT:8270 (compare OT:8326); a cord, i.e. (by analogy) sinew:
KJV - navel.
“18 His bones (Strong's Number 6106) [are as—Strong's 9999] strong pieces of brass; his bones (Strong's 1634) [are—Strong's 9999] iron.”
KJV - body, bone, life, (self-) same, strength, very.
KJV - bone, strong, top.
Ol’ Dan’l Webster can only tell you the meaning of the ENGLISH word the TRANSLATOR used; not the meaning of the Hebrew word the original writer used.
Worse, Ol’ Dan’l has a nasty habit of only telling you the CURRENT usage/meaning of the English word the translator used; not the meaning/usage current in said translator's own time.
I guess what you are saying is that the bible has been amended in error by man and we should not consider any English versions to be the word of God.
begining at sun down, sun up, or midnight?
Did they remember to account for the 10 days dropped in 1582. (4 October 1582 was followed by 15 October 1582)
To make it more interesting yet, not everyone changed over in 1582, so...
eleven days were dropped from the month of September 1752. An eleven-day adjustment in 1752 was needed because one more day had been lost since the calendar was changed in 1582. The year 1751 began on 25 March and ended on 31 December 1751. The first day of the year was now January 1st and the last day was December 31st—the calendar we use today. Thus, 2 September 1752 was followed by 14 September 1752. In this way, the Julian calendar added one day between 1582 and 1752. ...
... Double Dating Double dating was used in Great Britain, colonial British America, and British possessions to clarify dates occurring between 1 January and 24 March on years between 1582 and 1752. In the ecclesiastical or legal calendar, March 25th was recognized as the first day of the year and was not double dated. Researchers of colonial American ancestors will often see double dating in older records. Double dates were identified with a slash mark (/) representing the Old and New Style calendars, e.g., 1690/1691. Even before 1752 in colonial America, some educated clerks knew of the calendar change in Europe and used double dating to distinguish between the calendars. This was especially true in civil records, but less so in church registers. Researchers will often see this type of double dating in New England town records, court records, church records, and wills, or on colonial gravestones or cemetery transcriptions. The system of double dating ended in 1752 in the American colonies with the adoption of the Gregorian calendar.
No, but what I am saying is that there are differences between languages; and over time, even within languages. It is the translator's job to as accurately as humanly possible to render the meaning from one language to another.
For example, a straight word-for-word 'translation' makes a person actually have an apple in their eye, when we know that the real meaning of the figure of speech is something else entirely.
IOW, let the reader beware, and use ALL tools available to arrive at what is being conveyed, rather than relying didactically on a single translation or version as being an infallibly literal rendering.
The meaning is infallible, when rightly divided.
Not only that it depends on which bible you use to make the calculations. Up to 1500 years difference!
Excuse me? I thought that the bible was the word of God?
Job 40:16-18
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.
KJV
Job 40:16-18
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, And his force is in the muscles of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are (as) tubes of brass; His limbs are like bars of iron.
ASV
Job 40:16-18
6 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
NIV
Job 40:16-18
16 See now, his strength is in his loins, and his power is in the sinews of his belly.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar tree; the tendons of his thighs are twisted together [like a rope].
18 His bones are like tubes of bronze; his limbs [or ribs] are like bars of iron
AMP
Job 40:10-13 (note the difference in verse numbering)
10 Behold behemoth whom I made with thee, he eateth grass like an ox.
11 His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly.
12 He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together.
13 His bones are like pipes of brass, his gristle like plates of iron.
Douay-Rheims
Job 40:16-18
16 Just look at the strength of his back,
the powerful muscles of his belly.
17 His tail sways like a cedar in the wind;
his huge legs are like beech trees.
18 His skeleton is made of steel,
every bone in his body hard as steel.
(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)
Job 40:16-18
16
His strength is in his body, and his force in the muscles of his stomach.
17
His tail is curving like a cedar; the muscles of his legs are joined together.
18
His bones are pipes of brass, his legs are like rods of iron.
BBE
...and so forth.
15 Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.
16 Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.
17 His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his tendons are knit together.
18 His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron.
19 His is the first of God's ways; [only] his Maker can draw His sword [against him].
I don't think I have to explain what this really means ...
Hmmm. All the photos posted previously show straight cedars. I guess they are wrong.
You obviously slept through Jurassic Park.
We want to find out your views.
You have stated that god created “kinds” and modern species are from DE-EVOLUTION (to have de-evolution, you have to accept evolution is a fact) of these “kinds”. Since you believe the bible is literal and that Adam and Eve are the “kind” for humans. The different races must be from the de-evolution of Adam and Eve.
So which race is the “kind” for man and which ones are de-evolved from that one?
Answer this simple question.
There is a lot of evidence that Ethiopia is the cradle of mankind. What do you think?
I think that the Behemoth situation has been pretty well described historically, biblically and linguistically by other commenters. Leviathan was also mentioned, but not discussed as thoroughly. Was it another term for whale? I don’t know. Then of course there is the well known Loch Ness Monster that has received a lot of press. Is it real, or someones mistaken imaginings. I find it at least as credible as Leviathan which is not saying much.
I have tried to make my comments at least as scientific as those from the Discovery Institute and its supporters. You are using the old “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument. Nevertheless, if dinosaurs had been around I find it hard to believe they would not have been mentioned.
There is more evidence for the tooth fairy than there is for dinosaurs existing 6000 years ago.
Dead, for several tens of million years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.