Actually? I would like to see how you integrated empirical evidence of prehistoric life with that claim.
The SECOND we throw out the historicity of the Bible, then we have nothing left but to depend on men to tell us what to believe
No, we simply depend on our discovery to know what happened. We don't have to "believe" in dinosaurs, FK. We know they existed and we know they are not mentioned in the Bible. And neither is homo australopithecus; yet we know he existed too.
God is de facto locked out of the equation because how could we trust Him if He either planted lies in His word or allowed men to plant them. Or, if He really never left us a "word" at all. All that is left is a faith in men.
We are not the litmus test of God's existence. I am not under pressure to explain how come some versions of the Bibles say unrecognizable things, but I would assume that is because God either allowed it, or, conversely, because the Bible is not the word of God. One of those possibilities is correct. Take your pick.
When you say that "St. Paul couldn't have known that" you immediately delete the idea that the scriptures are God-breathed, and therefore are nothing more than earlier writings of individual Church Fathers which may or may not be correct. By definition, this would be a "low opinion of scriptures".
I don't deny that St. Paul wrote the Epistles (at least the earlier ones). I also believe that he was moved by faith to write what he believed. Inspiration by faith is not synonymous with inerrancy. That is an a priori assumption by some.
Actually? I would like to see how you integrated empirical evidence of prehistoric life with that claim.
I don't put man's understanding of science in 2008 above the Holy Scriptures. If we did that, then the Bible would be just another book. It might be tempting to laugh at the world's scientists of 500 years ago, but then we have to wonder what the scientists of 500 years from now will think of scientists today.
As you know, there is an open debate among Christians as to the age of the earth, and whether men walked with dinosaurs. There is also a debate about whether global warming exists and what its cause is if it does exist. I don't happen to agree with the political (oops, I meant scientific) "consensus" on the latter, and am also not inclined to blindly follow what current scientists say on other issues.
We don't have to "believe" in dinosaurs, FK. We know they existed and we know they are not mentioned in the Bible.
That is debatable. While the word "dinosaur" doesn't appear, because it hadn't been constructed yet, there are some references to "things" that "could" refer to what we call dinosaurs. This is from the website Got Questions :
Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs though it never actually uses the word “dinosaur.” Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn (pronounced tan-neen; Strong’s #08577). Tanniyn is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles; sometimes it’s “sea monster,” sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water.
In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles in general nearly thirty times throughout the Old Testament, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs. Behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15ff). Some scholars have tried to identify Behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus and the Diplodocus on the other had huge tails which one could easily compare to a cedar tree.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all this. :) My only point was to show it is debatable.