Passer wrote:I'd never heard of the Revised English Bible before. Whilst it is an interesting translation, I don't believe it is a crocodile as I am sure they do not eat grass. They are carnivores.

Again, the bible contains multiple errors on how nature works.
It's not that strange for them to be wrong about the crocodile as well.

monkeyboy wrote:Regardless of the diet of the crocodile, why on earth would one conclude that a sauropod was being described? They became extinct around 145million years ago. The Bible describes a period around 6000 years ago to just under 2000 years ago. They clearly weren't around by then by some 145million years.
It's just silly to make the link.

I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Dark energy wrote:saw a verse in the holy bible saying stars will fall on the earth,but hey,logically speaking,trillions of stars cant fit in this small earth.

I've always read that to mean meteorites. Whilst a meteorite isn't an actual star falling out of the sky and striking earth, that's what the passage is saying in my opinion. I believe the verse you are referring to is found in the Book of Revelation and that's a book filled with symbology. It isn't meant to be taken literally.

Alan B wrote:Passer. The REB does NOT say crocs eat grass. It says they eat cattle as though they were grass. It's a simile. You know, they eat cattle like cattle eat grass.

Sent from my PSP5508DUO using Tapatalk

You're right, I missed that. That said, the other Bibles never mention "eat cattle as though they were grass", just that it eats grass. I'm pretty sure it isn't in the much earlier Greek either.

Passer wrote:

Dark energy wrote:saw a verse in the holy bible saying stars will fall on the earth,but hey,logically speaking,trillions of stars cant fit in this small earth.

I've always read that to mean meteorites. Whilst a meteorite isn't an actual star falling out of the sky and striking earth, that's what the passage is saying in my opinion. I believe the verse you are referring to is found in the Book of Revelation and that's a book filled with symbology. It isn't meant to be taken literally.

Of course in those days they wouldn't have known that meteorites weren't falling stars, because they had zero understanding that stars were suns.

Passer wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Regardless of the diet of the crocodile, why on earth would one conclude that a sauropod was being described? They became extinct around 145million years ago. The Bible describes a period around 6000 years ago to just under 2000 years ago. They clearly weren't around by then by some 145million years.
It's just silly to make the link.

I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Compounding the level of silly by some outstanding magnitude. There were no humans around then. We're relatively young on the planet. Our closest ancestors emerged around 4-6million yrs ago and what would be recognised as human, probably only around 100,000 yrs ago.
So, if dinosaurs were being reminisced about, who was passing on the tales in the interim 139million years?

It amazes me how staggeringly stupid it is to try to make the Bible look like some wondrous work of knowledge when it so obviously is not. By current standards, the Bible is clearly a book of fables, mythology and a bunch of guesses as to how the world works. It contains examples of the morality of the time and locality etc.

The creation story is clearly bollocks and even a viciously stubborn institution as the Catholic Church has admitted the theory of evolution explains life better. When a church who were prepared to murder people to keep their tradition intact for centuries can see their book as being woefully lacking in substance, it kind of ought to stand out as a benchmark in the decline of that book's status as an authority on the real world.

No they were not masturbating, Dark Energy! They were describing what we today would call 'Shooting Stars'. As far as they knew ALL stars could 'fall' from the Heavens. They didn't know any different.

Do get a grip on the perspective of ancient times.

Passer wrote: due to the large cedar like tail,

It doesn't saying anything about a "large" cedar like tail. It says "stiff like a cedar." Can you not read?

Passer wrote:I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Then you should read and think about it instead of blindly accepting the printed word.

Consider this note from my previous post: here

It should also be noted that Bronze and Iron are both mentioned, indicating a transition period where both were worked. See Late Bronze Age Collapse in the Ancient Near East Wiki_Bronze and Wiki_Iron.


This would appear to indicate that this text could have originated between 1200 BCE and 500 BCE (depending upon the region). A little late for dinosaurs, don't you think?

monkeyboy wrote:

Passer wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Regardless of the diet of the crocodile, why on earth would one conclude that a sauropod was being described? They became extinct around 145million years ago. The Bible describes a period around 6000 years ago to just under 2000 years ago. They clearly weren't around by then by some 145million years.
It's just silly to make the link.

I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Compounding the level of silly by some outstanding magnitude. There were no humans around then. We're relatively young on the planet. Our closest ancestors emerged around 4-6million yrs ago and what would be recognised as human, probably only around 100,000 yrs ago.
So, if dinosaurs were being reminisced about, who was passing on the tales in the interim 139million years?

I believe it is God talking to Job

Sendraks wrote:

Passer wrote: due to the large cedar like tail,

It doesn't saying anything about a "large" cedar like tail. It says "stiff like a cedar." Can you not read?

Quite right, I missed that. Yes I can read

Alan B wrote:

Passer wrote:I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Then you should read and think about it instead of blindly accepting the printed word.

Consider this note from my previous post: here

It should also be noted that Bronze and Iron are both mentioned, indicating a transition period where both were worked. See Late Bronze Age Collapse in the Ancient Near East Wiki_Bronze and Wiki_Iron.

This would appear to indicate that this text could have originated between 1200 BCE and 500 BCE (depending upon the region). A little late for dinosaurs, don't you think?

Unless God is telling Job that He created the behemoth millions of years ago. It doesn't say it is a creature that was currently walking the earth. Sure it doesn't say it was a creature that walked the earth millions of years ago either, but I'm just pointing out a possibility.

No, you're engaging in apologetics.

Passer wrote:
Quite right, I missed that. Yes I can read

Apparently not so well that you're able to properly analyse stuff to avoid your biases getting in the way.

Sendraks wrote:

Passer wrote:
Quite right, I missed that. Yes I can read

Apparently not so well that you're able to properly analyse stuff to avoid your biases getting in the way.

I probably do read the Bible with bias. But I'm not foisting my biases onto anyone. I am just asking others what they think of the verses I posted that's all. I never once said this is that they definitely and unequivocally say, so you must believe it. Right from the off I said I was only looking for information, another perspective so I could consider it.

Passer wrote:
I probably do read the Bible with bias. But I'm not foisting my biases onto anyone. I am just asking others what they think of the verses I posted that's all. I never once said this is that they definitely and unequivocally say, so you must believe it. Right from the off I said I was only looking for information, another perspective so I could consider it.

And yet I'm not seeing anything that suggests you're learning how to challenge your own biases. Your reading and interpretation of those verses was with a particular conclusion in mind, so you pre-disposed yourself to that from the outset. As Thomas said, you're engaging in apologetics, because you're trying to cling to your assumed conclusion.

Sendraks wrote:

Passer wrote:
I probably do read the Bible with bias. But I'm not foisting my biases onto anyone. I am just asking others what they think of the verses I posted that's all. I never once said this is that they definitely and unequivocally say, so you must believe it. Right from the off I said I was only looking for information, another perspective so I could consider it.

And yet I'm not seeing anything that suggests you're learning how to challenge your own biases. Your reading and interpretation of those verses was with a particular conclusion in mind, so you pre-disposed yourself to that from the outset. As Thomas said, you're engaging in apologetics, because you're trying to cling to your assumed conclusion.

I really don't want to get into this. Suffice to say, I am not sure what those verses are saying, that's why I asked the forum about them. Obviously I am reading those verses from a Christian perspective, but so what? I am open to hearing what non-Christians think they are saying.

Passer wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Passer wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Regardless of the diet of the crocodile, why on earth would one conclude that a sauropod was being described? They became extinct around 145million years ago. The Bible describes a period around 6000 years ago to just under 2000 years ago. They clearly weren't around by then by some 145million years.
It's just silly to make the link.

I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Compounding the level of silly by some outstanding magnitude. There were no humans around then. We're relatively young on the planet. Our closest ancestors emerged around 4-6million yrs ago and what would be recognised as human, probably only around 100,000 yrs ago.
So, if dinosaurs were being reminisced about, who was passing on the tales in the interim 139million years?

I believe it is God talking to Job

So god is telling Job who has no comprehension about dinosaurs at all about a creature he has never met and never will? To what end? Why? Wouldn't talking about crocodiles, something Job might well be familiar make sense? Why not explain that he was talking about a long extinct creature from millions of years ago?
I'm going to go out on a limb here but perhaps one reason that God isn't explaining himself to your convenience here is that the authors of the bible have a few things going on here. One would be that they have no idea what a dinosaur is in general, let alone enough to be able to describe a sauropod out of the hundreds of thousands of species to go at. Two, they have an agenda to keep to from the creation story and have no comprehension of the idea that the earth was billions of years old and that out of the earth's history, mankind has only been around for a tiny, teeny part of it and that before we came along, around 95% or more of the species that ever existed have gone extinct. Three, even if the authors weren't referring to a crocodile, why would they be referring to an extinct creature and not just a made up one? It's not like they've not referred to dragons, unicorns, talking serpents, leviathons, satyrs etc elsewhere is it?

This bullshit effort to retranslate the bible to be a clever book of wisdom ahead of it's time is plain to see for what it is. There's way too much ignorance about the real world on show alongside this apparent "wisdom" for it to be anything other than people desperately trying to make it something it isn't.

Passer wrote:I really don't want to get into this.

Then there really isn't much point in having a discussion with you is there? If you're not interested in challenging your biases, we're just going to go round and in ever decreasing circles as you keep trying to shoehorn in your assumed conclusions about god.

Passer wrote:Obviously I am reading those verses from a Christian perspective, but so what?

If you think that just clinging to your biases is a "so what" matter, then you're not even at the beginning of being able to understand what the problem is.

Passer wrote:I am open to hearing what non-Christians think they are saying.

The evidence suggests that you're not really interested in hearing from non-Christians at all, given you're engaging in apologetics.

Let me clue you into something. For most of us here, what you're doing is neither new nor interesting. A search of these forums will reveal that we've gone through this tiresome dance hundreds of time before with theists.

Passer wrote:Light Can Be Divided
Job 38:24 (24 not 34 - corrected)
24 What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

Isaac Newton studied light and discovered it was made up of seven different colours. Science confirmed this 400 years ago but the Bible is talking about it 4000 years ago. If it isn't, what might the verses be referring to?

This quote is from the KJV (or similar) and is in error where the original authors did not have access to all the ancient texts, or if it's a modern re-hash of the KJV, the modern authors did not bother to access the latest texts and translation techniques. Some people still think that the KJV and it's variants are inviolate; they're not, they are full of errors.

The REB text is as follows:
Chapter 38 is entitled: "God's answer to Job's submission"
Job 38:24
"By what paths is the HEAT spread abroad or the east wind dispersed world-wide?" (My capitals).

This verse has nothing to do with light therefore the Newton comment is irrelevant.

In this chapter, this God bloke really castigated this guy Job who apparently was getting a bit above himself - like he was thinking for himself and asking questions...