Dinosaurs a hoax created and perpetuated by evolutionists?

yes God himself made reference to two types of dinosaurs down to the details of their massive size.

what about angels?
i suppose you think they are not real aso.?
you realy show your ignorance of spiritual matters dr postman

Seriously, You could invent time travel, take this dude back in time and SHOW him dinosaurs, and it would all be a fake plot to distract him from the faith. Theres is NO cicumstance other than GOD him/herself telling him otherwise that would prove that he was wrong. Since God is unlikely to do so under any circumstances, there is NO fact or evidence that can contradict him.

The best part as that God's own abscence will be taken as proof that he is right. Of God wont tell me its true, because its not, so why would he.

The ONLY circumstance that can disprove his assertion is one that in his mind cannot happen, therefore there simply is no circumstance that could prove to him otherwise.

This is the poison of BAD religion ( please note I said bad). Not all religions perpetrate the sealed system of logic. Only the big names indoctrinate their followers in this closed loop of existence. There are faiths that encourage their followers to find truth and question their maker. Unfortunately they tend not to be very political in nature, and thusly dont fare well against the big names that arent against global conquest and the destruction of humanity that it deems unacceptable.

Keywords: unicorns, Bible, animals, Job, rhinoceros, aurochs

Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2

Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration.

Modern readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength.

The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick . . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.”3

The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn.4 In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian rhinoceros.5 The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium.6

Assyrian archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu).7 The aurochs’s horns were very symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism.8 Fighting rimu was a popular sport for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I boasted of slaying them in the Lebanon mountains.9

Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures.10 Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as:

“a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied . . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.”11

The aurochs’ highly prized horns would have been a symbol of great strength to the ancient Bible reader.

One scholarly urge to identify the biblical unicorn with the Assyrian aurochs springs from a similarity between the Assyrian word rimu and the Hebrew word re’em. We must be very careful when dealing with anglicized transliterated words from languages that do not share the English alphabet and phonetic structure.12 However, similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian (other languages of the ancient Middle East) as well as Aramaic mean “wild bull” or “buffalo,” and an Arabic cognate means “white antelope.”

However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning “one-horned animal.” 13

The importance of the biblical unicorn is not so much its specific identity—much as we would like to know—but its reality. The Bible is clearly describing a real animal. The unicorn mentioned in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

UNI CORN MEANS ONE HORN

The Biblical Unicorn: King James and the Wild Ox

For numerous reasons, I am a lover of unicorns. In fact, I have an entire site dedicated to these mystical beasties. This essay used to be part of that site, but now it resides here, given the nature of the material.

Due to the nature of some of the email I receive regarding this particular page, I thought I'd update the page a little to include the following information. I am not an expert on Biblical history or ancient languages, nor do I claim to be. I don't read Latin, nor do I read Hebrew (although my husband reads some Koine Greek).

What I am is someone who has been looking into a particular anomaly of translation found in one English translation of the Bible, the Authorised Version (known commonly as the King James Version), because it intrigues me.

I cannot and do not necessarily think that all of the tidbits of information I've been able to gather are necessarily authoritative. In fact, I'm just collecting tidbits of information, and readers should take it as such. This is not a scholarly treatise. It's an offbeat hobby that I've been pursuing off and on for many years and which I felt like sharing because at least a few other people might find it interesting.

The Authorised Version of the Bible in English, known far and wide as the King James Version, mentions unicorns. In fact, the word which is translated nine times as "unicorn" or "unicorns" is the Hebrew re'em. This Hebrew word is translated as "ox" or "wild ox" in every other English version of the Bible (including those translated before the King James). That's what re'em means: ox.

The Hebrew word for unicorn (I am informed by a speaker/reader of Hebrew) is actually Had-Keren. My Hebrew isn't that good, but according to the Hebrew dictionary I have handy, keren (or qeren) means "horn" and had (or 'echad) is "one". The usual name for a unicorn in almost any language is "one-horn" (see: A Unicorn by Any Other Name).

wrong....

science in most ways can give us insight to Gods creation, but just because you can explain how something works or worked is why science nowdays thinks its smarter and can explain all things.


anyone seen the movie Contact when the priest and the scientist jody foster have the conversation about God, and she says without proving something by means of science than it it isnt there... she says i need proof i just need it..... the priest asks her did she love her father who died when she was young.... she replies yes of course

then he asks her... prove it?

SATRYRS WERE IDOLS


Satyr

by Wayne Blank
Satyr (in Greek pronounced satyros and in Latin satyrus) was the name given to a half-man and half-goat idol of the ancient Greeks (see Ancient Empires - Greece) and Romans (see Ancient Empires - Rome). The word is also sometimes used to translate the Hebrew word of the Scriptures pronounced saw-eer meaning a shaggy goat, which referred to an idol, in the form of a goat, that the Israelites foolishly involved themselves with. The original Hebrew word is variously translated in English-language Bibles as satyr, goat and devil.

"They shall no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs"

Satyr Amazingly, and shamefully, the Israelites were involved in all sorts of idolatry, including satyrs, even when The Lord was Himself still visibly leading them after the Exodus:

"And The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron and his sons, and to all the people of Israel, This is the thing which The Lord has commanded. If any man of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a gift to The Lord before the Tabernacle of The Lord [see The Tabernacle In The Wilderness], bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people."

"This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they slay in the open field, that they may bring them to The Lord, to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting, and slay them as sacrifices of peace offerings to The Lord; and the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of The Lord at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasing odor to The Lord. So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations" (Leviticus 17:1-7 RSV)

Exactly!

you posted only a few words of the description and then posted a hundred to try and disprove it....

try the whole description next time or were you not able to find anything to explain it all away?

where would people telling a story even get the idea that a animal could have a tail of that size...

if you read the rest of the description, it sounds like a brontosaurus, but it may be some other kind also.

Isaac Asimov, AND HIS INTEPRETATION OF THE WORD UNISORN IN THE BIBLE.

passages of the biblical Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called re’em. This word was translated “unicorn” or “rhinoceros” in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer “wild ox” (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re’em (1997, 12:129).

Strong support for such a view, along with the answer to the second question, comes from a rather unusual source (and one that certainly would be considered a “hostile witness” in regard to the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible). In volume one (on the Old Testament) of his two-volume set, Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, the late infidel, Isaac Asimov (who was serving as the president of the American Humanist Association when he died in 1992) dealt with the topic of the unicorn as it is found in the King James Version when he wrote:

The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by “unicorn” is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes.

The Revised Standard Version translates re’em as “wild ox.” The verse in Numbers is translated as “they have as it were the horns of the wild ox,” while the one in Job is translated “Is the wild ox willing to serve you?” The Anchor Bible translates the verse in Job as “Will the buffalo deign to serve you?”

The wild ox was a favorite prey of the hunt-loving Assyrian monarchs (the animal was called rumu in Assyrian, essentially the same word as re’em) and was displayed in their large bas-reliefs. Here the wild ox was invariably shown in profile and only one horn was visible. One can well imagine that the animal represented in this fashion would come to be called “one-horn” as a familiar nickname, much as we might refer to “longhorns” in speaking of a certain breed of cattle.

As the animal itself grew less common under the pressure of increasing human population and the depredations of the hunt, it might come to be forgotten that there was a second horn hidden behind the first in the sculptures and “one-horn” might come to be considered a literal description of the animal.

When the first Greek translation of the Bible was prepared about 250 B.C., the animal was already rare in the long-settled areas of the Near East and the Greeks, who had no direct experience with it, had no word for it. They used a translation of “one-horn” instead and it became monokeros. In Latin and in English it became the Latin word for “one-horn”; that is, “unicorn.”

The Biblical writers could scarcely have had the intention of implying that the wild ox literally had one horn. There is one Biblical quotation, in fact, that clearly contradicts that notion. In the Book of Deuteronomy [33:17—BT], when Moses is giving his final blessing to each tribe, he speaks of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) as follows: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns....”

Here the word is placed in the plural since the thought of a “one-horn’s” single horn seems to make the phrase “horns of a unicorn” self-contradictory. Still, the original Hebrew has the word in the singular so that we must speak of the “horns of a unicorn,” which makes it clear that a unicorn has more than one horn (1968, pp. 186-187).

Dr. Asimov was correct on all counts. The word re’em does refer to the wild ox, and is translated as such in almost all later versions of the Bible. The translators of the Septuagint rendered re’em by the Greek monokeros (one horn) on the basis of the relief representations of the “wild ox” in strict profile that they found in Babylonian and Egyptian art (cf. Pfeiffer, et al., 1975, p. 83). The charge that the Bible “panders to pagan mythology” cannot be sustained, once all the relevant facts are known. Even certain atheists (like Asimov) acknowledge as much. It also is of interest to note that

As a biblical animal the unicorn was interpreted allegorically in the early Christian church. One of the earliest such interpretations appears in the ancient Greek bestiary known as the Physiologus, which states that the unicorn is a strong, fierce animal that can be caught only if a virgin maiden is thrown before it. The unicorn leaps into the virgin’s lap, and she suckles it and leads it to the king’s palace. Medieval writers thus likened the unicorn to Christ, who raised up a horn of salvation for mankind and dwelt in the womb of the Virgin Mary (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1997, 12:129, emp. added).

But what about the satyr? In Greek and Roman mythology, Satyr was a half-man/half-beast god and frequent companion of Bacchus, the Graeco-Roman religion’s god of fruitfulness and vegetation (known more popularly as the god of wine and ecstasy). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa‘ir occurs some fifty-two times. It is related to the term se‘ar (hair), and generally means “a hairy one.” It is used, for example, to speak of the male goat that was employed as the Israelites’ solemn, collective sin offering on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

In two cases, however, the King James Version renders sa‘ir as “satyr” (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14). But the specific context of both passages makes it quite clear that the term is being used to refer to the wild goats that frequently inhabited the ruins of both ancient Babylon and Edom. On two different occasions in the KJV, the word is translated “demon” (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15), where it denotes a pagan god in goat form (cf. the New International Version). In regard to 2 Chronicles 11:15, respected Old Testament scholar J. Barton Payne wrote:

Far from being mythological “satyrs,” as claimed by “liberal” criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves (1969, p. 400).

It is evident once again that the Bible does not lower itself to superstitious mythology. “Satyr” is merely a translation error, not a case of “mistaken identity” wherein a mythological creature was thought by the inspired writers to be a living, breathing animal.

REFERENCES

Asimov, Isaac (1968), Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: Volume One—The Old Testament (New York: Avon).

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997), s.v. “Unicorn” (London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.), 12:129.

Payne, J. Barton (1969), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, ed. Charles Pfeiffer and Everett Harrison (London: Oliphants).

Pfeiffer, Charles F., Howard F. Vos, and John Rea, eds. (1975), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, s.v. “Unicorn” (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Straw man in logic. The quantity in question, LOVE, is an abstract that by its nature canonly be proven by her, so the only acceptable and possible proof is her word on the matter. People misuse ideas like that in the defence of faith constantly.

If I'm wrong, then please tell me the set of exact circumstances that could possibly be duplicated whereby you would denounce your faith in creationism? Keep in mind choosing abstract or implausible situations as these circumstances is not a valid choice. You lay out exactly what has to be proven, and what manner of proof is acceptable. If these conditions can be met, they you are at least playing along. Chances are they already have and then you will begine to dissect the proof as implausible using faith based argumentatives and start the whole bad logic loop over.

Keep in mind im in no way anti-religious. IM just anti-retarded self destructive logic, which goes mostly hand in hand with religious beliefs that deny the real world in leu of faith.

The word Leviathan is also mentioned in Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:21: "God created the great sea monsters - Taninim." Jastrow translates the word "Taninim" as "sea monsters, crocodiles or large snakes".

Modern Evidence

There is a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs and humans were contemporary. In 1970 newspapers reported the discovery of cave paintings in Zimbabwe. The paintings were made by bushmen who ruled that area from about 1500 B.C., until a couple of hundred years ago. Along with accurate representations of the elephant and the giraffe, is a painting of an Apatosaurus (brontosaurus). These art works have greatly puzzled scientists since bushmen are known to have painted from real life! (Bible-Science Newsletter 1970, 2).

About seventy years ago, Dr. Samuel Hubbard, curator of archaeology in the Oakland (California) Museum, discovered dinosaur carvings on the cliff walls of the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. One remarkable carving resembles a Tyrannosaurus. Nearby, dinosaur tracks were preserved in the rock surface. (For a picture of this carving, see our book, The Mythology of Modern Geology 1990, 31.)
What about the Paluxy Tracks?

When the discovery of what appeared to be human footprints, along with dinosaur tracks (in the Paluxy River bed near Glen Rose, Texas), was reported in the May 1939 issue of Natural History, it created a furor that has not subsided to this very day. For decades it seemed obvious to careful observers that this was clear evidence of human/dinosaur co-habitation.

Then, a few years ago, Glen Kuban, a computer programmer from Cleveland, Ohio, discovered chemical discolorations at the front of some of the human-like prints. This led him and others to suggest that the human-like tracks were not human at all; rather, they were simply portions of the dinosaur tracks that had been altered by mud-fill.

Those who were disposed to believe in the theory of evolution alleged that this destroyed the Paluxy evidence once and for all. Some creationists, e.g., those of the Institute of Creation Research in San Diego, adopted a wait-and-see policy until further research is forthcoming. Others were not so easily swayed. Two authors, Robert F. Helfinstine and Jerry D. Roth, recently produced a study which strongly argues for the validity of comtemporary human/dinosaur tracks.

It has even been speculated that someone may have “doctored” some of the dinosaur/human prints to eradicate the impression of “humanness.” Evolutionists, of course, desperately want to discredit the tracks as human, for as some of them have conceded:

Such an occurrence [i.e., human and dinosaur tracks in the same stratum], if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism (Journal of Geologic Education 1983, 111-123).

Needless to say, this controversy is far from over.

Those who accept the testimony of the Bible are confident that men and dinosaurs did occupy the ancient earth at the same time. We are not dependent upon modern discoveries to confirm that for us. However, when clear evidence does come to light, we should not hesitate to accept it.

because those are the ones mentioned and described by God himself.

CREATION IS A FACT
IF IT WERE NOT SO YOU DR POSTMAN WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DISCUSS AND ARGUE.

you say that love could only be proven by her because it was an abstract that can only be proven to herself and the only possible proof is her word correct?

the bible tells us that one of the things that God is, is love.

for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

and that son, Jesus took the burden of all mankinds sins and willingly died for us why? love

so is love still abstract?

lol evasion noted? maybe the leviathan/heads you mention wasnt just one as i pointed out.

noticed you evaded a few of mine back a few posts but i dont note them.

dull minded people only think of love as some vague feeling or emotion
they dont know its about acts based upon a spiritual law which is part of the very make-up of God

It seems absolutely absurd to me that anyone could believe that people and dinosaur walked the earth together. It just seems so fundamentally wrong.

God and his act of loving are absolutely an abstract unless said God will agree to appear and demonstrate the act of love, thereby presenting his defenition of Love as a quantity that can be used in subsequent discussion.

Your description of God, his love and his reasons for not participating in the discussion directly are of no relevance. In fact, your inclusion of his love in the discussion as proof or evidence of anything shows you dont really understand any sort of empirical thought process. The very existence of YOUR god and HIS love is from a book that cannot be demonstrated as factual by any means other that the faith and belief of others. The entire contents of the bible are moot for the purposes of proving any of the concepts presented in it. You cant use something as its own proof of validity.

To seperate this concept from something you are incapable of questioning: You cannot use the wikipedia page about something as proof that wikipedia is always right. You also cannot use a passage in wikipedia to prove that a different passage in wikipedia is correct. Forthe purposes of DEciding anything about wikipedia, you cannot present evidence from wikipedia as contrary or supporting in any way, unless it is to compare such evidence to an outside source. You have no ouside source, only the bible, which you take entirely on the faith of its voracity, and attempt to use that faith to prove its voracity. All you have proven by doing so is that you do not comprehend the idea of empirical proof.

i see so its time for vids on the matter,in that case have a gander at this vid that uses science along with exact dimensions given by God in the bible and how they relate to many things, the last one is especially noteworthy.

its only about 12 mins long

[link to www.thefirmament.org]

there are also cultures that predate the official discovery of dinosaurs that have pictographs and drawings of the animals, so yes they did exist.

this man agrees also...

"When you argue against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on."
— C.S. Lewis

God created the earth as He wished

we try to put creation into our current paradigms which shift

He well could have created it fossils and layers etc intact

also He created radiocarbon along with every material plus our limited wisdom to craft and utilize it

He created the yardstick as well as the yard

and He watches us -- His creation -- bumble about with our limited knowledge trying to measure things

our wisdom is folly to Him

especially when we -- His creation -- use the rest of creation to dispel knowledge of Him

love peace and joy

rb

That video was crap. All I saw a very forced attempt to make the bible match reality. If it were truly the divine, infallible word of God, wouldn't things like this be obvious? Why doesn't the bible say "The diameter of the Sun is 864,000 miles?"

The fossil and sedimentary strata layers prove a global flood as recorded in the Bible, not evolution. Nowhere on the planet is found the textbook geocolumn. Only parts of the geocolumn and fossil record are found in just a few places on earth as shown in the textbook.

The textbooks are fiction.

Dr. Grady S. McMurtry
Mensa - Life Member

[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.creationworldview.org]

Actually all geologists agree that there was no global flood.

I'm starting to believe most religious people are idiots.
Hell I only know one that isn't.

I don't think that most are idiots. Just the ones that think the earth is a few thousand years old and all the crap that goes along with that assumption.

The constant attempt to bend science to conform to reliegion saddens me, because thats entirely a construct of the worst religions. Logic is utterly perverted.

Example: The CS Lewis quote is completely false, in that it uses its own faith of the fact that God created argument to prove that you should not argue God. The premise that God MIGHT not exist is never entered into any faith based discussion, because faith preculed any such argument.

Again, you cannot base any proof of "Gods words" on "Gods words". You must start with what is known and work to prove what is un-known. Faith Starts with what is un-known and attempts to prove what is already known is incorect.

Que the faithful saying "Of course I KNOW God. Thats the point."