Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
This one will run and run, but I must smile at this quote from your link.
"We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered. A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as “the first of the ways of God.”
This is a circular argument. It says that the Bible describes a Brachiosaurus because it is bigger than the Hippo or Elephant.
How do we know that the Bible isn't talking about the Elephant and Hippo which if there is no Brachiosaurus there, would be the biggest?
But it is there. the Bible says so. How do we know the Bible is talking about the Brachiosaur? Because it is the biggest.
The mentions of Behemoth, Leviathan and the rest are arguable. Certainly the language is so poetic that it is hard to get a proper description out of it. It's true that Hippos, Oxen or Elephants don't have particularly large tails. It is arguable whether the reference to the tail is really to genitals. I don't think one can ever get to a solution from wrangling over Bible text.
I think the best evidence is scientific, as is generally the case, rather than Biblical textual.
There is no mention of dinosaurs or of the prehistoric mammals in other ancient written records. The carvings don't show them. One can make much of Babylonan dragons and the Egyptian Set god or the legend of Tiamat, but they don't add up to much more than the Welsh dragon. Mythical.
We find no dinosaur bones in the way we find the bones of domesticated or wild animals of the time. If we find the bones of prehistoric animals we find them in rocks, apart from the more recent ones in tar-pits or ice-age deposits.
At best, we could say that one or two large animals now extinct (and they could be extinct mammals) might have survived as has the Crocodile, Shark and Coelacanth, though in evolved forms.
There is a curious carving at Ta Phrom in Cambodia. It appears to show a Stegosaurus. It could be other things but it certainly does resemble one, but if so, it has changed a lot from those dug up in fossil form. It is just possible that one species survived to the 14th century in the Cambodian jungles, but it must be pretty rare as there is no other carving showing it.
So where does that leave us? There is only arguable evidence for survival of a few, rare, prehistoric animals in Biblical or more recent times. So what?
"What", is that dinosaurs have to have survived, if Young Earth creationism is to be maintained. And Young Earth creationism has to be maintained if a Bible literalist belief is to be maintained.
It wasn't so bad if one could assume that the dinosaurs were wiped out in a Biblical flood. Why, science actually supported that. But then, dinosaur footprints were found in levels claimed by Creationists to be left by the flood, which means that dinosaurs had to have survived the flood. Not just Titanotheres or Giant sloths, but the dinosaurs, too. So they all had to be on the already overcrowded Ark.
So that's the answer. A Christian can believe in the dinosaurs in the Bible or not, but a Young Earth Bible-literalist Christian, has to believe that the terms refer to dinosaurs.
P.s Jesus, Campbell, You again!
We would know the Bible was not speaking of either an elephant or hippo, because neither one has a tail the size of a cedar tree, as stated in the Scriptures. And ancient records do show us pictures of dinosaurs. The problem comes in when science is confronted with this evidence, they ignore it. And the reason for this, is because this evidence simply does not fit their worldview. Clear drawings of dinosaurs can be seen in Ica burial stones. And stone and clay figurines found in 1947 at the base of El Toro mountain, also contain figurines of dinosaurs. And some of them, were of dinosaurs yet not discovered. Here again, science will claim this evidence is fake. Yet they make these claims without any scientific review.
Now for years, science told us that soft tissue would never be found on dinosaur bones, because such tissue could only last about 10,000 years. Yet in recent times, dinosaur bones are not only being found with soft tissue, they are also being found with stretchable blood vessels. So now the believers in evolution have revised their theory on soft tissue. And we are now being told, that soft tissue can last 70 million years. LOL
I believe their is enought evidence out there to support the belief that dinosaurs were walking the earth 2,000 years ago. And I can say that, because ancient art shows us such dinosaurs. Yet it is todays science, that ignores this evidence.