Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The cover to Temple's Book the Crystal Sun, shows the telescope depicted on ancient Greek pottery.
At Amazon.Com, on the site to see that book, click on the book image and see the picture of a telescope being looked through, in ancient times.
According to Temple, The Greek Philosopher Democritus looked at the moon through a telescope and described what he saw.
And you just keep on going, don't you.
You keep sighting charletons, frauds, hoaxes, and pseudosciences, not to mention an ancient, poorly written fantasy novel, in your never ending quest to prove the unprovable.
And you reference another charleton as well, Temple. The earliest know telescopes date rom the 1600's. The Greeks did NOT use telescopes. There is no artifacts, no archival references. The ancients Greeks did indeed have the science of astronomy, with the naked eye.
And if Temple told me my hair was on fire, I would have to ask other people. Tahat is how little credibility the man has.
BTW, you obviously support this charleton and bought his book, and I can find no references for the cover art. What pottery/other source is it from? Original Creek art or modern?
No, that was NOT the point you made. You didn't say anything about whether an elephant can be killed by a spear. You stated that you rode an elephant and were not afraid of it, implying that elephants are not dangerous animals. Wild elephants are animals you certainly aren't going to hop on for a fun ride, unless you have a death wish. And even domesticated elephants can be extremely dangerous.
It was the Bibles point, this beast cannot be killed by arrows or spear. And most elephants do not scare off their handlers. This beast would scare off anyone who dared to get near to it. And the Bible clearly states that no one is so firece that they would dare stir him up. And elephants do not have scales. And when this beast would raise himself up the (MIGHTY ARE AFRAID). Most handlers of elephants do not have this reaction when and elephant gets to it's feet. This beast is clearly something much more fearful than an elephant.
It was the Bibles point, this beast cannot be killed by arrows or spear. And most elephants do not scare off their handlers. This beast would scare off anyone who dared to get near to it. And the Bible clearly states that no one is so firece that they would dare stir him up. And elephants do not have scales. And when this beast would raise himself up the (MIGHTY ARE AFRAID). Most handlers of elephants do not have this reaction when and elephant gets to it's feet. This beast is clearly something much more fearful than an elephant.
Do you live anywhere near reality?
Elephant handlers don't go down to the local corner and gather up day worker elephants.
The animals they use have been trained from birth.
You will NEVER see even the most experienced handlers approach a wild elephant.
It was the Bibles point, this beast cannot be killed by arrows or spear. And most elephants do not scare off their handlers. This beast would scare off anyone who dared to get near to it. And the Bible clearly states that no one is so firece that they would dare stir him up. And elephants do not have scales. And when this beast would raise himself up the (MIGHTY ARE AFRAID). Most handlers of elephants do not have this reaction when and elephant gets to it's feet. This beast is clearly something much more fearful than an elephant.
Trust me, if an elephant, domestic or wild, raises up in a grumpy mood and starts charging, you'd do best to get out of the way as quickly as possible. You did see the posted video of domestic elephants, didn't you?
No, elephants don't have scales. But if you lived 1000s of years ago and had never seen one before, from a distance, its wrinkly skin might well look like scales. Please refresh my memory, was the behemoth described as having scales?
I'm not saying the behemoth was an elephant, but I was tossing out a number of viable possibilities of large animals that don't mean the beast had to be a dinosaur. I wouldn't go so far as to say Job would have been unaware of elephants. While the African elephant often comes to mind, there's also the Asian elephant in South and Southeast Asia.
Understood. It's just that in Job, at least it looks like the writer as a particular river- dwelling beast in mind, no matter what the later Jews did by way of interpreting the passages.
And as Fullback said in the post above yours, the later Jews, at least, saw behemoth and Leviathan as either mythical creatures or as buffalo and fish.
"Psalms104.26.There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there."
"Psalms 74 14.It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert."
If anything can be derived from that it looks like a shoal of stranded fish.
"Isaiah 27 1.In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea."
In the context Leviathan seems a metaphor for the enemies of Israel.
The main point is that it is all very doubtful that it can be nothing other than a reliable description of dinosaurs. And the sheer lack of any organic evidence for dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals about in the middle east pretty much discredits the YE creationist/Bible -literalist attempts to find support for dinosaurs on the ark, which is what this behemoth/Leviathan thing is all about.
You keep sighting charletons, frauds, hoaxes, and pseudosciences, not to mention an ancient, poorly written fantasy novel, in your never ending quest to prove the unprovable.
And you reference another charleton as well, Temple. The earliest know telescopes date rom the 1600's. The Greeks did NOT use telescopes. There is no artifacts, no archival references. The ancients Greeks did indeed have the science of astronomy, with the naked eye.
And if Temple told me my hair was on fire, I would have to ask other people. Tahat is how little credibility the man has.
BTW, you obviously support this charleton and bought his book, and I can find no references for the cover art. What pottery/other source is it from? Original Creek art or modern?
You are not educated in ancient history nor in archaeological discoveries, and you do not want to be, because you have a fairy tale which must not be disturbed by any truth entering in. And as to Temple's education and academic affiliations, you are a slanderer of the worst sort, always lying about men who are well educated and who can prove what they say and teach.
Academic Affiliations
FYI; Temple is not a Christian, and writes nothing about the Bible. His religious beliefs are nothing connected with the Bible. His opinion of the origin of life is not my opinion nor belief; but his book, The Crystal Sun is a documented scholarly work on the ancient use of optics. Temple says; "the telescope used by the Greek pictured on the cover of The Crystal Sun is to be found in the Acropolis Museum at Athens, in an alcove of Room V, Object Number NA.55.Aa,4. It is a painted fragment pf a 5th.4th century BC Greek pot excavated at the shrine of the nymph (which was destroyed in 86 BC) on the south slope of the Acropolis in Athens between 1955 and 1960 in connection with construction of a road. It is roughly contemporary with Plato".
And as I said, this beast cannot be killed with a spear or an arrow, and an elephant does not have scales. It is not an elephant.
What scales? Behemoth has no scales. That is what is referenced here. You may be thinking of Leviathan in Job 41.
15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
Understood. It's just that in Job, at least it looks like the writer as a particular river- dwelling beast in mind, no matter what the later Jews did by way of interpreting the passages.
And as Fullback said in the post above yours, the later Jews, at least, saw behemoth and Leviathan as either mythical creatures or as buffalo and fish.
"Psalms104.26.There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there."
"Psalms 74 14.It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert."
If anything can be derived from that it looks like a shoal of stranded fish.
"Isaiah 27 1.In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea."
In the context Leviathan seems a metaphor for the enemies of Israel.
The main point is that it is all very doubtful that it can be nothing other than a reliable description of dinosaurs. And the sheer lack of any organic evidence for dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals about in the middle east pretty much discredits the YE creationist/Bible -literalist attempts to find support for dinosaurs on the ark, which is what this behemoth/Leviathan thing is all about.
In addition to hippos enjoying water, so too do elephants and water buffalos. The leviathan is described as somewhat of a water dweller, whereas the behemoth sounds more like a land dweller. That wouldn't rule out a land dweller being near and sometimes in the water though. IMO, I would be inclined to think a hippo might not be the model for the behemoth because although it does indeed spend time on land, it spends more time in the water. Both elephants and water buffalo spend most of their time on the land.
I agree that some people seem to have a compulsive drive to make both the behemoth and the leviathan either as dinosaurs or dragons. You're right that such animals would've had to have been on the Ark for those who think dinos are still roaming around the planet. Although if the mythical leviathan was primarily a water dweller, then it probably could've managed to survive without needing to board the Ark.
Although there are some descriptions, those descriptions are too general and don't clearly specify exactly what these animals were. Also, it's not uncommon for people to use larger-than-life descriptions of certain animals, not to mention making them indestructable, fire breathers, and what-not, especially if they tend to be rather large, dangerous and perhaps somewhat uncommon to certain geographical locations. But that doesn't stop some people today from declaring, "Oh, those are dinosaurs or dragons." All it amounts to is reassigning words to suit their fancy. My guess is that the writers simply didn't know and provided a general label describing them as "large animal", etc.
Gentlemen! Ladies! C34's point was that Job's description is inarguably referencing a dinosaur simplybecause it mentions some sort of unkillable animal. That large scaled animals cannot be killed. That Job had to have been talking about dinosaurs because they could not be killed with their armored scale covering. That Job's description had to be accurate because his references fit what Tom Campbell's idealized dino is.
Example: The moon is made of cheese because of some poet's words.
My point was simply that ancient men did, in fact, kill massive animals through stealth and intelligence, dropping massive woolly mammoths with little tiny spearpoints by "gettin' them in the right spot". We have the preserved mammoths with spears imbedded in them; we know it happened, and so we know that cagey men could kill massive animals! Dropping a dinos would have been no different if the need arose (which of course it it didn't because, well, they didn't co-exist! Fact.)
I mean, you drive a spear into the admittedly tiny brain of a T-Rex and guess what? Down they go! There are cases, recorded, of men shooting behemo-phants with 22s. It's all a matter of bullet placement, now isn't it? Of course, we have no finds of dinosaurs with any evidence of human physical interaction, now do we? ("Lies! All lies!")
Tom's desperate argument that this makes Job's description irrefutibly about dinosaurs is no different than any of his other desperate arguments. While any open-minded researchers would conclude that Job might, improbably and impossibly, have been talking about a dino, these descriptions also cover many other options. Tom never lists the other possibilites, which any credible researcher would do, and who would then go on to carefully research each option.
But of course...
...any credible researchers' thinking would be colored by the sure and certain already-proven fact that dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. Placement in the Geologic Column ("a lie!"), fossil records ("a lie!"), twenty different but strangely agreeable isotopic dating techniques ("a lie!"), a complete lack of any written historical accounts by the far more rational and accurate and advanced Chinese ("they lie!"), no artifacts of man ever found coincident with dino bones (they have found them, but then, [all together now...] "scientists all lie!").
Such a tired old record, huh? And frankly, we all see through this desperate strategy. The lying is not happening on our side.
Tom, you still haven't answered my key question about the date of your Montana "scaled" dinosaur, now have you? Your glorious acceptance of this investigation up to and excluding the date part is telling and sadly typical.
I repeat, typical! Science to the rescue, partially, and only when it "fits" your fantasy world.
Summary:
The OP asked a question. I's been well answered here. We now know: the Christian view on dinosaurs is that they existed only 2000 years ago, that some of these animals may very well exist today, that they were completely domesticated. We know that because there's absolutely no credible evidence, that no modern remains of them have ever been found, despite our frequent finds of other cintact o-existing non-fossilized mammoth bodies. Odd then that we don't find dead dino bodies in the mud or swamps or in an old cave-barn, huh? With old saddles nearby....
So.. That's the Christian view on dinosaurs. No different than their view on many other facts of this world. They will fight to the bitter end using whatever strategy required, (which includes lying because that's the only way to refute the facts in most cases now) because each of these known topics has the easy capacity to destroy the greater Christian myth.
You can predict the level of imminent danger to Christian mythology by the degree that a concept is demonized! Pick one: fossils, dating techniques, DNA genome mapping, geology, astronomy. All roundly denied and villified, their proponents all fakers and conspirators.
When, as noted above, they get completely caught off guard in their own deception, they then ignore the question. Tom provided a link, applauded the researcher's impressive scientific credibility, but forgot to notice or mention the age of the find, @ 77 million years.
"Lies, I tell you! All lies!"
I agree, happy Christian acolytes. I agree.
Last edited by rifleman; 08-13-2009 at 09:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Christian View
