Why Creationism?????

Why wouldn't we evolve? If anyone has ever seen the T.V. Show Charmed, and you've seen the episode where Paige learns about her past as an evil Enchantress, than you'll understand that her soul evolved into goodness. So that certainly wasn't creationism, now was it?!So you'll see there that she (her soul actually) evolved over time- why can't we? Who out there has seen all those things on TV about evolution, and stuff about finding all those bones and stuff, anyone ever heard of Lucy? She's one of the most complete skeletons of a not-quite-human-being. Now where does that show up as creationism? She’s not quite human, her skull and bone structure prove that- bye-bye Adam and Eve being made of dirt and the first of gods creations!Then what about ape ancient skeletons, and their slow evolution into mankind, that really gets rid of all of that Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.And what about Cro Magnums and Neanderthals? The Neanderthals made fire... but they never sought to improve, like the Cro Magnums did. And in the bible there are no Neanderthals and Cro Magnums, there is man and beast alike.And here comes the grand finale:BAM ( )Dinosaurs- one medium-sized word one BIG problem, duh!!! where are the dinosaurs in the bible, not there, that totally leaves out years and years of EVOLUTION!!! There are so many facts against Creationism, why bother? Anyway as I was saying.The bible drops out so many things in our history that are so important to our culture, to who we are. History is a part of all of us, and the boring History textbooks that you lugged to history class every day of your life for 12 years, had more truth to it than the bible ever would. And a human being couldn't survive for more than 125 years! Our bodies aren't meant to go throughout the wear and tear of life for over 100 years, but people who are careful live to be older than that. But honestly...History and Evolution have more fact to them because there is more evidence to them because of hundreds of written documents written thousands of years ago.

You're basing a discussion like that on a TV show that is totally make believe? No, you don't do that. Do you also believe that people can fly if they have fairy dust and if they don't believe in fairies poor Tinkerbell is dead unless you clap your hands?About 'Lucy'. Maybe she was a deformed person, maybe it was an extinct species of primates. There is so much evidence against Evolution, I'll send you it. Email me at earthangel6986@yahoo.com.The dinosaur thing, a very weak discussion. Who says the bible had to say 'and there were dinosaurs.' It never said 'He made giraffs and gorillas and tigers etc.' It would take them forever to do so.About people living past 125. They lived that long because the Earth was brand new. They didn't have pollution and all that junk back then to make their bodies wear out as fast as ours. Don't use such weak arguments!What documents are you talking about? I'm sorry sweetie, but the bible was written more than a million years ago. Darwin came out with his theory not that long ago. And, yes, there is lots of proof that the Bible is true.------------------
God Bless,
Victoria

[QUOTE][b]Maybe she was a deformed person, maybe it was an extinct species of primates.[/QUOTE][/b]There are lots of malnourished and deformed people today. Why don't we find more like Lucy? If Lucy was a primate, why does she look so much like humans? Are you admitting that humans and primates are a lot alike? [QUOTE][b]About people living past 125. They lived that long because the Earth was brand new. They didn't have pollution and all that junk back then to make their bodies wear out as fast as ours.[/QUOTE][/b]Actually pollution was invented only a couple of centuries ago, in open areas outside the cities people should have been living that long in the Middle Ages, if you were correct. [QUOTE][b]I'm sorry sweetie, but the bible was written more than a million years ago.[/QUOTE][/b]WHAT? [QUOTE][b]Darwin came out with his theory not that long ago.[/QUOTE][/b]Yeah, and it's based upon scientific observations.

Well, the bible itself wasn't written over 1 million years ago, but the manuscripts by Moses.
There have also been many scientific observations by scientists on the Bible.
Not just pollution, but the enviroment changes, before the flood, the world wasn't perfect (sin had entered) but the physical enviroment was, for more on that email earthangel6986@yahoo.com.------------------
God Bless,
Victoria

[QUOTE][b]There have also been many scientific observations by scientists on the Bible.
Not just pollution, but the enviroment changes, before the flood, the world wasn't perfect (sin had entered) but the physical enviroment was, for more on that email[/QUOTE][/b]I'd prefer to see more on that here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godismyfather:
About people living past 125. They lived that long because the Earth was brand new. They didn't have pollution and all that junk back then to make their bodies wear out as fast as ours. Don't use such weak arguments!

---

People actually lived less long in those days because medicine wasn't as advanced as it is now. Also agriculture and other technologies were far behind the level of sophistication of contemporary technology. Living conditions were quite poor compared to our society and so they didn't live longer than us now. So be more modest next time when you bring yet another of such ignorant arguments and don't say that the person shouldn't come up with "such weak arguments" while coming up with an insensible one like yours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ammarice:
And here comes the grand finale:
BAM ( )
Dinosaurs- one medium-sized word one BIG problem, duh!!! where are the dinosaurs in the bible, not there, that totally leaves out years and years of EVOLUTION!!! There are so many facts against Creationism, why bother? Anyway as I was saying.

---

In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. It is described in the Bible as a 'behemoth,' (the word dinosaur wasn't around back then). The behemoth moved his tail like a cedar tree. Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur. Elephants and hippos do not have tails like cedar trees.

Curious that if Job was familiar with it, no dinosaur parts have been found in Middle Eastern trash pits. It would be a good idea for you to account for that strange absence if you want to claim Job was familiar with dinosaurs.Hippos have other anatomical parts that the "tail" might be refering to. You will note that not only does it *say* "hippo" in my Bible concourse, the passage itself says that the animal (1)dwells in a river (2) lies in the shade of lotus trees (3) is surrounded by marshes. In the next chapter we get a description of the crocodile. See the theme here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. It is described in the Bible as a 'behemoth,' (the word dinosaur wasn't around back then). The behemoth moved his tail like a cedar tree. Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur. Elephants and hippos do not have tails like cedar trees.

​

---

Wow!!!Of course the bible isn`t unique in mentioning large critters that are probably figments of the imagination...St. George and the dragon...The Lambton worm...Nessie...Champ (Vermonts version of Nessie)....I bet with proper research you could come up with a pretty long list of invented large scaly monsters....

Just occurred to me that most of you won`t know about the Lambton worm so here it is (if you can be bothered)... http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/lambton.htmland here http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/legends/lampton_worm.html

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Curious that if Job was familiar with it, no dinosaur parts have been found in Middle Eastern trash pits. It would be a good idea for you to account for that strange absence if you want to claim Job was familiar with dinosaurs.

​

Hippos have other anatomical parts that the "tail" might be refering to. You will note that not only does it *say* "hippo" in my Bible concourse, the passage itself says that the animal (1)dwells in a river (2) lies in the shade of lotus trees (3) is surrounded by marshes. In the next chapter we get a description of the crocodile. See the theme here?

---

Job 40:15 "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox". I am, admittadly, not an expert on croc diet, but I thought they ate about 70% fish. This creature is described as eating grass like an ox. Even if the croc could survive on plants, I doubt he would be described as eating grass like an ox. Starting to see a theme here?Also note Job 41: 1 "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower? 2 Can you put a reed through his nose, Or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he make many supplications to you? Will he speak softly to you? 4 Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him as a servant forever? 5 Will you play with him as with a bird, Or will you leash him for your maidens? 6 Will your companions make a banquet of him? Will they apportion him among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons, Or his head with fishing spears? 8 Lay your hand on him; Remember the battle-- Never do it again! 9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false; Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him? 10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up. Who then is able to stand against Me?"A croc could be hurt by harpoons and spears so I don't think that is the description here either. This 'leviathan' is something massive that no one would dare attempt to capture or fight. Another possible theme here for a dino type creature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. It is described in the Bible as a 'behemoth,' (the word dinosaur wasn't around back then). The behemoth moved his tail like a cedar tree. Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur. Elephants and hippos do not have tails like cedar trees.

---

But Job 40:18 says: "His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron."
Now clearly dinosaurs did not have bones of bronze. The author is careful to say his limbs are "like" bars of iron, but his "bones are tubes of bronze." So do we really want to take this passage literally? Further, any attempt to see this as a dinosaur based only on the description of how it moves its tail is to my mind just clutching at straws , unless you want to say that in one part this passage is figurative and in others it is not.But there is another explanation. Translations of the Bible tend to be a bit coy about Job 40:17 "His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit."Let's look at the King James Version ..."16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."His "strength" is in his loins - that's pretty masculine, isn't it? His "force" in his "navel"? Well force here is the Hebrew word 'own which Strong gives as "generative power" amongst other translations and "navel" can actually be read as muscles or sinews - basically the musculature of the abdomen.He "moveth" his "tail" like a cedar. Now it gets interesting. The Hebrew word which moveth translates is Chaphets which is used 75 times in the old testament. In every case it is translated as delights, favors, takes pleasure in etc - except in this one verse where it becomes "bends" or "moves" depending on the translation you read. The Greek Septuagint translates it as "Histemi" - to stand, especially to stand firm or steadfastly or with authority.So what have got? Two verses emphasising the "generative power" of behemoth, the sinews of his testicles, the force in his belly, and his delight in his "tail" like a cedar tree. Now what could "tail" mean here? When it is used elsewhere in the old testament it certainly does refer to a "tail" and doesn't seem to have any slang meaning. Except, however, that the root of "zanab" is related to "zanah", a whore, so we certainly cannot exclude a sexual connotation. Of course, "tail" is used as a slang term for penis and/or whore in many Indo-European languages.So I think it is a sound suggestion that the two verses taken as a whole refer to behemoth's prodiguous sexual equipment.As for it referring to a dinosaur, you will be aware that only mammals have fully external testicles which could be referred to as in this passage.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. It is described in the Bible as a 'behemoth,' (the word dinosaur wasn't around back then). The behemoth moved his tail like a cedar tree. Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur. Elephants and hippos do not have tails like cedar trees.

---

Uh, when you read the passage, it sure seems like "tail" doesn't refer to a literal tail.Here is all of what God says about the behemoth:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
[16] Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
[17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.His "tail" referrs to his penis, and his "stones" refers to his testicles.These meanings of the words "tail" and "stones" were common at the time.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

His "tail" referrs to his penis, and his "stones" refers to his

---

Notice the same Hebrew word for tail is used in the verses below and it appears fairly obvious when describing an animal that tail means tail. The word 'tail' is used 9 times in the Old Testament and every instance refers to a tail; not a penis. Why would the Job reference be the exception?Jud 15:4 And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails.Ex 4:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Notice the same Hebrew word for tail is used in the verses below and it appears fairly obvious when describing an animal that tail means tail. The word 'tail' is used 9 times in the Old Testament and every instance refers to a tail; not a penis. Why would the Job reference be the exception?
...
Ex 4:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:

---

Firstly I'm not sure the second quote is a good example if you are trying to say "tail" is not a penis - "he caught it and it became a rod in his hand." Hmmm. Must just be my mind. Seriously, however, I address this point in my post - that in context the reading of zanab as referring obliquely to a penis seems most plausible. The reason for this is quite simple - the context of the two verses is entirely concerned with the sexual energy and function of the beast - why even mention the tail in this context?Look at the word chaphets - the word tranlated as "moving". It is used 69 times in the KJV as roughly "taking delight or pleasure". Why in this one instance should it be translated as "move"? If you go with the principal meaning - to take delight - then the phrase "he takes delight in his tail like a cedar" seems like a very coy translation in the context of verses describing behemoth's sexual energy and testicles.So what about "zanab" - why is it used elsewhere so clearly as tail? Well, the first question has to be how consistenyl it is used in this way. Here are the results of an initial search:Exodus 4:4 you quote this above - it refers to the tail of a snake.

​

Isaiah 9:14 So the LORD cuts off head and tail from Israel, Both palm branch and bulrush in a single day.

​

Isahiah 9:15
The head is the elder and honorable man, And the prophet who teaches falsehood is the tail.

​

Isaiah 19:15
There will be no work for Egypt Which its head or tail, its palm branch or bulrush, may do.

​

Judges 15:4
Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned the foxes tail to tail and put one torch in the middle between two tails.

​

Deuteronomy 28:44
"He shall lend to you, but you will not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you will be the tail.

​

Deuteronomy 28:13
The LORD will make you the head and not the tailI think there is one reference missing - this is only seven (and behemoth makes eight.)Of these seven, only two refer to an "actual" tail, the others are figurative. So you shouldn't be too confident about stating that zanab is always a literal tail.BYW - why do you reject the reading of "penis?" It seems to make a lot of sense. And of course it is quite pyschologically impressive in the broader context - God is after all trying to reinforce how puny Job is. What better way to bring a man down a peg than to compare him to the prodiguously endowed behemoth?Also, what do you make of my point that behemoth cannot be a dinosaur because of the external testicles?

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-18-2002]