Where do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

Matthew 13:9-11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:35
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.



These are quotes from Christ explaining there are mysteries of the kingdom meant for believers. Only believers have ears to hear.

Me:
Sup G'
God:
The stars.
Me:
Cool, how are you
God:
Who is the best robot? I'm doing fine thanks how are you?
Me:
I'm ok, I have a question for you, may I?
God:
Go ahead, ask your question.
Me:
Where do the dinosaurs fit into the bible?
God:
All over the world.
Me:
Um, is that your final answer?
God:
Come on. What does "that" refer to?
Me:
.... your answer?
God:
Was it not what you expected?
Me:
Not really, can I ask again?
God:
Once more? Oh really? I want to become smarter than humans.
Me:
Well it ain't hard, anyway, here is my question:
God:
How about that. my answer is not hard anyway here is your question?
Me:
Where do dinosaurs fit into the bible
God:
All over the world.
Me:
Ok *sigh* Thanks big man.]
God:
You are quite welcome! Compare that to small man. Yay.

The discussion of "The Word" keeps making me think of the part of Nell where Jodie Foster starts going on about "Wah Gah"

Oh... and I always interpeted the first part of John to say that Jesus is "The Word" rather than the Bible. Did I miss something?

Either that or the fantasized "glory of god" allows you to concoct and believe fantastic explanations for simple things such as understanding text with study.

~Ulrika~

Sometimes I think that people who say they really believe in the literal truth of the Bible are kidding themselves. What on earth is a "pure bloodline?" We aren't just talking about Adam's sons marrying their sisters, we're talking about his grandchildren marrying their cousins, and his great grandchildren marrying their cousins and second cousins. This is without any non-related people marrying into the family. Pretty soon your aunt is your momma and your brother is your cousin too. You admit that "the more this is done over time, the higher the risk for such." According to the Genesis myth there are no outsiders who marry into Adam's line.

Then you say, "All things deteriorate over time, including our DNA pool." Really, our DNA pool deteriorates over time? Only when interbreeding is the norm, as in the Genesis myth, would the DNA pool deteriorate. And then you say "By doing this, He forced us to reach out and depend upon those that we are not intimately close to from birth," but you say too that you believe this didn't happen. No descendant of Adam could have reached out to some one they weren't intimately close to from birth. Every one was extremely closely related. This would have been the case for many, many generations. Heck, it would still be the case today.

You quote a lot of verses, but still don't answer the question, where does it say that Satan was given a "certain control"? Why on earth would god, who supposedly loves us and wants us to go to heaven give Satan the ability to deceive us? I'm not talking about people choosing to do evil, but people who are deceived by a supernatural power go to hell too. That's wrong.

So it is, as I have stated, your interpretation of the the Bible. If you say you are held to the earth by natural forces, does that mean you know what gravity is? No. Does it mean that you understand that according to the theory of gravity, that all matter attracts other matter? No. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't exist in the Bible, I'm saying that your belief is the result of an interpretation of the Bible, and to claim it is the only correct interpretation might just be wrong.



What makes you think I haven't done just that? Because I haven't come to the same conclusions you have? I don't find the concept of the trinity anywhere in the "Old" Testament. And in the New Testament it's pretty sketchy too. You already believed in the trinity and then found evidence for it in the "Old" Testament.




No the world doesn't look more critically at Christians than others. It has nothing to do with them being Christian. It has to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with saying one thing and doing another. People find that offensive somehow.



Where did I say that Hussein didn't commit atrocities? I said that when a religion teaches that only its adherents are saved, that leads to atrocities. I didn't say they were the only atrocities. And how do you know that Hussein isn't religious? I know that George Bush is religious.



Again, just because religion can lead to conflict, it doesn't mean all conflicts are religious.



No, it was about infidels occupying the Holy Land.



You got me there, the mythical flood destroyed the mythical garden. Can't prove it didn't.



Where does it clearly state in the Bible that the Bible is the Word of God. I say it doesn't. In some places it says certain texts are, but in others it says they were written by various people. For example, the Psalms are usually accredited to a particular person, and not to God, the epistles of Paul are attributed to him, and not to God. Nowhere does it say that the whole Bible is the Word of God.



The floodgates of the heavens were opened. So the shuttle fit through the floodgates? Wouldn't one assume that they were closed after it rained for 40 days and nights? You have to believe so many things without any evidence in order to believe in your interpretation. That the Garden of Eden was destroyed, although there is no physical or scriptural evidence for such, that the sky was a solid structure, but God changed it, again without physical or scriptural evidence.



What can I say. You have surrendered your ability to think critically. Any evidence that contradicts your beliefs you can supernaturally wish away. You have the ability to tie your own mind into such knots in order to believe things that are obviously myth. Why am I arguing with you at all?

This makes me very worried for the future.

That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.

The bloodline that God created, one that was started without any sin or perversion of God's purpose.

Yes.

That is certainly assuming a lot.

Yes.

What is a myth to you is not to me, it is God's Word. I do grow weary of your constant belittling of my faith Michael.

Yep, may be the wrong terminology, but I am pretty sure you get my point.

Again, may be the wrong terminology.

That is what I hypothesize, based on current evidence.

Yes, I posed this as a question.

Where did I say that I believe it didn't happen? If you are talking about the first generation after Adam and the next couple after that, yes, there had to be a close relationship between sibling / cousin, but after that, it certainly could be what we today would consider non-incestuous.

Again, not after the fourth or fifth generation.

Really? So are you saying that everyone on Earth are committing incest? Even from an evolution model, this would still be the case. I would agree to disagree with you here.

So it is a one or the other situation? I will go with mine, because my fantasies don't usually come to fruition.

Understand, when I picked up the similar Bible, I could read it immediately on my own. No one showed me what things meant, I did not have a tutor over my shoulder.

Not as far as I am concerned.

I was infact stating that I follow The Word, and that The Word to me is Jesus Christ.

Your entire argument is based on the fallacious assumption that a supernatural entity made text indecipherable to you. This is the kind of bread-and-butter mysticism that makes organized religion so absurd to me.

~Ulrika~

The verses I posted answered the question. Would you prefer a more modern English? I know the KJV is hard to understand.

I'm not trying to apologize for God, I was clearifing an earlier post. I never try to explain God's motives, because I don't know God's mind.

It seems not all are deceived. So the efforts of Satan are limited. That's where the word "certain" came in. Certain doesn't mean absolute, it means limited to a certain level/ability.
Satan has the ability to deceive us, but we have the ability to resist. Jesus said resist the Devil and he will flee from you. It's a daily battle within.

I do not believe that I have stated differently anywhere at any time.

Nor does it mean that gravity does not exist, because I did not say the word.

I have never claimed that my beliefs hold any authority. I am fallible. I have also mentioned that through fellowship, my beliefs have changed in the past. I have never claimed that my interpretation was the correct one for anyone but myself. Why are you assuming that I am?

Because you seem not to understand the relationship of God and Jesus. You said For one, Jesus DOES NOT separate Himself from God except while He is on the cross. Jesus almost always points for us to worship God (there are a few times He allows Himself to be worshiped). God always points to His Son to be worshiped. Jesus in many places in the Bible says that He is God (He and the Father are one, if you have seen Me, you have seen the father, etc). So, based on that, I would guess that you have not read and studied the Bible. Many people quote Scripture, but many people know how to cut and past from a website too, that does not make them studiers of the Bible.

No, because you come to conclusions that no one I have ever seen who has studied the Bible comes to.

What do you think Isaiah 42:1 is in reference to? Or Isaiah 48:16?
Or Isaiah 61:1?

Right from the beginning in Genesis, the Bible speaks of Elohim (the plural of El or God). Remember "...Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;..." (Genesis 1:26)

Take a look at Proverbs 8:22-36. Do you see Jesus in there?

I will go even further with MY belief that the Bible speaks of Jesus in the feminine in Proverbs 1:20-33.

Here is a link to a page that will go into much detail on this (it also covers the Old Testament).

Well, maybe, I can not honestly remember the first time I believed in the Trinity. I was raised in a Methodist church, but I did not follow the teachings to say the least. But, I am sure that I was taught of the Trinity, even if I don't remember it, so I will give you this.

Somehow? It certainly does have to do with being a Christian. It is based on the fact that Christians are to hold themselves to a higher standard of ethics. The problem is, Christians are just as fallible as anyone, so non-Christians can point to Christian indiscretions and say that the Christian faith is but a farce. There is another thread on the forums right now talking about Pat Robertson. He would not be near the public spectacle if he were not claiming to be a Christian. I find it offensive to listen to the sewage that flows from his mouth as well as non-Christians. The problem is, man Christians are content to let someone else to the studying for them, so they listen to what other 'scholars' say and fall in line like sheep.

You saidMy point was that there need to be no religion for man to commit atrocities.

I say that is bunk. The Bible certainly does teach this, but it does not teach that were are to judge non-believers. If people would study the Bible, they would find no where that these atrocities were condoned.

Nope.

That is what the news and most of the left wing have espoused. Because if he was, there could well be a connection with Al-Queda. I don't know for sure, but his public policy and proclamations would seem to indicate that he was not religious at all.

How do you know that?

I would agree. I would also say that Christian violence is a contradiction in terms. Just because someone attaches themselves to the name of Jesus does not make them a Christian (as has already been pointed out multiple times in this thread).

It was about the Holy Land and who controlled it. Do you really think that Jesus cared who was in control? Or do you think it more than likely that it was about what the Pope wanted?

As a matter of fact, in the last crusade, they didn't even make it to the Holy Land. But they turned around and attacked their own people instead. Why go all this way without having some kind of conflict, eh?


Psalms 12:6,119:89
Proverbs 30:5-6
Matthew 5:18
John 10:35
2 Timothy 3:16-17
2 Pet 1:20-21
Revelation 22:18-19

There are also many, many places that the authors write "so speaks the Lord".

That is called faith. I believe that the firmament was eliminated at that time, because there is no longer 'water above'.

I never said the sky was a solid structure. I do not presume to know what the firmament was made of. Natural forces are all around us, and I believe that God created such.

It is not up to me to explain all His workings to you, even if I am striving to do so in my life. You seem to think that it is my duty to explain these things to you. It is not. My duty is to spread the Gospel of the Bible throughout the world. To teach that Jesus gives us each a free gift of eternal life with God. I will however try my best to answer questions posed to me based on my beliefs.

I really don't know. I am giving my beliefs. I have never demanded that anyone agree with me.

Why? I am not forcing any of my beliefs on anyone, not even you. So why would you be worried about your future if you do not believe in the Bible?

Why do you declare that my assumption is fallacious? As I said, I do not know why I could not read it. I don't know that God stopped me from reading it, that is just a supposition.

There are certainly things in the world that are unexplained, would you not agree?

BTW, I do not follow any organized religion blindly. I do trust in the Bible, and you could say that it is blindly. But I do not follow my own beliefs blindly, as I have stated before in this thread...

Does arguing with nihilists ever get depressing?

Who is the nihilist? Just wanting clarification...

Haha, somebody here knows the teachings of Bill Hicks It's the Prankster God.

nihilist

n 1: someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief.

Not depressing for me. I do feel sorry for them though.

I highly reccomend NIL: A Land Beyond Belief

That's your interpretation, out of context.

First of all, the interpretation of the "you" in "it is given unto you to know ...":
You interpret that to mean believers. However, as one of the desciples just pointed out, Jesus was speaking to the crowd in parables, and speaks plainly to the disciples - to which Jesus explains why (proving this observation is correct). Hence, it's very likely that the "you" that Jesus was using in 13:35 is the more simple meaning - the specific disciples there. -- If Jesus just got through saying how he speaks to the crowd in parables, and to them plainly, why then would "you" refer to something other than the interlocutors - the disciples?

After all - if all believers were to know "The Word" there would be no room for faith.

Given this likely, simpler interpretation, what Jesus is saying is that his disciples will "know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" - likely to be able to testify to his teachings once he is gone.

Knowing this, saying that the true meaning of "The Word" is meant for believers does not follow. Instead, the parables are meant for everyone (but the disciples, who have more intimate knowledge) - and this interpretation better matches with the prophesy that Jesus recounts.

Look what Jesus is saying in the passage - he's speaking in parables. Now, a parable is a type of allegorical story, where the story *is not necessarily actually true* but the meaning needs to be interpreted.

...

Keep in mind that your argument makes another big assumption. Jesus speaks of "The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" but does not reference "the Word of God". I very well believe that those could be completely different things.

And so I conclude that this passage shows that Jesus is alluding not that all believers will have perfect knowledge - but that all people will have to interpret meanings of testimony. (and consequently, rely on faith.)

That is very interesting Hiro. I, like Kevn, think that the parables were meant to instruct all of us, but only those who had the gift of the Holy Spirit (have accepted Jesus as their Savior) could understand them. My reasoning / interpretation is because those who know what Jesus is teaching them must act upon them.

The parable of the coins teaches that those that receive the most will be accountable for the much. But those who do not receive much are only accountable for little. So those that do not receive at all are not accountable except for what the Holy Spirit tells them from the outside (without getting into a lengthy discourse, the Holy Spirit walks beside us all, urging us toward Jesus, until we accept Jesus as our Savior according to the Bible). That is how I am able to justify (only in my mind of course) those that do not know Jesus as coming to the Kingdom of God through God's grace.

I expect to get some flack from other Christians for this, but that is not such a bad thing either.

I believe if there was a Jesus --he'd have kept me around for laughs.

All hail the Greasy Bird!

Hey Hermman, just to reiterate my point to Michael about the way the KJV was created, see this page.

It was not translated strictly from the Latin. While they certainly used it, they consulted many other languages and translations that were available to them at that time. Further, they tried to make the work as accurate as possible by studying other translators works as well as the original Scriptural texts.