I'm going to provide a link to some videos...
This guy came to my (Wifes) Church and gave a lecture about 3 weeks ago.
They are located at the bottom column on the left. There are about 34 and approx 5min each in length.
Click on the wording thet reads...
CESM Online Videos-Preview DVDs
http://www.creationministries.org/
I would like to read comments on the videos, as to why you either agree or disagree based upon science, not opinion.
I did a little study about dinosaurs living with men because of his lecture. This site is pretty cool too... http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/history/history.htm
Willie h, I think you will like videos 19- 25... The Non-Existent Geologic Column
Anyway, watch them all and tell me why He's wrong, or right!
Paul
QuoteDoug Hamp presents the findings of his book "The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth". He addresses the following questions: If God really created via evolution then why does God say that He created everything in only six days? Are those days literal days or are they really indefinite periods of time as Progressive Creationism claims? We know dinosaurs were real; when did God create them if He created in six, literal days only thousands of years ago. The answers to these questions are plainly laid out in Scripture. Ancient commentators, both Jewish and Christian, all agreed that the Bible taught a literal, six day creation only thousands of years ago.
Presentation of the above mentioned book - 91 minute version.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8636698901247489144&hl=en#)
Presentation of the above mentioned book - 28 minute version. (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2782542840848281392&hl=en"%20flashvars="">%20</embed></p><p%20style=")
Evidence of Men and Dinosaurs from the Pre-Incan Civilizations of Peru - 86 page .pdf - Best use "Save as" to read this 66MB file (http://thefirstsixdays.com/presentationsdownload/Dinosaurs%20Among%20Men%20Peru%20Oct%202008%20PDF.pdf)
Perhaps man used dinosaurs to help drag the pyramid stones or to carry the stones of stone henge.
The film bruce almighty comes to mind, when he uses the animals to build the ark.
This is me just thinking out loud, I have no evidence of this :2c:
Interesting that in history we see depictions of knights doing battle with dragons. What if these dragons are dinosaurs? What if the population at that time never documented these creatures and regarded them as a myth, who knows what coverups the goverment is doing considering the dinosaurs, maybe the knights killed them all during medieval times.
What if these creatures still exist, the lochness monster, big foot, comes to mind.
:2c:
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm
:cloud9: I think it's possible some remnant of them exist. There are places along the Amazon where the natives swear there are dinosaur like creatures still in existance, from their description of them.
Another example is that big fish (colecanthe, spelling?) they said was extinct so many millions of years ago, and yet one was found in the 60's and another several years later. Blessings....
Cardinal,
If dino's still live is not the only question. They do. Crocodiles and lizards. But no thunder lizards :winkgrin:
The other question is: Did millions of dino's live with humans? The type of dino's we see in textbook and documentaries.
Ancient aliens - 9 parts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZYYmOgdVdI)
There are still riddles as the above videos shows.
The video's are partly about the impossibilty that Mayans and Incas build what they build. Extremely hard stone was cut with extreme precision that even would be problematic for modern power tools.
Or stones that are to to heavy to be transported.
But the same can be said about Fort Antionia (now called dome mosque)
Many stones weighing about 70 tons. Even today transporting such a stone requires above average equipment. But 2000 years ago :dontknow:
And double :dontknow: for the 400 ton stone in Fort Antonia....
Quote from: thinktank on September 19, 2010, 10:17:46 PM
Interesting that in history we see depictions of knights doing battle with dragons. What if these dragons are dinosaurs?
Still weird only one dino is ever heard of. Flying dragons. But what about all those other types of dino's?
Really ancient civalisations have pottery with figures on it that look very much like dino's. (several types)
But why the silence between then and the time of the knights?
Egyptians, Romans and Greeks recorded everything. They really liked to have as many gods as possible. Why are there no records of Roman/Greek Dino/Dragon gods?
The Egyptians also had many gods. Even half animal gods. But no diono like gods. But if dino's still lived among the knights they would also have lived in ancient Egypt, Greece and the Roman empire.
Doesn't that silence proof something?
BTW saltwater errosion has been found on some pyramids. Salt water in a desert?
I've read most of the article on dinosaurs and it's really convincing that men may have lived with dinausaurs.
When you see a 4000 years old sculpture of a perfect patenthosor(whatever) it makes you wonder.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 19, 2010, 11:37:33 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 19, 2010, 10:17:46 PM
Interesting that in history we see depictions of knights doing battle with dragons. What if these dragons are dinosaurs?
Still weird only one dino is ever heard of. Flying dragons. But what about all those other types of dino's?
Really ancient civalisations have pottery with figure on it that look very much like dino's.
But why the silence between then and the time of the knights?
Romans and Greeks recorded everything. They really liked to have as many gods as possible. Why are thete no records of Roman/Greek Dino/Dragon gods?
The Egyptians also had many gods. Even half animal gods. But no diono like gods. But if dino's still lived among the knights they would also have lived in ancient Egypt, Greece and the Roman empire.
Doesn't that silence proof something?
BTW saltwater errosion has been found on some pyramids. Salt water in a desert?
The same type of things happens with people who report ufos, even though there are supposedly many types the same type of ufo keeps popping up. So if these people described a ferocious beast they would say, "it had sharp teeth, made snarling noises, it was huge, evil eyes, and so the artist draws a typical dragon. There are flying dragons, and land dragons so that's two type of dinosaurs. Also when a typical person thinks of a dinosaur they think of 1- t rex type two legs, 2- behomoth brontosarous 3- flying winged type 4- huge snake type sea creature. In legends three of these are known as the sea beast that terrorizes ships, so some ships in history place a symbol at the front of the ship to scare them away, The dragon, which is similar to the t rex, large and scary walks on two legs and the flying dinosaur is similar to the gargoyle creature found in the story of nostradamus I think.
Different cultures have their favourite animal symbols, e.g united states eagle, egyptian wolf cayote, now if you look at dragons the chinese love them, they also love sea creatures e.g water god leviathian.
The silence of documents does prove something, but what? does it mean that perhaps they were affraid of anything mentioning dragons, because of fear of satan etc, so they burn all evidence. Many documents have been burned in history, including Alexanders libary, although not related, but shows that evidence can indeed be lost.
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 20, 2010, 12:39:41 AM
I've read most of the article on dinosaurs and it's really convincing that men may have lived with dinausaurs.
When you see a 4000 years old sculpture of a perfect patenthosor(whatever) it makes you wonder.
Several choices:
a] Fake.
b] Man lived wth dino.
c] Old cultures had archelogy too.
d] Today's archeologists copied ancient ideas
Quote from: thinktank on September 20, 2010, 01:14:50 AMThe same type of things happens with people who report ufos, even though there are supposedly many types the same type of ufo keeps popping up.
So you think the paintings found can be compared to drawings made by people that saw UFOs? Meaning the view of a minority but not mainstream society.
QuoteSo if these people described a ferocious beast
In some pictures people ride dinos like a horse.
Quotethey would say, "it had sharp teeth, made snarling noises, it was huge, evil eyes, and so the artist draws a typical dragon.
Dragons look a bit like a Pterodactyl. But I think it's not real the point if it are just artist expessions. The real point, imo, is that it those artists draw things they could never have seen according to our science.
http://dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/ast.html
http://whatnots.cc/laymans_theories.html
QuoteThe silence of documents does prove something, but what? does it mean that perhaps they were affraid of anything mentioning dragons, because of fear of satan etc, so they burn all evidence. Many documents have been burned in history, including Alexanders libary, although not related, but shows that evidence can indeed be lost.
The Egyptian, Greeks and Romans didn't fear anything. They would have whorshipped them. Make drawings of them. If evidence was destroyed I would say it was done much later.
By Christians for example. But all the dragon tales originate from Europe at the time of Christianity. So why destroy evidence and at the same time write dragon stories?
Whatever the origen of dragons (tales) they seem to have been very popular because you find them even on royal shields.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 20, 2010, 08:46:59 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 20, 2010, 12:39:41 AM
I've read most of the article on dinosaurs and it's really convincing that men may have lived with dinausaurs.
When you see a 4000 years old sculpture of a perfect patenthosor(whatever) it makes you wonder.
Several choices:
a] Fake.
b] Man lived wth dino.
c] Old cultures had archelogy too.
d] Today's archeologists copied ancient ideas
Good point.
What an amazing animal! God did some very special engineering from the git-go! None of this "grocery store" new and improved nonsense. He got it entirely right the first time.
(From Moody Press)
If you ever doubted that God exists, Meet the Very Technical, Highly Engineered Dromedary Camel.
When I'm hungry, I'll eat almost anything-A leather bridle, a piece of rope, my master's tent, Or a pair of shoes.
My mouth is so tough a thorny cactus doesn't bother it. I love to chow down grass and other plants That grow here on the Arabian desert.
I'm a dromedary camel, the one-hump kind That lives on hot deserts in the Middle East.
My hump, all eighty pounds of it, Is filled with fat-my body fuel-not water as some people believe. My Mighty Maker gave it to me because He knew I wouldn't always be able to find food As I travel across the hot sands. When I don't find any chow, my body automatically Takes fat from the hump, feeds my system, And keeps me going strong. This is my emergency food supply.
If I can't find any plants to munch, my body uses up my hump. When the hump gets smaller, it starts to tip to one side. But when I get to a nice oasis and begin to eat again, My hump soon builds back to normal.
I've been known to drink twenty-seven gallons of water in ten minutes. My Master Designer made me in such a fantastic way that In a matter of minutes all the water I've swallowed Travels to the billions of microscopic cells that make up my flesh.
Naturally, the water I swallow first goes into my stomach. There thirsty blood vessels absorb and carry it to every part of my body. Scientists have tested my stomach and found it empty Ten minutes after I've drunk twenty gallons.
In an eight hour day I can carry a four hundred pound load A hundred miles across a hot, dry desert And not stop once for a drink or something to eat. In fact, I've been known to go eight days without a drink, But then I look a wreck. I lose 227 pounds, my ribs show through my skin, And I look terribly skinny. But I feel great! I look thin because the billions of cells lose their water. They're no longer fat. They're flat.
Normally my blood contains 94 percent water, just like yours. But when I can't find any water to drink, The heat of the sun gradually robs a little water out of my blood. Scientists have found that my blood can lose up to 40 percent of its water, and I'm still healthy.
Doctor's say human blood has to stay very close to 94 percent water. If you lose 5 percent of it, you can't see anymore; 10 percent, you can't Hear and you go insane; 12 percent, your blood is as thick as molasses And your heart can't pump the thick stuff. It stops, and you're dead.
But that's not true with me. Why? Scientists say my blood is different. My red cells are elongated. Yours are round. Maybe that's what makes the difference.
This proves I'm designed for the desert, Or the desert is designed for me. Did you ever hear of a design without a Designer?
After I find a water hole, I'll drink for about ten minutes And my skinny body starts to change almost immediately. In that short time my body fills out nicely, I don't look skinny anymore, And I gain back the 227 pounds I lost.
Even though I lose a lot of water on the desert, My body conserves it too. Way in the beginning when my intelligent Engineer made me, He gave me a specially designed nose that saves water. When I exhale, I don't lose much. My nose traps that warm, moist air from my lungs And absorbs it in my nasal membranes.
Tiny blood vessels in those membranes take that back into my blood. How's that for a recycling system? Pretty cool, isn't it. It works because my nose is cool. My cool nose changes that warm moisture in the air From my lungs into water.
But how does my nose get cool? I breath in hot dry desert air, And it goes through my wet nasal passages. This produces a cooling effect, and my nose stays as much as 18 degrees cooler than the rest of my body.
I love to travel the beautiful sand dunes. It's really quite easy, because My Creator gave me specially engineered sand shoes for feet. My hooves are wide, and they get even wider when I step on them. Each foot has two long, bony toes with tough, leathery skin between my soles, are a little like webbed feet.
They won't let me sink into the soft, drifting sand. This is good, because often my master wants me to carry him one hundred miles across the desert in just one day. (I troop about ten miles per hour.)
Sometimes a big windstorm comes out of nowhere, bringing flying sand with it. My Master Designer put special muscles in my nostrils that close the openings, keeping sand out of my nose but still allowing me enough air to breathe.
My eyelashes arch down over my eyes like screens, keeping the sand and sun out but still letting me see clearly. If a grain of sand slips through and gets in my eye, the Creator took care of that too. He gave me an inner eyelid that automatically wipes the sand off my eyeball just like a windshield wiper.
Some people think I'm conceited because I always walk around with my head held high and my nose in the air.
But that's just because of the way I'm made. My eyebrows are so thick and bushy I have to hold my head high to peek out from underneath them. I'm glad I have them though. They shade my eyes from the bright sun.
Desert people depend on me for many things. Not only am I their best form of transportation, but I'm also their grocery store. Mrs. Camel gives very rich milk that people make into butter and cheese. I shed my thick fur coat once a year, and that can be woven into cloth. A few young camels are used for beef, but I don't like to talk about that.
For a long time we camels have been called the "ships of the desert" because of the way we sway from side to side when we trot. Some of our riders get seasick.
I sway from side to side because of the way my legs work. Both legs on one side move forward at the same time, elevating that side. My "left, right left, right" motion makes my rider feel like he is in a rocking chair going sideways.
When I was six months old, special knee pads started to grow on my front legs. The intelligent Creator knew I had to have them. They help me lower my 1000 pounds to the ground.
If I didn't have them, my knees would soon become sore and infected, and I could never lie down. I'd die of exhaustion.
By the way, I don't get thick knee pads because I fall on my knees. I fall on my knees because I already have these tough pads. Someone very great thought of me and knew I needed them. He designed them into my genes.
It's real difficult for me to understand how some people say I evolved into what I now am. I'm very technical, highly engineered dromedary camel. Things like me don't just happen.
They're planned on a drawing board by Someone very brilliant, Someone very logical.
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/religion/
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 20, 2010, 04:34:52 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 20, 2010, 08:46:59 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 20, 2010, 12:39:41 AM
I've read most of the article on dinosaurs and it's really convincing that men may have lived with dinausaurs.
When you see a 4000 years old sculpture of a perfect patenthosor(whatever) it makes you wonder.
Several choices:
a] Fake.
b] Man lived wth dino.
c] Old cultures had archelogy too.
d] Today's archeologists copied ancient ideas
Good point.
BTW did you see that drawing of heart surgery?
Quote from: Molly on September 20, 2010, 04:48:37 PM
What an amazing animal! God did some very special engineering from the git-go! None of this "grocery store" new and improved nonsense. He got it entirely right the first time.
(From Moody Press)
If you ever doubted that God exists, Meet the Very Technical, Highly Engineered Dromedary Camel.
When I'm hungry, I'll eat almost anything-A leather bridle, a piece of rope, my master's tent, Or a pair of shoes.
My mouth is so tough a thorny cactus doesn't bother it. I love to chow down grass and other plants That grow here on the Arabian desert.
I'm a dromedary camel, the one-hump kind That lives on hot deserts in the Middle East.
My hump, all eighty pounds of it, Is filled with fat-my body fuel-not water as some people believe. My Mighty Maker gave it to me because He knew I wouldn't always be able to find food As I travel across the hot sands. When I don't find any chow, my body automatically Takes fat from the hump, feeds my system, And keeps me going strong. This is my emergency food supply.
If I can't find any plants to munch, my body uses up my hump. When the hump gets smaller, it starts to tip to one side. But when I get to a nice oasis and begin to eat again, My hump soon builds back to normal.
I've been known to drink twenty-seven gallons of water in ten minutes. My Master Designer made me in such a fantastic way that In a matter of minutes all the water I've swallowed Travels to the billions of microscopic cells that make up my flesh.
Naturally, the water I swallow first goes into my stomach. There thirsty blood vessels absorb and carry it to every part of my body. Scientists have tested my stomach and found it empty Ten minutes after I've drunk twenty gallons.
In an eight hour day I can carry a four hundred pound load A hundred miles across a hot, dry desert And not stop once for a drink or something to eat. In fact, I've been known to go eight days without a drink, But then I look a wreck. I lose 227 pounds, my ribs show through my skin, And I look terribly skinny. But I feel great! I look thin because the billions of cells lose their water. They're no longer fat. They're flat.
Normally my blood contains 94 percent water, just like yours. But when I can't find any water to drink, The heat of the sun gradually robs a little water out of my blood. Scientists have found that my blood can lose up to 40 percent of its water, and I'm still healthy.
Doctor's say human blood has to stay very close to 94 percent water. If you lose 5 percent of it, you can't see anymore; 10 percent, you can't Hear and you go insane; 12 percent, your blood is as thick as molasses And your heart can't pump the thick stuff. It stops, and you're dead.
But that's not true with me. Why? Scientists say my blood is different. My red cells are elongated. Yours are round. Maybe that's what makes the difference.
This proves I'm designed for the desert, Or the desert is designed for me. Did you ever hear of a design without a Designer?
After I find a water hole, I'll drink for about ten minutes And my skinny body starts to change almost immediately. In that short time my body fills out nicely, I don't look skinny anymore, And I gain back the 227 pounds I lost.
Even though I lose a lot of water on the desert, My body conserves it too. Way in the beginning when my intelligent Engineer made me, He gave me a specially designed nose that saves water. When I exhale, I don't lose much. My nose traps that warm, moist air from my lungs And absorbs it in my nasal membranes.
Tiny blood vessels in those membranes take that back into my blood. How's that for a recycling system? Pretty cool, isn't it. It works because my nose is cool. My cool nose changes that warm moisture in the air From my lungs into water.
But how does my nose get cool? I breath in hot dry desert air, And it goes through my wet nasal passages. This produces a cooling effect, and my nose stays as much as 18 degrees cooler than the rest of my body.
I love to travel the beautiful sand dunes. It's really quite easy, because My Creator gave me specially engineered sand shoes for feet. My hooves are wide, and they get even wider when I step on them. Each foot has two long, bony toes with tough, leathery skin between my soles, are a little like webbed feet.
They won't let me sink into the soft, drifting sand. This is good, because often my master wants me to carry him one hundred miles across the desert in just one day. (I troop about ten miles per hour.)
Sometimes a big windstorm comes out of nowhere, bringing flying sand with it. My Master Designer put special muscles in my nostrils that close the openings, keeping sand out of my nose but still allowing me enough air to breathe.
My eyelashes arch down over my eyes like screens, keeping the sand and sun out but still letting me see clearly. If a grain of sand slips through and gets in my eye, the Creator took care of that too. He gave me an inner eyelid that automatically wipes the sand off my eyeball just like a windshield wiper.
Some people think I'm conceited because I always walk around with my head held high and my nose in the air.
But that's just because of the way I'm made. My eyebrows are so thick and bushy I have to hold my head high to peek out from underneath them. I'm glad I have them though. They shade my eyes from the bright sun.
Desert people depend on me for many things. Not only am I their best form of transportation, but I'm also their grocery store. Mrs. Camel gives very rich milk that people make into butter and cheese. I shed my thick fur coat once a year, and that can be woven into cloth. A few young camels are used for beef, but I don't like to talk about that.
For a long time we camels have been called the "ships of the desert" because of the way we sway from side to side when we trot. Some of our riders get seasick.
I sway from side to side because of the way my legs work. Both legs on one side move forward at the same time, elevating that side. My "left, right left, right" motion makes my rider feel like he is in a rocking chair going sideways.
When I was six months old, special knee pads started to grow on my front legs. The intelligent Creator knew I had to have them. They help me lower my 1000 pounds to the ground.
If I didn't have them, my knees would soon become sore and infected, and I could never lie down. I'd die of exhaustion.
By the way, I don't get thick knee pads because I fall on my knees. I fall on my knees because I already have these tough pads. Someone very great thought of me and knew I needed them. He designed them into my genes.
It's real difficult for me to understand how some people say I evolved into what I now am. I'm very technical, highly engineered dromedary camel. Things like me don't just happen.
They're planned on a drawing board by Someone very brilliant, Someone very logical.
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/religion/
Loved that molly :bigGrin: :thumbsup: I have new respect for the camel, if any of us find ourselves on a desert pilgrim, remember to choose a smelly camel over the horse.
:cloud9: Amen, good one, Molly....
Just don't let him get his nose in the tent.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 20, 2010, 08:46:59 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 20, 2010, 12:39:41 AM
I've read most of the article on dinosaurs and it's really convincing that men may have lived with dinausaurs.
When you see a 4000 years old sculpture of a perfect patenthosor(whatever) it makes you wonder.
Several choices:
a] Fake.
b] Man lived wth dino.
c] Old cultures had archelogy too.
d] Today's archeologists copied ancient ideas
Job 40:15 "
Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox. 16 "Behold now,
his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly. 17 "He bends
his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18 "His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.
Indeed, now seek out a hippopotamus or elephant with a tail like a cedar?
Paul
Commonly, whatever clip (except big commercial interests like MGM or Ford or a big name singer,) it takes 2, 3, or more times as long to make internet videos download so I can see them. Most now-a-days will only give me a still visual here and there if I click on it, no streaming video.
The epic of "Grendl," or was it in "Beowolf" that the "dragon" Grendl and sisters were slain? Anyway, the description is of a specific kind of dinosaur. I just don't remember which one. T-Rex?
In ancient China (1,000 B.C.?) when there was a parade before the Emperor of his court officials, warriors, and the like, there was an office of "Keeper of the Dragon" that marched in the parade with his dragon.
Contemporary reports, including from scientific expeditions in certain areas of the world, Africa if I remember, are of a smaller stegosaurus and a flying reptile with a body the size of a turkey and leathery wings 10 to 14 feet (?) that was bioluminescent on its underside. That could be at least some of the explanation for their "breathing fire."
The Egyptian, Greeks and Romans didn't fear anything. They would have whorshipped them
wings
I disagree I think these cultures are built upon fear. The rulers, rule with fear, using cruelty to subject the masses and the rulers lived in fear of the gods. The soldiers lived in fear of their captains and so on.
Unicorns also have a place in ancient writings, drawings and paintings.
Job 39:
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 28, 2010, 07:38:05 AM
Job 39:
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Exactly, so do you believe the Bible was speaking about literal unicorns? Do you believe there was a horned creature that kinda looked like a horse which had magical powers? What about mermaids? Big Foot?
There's quite a wide variety of interpretation/translations on the unicorn, huh? I've been looking at it. Young's actually translates unicorn in Ps. 29:6 as 'son of Reems', or some such thing. I sure don't know what that means. :umnick:
Gots 'ta look some more. :)
I read about it too.
The reem is thought to be a large wild ox but it's all conjecture.
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 07:56:14 AM
There's quite a wide variety of interpretation/translations on the unicorn, huh? I've been looking at it. Young's actually translates unicorn in Ps. 29:6 as 'son of Reems', or some such thing. I sure don't know what that means. :umnick:
Gots 'ta look some more. :)
I believe it's entirely possible that there was a horned creature that looked kinda like a horse...shoot why not. But, ancient societies attributed magical powers to unicorns as well. Dragons, mermaids etc are imo myths...mythological creatures. Unless we have fossil record of these creatures existence then why bring it into a scientific conversation? Just because ancient cultures wrote about, painted etc creatures doesn't mean they existed. Did you ever draw creatures that didn't exist when you were a child? I know I did.
Actually, it's 'son of Reems'. Anybody know what that means? I'm not finding anything. Did find this on unicorns in Ps. 29:6;
NASB 6 He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, And Sirion like a young wild ox.
KJV 6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
ASV 6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild-ox.
DRB 6 And shall reduce them to pieces, as a calf of Libanus, and as the beloved son of unicorns.
YLT 6 And He causeth them to skip as a calf, Lebanon and Sirion as a son of Reems,
Yeah, I certainly don't believe it had super powers. The word unicorn is supposedly used like 6(?) times in the KJV...interesting. I know it's hard to believe, but there are multiple opinions on it. :laughhand: Some argue it was was really a now-extinct horse-like creature with a long horn attached only in the skin, while others say ox, etc., and then there the 'son of Reems'...
Isaiah 13:
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
What translation are you using, David? It's interesting that whatever translation it is, it has satyrs in it. I'd be curious about how some other things are translated in it. I didn't know what a satyr was, so looked it up; wiki says,
In Greek mythology, satyrs (Ancient Greek: Σάτυροι, Satyroi) are a troop of male companions of Pan and Dionysus — "satyresses" were a late invention of poets — that roamed the woods and mountains. In mythology they are often associated with pipe playing.
Maybe there's some other definition. :dontknow: I'll look.
Wow, KJV, English Revised, Webster and maybe another translation uses satyr. This really astounds me, honestly, since this is supposedly what a satyr is;
"THE SATYROI were rustic fertility Daimones (Spirits) of the wilderness and countryside. They were close companions of the gods Dionysos, Rheia, Gaia, Hermes and Hephaistos; and mated with the tribes of Nymphai in the mountain wilds."
Other translations are evil spirits, wild goats, and shaggy goats. The ones that use satyr really catch my attention. What else are they using...
English Standard Version (©2001)
But wild animals will lie down there, and their houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will dwell, and there wild goats will dance.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But desert creatures will lie down there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there.
King James Bible
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
American King James Version
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
American Standard Version
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell there, and wild goats shall dance there.
Bible in Basic English
But the beasts of the waste land will have their holes there; and the houses will be full of crying jackals, and ostriches will have their place there, and evil spirits will be dancing there.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But wild beasts shall rest there, and their houses shall be filled with serpents, and ostriches shall dwell there, and the hairy ones shall dance there:
English Revised Version
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
Webster's Bible Translation
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
World English Bible
But wild animals of the desert will lie there, and their houses will be full of jackals. Ostriches will dwell there, and wild goats will frolic there.
Young's Literal Translation
And Ziim have lain down there, And full have been their houses of howlings, And dwelt there have daughters of an ostrich, And goats do skip there.
Very interesting, the use of such terms in translation. It makes me wonder about Hades too, as that's actually described as a mythological holding place. I wonder where that actually fits in an accurate translation of the words of God...Oh well, that's another topic.
No Jab I think you are onto something. Older translation seem to have terminology that comes from greek mythology. Interesting to say the least. This might make a great subject all in its own. Maybe a break from this post would be in order?
Lem'me think about it. We'd have to be very careful to not cast doubt on the scriptures themselves, but really focus on the translational aspects. Most could do that, it's just been such a sensitive subject around here I don't want to open any old closets and encourage any skeletons to pop out. :laughing7:
I've had a bit on my mind. Let me clear my head and go from there, maybe think about how to set it up, how it should be moderated, etc? :thumbsup:
Douay-Rheims Bible
But wild beasts shall rest there, and their houses shall be filled with serpents, and ostriches shall dwell there, and the hairy ones shall dance there:
:laughing7:
Funny alright. Actually, many humans fit that description. :icon_rr: :dsunny:
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 08:45:20 AM
Lem'me think about it. We'd have to be very careful to not cast doubt on the scriptures themselves, but really focus on the translational aspects. Most could do that, it's just been such a sensitive subject around here I don't want to open any old closets and encourage any skeletons to pop out. :laughing7:
I've had a bit on my mind. Let me clear my head and go from there, maybe think about how to set it up, how it should be moderated, etc? :thumbsup:
Jab you certainly know best in these situations. I don't think it casts doubt on scripture but it does bring up some interesting translational issues with some of the older translations. I don't think any of us would be here if we totally 100% agreed with the KJV translations.
Good point, and I agree, translational issues are an issue, for sure. I don't want to belabour it too much, but there's a significant past history of trashing and disrespecting the scriptures - doubting their inspiration, outright refuting them, etc...so if I seem leary sometimes, well, I am. :wink:
Getting to the things that are honest, pure, and of a good report; the current membership is a great group of believers. Sure, we have things to work through now and again, but it's NOWHERE close to some things from 2-3 years ago. :2thumbs:
No one can take credit. It's only God empowering and enabling that's given us the gift of such a good place to gather. Only by His grace. God bless.
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 09:07:28 AM
Good point, and I agree, translational issues are an issue, for sure. I don't want to belabour it too much, but there's a significant past history of trashing and disrespecting the scriptures - doubting their inspiration, outright refuting them, etc...so if I seem leary sometimes, well, I am. :wink:
Getting to the things that are honest, pure, and of a good report; the current membership is a great group of believers. Sure, we have things to work through now and again, but it's NOWHERE close to some things from 2-3 years ago. :2thumbs:
No one can take credit. It's only God empowering and enabling that's given us the gift of such a good place to gather. Only by His grace. God bless.
Then I understand your hesitancy. I do not doubt the scriptures are 100% inspired in the original translations. For me, that is the foundation and I have little to discuss with someone who believes otherwise.
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 09:27:26 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 09:07:28 AM
Good point, and I agree, translational issues are an issue, for sure. I don't want to belabour it too much, but there's a significant past history of trashing and disrespecting the scriptures - doubting their inspiration, outright refuting them, etc...so if I seem leary sometimes, well, I am. :wink:
Getting to the things that are honest, pure, and of a good report; the current membership is a great group of believers. Sure, we have things to work through now and again, but it's NOWHERE close to some things from 2-3 years ago. :2thumbs:
No one can take credit. It's only God empowering and enabling that's given us the gift of such a good place to gather. Only by His grace. God bless.
Then I understand your hesitancy. I do not doubt the scriptures are 100% inspired in the original translations. For me, that is the foundation and I have little to discuss with someone who believes otherwise.
Exactly. Too many slippery slopes and vain imaginations of the foolish human mind can, and do, come into play. (Thus the "Have You Looked Around Lately" thread.)
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 28, 2010, 08:07:00 AM
Isaiah 13:
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
שׂער / שׂעיר
śâ‛ı̂yr / śâ‛ir
BDB Definition:
1) hairy (adjective)
2) he-goat, buck (noun masculine)
2a) as sacrificial animal
2b) satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mat 8:30-32)
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 08:04:59 AM
Actually, it's 'son of Reems'. Anybody know what that means? I'm not finding anything. Did find this on unicorns in Ps. 29:6;1) probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.
1) probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.
A masculine noun indicating a wild ox. It refers to a large animal with horns that are powerful offensive as well as defensive weapons (Num 23:22; Num 24:8; Psa 22:21 [22]).
YLT 22 God is bringing them out from Egypt, As the swiftness of a Reem is to him;
EBR 22 GOD having brought them forth out of Egypt, The very horns of the buffalo, are his:
YLT 4 In whose hand are the deep places of earth, And the strong places of hills are His.
Hills - תּועפה
tô‛âphâh
BDB Definition:
1) eminence, lofty horns, summit
1a) eminence (of towering horns, peaks, silver)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from H3286
Same Word by TWOT Number: 886a
Seems the translator were very confused/divided
Uni to me means one. An ox/buffalo has 2 horns. A rhino is one of the few with just one horn.
Suggestion:
In whose hand are the deep places of earth, And the strong places of hills are His.
When I look up the actual word meanings I can retranslate the verse as:
In whose hand are the deep places of earth, And the eminence of hills are His.
Deep places has the meaning of searching. (deep thoughts?)
In whose hand are the searches of earth, And the eminence of hills are His.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Unless it means something like "search for His eminence/majestity"
Still no answer for the unicorn translation. But most seem to use bull/buffalo/ox. Those animals are similar.
But the word eminence seems to fit nicely in psa 22:22
God is bringing them out from Egypt, As the eminence of a Reem is to him;
While you were all asleep I found this:
UNICORNS
Is the word "unicorn" an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 "Jerusalem, and 'it shall be lifted up' and inhabited in her place." This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord's prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns." There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.
This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as "wild ox". The wild ox is nothing more than a "wild guess" and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God's question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a 'Yeah, I can do that.'
Those who criticize the KJB's unicorns try to muster a group of "scholars" who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - "The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct." W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) "the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct." Charles Spurgeon wrote "The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct." William Houghon "we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended."
Eastons' Bible dictionary says: "The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct."
All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby's, Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as "buffalo", while the Douay Rheims of 1610 read "unicorn" (Deut. 33:17) but the revised Douay-Rheims of 1821 and 1950 have "rhinoceros" (Deut. 33:17) but "unicorn" in some of the other verses. Young's 'literal' translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads "the rheem", while the Ferrar Fenton translation done in 1910 had "bulls". Let's see now...unicorns, buffaloes, rhinoceros, rheem and bulls. Yep, all pretty much the same things, right? ;-) Whenever you hear the phrase "All scholars agree" you should know right away that the guy has no idea what he is talking about.
I recently discovered something that I think is very interesting of quite enlightening about how modern scholars are changing the definitions that words once had. I have in my study two different printings of the well known Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. One is from 1887 and the other one is from 1976, which was a reprint of the 9th edition of 1940. The more modern Liddell and Scott defines the word monokeros as "a wild ox". However the 1887 edition gives only one definition of the word - A UNICORN!!!. Now, it should be obvious that Liddell and Scott themselves were not alive in 1976 so that they could suddenly change their minds about what this word meant. So who changed the definition of this word for future generations?
Using the Correct Definition
Unicorn means literally, "one - horned"; it was a one horned animal. If you look in Websters' 1828 Dictionary of the English Language for the definitions of these two words - unicorn and rhinocerous - here is what you find.
unicorn
U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.
3. A fowl.
fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar.
Notice there is no mention of a mythical horse like creature.
rhinoceros
RHINOC'EROS, n. [L. rhinoceros; Gr. nose-horn.]
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, as a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"The Reem, most probably denotes the Rhinoceros, so called from the horn on its nose. In size he is only exceeded by the elephant; and in strength and power inferior to none. He is at least twelve feet in length, from the snout to the tail; six or seven feet in height; and the circumference of the body is nearly equal to his length. He is particularly distinguished from all other animals by the remarkable and offensive weapon he carries on his nose; which is very hard horn, solid throughout, directed forward."
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
"Israel is not as they were at the Exodus, a horde of poor, feeble, spiritless people, but powerful and invincible as a Reem - that is, a Rhinoceros."
Here is a very interesting 7 minute video showing the direct relationship between the words unicorn and rhinocerous and why the King James Bible uses the word unicorn to refer to this animal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzhThugPfY8
The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating this specific Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale's Bible 1535, Taverner's Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition "unicornio", the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, the French Martin 1744 "licornes", Luther's German 1545 (Einhorn) and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 "einhornshomer", the Russian Synodal Translation 1876, the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament "monokeros"(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby's translation of 1870, Brenton Translation 1851, English Jubilee Bible 2000, The Word of JAH 1993, the 21st Century King James Version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Daniel Webster's translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa's 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Pecrapta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.
The Modern Greek Bible (totally different from the so called Greek Septuagint) has the word monokeros in these same Old Testament passages, and if you look at a Modern Greek dictionary, the word simply means a UNICORN! Here is an online Greek dictionary with both Greek and English. http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon Just type in the word monokeros for Greek to English, or on the other side (English to Greek) type in the word unicorn. There you will clearly see that the way to say unicorn is this same Greek word, and the Modern Greek Bible has unicorns in these same Old Testament passages.
Here is what the Modern Greek translation looks like in Job 39:9-10 where the unicorn is mentioned twice - Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicron with his band in the furrow?
Job 39:9 Θελει ευχαριστηθη ο μονοκερως να σε δουλευη, η θελει διανυκτερευσει εν τη φατνη σου;
Job 39:10. Δυνασαι να δεσης τον μονοκερων με τον δεσμον αυτου προς αροτριασιν;
The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.
Some King James Bible critics hypocritically tell us that the KJB translators followed the so called Greek Septuagint (LXX) when they translated the word as "unicorn". It is both hypocritical and false. Hypocritical because all modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV frequently reject the clear Hebrew readings and follow one of the various LXX readings, and false because in Deut. 33:17 where the KJB and others rightly have the plural "unicorns" the KJB margin says: "HEBREW - an unicorn". Notice that it does NOT say "LXX - an unicorn".
One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of "wild ox", besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. 'But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN." The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: "You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX." Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.
Psalm 92:10 Wycliffe 1395 - And myn horn schal be reisid as an vnicorn; and myn eelde in plenteuouse merci.
Bishop's Bible 1568 - But my horne shalbe exalted lyke the horne of an vnicorne: for I am annoynted with excellent oyle.
Coverdale 1535 - But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Vnicorne, & shal be anoynted with fresh oyle.
Geneva Bible 1599 - But thou shalt exalt mine horne, like the vnicornes, and I shalbe anoynted with fresh oyle.
Third Millenium Bible 1998 - But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn; I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his HORNS are like the HORNS OF UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth." The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural "unicorns" not only by the KJB but also by Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Pecrapta - " his horns are like the horns of unicorns", Websters Bible 1833, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 21st Century KJV 1994. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are showing their selective use of the Hebrew language.
All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 "nachash" & "aqrab" (singular nouns) are translated by all as "serpents & scorpions", in Deut. 1:19, 20 "har" is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 "bahar" and "har" as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places "ish" as "men"; Dt. 3:3 "sarid" as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 "ebed" slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 "dowr" generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 "rimmown" as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 "layil" as "nights" in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 "gare" as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.
So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn't know what he is talking about. Because of the "horns" plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.
The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re'em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy. As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert. Go to the link (it is still active as of Feb. 2010) and scroll down to Discussion #115 where he talks about the Lion and the Unicorn.
http://britam.org/proof3.html
Rabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). "It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn."
The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don't think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the "wild ox" of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.
A Bible believing Christian at one of the online Christian forums had this to say: "In every case the unicorn is mentioned in the bible it is referring to a spiritual animal. Psalm 22:21 is one example. Whatever a unicorn was it didn't matter because the word is used symbolically in scripture. It pertains to something in the spiritual realm. In 1611 England the unicorn was well known to be a symbolic mythical creature representative of strength and power. The translators knew this therefore the word fit for what the text demanded. Perhaps a unicorn is some kind of animal in heaven."
One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.
In the original 1611 edition of the KJB, the editors placed "or Rhinoceros" in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: "And the unicorns shall come down with them." It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.
Jerome in the 4th century translated the Hebrew word Reem as Rhinocerotis five times and Unicornis four times. Jerome studied Hebrew under the Jews before he began his translation of the OT, thus it is from the Jews directly that Jerome derived his definitions.
The Unicorn was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their "wild oxen" and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.
Will Kinney
Very interesting stuff. Good job.
There is more but it requires a bit of study from the reader.
I have Oxford dictionary the also gives little timelines of and etymology of words. Plus quotes from works from that time.
My thought is we should only look at (pre) 1611 defenitions because that's when the KJV was written.
Click the link below to see the page from Oxford. Its formatting is to complex to copy and paste on this forum.
Oxford English Dictionary (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/UNI.HTM)
Question: What does the Talmud tell us about unicorns?
Answer: Thank you for your excellent question. There are several references in the Talmud and other Torah literature that may be interpreted as unicorns.
The Talmud in Zevachim 113b mentions an animal called "Orzila" in Aramaic, which is considered the same as the great horned mammal known as "Re'em" in many places in the Bible (Job 39:9-12; Ps. 22:21, 29:6; Num. 23:22, 24:8; Deut. 33:17, et al). The Talmud says that this animal was too large to fit into Noah's ark, but survived the Flood by grasping onto the ark with it's horn. This animal is described as a wild kosher animal.
The Talmud in Chullin 60a tells us that Adam sacrificed a one-horned mammal. If it was used as a sacrifice, it was most likely a domesticated kosher animal.
The Talmud in Chullin 59b mentions a mammal called a "Keres" which has one horn and is kosher to eat.
The Talmud in Shabbos 28b describes the "tachash" mentioned in the Bible (Exodus 26:14 et al) as an animal used for its skins, particularly to make the curtains of the Tabernacle, as a colorful unicorn that only appeared at that location in the desert for Moses to use for the Tabernacle, and afterward became extinct in that location. It is also assumed to be a kosher mammal.
There are also references in the Kabbalah to unicorn like animals living under the earth. This can be found in the Zohar Parshas Bereishis and in the Sefer Chesed L'Avraham concerning the "Sod Sheva HaAratzos" – "The Secret of the Seven Lands".
All the best,
Rabbi Kolakowski
Richmond, VA
If the blue part is correct then this may be of some use:
"According to these, anything that chews the cud and has a cloven hoof would be ritually clean.
It would for example a Unicorn can't be type of horse because a horse has no split hoof.
The Indian Rhino's scientific name is: Rhinoceros unicornis.
Couldn't it be that unicorn is a classification instead of an animal.
Just like a biped isn't a single animal but a classification/group.
(http://www.zootorah.com/VirtualTour/Oryx%20drawing.jpg)Is the Arabian oryx our 2 horned unicorn....?
QuoteA problem exists with the Scriptural source for the unicorn. Although the Septuagint defines the re'em as an animal with a single horn, Scripture itself states that it possesses more than one horn:
QuoteThe horns of aurochsen were extremely strong. It would therefore seem preferable to identify the re'em as the Arabian oryx.
Read more (http://www.zootorah.com/VirtualTour/oryx.html)
Rhino's never lived in Biblical lands. The oryx did......
Now I'm gonna find an article that proves the unicorn has 7 or 10 horns :laughing7:
WW:While you were all asleep I found this:
Pfft...sleep is for the weak. :bigGrin:
Nice finds!
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 01:32:02 PM
WW:While you were all asleep I found this:
Pfft...sleep is for the weak. :bigGrin:
Hi NightCrawler :winkgrin:
QuoteNice finds!
But not very conclusive. But right now Oryx is high on my list.
H7214
רם רים ראים ראם
re'êm re'êym rêym rêm
reh-ame', reh-ame', rame, rame
From H7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): - unicorn.
H7213
ראם
râ'am
raw-am'
A primitive root; to rise: - be lifted up.
Job 39:9 Will the Wild–Ox be pleased to be thy servant? or lodge for the night by thy crib?(Rotherham and ASV)
Are you saying all Chistmas paintings are wrong and we need to replace the ox with an unicorn? :winkgrin:
Seriously the ox (and similar animals) are in several translations.
If Job really points toward the stable/cave of baby Jesus we have the name of the 'unicorn' in both Hebrew and Greek. Then ox seems a good choice. An ox is a farm animal that belongs in stables/inhabited area's. The oryx I don't know but it looks an animal that's useless for farming and only exists/existed in the wild....?
It is much disputed among the learned, but is not needful to be known by others, whether there be or ever was such a creature as we call the unicorn; or whether this reem, which is the Hebrew name of it, be the rhinoceros, as some would have it; or a certain kind of wild goat, called oryx, which is very tall, and strong, and untractable; or one of that kind of wild oxen or bulls called uri; which may seem most probable, both from the description of this creature here and elsewhere in Scripture, which exactly agrees with its description given by other authors; and from the description of his work in this place, which must in all reason be agreeable to creatures of that general kind; and from the conjunction of this creature with bullocks in Scripture, Deu 33:17; and especially Isa 34:6,7, where having put lambs, and goats, and rams together, Job 39:6, as creatures of the same or very like sort, he mentions bullocks, and bulls, and reems, Job 39:7, as belonging to the same general sort of creatures. But this I shall not positively determine here. He that would know more, may see what the reverend and learned Mr. Caryl hath upon this text out of Boetius and others, and my Latin Synopsis on Num 23:22.
One suggestion is that the unicorn is based on the extinct animal Elasmotherium, a huge Eurasian rhinoceros native to the steppes, south of the range of the woolly rhinoceros of Ice Age Europe. Elasmotherium looked little like a horse, but it had a large single horn in its forehead. It became extinct about the same time as the rest of the glacial age megafauna.[19] Lived 3,600,000—126,000 year ago.
However, according to the Nordisk familjebok (Nordic Familybook) and science writer Willy Ley the animal may have survived long enough to be remembered in the legends of the Evenk people of Russia as a huge black bull with a single horn in the forehead.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Elasm062.jpg/220px-Elasm062.jpg)
The connection that is sometimes made with a single-horned goat derives from the vision of Daniel:
And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. (Daniel 8:5)
The oryx is an antelope with two long, thin horns projecting from its forehead. Some have suggested that seen from the side and from a distance, the oryx looks something like a horse with a single horn (although the 'horn' projects backward, not forward as in the classic unicorn). Conceivably, travellers in Arabia could have derived the tale of the unicorn from these animals. However, classical authors seem to distinguish clearly between oryxes and unicorns. The Peregrinatio in terram sanctam, published in 1486, was the first printed illustrated travel-book, describing a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and thence to Egypt by way of Mount Sinai. It featured many large woodcuts by Erhard Reuwich, who went on the trip, mostly detailed and accurate views of cities. The book also contained pictures of animals seen on the journey, including a crocodile, camel, and unicorn—presumably an oryx, which they could easily have seen on their route.
The oryx looks like a gazelle. Many gazelles lived in the area of Sodom.
צביּם / צביּים / צבאים
tsebô'ı̂ym / tsebı̂yı̂ym / tsebı̂yim
BDB Definition:
Zeboim or Zeboiim = "gazelles"
1) one of the 5 cities in the plain which included Sodom and Gomorrah
Part of Speech: noun proper locative
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: plural of H6643
י
tsebı̂y
BDB Definition:
1) beauty, glory, honour
1a) beauty, decoration
1b) honour
2) roebuck, gazelle
2a) perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 01:32:02 PM
WW:While you were all asleep I found this:
Pfft...sleep is for the weak. :bigGrin:
Nice finds!
Is that what you tell your patients suffering from insomnia :grin:
Quote from: thinktank on September 28, 2010, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 01:32:02 PM
WW:While you were all asleep I found this:
Pfft...sleep is for the weak. :bigGrin:
Nice finds!
Is that what you tell your patients suffering from insomnia :grin:
Yep...I'm like man up, sleep is for the weak. :bigGrin:
Kidding...I had a not so great shift last night...up most of the night hence my early morning posting.
I do not sleep well these days, looks like my spirit is well awake but my body's exhausted.
Too much to learn, too much to be blessed by, ...can't...sleep...more...Bible...
:laughing7:
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 29, 2010, 02:55:55 AM
I do not sleep well these days, looks like my spirit is well awake but my body's exhausted.
Too much to learn, too much to be blessed by, ...can't...sleep...more...Bible...
:laughing7:
Your suffering from a rare condition called "bible addiction"
Well, Christ "is" Sabbath Rest. And like one who sleeps, we choose, we "cause" our bodies to be silent, to lay down and we "wait" for sleep to come to us. Perhaps it is the same with entering into the spiritual realm of things. Rather than try to enter into his truths through much studying of laboring minds, maybe if we just "wait upon the Lord" and let him come "renew our strength" then we can be raptured up . . .be resurrected up with wings as eagles and simply ride on the currents of is invisible truths. It all begins with putting our minds to rest and let rest come to us.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP2nz6PG8KM&feature=related
NC State scientist finds soft tissue in T. rex bones
the T. rex sample displayed the same appearance as the blood and bone cells from the ostrich sample.
Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.
Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years.
http://thefirstsixdays.com/EvidenceofMenandDinosaursArticles.htm
Evidence of 6 literal days. (videos)
http://thefirstsixdays.com/EvidenceConfirmingLiteralSixDays.htm
:cloud9: How about that......so the scientists that said 24 years ago that they had found an unexpected twist to the carbon dating (and probably disappeared from grants and mainstream shortly thereafter), might have been right after all......who knew? :icon_jokercolor: :winkgrin:
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2010, 01:40:58 AM
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
Plenty of intelligence, but not enough humbleness
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2010, 01:40:58 AM
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
:cloud9: Good point, Molly.... :laughing7: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Cardinal on September 30, 2010, 04:36:15 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2010, 01:40:58 AM
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
:cloud9: Good point, Molly.... :laughing7: :thumbsup:
Mine was better :winkgrin:
Quote from: thinktank on October 03, 2010, 02:21:54 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on September 30, 2010, 04:36:15 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2010, 01:40:58 AM
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
:cloud9: Good point, Molly.... :laughing7: :thumbsup:
Mine was better :winkgrin:
A very humble answer TT :pointlaugh:
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 03, 2010, 09:49:26 AM
Quote from: thinktank on October 03, 2010, 02:21:54 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on September 30, 2010, 04:36:15 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2010, 01:40:58 AM
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
:cloud9: Good point, Molly.... :laughing7: :thumbsup:
Mine was better :winkgrin:
A very humble answer TT :pointlaugh:
SOMEONE has to speak the truth mr wings, so take that finger of yours and cast it down before I grab it and stick it in your mouth :laughing7: potentially :secret: but now I will leave you in peace, good day.
Quote from: thinktank on September 30, 2010, 01:50:43 AMPlenty of intelligence, but not enough humbleness
:footmouth:
from my post here 1/21/08:
Sir Frederick Hoyle in the 80's pointed out that for just one Ameoba protein to assemble spontaneously would be 1 chance in 1040,000 which would simialr to winning the lottery every week fo 1,000 years.
For one DNA molecule to assemble accidentally is 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That is like winning the lottery each day for 27,000 years. What's more, it takes many such molecules to produce a viable lifeform.
If the protein/DNA spontaniously assembles then it's very likely it assembles again into something that won't survive.
Each assembly attempt requires 'food'. Earth can't support that.
Survival of the fittest. In nature a species need to be strong or fast or huge or have enormous amounts of offspring to survive. A three legged antilope's life ends at the first lion attack.
The food chain, which depends on climate, has to be there from day one. Meaning many animals/plants need to be randomly assembles at the same time.
Watch a documentary on the mating season in the animal kingdom. Most species are extremely picky. In-between animals have (almost) zero chance to mate. Meaning the eveolution from rabbit to lion ends way before the rabbit can roar :laughing7:
The supposed change from asexual to sexual reproduction is one of the evolutionist's worse unsolvable nightmares. I've never encountered even an attempted explanation.
There are many more unsolved mysteries.
For example an eyeball is extremely complex. It not only has to work, be wired to the brain instead of knees, but the brain also needs to be able to process the info of the eye.
To make it worse there is lots of devolution. Some prehistoric birds had better eyeview than for example an eagle.
Or T-Rex. Could see thing at 4 mile distance. Smell 100x better than that of a bloodhound. And the most weird, I think) it had stereoscopic smell. Material of it's teeth was stronger than anything seen today. All a predator could wish for. Must be pure random luck. Yeah they got wiped out so that's why we no longer see predators with such design. But that's the other problem. Because most life got wiped out there was reset of evolution. No more smart lizards but only dumb mice and snails. That greatly shortens the time for evolution of today's species. That just like the dino's suddenly were there.
Quote from: reFORMer on October 04, 2010, 09:33:57 AM
The supposed change from asexual to sexual reproduction is one of the evolutionist's worse unsolvable nightmares. I've never encountered even an attempted explanation.
YLTGenesis 220 And the man calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; and to man hath not been found an helper--as his counterpart.
21 And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead.
God put him to that perception of the living beings and his describing them to give rise in Adam the awareness of what it was he was missing. "Deep calleth unto deep..."
The theory of evolution is patently ridiculous, as is most of what we know as 'science' for the last 100 years. It's not even worth discussing it.
It's what we don't know about that is important, because science didn't stop 100 years ago, it just went underground into private and secret hands.
Quote from: Molly on October 07, 2010, 08:36:15 AM
It's what we don't know about that is important, because science didn't stop 100 years ago, it just went underground into private and secret hands.
Would you talk about this some more Molly? Maybe even in "bullet" format, some things you've gleaned that might lead to some specific further research if one so desired?
Thanks, James.
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch,
you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan
Reminds me of the old story about a scientist [mankind] challenging God to see who could make the better human being. The scientist scooped up some dirt, and God said, "hold on there. Use your own dirt".
...in Him all things hold together. Eph. 1:17
Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made. Jn. 1:3
Amen.
Who owns life? Please take the time to read this article of a real life David fighting Goliath. And, see a glimpse of the future if we all do nothing.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/whoOwnsLifeNotMonsanto.php
Quote from: reFORMer on October 07, 2010, 07:56:02 AM
God put him to that perception of the living beings and his describing them to give rise in Adam the awareness of what it was he was missing. "Deep calleth unto deep..."
Could it had been more than just a description?
Could he had been giving them their nature with each name?
Quote from: jabcat on October 07, 2010, 11:42:29 AM
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch,
you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan
Reminds me of the old story about a scientist [mankind] challenging God to see who could make the better human being. The scientist scooped up some dirt, and God said, "hold on there. Use your own dirt".
...in Him all things hold together. Eph. 1:17
Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made. Jn. 1:3
Amen.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 07, 2010, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: reFORMer on October 07, 2010, 07:56:02 AM
God put him to that perception of the living beings and his describing them to give rise in Adam the awareness of what it was he was missing. "Deep calleth unto deep..."
Could it had been more than just a description?
Could he had been giving them their nature with each name?
Yes and Yes. My isnt the Lord God Great.
:cloud9: Amen Beloved, yes he was.....out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.....
@reFORMer......good point!
A winged monster, resembling a huge alligator with an extremely elongated tail and an immense pair of wings, was found on the desert between the Whetstone and Huachuca mountains last Sunday by two ranchers who were returning home from the Huachucas.
The creature was evidently greatly exhausted by a long flight and when discovered was able to fly but a short distance at a time.
After the first shock of wild amazement as it passed the two men, who were on horseback and armed with Winchester rifles , regained sufficient courage to pursue the monster and after an exciting chase of several miles succeeded in getting near enough to open fire with their rifles and wounding it.
The creature then turned on the men but owing to its exhausted condition they were able to keep out of its way and after a few well directed shots the monster partly rolled over and remained motionless.
The men cautiously approached, their horses snorting in terror and found that the monster was dead. They then proceeded to make an examination and found that it measured about ninety two feet in length and the greatest diameter was about fifty inches.
The monster had only two feet, these being situated a short distance from where the wings were joined to the body. The head, as near as they could judge was about eight feet long, the jaws being thickly set with strong, sharp teeth.
It's eyes were as large as a dinner plate and protruded halfway from the head. They had some difficulty in measuring the wings as they were partly folded under the body, but finally got one straightened out sufficiently to obtain a measurement of seventy eight –feet, making the total length from tip to tip about 160 feet.
The wings were composed of a thick and nearly transparent membrane and were devoid of feathers or hair, as was the entire body. The skin of the body was comparatively smooth and easily penetrated by a bullet.
The men cut off a small portion of the tip of one wing and took it home with them. Late last night one of them arrived in this city for supplies and to make the necessary preparations to skin the creature, when the hide will be sent east for examination by the eminent scientists of the day.
The finder returned early this morning accompanied by several prominent men who will endeavor to bring the strange creature back to the city before it is mutilated
Info was taken from a very old newspaper artical... from (Tomb Stone, AZ)
Paul
:cloud9: I wonder if that's the creature the Indians have legends about? They called it a bird because it flew, but was supposedly big enough to drag off a man. Sounds like that wingspan would fit the bill...... :mshock:
QuoteIt's eyes were as large as a dinner plate and protruded halfway from the head. They had some difficulty in measuring the wings as they were partly folded under the body, but finally got one straightened out sufficiently to obtain a measurement of seventy eight –feet, making the total length from tip to tip about 160 feet.
The largest flying animal proven by science has a wingspan of 40 feet.
2 legs.Edit 4 legs.
But 2 legs are part of the wings. A
little bit like the bat.
You'll enjoy this whitewings
The Paluxy River Tracks:
The residents of Glen Rose, Texas, south of Fort Worth, have long known of dinosaur tracks along the Paluxy River. During the Great Depression, these tracks were cut out of the rock and sold. One talented painter and rock mason named George Adams carved a few tracks in the limestone rock to sell, and ever after the Paluxy River tracks have been accused of being carvings. Despite this less-than-proud past, dozens of additional tracks have been found in the limestone of the river and its banks in recent years. The dinosaur tracks are well-known and recognized as legitimate, and additional trackways are found as the limestone layers are pulled up along the stretch of the river at Glen Rose. The dinosaur tracks are not alone, though. A wide variety of human-like tracks have also been found in the same layers as the dinosaur tracks. Sometimes the human tracks are just a foot or so away from the dino tracks, and on occasion they are found inside the dino tracks themselves.
Hi TT,
I enjoy all your posts. Especially the deleted ones :robinhood: :laughing7:
I've seen that info on one of the Kent Hovind DVDs.
It's disputed. Also by creationists.
Halfway down the page (search paluxy) (http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind)
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/dinosaur_tracks.html
Other track (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancientman/02_turkmenistan.html) Dino + man + goat. Problem for YECs is that the track is 200 miljon years old.
http://www.mysteries-of-the-world.com/out-of-pace-fossils-and-artifacts.html
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tvsquad.com/media/2008/04/flintstones.jpg)
The picture above proves man lived with dino(s).
But when?
Because it's (mainly) a YEC view it means it was 6000-10000 years ago.
Most of God's creation died very quickly according to that view.
But that's explained by the flood/collapse of the canopy theory. (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html)
The YEC view seems to contradict with about everything else.
Sure secular science can and has been wrong.
The problem with YEC science is that that pick and choose regular science.
Even Biblical support is weak. Translation leave to much room for YEC or OED to prove anything.
I've read several YEC books. Watched about 15 hours of Kend Hovind. I've read OED book. Read refutations of both Christian camps.
Then I (strongly) edge toward OED.
BTW what's your view on "man living with dinos"?
Man lived among huge numbers of dinos?
Or man lived with a handful of almost extinct dinos?
According to secular science not all dinos (and other animals) lived at the same time.
According to your view; did man live among all dino's and other animals that ever existed? Or just the most recent dinos?
PS when I write all I mean those animals that lived in that region. Just like most people never seen an real (polar) bear because they don't live in their country.
A fun observation, thought I'd share it from my facebook post:
_____
As a Creationist (of the Old Earth leaning variety) I find it interesting that Evolution and Creationism can agree on at least one thing, so far -
Sea based life came first, and soon after that so did flying life; and both of these came before cows, horses, dogs, lions, tigers, bears and other mammals.
I don't think it is a coincidence that pterosaurs are some of the earliest archosaurs along with wonderful oceanic beasts like these:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8298/dn8298-1_350.jpg
http://www.farnorthscience.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/plisiosauruaf.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_naQvSglrjJw/SPrTuRKC_iI/AAAAAAAAD1Q/uuHtX6vum74/s400/image008.jpg
http://www.rhfleet.org/media/images/sea_monsters/mm6969_nothoa_md.jpg
http://www.farnorthscience.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pliosaurus-1-uaf.jpg
http://www.farnorthscience.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pliosaurus-3-uaf.jpg
And at any rate, before mammals came along in full force we find dinosaurs - and a great deal of them turning out to be much more bird like that we'd ever anticipated.
http://www.elucidationimages.com/Portfollio/Art/archomicro.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20030619144316/http://www.indyrad.iupui.edu/public/jrafert/Filipovic/spectacular_feathered_dinosaurs_.htm
http://enfo.agt.bme.hu/drupal/sites/default/files/anchiornis-artist.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/feathered_dinosaur/images/primary/feathery_dino1.jpg
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/upload/2009/03/tianyulong_a_fuzzy_dinosaur_that_makes_the_origin_of_feather/Tianyulong.jpg
Fun stuff really, or atleast thought provoking.
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 08:01:10 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 07:56:14 AM
There's quite a wide variety of interpretation/translations on the unicorn, huh? I've been looking at it. Young's actually translates unicorn in Ps. 29:6 as 'son of Reems', or some such thing. I sure don't know what that means. :umnick:
Gots 'ta look some more. :)
I believe it's entirely possible that there was a horned creature that looked kinda like a horse...shoot why not. But, ancient societies attributed magical powers to unicorns as well. Dragons, mermaids etc are imo myths...mythological creatures. Unless we have fossil record of these creatures existence then why bring it into a scientific conversation? Just because ancient cultures wrote about, painted etc creatures doesn't mean they existed. Did you ever draw creatures that didn't exist when you were a child? I know I did.
There is NO PROOF that BLACK HOLES exist, yet the Scientific community claims they do... :dunno:
So why bring something like BLACK HOLES into a "scientific conversation", when we have NO MORE PROOF of them, then we do of UNICORNS? :dontknow:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on September 30, 2010, 01:40:58 AM
If the SETI project found the same rational communication coming from the stars that is found in a strand of DNA, they would declare they have found intelligent life in the universe. But, reading the language of God [DNA], as we do today, they declare there is no God.
Is there intelligent life on earth? :mblush:
:thumbsup: :laughing7:
willieH: Hi Shawn... :hithere:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 28, 2010, 07:38:05 AMJob 39:
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 07:48:50 AM
Exactly, so do you believe the Bible was speaking about literal unicorns?
Why not? :dontknow: Do you believe that the "horses or cattle" mentioned in Scripture are "literally", ..."horses & cattle"? :laughing7:
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 07:48:50 AM
Do you believe there was a horned creature that kinda looked like a horse which had magical powers?
I don't see that the passage that David quoted implies that the "unicorns" mentioned in it, had "magical powers"...
Quote from: shawn on September 28, 2010, 07:48:50 AM
What about mermaids? Big Foot?
Well... there IS documentation (pictures) of Big Foot... and those pictures can be dismissed by the scoffer at his/her discretion... Hope you don't encounter one on a camping trip, cuz those "scoffers" are gonna dismiss you and your testimony as well, ...while calling the bite on your behind, as done by a bear! :laughing7:
As far as "mermaids" go, ...nothing can be truly dismissed as non-existent, for no one can be everywhere at once, except GOD and
NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for God... :dontknow:
...willieH :cloud9:
Thats true and there is all this great movement to save creatures like whales and frogs from going extinct, and then some scientist finds a totally new species of whales or frogs. As for me I just cant bring my humble brain to even phanthom what The Lord God has in store for those who love Him.
QuoteAs far as "mermaids" go, ...nothing can be truly dismissed as non-existent, for no one can be everywhere at once, except GOD and NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for God...
Like black holes? :bigGrin:
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 11:47:19 PM
QuoteAs far as "mermaids" go, ...nothing can be truly dismissed as non-existent, for no one can be everywhere at once, except GOD and NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for God...
Like black holes? :bigGrin:
Yeah, :laughhand: ...that is exactly what I was getting at... :nod:
...willieH :happygrin:
Humanity (Adam) was made from the dust (friable, that is, easily crumbled, particles -- molecules? thoughts?) that are of the land (solid foundation.) Little bits assembled from this and that are compacted to comprise what God breathes into, a ragamuffin destined to be God's image in the earth.
__________________________________________
Black holes have pretty well been established by evidence. The electromagnetic spectrum, including visible light, is affected by gravity. At known rates there is a lensing effect that bends light passing near black holes which describes the mass of the objects by their gravitational influence.
__________________________________________
Still, the occurence of sexual procreation (as distinguished from asexual) is something not explicable by evolutionary processes.
The DNA code is a real language, hence a proof of intelligent design by several orders of magnitude beyond the rest of the patterning in the universe.
Across the time they've kept historical records, the testimony of most humans is that they behold the face of one within they have always called "God." He is not silent and uninvolved. He speaks and Has left us a record of His revelation that we may examine. We may test His promises. Also, beyond the surface there are several codes permeating The Holy Scriptures (which are originally in Greek and Hebrew.) To dismiss this testimony of both human experience and the written Word (which has been in our possession from 2 to 3 1/2 millennia) is a prejudiced and unsupportable path to take.
Solomon said it is the nature of the Adamic mind to be able to prove anything right. It is the "nature" of this carnal mind to have difficulty accepting the evidences rather than the fault of the evidence itself.
I like that post Reformer, it explains how we are able to justify just about anything despite what Truth (Reality) may or may not state.
Some scientists think of black holes as portals to other worlds.
It's crazy how big the physical universe is, it seems strange that some belivers think, there the earth life will come to an end and only heaven existing. To me I beleive that earth will be massivly populated and even reach beyond the stars. I think that as kings and queens with Christ we will be the rulers of humanities affairs.
So maybe in future we will witness captain kirk boldy go where no man has gone before, we would be as those stange higher entity beings that sometimes make their appearance in the show.
Queens?? Never heard that before in a Bible study.
Well certainly we aren't going to lose our genders. Why would we? :laughing7:
A kingess = a queen. ^^
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 04:57:16 PM
Well certainly we aren't going to lose our genders. Why would we? :laughing7:
A kingess = a queen. ^^
I intend to be a king. :icon_king:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 31, 2010, 04:54:26 PM
Queens?? Never heard that before in a Bible study.
Revelation 5:10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
The bible tends to use masculine language, whether that is because of church/mens interference or the limitations of the english language :dontknow:
Queen= female king
But I think Jesus is an equal opportunities employer :bigGrin:
Molly:
The context of that passage is equality in the spirit and the new life, not dissolution of gender and identity in the next life.
Jews were essentially racist towards Gentiles, and Gentiles (Greeks especially) though themselves higher than the rest of the world, and women had no rights whatsoever in the Grecian world, and very, very few in the Judaic system. And of course, slaves, and free men in all of these countries, and cultures.
Quote from: TTThe bible tends to use masculine language, whether that is because of church/mens interference or the limitations of the english language
It does do that but I think that is because the Spirit is masculine in nature.
Quote from: Molly on October 31, 2010, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 04:57:16 PM
Well certainly we aren't going to lose our genders. Why would we? :laughing7:
A kingess = a queen. ^^
I intend to be a king. :icon_king:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
I think your gonna have some marriage problems :laughing7: that's a prediction though not a prophecy :grin:
edit: You posted your post explanation to early Molly :laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on October 31, 2010, 05:06:54 PM
Quote from: TTThe bible tends to use masculine language, whether that is because of church/mens interference or the limitations of the english language
It does do that but I think that is because the Spirit is masculine in nature.
I think the Father and Christ is but I think the holy spirit is feminine, being the comforter.
Quote from: Molly on October 31, 2010, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 04:57:16 PM
Well certainly we aren't going to lose our genders. Why would we? :laughing7:
A kingess = a queen. ^^
I intend to be a king. :icon_king:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
You are absolutly right on Molly. I also find no gender malice in the verse either.
I myself would feel rather awkward having a king for a Heavenly Helper...Not sure I'd be able to enjoy the knowing that I'd been married to...it? In the land of the living... >_>
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 05:05:06 PM
Molly:
The context of that passage is equality in the spirit and the new life, not dissolution of gender and identity in the next life.
Jews were essentially racist towards Gentiles, and Gentiles (Greeks especially) though themselves higher than the rest of the world, and women had no rights whatsoever in the Grecian world, and very, very few in the Judaic system. And of course, slaves, and free men in all of these countries, and cultures.
Yes, I understand. Jesus treated males and females as equal and had a band of females following him about from place to place--unheard of in those days. He also appears first to a woman after the resurrection, Mary.
But, that is social treatment. I think spiritual treatment will be different and that we will truly be all equal in kind and nature. Not sure I could justify it biblically at the moment other than that one scripture, though, and the one about like the angels in heaven. The word 'salvation' has both a masculine and feminine form, but the feminine form--Y'shu'ah-- is assigned to Jesus who I believe in this capacity acted as the soul of God. I also believe that his soul becomes entwined with our soul--thus the saving of souls--which allows us to learn through obedience to be subject to Spirit. This purified and saved soul is the bride [female] of Christ--the Messiah--the anointed one--which Christ is Spirit and masculine.
Nevertheless, it's what I have come to believe. :dontknow:
1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
[soul...]
"was knit"H7194
קשׁר
qâsharkaw-shar'
A primitive root;
to tie, physically (gird, confine, compact) or mentally (in love, league): - bind (up), (make a) conspire (-acy, -ator),
join together, knit, stronger, work [treason].
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.--Rev 21
I still maintain however, that what God has formed let no man tear apart. Gender is a thing of goodness that God made from the very beginning, it would be unnecessary to dissolve such a beautiful thing as gender, rather than enhance its quality, and goodness in the time to come - considering that everything else is always being enhanced.
Quote from: Molly on October 31, 2010, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 05:05:06 PM
Molly:
The context of that passage is equality in the spirit and the new life, not dissolution of gender and identity in the next life.
Jews were essentially racist towards Gentiles, and Gentiles (Greeks especially) though themselves higher than the rest of the world, and women had no rights whatsoever in the Grecian world, and very, very few in the Judaic system. And of course, slaves, and free men in all of these countries, and cultures.
Yes, I understand. Jesus treated males and females as equal and had a band of females following him about from place to place--unheard of in those days. He also appears first to a woman after the resurrection, Mary.
But, that is social treatment. I think spiritual treatment will be different and that we will truly be all equal in kind and nature. Not sure I could justify it biblically at the moment other than that one scripture, though, and the one about like the angels in heaven. The word 'salvation' has both a masculine and feminine form, but the feminine form--Y'shu'ah-- is assigned to Jesus who I believe in this capacity acted as the soul of God. I also believe that his soul becomes entwined with our soul--thus the saving of souls--which allows us to learn through obedience to be subject to Spirit. This purified and saved soul is the bride [female] of Christ--the Messiah--the anointed one--which Christ is Spirit and masculine.
Nevertheless, it's what I have come to believe. :dontknow:
1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
[soul...] "was knit"
H7194
קשׁר
qâshar
kaw-shar'
A primitive root; to tie, physically (gird, confine, compact) or mentally (in love, league): - bind (up), (make a) conspire (-acy, -ator), join together, knit, stronger, work [treason].
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
--Rev 21
:cloud9: Amen...... :thumbsup:
willieH: Hi Reformer... :happygrin:
Quote from: reFORMer on October 31, 2010, 07:17:19 AM
Black holes have pretty well been established by evidence. The electromagnetic spectrum, including visible light, is affected by gravity. At known rates there is a lensing effect that bends light passing near black holes which describes the mass of the objects by their gravitational influence.
:laughing7: I am no Lawyer, ...but in a courtroom, you would be hard pressed to call what you just SAID as "PROOF" that is "acceptable", ...and you are going to have to do quite a bit better than this, bro...
"Pretty well established"? "by EVIDENCE"? ...Please! ... :mnah:
As I see it, ...this (no offense), is nothing more than a lot of (self-verifying) words which are filled with no real substance other than, being a fancified set of words, that actually PROVES nothing, ...(again, no offense), which sounds glaringly similar to the presentations of a car salesman... :laughing7:
I can show you a VIDEO of a
UFO or a
BIGFOOT which "Pretty well establishes" --- "by EVIDENCE" --- that these things exist, and if you so choose, ...you shall NOT consider THEM as "PROOF"... :dontknow:
ATHIESTS can arrange their vocabularies in such an eloquent manner as to
SAY that GOD does NOT EXIST, and then call it "PROOF" that "pretty well establishes" -- "by EVIDENCE" (that being their OWN testimony, which is "verified" by ITSELF) that He does not "exist, or...
One can show one picture of an elephant and a rope, and another with the rope TIED IN A SQUARE KNOT, and then claim the ELEPHANT "tied the knot" and that the pictures are IN SEQUENCE... :laughing7:
Please SHOW the "
EVIDENCE"... which
PROVES that "BLACK HOLES" exist, brother Reformer... for anyone can "
SAY" anthing...
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 09:17:26 PM
I can hardly wonder if you believe there is proof that the stars exist WillieH...
They exist, for the
WORD says they do... :dontknow: Which is "proof enough" for me... the
WORD is silent as to "BLACK HOLES", so until YOU PROVE they exist, your words are nothing but, ...words which are EMPTY of "proof". :dontknow:
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 09:17:26 PM
For all you know they could be the glittering dandruff of an invisible albino unicorn that trots across the sky, and catches on fire with its happy wailing cry, becoming what we call a comet.
Whatever... It does not matter to me what you INSUBSTANCIALLY "think", ...that I think... :laughing7:
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 09:17:26 PM
Such is the way of nonsense in the logic that you have presented.
All this amounts to is juvenile name-calling with no more substance than you have presented in your discussions in the past...
PROVE that BLACK HOLES ...exist... :dontknow:
...willieH :cloud9:
Prove that stars are giant balls of burning hydrogen gas constantly going through nuclear reactions that produce light, heat, radiation, and helium.
I believe indeed that stars are burning spheres of gas...
One can argue that Mars has plenty of evidence that it exists. It's hardly what one would call buzzing with life
Likewise there are asteroids in space which veer off target and crash into planets.
The point is that the universe is not running perfectly from a viewpoint of order and perfection, a perfect universe would have life in abundance, not just on one planet, in my opinion. I personally belive that Mars will one day be populated with humanity, whether in this age or in Christs age. If in this age then it will be a small outpost on mars, but in Christs age, the planet would transform via miracle workers and Gods spirit hovering over it.
So do black holes exist?
We know there is aids within the human body that destroys cells, could there also be such a thing in space called a back hole, that destroys planets, stars etc.
But again assuming a black hole destroys, scientists say the black hole devours planets, but it might not be the case, maybe the black hole has a function that is yet unexplainable, assuming this thing exists.
:cloud9: Please don't get "it" started again, guys, or it will end very badly, as the owner of this board does not want food fights and IS aware......disagree with RESPECT for one another as brothers in the Lord. Thank you in advance....... :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Cardinal on October 31, 2010, 10:15:50 PM
:cloud9: Please don't get "it" started again, guys, or it will end very badly, as the owner of this board does not want food fights and IS aware......disagree with RESPECT for one another as brothers in the Lord. Thank you in advance....... :HeartThrob:
Please consider this an official warning, and be sure and review the following, especially the
bolded;
For
these one warning may be given and then if repeated, you will be banned without further explanation. The ban may be of time duration but rather expect it to be permanent.
1. Trolling.
2.
Baiting.
3. Flaming.4. Calling out any member's views/opinions as stupid, dumb, crazy etc. viz. insults.
5. Public criticism of moderation decisions.
6. Starting a new thread of a similar topic as one that is recently locked.
7. Outright "trashing" of the scriptures - "they are untrue", "X writer of scripture was an imposter, not inspired", etc.
8. Initiating or engaging in a debate on the "free will/sovereignty" or Trinity topics - especially directly continually using those terms. It has caused too much strife on the boards and is not allowed. (Discuss your point of view without pushing those "hot buttons".)
These rules may be amended from time to time so keep up to date with them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Wikipedia
1 Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages or advertising.
2 A Troll is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum. They may also plant images and data on networks that others may find disturbing in order to cause confrontation.
More specifically a troll is an insult or accusation made against a poster. It would be highly unusual for any Internet poster to claim the title of troll, rather a community member may try to deflate a post that is controversial or thought provoking by referring to it as a "troll". In usage troll is more of an insult like "jerk".
To call someone a troll is to say that any dispute over a post is not valid not because the issues raised are not valid, but to claim the intent of the poster invalidates the post. As a speech act the term troll is generally used as an ad hominem argument, attacking the poster rather than the content or issues of the post.
3Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject.
4On the Internet, baiting is similar to trolling, in that baiters, like trolls, try to elicit a response from other users. The difference is that the response is supposed to be embarrassing to the user in question, and humorous to others. Baiters frequently concentrate on groups they do not like, such as pedophiles, fraudsters (often 419 fraudsters), religious fundamentalists, or homosexuals. What the baiter says does not need to make sense, it is often simply written to baffle the bait, and to produce an interesting result. In that respect, baiting is similar to telephone prank calls, but often much more elaborate. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 makes some prank calls a felony with penalties of up to two years in prison, and possible fines (depending on severity). However, such penalties are rarely carried out.
At this point, this applies to all threads and action will be immediate. A word to the wise, as we've had this thread, and a recently locked one in question. Thanks, James.
Quote from: willieH on October 31, 2010, 09:36:33 PM
PROVE that BLACK HOLES ...exist... :dontknow:
Proof #1: Event horizon
Proof #2: US government
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 05, 2010, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: willieH on October 31, 2010, 09:36:33 PM
PROVE that BLACK HOLES ...exist... :dontknow:
Proof #1: Event horizon
Proof #2: US government
LOL!
ww must be back. Nice to have you back, ww.
Jude 13
"...straying stars, for whom the gloom of darkness has been kept for an eon." (Concordant Literal Translation)
"...stars going astray, to whom the gloom of the darkness to the age hath been kept." (Young's Literal Translation)
"...wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved forever." (American Standard Version, 1901)
"...wandering 4107 stars 792, to whom 3739 is reserved 5083 the blackness 2217 of darkness 4655 for 1519 ever 165." (KJV with Strong's numbers)
:cloud9: Didn't really know where to post this tidbit, but as the last post here is about the stars, it seemed to fit......
From an article I was reading......
"Early Christians believed Jesus was the perfection of all the twelve heavenly constellations. He ruled over twelve disciples on Earth and he rules over the twelve signs of the zodiac in the heavens. The early Church leader Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.), in Excerpta ex Theodota, had no hesitation in equating the twelve disciples with the twelve signs of the zodiac, with Christ as the central sun ... By such reasoning, the body of Christ, through the numinous power of the zodiac, merges with the body of man, to become a single united symbol within the church."
Dark energy and dark matter are now thought to comprise 95 % of the physical cosmos. Everything is moving away from everything else with ever increasing speed. Our God hides Himself in thick darkness.
Named after the Andromeda galaxy (which is 2 1/2 times the size of the Milky Way,) our local cluster of galaxies is moving toward a point in the Constellation Virgo at about 1,000,000 miles per hour. That point in turn is moving at about 1,000,000 miles per hour toward yet another point. Talk about "wandering stars!" At the center of galaxies there are black holes and they are wandering, moving. What do you think is at the center of everything?
"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. (Ps 18 11, AV; see also, Ps 911.)
:cloud9: Yes, He does.... :thumbsup:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 09, 2010, 09:25:21 AM
:cloud9: Yes, He does.... :thumbsup:
Yes, Yes, Yes! :thumbsup: :bigGrin:
Quote from: reFORMer on December 09, 2010, 08:12:39 AM
Dark energy and dark matter are now thought to comprise 95 % of the physical cosmos. Everything is moving away from everything else with ever increasing speed. Our God hides Himself in thick darkness.
Named after the Andromeda galaxy (which is 2 1/2 times the size of the Milky Way,) our local cluster of galaxies is moving toward a point in the Constellation Virgo at about 1,000,000 miles per hour. That point in turn is moving at about 1,000,000 miles per hour toward yet another point. Talk about "wandering stars!" At the center of galaxies there are black holes and they are wandering, moving. What do you think is at the center of everything?
"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. (Ps 18 11, AV; see also, Ps 911.)
This is a cute page for kids. It's a Creation Science site. I was looking for a specific scrip and ran across this. Even if one doesn't agree with every single sentence on here, I did see several interesting and inspiring things about God's creation, His foreknowledge, etc. Enjoy. :thumbsup:
http://www.creationeducation.org/presentation/biblicalaccuracyinscienceandmedicine1.pdf
Neat Jab! Its the little things :thumbsup: