Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo are you not a young earth creationist? If the creature described by job is an elephant or rhino or something would that satisfy you that there is no reason to think dinosaurs and man shared the earth? I would seem to me that an unclear description shouldn't trump all scientific knowledge on the matter.
Took you 2 months to ask, don't know for sure but think they did, simply because the creature described by Job seems to be one.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry but an elephant or a rhino doesn't have a tail like a cedar tree. With regards to science I don't think science is neutral on the issue. People use science to promote their preconceived ideas when it comes to origins.
So are you not a young earth creationist? If the creature described by job is an elephant or rhino or something would that satisfy you that there is no reason to think dinosaurs and man shared the earth? I would seem to me that an unclear description shouldn't trump all scientific knowledge on the matter.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
23 Jul 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA hippo sir, not an elephant or rhino.
Sorry but an elephant or a rhino doesn't have a tail like a cedar tree. With regards to science I don't think science is neutral on the issue. People use science to promote their preconceived ideas when it comes to origins.
'The “tail” of the hippopotamus is short, naked and muscular, resembling that of the hog. The great strength of the animal may be inferred from the muscular stiffness of the tail, which bends like the branch or young stem of a cedar.'
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/job/40-17.htm
And there is a difference sir between having a tail like a cedar and having a tail that 'moveth' like a cedar.
23 Jul 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAre you really comfortable disregarding the entire body of evidence gleaned from the study of palaeontology and geology in favour of a story penned by scientifically illiterate politicians a couple of thousand years ago?
Sorry but an elephant or a rhino doesn't have a tail like a cedar tree. With regards to science I don't think science is neutral on the issue. People use science to promote their preconceived ideas when it comes to origins.
23 Jul 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOlder translations are also of interest:
A hippo sir, not an elephant or rhino.
'The “tail” of the hippopotamus is short, naked and muscular, resembling that of the hog. The great strength of the animal may be inferred from the muscular stiffness of the tail, which bends like the branch or young stem of a cedar.'
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/job/40-17.htm
And there is a difference sir between having a tail like a cedar and having a tail that 'moveth' like a cedar.
Septuagint (Greek): He sets up/erects (estesen) his tail like a cypress.
Vulgate (Latin): He ties up/binds (constringit) his tail like a cedar.
Luther (German, 16th C): His tail stretches (streckt sich) like a cedar.
Statenvertaling (Dutch, 17th C): According to his pleasure (Als ‘t hem lust), his tail is like a cedar.
Diodati (Italian, 16th C): He raises (rizza) his tail like a cedar.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/could-behemoth-have-been-a-dinosaur/
23 Jul 16
3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYour presuppositions determine how your interpret the evidence, the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I have no problem with accepting the evidence but rather it's the bias interpretations that I don't buy into. Which evidence are you referring to and how does it discredit the Bible?
Are you really comfortable disregarding the entire body of evidence gleaned from the study of palaeontology and geology in favour of a story penned by scientifically illiterate politicians a couple of thousand years ago?
23 Jul 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you are able to compare the scant collection of pre-scientific scripture of your particular religion with the collected data and research of the academic fields of palaeontology and geology over the last couple of hundred years and find the scripture to provide a more convincing paradigm, then I very much doubt there is anything I can say which you will find of value. I would add that I am in no way inclined to attempt to convince you to change your beliefs, I am simply curious as to how you and your ilk are able to rationally hold such given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Your presuppositions determine how your interpret the evidence, the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I have no problem with accepting the evidence but rather it's the bias interpretations that I don't buy into. Which evidence are you referring to and how does it discredit the Bible?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatFaith isn't about what's "rational". Miracles aren't "rational", they're supernatural. So to answer your question, the Christian religion requires followers to "walk by faith and not by sight".
I am simply curious as to how you and your ilk are able to rationally hold such given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the contrary.