Anyone got a hebrew bible or dictionary...because this excerpt puts Darwin to shame as it refers to the bible


Dinosaurs in the Bible

Excerpts from books by Dr. Malachai York(now govt framed and in prison for child molesting)are pubished weekly on factology.com

. . . Contrary to what most know, dinosaurs can be found in the bible. In Genesis 1:21 where it states, “And God created great whales . . . ,” the Aramic/Hebrew word being used for whale is tanniyn meaning “dragon or dinosaur.” Ask your reverend, pastor, or preacher how come they didn’t tell you about this. Most of them don’t speak Hebrew so they wouldn’t even know that this word for dinosaurs is in the Bible.

We were twins
Did you know that each of us were originally a twin in the womb? However, out of survival only one survives. Scientists are just discovering this to be a fact. Why do woman have two mammary glands or breasts?

Staff Writer. Creation, Evolution or Genetic Splicing, Which Is The Truth. 1997 Nov. 9; Page 1 (col. 1).


http://www.factology.com or use their search engine

Facinating. In the english texts, it refers to dinosaurs in Job, where he speaks of the Behemoth, and the Leviathan. The Behemoth, being a land creature with skin as think as armor, and a tail like the trunk of a tree. No existing land creatures today have a tail that think.

As far as the Leviathan, it was a firce water creature, sized like a ship, also with thick skin.

Also, tell us more about this twin thing. It sounds interesting!

thats the english translation on Behemoth.

thats on leviathan.

and thats about both Behemoth and Leviathan.

That DOES make sense...

yup i saw that on i think one of the megaraptor sites....its quite intersting to see all of the stuff talking bout cryptozoology....well kinda....

Sorry man but excerpts from the bible don't mean jack to the scientific community. You have to have some kind of physical evidence of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans and how exactly does this put Darwin to shame? And in what scientific journal can I find the evidence for the "fact" that each of are originally a twin in the womb? Please enlighten me...

Edit: Post Removed.

To whom are you referring?

^ No one, don't worry about it.

That's really interesting.

The twin thing is a known fact now. I'm not sure of the figures, but in some pregnancies twins are formed but are then obsorbed by one twin.
There's been cases where they've found human teeth etc, inside a persons body.

so does that mean jonah was eaten by a dinosaur and not a whale?

How Quickly we forget of the giant mammals that humans lived along side of...

And that the bible were once stories passed on by mouth for generations before written. The Behemoth can easily be the ancestor to the Rhino. He fits the description just as well. The leviathan? Whales do get that big.... imagine what you'd think seeing say an ancestor to the blue whale, if not the blue whale itself?

What is the difference between the description of the behemoth and the leviathan, and the description of any of the ancient mega-monsters that humanity has created over the past millenia? Why should these two be given any more credence than the Quetzacoatl, or the Roc, or the Phoenix?

Lol that is a good one! I can just see them worshipping the purple dinosaur. Sounds like somthing out of Weekly World News

Traditionally, the word behemoth can be given to any large, heavy, and otherwise unknown animal. The word behemoth comes from the plural of the Hebrew b'hemah, meaning 'beast'.
really, though, it could have been anything (or nothing at all). Leviathan, although its usually portrayed in Medieval illuminations as a serpent type creature, could easily have been a whale. Behemoth could have been a Rhinoceros or an elephant if it wasnt for the bit about 'a tail like a cedar'. Ive heard suggested that it was a Nile Crocodile, too. that would make sense, wouldnt it?

simply because, for a thousand years and more, the Bible has been believed to be the absolute authority, and containing nothing but truth. people are far more likely to accept a fantastic monster out of the Bible than a fantastic monster from a normal source.

--HERE-- is an unbelievably excellent link on this subject.

That is certainly true, however when one uses the Bible as a reference within a scientific field, such as zoology, they then waive absolute authority or infalliability in favor of credibility and accuracy. The bible can no longer call upon the authority of a belief system if it is to be used in a scientific system. It must be held to the same standards as any other item that is presented as evidence or proof.

Isnt there a dinosaur mentioned in Revelations?

I couldn't find any proof, or facts about everyone being born with a twin. And tia, just because some people absorb their "to be" twins, doesn't mean everyone is supposed to be a twin.

sure, but people will still believe a biblical monster alot sooner.

Re....The twin thing is a known fact now. I'm not sure of the figures, but in some pregnancies twins are formed but are then obsorbed by one twin.
There's been cases where they've found human teeth etc, inside a persons body.

Read carefully Nick, I said I'm not sure of the figures, but in SOME pregnancies twins are formed and then one is obsorbed.
I never said all pregnancies are twins!

The "all twins" thing is, I believe, rubbish...while, as Tia says, some embryos have been known to grow inside the other (and obviously die), I don't believe we all develop as twins...the above is a very rare eventuality indeed.

Given babies are examined reguarly during their development, I think we would have found out a long time ago if all human children developed as twins And mothers would be told when one of their babies miraculously disappears

As for dinosaurs in the bible...I don't believe when the bible tells me there's a big invisible guy up in the sky, so I've got no real reason to believe in the monsters it portrays either Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago....for those keeping score, modern man has only been around for a few hundred thousand years.

Stories about gigantic monsters of this sort probably started the same way stories about dragons and so on did...people probably found foccils or suchlike, and created fantastical tales about them, some of which ended up in the bible, with all the other fiction

they found foccils? boy, they must have dug awful deep down to find foccils.
anyway, ive said this before, lets imagine a few Chinese living in Ancient Times somehow find a big fossilized bone, and they somehow manage to dig up the whole thing, and they invent the dragon to explain what sort of living creature the bone came from. now, how did they know the bone was reptilian to being with? they didnt have that sort of knowledge! that is why i do NOT think myths about Dragon originated from fossilized Dinosaur remains.

Yeah even fih have scales...anyway, about the everybody twin thing...though I have no opinion...why do you disagree by default?...why not do the research? it will help your opinions. Also,I posted this to introduce somebody elses research...

um.............huh????

He meant fish. And I seriously doubt the twins thing, because we really would've figured it out a long time ago.. I'm a twin.

oh, well, if he meant 'Yeah even fish have scales', were not talking about fossilized skin, were talking about the bones. fossilized Dinosaur skin is extremely rare.

That is likely to be coincidence....throughout history, virtually every monster mankind has ever invented has either been reptilian, or had reptilian features...it's probably a genetic trait back from when our ancestors dealing with snaked and so on.

There's also a matter of comparrison...bear in mind that, when dinosaurs were first officially discovered, the guy who named them didn't have much to go on besides a pair of teeth, and lots and lots of comparisons...

It seems to me very likely indeed that, even so many hundreds of years ago, great minds of the time could tell the difference between reptilian traits, and mammalian traits.

about what was said above in the quote:

why do men have nipples?

just because they are there does not mean that they are there because they are needed, when a dog has puppies, there can be a runt or thier may not be, but what is the runts fate? well he can not get to a nipple because there is not enough for all the puppys, how ever if there is not a runt there is also a possibility that there would be extra nipples for the puppies

what happens when a woman has triplets?

in conclusion, just because there is 2 nipples on a woman does not mean we all start off as twins

that seems a bit far-fetched to me. they just made up something, and just happened to make it reptilian? most of the Dinosaur fossils we have dont even look like reptiles, and i doubt they found fossilized skin imprints.


if you meant Gideon Mantell, he did not discover the first dinosaur. Megalosaurus was discovered and officially named first, and who knows how many were found before and mistaken for something else.

Megalosaurus was "discovered" in the form of a single serated tooth, and part of a jaw. The finder was still able to determine the creature to be a reptile, and make guesswork as to its size....Sera was quite correct.



So...you then agree that dragons, bible monsters, and other such mythologies are likely to have origonated through mistaken identity when dinosaur bones showed up?

Plato came up with the idea that we were originally all born as conjoined twins, or something along those lines, and were punished for rebellion by being divided... he said that the desire for love or sex was the impulse to return to that perfect state of union. Maybe there's an echo of that idea in the one about people starting off as twins?

http://www.uno.edu/~asoble/pages/symp.htm

"The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two.... the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond... the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth...."

As for monsters from the Bible being more believable... well, many of us grow up brainwashed into believing it, so I suppose subconsciously there might be a tendency to give a certain amount of credence to monsters from it. Personally, I find "Believe in this book because the book says it's a sin not to believe in this book" to be rather circular reasoning, and tend to read it in the same light as any other historical document.

Another angle on that dinosaur is how old are the bible accounts really to match the age of those large beasts. If the dinosaur connection is true this bible story book may be very old indeed thus wildly exagerated from the original text before the hebrew. Perhaps.

Given the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago...the bible was written about 10 thousand years ago (at most), and modern man has only been around for about one hundred thousand years...give or take a few tens of thousands...then I think it's just a teeny, tiny bit unlikely that dinosaurs were walking around when the bible was fabricated

I think it's quite a stretch to say that those few passages indicate a dinosaur of any kind. There are much more mundane explanations.

And that "everybody is really a twin" idea seems VERY unlikely.

We learn to correct our old views when new knowledge arrives. Proof exists of dinosaurs living today and also of bones of humans over 1 million years old. I am not sure how accurate the claims are or who said the bible is only so old. How can the bible's age be accurate. There are no real dates to decide if the Genisis period was in the Jurassic period or what. It depends on when a partiular history book was written as well as by whom and for what political or religious political gain it was altered. What books are you reading?

Can you tell me what proof of living dinosaurs there is?



Richard Owen made the name Dinosauria in the late 1800's, so that word can mean dragons vut not dinosaurs. Also back in ancient times nobody knew what whales were, and often called them monsters. (usually they only saw their waterspouts)In addition it would be strange to call an Aptatosaurus a, "great whale."

Search the internet for the flying dinosaurs. I have little time to hunt for it. There is an expedition being set up to create recorded proof.

The sailors of the old world saw sea serpants and giant squid and they don't sound like wales...again I have little time right now to hunt around for any articles so just disagree.

By flying dinosaurs, do you mean like pterodons? They weren't technically dinosaurs, but are also extinct. The only dinosaur that has been speculated to fly was the Archaeopteryx. But it's also generally believed to be an example of an evolutionary link betweens dinos and birds.

And giant sqiuds and sea serpants aren't dinosaurs. Giant squids are a known species, and no one has any idea what the 'sea serpants' may be. Could be been-out-to-sea-too-long.

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that dinosaurs walked the Earth along with man ... Human footprints and dinosaur footprints have been found in the same layers of soil ...


The bible does tell us that the 'beast' spread the woodlands around the globe ...
The process they used is well known to the science community.
The birds still do it today ...


The birds are the proven descendents of the dinosaurs ... The 'beast' of Genesis ....

It is all there, proved as well as anything else they call proven....

As for Darwin, He did not do too bad ... He had good sense enough to understand that Evolution was transpiring here on Earth. He just consciously ignored the fact that a group of renegade scientists known as Elohim came down from the sky and mixed their own DNA with the DNA of that already evolving species which created a brand new species known as human.

neanderthal + Elohim(god) = human being/giant ....

Darwin understanding life on Earth was evolutionary in nature would not entertain the notion of creationism long enough to figure out the whole truth ...

evolution and creationism are BOTH legit ....

~peace

Um..no it is not common knowledge that dinosaurs walked the Earth along with man because they didn't. And no, human footprints and dinosaur footprints have not been found in the same layers of soil. I applaud you for trying to take both evo. & cre. into account but you're not understanding some basics of evolution. And I'm not even gonna get in to the other stuff you said...

No, no it's not...it is in fact common knowledge that dinosaurs and mankind missed each other by tens of millions of years (64 million and a little bit, in fact )



Again, rubbish.

There is some evidence to suggest creatures such as the...how do you spell it? Mombe Moke or something like that...exist. However, if so it won't be a living dinosaur. It will in fact be a decendant that adapted to the swamp environment in which they live...there will be many, many evolutionary chances.

And there are also no evidence of modern man existing one million years ago this is gibberish There may, at some point, have been dispute over inaccurate carbon dating methods...however, such cases will by now have been falsified by other, more accurate dating methods.

Our earliest ancestors did, however, start walking around somewhere in the region of four million years ago...however, they wouldn't have looked anything like us whatsoever. More like bipedal chimps than anything else

Yeah, if there were "proof" of dinosaurs living today, there would be a lot fewer threads in the Crypto category on this site.

And the dino tracks covering human tracks thing was proven false. The "human" tracks were discovered to be tracks of a small bipedal dinosaur, that the mud eroded a bit and made look more human-like.

....yeah
Let me ask you this, then. How is it that a word created in the 1800's to describe a new species of giant lizard-like monsters could have a had a hebrew translation before the birth of Jeevus? Could it be possible that the hebrew word for "large beast" (or what-not) couldn't have just been altered in context to mean "terrible lizard" instead? I don't think there were monsters (dinosaurs, dragons, whatever) back then, I just think these people couldn't explain what they were seeing, and said they were vicious monsters.

A Behemoth is what is nowadays called a Hippo! And a Leviathan is a crocodile!

Actually it was a big fish

So do tell of these 'basics'?
You talking about the FACT that the genes of a monkey CANNOT change enough to create a human?
The genes would become cancerous and die before the change could transpire.

I stand by my claim that dinosaurs and man walked together on the Earth ...


btw,
Genesis is 100% science FACT .. All that remains for mankind to do is accept it ...

Example- God cast his spirit upon the deep ....

Any middle school kid knows full well that if you add energy to water you will create a magnetic field .... nuff said ...

This statement demonstrates such a hideous ignorance of evolution, I'm amazed I'm even wasting the kinetic energy required to type out a sarcastic reply to it



Then you stand by a claim that goes against every scrap of evidence we have to the contary, while you yourself have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it Mankind and dinosaurs were nowhere near each other, this is fact. You can choose to believe it or not, that's up to you...personally, I'd rather live in a world of fact than my own little made up fiction.



Pure, and absolute, garbage. I have now forsaken you as a fundamentalist In my exploration of the site, I've discovered a number of threads that explain, in great depth, why the bible (and religion in general) are not scientifically valid. It's rather straight forward, and for the sake of one day becoming a productive member of society, I recomend you go looking for them.

Bravo Shadowsleet I couldn't have said it better myself.

That's because many people lack my dry wit