WHY DOES THE BIBLE NOT SPEAK ON dinosaurs?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#21
Yeah, it’s probably not very common but I’ve heard it a couple times before. I tried doing a search for dinosaurs and spent 10 min reading old threads with no luck. Kind of interesting reading old threads and seeing how people change over time, including myself.
 
Oct 8, 2004
1,006
1
0
42
www.soundclick.com
#22
who the hell wrote those books in the jewish library??? ^^^ that's hella interesting....
u think the same people who wrote the books that compile the bible are the same people
who wrote the black magic books in this realm??

also i think dinosaurs are fake kinda like Mermaids and Unicorns....
thats why they're not in the bible either lol...
 
Mar 15, 2005
1,783
1
0
45
#24
if people really beleive bones were put in the ground to test faith then you jus prove that Christianity is a buncha bullshit.....seems like almost everything christians beleive in is based on nuttin that has actual proof.....
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#27
1/2 On It said:
Because the bible is merely a collection of books/scrolls from the Alexandrian library put together by jewish scholars in an attempt to ween the people into judaism by integrating other traditions and cultures into it. The word "bible" is derived from biblus (or something like that) which is latin for "library".
[I'm assuming you mean these scholars wrote the bible before the birth of christ, or when he supposedly was to be born, because otherwise you are contradiction what biblical scholars (not to be confused with theologians) have known to be true for years now.]

The Alexandrian library is first mentioned in text at around 180 BC, maybe constructed some where around the 3rd century BC. This does not predate the old testament. So how could the Hebrew Scholars write the Bible then? Did they translate part of it into Greek? Yes. Did they write it? No. Secondly why would these same scholars try and ween people with the Bible when "Christianity" or Messianic Judaism of any kind was non-existant, not to mention Yeshua wasn't even born yet?

The world Bible is also derived from biblia but it doesn't mean library it means book. And that word is derived from biblos which means papyrus. That is why the bible is often refered to as the holy book.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#28
YOuNg WiNo said:
anyone ever see a book called sceret archology , i flipped through it at a barnes& nobles and in the book it talks about human skeltons that are very much like ours but are dated millions of years old
Haven't heard of this but I do own a copy of "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. It talks about the same stuff.
 

DubbC415

Mickey Fallon
Sep 10, 2002
22,620
6,984
0
38
Tomato Alley
#29
and what would make u believe that dinosaurs werent real?

"I dont believe in dinosaurs, or George Washington, cuz i aint never seen them, and they aint in the bible."-Carl Everett, outfielder for the white sox"
 
Dec 2, 2004
239
0
0
37
#31
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
[I'm assuming you mean these scholars wrote the bible before the birth of christ, or when he supposedly was to be born, because otherwise you are contradiction what biblical scholars (not to be confused with theologians) have known to be true for years now.]

The Alexandrian library is first mentioned in text at around 180 BC, maybe constructed some where around the 3rd century BC. This does not predate the old testament. So how could the Hebrew Scholars write the Bible then? Did they translate part of it into Greek? Yes. Did they write it? No. Secondly why would these same scholars try and ween people with the Bible when "Christianity" or Messianic Judaism of any kind was non-existant, not to mention Yeshua wasn't even born yet?

The world Bible is also derived from biblia but it doesn't mean library it means book. And that word is derived from biblos which means papyrus. That is why the bible is often refered to as the holy book.
No you are right... I meant the old testament, the original "bible" was a compilation of works from the Alexandrian library. It would have been impossible for them to find books on Christ in the times of the Alexandrian library which was burned down by Caesar's army. But this is where the old testament came from, is jewish scholars in the Alexandrian library.

But if you wanna talk about the origins of Christianity, I think it is pretty clear that it started as something to ween people into Judaism. I think you probably already know this if you have studied the origins of Christianity, if you want me to explain I will. It's amazing how many Christians know so little about the origins of their own religion and the bible.
 
May 4, 2002
3,768
20
38
38
www.myspace.com
#32
209 Studioz said:
true....i know my beliefs have morphed over time....

yea maybe we jus shouldn't believe in shit and dont worry about tha past and how we got here and all that cuz it seems like tha more we research it tha more Faith gets lost (meaning faith in god) so how bout we sy fuckit leave it to beaver and wait for death and see if tha afterlife is just a casket i jus really cant see anything more WTF....
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#33
1/2 On It said:
But if you wanna talk about the origins of Christianity, I think it is pretty clear that it started as something to ween people into Judaism. I think you probably already know this if you have studied the origins of Christianity, if you want me to explain I will. It's amazing how many Christians know so little about the origins of their own religion and the bible.
If you could that would be appreciated.
 
May 10, 2004
292
0
0
#34
I was watchen on the news the other day how they dug up a dinosaur bone and then broke it somehow. When they broke it, it contained blood cells or skin inside the bone and they air lifted it out to some lab. They plan to do testings for blood and possible DNA. If they find DNA....well....we all seen the movie Jurassic Park. Crazy shit! Anyone else see this in the news?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#35
MindTherapyRec said:
I was watchen on the news the other day how they dug up a dinosaur bone and then broke it somehow. When they broke it, it contained blood cells or skin inside the bone and they air lifted it out to some lab. They plan to do testings for blood and possible DNA. If they find DNA....well....we all seen the movie Jurassic Park. Crazy shit! Anyone else see this in the news?
There is truth in what you speak!

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm

NC State Paleontologist Discovers Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn’t preserve – the bones were essentially transformed into “rocks” through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.

In a paper published in the March 25 edition of the journal Science, Schweitzer describes the process by which she and her technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, isolated soft organic tissue from the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.

Schweitzer was interested in studying the microstructure and organic components of a dinosaur’s bone. All bone is made up of a combination of protein (and other organic molecules) and minerals. In modern bone, removing the minerals leaves supple, soft organic materials that are much easier to work with in a lab. In contrast, fossilized bone is believed to be completely mineralized, meaning no organics are present. Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone, so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil.

But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.

Since current data indicates that living birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than any other group, Schweitzer compared the findings from the T. rex with structures found in modern-day ostriches. In both samples, transparent branching blood vessels were present, and many of the small microstructures present in 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. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs’ original molecular material may still be present.

“We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think,” says Schweitzer. “Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place.”

The research was funded by NC State, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences and the National Science Foundation.
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
39
#36
. . .I bet they've been working on this since before jurassic park was around and the movie just brought it into public eye. Think of how many archeologists there are in this world. I find it hard to believe they haven't found DNA yet, I believe they have just chosen to keep it from the media.
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#37
KrypticFlowz said:
. . .I bet they've been working on this since before jurassic park was around and the movie just brought it into public eye. Think of how many archeologists there are in this world. I find it hard to believe they haven't found DNA yet, I believe they have just chosen to keep it from the media.
It usually takes a couple of years for an archaeological discovery to make it to the media because it takes a very long time to dig up bones, then analyze them, check for authenticity, etc. So it could be possible that they knew this for a couple of years.
 
Dec 2, 2004
239
0
0
37
#38
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
If you could that would be appreciated.
As you well know Jesus was a Jew. Jesus clearly stated that not one part of the Torah or laws of Moses should be changed.

Saint Paul was also a Jew, he was a disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel who was a well known Jewish leader. Paul was also a Pharisee which was an elite school of Judaism. It is Paul who is responsible for the religion of Christianity by putting the focus on Jesus himself. It is because of him that the Romans took Christianity and spread it throughout their empire, had this not happened it probably wouldn't be as popular as it is.

Saint Paul completely ignored what Jesus said about not changing the Torah....we will get back to that later. Anyways Paul wanted to make a religion that would appeal to all people. His travels brought him to many different cultures... Every sect, religion, pagan myth and legend he came across he tried to incorporate it into Judaism(or his new form of Judaism). Paul is quoted to have said that he wanted to make Christianity "all things to all men."

Yeshua had always preached God the Father. It is Saint Paul who put all this emphasis on Jesus, in effect making him a sort of deity himself (hence the name of the religion Christianity).

It makes you wonder what the Pharisee Saint Paul was up to when he started teaching people to worship a second being (Christ), then incorporated the Christmas(rebirth of the sun) feast with candles robins and fir trees which was all very pagan. And the resurrection is pagan too, as well as Easter feast, the coming of spring after the death of the soil in winter.

Why would Paul incorporate all these pagan traditions and legends that he came across in his travels and make it fit with Jewish texts?

It is known that Paul traveled much of Europe at first to teach as many people Judaism as possible, perhaps he saw that they would all listen more if he incorporated their ideas, beliefs etc. into Judaism.

Thus you have Christianity, a religion with an emphasis on a second deity, with pagan traditions and legends in it and Jewish morals and laws. He certainly found a way to get his message across.

Much like the Sikhs in Western India, Christianity is a mix of neighboring religions. The Sikh's religion is a mix of Hinduism and Islam, and their main region in Western India puts them right in between the Pakistani Muslims to the West and the Hindus to the East. And Christianity being a mix between pagan traditions/legends and Jewish morals/laws first originated in a region found between the Semitic Jews to the East and pagan Europe to the West.

Paul certainly found a way to get his message across but little did he know that it would in a way backfire. You see, the Romans saw the Jews as the only isolated people defiant to the rule of the Roman Empire. But Christianity was already becoming popular throughout Rome, and the Christians who were mostly non-semitic did not oppose Roman rule. And with time Rome became Christian, and a slogon was developed.....Roma locuta est...which is latin and means no opposition to Rome will be tolerated. This is how anti-semitism began.

There you have it, I spent a lot of time on this so you better reply haha
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#39
1/2 On It said:
As you well know Jesus was a Jew. Jesus clearly stated that not one part of the Torah or laws of Moses should be changed.
Agreed.
1/2 On It said:
Saint Paul was also a Jew, he was a disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel who was a well known Jewish leader. Paul was also a Pharisee which was an elite school of Judaism. It is Paul who is responsible for the religion of Christianity by putting the focus on Jesus himself. It is because of him that the Romans took Christianity and spread it throughout their empire, had this not happened it probably wouldn't be as popular as it is.
I thought that it was spread because of Constantine. Also why would the Romans accept Christianity and then kill Paul?
1/2 On It said:
Saint Paul completely ignored what Jesus said about not changing the Torah....we will get back to that later. Anyways Paul wanted to make a religion that would appeal to all people. His travels brought him to many different cultures... Every sect, religion, pagan myth and legend he came across he tried to incorporate it into Judaism(or his new form of Judaism). Paul is quoted to have said that he wanted to make Christianity "all things to all men."
1)What exactly are these pagan myths, legends, and how did he incorporate them into Judaism?
2)That quote you have of Paul in reference to Christianity where did you get it? Is it from Corinthians?
3)Paul never talks about Christianity, he is talking about himself. The only one who would probably know for sure on this site might be HERESY, but I believe to become all things to all men simply means the equivalent of our "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
4) Any one reading Corinthians has to understand that those letters were written and answers were given, but for the most part no one knows what the questions asked were.
5)Also Paul makes a point about God's law in 1Cor 9:20. Which leads into the "all things to all men"
1/2 On It said:
Yeshua had always preached God the Father. It is Saint Paul who put all this emphasis on Jesus, in effect making him a sort of deity himself (hence the name of the religion Christianity).
Yeshua preached God the father, God the son, and God the holy ghost. Saint Paul, as well as the other apostles, knew that Yeshua was YHWH. Yeshua said it himself and so does the original Greek text.
Old thread, same subject
1/2 On It said:
It makes you wonder what the Pharisee Saint Paul was up to when he started teaching people to worship a second being (Christ), then incorporated the Christmas(rebirth of the sun) feast with candles robins and fir trees which was all very pagan. And the resurrection is pagan too, as well as Easter feast, the coming of spring after the death of the soil in winter.
Where are you getting your information from, I've honestly never heard of Paul starting up Christmas. Although Saturnalia predates Yeshua and Paul, I haven't come across anything that would lead me to believe Paul started up Christmas in the church especially since the church prohibited any one celebrating Saturnalia until they formed a day, that was intentionally created on December 25. Christmas, or mass of Christ, was officially recognized by the Catholic church in the year 250.
1/2 On It said:
Why would Paul incorporate all these pagan traditions and legends that he came across in his travels and make it fit with Jewish texts?
Can you provide proof to this statement?
1/2 On It said:
Thus you have Christianity, a religion with an emphasis on a second deity, with pagan traditions and legends in it and Jewish morals and laws. He certainly found a way to get his message across.
There is a difference between Christianity and Messianic Judaism, which is more or less where the early Christians [including Paul] fell into. Early "Christians" did not call themselves that nor did they wear crucifixes.
1/2 On It said:
Paul certainly found a way to get his message across but little did he know that it would in a way backfire. You see, the Romans saw the Jews as the only isolated people defiant to the rule of the Roman Empire. But Christianity was already becoming popular throughout Rome, and the Christians who were mostly non-semitic did not oppose Roman rule. And with time Rome became Christian, and a slogon was developed.....Roma locuta est...which is latin and means no opposition to Rome will be tolerated. This is how anti-semitism began.
Anti-semitism could not have possibly have begun in Rome. Jews were constantly targeted by other cultures even before the Hellenistic Roman-Greco empires came into power. And even if it did start in Rome or Greece it would have definitely started when the traditional Hebrews would not conform to their new surroundings, thus there were 2 types of jews, Hellenistic ones and those that weren't.

PS. The words Roma locuta est means "Rome has spoken," they were spoken by Augustine and has nothing to do with anti-semitism.
 
Mar 15, 2005
1,783
1
0
45
#40
how come no one or the bible even talks about the Essenes???? ive seen in a few books about this religious/political party that jesus and his family were very likely a part of but no one ever seems to know about them......leaving them out seems suspicious since they should have been all up in the mix at the time of jesus' crucifixtion......