Subject:
|
Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:20:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1219 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
>
> > Which chapter of the Bible talks about the dinosaurs?
>
> None of the chapters discuss the dodo bird, elephant, polar bear, passenger
> pigeon, asparagus, etc.
>
> That's hardly a realistic measure of contradictions to reality. :O)
Your statement is true, to an extent, but you are in essence claiming that
because the bible didn't describe one particular thing that existed, the
absence of a description of any other particular thing can be excused. Sort
of, but in doing so you turn the bible into a document that cannot be
inaccurate simply because it is so non-specific that none of its claims can
be tested.
Imagine that I went to a hockey game that did not end in a tie. I could
describe the game by saying "shots were made and at least one goal was
scored," but would that be a useful description? Of course not--it's so
non-specific that it could readily be applied to any game at all. That's
the same with the behemoth description; it could potentially describe any
large, herbivorous creature but can't be pinned to any one of them. As
such, you can always retreat to the next possible animal when the
description is found not to match the animal you've chosen for the moment.
Not a hippo? Fine--then it's a dinosaur! Not a dinosaur? Fine--then it's
an elephant! Not an elephant? Fine--then it's rhinoceros. Not a rhino?
Fine--then it's a megatherium! Not a megatherium? Fine--then it's a
balucitherium! And so on and so on and so on...
> Job 40:15-24
>
> I came across this when I was a child. It's a description that doesn't seem
> to be fit any animal I can think of. It's an herbivorus creature that feeds
> on grass and spends a great deal of time in the water. He has a tail like a
> cedar (which means really big in Bible terms) Some have argued that this is
> a hippopotamus, but their tails aren't cedar-y.
The passage also indicates that behemoth's force is in the navel of his
belly. Dinosaurs didn't have navels. Further, the bones of a dinosaur
aren't really like brass or iron, and they couldn't likely drink a whole
river, either. Of course, one can claim that that's just a metaphor, but in
that case it comes down to picking and choosing which descriptions are
methaphors and which are literal, and it's necessary to consider the
descriptive reasoning.
> Again, if it's not really a dinosaur, it won't affect my eternal security,
> but read it and tell me what you think. I'm also just curious.
It sounds to me more like a statement of power than a description of a
real-world creature. God is, in effect, saying to Job "I can/could make
this ultra-powerful creature, so who are you to criticize me?" The fact
that you and I can similarities between real creatures and certain
characteristics described in the bible doesn't mean that the bible is
describing those creatures. The passage could as readily describe the
Midgard Serpent or Cthulhu--does that mean that the bible is evidence of
their existence?
Of course, the cynic, when faced with God's "I can create this/who are you
to criticize" question would answer that man is *even more* powerful, since
he created God...
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) None of the chapters discuss the dodo bird, elephant, polar bear, passenger pigeon, asparagus, etc. That's hardly a realistic measure of contradictions to reality. :O) (...) Job 40:15-24 However, since you asked so nicely. I came across this (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
