Noah

[Cedar Park Dad]

Ok so you're arguing your interpretation of the Bible says dinosaurs were around in the AD period (Incans). Thats...interesting.

EDIT: If thats the case, we're just going to have to agree to disagree as thats going to drop this into a thread about comparable religions, evolution, TRexes eating coconuts etc. and we probably don't need to do that here. It takes all kinds to make the world run right so

[VMI77]

I don't consider myself a highly religious man, in that I'm not much of a church-goer. However, I refuse to give my money to anyone who would manipulate and ruin a Biblical story in such a manner.

Not only that, but really, why would a non-religious person or atheist pay money to see this movie since however it is distorted, it is still taken from a religious text?

[Purplehood]

I don't consider myself a highly religious man, in that I'm not much of a church-goer. However, I refuse to give my money to anyone who would manipulate and ruin a Biblical story in such a manner.

Not only that, but really, why would a non-religious person or atheist pay money to see this movie since however it is distorted, it is still taken from a religious text?

Are you saying that a non-religious person or atheist have to leave objectivity at the door?

[VMI77]

If someone truly felt this way wouldn't they be compelled to kill themselves?

If one thought logically, sure. But the pretentious, self-important greenie wacko fringe views it as they cannot kill themselves because they have an important job to complete trying to kill the rest of us first.

For those unfamiliar with the insanity of the left:





http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/03 ... -post.html

[VMI77]

I don't consider myself a highly religious man, in that I'm not much of a church-goer. However, I refuse to give my money to anyone who would manipulate and ruin a Biblical story in such a manner.

Not only that, but really, why would a non-religious person or atheist pay money to see this movie since however it is distorted, it is still taken from a religious text?

Are you saying that a non-religious person or atheist have to leave objectivity at the door?

No, I'm saying as someone non-religious that I also have no interest in seeing this movie (in spite of the fact that I have liked other movies by this director), and that I don't get why anyone non-religious would be interested. It's not a criticism.....I don't get the interest in the Twilight Films either, or Harry Potter.

[anygunanywhere]

If someone truly felt this way wouldn't they be compelled to kill themselves?

If one thought logically, sure. But the pretentious, self-important greenie wacko fringe views it as they cannot kill themselves because they have an important job to complete trying to kill the rest of us first.

For those unfamiliar with the insanity of the left:

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/03 ... -post.html

The irony of the hypocrisy of those holding the signs is priceless.

Maybe they should lead by example.

Anygunanywhere

[Cedar Park Dad]

I don't consider myself a highly religious man, in that I'm not much of a church-goer. However, I refuse to give my money to anyone who would manipulate and ruin a Biblical story in such a manner.

Not only that, but really, why would a non-religious person or atheist pay money to see this movie since however it is distorted, it is still taken from a religious text?

Are you saying that a non-religious person or atheist have to leave objectivity at the door?

No, I'm saying as someone non-religious that I also have no interest in seeing this movie (in spite of the fact that I have liked other movies by this director), and that I don't get why anyone non-religious would be interested. It's not a criticism.....I don't get the interest in the Twilight Films either, or Harry Potter.

Special effects or they like the actors? Nothing about this movie interests me. Ben Hur or Ten Commandments it aint.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If someone truly felt this way wouldn't they be compelled to kill themselves?

If one thought logically, sure. But the pretentious, self-important greenie wacko fringe views it as they cannot kill themselves because they have an important job to complete trying to kill the rest of us first.

For those unfamiliar with the insanity of the left:

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/03 ... -post.html

The irony of the hypocrisy of those holding the signs is priceless.

Maybe they should lead by example.

Anygunanywhere

Living in the sane north part of Austin, I'd love a T shirt of that.

[Purplehood]

VM177:

Ah, I see and somewhat agree with you.

I don't watch Twilight Movies, have been dragged by loved-ones to see the Hunger Games, but I have always been fascinated by historical and religious-themed movies.

[Dragonfighter]

Ok so you're arguing your interpretation of the Bible says dinosaurs were around in the AD period (Incans). Thats...interesting.

EDIT: If thats the case, we're just going to have to agree to disagree as thats going to drop this into a thread about comparable religions, evolution, TRexes eating coconuts etc. and we probably don't need to do that here. It takes all kinds to make the world run right so

I reread my post to see how you ended up conflating my reading of the Scripture with a "belief" it included the Incas. I couldn't see it but for the sake of clarity, let me reiterate a couple of points.

1)A plain reading (not interpreted) of the Genesis account tells us the world in six days. Moses restated that the world and the seas and "all that in them is" were created in six days. Then you have graphic descriptions of what has to be dinosaurs in Job 40 and 41. All read together leaves no reasonable conclusion other than man and dinosaur coexisted and would have been on the ark. Now if one chooses not to believe Genesis is part of God's word and not literal or accurate, then yes we will have to agree to disagree.

2) Separate and apart from my discussion of the Bible, I mentioned the petroglyphs, pottery, Vietnamese temple carvings and Incan Burial stones that showed ancient societies had a good idea of what living and breathing dinosaurs looked like; centuries and millennia before the first dinosaur fossil was discovered. The simplest explanation is that these people and dinosaurs were contemporaneous.

All of this is in harmony with the Biblical account but it in no way is part of it, nor do I believe that my "interpretation" of what the Bible says includes the same. In fact my Bible stops in the 1st century. Yours?

[Cedar Park Dad]

Again you're arguing there were dinosaurs during the Incan period. Thats after the 1300s, er not much before Columbus.

The Catholic Church and Anglican Church disagree with your interpretation.

However as I said before, to each his own.

[Dragonfighter]

Again you're arguing there were dinosaurs during the Incan period. Thats after the 1300s, er not much before Columbus.

The Catholic Church and Anglican Church disagree with your interpretation.

However as I said before, to each his own.

Up to the 14th century, not really after. But yeah, the evidence suggests tha the Incans and other more ancient peoples new what the dinosaurs looked like. Ergo, they must have been contemporaneous.

FWIW, the Anglican and Catholic churches are not particularly adherent to the Bible. So I am not particularly concerned that they do not agree with me nor do I consider them authoritative on the subject. There not the only ones that disagree,
believe me.

All I can do is lay it out there. One has to choose for themselves whether to believe the Bible, parts of it or reject it for the wisdom of men.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Er believe your interpretation of the Bible is what you're saying. Others, hundreds of millions of others, don't interpret it that way.

[JCole]

If anyone has proof that dinosaurs existed as late as a few hundred years ago, they should publish their information in a peer-reviewed journal, and get ready to accept their Nobel Prize.

[Dragonfighter]

Er believe your interpretation of the Bible is what you're saying. Others, hundreds of millions of others, don't interpret it that way.

I don't believe I've said that, but okay. FWIW, I didn't supplant the Bible with my "interpretation" - I quoted and cited it, even offered what I saw as reasonable conclusions from what it says. But offering said conclusions is not "interpreting" it, it's just reasoning from the text. Interpreting it is saying that what it says means something else, kinda like what's happened with my posts.

The Bible says that everything was created in six days, ergo if dinosaurs existed (and I believe they did) they existed with antedeluvian man. Since the Bible tells us that a pair of each animal with the "breath of life" (Heb. nephesh same word for 'soul') was brought to the ark, then the dinosaurs would have logically been included; unless there was some kind of global extinction event not recorded in Scripture and requiring huge assumptions. In my opinion, that is unlikely.