Did Noah have a pet dinosaur?

by Resistance is Futile 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • still thinking
    still thinking


    I hear dinosaurs tasted like chicken.

    I would be concerned about that. Hearing things never turns out to be a good thing. Did others hear it at the same time?....hee hee hee

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    I found that missing link by the way.....

  • transhuman68

    Heres some info on the Genisis story from extracted from the original manuscripts:

    More curious than any other of these combinations is the account of the Flood, in which the compiler has
    taken the narratives of these two old writers and pieced them together like patchwork. Refer to your Bibles
    and note this piece of literary joiner-work. At the fifth verse of the sixth chapter of Genesis this story begins;
    from this verse to the end of the eighth verse the Jehovistic document is used. The name of the Deity is
    Jehovah, translated LORD. From the ninth verse to the end of the chapter the Elohistic document is used. The
    word applied to God is Elohim, translated God. With the seventh chapter begins again the quotation from the
    other document, "And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto Noah." This extends only to the sixth verse; then the
    Elohistic narrative begins again, and continues to the nineteenth verse of the eighth chapter, including it; then
    the Jehovistic narrative begins again, and continues through the chapter; then the Elohist takes up the tale for
    the first seventeen verses of the ninth chapter; then the Jehovist goes on to the twenty-seventh verse, and the
    Elohist closes the chapter. It is true that we have in the midst of some of these Elohistic passages a verse or
    two of the other document inserted by the compiler; but the outlines of the different documents are marked as
    I have told you. If you take this story and dissect out of it the portions which I have ascribed to the Elohist and
    put them together, you will have a clear, complete, consecutive story of the Flood; the portions of the
    Jehovistic narrative inserted rather tend to confusion. "The consideration of the context here," says Bleek,
    "quite apart from the changes in the naming of God, shows that the Jehovistic passages of the narrative did not
    originally belong to it. It cannot fail to be observed that the connection is often interrupted by the Jehovistic
    passages, and that by cutting them out a more valuable and clearer continuity of the narrative is almost always
    obtained. For instance, in the existing narrative certain repetitions keep on occurring; one of these, especially,
    is connected with a difference in the matters of fact related, introducing no slight difficulty and obscurity."
    [Footnote: Vol. i. p. 273.]
    Hear the Jehovist: "And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth" (ch. vi. 5). Now hear
    the Elohist (vi. 11): "And the earth was corrupt before Elohim, and the earth was filled with violence." The
    Jehovist says (vi. 7): "And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the
    ground." The Elohist says (vi. 13): "The earth is filled with violence through them, and behold I will destroy
    them with the earth." In the ninth verse of the sixth chapter we read: "Noah was a righteous man and perfect in
    his generations; Noah walked with Elohim." In the first verse of the seventh chapter, we read, "And Jehovah
    said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this
    generation." These repetitions show how the same story is twice told. But the contradictions are more
    significant. Here the one narrative represents Elohim as saying (vi. 19): "And of every living thing of all flesh,
    two of every kind shalt thou bring into the ark to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of
    the fowl after their kind and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two
    of every sort shall come unto thee to keep them alive." But the other narrative represents Jehovah as saying,
    "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and the female; and of the beasts that
    are not clean, two, the male and the female; of the fowl also of the air seven and seven, male and female, to
    keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." The one story says that of every kind of living creature one pair
    should be taken into the ark; the other says that of clean beasts, seven pairs of each species should be
    received, and of unclean beasts only one pair. The harmonists have wrestled with this passage also; some of
    them say that perhaps the first passage only meant that they should walk in two and two; others say that a
    good many years had elapsed between the giving of the two commands (of which there is not a particle of
    evidence), and we are left to infer that in the mean time the Almighty either forgot his first orders, or else
    changed his mind. It is a pitiful instance of an attempt to evade a difficulty that cannot be evaded. One of the
    very conservative commentators, Dr. Perowne, in Smith's "Bible Dictionary," concludes to face it: "May we
    not suppose," he timidly asks, "that we have here traces of a separate document, interwoven by a later writer,
    with the former history? The passage has not, indeed, been incorporated intact, but there is a coloring about it
    which seems to indicate that Moses, or whoever put the book of Genesis into its present shape, had here
    consulted a different narrative. The distinct use of the divine names in the same phrase (vi. 22; vii. 5), in the
    former Elohim, in the latter Jehovah, suggests that this may have been the case." [Footnote: Art. "Noah," iii.
    2179, American Edition.]

    It didn't happen like this though...

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Hi Trans....I think I need to print that one out to and sit down with a coffee to go over it with my bible.

    Which manuscripts are they extracted from? Is it possible that since none of the manuscripts we have can truly be called the original that the name was altered by the copyists? I know this puts the whole bible in question. But is it a valid question?

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Hey trans....is this your cat?

  • transhuman68

    One theory is that Genisis was written by combining the Yahwist and Elohist manuscripts. Some more info here:http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/yahweh_elohim_shaddai.html

    You might want to save the page as a HTML only. The background makes it hard to read.

    b.t.w. you can read a literal translation and the old hebrew to see where Genisis uses Elohim and Yahweh here; http://www.scripture4all.org/

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    thanks trans...will have a look

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    yep....see what you mean about hard to read...my goodness!!! what were they thinking?

  • JustHuman14

    As I said before the story of flood it is a copy of Gilgamesh Epic, that is older than the Jewish Scriptures. There are many interesting things that when you start to search it will lead to conclusions.

    For instance ancient societies used to be Matriarchal. In fact the Israelites used to worship Asherah godess along with Yaweh and she was god's wife, then males became dominant and removed Asherah from the scene.

    So Noah or Gilgamesh, couldn't have a dino at the ark since they are all vanished 65 million years ago when a huge comet hit the Earth and vanished them within few years. That's when mamals survived and from them we evolved.

  • ziddina
    "Your personal interest in studying fossils and rocks is fine. But it is only one small peice of the evolution puzzle. ..."

    Just to inform you, Still Thinking, that the fossil record [the science of paleontology] contains a sizeable segment - a VERY LARGE PART - of the evidence for evolution.

    However, Still "Thinking", you're still NOT LISTENING... So I'm really not interested in continuing a conversation on the subject with you.

    As hubby [chemical engineer with minor degrees in several other sciences...] pointed out to me last night, why waste time on a person who refuses to even glimpse what the sciences that have determined the realities of evolution have to say??

Share this