PDA

View Full Version : Dinosaurs in the Bible?



JordanW
Mar 26th 2007, 04:04 AM
I remember someone talking about how dinosaur's were in the Bible, but my Pastor never told us exactly where to find it, but he said it's in Genesis. Any help?

Steve M
Mar 26th 2007, 04:07 AM
Job is a better bet. Any day of the week. Do a search for Levithan and Behemoth.

JordanW
Mar 26th 2007, 04:19 AM
You don't know exactly where it's at?

th1bill
Mar 26th 2007, 05:02 AM
Job 40:15 You can also type the words into any search engine.

Steve M
Mar 26th 2007, 12:29 PM
You don't know exactly where it's at?
Thanks, Th1Bill.

I was away from my home computer, at a friend's house. No Bible, no notes. Hard to double-check at times like that. I mean, I could have grabbed an online Bible and checked in a matter of a few minutes, but I was in a hurry... we were watching To Kill a Mockingbird, and they'd never seen it before.

Naphal
Mar 26th 2007, 12:32 PM
You don't know exactly where it's at?

It's in the back.

JordanW
Mar 26th 2007, 01:46 PM
Oh yeah thanks for posting that. I checked online and saw the verse and I never recall reading that before, thanks.

A820djd
Mar 27th 2007, 05:17 PM
As I was reading, a great flood... Read on and you'll understand it makes perfect sense!!!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

If you're interested let me know.

jesuslover1968
Mar 27th 2007, 05:34 PM
I have a question. Why do people assume that behometh and leviathon are dinosaurs? My biggest problem with dinosaurs is this: If there were dinosaurs in biblical times, why weren't they written about more fully? Having even one type of carnivorous dinosaur alive while people were alive would have put us at the bottom of the food chain. That would be worthy to write about, don't you agree? The Bible says that animals of the earth were created on the sixth day, just as man was created on the sixth day. That would put animals and dinosaurs on the earth together. Notwithstanding that God also put man in dominion over them. It would be hard to be dominant over something that would eat you for a snack. As well as the fact that at the time we and they were created, there were no carnivores. ( Gen. 1: 29-30 ) God Bless.

humbled
Mar 27th 2007, 06:01 PM
I have a question. Why do people assume that behometh and leviathon are dinosaurs? Because the other options given for behemoth were hippo, elephant and crocodile. Job also talks about the tail "like a cedar"

Have you ever seen a cedar tree? It's at least 3' diameter! A crocs tail doesn't even come close, and an elephant?? Fuhgetabowdit

Heh ... I found this on that link above:


For more information, visit Q&A: Dinosaurs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp)

Dinosaurs and the Bible

by Ken Ham

Have Dinosaurs Lived in Recent Times?

If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called ‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/images2/behemoth_tail.jpg
Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.



My biggest problem with dinosaurs is this: If there were dinosaurs in biblical times, why weren't they written about more fully? Having even one type of carnivorous dinosaur alive while people were alive would have put us at the bottom of the food chain. That would be worthy to write about, don't you agree? The Bible says that animals of the earth were created on the sixth day, just as man was created on the sixth day. That would put animals and dinosaurs on the earth together. Notwithstanding that God also put man in dominion over them. It would be hard to be dominant over something that would eat you for a snack. As well as the fact that at the time we and they were created, there were no carnivores. ( Gen. 1: 29-30 ) God Bless.The bible doesn't write about a lot of animals. Not in any sort of detail, which seems to be what you are looking for. Cats aren't mentioned, beetles aren't mentioned, sharks aren't mentioned, giraffes aren't mentioned.

An argument from silence seems to be a shaky argument indeed.

Remember ... the Scriptures are a book about God. Not man. Not animals. Also, see the second part of the quote above from Ken Ham.

Grace to you

VerticalReality
Mar 27th 2007, 06:06 PM
I have a question. Why do people assume that behometh and leviathon are dinosaurs? My biggest problem with dinosaurs is this: If there were dinosaurs in biblical times, why weren't they written about more fully? Having even one type of carnivorous dinosaur alive while people were alive would have put us at the bottom of the food chain. That would be worthy to write about, don't you agree? The Bible says that animals of the earth were created on the sixth day, just as man was created on the sixth day. That would put animals and dinosaurs on the earth together. Notwithstanding that God also put man in dominion over them. It would be hard to be dominant over something that would eat you for a snack. As well as the fact that at the time we and they were created, there were no carnivores. ( Gen. 1: 29-30 ) God Bless.

Here's an interesting bit of information you may find interesting. Many believe that dinosaurs are still alive today. They are in the form of what we call reptiles. It has been said that a reptile never stops growing. It continuously grows from the time it is born till the time it dies. Another biblical fact is that prior to the great flood, human beings lived to be upwards to 900 or so years old. Now, if human beings lived that long prior to the great flood, I would imagine that animals and reptiles lived that long as well. Now, if a reptile never stops growing, and back then they lived to be as old as humans (or close to it), that would mean that they would grow to a tremendous size. It's an interesting observation. I don't know how much truth it actually holds, but it is a possibility.

A820djd
Mar 27th 2007, 06:39 PM
Here's an interesting bit of information you may find interesting. Many believe that dinosaurs are still alive today. They are in the form of what we call reptiles. It has been said that a reptile never stops growing. It continuously grows from the time it is born till the time it dies. Another biblical fact is that prior to the great flood, human beings lived to be upwards to 900 or so years old. Now, if human beings lived that long prior to the great flood, I would imagine that animals and reptiles lived that long as well. Now, if a reptile never stops growing, and back then they lived to be as old as humans (or close to it), that would mean that they would grow to a tremendous size. It's an interesting observation. I don't know how much truth it actually holds, but it is a possibility.

Hmm, maybe the fossils are the results of breeding crocodiles with alligators or crossbreeding with other reptiles? Thats how we have so many different types of dogs nowadays cockapooh's, shih-tzu's, muts, etc.. etc.. Maybe there were only 3 species of dog in this world when god created them, but after sin they were captured as "mans best friend" and cross bread to different "families" of dogs.. Same with any animal of that sort. :confused

jesuslover1968
Mar 27th 2007, 07:03 PM
Because the other options given for behemoth were hippo, elephant and crocodile. Job also talks about the tail "like a cedar"

Have you ever seen a cedar tree? It's at least 3' diameter! A crocs tail doesn't even come close, and an elephant?? Fuhgetabowdit

Heh ... I found this on that link above:



The bible doesn't write about a lot of animals. Not in any sort of detail, which seems to be what you are looking for. Cats aren't mentioned, beetles aren't mentioned, sharks aren't mentioned, giraffes aren't mentioned.

An argument from silence seems to be a shaky argument indeed.

Remember ... the Scriptures are a book about God. Not man. Not animals. Also, see the second part of the quote above from Ken Ham.

Grace to you


JOB 40:15 (God is talking to Job) Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

according to this verse, this creature was something that God used to glorify himself, which indeed made it worthy to speak of. As far as the cedar tree theory, this verse shows that it only moves it's tail like a cedar, not that it was as big as one. So this verse is describing the movement of it's tail likened to the movement of a cedar tree.
As for leviathon,

Job 41


1Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. 34He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Psalm 104

1Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
10He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.
11They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.
12By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.
13He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.
14He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
16The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;
17Where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.
18The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the rocks for the conies.
19He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
20Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.
21The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.
22The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.
23Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.
24O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
25So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
26There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
27These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.
28That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
29Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
31The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.
32He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.
33I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD. 35Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

This is not a dinosaur, but something that lives in the water. Or possibly even a metaphor describing something physically that is spiritual. Many people think it may be the devil being described as leviathon. I'm not sure myself, I just know that it isn't a dinosaur. As the behomoth, there is quite a bit written about the leviathon, and I would consider that to mean that God thought it important enough to give us info on these two things. God Bless.

jesuslover1968
Mar 27th 2007, 07:07 PM
Here's an interesting bit of information you may find interesting. Many believe that dinosaurs are still alive today. They are in the form of what we call reptiles. It has been said that a reptile never stops growing. It continuously grows from the time it is born till the time it dies. Another biblical fact is that prior to the great flood, human beings lived to be upwards to 900 or so years old. Now, if human beings lived that long prior to the great flood, I would imagine that animals and reptiles lived that long as well. Now, if a reptile never stops growing, and back then they lived to be as old as humans (or close to it), that would mean that they would grow to a tremendous size. It's an interesting observation. I don't know how much truth it actually holds, but it is a possibility.


What you say somewhat makes sense, though I cannot agree that animals lived as long as humans, as I don't believe the Bible gives us that info. I know there was NO death until the fall, and that would include animals. But were their life expectancies the same, or longer than ours? I couldn't really say for sure. But in all actuality, that is the only explanation I have ever heard that would hold any water at all. Thank you. God Bless.

humbled
Mar 27th 2007, 07:36 PM
JOB 40:15 (God is talking to Job) Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

according to this verse, this creature was something that God used to glorify himself, which indeed made it worthy to speak of. As far as the cedar tree theory, this verse shows that it only moves it's tail like a cedar, not that it was as big as one. So this verse is describing the movement of it's tail likened to the movement of a cedar tree.I don't know about you, but I've never seen a cedar move - except in some really strong wind. :o

It is not talking about the tail moving like a cedar moves, but it moves its tail (which is) like a cedar. I believe the word 'cedar' is describing the tail, not the type of movement.



This is not a dinosaur, but something that lives in the water. Or possibly even a metaphor describing something physically that is spiritual. Many people think it may be the devil being described as leviathon. I'm not sure myself, I just know that it isn't a dinosaur. As the behomoth, there is quite a bit written about the leviathon, and I would consider that to mean that God thought it important enough to give us info on these two things. God Bless.I don't know anything about the leviathan, really.

Is it really that difficult to believe that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together? In my opinion, it is only darwinism and current "hype" which would cause that to be dismissed. I once did. I was an evolutionist, and an old earth believer, and dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago", but I've come to understand that if dinosaurs lived with men then either that is one OLD dinosaur or science is wrong.

There are cultures which, hundreds of years ago (long before the first fossils were found) drew pictures of large animals with enormous tails and long necks. Sounds like a dinosaur to me.

The concept of dragons came from visual experience, not imagination. They look nearly identical to what today's idea of a dinosaur looks like.

Science is the religion of the world, and we all know who the ruler of said world is.

It is no doubt he would attempt to curtail any beliefs that show God as sovereign. Science is empirical, but not infallible.

Grace to you

jesuslover1968
Mar 27th 2007, 08:27 PM
I don't know about you, but I've never seen a cedar move - except in some really strong wind. :o

It is not talking about the tail moving like a cedar moves, but it moves its tail (which is) like a cedar. I believe the word 'cedar' is describing the tail, not the type of movement.


I don't know anything about the leviathan, really.

Is it really that difficult to believe that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together? In my opinion, it is only darwinism and current "hype" which would cause that to be dismissed. I once did. I was an evolutionist, and an old earth believer, and dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago", but I've come to understand that if dinosaurs lived with men then either that is one OLD dinosaur or science is wrong.

There are cultures which, hundreds of years ago (long before the first fossils were found) drew pictures of large animals with enormous tails and long necks. Sounds like a dinosaur to me.

The concept of dragons came from visual experience, not imagination. They look nearly identical to what today's idea of a dinosaur looks like.

Science is the religion of the world, and we all know who the ruler of said world is.

It is no doubt he would attempt to curtail any beliefs that show God as sovereign. Science is empirical, but not infallible.

Grace to you


Not sure why you got off to the wrong idea that I base anything of what I believe on science. I base what I believe from the Bible. The Bible does not mention dinosaurs. I have doubts about it because we quite simply would have been eaten. :) That isn't based on science at all, but modest deduction...;)
If dinosaurs existed, they had to have existed at the same time as man, as I mentioned in my last post, because man and animal were created on the same day. If they did exist, then somebody somewhere would have written about them, whether in the Bible, or not. Drawings on cave walls, while leading us to many good conclusions, are really just what we theorize. Just because a drawing shows something as totally huge, does not mean it really was. Case in point, there was a ruler from somewhere, can't remember his name, but he always had his picture drawn bigger than he was. Now, if someone hadn't written that down, we would just have to go on believing that he was really that big. That isn't science. That's history. I am not in the least delusional. I know that some kind of giant animals existed, there is too much archeological proof to deny it. But were they really dinosaurs? That is just an assumption. From reading the account of Leviathon, one could come to the conclusion that it is describing a fire-breathing dragon. Is it? maybe...is it possible this is a description of satan, who is likened to a dragon in the Bible? Could be, but we just don't know. I am just like many people and am being honest about the confusion I have over this subject. I do not pretend to know all the answers, and I will not accept what others believe when the answers are not proven by the Bible and for that matter, don't even click as being correct to me, who is just a semi-intelligent person. :)
As for your estimation of the tail on the behomoth, I disagree. I go by what the Bible says. Have you ever seen a cedar sway in the wind? I think that is exactly what is being described here. We cannot take what we don't understand and make it say something entirely different just because we can't make sense of it. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, we just disagree. :)
It is very possible that the drawings on cave walls were what we consider dinosaurs, it's also possible they were not. In either case, I don't think that is what is being described in the Bible. If you do, that's cool, we can disagree. :hug:
I just have questions and confusion that cannot be cleared up by accepting what others believe just because that's what they believe. I guess it will be one of the things I will be eager to find out when Jesus comes back. :pp God Bless.

humbled
Mar 27th 2007, 08:58 PM
Not sure why you got off to the wrong idea that I base anything of what I believe on science. I base what I believe from the Bible. The Bible does not mention dinosaurs. I have doubts about it because we quite simply would have been eaten. :) That isn't based on science at all, but modest deduction...;)
If dinosaurs existed, they had to have existed at the same time as man, as I mentioned in my last post, because man and animal were created on the same day. If they did exist, then somebody somewhere would have written about them, whether in the Bible, or not. Drawings on cave walls, while leading us to many good conclusions, are really just what we theorize. Just because a drawing shows something as totally huge, does not mean it really was. Case in point, there was a ruler from somewhere, can't remember his name, but he always had his picture drawn bigger than he was. Now, if someone hadn't written that down, we would just have to go on believing that he was really that big. That isn't science. That's history. I am not in the least delusional. I know that some kind of giant animals existed, there is too much archeological proof to deny it. But were they really dinosaurs? That is just an assumption. From reading the account of Leviathon, one could come to the conclusion that it is describing a fire-breathing dragon. Is it? maybe...is it possible this is a description of satan, who is likened to a dragon in the Bible? Could be, but we just don't know. I am just like many people and am being honest about the confusion I have over this subject. I do not pretend to know all the answers, and I will not accept what others believe when the answers are not proven by the Bible and for that matter, don't even click as being correct to me, who is just a semi-intelligent person. :)
As for your estimation of the tail on the behomoth, I disagree. I go by what the Bible says. Have you ever seen a cedar sway in the wind? I think that is exactly what is being described here. We cannot take what we don't understand and make it say something entirely different just because we can't make sense of it. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, we just disagree. :)
It is very possible that the drawings on cave walls were what we consider dinosaurs, it's also possible they were not. In either case, I don't think that is what is being described in the Bible. If you do, that's cool, we can disagree. :hug:
I just have questions and confusion that cannot be cleared up by accepting what others believe just because that's what they believe. I guess it will be one of the things I will be eager to find out when Jesus comes back. :pp God Bless.I sure do appreciate your thoughts, Jesuslover.

I wasn't suggesting that you place science over the bible. I was only supposing that maybe your understanding has been polluted by the modern ideas that are prevalent today. I know I am ... I struggle with "old ideas" all the time. that's all. Nothing personal.

As for a cedar swaying in the wind.

It's still a cedar

http://www.ifdn.com/unique/cedar/cedar.jpg

Pretty big, huh? What animal has a tail that SWAYS like a cedar in the wind -- back and forth, back and forth -- that you can think of?

Naphal
Mar 27th 2007, 11:04 PM
As well as the fact that at the time we and they were created, there were no carnivores. ( Gen. 1: 29-30 ) God Bless.

That doesn't mean there weren't carnivores. Even man was created as a carnivore and had dominion over the fish of the sea and there is only one kind of dominion over fish and that's fishing and eating of them.

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 03:14 AM
Humbled, just one thing bugged me about that article you posted way up top.


In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a

Where on earth does it say Job lived after the Flood? Job is a loose floating book, as it has nothing internally to date it. No geneolagies to match it against. He's not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Basically... Job could easily have been written pre-flood.

But, that's REALLY nit-picking... even for me!

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 03:18 AM
He's not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.


But, that's REALLY nit-picking... even for me!

May I trump that nitpick? :)


James 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

humbled
Mar 28th 2007, 03:36 AM
Humbled, just one thing bugged me about that article you posted way up top.



Where on earth does it say Job lived after the Flood? Job is a loose floating book, as it has nothing internally to date it. No geneolagies to match it against. He's not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Basically... Job could easily have been written pre-flood.

But, that's REALLY nit-picking... even for me!Um ... I really have no idea about the time of the life of Job. :dunno:

But I don't think the idea that they were pre-flood or post flood even matters. The proof is that Job saw them, and Job was a man, hence men saw dinosaurs.

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 04:00 AM
May I trump that nitpick? :)


James 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
Oh, snap! I meant of course that he's not mentioned in such a way as to give us a dating clue, but I outright uttered an untruth, didn't I? I am trumped.

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 04:02 AM
Um ... I really have no idea about the time of the life of Job. :dunno:

But I don't think the idea that they were pre-flood or post flood even matters. The proof is that Job saw them, and Job was a man, hence men saw dinosaurs.
I'm just nitpicking because they make a big deal out him being after, and so the dinosaurs survived the flood... when the text proves no such thing.

Which is, as you say, COMPLETELY ancillary to your point.

Which is what makes it so nitpicky. :)

humbled
Mar 28th 2007, 04:13 AM
I'm just nitpicking because they make a big deal out him being after, and so the dinosaurs survived the flood... when the text proves no such thing.

Which is, as you say, COMPLETELY ancillary to your point.

Which is what makes it so nitpicky. :)nitpickyness (?) is what makes a good student.

Keep on keepin' on, brother :)

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 04:21 AM
Oh, snap! I meant of course that he's not mentioned in such a way as to give us a dating clue, but I outright uttered an untruth, didn't I? I am trumped.

But actually, I agree with your original post. I personally believe that the dinosaurs were dead long before Adam was created.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 04:25 AM
Um ... I really have no idea about the time of the life of Job. :dunno:

But I don't think the idea that they were pre-flood or post flood even matters. The proof is that Job saw them, and Job was a man, hence men saw dinosaurs.

Job didn't see them. God is bringing up examples, including how the world was created. It doesn't mean Job witnessed any of these examples. God is showing how mighty he is and how unqualified Job is to question God about anything. This is a good place to ask oneself why God is so angry at Job but that's for another thread.

VerticalReality
Mar 28th 2007, 02:49 PM
Job didn't see them. God is bringing up examples, including how the world was created. It doesn't mean Job witnessed any of these examples. God is showing how mighty he is and how unqualified Job is to question God about anything. This is a good place to ask oneself why God is so angry at Job but that's for another thread.

I believe Job did see this behemoth.



Job 40:15
“Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.


How can God tell him to look now at the behemoth that He made along with him if Job had nothing to look at?

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 04:56 PM
Um, that word ALONG could be misleading. He might mean that in the same way He made man He also made the behemoth. (I do beleive that for at least a time man and dinosaurs coexisted, which the fossil record is beginning to show--I'd cite something here, but I lost that article quite a while back)

Just a note that the wording here is still ambiguous enough Naphal can get away with saying it doesn't necessarily mean that.

humbled
Mar 28th 2007, 05:07 PM
Um, that word ALONG could be misleading. He might mean that in the same way He made man He also made the behemoth. (I do beleive that for at least a time man and dinosaurs coexisted, which the fossil record is beginning to show--I'd cite something here, but I lost that article quite a while back)

Just a note that the wording here is still ambiguous enough Naphal can get away with saying it doesn't necessarily mean that."Look now at the behemoth, which went extinct millions of years ago, so I know you can't really look, but the wording is ambiguous so Ill just hold up a picture, or you can look at this cave painting done millions of years ago to see my magnificence. See, he is eating grass in that picture!"

Doesn't have the same flow, does it?

;)

VerticalReality
Mar 28th 2007, 05:11 PM
Um, that word ALONG could be misleading. He might mean that in the same way He made man He also made the behemoth. (I do beleive that for at least a time man and dinosaurs coexisted, which the fossil record is beginning to show--I'd cite something here, but I lost that article quite a while back)

Just a note that the wording here is still ambiguous enough Naphal can get away with saying it doesn't necessarily mean that.

humbled pretty much got you on that one. You are emphasizing a different part of the passage than I am. I'm not citing the fact that God says He made the behemoth "along" with Job. I'm citing the fact that God told Job to "look" at the behemoth. How is Job going to "look" at a behemoth that doesn't exist during his time? They didn't have an encyclopedia in Job's day. They didn't have a museum that he could go down the street and see all the huge fossils and reconstructions of dinosaurs. God told him to "look" at what He created. The only way to do that is to see it walking amongst him.

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 05:27 PM
...or caveman paintings...

Wait, they weren't supposed to see the dinosaurs either, if man and the dinosaurs never coexisted...

Phooey.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Of course, that site is suspect because of their very strong partisan stance.

Still, it's an interesting read, no?

PS: With a little navigation you can find their (sometimes wacky) opinion on dinosaurs in the Bible.

humbled
Mar 28th 2007, 05:43 PM
...or caveman paintings...

Wait, they weren't supposed to see the dinosaurs either, if man and the dinosaurs never coexisted...

Phooey.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Of course, that site is suspect because of their very strong partisan stance.

Still, it's an interesting read, no?

PS: With a little navigation you can find their (sometimes wacky) opinion on dinosaurs in the Bible.Great link, Steve.

Those pictures are AMAZINGLY accurate, aren't they? Makes ya go :hmm:

And it only strengthens my belief that men and dinosaurs were alive at the same time.

Thanks for the link :)

KingFisher
Mar 28th 2007, 07:25 PM
Humbled, just one thing bugged me about that article you posted way up top.



Where on earth does it say Job lived after the Flood? Job is a loose floating book, as it has nothing internally to date it. No geneolagies to match it against. He's not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Basically... Job could easily have been written pre-flood.

But, that's REALLY nit-picking... even for me!

I've seen The Book of Job dated like this.

Job 4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:

Ok, so Eliphaz was a Temanite.

Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam and Kenaz.

Genesis 36:15 These were the chiefs among Esau's descendants: The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: Chiefs Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz,

Genesis 36:41 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 42 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, 43 Magdiel and Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom, according to their settlements in the land they occupied. This was Esau the father of the Edomites.

Genesis 36:34 When Jobab died, Husham from the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king.

Genesis 36:40 These were the chiefs descended from Esau, by name, according to their clans and regions:
Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, 41 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 42 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, 43 Magdiel and Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom, according to their settlements in the land they occupied. This was Esau the father of the Edomites.

I've heard some use this to date Job sometime after Esau.

I don't think this is proof that it is after the flood, but interesting.:hmm:

KingFisher

Oh, and by the way I think the Behemoth could be what we call a dinosaur too.

humbled
Mar 28th 2007, 07:27 PM
I've seen The Book of Job dated like this.

Job 4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:

Ok, so Eliphaz was a Temanite.

Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam and Kenaz.

Genesis 36:15 These were the chiefs among Esau's descendants: The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: Chiefs Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz,

Genesis 36:41 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 42 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, 43 Magdiel and Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom, according to their settlements in the land they occupied. This was Esau the father of the Edomites.

Genesis 36:34 When Jobab died, Husham from the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king.

Genesis 36:40 These were the chiefs descended from Esau, by name, according to their clans and regions:
Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, 41 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 42 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, 43 Magdiel and Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom, according to their settlements in the land they occupied. This was Esau the father of the Edomites.

I've heard some use this to date Job sometime after Esau.

I don't think this is proof that it is after the flood, but interesting.:hmm:

KingFisher

Oh, and by the way I think the Behemoth could be what we call a dinosaur too.Intriguing ...........

KingFisher
Mar 29th 2007, 12:45 AM
Intriguing ...........

Intriguing indeed. I mean proof that Eliphaz is his own grandpa.:D

In all seriousness though, I guess it wouldn't be all that shocking that someone was named after their grandpapy.

KingFisher

humbled
Mar 29th 2007, 12:52 AM
Intriguing indeed. I mean proof that Eliphaz is his own grandpa.:D

In all seriousness though, I guess it wouldn't be all that shocking that someone was named after their grandpapy.

KingFisher
I think I missed a step ... what do you mean?

KingFisher
Mar 29th 2007, 01:47 AM
I think I missed a step ... what do you mean?

Sorry my fault.

Job 4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:...

Here Eliphaz is shown to be from Teman an already established city.

Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam...

This Eliphaz is shown to be the father of Teman.

Obviously there are two Eliphaz's

I was trying to make a joke that Eliphaz is his own grandpa. I know, I know it's not that funny. For some reason it was to me though.

I just tickled myself with it. Just wanted to share the laugh. My wife tells me I've got a third grade sense of humor, so I'm not suprised.

humbled
Mar 29th 2007, 03:43 AM
Sorry my fault.

Job 4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:...

Here Eliphaz is shown to be from Teman an already established city.

Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam...

This Eliphaz is shown to be the father of Teman.

Obviously there are two Eliphaz's

I was trying to make a joke that Eliphaz is his own grandpa. I know, I know it's not that funny. For some reason it was to me though.

I just tickled myself with it. Just wanted to share the laugh. My wife tells me I've got a third grade sense of humor, so I'm not suprised.Nah ... it was funny :)

I did wonder why you were relating Eliphaz the Temanite with Eliphaz the father of Teman. I guess I missed the obvious point you were making. Funny how we see the obvious when it is shown to us :lol:

But what if the author is calling Eliphaz "the Temanite" to show us that this particular Eliphaz IS the one being spoken of? I mean Abraham is the "father" of the faithful, right? The "father" of Israel even though he is the GRANDfather? And isn't Israel considered the children of Abraham, not Isaac?

Perhaps this is just a Hebraism? Not sure about it, but that's what I thought of.

Naphal
Mar 29th 2007, 06:19 AM
I believe Job did see this behemoth.



How can God tell him to look now at the behemoth that He made along with him if Job had nothing to look at?

It's a figure of speech.

Naphal
Mar 29th 2007, 06:23 AM
"Look now at the behemoth, which went extinct millions of years ago, so I know you can't really look, but the wording is ambiguous so Ill just hold up a picture, or you can look at this cave painting done millions of years ago to see my magnificence. See, he is eating grass in that picture!"

Doesn't have the same flow, does it?

;)


This is the same as how we say things today such as a discussion about George Washington, "Look at how he led his troops in the revolution." doesn't literally mean you can look somewhere and see him doing it. And no, Job was not made at the same time as the Behemoth, it means that God made both of them but not at the same time.

KingFisher
Mar 29th 2007, 12:28 PM
Nah ... it was funny :)

cool :cool:



I did wonder why you were relating Eliphaz the Temanite with Eliphaz the father of Teman. I guess I missed the obvious point you were making. Funny how we see the obvious when it is shown to us :lol:

But what if the author is calling Eliphaz "the Temanite" to show us that this particular Eliphaz IS the one being spoken of? I mean Abraham is the "father" of the faithful, right? The "father" of Israel even though he is the GRANDfather? And isn't Israel considered the children of Abraham, not Isaac?

Perhaps this is just a Hebraism? Not sure about it, but that's what I thought of.


Hmmm, I didn't think of it that way.

KingFisher
Mar 29th 2007, 12:33 PM
This is the same as how we say things today such as a discussion about George Washington, "Look at how he led his troops in the revolution." doesn't literally mean you can look somewhere and see him doing it. And no, Job was not made at the same time as the Behemoth, it means that God made both of them but not at the same time.

Yea It could have been that way.

The only problem is that we have a pretty detailed history of George Washington. I guess what I'm saying is that, if someone said the statement:

"Look at how he led his troops in the revolution."

We have much written about this subject. There is something to relate to.

If the behemoth died long before man walked the earth then what is Job relating "look now at the Behemoth"?

I see that you haven't debated yet that the Behemoth is possibly a dinosaur. Just that it died before Job.

Is that correct?

VerticalReality
Mar 29th 2007, 01:18 PM
It's a figure of speech.

What makes you believe it's a figure of speech?

Regardless, if Job had nothing to look at, it would be a useless figure of speech. How is God going to give Job instruction when Job has no idea what He's talking about?

It would be the same as me saying to you . . .

"Look at the little man from Mars . . . "

That wouldn't really help you much would it? You have no idea what a man from Mars would look like do you? Therefore, it would make no sense for God to tell Job to "look at the behemoth" as a figure of speech if Job had no idea what the behemoth looked like.

Naphal
Mar 29th 2007, 06:49 PM
Yea It could have been that way.

The only problem is that we have a pretty detailed history of George Washington. I guess what I'm saying is that, if someone said the statement:

"Look at how he led his troops in the revolution."

We have much written about this subject. There is something to relate to.

If the behemoth died long before man walked the earth then what is Job relating "look now at the Behemoth"?

I see that you haven't debated yet that the Behemoth is possibly a dinosaur. Just that it died before Job.

Is that correct?

I believe God was most likely talking about the largest animal (dinosaur) he ever made. God was pointing out various extremes to Job to prove how mighty He was. I don't think Job had to be intimately knowledgeable about them for God to make his point.

Naphal
Mar 29th 2007, 06:52 PM
What makes you believe it's a figure of speech?

Regardless, if Job had nothing to look at, it would be a useless figure of speech. How is God going to give Job instruction when Job has no idea what He's talking about?

It would be the same as me saying to you . . .

"Look at the little man from Mars . . . "

That wouldn't really help you much would it? You have no idea what a man from Mars would look like do you? Therefore, it would make no sense for God to tell Job to "look at the behemoth" as a figure of speech if Job had no idea what the behemoth looked like.

Why did God describe what the animal looked like then?

A820djd
Mar 29th 2007, 06:52 PM
Uhm, to some of you.. If dinosaurs didn't exist, then what are the giant bones of what we are finding? Giant cats and dogs? :(or chickens?

humbled
Mar 29th 2007, 07:33 PM
Why did God describe what the animal looked like then?Let's say we are driving down the road ...

I see a horse galloping in a field alongside us. I say "Look at that horse! How beautiful! Look at his mane and tail blowing in the wind! Look at his strong legs as they gallop! What an amazingly beautiful animal!"

I love horses, btw ...

Does that mean I don't see him because I am describing what he looks like?

humbled
Mar 29th 2007, 07:34 PM
Uhm, to some of you.. If dinosaurs didn't exist, then what are the giant bones of what we are finding? Giant cats and dogs? :(or chickens?Who said they didn't exist? I think some have said they didn't exist with or at the same time as men.

A820djd
Mar 29th 2007, 08:17 PM
Who said they didn't exist? I think some have said they didn't exist with or at the same time as men.


Ah right must have read it wrong then...Well maybe they all died out on the 5th day of creation? lol

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 02:51 AM
Let's say we are driving down the road ...

I see a horse galloping in a field alongside us. I say "Look at that horse! How beautiful! Look at his mane and tail blowing in the wind! Look at his strong legs as they gallop! What an amazingly beautiful animal!"

I love horses, btw ...

Does that mean I don't see him because I am describing what he looks like?

Sure there is the literal "Hey look over there at that" but also the kind of "look" as in "consider this".

je61
Mar 30th 2007, 04:34 AM
Here's an interesting bit of information you may find interesting. Many believe that dinosaurs are still alive today. They are in the form of what we call reptiles. It has been said that a reptile never stops growing. It continuously grows from the time it is born till the time it dies. Another biblical fact is that prior to the great flood, human beings lived to be upwards to 900 or so years old. Now, if human beings lived that long prior to the great flood, I would imagine that animals and reptiles lived that long as well. Now, if a reptile never stops growing, and back then they lived to be as old as humans (or close to it), that would mean that they would grow to a tremendous size. It's an interesting observation. I don't know how much truth it actually holds, but it is a possibility.
please tell me you seriously dont believe that humans once lived to be 900 years old...

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 04:39 AM
please tell me you seriously dont believe that humans once lived to be 900 years old...


I believe some did. Even non-religious scientists today believe living hundreds of years is very possible.

humbled
Mar 30th 2007, 04:39 AM
please tell me you seriously dont believe that humans once lived to be 900 years old...You say you are a Christian. Do you believe the bible?

Genesis 5:5
So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

je61
Mar 30th 2007, 04:53 AM
i believe 100% of what the bible stands for and preaches; but i do not believe examples cited and translated are correct.

scientists say humans can easily live hundreds of years. IE) 200. and thats with science and a balanced diet, neither of which were present thousnads of years ago.

humbled
Mar 30th 2007, 05:09 AM
i believe 100% of what the bible stands for and preaches; but i do not believe examples cited and translated are correct.

scientists say humans can easily live hundreds of years. IE) 200. and thats with science and a balanced diet, neither of which were present thousnads of years ago.How do you believe it should be translated? and what are your credentials to say you are right and everyone else is not?

I ask with all respect. It's tough to put that tone of voice into text :saint:

VerticalReality
Mar 30th 2007, 12:27 PM
please tell me you seriously dont believe that humans once lived to be 900 years old...

I absolutely believe it 100%. What else about the bible do you not believe is to be taken literal? Did God not really flood the entire earth? Did God not really destroy Sodom and Gomorah? Did God not really send His Son Jesus Christ to earth? Did Jesus Christ not really walk on water? Did Jesus Christ not literally raise anyone from the dead?

You walk a mighty dangerous line when you start taking the allegorical perspective with everything in the bible. You also walk a mighty dangerous line when you feel you have to understand everything in the bible by the natural laws of this world. You don't believe that people lived to be that old simply because the natural laws around you today tell you that it is impossible. However, what you see today isn't necessarily the truth.

je61
Mar 30th 2007, 01:38 PM
How do you believe it should be translated? and what are your credentials to say you are right and everyone else is not?

I ask with all respect. It's tough to put that tone of voice into text :saint:
because it is physically impossible.
its common knowledge that people back then did not recieve all the proper nutrients nor did they have a balanced diet, because they had no knowledge on the matter. Now, with all this science and improvements to healthcare, you think in the past thousand years or so, out of the billions of people who have existed, there would even be one anomole, to back the bible up, and have a record of a person living even 400 years, less than half of the claimed 930.

I know some of you place all your faith in the Book over science, which is great; but you cant completely disregard science. It is fact humans cant be 900 years old.

VerticalReality
Mar 30th 2007, 01:57 PM
because it is physically impossible.
its common knowledge that people back then did not recieve all the proper nutrients nor did they have a balanced diet, because they had no knowledge on the matter. Now, with all this science and improvements to healthcare, you think in the past thousand years or so, out of the billions of people who have existed, there would even be one anomole, to back the bible up, and have a record of a person living even 400 years, less than half of the claimed 930.

I know some of you place all your faith in the Book over science, which is great; but you cant completely disregard science. It is fact humans cant be 900 years old.

It's clear to me that you have more faith in the science of man than you have in the Word of God.

humbled
Mar 30th 2007, 02:14 PM
because it is physically impossible.
its common knowledge that people back then did not recieve all the proper nutrients nor did they have a balanced diet, because they had no knowledge on the matter. Now, with all this science and improvements to healthcare, you think in the past thousand years or so, out of the billions of people who have existed, there would even be one anomole, to back the bible up, and have a record of a person living even 400 years, less than half of the claimed 930.

I know some of you place all your faith in the Book over science, which is great; but you cant completely disregard science. It is fact humans cant be 900 years old.Let's put it this way.

God can overcome the need for proper nutrients, correct? I mean, He can heal blind people and raise dead people, correct? Do you believe in those miracles of Scripture?

Well, before sin entered the world, man was likely designed to live forever as a physical being with God. This is the hope of the Christian today, in fact. Resurrection with a new phsyical body that will live forever. Do you believe this hope?

If you believe God will raise us up to live forever in a physical body sometime in the future, what is so difficult about believing God had initially done this in the past? It is sin and separation from God which has caused the lifespan of man to gradually dwindle. It is only recently where science has caused the lifespan to gradually increase.

Look at this chart:
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/longpatr.gif


http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/longflod.gif

They are from this site (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/longpatr.html). Just click the link and read the article. Here is the closing part of it:



Implications

The information source (divine revelation) for the ages of the patriarchs provided ages that closely matches a natural exponential equation.
It is highly unlikely that people living at this time knew the mathematics of the exponential decay curve.
It is very unlikely that the ages were fabricated since they closely match the exponential decay curve, which occurs naturally.
The ages of death show that the post genesis flood world was being affected by some natural factors that were causing the declining life spans.All of these factor indicate that the ages given were genuine and not fabrications.


I encourage you to read up on it. God can do all things, and actually intends to do the very thing you are doubting.

Faith can be a fragile thing, friend. Examine yours.

Grace to you

humbled
Mar 30th 2007, 02:19 PM
It's clear to me that you have more faith in the science of man than you have in the Word of God.Actually, as the article I've provided shows, there is ample scientific and mathatical information involved in the lifespan of those people in Scripture. It's quite fascinating, actually!

VerticalReality
Mar 30th 2007, 02:52 PM
Actually, as the article I've provided shows, there is ample scientific and mathatical information involved in the lifespan of those people in Scripture. It's quite fascinating, actually!

I agree. However, what I'm referring to is the view that the things of the bible must be impossible because of what some people's idea of science says about the way things are today. This fellow believes it is impossible for a person to live 900 years simply for the fact that people today can't live for 900 years. Therefore, his conclusion is that what applies today had to apply for all of mankind's history. This view is not very sound.

A820djd
Mar 30th 2007, 04:11 PM
I agree. However, what I'm referring to is the view that the things of the bible must be impossible because of what some people's idea of science says about the way things are today. This fellow believes it is impossible for a person to live 900 years simply for the fact that people today can't live for 900 years. Therefore, his conclusion is that what applies today had to apply for all of mankind's history. This view is not very sound.


some people are narrow minded. :mad:

humbled
Mar 30th 2007, 04:12 PM
some people are narrow minded. :mad:
I would not say it is narrow-mindedness.

I would say they are "of little faith"

But then again, so were the Apostles, right?

aliensyndm
Mar 31st 2007, 12:46 AM
Just because things are a certain way now doesn't mean they were always that way. Why do people die physically ? They get old right ?
What causes aging ? Well noone actually really knows.
Perhaps it may have occurred far slower in the past. Perhaps far quicker !
As people don't actually know what causes it to state that is has always remained the same doesn't seem too clever.

There are numerous theories as to what causes aging. Does radiation from the sun play a part ? Possibly. If the earth or sun was ever different in the past perhaps the amount of radiation humans were exposed to could have an affect on the aging process.

Does oxygen and other gases present in air play a part ? You often hear people banging on about anti-oxidants etc. Perhaps the composition of air in the past was different and this could have had an affect. Certainly analysis of air found trapped in amber seems to indicate the oxygen content of the air was much high in the past.

Things degenrate and detiorate with time. If you photocopy a document and then photocopy the photocopy and then photocopy that it's nowhere near as good as the original. Think how many times humans have been copied. Perhaps the original versions were far far better !

If the composition of the air was ever different or the affects of the sun of other heavenly bodies ever different it could also affect the way in which things grow. Perhaps plants and vegetation grew far more efficiently and effectively and hence they would be far richer in healthy nutrients etc. If you put the right kind of fuel in something it certainly runs better ! If you have a much better original human body, possibly shielded from harmful radiation, with far more oxygen and far better fuel ie plants etc then is it such a leap of faith to believe it could last alot longer than our present ones ?


I actually believe our current bodies would last alot longer if we treated them properly. The Hunza are an interesting group of people....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_people


The Hunza people claim to have a high life expectancy of 90 years. Some claim to live up to 120 years or more1 (http://www.amazon.com/Longevity-secrets-unsurpassed-longevity-nutrition/dp/0943685230), maintaining good health throughout their lives. The Hunza tribe has almost no occurrence of cancer or hereditary illness, and has experienced no known cases of obesity.
Hunzas of all ages, including the elders, work seven days a week.
nzas of all ages, including the elders, work seven days a week.


Some say before us westerners polluted them they would live up to 160+
Cancer, obesity, sexual dysfunction, arthiritis are all practically unknown to them. It says there life expectancy is 90 years, ie the average person lives to be 90, many live to be far far older. Compare that to us, we think we're going amazingly well if we hit 80 and even if we do we're often completely deteriorated......whilst people of all ages still work in the Hunza tribe.

They are just one example. To say because noone lives to 900 years today must mean that noone ever did is silly. It's like saying cos no land animal over a certain size exits today then it never did........of course there is rather good evidence land animals of far far bigger sizes used to exist ( ie dionsaurs) .....some say in the past, some say along side humans.....but either way......both parties agree at some point they did exist !