'There were giants in the earth in those days....' Genesis 6:4
Scientists have proven it without a shadow of a doubt! Creatures once walked this earth that were gigantic in size! The fossil record shows us some very strange creatures, many of them of enormous proportion, that used to populate the lands, dinosaurs, we have named them, which means in greek, 'fearfully great lizard'. The Seismosaurus, which is one of the largest yet known dinosaurs, stretches out up to 170 feet, and is roughly 18 feet high at the shoulder, possibly weighing around 30 tons. The Diplodocus from head to tail, measures out at close to 90 feet. The Brachiosaurus, which has a giraffe like stance, rises up over forty-five feet from the front feet to the top of its head, and from head to tail is estimated at around 80 feet long, weighing close to 80 tons! He could have peered over a four story building! These are incredibly large animals! The largest land animal known today is the African elephant, which gets up to 24 feet long, 12 feet tall at the shoulder, weighing around 6 tons, and the greatest known sea creature is the blue whale, which is close to 80 feet long, weighing about 120 tons. So the dinosaurs of old are not the only giants. The bible also confirms that at least some of the creation was gigantic. Numerous times, giants are mentioned in the bible. Of course, we have all heard of Golliath. The bible in 1 Samuel 17:4 that he was 6 cubits and a span, or a little over 9 feet tall. Deuteronomy 3:14 describes the bed size of a giant:
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. (it would have been over thirteen feet long and six feet wide.)
I noticed as I was typing out the above scripture, that the author supplied proof to those of the day, by stating where the bed was located. Was it possible that even then, people were starting to doubt their existance?
These previous statements are not talking about giant creatures, but men. But notice the scripture several lines below, in Deuteronemy 3:13:
And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of the giants.
Was it called the land of the giants because of the giant king, or were there other giants in the land? The term 'land of the giants' is mentioned several times in the bible. Let's look at another scripture. In Numbers 13, Moses sent 12 men, one from each tribe to explore the promised land, Canaan:
When Moses sent them to explore Canaan, he said, "Go up through the Negev and on into the hill country. See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many. What kind of land do they live in? Is it good or bad? What kind of towns do they live in? Are they unwalled or fortified? How is the soil? Is it fertile or pure? Are there trees on it or not? Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land." (it was the season for the first ripe grapes.) So they went up and explored the land from the desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath. They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the desendants of Anak, lived. (Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) When they reached the valley of Eshcol, they cut off a branch bearing a single cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs. Numbers 13:17-23
I have bought many a cluster of grapes at the supermarket, and not once did I need help carrying them! A cluster of grapes that takes two people to carry is definitely gigantic! It makes sense to me, that if the people were big, and the fruit was big, then everything else was big. And indeed, the bible does mention several creatures that are of GIGANTIC proportions! Could these creatures actually be dinosaurs? You must keep in mind that the word dinosaur is not used in the bible. The word was not even around until 1841, when the term, dinosauria was created to classify the fossil finds at that time. So we must look for something in the bible that would fit the description of
a dinosaur. Notice the following:
Look at the Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar. The sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of the Lord, yet his Maker can approach him with His sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animal play nearby. Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow, the poplars by the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed, he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose? Job 40:15-24
The behemoth was apparently a herbivore, or plant eater, huge and powerful. A cedar tree is not small, and this creature had a tail like one! I challenge you right now to think of one creature with us today that has a tail of those proportions! Evidently, he was a docile animal, because other animals were at play near him. He liked to take siestas in the cool waters under the shade trees. He was so enormous that the rushing river water did not alarm him, nor was he alarmed at someone trying to capture him. Notice also that he existed alongside man! What type of creature does this sound like to you? This creature would fit perfectly into the fossil record, both because of his size and physical characteristics.
Let us now focus on the word dragon, mentioned several times in the King James translation. The translation comes from the hebrew word, tanniym, which is defined as a marine or land monster. Its funny that some translations of the bible use the word jackal, instead of dragon.
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength, thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Psalms 74:13
Although jackal does not fit the above description, many dinosaurs would.
And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry out in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces. Isaiah 13:22
The above scripture seems to make a distinction between the wild beasts and dragons.
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof, and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.
Isaiah 34:13
The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls...
Isaiah 43:20
And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons, and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant. Jeremiah 9:11
Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.
Jeremiah 10:22
Whatever dragons, or land monsters were, they seemed to inhabit abandoned cities.
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving
thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds...... Genesis 1:21
In the above scripture, the phrase, 'great creatures of the sea' is actually the hebrew word tanniym, which means 'marine monster'. Interesting, is it not? It is likely that, although the bible doesn't use the word dinosaur, it is, in some cases, referring to the creatures we now know by that name. Dragons are mentioned throughout the earth's documented history as well. Perhaps the dragons in question are actually dinosaurs. Now, evolutionary science would strongly disagree with this scenario, stating that dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time as humans, that, in fact, dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before the first man walked the earth. According to the evolutionary theory, life started hundreds of millions of years ago in the form of a simple bacterium, and over millions of years, that organizm evolved into other organizms, getting more and more complex. That simple bacterium evolved slowly into more complex organizms like clams, clams to fish, fish to anphibians, anphibians to lizards, lizards to.....well, you get the picture. And here we are today! But does this really match up to what we are able to observe? We can observe that there are no simple life forms on this earth today, neither is there any evidence of simple life forms in the fossil record. All life is extremely complex. That's the bottom line! Let's take the brachiosaurus, for example. To say that the brachiosaurus is a more primative creature than today's animals is simply not true. The brachiosaurus is an AMAZING animal of intricate design that our scientists simply cannot adequately explain! You see, the creature's head would have been about 45 feet up in the air, with its brain 30+ feet higher than its heart. A column of blood that tall would create an enormous amount of pressure within the heart and the vessels. Imagine trying to pick up a stack of 25 trash cans full of water, and you will get some idea of the force needed to pump
the blood up the neck to the brain. For the animal to do something as simple as lower its head to get a drink of water, would create an explosive amount of pressure in the head of the creature, causing a massive stroke or brain hemmorage in a normal animal. It is obvious that the animal had to have had a very sophisticated circulatory system that would have prevented this from happening, which severely compromises the theory of evolution, in that there is strong evidence of a specific design. He is just as advanced as any creature we see on the planet today, a marvel of design! By the way, the heart would almost certainly have had to be as efficient as the heart of a warm blooded animal, and indeed, a dinosaur has been discovered that contained its heart, fossilized within its chest, and it was a four chambered heart, that of a warm blooded animal. We can also look at the many creatures of the fossil record that match descriptions of what we have living on our planet today. The coelacanth is a great example. This creature, a fish, was supposed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. That was proven wrong in 1938 when a living specimen was caught off the coast of Africa. Since then, other specimens have been found and studied. So, why is this significant? This fish has not evolved in aproximately 80 million years, drastically compromising the evolutionary theory. In the fossil record, we see wombats, beavers, crocodiles, sharks, camels, lions, kangaroos, just to name a few animals, that are very similar if not almost identical, to creatures we still see today, with one big exception......they are GIGANTIC! Imagine, a wombat, normally about the size of a bloodhound, the size of a car! How about an 8 feet long beaver? A 40 feet long crocodile? The following is an excerpt from GIANTS FROM THE PAST, a book published in 1983 by the National Geographic Society, page 10:
The giant shark swam in ancient seas. It probably looked like a great white shark of today, but was nearly twice as long-about 40 feet(12 m).
We do not look back on the bones of the fossil record and see primitive creatures that would eventually evolve into greater creatures. In fact, it
seems to me, that the creatures of the fossil record were quite impressive, some even more magnificent than anything we see today, and over the years, as the earth has deteriorated, so has the creation. It seems unlikely to me that a massive powerful, gigantic creature would 'evolve' into a smaller, weaker version.
And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the hosts of them.
Genesis 1:31-2:1
At the end of the creation week, the sixth day, everything was completed and very good in God's eyes. Nothing could have started evolving at this point, because it would mean that it wasn't good, and it would mean that it wasn't finished, plus it would not match up with the physical evidence that we have, evidence showing no such evolution. So how does evolutionary science conclude that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? Well, the dates are based on the evolutionary theory itself. In other words, a conclusion is first established (evolutionary theory as fact) then the evidence is interpreted to match up with that conclusion. Since evolutionary theory dictates that all
life evolved from simple to complex over many millions of years, they base
all of their conclusions on this presumed fact. This is not science. Scientific method dictates that the evidence is examined and tested in order to determine a result, or conclusion, not vice versa. A perfect example would
be the discovery of a Tyrannosaurus bone, which actually contained blood. This is an incredible find, and defies the age that the fossil has been tagged with. The bone was not completely fossilized, and blood cells were actually found within the unfossilized portion of bone itself. The bone simply cannot be millions of years old, and yet, since the evolutionary theory guides the conclusion, it was decided that, even though it is impossible for blood to survive for that amount of time, that the blood had, in fact, been preserved for about 65 million years. The scientists involved actually tried at first everything in their power to prove that it wasn't actually blood before
coming to their conclusion, because it defied logic, common sense, and scientific possibility, according to the evolutionary model they go by. But, instead of redefining, or even abandoning their evolutionary timeline, which
I may add, is only in text books, it doesn't actually exist, they redefine reality itself. In other words, 'What we know is impossible magically becomes possible under the evolutionary microscope.' Do you see the error of this logic? Logic is discarded because of a belief that defies logic.
So what exactly DO we know about dinosaurs?
