In another thread (about Evolution and Dragons), Thinktank requested textual proof of "Faith's" post about a "dragon". Here it is in the post below.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004

Answers

Here is the thread where the poster--"Faith"--provided a Bible verse with the word "dragon".

See the thread.

What follows is an excerpt from that thread:

**************************************
**************************************

Yes Andy--but that church exists in the hearts and bodies of all true believers...we are His Temple.

When Christ returns He will gather us all--and we will be His Kingdom- -He will establish us in the physical at that time......

This begins with the rapture and is followed by the 1000 year reign with Christ here on the earth......

Rev 20:1-6

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge (Christians). And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God (Tribulation saints--those who received Christ after the rapture). They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.(The rest of the dead (unbelievers) did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)

This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

*****************************

After the 1000 year reign--and the judgement of the dead....then God establishes heaven:

Rev 21:1-8

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

**************************************
**************************************

So, Faith was very well aware of "dragon" in the Bible she used for that thread.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

This thread is not meant to debate anything about the meaning or intentions or understandings of the word "dragon". It is only to show that "Faith" had knowledge and usage of the word "dragon" as she posted it as a Scriptural point. Evidently, her Bible does use the word "dragon".

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

rod,

We were talking about the word dragon as refering to dinosaurs. We already covered this in the other thread. No need to start a new thread.

I stipulated *dragons in reference to dinosaurs* in Revelation? I asked you to show me where Revelation even spoke about dinosaurs?

The word dragon is a King James translation meaning large beast.

The dragon did eventually become a mythological creature in our minds- -as we embellished the dragon more and more over time.

No one in this day would even think that a dragon could mean dinosaur because evolutionists have have convinced most people that the dinosaur died out billions of years ago and that man never observed these creatures walking the earth.

That also explains why a perfectly logical theologian could mistake the bohemeth to be an elephant. He never even considered that the bohemeth could be a discription of a dinosaur: Job 40:15-24

"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 (consider an elephant's little squiggly tail); 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 God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals 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?

***********

Here--well meaning theologians figure that the Leviathon might be a crocadile..Lol! This is because of the indoctrination of evolutionary thought--they never even consider that this might very well be the description of a Kronosaurus queenslandicus which means "time reptile" from the Plesiosauria (?)

Job 41:1-34:

"Can you pull in the leviathan [1] with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?

Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?

Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words?

Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life?

Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?

Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants?

Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?

If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.

No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?

Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.

"I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form.

Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle?

Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?

His back has [2] rows of shields tightly sealed together;

each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.

They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted.

His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.

Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.

Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.

Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him.

The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable.

His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.

When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing.

The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.

Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood.

Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him.

A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance.

His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.

He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.

Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. Nothing on earth is his equal- a creature without fear.

He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud."

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

And intertignly enough... Pleseasaurs wheren't dinoaaurs...and the crocidile Notion predates Evolutionary theory... into the late middle ages when euopeans firstwent into Egutp sinc the fall of Rome.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

The point Zarove,

Is that the (modern)theologians, for a lack of anything better, settled on the idea that this Leviathon in the Scriptures may possibly be a reference to crocidiles because they couldn't invision that it might well be a reference to dinosaurs--since they have been told that dinosaurs didn't exist along side men.

My point is that they may very well have lived with men long ago--as this Scripture passage certainly suggests.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

But you proposed a Plesiasaur, which sint a Dinosaur at all...

And how do you exlain the FORMER theologians who thought it was a Crocodile in the 1300's?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

rod, We were talking about the word dragon as refering to dinosaurs. We already covered this in the other thread. No need to start a new thread. --Thinktank.

Please read my post again:

This thread is not meant to debate anything about the meaning or intentions or understandings of the word "dragon". It is only to show that "Faith" had knowledge and usage of the word "dragon" as she posted it as a Scriptural point. Evidently, her Bible does use the word "dragon".--rod.

You are going off topic. I didn't ask you to eloborate on the meanings of the word "dragon". That has already been done in the other thread. But, I do recognize the fact that "Faith" did know her Bible contained the word "dragon" as she used that particular verse in the post provided.

Again, we are not debating the meanings. We have just proved a point and clarified "Faith's" Bible words.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

"No need to start a new thread." --Thinktank.

If you honestly believe that this thread is meant for further elaboration of "dragon", you may wish to post. But, again, it is not. So, I find it rather obvious that you should avoid posting further elaborations and stick to the topic. If you wish not to stick to the topic, I suppose the rest of us are free to go off topic as well.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

For rod,

The book of Revelation does indeed use the word dragon to describe Satan.

But not in reference to dinosaurs, which was the topic.

For Zarove,

I do not pretend to know what theologians in the 1300's thought that a Leviathon was, but they too would not have considered dinosaurs, since dinosaur bones had not yet been discovered.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Thinktank

In one thread you made the impression that man and dinosaur co-existed at the same time. In this thread you say that they did not. Please make a decision as to which view you are to make your own view.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Thinktank

Does "Faith's" Bible have the word "dragon" contained in its text or not? That is the issue that you have aroused.

Did "Faith" have knowledge of "dragon" being part of the text of her Bible?

Did your "alledged" post contain the word "dragon"?

If you can answer these questions with great honesty, we can set the foundation for a more accurate sharing of information with you. I prefer to stay accurate and not switch around from one pole to the next.

....................... ................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

"alleged"???

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Here is the first inference of equating "dinosaur" with "dragon":

Dragons in Scripture? Possibly a man's misinterpretation? The Scriptures describe dinosaurs...though that word wasn't coined until their fossils were dug up in the mid-eighteen hundreds. Translators didn't know the word dinosaur--so maybe they used the word dragon to describe these awesome creatures they were reading about?

My Bible does not say dragon anywhere. Can you cite a verse?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Rod,

Please reread all of my posts for clarity.

I will not continue with this type of discussion until you understand where you are going wrong.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

"I stipulated *dragons in reference to dinosaurs* in Revelation? I asked you to show me where Revelation even spoke about dinosaurs? "--Thinktank.

"Translators didn't know the word dinosaur--so maybe they used the word dragon to describe these awesome creatures they were reading about? "--Thinktank.

Furthermore, if Thinktank and Faith are one and the same, we can put 2 and 2 together.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Prove that I am "going wrong". Your off-topic post kind of allow for off-topic responses.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

If you prefer not to answer my questions, that is ok, too. I have nothing to hide, so you can ask me your questions. I will be happy to answer. You may reject my answers, of course. But, at least, I will give you an honest reply.

And, I won't go flip-flopping on my views, unless of course, I find a better view to believe in.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

I have this little saying in my thoughts:

Fool me the first time shame on you; fool me the second time shame on me.

Let's make absolutely sure that we keep things "kosher" this time around. I certainly wouldn't want any rules broken. They usually cause minor injuries on my side of the fence.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

One more time,

Let me help you out rod.

You made a claim that I first said that man and dinsaurs lived together, but then said that they could not have lived together.

I didn't flip-flop here rod, you are mistaken.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

That is the reason I asked you to clarify your view. Re-read my questions for clarity.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Please understand what I am going to say with great clarity:

1. I don't want any ad hom's trained on me.

2. I don't want to be made to look or feel inferior.

3. I don't want my views belittled by anyone in this forum or any other forum. I try to stay within a respectful tone. I expect the same from others.

Does that sound reasonable and mutual?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

I should be so bold to shut the bold off.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Emotionalism aside rod,

Where in this thread did I ever say that dinosaurs and man did not live together?

You said:

Thinktank In one thread you made the impression that man and dinosaur co- existed at the same time. In this thread you say that they did not. Please make a decision as to which view you are to make your own view.

Just who is misrepresenting who?

Then you further insinuate that I flip-flop with this remark of yours:

If you prefer not to answer my questions, that is ok, too. I have nothing to hide, so you can ask me your questions. I will be happy to answer. You may reject my answers, of course. But, at least, I will give you an honest reply. And, I won't go flip-flopping on my views, unless of course, I find a better view to believe in.

So rod--where did I make this flip-flop remark about dinosaurs living with men?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

You didn't answer my questions. I noticed that you avoid my serious questions. Ok, fine.

I posted a question in the "Evolution" thread. There seems to be a problem with logic. This is why I would like for you to post your view about man existing simultaneously with the dinosaurs or not existing with the dinosaurs. You have not made that clear. I have read your posts. As a result, I have been brought to my question.

I guess your not gonna answer my previous post?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

But thinktank, you havent even proposed a dinosaurin the Bible...yo just proposed a pelseasaur... and in definace of the crocodile everyone else sees...

Can you tell me why a pleseasaur woud fi thtis better than a crocodile? and where Dinosaurs are mentioend in the Bible?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Emotionalism is a beautiful thing. That's how I fell in love with my wife. Logic told me I was mad. I put the two together. I figured out that I was madly in love with my wife.

Before I get critized for going off-topic, Thinktank open the door first.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Zarove,

If you can read Job 41 and conclude that this creature is a crocidile, then what more can I say?

What Job describes is a *Terrible Lizard* (dinosaur)of awesome size. You can deny that if you need to, but that won't change my understanding.

The fact that we now dig up the fossil remains of such creatures as Job's Leviathan or his bohemoth (brachiosaurus) is enough for me.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Zarove, If you can read Job 41 and conclude that this creature is a crocidile, then what more can I say?

Lets take a look, shall we?

Job 41

1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

2. Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3. Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4. Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5. Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6. Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7. Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8. Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10. None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

11. Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

12. I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13. Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14. Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

22. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

23. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

24. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

25. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

26. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

27. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

28. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

29. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

30. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

31. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

32. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. 33. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. 34. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

What Job describes is a *Terrible Lizard* (dinosaur)of awesome size.

there are three issues here where you are wrong. Firts off. leviathans ize is nevr established. Secondly, The Book of job doesnt rellay descirbe Leviathan as a terrible Lizard. Fnally, Dinosaurs arent terrible Lizards either. Theri Archosaurs, not Lepadosaurs, and arent even linekd to Lizards...

You can deny that if you need to, but that won't change my understanding.

But upon what is thy understandign based? Clealry its not the sciptures, rather you ar eimproting ab interpretaiton that this is a creature of awesome size and is thus a terible Lizard, a Dinosaur. There is no textual evidence of such.

Likewise, since you said this was a Kronosaurus, you deny that its a Dinosaur yourself, and instead claim its a pelseasaur. Which is it? A Kronosaur or a DinoSaur?

The fact that we now dig up the fossil remains of such creatures as Job's Leviathan or his bohemoth (brachiosaurus) is enough for me.

Wha interestd me abotu the Behemoth is a saurtopod, in thsi case you specify Bracheosaurus, is that the ancients go throuh all the torubel of describing the tail fothe creature, and leave off the most noable and obvious trait...the nek... If Behemoth was a Sauropod, as some as you presume, why did they NOT describe the behemoths neck as exceedingly long?

Likewise, if Dinosaurs where reptiles, as you maintian, why descirbe Behemoth as a "Beast", which widl tend to support that the creature is a Mammal... the word Beast in days of old was never used for reptiles or Birds, only Mammals...

I mean, what evidence sdo we have that Behemoth was a Bracheosaur, or any sort of sauropod?

Evidence?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Burn it! Zarove. That sounds like one of them mythological dragons.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

What evidence do we have Zarove?

How about the very fossils of these described dinsaurs?

Dinosaur, by-the-way, means *terrible lizard.*

Even though the word *dinosaur* refers, technically speaking, to animals that lived on the land, many people group the sea reptiles and flying reptiles with dinosaurs. We could argue that the dragons that lived in the water were probably dinosaur-like animals.

-- (What is creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

The problem or issue deals with figuring out what the Scriptures tells of these great animals. Were they the dinosaurs we think of today? Were they dragons we think of today?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

What evidence do we have Zarove? How about the very fossils of these described dinsaurs?

{Probelm is, you havent prven the descrtption is ot any form of Dinosaur at all... and at the same time, relaly havent shown, from the scriotures, that Behemoth was a bracheosaurus, and deny yourself that Leviathan was a dinosaur.}-Zarove

Dinosaur, by-the-way, means *terrible lizard.*

{Not relaly relevant since we know now that they aren tlizards. Starfish arent fish either...}-Zarove

Even though the word *dinosaur* refers, technically speaking, to animals that lived on the land, many people group the sea reptiles and flying reptiles with dinosaurs.

{Yes, thir called "Ignorant laymen". Sicntificlaly speaking, the marine reptiles where marien reptiles and not even relaly closely relatioend anatomiclaly to Dinosairs. Pterosaurs where, but not wuiet the same thing. Also, since the Bird-Dinosaiur thery is also discussed, it behooves me to state that its not a strict prioroty to be land-bound ot be a dinosair, it just happens that Marine repitleres arent dinosaurs.}-Zarove

We could argue that the dragons that lived in the water were probably dinosaur-like animals.

{But you argued they where pleseasaurs, which arnet relally Dinosaiur- like...And present no real scriptural evidenc eot bakc this up...}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

"Prove that I am 'going wrong.'" -Rod

"In one thread you made the impression that man and dinosaur co- existed at the same time. In this thread you say that they did not. Please make a decision as to which view you are to make your own view." -- Rod

Rod, perhaps you read one of these two lines wrong:

"...that the dinosaur died out billions of years ago and that man never observed these creatures walking the earth." --tt

"...dinosaurs didn't exist along side men."--tt

Here they are in context

"No one in this day would even think that a dragon could mean dinosaur because evolutionists have have convinced most people that the dinosaur died out billions of years ago and that man never observed these creatures walking the earth." -- tt

"Is that the (modern)theologians, for a lack of anything better, settled on the idea that this Leviathon in the Scriptures may possibly be a reference to crocidiles because they couldn't invision that it might well be a reference to dinosaurs--since they [modern theologians] have been told that dinosaurs didn't exist along side men." --tt

In context, tt never said on this thread that dinosaurs and man did not coexist. and yet...

"I would like for you to post your view about man existing simultaneously with the dinosaurs or not existing with the dinosaurs. You have not made that clear. I have read your posts." - Rod

Perhaps you missed this part:

TT posted this verse: "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox" (bold done by tt)

and then commented...

"My point is that they may very well have lived with men long ago-- as this Scripture passage certainly suggests." - tt

How can this not be any clearer? What exactly are you up to rod?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

But is Behemoth, descirbed as a mammal, relaly a Dinosaur? I hardlythignk so, and knwo its not a Brascheosaurus...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

The lines you've provided are not what makes me say what I do, Luke.

Thinktank has made the implications regarding "dragon" and "dinosaur" in contradictory assumptions. Thinktank claimed that "dragon" was not in the Bible used by "Faith". The problem is if "dragon" means one thing or the other, it must be asserted that man either did or did not live with the "dragon/dinosaur". In other words, we need to know exactly where Thinktank's view rests. It shouldn't be in a form of a question, but in a statement. Later, Thinktank may have the loophole of flip-flopping on her/his answers. On one hand, he/she describes "dragons" as dinosaurs and later as "Satan". This takes the man and dragon dilema off the plate. I'm trying to keep it on the plate. That's what I'm up to, Luke.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Luke

Have you read through the other thread regarding "dragon" and "dinosaur"?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Thank you Luke!

I knew it wasn't me who was twisting this all up. rod's enless posts are surely confusing everything. Paul M. will never even find the post I made for him. I was enjoying a decent debate with him.

This who argument proves that there is more to creation science than some understand. That is why I support giving our kids the opportunity to weigh and compare the different theories out there.

Evolution cannot be proven any more than creation. They are two hypothesis based on the earthly evidence left behind. Yes it does help the Christian that there is an account of what happened in the Scriptures--but the Creation Scientist does not necessarily have to use the Bible to study our created world.

But the evolutionist doesn't even have as much to go on as the creationist does--without an account such as the Word of God. They go it alone with nothing more than pure speculation.

Thanks again for helping to show that my point was clear.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

The above should read: This whole argument...

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

May I remind everyone that this thread was not intended for any further discussions on the words' meanings. Thinktank went ahead and opened it up after I had restated the purpose of this thread. The other thread is still viable for such a debate/discussion.

We really should close this thread from further posting.

Also, as I have stated numerous times, Thinktank does not have to reply to my questions. Evidently, he/she has chosen to answer some and ignore others.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Posted again:

This thread is not meant to debate anything about the meaning or intentions or understandings of the word "dragon". It is only to show that "Faith" had knowledge and usage of the word "dragon" as she posted it as a Scriptural point. Evidently, her Bible does use the word "dragon".

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Also...

You are free to post a thread especially for Paul M. similar to what I have tried to do in this thread. If that is possible....

I will not post in that thread so as to give you all the freedom you need without my involvement.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Yes Rod, I didn't feel a need to post on either of these two threads, i'm not entirely interested anyway, and whatever facts need to be discussed are being discussed. And, as you said, this wasn't the thread to debate the meaning of "dragon." I simply wanted to clarify that thinktank did not flip-flop opinions on this thread.

Might it have been easier for TT to just make a statement? Yes, probably. But I didn't want this to go getting out of control like the other one. let's all keep honest shall we?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Luke....uh, luke.....This is exactly why I am going through this process of questioning and answering. I have another post that makes it very clear that I don't want another "episode". My failure was in having a lack of accuracy when engaging with "Faith". This time around we shall be using a permanent marker when we post. When we realize a better answer, we will all know where we stand and why we stand the way we do. So, we share the same goals, luke. If I am skewed from the proper and obvious understandiings, I wish to know. If it is a questions of accepting a view or belief, I wish to maintain the freedom to maintain my beliefs and views. That sounds fair. I only expect some respect in this forum.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

I believe that we have made some very definate views public in regards to the issues surrounding Evolution, Creationism, Dragons, and Dinosaurs. We can come back and review our answers. Hey, we may even change our views. That's learning.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Evolution is a lie, has anybody noticed that Darwin begins with a D like Devil. Any teacher teaching evolution should be treated as a messenger of Satan and burned at the stake. In fact the whole feild of Biology is evil, doctors (another D word) should be kicked lame for diverting the will of god and curing people who God has decided to kill. As for physics thats just made up on the spot I dont think we have to worry too much about that one.

Glory.

-- ike (guardian@faith.com), November 12, 2004.

Hi ike.

Evolution is a lie, has anybody noticed that Darwin begins with a D like Devil.

OOEE, did you also notice that "Evolution" begins with an "E" for Elvis?

Any teacher teaching evolution should be treated as a messenger of Satan and burned at the stake.

Really? Would that make the executioner evil, with a big "E"?

In fact the whole feild of Biology is evil, doctors (another D word) should be kicked lame for diverting the will of god and curing people who God has decided to kill.

Yikes, what should we do with those people who have yet to be born? Uh, why are they born in the first place? Did you notice that "born" begins with a "b" for "bad"?

As for physics thats just made up on the spot I dont think we have to worry too much about that one.

Nope, you're right. "Physics" begins with a "p". I think in stands for "polite" or "perfection"; I'm not sure.

Glory.

Did anyone notice that "Glory" begins with a "G"? "G" for "God".

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Evolution is a lie, has anybody noticed that Darwin begins with a D like Devil.

{DIVINE ALSO BEIGNS WITH D! So does dog... and Dad... and door... Im realy sure of this... so...maybe the leter doesnt matter? Not that this matters, Ike there is just here to mock...}-Zarove

Any teacher teaching evolution should be treated as a messenger of Satan and burned at the stake.

{A bit harsh, I mean, can't we just calmly disagree... and a lot of us dotn disagree...}-Zarove

In fact the whole feild of Biology is evil, doctors (another D word) should be kicked lame for diverting the will of god and curing people who God has decided to kill.

{Didn't the Bibel mention Physisians in a good light? And dint the Bible also say " Choose life"? why yes it did...deuteronomy 30:19 for the choose life one...and in Mathew 9:12 Jesus compares HIMSELF to a Phtsisian...Kiknda takes the Punch out of the " Rdeligion is anti- Sicnece" joke, no? }-Zarove

As for physics thats just made up on the spot I dont think we have to worry too much about that one.

{Physics is made up? Lets test it, go to a relaly high building and jum ff...see abot te law of Grvity...

relaly the mokvign Christaisn as anti-Sicnece and anti-Intellectual is getitgn old Ike...}-Zarove

Glory.

{For what, your shallow attempt to amuse yourself based on makign jest at others expence?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 12, 2004.

"Evolution is a lie, has anybody noticed that Darwin begins with a D like Devil." --ike

Hehehehe, anyone on this board have onomastics experience? If so, you'll know that I'm in deep doodoo then lol...

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Hmmmm......."onomastics", what is the origin of that name?

Let's see:

ra = rex = rey = king = koenig = reymundo = reymond = ruy = rodrigo = rod

Nah! couldn't be.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

ROD IS THE EGYPTIAN SUN GOD!!! KILL IT!!!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 12, 2004.

Luke, Lucas, Lucus, Lucius, and my personal favorite, Lucifer...

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Zarove, Zaroff,er...zar...zasoemthing...za...uhm...Zoroaster???

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 12, 2004.