Dinosaurs and the Bible Part 2

[@shawnschneider2842]

Please interviewer relax. He interrupts a lot and doesn't let Hugh finish. Work on that sir.

[@AlphaOne2009]

Please, Jeffrey, let the man speak without interrupting him!

[@DevonHewett]

Thank. You!

[@emelinlalrz3684]

Exactly

[@georgedaz7202]

Exactly what I felt...!!

[@jamesdeluca6657]

OMGOSH u said the same thing as I.

[@roseethridge5708]

Thank you Dr. Hugh Ross, I have learned so much from you!

[@andyquin78]

The Bible describes things on a spiritual level and to be taken on a spiritual level. Like when Jesus said you must be born again and a reply was "Can a man enter his mothers womb a second time?" Of course not this is meet in a spiritual way not a physical way. This is why people are confused a lot of the time with the Bible because there trying to see how it makes sense on a physical level, when its true meaning is on a spiritual level. Only a person that walks in faith and seeks God on a regular would understand this. You can memorize every word in the Bible and remember it word for word, but without a relationship with Jesus you will never understand it's true meaning.

[@tened8530]

I thinks it’s literal. The bible is literal. Especially when used for locations, times and descriptions. Apart from prophecy in context other than that I believe it’s literal

[@wilhelmlorenz5852]

🙏👉I REALLY THINK 🤔 THAT YOU CAN READ THE BIBLE LITERALY 👈🤗👉👋YOU CAN TELL WHEN IT'S LITERAL OR SPIRITUAL OR IT IS STORIES TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING!! 👈👉JESUS OFTEN SPOKE IN STORIES THAT WEREN'T LITERAL TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING,SO THAT PEOPLE 🤔 COULD UNDERSTAND HIM BETTER,,HE SPOKE IN ANALOGIES OFTEN! IT IS CLEAR WHEN WE SHOULDN'T TAKE WHAT HE SPOKE LITERALY 👈🤗👉🙏 GOD BLESS EVERYONE WHO READS THIS IN JESUS HOLY NAME 📛👈👉 AMEN 👈

[@jesuslovesme143]

God bless Mr.Ross.

[@jamesdeluca6657]

Its hard to watch ,why ask a question,and stop hi.m From answering you.

[@VierthalerStudios]

Coming from a Theistic Evolutionist like me and I disagree with him about evolution. I still have respect for Hugh Ross. He’s very intelligent and I prefer him over Ken Ham any day. Only thing I wish he would’ve explained was how leviathan is mention to have multiple heads. Maybe it was a crocodile with the rare deformity of multiple heads. That actually is a real rare deformity.

[@polishsnipez7_593]

Dr. Ross’ arguments are always better than Kenn Hams

[@TheGeorgeology]

This is the mythologized version of the creature. Look at the wording in 74:14. You crushed the heads of leviathan. In this image Leviathan is a symbol for satan, and this alludes back to the promise in Gen 3:15, that Jesus would crush his head. Now, what does the imagery of feeding people in the wilderness? You take one who would be destined for death saved by this food. So, God crushed the head of Satan and saved his people. Whereas Job, Is referencing specific creatures that were real and known to its audience. The passage in psalms is poetic and symbolic. That is also why the literal representation of the leviathan only has one head and the symbolic has many heads. This can be further illustrated by the multiheaded dragon referred to in revelation.

[@Witham1836]

I really wish the interviewer would keep his mouth shut.

[@vinrusso821]

My theory was that God put them and all matter from that time for our purpose. In other words, we would still be pretty primitive if oil was never discovered, or never existed. Fossil fuels like natural gas and petroleum are a huge part of life on earth, and it will have a huge and it takes millions of years to get to billions of gallons of oil. Just a thought.

[@melissap9416]

vin russo don’t believe the lie that oil comes from dead dinosaurs. What evidence is there for that.

[@anthonycook8703]

@@melissap9416 I think Vin might be saying that oil comes from all prehistoric matter. That would include dinosaurs. Sounds OK to me.

[@jamesdeluca6657]

He keeps interrupting him ,over and over and over eeerrrrr.😊

[@dougjensen8838]

So very interesting! Thank you!

[@andyquin78]

I just want to give the Bibles account of what the leviathan is or may be according to what the scripture says. Job 41:33 - 34 On earth there is nothing like him, Which is made without fear. He beholds every high thing; He is king over all children of pride." Isn't it referencing the devil when it says "King over all children of pride." And in Revelations twice that I can recall Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the devil and satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and satan, and bound him for a thousand years; So if Job 40:15 - 41:34 is describing the devil and satan, king over all the children of pride, and that theres nothing on earth like him, and Revelation says he is the dragon, than I would think that its a safe bet to say that in the book of Job God is actually describing a fire breathing dragon that is satan and the devil. This is just my opinion and observation. But I think it's a valid one. There are paintings and stories through out history about dragons and even revelation talks about the dragon that serpent of old. Please leave a comment I am curious to see what others say about this observation.

[@MountainFisher]

A.C. the only comment I can make is that your exegesis is valid and you show that you read the Bible with care.

[@xdf3218]

I'm a little bit confused

[@melissap9416]

Dude, this just opened my eyes.😳 Do you think the dinosaurs were half angel, half lizard? Like it said the nephelim were hybrids? It said the angels sinned against animals too. Dude what if they talked and just terrorized the people out of their minds! We will never know 🤔

[@charliejohn1]

Your comment needs consideration.👍

[@lebronbrady6638]

It’s not meant to be taken literal the scripture has a deeper meaning behind it but hey I could be wrong idk

[@TheCynicogue]

@4:50 what about Mammoths? Bison? Rhinoceros? Alligators? Wolverines? Also, Crocs are reptiles too? Why are they nephesh but dinos aren’t? Don’t we know raptors were very social creatures? Etc.

[@cosminbryant1243]

I would recommend to stick with the literal creation view on Genesis based on his word

[@gymcoach95]

The defining nature of a nephesh creature is whether or not it is soulish and nurtures its young. There are animals/sea creatures today that are not nephesh, such as the great white shark. creatures of this nature abandon or even eat their young if the young do not get away from the mother immediately after birth... from the studies done by dr. ross, he has stated that Dinos are one of the sets of creatures who appeared to abandon their young, making them non-nephesh creatures.

[@patrickboudreau3846]

Much respect for gathering knowledge and coming up with explanation as to what the hebrew bible is telling the jewish people of that era. However, coming from a totally different school of thoughts and mind set, this conversation sounds to me like two doctors from 400bc talking about brain surgery. It is light years away from how i see the world and even hard to comprehend how intelligent people could have such beleifs. I really don’t mean to be disrespectful rather just to point out how diffent peoples points of view can be.

[@MutsPub]

Was this intended to be some kind of Inteligent response? I'm asking because it is mere circular drivel!! Your PhD? Your KZbin channel with the explanation? What is the point of your comment?

[@seanc.mcnally2118]

How completely arbitrary, Hugh for you to determine which animals have a 'nefesh' and which do not

[@SOULRELIEF22]

JESUS IS RETURNING SOON! ST JOHN 3:16! ❤️ HALLELUJAH! ❤️✝️❤️

[@CytherX]

The T-rex is shown to be related to the chicken, it had feathers and was shown to possibly hunt in a family unit

[@MutsPub]

Please DON'T post unproven hypothesis as fact on KZbin! Your PhD? The citation? There is NO Citation of the origins of feathers! Neanderthal is shown to have made a flute also. - Nope! Bite marks in a bone! - pffftt! You do realize these people are quick to post fantasy hypothesis to make the NEWS so that grant monies continue. - Right? Do you ever bother to read ANY rebuttals? Please show me the citation that life originated from a primordial soup. - Nope. We still don't know. Directed panspermia is on the table. - pfffttt! It is STILL in textbooks decades after it has been debunked. Aboriginals existed in Australia for 60,000 years. Nope. 3,000 years. - Their testing method was corrupted! Did you see the rebuttal in the NEWS? - Nope!

[@CytherX]

@@MutsPub the Smithsonian posted this in one of their articles. I actually watched a documentary on this topic on PBS when I was a teenager. The closest living relatives of Tyrannosaurus rex are birds such as chickens and ostriches, according to research published today in Science (and promptly reported in the New York Times). Paleontologists used material discovered in a chance find in 2003 to pin down the link.

[@MutsPub]

@@CytherX I'll not argue. Initial findings and hypothesis do not indicate confirmed fact no matter how intriguing they are. Documentaries do not allow for redactions! They also used it in the Jurassic Park Movie even though they had the incorrect era. Yes, I watched and read the articles. I read the abstract on Dr. Schweitzer's finds. I did not pay for the full paper. Did you? Read carefully please, they based their opinion on "collogen". There are no DNA samples. Plus, you must listen very carefully to their wording! May, might, could, would be problematic, etc. Maybe they are correct? Carl Sagan posted multiple documentaries on "primordial tidal pools" as being unequivocally the origin of life for many years!! - ALL nonsense!! New York Times as a resource? - No. Interesting stuff for sure!

[@CytherX]

@@MutsPub I'm just saying, that what if adaptations are involved here. Not necessarily evolution. Because if that were the case we would have evolved from a banana given we are half related, although I wonder if similar dna just means that there are similar structures in the body and how they function. For example, if human skin didn't have little hook like attachments to the muscles, it would peel off. There are such cases. Perhaps our genetic similarity to chimps is merely a similar design in the body structure but not necessarily of ancestry?

[@CytherX]

@@MutsPub If bird and dinosaurs such as the trex are similar. Could it be that if any survivors of the extinction event did survive could they have had smaller offspring that eventually became able to fly after that would it create what we now know as birds? For example. The dodo lost its wings due to a lack of predators on the island it was found on. Sadly this is the main reason it became extinct was once humans arrived it meant they were defenseless. Heck their was a study of a brown mouse who's land became black due to a volcanic eruption that covered the fields in ash. After only a few generations, the offspring of the mice became black instead of brown to become less detectable to predators. Or perhaps most recently in human history. Children in Asian countries are being born with blue eyes exclusively to those who were born near the water by those fishing communities and have shown to have better eyesight underwater. Heck this is also why many sea fairing cultures such as viking have lighter eyes. And due to a lack of sunlight and vitamin d they have fairer skin and hair to allow more sunlight throught the cloudy atmosphere to allow them to get enough vitamin d while inuits remain dark eyed to help with snow blindness but remain darker skin due to supplementing vitamin d through diet from hunting fish and various other animals.

[@BestKing56]

Depend what you mean by infallibility. The pope raise the power given by Christ with regards to rules and morals in the church that must be unifying to all church. Evolution has nothing to with that. Evolution must meet the fine tuning quality of 4^-180^110 - 4^-360^110. No shift happened. Nobody needs to preach evolution in the vatican or churches not part of infallibility nor Pope's authority.

[@oneadamtwelve86]

i know hugh ross is an old earth creationist but i wonder if he denies evolution thats what i was trying to figure out but i dont think this video shows it, and it got too boring

[@chellepatino1675]

He believes in big bang but not naturalistic evolution. He believes in microevolution, not macro. An animal isn't going to turn into another animal.

[@gwallapetro3160]

@@chellepatino1675 factz

[@fudgedogbannana]

Dr. Ross' interpretation seems a bit weak.

[@kevinshrestha3623]

You might like of Ken Ham'S then 😂😂😂

[@faybrianhernandez2416]

@@kevinshrestha3623 No, his are crazy.

[@fudgedogbannana]

Bible doesn't even say that is has a tail like a cedar, it says he moves his tail like a cedar, not that the tail is like a cedar.

[@steveweiss7191]

The bible (Protestant and Catholic versions) is a work of fiction start to finish. And absurd fiction at that. Do Christians really believe that Adam gave birth to Eve from his rib? Or was it from dust? Either assertion is nonsense fit only for the consumption of rank apologists.

[@dollmaker4ever]

soulish animals, that relate to us, then why eat them?I don't eat animals, due to health issues, but also because I've owned mostof the 'food' nimals, they are all individuals, different personalities, trainable, I could never eat them.. makes no sense too

[@truethinker221]

The book of Job is using the Myth of Leviathan (sea monster) to show the futility of man and his pride. Trying to make regular animals out of this allegorical use destroys the entire point of he story. Leviathan sits over the edge of the earth and swallows the boats that fall off the edge. 1:24 " Bible Scholars attributed Leviathan and Behemoth as hippos or alligators" is wrong, bible thumpers may have, but scholars already saw the use of mythological creatures and stories as a valuable way to understand the narrative within its original setting. Leviathan is a fire breathing Dragon; Job 41;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 boiling pot or caldron. 21. His breath kindeleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. Why you leave out this part ?

[@truethinker221]

truethinker Leviathan is a fire breathing Dragon; Job 41;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 boiling pot or caldron. 21. His breath kindeleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. You cant just add "that this is just how it would make you feel". There is no evidence in the text of that. Fundies don't play by their own rules . The Septuagint also says Leviathan is the great fish that swallowed Jonah. Jonah 1;17 The fact that early biblical writers used mythological creatures makes the Bible much richer and interesting, you are turning it into a pancake.

[@shado9300]

truethinker I know this has been a while but ill ask you anyway. Being an old earth creationist myself i tend to side with Dr. Ross on many things, but here i will agree that he is making an error by assuming its about feelings. He has no business using that here. But now to my question. You say that what the bible refers to is a fire breathing dragon of a sort. Can you provide the fossil evidence to support such a creature? If not, i believe you are making the same mistake as Dr Ross. You just can't say its a fire breathing dragon with evidence any more than he can call it feelings.

[@truethinker221]

***** I am not claiming their were real fire breathing dragons. The well know Mythical god of the sea, Leviathan, was used by the writer of Job as a parallel to show the pride of man. Writers use colorful allegories to make a point.

[@TheBelegur]

+truethinker I agree that not everything in the Bible is intended to be taken literally. New atheist often make this same mistake. It seems that what passes for higher education these days is to tell people what to think and not teach them how to think. Allegoric, metaphoric, and poetic references seem to require too much thinking to interrupt for their propagandized minds to grasp.

[@truethinker221]

TheBelegur Its easier to find all the so called errors if you think every concept must be an exact science. Then it becomes easier to live with the nagging possibility of a higher power and the possibility of accountability for this life and the next.

[@jamesdeluca6657]

Hippopotamui 😅

[@Duplooytim]

Dr. Ross I admire the entheusiasm ... But honestly ... you are mistaken with the behemoth and leviathan... The word Dinosaur didnt exist before the 1842... They were known as dragons, not just in bible, but all the cultures in the world knew about them... How do you explain the overwhealming evidence of human and dinosaur footprints next to eachother, burial stones, and dozens of cultures having legends of giant beasts and dragons...

[@gymcoach95]

the term dragon is used in the bible, often referring to the devil. most descriptions often sound similar to serpent or other reptilian type creatures. and just as dr. ross stated, if fear is included in the interactions with these creatures (i.e. large alligators/crocodiles) then it could be that embellishments were made based on the fear factor at hand.... as for "findings" are we sure those prints are that of a dinosaur? could it be another large creature... and how many of these "findings" are staged?... I would wager much of the pictures and such we see are staged... "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see"... humans are always behind the scenes altering things to fit their own personal agendas.

[@TheSoldierChristian]

dinosaur=terrible lizard

[@jackisthebest4699]

TheSoldierChristian no

[@jamesmaybury7452]

An interesting interpretation but he completely overstates the evidence. His use of scripture and science are selective and his claims like ‘it only fits hipo and croc’ are far from true. I would caution everyone to be like the bereans and test what is claimed by actually looking up the scriptures someone uses, and broader reading to see if his claims stand up. There are a number of interpretations of the book of Gods word and the book of Gods creation. We ALL see through a glass, darkly. Weigh everything and cling to what is solid.

[@bradalacki]

Hugh Ross is a great guy but his speech is annoyingly flat and on the verge of hearing. Maybe he could rehearse speaking from his stomach

[@MutsPub]

You insensitive twit! He is on the Asperger's' scale!!!!! He is a real "rain man" genius!

[@nikkiplatt316]

Leviathan and Behemoth are demons...

[@adroberson29]

No. A behomoth tail is described as a cedar tree. And hippo doesn’t have a long neck. His theories are wrong

[@Mark-yb1sp]

Boy, is he waaaaaaay off.

[@ChristianWhiteGuy]

A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one.

[@cr4zyu]

Come on, Hugh Ross has got to be a 'short-robed Jesuit' doing a great job for the Vatican. After all the Vatican, for all its acclaimed 'infallibility' jumped ship and now teaches evolution is the 'modern' way to go. If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em. Divide and conquer. Both the Vatican and Dr Hugh Ross are brilliant at that!

[@iancampbell1316]

I thought Christians believe man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time?

[@mikebetts2046]

Some do believe that. Kent Hovind is one such person. But I think he is a bit unhinged at times.

[@MutsPub]

That is YEC (Young Earth Creationist) nonsense. It includes Catholics and Protestants. The earth was Created before the sun. - Nope. The whole globe was flooded. - Nope! All folklore theology. Reality: The earth is ~4.5662 billion years old. The universe is ~13.8 billion years old. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. They are stuck one step out of geocentrism. Maybe something will kick them in the head and let them grow up!

[@gymcoach95]

why? It would not really make much sense. If the Dinos are the creature's science predicts they were, humans would have been wiped out for lack of resources. The Earth as of creation of man would not have supported Dino habits. I believe that this theory makes more sense and that the Dinos were necessary before the creation of other creatures to form the earth in certain ways and also to produce certain fossil fuels and enrich the earth in some way in preparation of human life.

[@iancampbell1316]

@@gymcoach95 So you're saying the earth is a lot older than 6000 years old then? I agree. You suggest dinosaurs were created in preparation for man so you must also believe that there were multiple creations as dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. You say god created dinosaurs then he created man 65 million years or so after that? That's not in the bible is it? You must also disagree with Ken Ham who built the creation museum that depicts dinosaurs on Noah's ark.

[@gymcoach95]

@@iancampbell1316 it is actually quite biblical. The 7-day creation is dependent upon what God deems as a day, not man. in prophecy we are still in what God calls the 6th week of Daniel, and the 7th week won't start until after the rapture of the church and the end of tribulation (a 7-year span to be exact). the last year in God's time, according to the bible, is the millennial reign of Christ on Earth. so, God's time frames are certainly not ours. Each biblical "day" of creation is used to describe the different steps, or phases of creation and are actually based off of the scientific method. Based on much reading and personal observation, that it is quite probable and biblical that the Earth is much older than what many Christians believe, but rather that they have mixed up the history (time span) of human existence with that of the Earths actually beginning. I would highly disagree with the idea of dinosaurs on the ark, since there is really no evidence of them even being around at that point in history. However, if it were to be possible, it would work the same as all the other creature on the ark, God would have had total control over their habits, making it possible for humans or other creatures to have been harmed during that venture.