XnForums

I've often mulled whether dinosaurs could have been taken abard the Ark. Now I know they could have been.

Reason? Baby dinosaurs are not very big at all - a dino egg is around the size of one of your gridiron footballs and the young dinos are quite small for around 4 or 5 years.

So that's my pondering sorted.

Incidentally, dinos are not mentioned in the bible. why not? cos the word 'dinosaur' was not coined till 1841 and the Authorised bible was 230 years old at that time.

There are behemoths mentioned though and they seem to bear a close resemblence to dinos.

Just thought I'd share that with the group.

I think something happened on a global scale roughly 10k years ago. It was the end of the ice age and there certainly was a lot of opportunity for very large scale flooding. It would explain why the flood story is found in almost every culture around the world. But I don't believe the Genesis account word for word.

I'm wondering if the snakes they took on the ark could talk?

Pax!

According to Alexander Sitchin the reason the "snake" in the garden talked is because it wasn't a snake. It was the Sumerian "god" Enki who's symbol is the serpent. When the monotheistic bible editors and redactors got a hold of the earlier story of Adam and Eve, the Sumerian one, they just used Enki's symbol. Enki was known for his wisdom and intelligence and subtleness hence the serpent was the subtlest of all the creatures in the garden.

It is sooo obvious to me that the Genesis stories borrowed from the earlier Sumerian myths.

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, could it be the myths of both cultures are somehow based on actual events?

Somehow based on actual talking snake events?

The Sumerian tale is older, perhaps the oldest such tale. What earlier source do you suggest? Sitchin's argument is that they are based upon actual events and that the Sumerian tale is the closest to the facts and the most reliable. The "gods" started civilization in the area of the fertile crescent. They established several city states in the area and taught man basic to advanced civilization sciences. That many of the tales in the OT are based upon real events that have been edited for brevity and theological reasons. I don't know how much of Sitchin's ideas I actually buy into, but what I've read so far has tied together a lot of loose thoughts that I have had for quite some time.

Well, yeah, Mr. President, based on Jedi's assumption that the talking snake was actually an alien. You need to pay more attention to the discussion, Logos, and get your eyes off Michelle Obama.

I'm simply suggesting that perhaps the Hebrews didn't "borrow" from the Sumerians. Perhaps the myths of both cultures are based on the same earlier event. That's all. I'm just thinking out loud. That's OK, right?

Somehow I think "that ol serpent" was an Egyptian Pharaoh. The Python headdress I suppose is clue, and how closely the Genesis story reeks of Abraham and Sarah and Pharaoh.

I thought Behemoths were the elephants. Weren't they?

But aren't you forgetting other people, other gods, in far off parts of the world and their already existing civilizations? The Sumerian tale may be the oldest in the fertile crescent, middle eastern tales, but I doubt it being the earliest or most reliable as far as tall tales go.

If Rome had not popularized the Hebrew tales, I wonder what books we'd be lookin into now.

Question: Before the flood, did Noah ever speak a word?

Roselyn: Behemoth tails are described as like cedars - your elephant tail is more like a length of string.

Re the myths, the myths...who can tell?

I expect that there is a common seminal soup from which all these myths and legends are derived.

I was just having a conversation with you, is that Ok?

Of course!