Thread: Happy 200th birthday Darwin!

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POSTING

What Did Dinosaurs Eat and How Did They Behave?

*snip* (ong, long post explaining about how dinosaurs and man really did co-exist)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a few more questions.

Why are there no dinosaurs in any of the Noah's Arks kids toys, even the really, really old ones from the Middle Ages?

The most famous dragon is the dragon that St George killed. He lived a couple of hundred years after Christ. Does this mean that you believe that there were some dinosaurs were still walking the Earth around the time of Christ?

What about other mythical creatures, did they once exist too? Like the unicorn, the pegasus, the seven-headed hydra, the satyr, etc?

And on a slightly different tack - the whole world was inundated with water apparently so that all land was covered. This means that the water would have been salt water, right? And yet the fresh water fish were not wiped out and nor were plants and trees despite being under water for the best part of a year. How come?

Originally Posted by Consider Dudley

Out of interest, was having sexual relations with your nine year old wife specifically against the law in the time of Mohammed? Genuine question, I would like to know the answer and I know you have a view on this.

The 'virgin' Mary was 9 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph who was 90. They married when she was 12, which was fine according to traditional Jewish law.

The traditional Roman Catholic law was that marriage could not be contracted before the age of seven, which is considered by Catholics to be the 'age of reason' and the 'age of consent'. The law was established in Gratian's twelth century laws, which were the beginnings of organized canon law in the Church and which were authoritative through the middle ages. The marriage would be final so long as neither partner had sought annulment before the tradition age of puberty (12 and 14 following the tradition of Greece and Rome) and it had not already been consummated, even by rape.

The law from there passed into the secular laws in Catholic lands, in England and from there the US.

From the Decretum of Gratian:

QUESTION II

Gratian: Betrothals cannot be contracted before the seventh year. For they can be contracted only with consent, which requires each party to understand what they agree to. This proves that betrothals cannot be contracted between children, because the debility of age prevents consent.

Pope Nicholas witnesses to the same, saying:

C. 1.

Marriage cannot be contracted before the age of consent.

Where there is no mutual consent, there is no marriage. Therefore, to give boys to girls in their cradles, or vice versa, accomplishes nothing, even if the father and mother do it and desire it, unless both children consent after reaching the age of discretion.

Medieval Marriage Law* Gratian, Gregory IX

UK age of consent:

History
The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 and remained so for six centuries - due to the wording of the law, the age of consent only applied to women (consequently, all amendments to the law also only applied to women). The wording was along the lines of "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being 12. Therefore, there was, and is, technically no age of consent for the male participant - unless the female participant is an adult in which case laws pertaining to sex with a minor and so on come into force. The English law became applicable in Wales following the Acts of Union (1536 and 1543). In medieval Welsh law there was no actual equivalent of the concept of the age of consent as such, but a girl was marriagable at 12-14 (the onset of puberty) and a fine was payable for the taking of a girl's maidenhood by force; the rules varied according to status and may not have been applied rigidly to commoners.[14]

A concern that young girls were being sold into brothels led Parliament to raise the age of consent to 13 in 1875 under the Offences Against the Person Act 1875. After W. T. Stead's Maiden Tribute articles, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16

Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Consider Dudley

Noah was 600 years old when he built it - quite a remarkable feat for one so old!

And he lived another 350 years after that.

He would have been in his prime for the 120 years it took him to build the ark.

But then pre-Flood conditions on earth were very different from post-Flood conditions.

Before the Flood there was

* a warm temperate climate everywhere

* no rain and clouds, just a 'mist'

Then, after the Flood came

* the Ice Age

* weather - clouds, rain, storms, rainbows

* generally colder conditions in most of the earth.

Other things like the amount of oxygen content in the air may have changed.

People lived up to 965 years of age [Methuselah] before the Flood.

Within a few hundred years after the Flood, lifespans had deteriorated to under 100 years.

Abraham's wife sarah was 95 when she conceived her son Isaac

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Consider Dudley

Are you scornful and contemptuous of all snakes Mr Bennett?

Can I also ask - if God created the universe and everything in it, why did He create Satan? And if He is more powerful than Satan (which I presume He is), then why does he not simply destoy Satan once and for all? What IS the point of allowing Satan to go around tempting the lovely lady you have just created from Adam's rib? I just don't get it - God's life (and ours) would be so much easier without that meddlesome, naughty Satan fella.

Here's another good explanation about Satan, or Lucifer, from Home

QUOTE

Is Lucifer Satan? Does the fall of Lucifer describe Satan?

Question: "Is Lucifer Satan? Does the fall of Lucifer describe Satan?"

Answer: There is no verse or passage in the Bible that says, “Lucifer is Satan,” but an examination of several passages reveals that Lucifer can be none other than Satan. The fall of Lucifer described in Isaiah 14:12 is likely the same that Jesus referred to in Luke 10:18: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” A similar fall is depicted in Ezekiel 28.

Isaiah 14:12-18 describes the fall from heaven of one called “Lucifer” in the King James Version and the “morning star, son of the dawn” in the NIV. Other Bible versions call him “Day Star,” “shining star,” and “the bright morning star.” These variations are due to differences of opinion about how to translate the Hebrew word helel. Regardless, the description of the one referred to shows us it can be none other than Satan. We know from Jesus’ own words in Luke 10 that Satan fell from heaven. So, when Isaiah refers to Lucifer or helel being cast down to earth (Isaiah 14:12), it can be none other than Satan. The reason for his fall is found in verses 13 and 14: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’” This has always been Satan’s desire – to be God, and it is the very temptation he used in the Garden of Eden to get Eve to disobey God: “You shall be as God” (Genesis 3:5).

Ezekiel 28 is another passage thought to refer to Lucifer/Satan. Although it begins with Ezekiel being commanded by God to “take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre” (v. 12), an evil idolatrous king, it soon becomes clear that the passage is referring as well to the power behind that king—Satan. Verse 13 says he was “in Eden, the garden of God.” Clearly, the king of Tyre was never in Eden. Verse 14 says, “You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.” Apparently, Lucifer/Satan had a position of guardian angel in heaven “among the fiery stones,” thought to be the shining precious jewels that are seen in other descriptions of heaven (Exodus 24:10; Revelation 21:18-21). Since the king of Tyre was never in heaven, either, this can only be describing Lucifer. The rest of the passage describes the reason he was cast out of heaven. Because of his beauty, his heart became proud and his wisdom was corrupted (v. 17). Pride in his perfection, wisdom and beauty (v. 12) became the source of his downfall, and God threw him to the earth (v. 17). This was witnessed by the Lord Jesus in heaven before His incarnation (Luke 10:18).

To summarize, the Hebrew word helel is translated "Lucifer." He was cast out of heaven for his sin of pride and his desire to be God. Jesus referred to seeing Satan being cast out of heaven. Therefore, we can conclude that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same.

UNQUOTE

Satan will be destroyed, but only when Christ returns.

Everyone has the freedom to turn to Christ, or turn away from Christ.

To believe, or not to believe

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't really answer any of my questions Mr Bennett, but thanks for the information anyway.

Originally Posted by Consider Dudley

Out of interest, was having sexual relations with your nine year old wife specifically against the law in the time of Mohammed? Genuine question, I would like to know the answer and I know you have a view on this.

No, I don't think it was illegal.

Remember Mohammed was either 53 or 54 at the time he consummated his 'marriage' to Aisha.

Older men marrying young girls has regrettably been a tradition in many Arab countries for millennia.

What Mohammed did was to greatly reinforce and entrench this practice, right down to the present day, as I have highlighted on another thread, e.g. with 10-year-olds having to go to court in The Yemen to apply for a divorce due to their husbands' cruelty.

One must remember that the world's 1.2 billion Muslims hail Mohammed as God's 'last prophet', a claim that must surely be undermined by:

* Mohammed having forcefully married Aisha when he was 53 or 54 and she was 9 (or 8 according to some histories)

* Mohammed marrying at least 11, probably 16 or 22 wives - then saying his followers must have no more than 4

* Mohammed being a conquering warlord, personally slaughtering his captured opponents

* Mohammed using torture on some of his opponents

* Mohammed telling people to kill opponents of his message

* Mohammed saying women were second-class citizens who did not have the same inheritance rights as men and whose evidence was only worth half that of a man...

...and so on.

Now compare Christ's life, death and resurrection, and his miracles, with Mohammed's record

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Taddy Porter

The 'virgin' Mary was 9 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph who was 90. They married when she was 12, which was fine according to traditional Jewish law.

Never heard this, what is your source?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Consider Dudley

Just a few more questions.

Why are there no dinosaurs in any of the Noah's Arks kids toys, even the really, really old ones from the Middle Ages?

The most famous dragon is the dragon that St George killed. He lived a couple of hundred years after Christ. Does this mean that you believe that there were some dinosaurs were still walking the Earth around the time of Christ?

What about other mythical creatures, did they once exist too? Like the unicorn, the pegasus, the seven-headed hydra, the satyr, etc?

And on a slightly different tack - the whole world was inundated with water apparently so that all land was covered. This means that the water would have been salt water, right? And yet the fresh water fish were not wiped out and nor were plants and trees despite being under water for the best part of a year. How come?

1. Why are there no dinosaurs in any of the Noah's Arks kids toys, even the really, really old ones from the Middle Ages?

REPLY: I cannot answer for the world's toy manufacturers. You must ask them. Dinosaurs appear in Christian illustrated books on Noah and his ark.

2. The most famous dragon is the dragon that St George killed. He lived a couple of hundred years after Christ. Does this mean that you believe that there were some dinosaurs were still walking the Earth around the time of Christ?

REPLY: Yes, and there is a lot of historical evidence in support. Visit Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics, type 'Dragons' into the search box, and come back only if that doesn't answer your questions about dragons in historical times

3. What about other mythical creatures, did they once exist too? Like the unicorn, the pegasus, the seven-headed hydra, the satyr, etc?

REPLY: I do not know about all of these. But I offer this article on the unicorn from the answersingenesis site:

Unicorns in the Bible?

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, AiG–U.S.June 25, 2008

[Keywords: unicorns, Bible, animals, Job, rhinoceros, aurochs]

Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2

Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration.

Modern readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength.

The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick . . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.” [Ref 3]

The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn. [Ref 4] In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian rhinoceros. [Ref 5] The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium. [Ref 6]

Assyrian archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu). [Ref 7] The aurochs’s horns were very symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism. [Ref 8] Fighting rimu was a popular sport for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I boasted of slaying them in the Lebanon mountains. [Ref 9]

Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures.[Ref 10] Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as:

“a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied . . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.” [Ref 11] The aurochs’ highly prized horns would have been a symbol of great strength to the ancient Bible reader.

One scholarly urge to identify the biblical unicorn with the Assyrian aurochs springs from a similarity between the Assyrian word rimu and the Hebrew word re’em. We must be very careful when dealing with anglicized transliterated words from languages that do not share the English alphabet and phonetic structure. [Ref 12] However, similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian (other languages of the ancient Middle East) as well as Aramaic mean “wild bull” or “buffalo,” and an Arabic cognate means “white antelope.”

However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning “one-horned animal.” [Ref 13]

The importance of the biblical unicorn is not so much its specific identity—much as we would like to know—but its reality. The Bible is clearly describing a real animal. The unicorn mentioned in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

UNQUOTE

4. And on a slightly different tack - the whole world was inundated with water apparently so that all land was covered. This means that the water would have been salt water, right? And yet the fresh water fish were not wiped out and nor were plants and trees despite being under water for the best part of a year. How come?

REPLY: You said: "This means that the water would have been salt water, right?". No, not right. This is an assumption you make and there is no evidential basis for it. The evidence from the accounts in the Bible is that conditions pre-Flood were very different from those post-Flood, as I have briefly explained in another recent posting. It would not be in the least scientific to claim that the world's oceans were salty before the Flood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------