Do you believe.....

[JerryNumbers]

I've heard it said, that in the early days, the KKK, if they got wind of a man abusing his wife or children, they would pay a visit, them that would be one white man that would never touch his wife again in anger, nor abuse his children. That this was the most common thing for the KKK to do, outside of holding meetings from time to time.

Oh, I might add, a man who would not support his family would usually get a visit from them too, generally after that 1st visit he would get a job and be proud of it.

I believe in later years some people turned the KKK into a hate group.

David Duke in Louisiana didn't get very far did he?

[John81]

I've heard it said, that in the early days, the KKK, if they got wind of a man abusing his wife or children, they would pay a visit, them that would be one white man that would never touch his wife again in anger, nor abuse his children. That this was the most common thing for the KKK to do, outside of holding meetings from time to time.

Oh, I might add, a man who would not support his family would usually get a visit from them too, generally after that 1st visit he would get a job and be proud of it.

I believe in later years some people turned the KKK into a hate group.

David Duke in Louisiana didn't get very far did he?

Until the "civil rights era" many of the Klan groups in the South were more of a fraternal order dedicated to family and clean communities. They did indeed use to take care of abusive husbands and deadbeats. They also ran criminals out of town. During those times the Klans were typically made up of the prominent members of the community; the doctors, judges, police, lawyers, businessmen and such. It wasn't the snaggletoothed, uneducated backwoods hick who hates just to hate that was a part of the Klan back then; such wouldn't have been accepted in the Klan at that time.

The northern state klan groups of the early 20th century brought "hate" into the mix. Mostly they hated the eastern European immigrants and Catholics (which were often the same).

During the "civil rights" era, the Southern fraternal type Klans began allowing what until recently would have been considered undesirables into their fold in order to have more numbers to stand against the intrution into their communites. This, of course, was their undoing, as many of the sorts they allowed in brought trouble to the groups, they weren't loyal to the group as they had no family or generational ties, and it opened the door for federal agents to infiltrate.

Since that time, most groups calling themselves KKK are misguided folks who don't even know their history and have no real clue about today.

David Duke was elected to the state congress in Louisianna where he actually did pretty good. He gave up his state seat to run for a national seat and barely lost. Since then he's received a doctorates degree in Russia (I think), gave speaking tours in various foreign countries, and managed to upset many who call themselves KKK because he doesn't espouse hate and because he claims to be a Christian. I suppose one might call Duke a "moderate" :roll of the racist world.

A friend of mine in Arkansas, who holds a doctorates degree and teaches school there, was raised in the Klan but he got away from it because it's nothing at all like the Klan of his father.

[JerryNumbers]

I recall well when David Duke ran for the house, we get Shreveport TV stations, he came across to be nothing but a raciest, he made it quite clear the position he thought blacks should have.

Seems he cares little for Israel. He suppose to have made this statement, "Israel makes the Nazi state look very, very moderate."

I'm surprised you seem to think so highly of him.

[John81]

I recall well when David Duke ran for the house, we get Shreveport TV stations, he came across to be nothing but a raciest, he made it quite clear the position he thought blacks should have.

Seems he cares little for Israel. He suppose to have made this statement, "Israel makes the Nazi state look very, very moderate."

I'm surprised you seem to think so highly of him.

I don't think highly of him, I was just pointing out how he has changed his approach over the years and isn't what most folks think of. He's absolutely anti-Israel and what he has condemned about Israel are things he's spoken in the past as to how he thinks America should respond to certain situations.

I think he enjoys a measure of attention and changes his approach so as to keep the attention. Rather than a reactionary racist, as one might call his early years, these days he attempts to put a more cultured and scholarly spin on things. Outside of racist circles in America he is mostly shunned but in some parts of Europe and the Middle East he is respected and is addressed as Representative Dr. David Duke; while here in America he's addressed as former Klansman David Duke.

[HappyChristian]

Whew, lots of pages!!

Yes, I believe there were dinosaurs - whether they were as depicted by evolutionists and scientists, I don't know. But those huge bones came from somewhere!!

A mammoth was discovered near where I lived in Washington state as a teen - the year after we moved from there. The museum in the town where my folks live has the tusks - they keep them in water so they don't disintegrate. It's kinda neat!

I don't know the answers to all the questions as to how the dinosaurs died, if there are some still alive, etc. But there are interesting facts - there is the Komodo Dragon...it's very dinosaurial. Then, there's the Loch Ness monster. Hype? Maybe - or maybe it's an underwater dinosaur, much like was found, dead in the water, off the coast of Japan - either in the '60's or '70's - can't remember the exact date. But I have a picture of it somewhere...and it looks like a smaller version of what could be Nessie of Loch Ness.

Aliens? My personal belief is that a majority of what is seen is demonic, and that is why there is no rational explanation. It's just an opinion, since I don't think anyone has the answer - but I, too, think that it is a preparation for an answer to the rapture. How easy it will be for the Anti-Christ to say something to the effect that aliens (especially if he pushes the idea that it's the group that first came to earth...) took away all the haters to help them learn the truth...

I do believe that the military does some things in experimentation and cannot speak about some of it - thus fueling the idea of UFO's floating around.

When I was younger, someone took a picture of our back yard. As we were looking at the picture, we saw a UFO in the sky!!!! We couldn't believe it. My mom looked at it and saw the same thing. Then, about the same time, we all started laughing - the picture had been taken through our glass door...and the "UFO" was the reflection of the kitchen light. Too bad - we mighta made the news! :lol:

[heartstrings]

Your right that it says his tail it moves like a cedar and that it doesn't say that it is as big as a cedar, but if it is speaking about a hippos tail what is the point of mentioning it at all? The point of this whole description is to show Job how mighty God is compared to him. A hippos tail probably isn't the best way to do that. A hippos teeth are far more impressive than his tail, why not mention those instead? As for the description of the sinews of his "stones" being wrapped together, I don't know exactly what that is talking about but it sounds quite "different" to say the least. There is nothing special about a hippos stones, they are quite normal...



The implication here is that Job could not really kill him if he tried. People have killed hippos with spears as far back as our recorded(non-biblical) history goes. If I recall correctly one of the very first recorded Pharoahs of egypt was killed on a hippo hunt that went bad. Secondly, why would God himself describe this creature as "chief of the ways of God"? There are so many other now extinct animals(or currently living ones like whales) that dwarf a hippo it would seem quite unreasonable to call a hippo "chief of the ways of God" for any reason. As far as the whole of Gods creation goes for being impressive, hippos are a long way down the list.




Hippos are commonly taken in snares in africa by poachers today. Granted snare materials are probably better now than then, but I believe it would be quite possible to build a snare that would hold a hippo using all natural materials too.

http://www.ml.duke.edu/projects/hippos/Conservation.html
http://gorilla.cd/2008/03/04/snaring-hippos-smoking-their-meat/

First link shows a neck snared hippo and second link shows hippo foot snares.

How many dino species have been discovered so far? With the exception of crocodilians, where did they all go? Another question...If the earth is only 6,000 years old, doesn't recorded history go back to around 5,000 at least? So when archaeologists excavate ruins from that time period and before, why haven't there been any non-fossilized dino remains found? And what would be the point in preserving dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, just to kill them soon after? I mean really, would it be possible for puny humans with stone-age technology to coexist with T-Rex, Allosaurus, velociraptor and other super- carnivores? Is there any hard evidence that sauropods, with the exceptions of crocodilians, co-existed with man?


Don't gators and crocs usually like to rest in the SUN to regulate their body temprature? But the "Behemoth" likes to rest in the shade of the "willows". An elephant or hippo might do that, but it doesn't seem to be characteristic of a reptile to me.
And if "behemoth" was a reptile.....would it have a "navel"?

[John81]

There is at least one book and website which has information on more modern interactions between men and dinosaurs. I really need to start writing these things down because it seems topics like this always come up

There are recorded accounts of folks dealing with creatures that, by description, were likely dinosaurs as late as the 1400s and a few even after that.

If anyone knows what I'm referring to and can post a link to the website or the book, please do so.

[heartstrings]

More food for thought........
If terrestrial dinosaurs survived the flood, shouldn't marine reptiles have doen so as well? They certainly would not have needed Noah's ark. But what happened to them? The only marine reptiles we know of today are sea snakes, sea turtles, marine iguanas and salt water crocodiles. Of the long list below, you would think that at least a couple of species would be seen today. But even the "loch ness monster" is still a "cryptid"and, even if it does exist, it certainly has not been proven to be a marine or aquatic reptile.

Stereosternum
Mesosaurus
Adriosaurus
Dolichosaurus
Judeasaurus
Kaganaias
Mosasaurinae
Carinodens
Clidastes
Dallasaurus
Globidens
Mosasaurus
Plotosaurus
Prognathodon
Halisaurinae
Eonatator
Halisaurus
Tylosaurinae
Hainosaurus
Tylosaurus
Taniwhasaurus
Plioplatecarpinae
Platecarpus
Plioplatecarpus
Selmasaurus
Cyamodus
Henodus
Paraplacodus
Placochelys
Placodus
Psephoderma
Lariosaurus
Nothosaurus
Anarosaurus
Dactylosaurus
Keichousaurus
Neuticosaurus
Plesiosaurus
Cimoliasauridae
Cryptoclididae
Cryptoclidus
Microcleidus
Muraenosaurus
Elasmosauridae
Elasmosaurus
Futabasaurus
Hydrotherosaurus
Libonectes
Mauisaurus
Thalassomedon
Polycotylidae
Dolichorhynchops
Edgarosaurus
Manemergus
Sulcusuchus
Thililua
Trinacromerum
Kronosaurus
Liopleurodon
Macroplata
Peloneustes
Rhomaleosaurus
Umoonasaurus
Metriorhynchidae
Aggiosaurus
Dakosaurus
Enaliosuchus
Geosaurus
Metriorhynchus
Neustosaurus
Purranisaurus
Teleidosaurus
Teleosauridae
Machimosaurus
Pelagosaurus
Platysuchus
Teleosaurus
Steneosaurus

[Revelation3:20]

If terrestrial dinosaurs survived the flood, shouldn't marine reptiles have doen so as well? They certainly would not have needed Noah's ark. But what happened to them? The only marine reptiles we know of today are sea snakes, sea turtles, marine iguanas and salt water crocodiles. Of the long list below, you would think that at least a couple of species would be seen today.

The fossil record contains a long list of extinctions. Whole classes of Mammals are gone as well. It is a hard world out there since the fall and there are less and less kinds of animals as time goes by. Climates and other significant factors change and some creatures cannot successfully respond to sudden pressures. You can either believe God and the bible or you can believe evolution, but the two are not compatible no matter how much some try to make them fit. Either the bible is in error or man is, take your pick.

[heartstrings]

When something doesn't quite sound right, I question it.
Good science lines up with the Bible because BOTH are the truth.
Pseudo-science, evolution, and some of the "creation science" (so called) are not.

[pneu-engine]

H-S,

Behemoth could very easily have been a humongous mammal, e.g. a Brontops, a mammoth, a Mastodon, etc.

As far as reptiles needing the sunshine to warm them::::::: The antideluvian era had a perpetually "sauna-like", or "steam-bath", climate that negated any need for reptilian beasts to "sun" themselves to get warm.

There is a river bed in Texas that has a whole history in fossilized imprints that show men wearing sandals running as fast as they can go right beside humongous dinosaurs. What they were running from is anybody's guess, but mine is that it might have been a mudslide (i.e. "wall of mud") flowing after them.

I'm a literal creationist who fully believes in the actual 6-day creation story, precisely as it is written in Genesis. :Green .

[pneu-engine]

Take a look at these icebergs and envision how cold the air had to be to freeze the entire wave-front as seen in these pix.

http://discardedlies.com/beitmidrash/Fa ... ebergs.htm

With that in mind it is easy to see why huge wooly mammoths would freeze quickly in the fllood waters.

[JerryNumbers]

[quote="Revelation3:20"][quote]If terrestrial dinosaurs survived the flood, shouldn't marine reptiles have doen so as well? They certainly would not have needed Noah's ark. But what happened to them? The only marine reptiles we know of today are sea snakes, sea turtles, marine iguanas and salt water crocodiles. Of the long list below, you would think that at least a couple of species would be seen today.[/quote]

The fossil record contains a long list of extinctions. Whole classes of Mammals are gone as well. It is a hard world out there since the fall and there are less and less kinds of animals as time goes by. Climates and other significant factors change and some creatures cannot successfully respond to sudden pressures. You can either believe God and the bible or you can believe evolution, but the two are not compatible no matter how much some try to make them fit. Either the bible is in error or man is, take your pick.[/quote]

:goodpost:

Right, the Bible is right, but school teachings about evolution has turned many a good man against the Bible.

My best friend growing up and attending church together, he had an amazing memory, always knew his Sunday school lesson, always knew his memory verse, always had the answers, me I was just the opposite.

Now he works for a big school district, a couple of years back I read an article he wrote, stated something like this, in our science books you will not find nothing about creation, I read every book before any of our teachers or students see them to make sure our school children will not receive nothing but evolution, for there is nothing but evolution. Further more I make sure our teachers teach only evolution.

In high school he was the perfect picture of behavior and how every Christian teenage boy should live, sad to say, I was just the opposite.



Just north of me there's a wall board plant, they've found many dinosaurs tracks in their minds. Seems to me the only time they could have been here and made all those tracks is before the flood. Of course there is many that will not accept.

[heartstrings]

http://www.projectcreation.org/dinosaur ... p?PRKey=81
Here is a quote from a "creation" website..........

The Bible tells us about a dinosaur, the behemoth, in Job chapter 40,

Oh really? And they can tell from reading the description in Job that this was without a doubt a dinosaur? Did they actually see this Behemoth? The Book of Job describes a big animal with "stones"(testicles) and a navel which likes to lay in the shade near the water but they can tell trom reading this passage that this was certainly a dinosaur and then present it as fact that when in reality NONE of us know for sure what this creature was. By all means, please teach creation but get the facts straight and teach the truth. And please don't anyone say I'm pushing for evolution because you also won't be getting your facts straight. Be honest with yourself, do you KNOW what this creature was? Do you really believe in your heart without a shadow of a doubt that this animal was a dinosaur. I can tell you I believe the BIble is true.....but I don't know for sure what the Behemoth was.

[trc123]

I can tell you I believe the BIble is true.....but I don't know for sure what the Behemoth was.

That "behemoth" is just a KJV glitch, perhaps if you used a modern version it would have more clearly translated that word from the manuscripts and you would know it is a dinosaur! :ideas: