Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The Gap theory GARBAGE


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

HappyChristian,

Excellent article by Dr. Morris. Thank you very much for bringing it to out attention. One of the finest articles that properly, and in a good manner, condenses the issues involved, correctly explains the fallacy of the the, "Gap theory," at why even the atheistic scientists do not accept it (even though some fine saints think it explains the geologic ages). The Gap Theory does undermine the gospel, the credibility of the scriptures, and has divided some fine brethren.

God created everything in this universe in 6 literal, 24 hour, days, exactly like Genesis tells us.

Thanks again.

Alan

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are all kinds of reasons some profess to ascribe to the gap theory. But I believe the biggest reason is really to COMPROMISE with the world :( God's word never tells us to compromise with the world... instead we are to turn away.  What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? 

Matt. 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

Gal. 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

The devil has found all kinds of sneaky ways to invade churches... and every one of them starts out with a compromise with mankind (really a compromise with the devil). There are numerous reasons for this... but they all stem back to pleasing either self or others (mankind) and not pleasing/serving the Lord above all else. We shouldn't be shocked since we are living in the perilous last days spoken of in 2 Tim.3:1-5. Verse 13 of the same chapter tells us what to expect (and it's exactly what we see today) " But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

Same thing we were told would happen ... it's here and now! 2 Tim. 4:3-4;  3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"  4 "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

The gap theory? A fable based on compromise. Some would say it's "no big deal" since it's not a salvational issue... but is that true? Once compromise is made in one part, compromise can be expected to be made in other parts, and eventually in all parts. Once a teacher or pastor teaches this false teaching of the "gap theory", then everything that comes out of their mouths becomes suspect (to me). I started this thread on a day when I was upset because a pastor I had been listening to for some time (and had formerly thought to be sound) taught a sermon on this erroneous "gap theory"... and since that time I've heard (from others, since I no longer listen to him myself) that he has made other compromises and become unsound in other realms of scripture as well. So he may have started out teaching sound doctrine, and even may STILL be teaching that salvation is through belief in Jesus alone (and not or works)... but how long before he compromises there as well??? If the devil gets a foothold in the door, the door may be only slightly open for him at first, but quickly the door becomes wide open once compromise is made. A LITTLE leaven leaveneth the WHOLE LUMP!  That's all it takes... Mix in a TINY bit of yeast into the dough of the bread and soon it will multiply rapidly, expanding (and it's also telling that the dough becomes "puffed up" as it enlarges).  So it is with all compromises with the world (which are, in actuality, compromises with the devil).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

One of the popular devices for

trying to accommodate the evolutionary ages of the geologists and astronomers in the creation record of the Bible has been the "gap theory"—also called the "ruin-and-reconstruction" theory.

Not necessarily. Like I said before, the only reason I even consider the "gap theory" is because of the dinosaurs. What happened to them? And I will ask again: why have no dinosaur remains been discovered in places like the LaBrea Tar Pits even though hundreds of other extinct animals including "megafauna" have? We believe those sabretoothed cats, mastodons, mammoths and giant ground sloths were on the Ark right? So why no dinos? You can call that "compromise" if you want, But I look at it as seeking the truth. Isn't that what we're supposed to be about? I've heard men say a lot of wild stuff from a pulpit too(including promoting the Gap Theory), and the very same men threw the word "compromisers" around quite a lot. But I think God is pleased if we want to know the truth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I can't answer about the tar pits, but dinosaur fossils are found in many places.

My personal opinion is that the dinosaurs went extinct from lack of food, possible climate changes post flood, and men hunting and killing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I can't answer about the tar pits, but dinosaur fossils are found in many places.

My personal opinion is that the dinosaurs went extinct from lack of food, possible climate changes post flood, and men hunting and killing them.

Yeah, Noah and his buds must have been running lots of factories, driving SUV's, raising too many cows, and spraying their hair with VOC's, :)

Hey...I could make that into a song.....

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Yeah, Noah and his buds must have been running lots of factories, driving SUV's, raising too many cows, and spraying their hair with VOC's, :)

Hey...I could make that into a song.....

:huh:

:lol:

Well, I'm not a professional climatologistastorian, but I would assume that with the entire planet being covered in water and the subsequent evaporation of all of that water and its possible effect on the hydrologic cycle, it would have some type of effect on the climate that perhaps the dinosaurs couldn't adapt to easily...that's also why I said "possible" climate change. I didn't mean to infer climate change like what is promoted today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It makes more sense to me to believe that none of these species (big mammals like mammoths or dinos) were including on the Ark and God most likely did this for a reason. Their size alone would preclude them from inclusion on the ark and this was by God's design and His plan not to allow their continued existence post flood. The logical reason being that these species were an unreasonable nuisance to man's repopulation of the earth.

This makes more sense to me than the hypothetical idea of the gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
31 minutes ago, wretched said:

It makes more sense to me to believe that none of these species (big mammals like mammoths or dinos) were including on the Ark and God most likely did this for a reason. Their size alone would preclude them from inclusion on the ark and this was by God's design and His plan not to allow their continued existence post flood. The logical reason being that these species were an unreasonable nuisance to man's repopulation of the earth.

This makes more sense to me than the hypothetical idea of the gap.

Hmmm...I've always assumed that perhaps of the large animals, only young ones were brought onto the Ark to save room; however, even a young brontosaurus would have been pretty big! So, your comment sparked a new idea in me...and it's probably not new, but I've never thought of it or heard of it before. Perhaps the key is in the wording...

Gen 6:19-20
19   And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20   Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
 

I do believe the scripture is explicit; in that, what would go on the Ark was "of every living thing". So, I still believe that dinosaurs were included; however, the words "kind" and "of" are used, so that could very well exclude the large dinosaurs. All that was needed were "kinds"..."of" dinosaurs. Perhaps the only KINDS OF the dinosaurs brought onto the Ark were things like alligators, lizards, etc.? I don't know...just a thought...but it makes sense...to me. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was getting ready to post the "Every" living thing, thing but you beat me to it. :)

So, if there were any dinos around, Noah had to let them march up the gang-plank; unless he disobeyed when he saw those two T-Rex's coming...AAAAAHHH Mama shut the door!!! ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Hmmm...I've always assumed that perhaps of the large animals, only young ones were brought onto the Ark to save room; however, even a young brontosaurus would have been pretty big! So, your comment sparked a new idea in me...and it's probably not new, but I've never thought of it or heard of it before. Perhaps the key is in the wording...

Gen 6:19-20
19   And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20   Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
 

I do believe the scripture is explicit; in that, what would go on the Ark was "of every living thing". So, I still believe that dinosaurs were included; however, the words "kind" and "of" are used, so that could very well exclude the large dinosaurs. All that was needed were "kinds"..."of" dinosaurs. Perhaps the only KINDS OF the dinosaurs brought onto the Ark were things like alligators, lizards, etc.? I don't know...just a thought...but it makes sense...to me. :lol:

Key is in the "kinds" IMO. There is only a mention or two of any kind of creature that could match a dino in the Bible or a mammoth/mastodon (besides mother in laws of course). In Job which I believe is the only part of Scripture dictated pre flood and in Psalms (which transcended all of history IMO). Although man makes much ado about dinos and whatnot, God doesn't. Hence my beliefs their "kinds" in smaller packages were included like alligators, elephants, bears, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are plenty of examples of dino fossils with other creatures' fossils.

Just because someone says there are no dino fossils in some tarpits doesn't  negate the other evidence. It means either no dinos died THERE, or no dino remains have been found there yet.

All dino egg evidence shows that even the largest dinos would have been no larger than a medium sized dog at hatching, so size would not preclude young dinos on the ark.

And in fact most dinos were relatively small creatures anyway.

Aligators and moden lizards are not dinos.

There is plenty of evidence of dinos right into the 1800's at least, and even modern reports from places like the Amazon, Africa, Papua New Guinea.

 

Dinos WERE on tge ark, because that is the simplest reading of Scripture, and other reptiles don't  cut it for dinosaur kind. They are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, DaveW said:

There are plenty of examples of dino fossils with other creatures' fossils.

Just because someone says there are no dino fossils in some tarpits doesn't  negate the other evidence. It means either no dinos died THERE, or no dino remains have been found there yet.

All dino egg evidence shows that even the largest dinos would have been no larger than a medium sized dog at hatching, so size would not preclude young dinos on the ark.

And in fact most dinos were relatively small creatures anyway.

Aligators and moden lizards are not dinos.

There is plenty of evidence of dinos right into the 1800's at least, and even modern reports from places like the Amazon, Africa, Papua New Guinea.

 

Dinos WERE on tge ark, because that is the simplest reading of Scripture, and other reptiles don't  cut it for dinosaur kind. They are different.

I see little difference between artist's conceptions of mammoths, mastodons, or dinos and the actual appearance of elephants, bears and lizards or gators/crocs apart from size and extra long fur in some cases. Even the wild guessing of scientists link them together when describing the extinct ones most of the time.

Besides I like my theory much more than yours....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, wretched said:

I see little difference between artist's conceptions of mammoths, mastodons, or dinos and the actual appearance of elephants, bears and lizards or gators/crocs apart from size and extra long fur in some cases. Even the wild guessing of scientists link them together when describing the extinct ones most of the time.

Besides I like my theory much more than yours....

:lol:

 

The difference is that the actual structure of a dinosaur is very different to any living reptiles.

The location and jointing of the legs is probably the most prominent difference.

There are no lizards today that have the same leg jointing as the dinos - they had a leg jointing which is far closer to that of mammals than of existing reptiles.

In fact it really brings up more questions about how do they KNOW for certain that these things were reptiles? Armadillos have armour not unlike scales, and the quadruped dinos have a leg structure far more like an elephant for instance than any existing reptile. The bipedal dinos have a leg structure far more like a kangaroo than any existing reptile.

It is possible that these things were actually warm blooded scaled something a little mammalian?

Unlikely, because there are other markers which indicate reptile, but structurally they totally different to any existing reptile.

In any case, my real point was that the tar pit argument is a non-argument, because there are so many opposing evidences, and so many possible and reasonable explanations as to why there are (Apparently) no dino bones in that tarpit..... Including the possibility that those who have examined that tarpit have simply not told anyone about the dino bones they found. Wouldn't be the first time that "long age scientists" have lied..... (Been a few on the other side as well, to be fair.)

 

There is NO GOOD REASON for any Christian to "find" a gap in Genesis chapter 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, DaveW said:

:lol:

 

The difference is that the actual structure of a dinosaur is very different to any living reptiles.

The location and jointing of the legs is probably the most prominent difference.

There are no lizards today that have the same leg jointing as the dinos - they had a leg jointing which is far closer to that of mammals than of existing reptiles.

In fact it really brings up more questions about how do they KNOW for certain that these things were reptiles? Armadillos have armour not unlike scales, and the quadruped dinos have a leg structure far more like an elephant for instance than any existing reptile. The bipedal dinos have a leg structure far more like a kangaroo than any existing reptile.

It is possible that these things were actually warm blooded scaled something a little mammalian?

Unlikely, because there are other markers which indicate reptile, but structurally they totally different to any existing reptile.

In any case, my real point was that the tar pit argument is a non-argument, because there are so many opposing evidences, and so many possible and reasonable explanations as to why there are (Apparently) no dino bones in that tarpit..... Including the possibility that those who have examined that tarpit have simply not told anyone about the dino bones they found. Wouldn't be the first time that "long age scientists" have lied..... (Been a few on the other side as well, to be fair.)

 

There is NO GOOD REASON for any Christian to "find" a gap in Genesis chapter 1

I do agree with your stand on the gap thing and understand where you are coming from on the tar pits thing.

But: I can see right now the you and I place much different levels of acceptance on what scientists claim when it comes to dino intricate details, anatomy, etc. There is no possible way for them to make those presumptions appear as fact IMO. And it has always been very difficult by their own admissions to keep from mixing up the identification of these species bones with other species without knowing for sure. The jointing of legs is also suspect and argued among the same scientists. Much of it is wild guessing and many of them have admitted that over the years. You must remember that these same men in some cases also mixed up human/ape/bear/even dog bones in their quests to make evolution true.

ICR goes out of their way to indicate their "theories" on intricate dino details are based mainly on speculation. Nothing is new under the sun and I do believe these are simply very large, muey dangerous versions of lizards and crocodilians. I just don't buy the intricate detail claims at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ohhhhhh - please don't "Accuse" ;) me of putting too much store in scientists.......

I agree with you entirely about the mistakes and lies made by these guys, but there are complete skeletons of many of the best known dinos that show a "mammalian," style upright hip, rather than the reptilian sideways hip. From these there is no doubt that the mainstream dinos had a different hip structure to existing reptiles.

Existing reptiles, the legs stick out sideways, the "Main dinos" have upright hips - and this single difference is known from complete skeletons. I agree entirely that there are huge amounts of guessing done by "Scientists" even to the point that they "Assume" that these things were actually cold blooded, and they "Assume" they were reptiles, based on commonality of structure etc.

As I previously mentioned, there are "Armoured mammals" like armadillos etc and it is possible that the "hip structure" being so similar to large mammals could indicate that in fact these things were mammals with armour - that is if you accept that the skin imprints that indicate scales are from the same animal and are in fact indicative of "Scales".

 

There is so much that is vague, incomplete, and in some cases falsified, that it is very difficult to trust this field of science.

But assuming the multitude of complete skeletons found are not ALL fakes, the hip structure alone is not common with any existing reptile. This is clear even to an untrained eye (assuming such skeletons are not fakes.)

For what it's worth, there is plenty of evidence that today's "existing reptiles" were also present in those days (Pre-flood), as you would expect with God creating things directly.

By the way, you are also assuming that these things were "muey dangerous". Why do you accept that idea? It is drilled into us by "Scientists" that T-Rex etc were vicious meat eaters - but that is based ONLY on the tooth and Jaw structure, and there are plenty of modern VEGETARIAN animals that have strong jaws and sharp tearing style teeth.

The implication from the creation account is that all creatures were originally vegetarian, and that means also the dinos were originally.

When did they change, if indeed they did change, to being carnivorous?

They might have been as gentle as sheep...... (And I know sheep can be mean so........)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, DaveW said:

Ohhhhhh - please don't "Accuse" ;) me of putting too much store in scientists.......

I agree with you entirely about the mistakes and lies made by these guys, but there are complete skeletons of many of the best known dinos that show a "mammalian," style upright hip, rather than the reptilian sideways hip. From these there is no doubt that the mainstream dinos had a different hip structure to existing reptiles.

Existing reptiles, the legs stick out sideways, the "Main dinos" have upright hips - and this single difference is known from complete skeletons. I agree entirely that there are huge amounts of guessing done by "Scientists" even to the point that they "Assume" that these things were actually cold blooded, and they "Assume" they were reptiles, based on commonality of structure etc.

As I previously mentioned, there are "Armoured mammals" like armadillos etc and it is possible that the "hip structure" being so similar to large mammals could indicate that in fact these things were mammals with armour - that is if you accept that the skin imprints that indicate scales are from the same animal and are in fact indicative of "Scales".

 

There is so much that is vague, incomplete, and in some cases falsified, that it is very difficult to trust this field of science.

But assuming the multitude of complete skeletons found are not ALL fakes, the hip structure alone is not common with any existing reptile. This is clear even to an untrained eye (assuming such skeletons are not fakes.)

For what it's worth, there is plenty of evidence that today's "existing reptiles" were also present in those days (Pre-flood), as you would expect with God creating things directly.

By the way, you are also assuming that these things were "muey dangerous". Why do you accept that idea? It is drilled into us by "Scientists" that T-Rex etc were vicious meat eaters - but that is based ONLY on the tooth and Jaw structure, and there are plenty of modern VEGETARIAN animals that have strong jaws and sharp tearing style teeth.

The implication from the creation account is that all creatures were originally vegetarian, and that means also the dinos were originally.

When did they change, if indeed they did change, to being carnivorous?

They might have been as gentle as sheep...... (And I know sheep can be mean so........)

 

Well, I have seen these complete skeletons and have to interject a little on that point. The caveat to complete skeletons has always been that they were never excavated as complete skeletons, they have always been pieced together from differing dig sites or spread out over large areas. They tend to arrange the bones in whatever way makes sense to them and cannot know the actual placement and joint angles because no cartilage or tendon remains. It is this sinew that determines bone placement/angles/fulcrum points/etc. Without it, It is still just guess work.

On the last point, some of the dinos became meat lovers after the fall in the same way lions and tigers and bears, etc.. did. The curse of sin caused that remember?

We just disagree, no problem

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually complete skeletons have been found in situ, and the bone structure indicates the joint type, not the cartilage and sinew.

And my point about vege or carni is : how do you KNOW any became carni?

Yes, it is likely, but there is far more assumption in that than in hip joint type............

 

And yes we disagree, and that doesn't cause me any grief either. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...