After a long extensive debunking of all the hoaxes and the not-so-fake artifacts Woetzel falsely claims to depict dinosaurs, we now come across this page which claims to show there are dinosaurs found in the bible. While birds are the only true dinosaurs mentioned in the bible, Woetzel, like all creationists, still claims there are non-avian dinosaurs in the bible and rejects the notion of birds being modern dinosaurs while clinging to false notions that says there are certain passages found in the Book of Job that contain descriptions that fit certain dinosaurs and their contemporaries. What we will see is the fact that these passages don't fit the descriptions of dinosaurs, let alone their contemporaries. Rather they harbor descriptions that only fits jackals, snakes, bovines, rhinos, and especially 2 certain supernatural monsters, one, a land dweller, the other, a water dweller. Both were created by God who will eventually destroy them at the end of the world so He can provide His people living in the new Heaven and Earth with food, tents, clothing and other luxuries made from the remains of the two monsters.
Dinosaurs are thought to be dragons mentioned in the bible— or so Woetzel assumes,
"There are a number of places where it appears that dinosaurs or other similar creatures are mentioned in the scriptures. Remember that the Bible was translated into English long before the word "dinosaur" was coined. However, the word "dragon" appears 21 times in the Old Testament alone."
Never mind the word being a mistranslation of howling jackals and snakes, especially the poisonous types. He then gives out some verses he thinks refers to dinosaurs while being ignorant of the true meaning of the word dragon (from the Greek word drakon meaning "snake" or "serpent") and how dragons (creatures with coiling serpentine bodies) are completely everything but dinosaurs. Woetzel focuses only on the King James Bible. All creationists focus only on the King James Bible even though they sometimes do use some other Bible translations like the Revised Standard Version and the New Living Translation, but only when these suit them. The notion about the Bible being translated to English long before the word “dinosaur” was invented does completely no good in hiding the fact that the Bible neither invented the word “dragon,” nor do the verses mentioning dragons and “fiery flying serpents” describe dinosaurs and their contemporaries in every way. See This Is Not About Dinosaurs to get the real truth behind the creationist claims behind the “dragon” verses.
Out of ignorance of Ezekiel actually lamenting Pharaoh and comparing him to a thrashing crocodile in reality, the second part claims,
"The prophet Ezekiel likens Pharaoh to a sea monster that invaded the Nile river and stirred up the mud ([Ezekiel] 32:2). The Hebrew word, "Tannin," is from the root meaning "to extend." The language conjures up an image of a long-necked plesiosaur-like creature paddling up the river and stirring up mud from the Nile delta with its flippers. See the plesiosaur-like hieroglyphic (to the left) currently displayed in the London Museum."
In reality, tannin means "serpent" or "sea monster." Plus, there are no plesiosaur remains found in and around the Nile and that's not a plesiosaur hieroglyph the finger is pointing to. It may look like a plesiosaur, but as mentioned before, looks can be monstrously deceiving. The reason why Woetzel think this hieroglyph is a plesiosaur is only because it looks like one, never mind the gross inaccuracies pertaining to what Woetzel claims in the image. This is a plucked goose the finger is actually pointing to in the photo. This goose, appearing to be butchered and stripped of its feathers, is a variation for the name Sened (or Senedj), an Egyptian ruler who ruled Lower Egypt during the 2nd Dynasty.
In the third section of the article, we find Woetzel claiming there are dinosaurs found in the Book of Job, one of the oldest books in the Bible. What makes creationists like Woetzel thinks Behemoth of Job 40:15 was a sauropod dinosaur is simply because he was a huge animal bigger than any known animal in the world with a tail much larger and thicker than the small, stumpy tails of a hippo and the elephant. According to Woetzel,
"Job is the oldest book in the Bible. This book is very interesting from a scientific perspective because of the many natural phenomena that are addressed by God, Job, and his friends."
The book is never intended to be used from a scientific perspective to begin with. Just like the Bestiaries from the Middle Ages, it is useless to rely on the Book of Job for natural and scientific answers, for much of what is seen in both books are fictional accounts of nature which tells of fictional creatures and things that don't exist, like Unicorns, mermaids, and the phoenix, and factual creatures and things that engage in fictional behaviors (i.e. Fictional accounts of ostriches that never look after their eggs and young told in huge contrast to ostriches that do greatly care and look after their young in real life).
"Along the way, God points Job to two special creatures. The first, mentioned in Job 40:15, is usually translated "behemoth" in the English Bible. Some commentators have suggested that behemoth was a hippo or elephant. But the passage makes clear that this herbivorous animal was "chief of the ways of God." Certainly the hippo and elephant (which had other Hebrew names) don't qualify as the biggest land animal, nor does their anatomy fit the clear language of verse 17. A cedar tree brings to mind a dinosaur's huge tail!"
The "huge tail" in question is used as euphemism for phallus, a male sex organ. In nearly every creationist garbage that deals with dinosaurs, there are illustrations showing 2 comparisons, the comparison between the small tails of the elephant and the hippo and the large tail of the sauropod and the comparison between the dinosaur's large tail and a tree with a very thick trunk. Such comparisons are shown to the entice the reader by saying, "See how big and thick the dinosaur's tail is? And look how it dwarfs the tiny, skinny tails of the hippo and the elephant! See? It would be impossible for the hippo or the elephant with small puny tails to be the behemoth Job because The Bible says the Behemoth's tail is a lot like a ceder tree just like the large, thick, massive tails of sauropod dinosaurs. So therefore, the Behemoth Job saw in the Book was a sauropod dinosaur because his tail is lot like a ceder tree."
There's one major problem associated with this logic. The "tail like a ceder" claim is a direct result of misquoting the verse to make it as if it refers to the tail's size instead of its movements. Creationists misquote verse 17 on purpose. They did that to avoid embarrassing the children they're targeting with its true erotic meaning and hide the fact that the whole passage, when accompany by supplemental text coming from other forms of Christian and Jewish literature, is actually describing a gigantic mammalian monster of Jewish Folklore (being "chief of the ways of God" doesn't necessary make Behemoth a dinosaur). Behemoth in reality is a supernatural monster resembling an bull ox. According to the Jewish Midrash, Behemoth was created on Day 6th of Creation Week and placed in the area of a thousand hills where the Yabul Stream that flows from Eden and a large carpet of grass will help sustain him until the end of the world where Behemoth will rise forth and battle the second monster known as Leviathan whom Woetzel also stupidly regards as a dinosaur.
"In fact, pygmy peoples in equatorial Africa tell stories of a ferocious dinosaurian creature that occupies their swamps and rivers and lashes its opponents with its tail."
And this ferocious dinosaur is all a stuff of African Folklore that carry features sauropods don't truly have. More on this in the latter part of the tour.
"Job 41 portrays yet another awe-inspiring creature: Leviathan. While clearly one of the fiercest creatures that God made, it is difficult to establish exactly what Leviathan was. The Bible describes a sharp-toothed, scaled creature whose habitat is the mire and deep waters. Ken Ham suggests the ferocious kronosaur as a candidate. Others have suggested that this fire-breathing monster was a land-dweller that merely spent much of its time in the water. Perhaps leviathan was a dinosaur with armor or claws whose "sharp stones" were employed to destroy ancient weapons."
A pretty, pathetically, stupid, laughable claim about Leviathan being a dinosaur "with armor or claws whose "sharp stones" were employed to destroy ancient weapons," isn't it? Without proof, creationists like Woetzel, Ham and Duane Gish use their wild imaginations and pretend that Leviathan is a fire-breathing dinosaur or pliosaur, never mind that all dinosaurs are non-fire breathing, full-fledged terrestrials and their contemporaries like Kronosaurus are non-fire breathing aquatic reptiles resembling today's monitor lizards. Both totally lack armor, coiling bodies, and eyes and scales that shine and illuminate for many miles around. The reason they wrongly assume Leviathan was a dinosaur or a pliosaur is simply because the monster is scaly, sharp-toothed, and reptilian.
"Maybe we have yet to discover the remains of a leviathan!"
Dream on, Woetzel! There is no way anyone can discover remains of a supernatural monster, which is exactly what Leviathan is. Leviathan is not a dinosaur, nor a dinosaur contemporary, but a supernatural, coiling, serpentine, fish monster with illuminating eyes and scales. He lives in the Mediterranean sea, where when he gets hungry, he churns up the waters with his hot, fiery breath to make them boil. Any fish that's caught in the hot boiling water gets cooked to death and eaten by the fish monster. According to the Jewish Midrash, Leviathan was created on Day 5 of Creation Week. Behemoth were to be created the next day. Both monsters were created male and female, but realizing that their offspring would destroy the world if He allows them to "be fruitful and multiply," God destroys the females and let the males live separately in the locations God put them in. Behemoth and Leviathan were supernatural creatures whom no mortal weapon can touch. They were to be destroyed only by the one who created them— God, the Creator of all things, who is the only One who will destroy them at the end of the world prior to the epic battle that will be waged between Behemoth and Leviathan and used their remains to bring luxuries to His people living in the New Heaven and Earth as told in Revelation 21.
There's an extremely laughable, unfounded claim about fire breathing dinosaurs found in the "fire-breathing monster" link that takes the viewer to a page that asserts stupidly that dinosaurs like Parasaurolophus must have breathed fire to drive enemies away through some special glands located inside their crests, just like the bombardier beetle does with its fiery glands located in its abdomen which produces hot liquids it uses to spray on its enemies to drive them off when threatened.
"Lastly, there is some paleontological evidence that a skull arrangement could have accommodated "fire-breathing." In his delightful book Dinosaurs by Design, Dr. Duane Gish discusses how the hadrosaurs' nasal cavities could easily have connected to chemical reserves in the hollow, horny crest."
It was Duane Gish who first made up this laughable fairy tale under a false assumption that if certain animals like the electric eel, the firefly, and the bombardier beetle have special features that helps them to create heat in their bodies, then there's reason to believe (make believe actually) that Lambeosaurines like Parasaruolophus must have had special glands inside their crests to help them breathe fire just like the bombardier beetle can. There's one major flaw to this claim— there is no such glands or chemical reserves found inside all remains of dinosaurs! Not even inside the Lambeosaurine crests. Gish has entirely made it all up! Completely without reasonable proof or evidence to back it up, Gish make believes that there are chemical glands inside the crests attached to the hadrosaurs' nasal cavity that helps them breathe fire — never mind them being non-existent along with the other features that protects the fire-breather from getting burned on the inside — then idiotically teaches it as fact!
In reality, the most realistic explanation behind the function of the Lambeosaurine crests is that they are likely used to only make sounds like a trumpet, tuba, or any other type of wind instrument. This hollow crest is a must have for vital communication for Parasaurolophus is a very social dinosaur. Not only does the crests help the dinosaur to recognize other herd members, the crest of Parasaurolophus, with hollow passages arranged like a trombone, also functions like a naturally made musical instrument. Just like the trombone, air from the dinosaur's lungs would travel up the bronchial tubes and through the winding, hollow chambers of the crest, making the walls vibrate and emerge from the nostrils to create sound and help Parasaurolophus communicate with other members of the herd. Each individual Parasaurolophus' crest is different depending on species and gender. Female and juvenile versions of Parasaurolophus has much smaller crests than males. Many images of Parasaurolophus have been illustrated to bear a sheet of skin that stretches from the crest to the bottom of the neck. A excellent concept but it is not known for certain whether Parasaruolophus actually did had such a sheet of skin on the back of its head or not.
Gish is also responsible for making up a claim involving two chemicals inside the bombardier beetle that's alleged to explode when mixed together.
"Hydrogen Peroxide and Hydroquinone are contained in separate chambers in the beetle's abdomen, from where it can be ejected to confront a predator with an explosive mixture reaching 212º F!"
They actually don't. The claim Gish made up is completely debunked as demonstrated here. The two chemicals when mixed together will only turned chocolaty brown. They will not explode. Even when the error was pointed out to him, Gish never had the brains enough to abandon it and still continues to preach this tripe despite it being debunked time and time again.
The next part deals with Jewish folkloric bull known as Re'em in a delusional sense. Unicorns are mythical horse-like animals known for their spiral horns growing on their foreheads. However, the word "unicorn" in the King James Bible is a mistranslation of the word "re'em" or "wild ox" which is used to describe either a rhinoceros, which is more accurate, a buffalo, or the extinct auroch, a large bovine with lyre shaped horns. Yet, creationists like Woetzel stupidly regards the re'em as a ceratopsian dinosaur for no reason other than it's big, untamed, and have large horns on their heads.
"The "unicorn," mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible, is the Hebrew word 'Re-em.' The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) translated it "Monokeros" (one-horn) which was used in Bibles until the 19th century when Akkadian and Ugaritic records were found that mentioned the 'Re-em' being hunted like a wild ox. However, their early pictograph for the "Re-em" shows an animal head with three horns, like a Triceratops."
Wanna bet the three horned animal head is either a bull with a horn deformity or a bull with a pointed headdress?
"In Psalm 92:10 the 'Re-em' has but one horn, while the language or Deuteronomy 33:17 implies two horns."
Although the ox does have two horns, the verse in Deuteronomy never gave the exact number of the horns the wild ox has and the verse in Psalms only contains reference to the anointing horn (or shofar) coming from the horns of the wild ox.
"Although most commentators and modern versions translate it as a bull or rhino, some have theorized that 'Re-em' might be a Monoclonious (single horned dinosaur like Triceratops)."
And that "some" is none other than the creationists themselves. Only creationists can make up such a stupid lie like that for no reason and misspelled Monoclonius, too. Never mind the Triceratops and Monoclonius being natives only to North America and never mind the fact that the monster re'em was never described to be reptilian, nor did it said anything about it having pebbly scales, a parrot beak, and a neck frill growing on its head. All illustrations of the re'em made in ancient times clearly depicts huge bovines with massive horns, including the auroch with large lyre shaped horns on its head. The re'em is completely nothing of what Woetzel wrongfully claim about concerning the re'em's true identity.
"In his classic work Naturalis Historia the first century author Pliny the Elder described "an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros [one-horned]. …It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead." He describes it as like an elephant in length, but with much shorter legs. Other classical authors like Aelian, Oppian, and Martial also mention a "nose-horn" creature (a "Rinokeros"). Some claim that the "Rinokeros" sharpens his horn on a rock and utilizes it in fighting elephants."
The descriptions of the monsters Re'em, Monoceros (spelled correctly as "Monocerus"), and Rinokeros clearly fits the rhinoceros perfectly. The rhino has either one horn or two horns on their faces depending on species. While the Indian rhinoceros has only one horn, African rhinos have only 2 horns. These are very large, dangerous animals that cannot be tamed and are incapable of being used for farming, yet this doesn't stop them for being hunted for their prized horns which are used to make medicines or make cups for drinking or holding sacred oils. The rhino's horns are made entirely out of keratin, the same substance hair and fingernails are made of. Clearly the horn is used as a formidable weapon against its enemies. However Woetzel stupidly and blatantly claims,
"But a rhino does not stab with its horn, which is actually composed of keratin (hair)."
Liar! It's obvious that he never saw an actual rhinoceros using its horns to stab its enemies, including lions, elephants, and humans. Especially on nature shows coming from National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. Even when the horn is made of keratin (the horn is not really made up of hair), this, along with their poor eyesight, doesn't stop the rhino from charging, stabbing, and goring its foes to death, including lions and humans. It shows very little tolerance toward elephants and has been observed grappling with the elephants and stabbing them with their horns multiple times.
Sightings of the rhinoceros have been the subject of many folkloric tales including those coming from remote areas of the Congo basin in Africa where it is said there are sightings of mysterious animals that contain descriptions that seem to match that of dinosaurs, but look closely and you'll find these animals possessing features dinosaurs like Apatosaurus and Triceratops don't truly have. Take the alleged horned monster of the Congo regions of Africa for instance. This monster known as "Emela-ntouka" or "killer of elephants" is claimed to be a ceratopsian by the likes of Woetzel who claims,
"In a recent expedition [made by Roy Mackal, a biologist and a cryptozoologist], pygmies in Cameroon identified the horned creature (there called 'Ngoubou') with a Ceratopsian dinosaur and claimed it could sport from one to four horns."
Emela-ntouka is described to have smooth skin, tusks in their mouths, and no frills or ridges along the neck unlike real ceratopsians that have bony frills, parrot beaks, and rough pebbly skin. As for Ngoubou, another mythical monster claimed to be a Styracosaurus by the likes of Woetzel and Mackal, the creature is said to sprout up to six horns on top of its frilled head, yet they fail to mention that the creature has an elephant-like tail and gives birth to live young unlike the real Styracosaurus that has a reptilian tail and lay eggs. Plus, the alleged accounts of Ngoubou sightings made by Woetzel have all failed to mention the small brow horn growing each above the eye, multiple small spikes lining the sides of the frill, and a huge horn growing on its nose and the fact that fossils of such animals are found only in North America and nowhere else.
The last part shows just how hilariously ridiculous Woetzel's and John Goertzen's claims are concerning pterosaurs which both creationists mindlessly regard as "fiery flying serpents" of the Bible out of ignorance of the pterosaurs' true anatomy with 4 limbs, bird-like heads, gorilla bodies, and hair. Goertzen is a creationist who's no expert on pterosaurs. He just looks at any winged snake of mythology and medieval antiquity and say it's a pterosaur for no reason other than it has wings and is reptilian. This clearly comes to show just how knowledgeable the 2 creationists have about the concept of pterosaurs— not a dang thing!
Woetzel starts off the article by claiming (misspellings included),
"In the Authorized version of scripture we find Isaiah twice mentioning the "fiery flying serpent." Egypt is called the place of the "lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent," (30:6). This fits with classical authors describing pterosaur populations in Egypt and Arabia. Goertzen notes: "The Hebrew word, m'opheph Jpvfm, is a polal participle; a form used only by Isaiah when describing the reptilian saraph. The polal indicates an intensive of the root pvf ooph that means to fly or flutter. The imperfect form of the polal is found in Genesis 1:20, ‘flying creatures that flutter to and fro' and Isaiah 6:2 ‘seraphim' (the same word as the reptiles here used for angelic creatures) that fly to and fro."
They sure do a real good sloppy job at handling the Hebrew language including the polal principle, do they? The actual polel principle for both "seraph" and "fiery serpent" (or poisonous snake) is translated as saw-rawf', while the polel principle for "flying" or "to fly away" is uwph oof, and m'opheph Jpvfm is just a sloppy version of mophereth owph which is polel principle for "flying bird." One time there was an individual who pointed out to me that the term "fiery flying serpents" or "Seraphim" describes celestial beings that serve as guardians of the gods in ancient mythology. His knowledge about mythology will come in pure handy here in debunking this idiot flying serpent = pterosaur claim. Seraphim (which is plural for Seraph) are not pterosaurs, but full fledge celestial beings with six wings and human faces that constantly stands by God alongside Cherubim. According to Isaiah 6, the Prophet Isaiah saw a vision of Seraphim surrounding the throne of God calling out nonstop, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of His Glory." When Isaiah was moping over his unclean lips, one of the seraphim took a hot coal from the altar and touch the prophet's lips with it, cleansing him of all of his sins. For a long time I regard Seraphim as humanoids based on what I saw in illustrated Bible Story books. That was before I found out from the individual that the Seraph are the same as fiery flying serpents that ties in to various types of mythology depicting serpentine dragons surrounding their respective deities they wholeheartedly protect.
Now look at how Woetzel, with the help from Goertzen, is distorting the story of Moses and the bronze snake in the wilderness told in Numbers 21 on purpose,
"This same word is employed in Numbers 21:6 to describe the poisonous reptiles that bit the murmuring Israelites. Indeed it is easier to envision an attack of nimble flying snakes (pterosaurs) killing many of the children of Israel rather than them being surprised and killed by snakes on the ground. The pterosaur becoming a type of Christ (John 3:14) seems more appropriate than the snake, which from Genesis to Revelation is a symbol of Satan."
LOL! What a pathetic howler! What a roaring laugh riot! Pterosaurs attacking and killing the Israelites in the wilderness? One pterosaur becoming a symbol of Christ? How moronic and outrageously stupid can these creationists get!? Doesn't Woetzel and Goertzen, the man who made all this up without reason and proof of evidence, ever look at all of the Bible story illustrations showing the Israelites being attacked and killed by normal poisonous snakes with poison bites that makes a person feel like he's being painfully burned in a fire? Nope, guess not.
<sarcasm>All the better and much easier and appropriate to tell false, distorted, and elaborate stories than face reality that debunks your thousands of years falsehoods hand-down eh, boys?</sarcasm>
But wait! Here's more of Goertzen's and Woetzel's idiocy you'll certainly find yourself in stitches over,
"In addition, the spread wings on the top of the pole would form a cross. In fact, a plate found with Sennacherib's booty at Calah (from the conquest of Palestine) depicts such a winged serpent on a pole that would seems to match the Nehushtan or brazen saraph of Moses that had become a symbol of worship by Hezekiah's reign (II Kings 18:4)."
It doesn't and Woetzel knows it! Always does Nehushtan (a piece of brass) is seen as a normal bronze snake on the pole. Moses was commanded to create such an object to help the Israelites heal themselves from the poisonous bite inflicted upon by the snakes that were sent by God to punish the Israelites for their complaining. At God's command, Moses created the bronze snake, put it on the pole, set it up, and tell the Israelites to look at the pole in order to be healed of their poisonous bite and live. Years later King Hezekiah destroyed the statue saying that it's just a piece of brass after seeing the stature being worshiped as a god.
In Goertzen's own words from his idiot article The Bible and Pterosaurs,
"It is my belief, based on the biblical and archaeological evidence, that the pterosaurs became cultural icons for Judah after Isaiah's vision in the year that King Uzziah died (740 B.C. according to Thiele)."
What about fossil evidence, Goertzen? Is your belief in pterosaurs living in Bible times based on fossil evidence, too? Nope, apparently not. He would rather avoid the fossil evidence, lest his warped belief in pterosaurs "becoming cultural icons for Judah after Isaiah's vision in the year that King Uzziah died" would be squashed.
In his warped reasoning, if it's got wings (doesn't matter if it's bird or bat like) and a body of either a snake or a bird with a forked tail, it's a pterosaur, never mind the pterosaur's true anatomy which is absolutely nothing like the winged serpents of ancient times depicted in so many ancient art and manuscripts with bird-like wings, scales, and no limbs. The winged serpent sitting on the pole in the image, depicting what appears to be part of an Egyptian banner (or a standard pole), is none other than Wadjet, the Egyptian goddess herself in form of a winged cobra with a circle on top of her head representing the sun. Next to her on the right is the sacred winged scarab which represents rebirth and on the next right is another serpent deity. The rest are feline composites that represent deities.
It's totally stupid to regard pterosaurs as "fiery flying serpents" and rely on these mythical winged, limbless, venomous snakes as evidence for ancient live pterosaur sightings because pterosaurs looked completely nothing like the "fiery flying serpents" of the Bible. What is shown in Woetzel's and Goertzen's 2 articles is a direct example of how they're desperately trying to come up with evidence for humans coexisting with dinosaurs and pterosaurs, which is nonexistent and impossible to find, and how they know completely nothing of the concept of dinosaurs pterosaurs despite being shown of actual images of them made based on fossil discoveries and modern studies of their bone structure.
Knowing the fossil record will give them no help in furthering their beliefs live dinosaur sightings, especially since all of what they claimed doesn't explain why fossil record is void of dinosaur and pterosaur fossils above the Mesozoic strata even if what they claimed about the fiery flying serpents and other mythical animals are true, creationists would look to religious writings, folkloric accounts, ancient art and artifacts depicting monsters and modern animal composites to distort and help make up lies about them and say they are dinosaurs and pterosaurs while they are in fact not. Also they heavily engage in searching for evidence for the existence of cryptids including alleged living pterosaurs said to live in the remote areas of New Guinea, claiming if physical evidence for their existence has been found, then the notion of evolution and the concept of dinosaurs living and becoming extinct millions of years ago will be discredited. But no such physical evidence for their existence, including the mythical "fiery" flying snake that's alleged to match "some cryptozoological reports from New Guinea, which attribute to alleged living pterosaurs a bioluminescent capability like a firefly" has ever been found. Such sightings could be likely misidentifications of giant bats.
In the last part of our tour of Genesis Park, we will get a load on how creationists are taking advantage of cryptozoology to help strengthen and enhance their falsehoods.