Dinosaurs?

[BigChrisfilm]

When did the dinosaurs roam the earth, it doesn't talk about it in the bible from what I have seen does it?

 

[Pats]

This is from the NIV:

Job 40:15-19

15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron. 19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.


Some people try to say that this is not a dinasour being described. I do not know how it couldn't be a dino with a tail that sways like a cedar? Bones and limbs being compared to bronze and rods of iron would also seem to indicate a very large, strong, powerful animal.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is from the NIV:

Job 40:15-19

15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron. 19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.


Some people try to say that this is not a dinasour being described. I do not know how it couldn't be a dino with a tail that sways like a cedar? Bones and limbs being compared to bronze and rods of iron would also seem to indicate a very large, strong, powerful animal.

two hours to have this quote posted.
not a record, but not shabby either.
let's try to do better next time.


human beings have walked the earth for maybe 200K years.

the last dinosaur died maybe 62 million years ago.

however if you must press the issue their descendents, birds and reptiles are still walking around.

nonetheless, no man has ever seen a live dinosaur. So why would God mention them in a book addressed to people starting about 1500BC? what revelance could they have?

 

[KerrMetric]

Of course the word used is usually 'navel' not muscles and of course navel implies mammal. The word tail is considered a prudish KJV era euphemism for penis and dinosaurs probably did not have penises.

 

[God Child]

this same thread is in general theology...

 

[Pats]

two hours to have this quote posted.
not a record, but not shabby either.
let's try to do better next time.


human beings have walked the earth for maybe 200K years.

the last dinosaur died maybe 62 million years ago.

however if you must press the issue their descendents, birds and reptiles are still walking around.

nonetheless, no man has ever seen a live dinosaur. So why would God mention them in a book addressed to people starting about 1500BC? what revelance could they have?

To me, this is an example of looking to science for answers first and scripture second. I don't know of any reptiles or birds that have existed, other than dinosaurs, that could have had tails (or genitles) comparable with cedars, do you?

Not only that, but I've seen a prevelent arguement here that the scriptures are only mans interpretation of what God has told him to write and that is why the story of creation is not literal.

If that logic applies to the writer of Job, why would they even include such a description of an animal of such mamoth proportions? If what you say is true, they had never seen such an animal, they hadn't dug any up yet... why would the human author include it at all?

 

[Pats]

Of course the word used is usually 'navel' not muscles and of course navel implies mammal. The word tail is considered a prudish KJV era euphemism for penis and dinosaurs probably did not have penises.

I'm sorry, wich word is mistranslated and means navel?

As far as the translation issue goes, I'll have to look into that. However, the largest mammals penis today is not comparable with a cedar, a dinosaurs (if they had them) would've been.

I know for a fact that science has not entirely ruled out the possibility that dinosaurs were mammals, wich is why you are using language like "probably," so again...

it seems that some are taking man's "evidence" first in order to discount Scripture, or then twisting scripture to meet this "evidence."

 

[KerrMetric]

I know for a fact that science has not entirely ruled out the possibility that dinosaurs were mammals, wich is why you are using language like "probably," so again...

Did you actually mean to type this. Dinosaurs being mammnals is totally ruled out. Saying they could have been mammals is on the level of saying birds could be bacteria. And dinosaurs having external genitalia is as likely as frogs having computers.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

human beings have walked the earth for maybe 200K years.

the last dinosaur died maybe 62 million years ago.
[]
no man has ever seen a live dinosaur. So why would God mention them in a book addressed to people starting about 1500BC? what revelance could they have?

You are begging the question.

How do you know that no man has ever seen a live dinosaur?

What does this verse fit, if not a dinosaur?

 

[Pats]

Did you actually mean to type this. Dinosaurs being mammnals is totally ruled out. Saying they could have been mammals is on the level of saying birds could be bacteria. And dinosaurs having external genitalia is as likely as frogs having computers.

Then I stand corrected. I was under a different impression... I should've been more careful before speaking to that.

However, your language in your earlier post conflicts with what you are saying now. If you thought dinosaurs were no more likely to have external genitalia than amphibians surfing the web, why did you phrase it that way in the first place??

And, I asked you an honest question about the interpretation of the passage and what word you are saying means navel? and how about posting something to support your possition that "tail" here is "penis?"

Even in Young's Literal Translation is says "tail." The people involved in that translation didn't have any preconcieved spiritual agendas, it is a secular translation.

I'm just interested in this claim because I've never even heard it.

 

[KerrMetric]

You are begging the question.

How do you know that no man has ever seen a live dinosaur?

What does this verse fit, if not a dinosaur?

It fits many things if you are using poetic prose as people oft do. Let's just say that in a beyond a reasonable doubt if not beyond any doub no human was alive to see a live dinosaur. Is this 'proof' in a mathematical sense no, is it proof by any rational standard then yes.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You are begging the question.

How do you know that no man has ever seen a live dinosaur?

What does this verse fit, if not a dinosaur?

i supplied the evidence.
dinosaurs lived 62 million years ago.
humanity evolved about 200K years ago.
however i did leave the math undone.
but the conclusion from this evidence is that no human being saw a living dinosaur.

how do i know?
i generally trust the above evidence.
i can count.

what the verse fits is lots of large, 4 legged, grass eating mammals.
from hippos to buffalo.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Of course the word used is usually 'navel' not muscles

Usually according to whom?

The word tail is considered a prudish KJV era euphemism for penis.

There are a number of other uses of the Hebrew word where that makes no sense at all.

 

[KerrMetric]

And, I asked you an honest question about the interpretation of the passage and what word you are saying means navel? and how about posting something to support your possition that "tail" here is "penis?"

Even in Young's Literal Translation is says "tail." The people involved in that translation didn't have any preconcieved spiritual agendas, it is a secular translation.

I'm just interested in this claim because I've never even heard it.

My God, use Google. Do people on here need a link provided for every last thing. This is a common point brought up in the behemoth story debate. Google, there are many pieces discussing this on both sides.

 

[KerrMetric]

Usually according to whom?.

The KJV which is the most cited Bible.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

To me, this is an example of looking to science for answers first and scripture second. I don't know of any reptiles or birds that have existed, other than dinosaurs, that could have had tails (or genitles) comparable with cedars, do you?

Well, there is the problem that dinosaurs do not have exposed genitals, and also that the verse only says that they sway like cedars, not that they are the size of cedars.

Not only that, but I've seen a prevelent arguement here that the scriptures are only mans interpretation of what God has told him to write and that is why the story of creation is not literal.

If the scriptures were directly transcribed, what do you do when different versions of the storieds are found, how do you tell which version is correct? The problem is that even if they were originaly directly transcribed, it is now impossible to say which version is correct and how many changes have been made that we do not have multiple versions to compare them too.

If that logic applies to the writer of Job, why would they even include such a description of an animal of such mamoth proportions? If what you say is true, they had never seen such an animal, they hadn't dug any up yet... why would the human author include it at all?

If it was meant to be literal why would they then go on to talk about a fire breathing dragon?

 

[KerrMetric]

If it was meant to be literal why would they then go on to talk about a fire breathing dragon?

Now you opened up the question "How do we know they didn't breathe fire, physics be darned?".

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

i supplied the evidence.
dinosaurs lived 62 million years ago.[]

Don't you think the person who quoted the Bible knows the dates involved?

You are ignoring the evidence in the post.

If that indeed refers to a dinosaur then our dating is incorrect.

I don't know, I'm just very put off by the dismissive attitude of the post.

If you don't know what the verse refers to, then just say so.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The KJV which is the most cited Bible.

Let's get this straight, you are chiding Pats for being inaccurate by quoting the KJV?!?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

This is from the NIV:

Job 40:15-19

First, why stop with verse 19?

The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.

Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.

When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose? (Job 40:20-24, NIV)

While this is a large creature that dwells mainly in water, it can be hidden by reeds and concealed by lotuses. In order to reconcile its status as a large animal with being covered by reeds, it seems as though this creature is often mainly submerged in water. Sounds quite a bit like a hippo.

As is typical of Hebrew poetry, the description of the behemoth consists of couplets: two lines that are thematically linked together. In each couplet, the second line generally re-states or expands in a complementary fashion on what the first line says.

Verse 16 says, "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, / and his force is in the navel of his belly." Both halves deal with strength, and "loins" and "belly" are closely related (loins either refers to the pubic region or hips, such as Genesis 37:34 and Exodus 28:42, or to the centre of a person's strength, such as Proverbs 31:17 and Nahum 2:1).

Verse 18 says "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; / his bones are like bars of iron." Again, the symmetry between the halves of the verse is obvious. So, we can expect that verse 17 also has this form, and since the verses on each side of it deal with strength, we can expect verse 17 to deal with strength as well.

Here's what it says in the KJV (I've again added a slash to divide the lines): "He moveth his tail like a cedar: / the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." There's two words that are interesting. First, the Hebrew word translated in the KJV as "stones" only occurs here in the Bible, so its meaning is speculative. In the KJV and other early English translations, it is rendered as "stones", a word which means "testicles" when it refers to a body part (see Leviticus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 23:1 for other examples of this usage). In the Latin Vulgate, this word is translated "testiculorum". In newer translations, it is often translated as "thighs" instead, although there's not much reason for this change, aside from the fact that it's less likely to induce giggles when read aloud from the pulpit. It appears quite likely that this word indeed refers to the creature's testicles.

The second interesting word is "moveth", which in Hebrew is the word chaphets. While this Hebrew word occurs 75 times in the Bible, it is only translated as "moveth" here. Every other time it is translated as either "delight", "please", "pleasure" or variations on that. In the Greek Septuagint, this word is translated as histemi, a word with a meaning that includes "to cause to make stand", "to make firm" and "to uphold or sustain".

Why don't translators consistently render the word in this instance and instead use a nearly opposite meaning, "moveth"? Perhaps because it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense otherwise -- unless you put all the pieces together. Verses 16-18 all describe the strength of the behemoth. Verse 16 ends with describing the force it has in its loins. In the next verse, the second half talks about tightly wrapped testicles, and we can expect that the first half somehow complements this thought. It refers to a "tail" that is delighted or pleasured so it is as firm, upheld and sustained as a cedar tree.

What ever could it be referring to?

And, how could this fit into the purpose of God's speech, which was to take Job down a few notches by showing wonders in God's creation that surpass or mystify Job in various ways? Is it at all relevant that male hippos happen to be one of the most well-endowed land animals?

I wonder. I know I'll never cease to be humbled by Job 40:17. I mean... like a cedar tree! Wow.