Dinosaurs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
KerrMetric said:
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.

Do you realize that you have questioned the quality of my intelegance in another thread on this forum and demanded specifics from me... I certainly did not use Google the evidence to support my claims.

My God, Google??? Well that just solved everything. No reason to discuss it any longer, thanks Kerr.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Robert the Pilegrim said:
Let's get this straight, you are chiding Pats for being inaccurate by quoting the KJV?!?

No I am saying that we should all look at all sides of this. Certainly the KJV uses navel and it is the commonest quoting of this verse in Job I see.

And certainly people have interpeted both the navel as muscles just as tail has been said to mean penis.

But I think when this is all melded with the very important prior of geology/paleontology evidence then it points to behemoth being a bull or hippo and that no man has ever seen a dinosaur as anythig but uncovered fossils.

Any Bayesians on here to help me out?
 
Upvote 0

Robert the Pilegrim

Senior Veteran
Nov 21, 2004
2,151
75
63
✟10,187.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Pats said:
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?
Ever seen a Hippo close up and personal? :)

It seems well accepted that Chinese legends concerning dragons originated from finding dinosaur bones, and certainly some dinosaur bones are found near the surface, so the author may have been influenced by stories originating from dinosaurs.

Being too lazy to google around I tend to accept
-Mercury-'s explanations.

I do note that much of Job is extremely old and the translation is less than absolutely certain. As also pointed out the firebreathing animal in a later (related) verse also suggests that taking things too literally here might not be a real good idea.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
-Mercury- said:
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.

Exactly. I think this explanation is far more likely, to certainty, than ignoring the evidence from geology and paleontology.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Robert the Pilegrim said:
It seems well accepted that Chinese legends concerning dragons originated from finding dinosaur bones, and certainly some dinosaur bones are found near the surface, so the author may have been influenced by stories originating from dinosaurs.


We agree on something and this explanation is not highlighted as much as it should be. It seems to me that the uncovering by erosion of fossils would be the source of mythological and fantastical creatures.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
It seems well accepted that Chinese legends concerning dragons originated from finding dinosaur bones, and certainly some dinosaur bones are found near the surface, so the author may have been influenced by stories originating from dinosaurs.


you need to be a little careful in vocabulary with reference to dragon bones for they are something quite specific in China and have nothing to do with dinosaurs. but rather are a mixture of various fossils and even oxen scapula that old dynasties used as oracles.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
rmwilliamsll said:
It seems well accepted that Chinese legends concerning dragons originated from finding dinosaur bones, and certainly some dinosaur bones are found near the surface, so the author may have been influenced by stories originating from dinosaurs.


you need to be a little careful in vocabulary with reference to dragon bones for they are something quite specific in China and have nothing to do with dinosaurs. but rather are a mixture of various fossils and even oxen scapula that old dynasties used as oracles.

Ignoring the Chinese specifics though, it has always seemed to me that the undoubted uncovering by erosion of dinosaur fossils in history would have been a source of amazement for ancient peoples leading to mytholigical story.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Pats said:
My God, Google??? Well that just solved everything. No reason to discuss it any longer, thanks Kerr.

Come on. When I see something posted that I don't recall or know my first response isn't to scream "link please" which seems the internet modus operandi.

First I'll do a quick Google and see if I can find a reference or even better a synopsis of the issue so I can come back with something more intelligent than a plea for a link.

The topic about Behemoth has been beaten to death in creation/evolution debates and 5 seconds of your time would have allowed you to ask something germane or at least informed yourself on the main contentions.

This sort of goes back to my comments about people being lazy about researching things and being informed. They wont even spend the 5 seconds to 5 minutes checking something out as a branching point for more discussion. Instead they scream for someone else to do all the work for them.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
KerrMetric said:
Come on. When I see something posted that I don't recall or know my first response isn't to scream "link please" which seems the internet modus operandi.

First I'll do a quick Google and see if I can find a reference or even better a synopsis of the issue so I can come back with something more intelligent than a plea for a link.

The topic about Behemoth has been beaten to death in creation/evolution debates and 5 seconds of your time would have allowed you to ask something germane or at least informed yourself on the main contentions.

This sort of goes back to my comments about people being lazy about researching things and being informed. They wont even spend the 5 seconds to 5 minutes checking something out as a branching point for more discussion. Instead they scream for someone else to do all the work for them.

Did I scream link? Did I even use the word link? Would I even waste my time here if I thought I could just Google everything I ever wanted to know?

You criticized me for asking you to expand on your position a bit...

Personally, I appreciate many of the other posts here by people who actually made responses that contained a bit a thought and substance. It has caused me to think about how I've viewed these Scriptures in the past.

Kerr, your posts are so quick to slam and go, I can't learn much from them. I mean, I wasn't even denying wether the word meant tail or penis, I just asked you a simple question about your post. If you're not prepared to back up your posts or answer questions about them without putting people down for not taking the time to "Google" why do you bother?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
BigChrisfilm said:
So then when does the bible say dinos lived, I thought creation was only 7 days?
To answer your question, most Creationists argue that dinosaurs were created on the Sixth Day, along with all the other beasts of the field, etc.
Though maybe some of the more birdlike dinos were created on the Fifth Day... ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
BigChrisfilm said:
So then how did the dinosaurs live so much longer before man, do you think that days in the bible mean longer than the days of man? I don't know?
Given that we have evidence of dinosaurs existing many millions of years before the evolution of modern man, the Genesis account was intended allegorically, not literally.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You may want to expand the context back to verse 9. It may be that this creature is a metaphor for an angelic being, much like the death angel, that acts for God on earth to destroy his enemies. (Michael would probably not be used as an avenging angel.) Verse 19 is interesting as it reveals the special nature of this being. Verse 15 reveals that the behemoth 'was made with thee', contemporary with Job (man). It would be the arm of God.

9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?

10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.

11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.

12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.

13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.

14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand (arm)can save thee.

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways (figuratively, 'of course of life' or 'moral character') of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (can read 'unto you'.)

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You know, it doesn't seem like the fire breathing creature was likely to have existed. Perhaps that does have bearing on the behamoth... I've just never considered it before.

:prayer:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Robert the Pilegrim

Senior Veteran
Nov 21, 2004
2,151
75
63
✟10,187.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
oldwiseguy said:
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Literally or figuratively it wouldn't surprise me if according to God's accounting we were created at teh same time as the hippo.
19 He is the chief of the ways (figuratively, 'of course of life' or 'moral character') of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (can read 'unto you'.)
Or maybe just the chief of the pathways he inhabits, both on land and in the water.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.