Dinosaurs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

humbledbyhim

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2005
594
36
Baltimore, Maryland
✟932.00
Faith
Christian
-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.


now, i can live with this, but then theres leviathan...
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you read Job 41 with an open mind I think it's fairly obvious and plausible that Job 41 is describing, with the exaggerations of the time, the crocodile. Dinosaurs do not drag their bellies under them to leave "a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge"; dinosaurs stand straight up, while a crocodile's legs are "bow-legged" outward meaning that its belly indeed does drag along the bottom.
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
As for Dragons

Bel and the Dragon 1:26But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without sword or staff. The king said, I give thee leave.
Bel and the Dragon 1:27Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder : and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.


Whole Chapter
HERE
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Gwenyfur said:
If no human has every seen a dinosaur (presumptuous at best unless you've spoken to every human who ever lived)
then explain this

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail.htm

Dinosaurs left tracks in the mud that fossilized and were found millions of years later?

(I don't think that link is the one you intended to show).
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Gwenyfur said:
If no human has every seen a dinosaur (presumptuous at best unless you've spoken to every human who ever lived)
then explain this

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail.htm
If you are attempting to show some trackway evidence for humans and dinosaurs having coexisted together, you should know that the evidence that has been brought forth has been renounced not only by scientists (most of the tracks are caved-in theropod footprints; some are outright frauds) but also by your fellow creationists (such as AiG).
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
As for Dragons

Bel and the Dragon 1:26But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without sword or staff. The king said, I give thee leave.
Bel and the Dragon 1:27Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder : and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.


Whole Chapter
HERE

And do you exorcise demons by burning fish livers? ;)

Seriously, though, there's a reason why the Apocrypha isn't recognized in the canon of Scripture by the Protestants.

Dinosaurs left tracks in the mud that fossilized and were found millions of years later?

(I don't think that link is the one you intended to show).

It's a Paluxy Track site.
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
Dinosaurs left tracks in the mud that fossilized and were found millions of years later?

(I don't think that link is the one you intended to show).

human and dino tracks together on the same rock stata
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
shernren said:
And do you exorcise demons by burning fish livers? ;)

Seriously, though, there's a reason why the Apocrypha isn't recognized in the canon of Scripture by the Protestants.



It's a Paluxy Track site.


What??? You don't think the Bible's historical value is literal...so now you're going to say another historical document isn't valid because it's not canonical???

apocryphal writings are just as valid as secular historical writings...such as jocephus....wouldn't you think?
Or are you going to say "It's not in the Bible so it's not valid?"
 
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

LoG

Veteran
Site Supporter
May 14, 2005
1,363
118
✟70,204.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Mallon said:

If you had read that without the evolutionary bias, you might have noted that they suspect that the prints have been tampered with in the last number of years to show the tracks as being of dinosaur origin rather than human.

"Though the dino tracks (in the Paluxy River Bed in Glen Rose, Texas, for instance) are real, perhaps the human prints were later 'clever carvings' by Indians (who must have gotten around other states a lot). Recent research, however, has shown that they CONTINUE under shale bulldozed away, and paleontologists like Dr. Camp of the University of California and Dr. G. Wescott of Ypsilanti, Michigan, have pronounced them genuine. Scores of other similar finds have come in: human skulls in the Pliocene strata; pollen and anthropods in Pre-Cambrian layers; even pictographs of a dinosaur among other animals on ancient canyon walls, which would knock some 70 million years out of the geologic column" (Acts, p.15, June 1996).

Paleontologists think they are genuine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gwenyfur
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Lion of God said:
If you had read that without the evolutionary bias, you might have noted that they suspect that the prints have been tampered with in the last number of years to show the tracks as being of dinosaur origin rather than human.
What bias? We're reading it off a website whose stated purpose is to promote the standpoint of intelligent design and biblical creationism. I think reading against the offered bias is justified. The ICR isn't exactly scientifically trustworthy, in my opinion. If they're willing to admit something that harms their position, though, I have to assume that it is true.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Lion of God said:
If you had read that without the evolutionary bias, you might have noted that they suspect that the prints have been tampered with in the last number of years to show the tracks as being of dinosaur origin rather than human.
It's cool to say that and all, but working in palaeontology myself, I know some people that work at Paluxy (Christians at that) and can tell you without hesitation that the tracks have not been tampered with. In fact, the collapsed theropod tracks have been known and documented in the literature long before the creationists came along.

Paleontologists think they are genuine.
I've never even heard of these guys, and I highly question their credentials.

The point of the article: the "man" tracks at Paluxy should not be used as evidence of man and dinosaurs living together.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Lion of God said:
That's normal. First line of defence for an evolutionist disagreeing with the evidence.;)
What evidence? My work is in the relatively small field of vertebrate palaeontology. If these people you mention had any reputation in the field whatsoever, I would very likely either know them or have heard of them. In fact, a quick search of their names online turns up nothing but creationist websites (surprise, surprise). I can't find a single "Dr. Camp" at Berkeley. Can you, Lion of God?
 
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

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Mallon said:
What evidence? My work is in the relatively small field of vertebrate palaeontology. If these people you mention had any reputation in the field whatsoever, I would very likely either know them or have heard of them. In fact, a quick search of their names online turns up nothing but creationist websites (surprise, surprise). I can't find a single "Dr. Camp" at Berkeley. Can you, Lion of God?

There's a Dr. Camp, but he's deceased now. There's not much else I can find about him.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Lion of God said:
Paleontologists think they are genuine.

I can find info on Dr. Camp, but no papers about the tracks, not even any quotes from him, could you point the way so I can see what he wrote on the subject?

I can't even find information on Dr. G. Wescott, again could you point me to papers writen by him on this subject?
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Lion of God said:
That's normal. First line of defence for an evolutionist disagreeing with the evidence.;)

Lion of God, if somebody mentioned a controversial thing in my field, and if I were told to take it on the word of somebody I had never heard of, I would certainly want to hear about why this person had drawn these conclusions, and whether he was actually an expert on the matter at all. If somebody came along and said P = NP, and that he was a great Computer Scientist, if I had never heard of him, I would be skeptical, to say the least. It is thought that P != NP. But if someone came up with a proof either way, it would warrant a Turing Award, a Nobel Prize, and immediate tenure at MIT or Stanford.

Dinosaur and human tracks is a significant find. It blows almost everything we know about the theory of evolution away. Now, any two-bit person can claim to have such evidence. But for someone reputable to say so is quite another matter. You have asserted that this gentleman is a reputable fellow. For Mallon to require evidence of his reputation is not unreasonable.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I just found a site about a Charles Lewis Camp who seems to have done some palaeo work at Berkeley:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Camp/

Nothing about his work on trackways, though. And since he's dead, he can't very well speak up for the creationist support that has been attributed to him.

Convenient.

Maybe we ought to get in touch with Jim Farlow or Martin Lockley... both of whom have done much research on the Paluxy trackways.
 
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

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
What??? You don't think the Bible's historical value is literal...so now you're going to say another historical document isn't valid because it's not canonical???

apocryphal writings are just as valid as secular historical writings...such as jocephus....wouldn't you think?
Or are you going to say "It's not in the Bible so it's not valid?"

I haven't had time to look too closely at the Apocrypha but it is very obvious that quite a fair bit of it is simply moralizing myth. The story of Tobit for example always emphasises that he was a pious Jew who paid tithes - classic morality tale of how the good guy always wins.

Bel and the Dragon is obviously a tale about the God of the Hebrews Yahweh confronting the foreign gods of the nations and coming out triumphant.

Besides, would you care to explain to me, if this "dragon" was a dinosaur, how Bel could have approached it, put stuff in its mouth (and escaped alive), and how a hairball can kill a dinosaur?

Josephus and the Apocrypha are two completely different genres of literature.

And to throw another spanner into the works, even if dinosaurs had lived contemporary with man, that would not in any way affect the theory of evolution. Just because dinosaurs aren't extinct wouldn't show that birds, mammals etc. hadn't descended from them.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.