Biblically, it says God took two (or more) of every kind of air-breathing animal--male and female. I think it's insulting that you are insinuating the dinosaurs weren't created by God but are a manipulation of another creature spawned by fallen angels. This is not about the Nephilim. Since you weren't on the ark, you can't say that no dinosaur was saved. If you believe the Bible, you can trust they were. God could have brought young dinosaurs instead of full grown if He wanted them to take up less space. Many cultures have dragons in their folklore, probably because the earlier generations after the flood saw dinosaurs. Just because they died off between the flood and today doesn't mean the dinosaurs didn't make it on the ark.
I don't need to be in Noah's ark to read what Enoch and others at that time wrote. Now were you living in the first millennium to witness everything Enoch and the other writers saw? I much rather takes the words from someone God entrusted and living at that time to see it all happened than someone forming conclusions based on nothing.
They were still around in Job's lifetime, at least one type was.
Job 40:15-24
15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.
Behemoth sounds like a sauropod to me ("tail like a cedar").
I can see you don't research nor give much thought before drawing to hasty conclusions based on nothing. God's description of the behemoth is a herbivore that can hide itself under the shades of a lotus tree. Job 40:21-22.
If the behemoth was an actual dinosaur and God called it the behemoth, it would of very likely be bigger than the Titanosaur founded in Argentina.
"How to you hide a dinosaur that large underneath a tree this small?" Your logic is flawed. Plus there are no traces of dinosaur prints ever found along the Jordan river.
Images of Lotus Trees.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lot...AhWBVSYKHUk9AS0QsAQIOQ#tbm=isch&q=lotus+trees
.
http://www.thestonescryout.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurs_and_the_bible
What is Behemoth? (Job 40:15-24)
The Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) organization
Answers in Genesis (AiG) has
stated they believe the Bible describes a dinosaur like brachiosaurus when God describes the
behemoth to Job. Some people would agree with this theory, but others have said this likely refers to a more common creature like an elephant or a hippopotamus. Before we dig into the identity of the
behemoth, we need to read the passage in the Bible.
Job 40:15-24 (ESV)
15 Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
20 For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh.
22 For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
23 Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
24 Can one take him by his eyes,
or pierce his nose with a snare?
There is a great deal of mystery surrounding the identity of
behemoth. From the description above it is certainly understandable for people to claim it is one of the larger sauropod dinosaurs. And this is the only undisputed place in Scripture where
behemoth is mentioned, which adds to the uncertainty (according to the
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Ps. 73:22 is another strong possibility with its singular pronouns see below). Now that we've read the biblical description, let's consider the literary nature of the Book of Job.
Could the
behemoth have been a dinosaur, such as this brachiosaurus? (illustration courtesy of Nobu Tamura)
When interpreting the Bible, I take the stance that we should always interpret what it says literally, unless it tells you not to, or it's obvious from the literary style employed that it should be taken figuratively. The Book of Job falls into the genre of poetry. As such, it often portrays exaggerated speech that is not to be taken literally, as opposed to, say, a narrative where someone is describing events that actually occurred with the intent of portraying an accurate chronological account.
That this is an exaggerated description and not an actual literal description should be obvious from the text in places where it says things like His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron (v. 18). Certainly, this creature was not made of bronze and iron. The author is speaking metaphorically. He wishes us to associate the limbs of
behemoth with bronze and iron, symbols of great sturdiness and strength.
The use of metaphors in biblical poetry is quite common. Other examples where it is silly to take them literally are in Deut 32:4 where God is a rock, in Song 4:4 where the womans neck is like the Tower of David, in Ps 61:4 where God has wings, in Prov 28:15 where a wicked ruler is like a charging bear or roaring lion, in Prov 21:1 where the kings heart is a stream of water, and many, many more.
That said, there are some great nuggets of literal truth here, such as 1.) it eats grass, 2.) its strength is in its loins, 3.) its tail is strong, like cedar, 4.) its limbs are strong, like iron and bronze, 5.) it is the first (or, chief) of the works of God, 6.) it shelters in the marshes and (Jordan) rivers, 7.) it is difficult to tame. Our guess as to what this creature is or was must fit these criteria.
Before we go into breaking down the text to try and figure out
behemoth, lets now look to see the views of the scholars, translators and commentators.
The following 18 resources hold that behemoth is a hippopotamus (
Easton's Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, New Bible Dictionary 3rd edition, Eerdeman's Bible Dictionary, Harpers Bible Dictionary, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition 4th edition, Be Patient, Bible Guide, Wiersbe's Expository Outline on the Old Testament, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, The Teacher's Bible Commentary, Apologetics Study Bible, Nelson Study Bible, ESV Study Bible, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB)). Additionally, the New Living Translation (NLT) 1st edition (1996) directly translated
behemoth as hippopotamus (this was subsequently changed in the 2004 2nd edition to the transliterated
behemoth). The New American Standard Bible (NASB) includes this interpretation in a footnote. Matthew Henry's commentary suggests it was an elephant, as do footnotes in the Authorized Version (AV) of 1873, and the King James Version (KJV) of 1900. The
Holman Concise Bible Commentary and the
Archeological Study Bible interpret this creature as either a hippo or an elephant, as is in the footnote in the New International Version (NIV). The
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments claims this to be an Egyptian water ox. The
Wilmington's Bible Handbook,
Defender's Study Bible and
MacArthur's Study Bible say this describes a dinosaur.
Most scholars and commentators believe the creature called behemoth in Job 40:15 is a hippopotamus (image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Lee R. Berger).
The majority of these resources hold that behemoth was some kind of creature we are familiar with today; most say the hippopotamus. Only three of them claim that this was a dinosaur. One of the three,
Defender's Study Bible, is a compilation of notes by the late Henry Morris, who was the pioneer of the recent young-earth creation science movement with his work on the Genesis Flood in the early 1960s. Without a doubt, his research has influenced any recent scholar, and certainly any organization like
Answers in Genesis or the
Institute of Creation Research (founded by Henry Morris in 1972 and now run by his son, John Morris) who would suggest
behemoth to be a dinosaur. These claims are obviously recent, so now we will go back to the text and look closely at it, and the ideas put forth before 1842, when the dinosaur excitement began. If
behemoth was a dinosaur, it should be evident in these older resources as well.
To start, we see that the word behemoth is just a transliteration of the Hebrew word. The Hebrew behemoth is an extension of the plural of behema akin to the superlative in the English. As such, it refers to a large beast, the brute beast par excellence (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, TWOT). According to TWOT, the
behema can be a wild animal, but it mostly refers to larger domesticated animals such as sheep and cattle. The plural
behemoth is used 15 times in the OT, but this should not be confused with our word
behemoth here in Job 40:15. In most other cases it is clear it refers to multiple creatures. In the description of the
behemoth in Job, the pronouns are all singular (he-his), meaning this is referring to one large creature (cf. Ps 73:22). A similarity is seen with the plural Hebrew word for gods (
elohim) also being used for the singular, majestic Creator God.
The early Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (LXX), translates
behemoth as
therion.
Therion is a word usually depicting a wild animal or beast. It is found 165 times in the LXX. These were the beasts of the earth God made on Creation Day 6 in Gen. 1:24-25. They were the beasts with Noah on the ark (Gen 8:1) as differentiated from the livestock (Gr.
ktenon) (cf. Lev. 25:7). It was the fierce animal Joseph's brothers claimed had eaten him in Gen. 37:20, 33. These and other passages make it clear that the Jewish scholars who translated the LXX in the first few centuries BC thought
behemoth was a wild animal with which they had some degree of familiarity.
Behemoth is also mentioned in a few apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books (~200 BC to 200 AD). These are apocalyptic in nature and seem to mythologize the creature. The references to
behemoth in these non-canonical books are found in
Enoch 60:7-9,
The Apocalypse of Baruch (or
Baruch 1) 29:4, and potentially
2 Esdras (
4 Esdras) 6:49-52. In
2 Esdras, the Latin is the primary source text since the original (either Hebrew or Greek) is non-extant. The Latin reads Enoch instead of
behemoth as followed by the KJV Apocrypha. The Syriac reads
behemoth, however, as followed by the RSV-NRSV Apocrypha. It is uncertain which is the original wording, but since it is coupled with
leviathan, it is probable that
behemoth is correct. To sum these non-biblical works up,
behemoth was created on the 5th Creation Day, assigned to the land portion (as opposed to the other monster
leviathan, who was assigned to the watery abyss), and his carcass will be given to those who survive in the times of the Messiah. It appears these writings treat
leviathan and
behemoth as mythical creatures, certainly not ones Job would have been familiar with as they were placed in seclusion until the end times.
The Latin Vulgate (405 AD), Luther's German Bible (1534) and the King James (1611) avoid any interpretation of
behemoth by simply transliterating the word
behemoth. Luther does make a note by
behemoth that reads
ein Riesentier, nach der Art des Nilpferds (a behemoth, according to the nature of the hippopotamus), which clearly indicates he felt the creature was real and in existence in his time, even specifying it by name.
A few commentators hold that the
behemoth was an elephant (image by Fir0002/Flagstaffotos according to the
GFDL license).
Additionally, Mathew Henry, in his commentary published in 1706 states of
behemoth,
Some understand it of the
bull; others of an amphibious animal, well known (they say) in Egypt, called the
river-horse (hippopotamus), living among the fish in the river Nile, but coming out to feed upon the earth. But I confess I see no reason to depart from the ancient and most generally received opinion, that it is the elephant that is here described
Of all these resources which predate the word dinosaur, it appears most feel it was a mighty, but familiar creature, whether a hippopotamus or an elephant or something else. The non-biblical books contradict Scripture where God tells Job to Behold,
behemoth in Job 40:15. How could he behold a creature which was in seclusion until the end times? Or how could a mythical creature be in the Jordan River (Job 40:23)?
But could it have been a dinosaur? We will now judge from the description given in the passage in Job above. There are really two objections to this being a hippo or an elephant by those who claim this to be a dinosaur. They are the tail like cedar (v. 17), and the idea that the hippo is not found near the Jordan River (v. 23). First, the Hebrew word here for tail is
zanab. This word can mean a literal animal tail like a serpent's (Ex. 4:4) or a fox's (Judg. 15:4), or it can mean a figurative stump or lowest in rank (Deut. 28:44; Is. 7:4). TWOT also suggests it could mean any appendage such as the trunk of an elephant? Another possibility lies in the Hebrew word
pachad (thigh) in verse 17. This word is only used like this here in Job. It is possible that the
zanab is not a tail but a phallus, and the thighs are the creatures stones (KJV) or testicles (Latin Vulgate
testiculorum). This would be another symbol of the creatures strength as he makes his
zanab stiff like a cedar; perhaps meaning it is not always in that state. Certainly this could either be describing an elephant with its trunk, or a hippopotamus, whos strength is in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly (v. 16). This objection over the tail of
behemoth is fairly easily explained on textual bases, and certainly does not give evidence it speaks of a dinosaur.
The second objection is that there are no hippopotami near the Jordan River today. While thats true,
Belmaker (2006) states that
hippopotamus antiques has been described in Pliocene deposits near Bethlehem,
hippopotamus behemoth (who's fossils have been found in the Central Jordan River Valley just south of the Sea of Galilee) was an endemic and common species in the Levant since the lower Pleistocene, and
hippopotamus amphibius was in the Levant until around the 4th Century BC. Even though there are no hippopotami in Israel today, there is abundant evidence that they were there even in Job's day (~2000 BC).
Those wishing to make the
behemoth out to be a dinosaur have often overlooked other pieces of evidence in the account given in Job. First, he eats grass (v. 15), which would be difficult to do for a huge sauropod. Second, reeds and lotus plants (v. 21) would hardly be shelter for a large sauropod dinosaur. Third, dinosaurs have not been noted around the Jordan River (v. 23). Dinosaur footprints
have been discovered in the Israeli town of Beit Zayit (about 7km west of Jerusalem). They were most likely from the dinosaur
struthiomimus and were formed in the late Cretaceous Period. This clearly pre-dates Job, but this poses no threat to the Young-Earth Creationist who would say these rocks were formed during Noah's Flood. The problems though are how there are
any footprints formed in a global Flood in the first place, and, these prints were left by a theropod, not a sauropod. This dinosaur was not the dinosaur the YEC would claim to be
behemoth. Fourth, the Jordan River is said to rush against his mouth (v. 23). As the
Bible Knowledge Commentary rightly states, A surging river would hardly reach the depths of a brontosaurus mouth. Another problem is the explanation of how this could be the first (or, chief) of the works of God (v. 19) and now be extinct. Hippos and elephants are still around, but dinosaurs are not. If this was God's most powerful and awesome creature, one would think it would have survived, especially if it was carried through the Flood on the ark, as the YECs claim.
The problems with
behemoth being a dinosaur seem insurmountable. The most likely explanation for this creature is that he was real, not mythical, and that he was familiar to Job. While we cannot be absolutely certain, the most likely suspect that fits the description is that of the hippopotamus, second, perhaps, is the elephant. It seems very plausible that a large species of hippopotamus was located around the Jordan River in Job's day, but has since migrated away due to environmental changes.
.
