Suggestion for creationists: Don't make arguments on the basis of not knowing certain species exist

[Subduction Zone]

How about a dinosaur that's a mammal?

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Behemoth was not a dinosaur. It was probably a hippo or elephant.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, since the Bible describes them so poorly.

I somehow don't think some would believe it, even if its DNA was described.

And speaking as if poorly is supposed to mean something, how accurate is the Aricebo message scientists sent to M13?

 

[Speedwell]

Is that what they teach in college?

Yes, in colleges, seminaries and whatever Jews call their theological training institutions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Behemoth was not a dinosaur. It was probably a hippo or elephant.

Did you know that "plutoing" was chosen as the ADS word of the year for 2006?

 

[Speedwell]

Behemoth was not a dinosaur. It was probably a hippo or elephant.

I don't agree. I don't think that there is credible support in the Bible or in extra-biblical contemporary literature for the assumption that Behemoth was any common creature. The folklore connection is too well established by Rabbinic commentary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, in colleges, seminaries and whatever Jews call their theological training institutions.

So let me get this straight.

The Jews teach that Behemoth is folklore ...

... and you just ... well ... happen to believe that too.

Is that correct?

How coincidental.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't agree. I don't think that there is credible support in the Bible or in extra-biblical contemporary literature for the assumption that Behemoth was any common creature. The folklore connection is too well established by Rabbinic commentary.

So something mentioned is either a "common creature," or it's "folklore?"

Is this correct?

No middle ground?

I get accused of that a lot.

You know ... I get accused of being either black or white on an issue, just because I refuse to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

 

[Speedwell]

So let me get this straight.

The Jews teach that Behemoth is folklore ...

... and you just ... well ... happen to believe that too.

Is that correct?

How coincidental.

I don't just "happen" to believe it; there is enough evidence that it's hard to deny it and no reason to do so. The interpretation of Behemoth as a legendary beast is entirely compatible with Christian doctrine. No one really needs behemoth to be a dinosaur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you know that "plutoing" was chosen as the ADS word of the year for 2006?

I accept your admission of defeat.

 

[Speedwell]

So something mentioned is either a "common creature," or it's "folklore?"

Is this correct?

No middle ground?

I get accused of that a lot.

You know ... I get accused of being either black or white on an issue, just because I refuse to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

Those are the only two alternatives which have been offered so far: Behemoth is either a common creature; a hippo, elephant or dinosaur or something like that, or a popular legendary creature of the day. What's your alternative? What is your "middle ground?"

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't just "happen" to believe it; there is enough evidence that it's hard to deny it ...

Are you kidding me?

Academia doesn't have enough evidence to deny the Loch Ness Monster, let alone Behemoth.

Is Nessie taught in college as a "myth"?

I'm going to guess NO.

But it appears Behemoth is.

That's because Behemoth is in the Bible; which is academia's prime target.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't agree. I don't think that there is credible support in the Bible or in extra-biblical contemporary literature for the assumption that Behemoth was any common creature. The folklore connection is too well established by Rabbinic commentary.

There is a phonetic similarity with the Egyptian word for hippo that many think it derives from.

The Hebrew word is either:

• an intensive plural of בְּהֵמָה‎ (behemá, “beast”), from Proto-Semitic (compare Ge'ez ብህመ (bəhmä, “to be dumb, to be speechless”), Arabic ب ه م‎ (b-h-m)), or
• a borrowing of Egyptian
  
  (*pꜣ-jḥ-mw, “hippopotamus”, literally “the ox of the water”)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are you kidding me?

Academia doesn't have enough evidence to deny the Loch Ness Monster, let alone Behemoth.

Is Nessie taught in college as a "myth"?

To the extent that it would ever be mentioned, it would be folklore, myth, or hoax.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are the only two alternatives which have been offered so far: Behemoth is either a common creature; a hippo, elephant or dinosaur or something like that, or a popular legendary creature of the day.

I pick "dinosaur" for the win.

And a dinosaur with a navel to boot.

So some big-shot creationist academic named Linnaeus was wrong.

What's your alternative?

To Behemoth?

None.

What is your "middle ground?"

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

 

[AV1611VET]

To the extent that it would ever be mentioned, it would be folklore, myth, or hoax.

I totally agree.

If it was ever mentioned in the Bible, it would be considered in academia as folklore, myth, or hoax.

But the fact that Nessie is mentioned outside of the Bible, you won't see her mentioned as a hoax.

(Not that I know of anyway. Perhaps an academian would care to speak up and tell me if I'm wrong here.)

 

[Speedwell]

Are you kidding me?

Academia doesn't have enough evidence to deny the Loch Ness Monster, let alone Behemoth.

Is Nessie taught in college as a "myth"?

I'm going to guess NO.

You're right--it's taught as a legend, if it is referred to at all. "Myth" is a specialized form of literature, more sophisticated than "just a made-up story." Even if the first two books of Genesis were, as you believe, 100% word-for-word accurate literal history they would still qualify as "myth" because of how the stories are structured and used.

But it appears Behemoth is.

Not as "myth." As I said, "myth" is a specialized form of literature with definite characteristics. In any case, Behemoth, Leviathan and Ziz are well-established as characters in Hebrew folklore. You can make of that whatever you want.

That's because Behemoth is in the Bible; which is academia's prime target.

"Academia" doesn't really care all that much about the subject; it is mainly a topic of obscure interest to Bible scholars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I pick "dinosaur" for the win.

And a dinosaur with a navel to boot.

So some big-shot creationist academic named Linnaeus was wrong.
To Behemoth?

None.
Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

That is a loss. Dinosaurs did not have navels.

Try again.

 

[Speedwell]

I totally agree.

If it was ever mentioned in the Bible, it would be considered in academia as folklore, myth, or hoax.

But the fact that Nessie is mentioned outside of the Bible, you won't see her mentioned as a hoax.

(Not that I know of anyway. Perhaps an academian would care to speak up and tell me if I'm wrong here.)

"legendary" I believe to be the correct term. Like Bigfoot or Yeti.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right--it's taught as a legend, if it is referred to at all.

I'd love to see the look on peoples' faces if, during the Millennial Reign, Jesus gave a personal tour of the Creation Week ... taking evolutionists back in time to 4004 BC and letting them witness what the angels witnessed.

I'd say that, for some, that would constitute a real shock.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd love to see the look on peoples' faces if, during the Millennial Reign, Jesus gave a personal tour of the Creation Week ... taking evolutionists back in time to 4004 BC and letting them witness what the angels witnessed.

I'd say that, for some, that would constitute a real shock.

I don't see the problem for a Christian in accepting the theory that Behemoth was a folkloric creature. Why do you think it needs to be a dinosaur?