Dinosaurs would still be here.

[BCP1928]

An elephant has a tail like a cedar tree? Have you ever seen a Lebanon ceda? This tree is tall, it is huge, a man looked small next to it.

Or an elephant is so powerful that only God can go against it?

sorry. But it does not fit. Any more than the generally recognized hippo theory That I have heard..

I hope you see why I can not think of this as an elephant.

Why can't it just be Behemoth? That's what the Bible actually says.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a creature.

Yup.

What kind of creature was it.

In my opinion, it was some kind of dinosaur.

One like we see today.

Mislabeled, no doubt.

Or one that is no longer with us?

That I don't know.

From the description I do not know anything alive today that fits..

I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Elephant...

Well ... like I said ... "mislabeled."

Thanks for the QED.

If that thing is an elephant, I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well ... like I said ... "mislabeled."

Thanks for the QED.

If that thing is an elephant, I'm Genghis Khan.

AV, do we need to get you seeing a doctor about your split personality disorder? Though, maybe if you go to Mongolia, you can get a lot of free stuff...

But whatever it is, it's not dinosaur since to say Behemoth is a dinosaur only based on the tail is really bad post hoc logic. Where's the description of the neck and head, two of the most recognizable features of any dinosaur?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why can't it just be Behemoth? That's what the Bible actually says.

Academia considers a cherub as a cute little baby, posing for a Hallmark card.

When, in reality, a cherub is an elite fighting angel:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Academia considers a cherub as a cute little baby, posing for a Hallmark card.

When, in reality, a cherub is an elite fighting angel:

'Academia' now meaning Renaissance artists I see...

 

[AV1611VET]

But whatever it is, it's not dinosaur since to say Behemoth is a dinosaur only based on the tail is really bad post hoc logic. Where's the description of the neck and head, two of the most recognizable features of any dinosaur?

Fine.

It's not a dinosaur.

I'm cool with that.

Science can take a hike then, can't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fine.

It's not a dinosaur.

I'm cool with that.

Science can take a hike then, can't it?

Again, your commitment to seeing science have a health lifestyle is so nice.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Academia' now meaning Renaissance artists I see...

If the pampootie fits ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If the pampootie fits ...

Which it really does not...

Not that you care, anyway. Anyone who disagrees with you is instantly 'academia', in whatever twisted form you say it to be. But hey, every errant knight needs a windmill I mean giant to tilt at.

 

[River Jordan]

I said I have studied it.

What did you study? And how did you manage to come away from your studies with so many misconceptions about radiometric dating methods?

You said I am wrong, I could not have studied it, and in fact. Hold me in judgment.

I'm not judging you, I'm trying to figure out how someone who studied a field of science can be so mistaken about so much of it.

That is twice today I have been judged (actually three times if you look in the faith thread) and the ones who judged me have called me judgmental or proud..

riddle me why this would happen?

Do you think you're more knowledgeable about radiometric dating methods than the professionals who work in that field?

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

two things lead me to believe it was not cut out the way most believe (by a river) as it would have to flow uphill.

If the river carved the canyons. why have not all rivers carved canyons (another reason to doubt)

Because not all rivers flow through high-elevation plateaus. (I know, complicated, right?)

The Laramide orogeny lifted the midwest during a historic mountain-building event.

Why would a river cut a canyon in a place like a swampland where it's already at sea level?

And no, it wouldn't have to flow uphill. Land would simply need to rise beneath it. We see this happening today, such as streams that are eroding through the Himalayan mountains as they rise.

 

[Job 33:6]

its crazy that no one really believed in an old earth until the time a scientific study was released. Darwin took that study and came up with evolution. and the scientific world has been out there ever since.

This isn't actually true. Some Hebrew scholars of antiquity, such as Rashi, recognized that the Bible didn't support a young earth, and that was 1,000 years ago. Additionally, that's how science works. People also didn't know about heliocentrism in the early church. And at the end of the day, Galileo was right anyway.

 

[Job 33:6]

An elephant has a tail like a cedar tree? Have you ever seen a Lebanon ceda? This tree is tall, it is huge, a man looked small next to it.

Or an elephant is so powerful that only God can go against it?

sorry. But it does not fit. Any more than the generally recognized hippo theory That I have heard..

I hope you see why I can not think of this as an elephant.

This passage isn't talking about behemoths tail. The Latin Vulgate translates the term "testiculorum" while the KJV uses the term "stones" in parallel with the tail that erects or extends like a cedar tree.

Job 40:17 NRSV
[17] It makes its tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are knit together.

Job 40:17 CEB
[17] He stiffens his tail like a cedar; the tendons in his thighs are tightly woven.

Job 40:17 LEB
[17] It keeps its tail straight like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are tightly wound.

The LXX and the Syriac versions support this with “erects.”

Erects his tail. The sinews of his testiculorum are wrapped together.

Job 40:17 KJV
[17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

The KJV and Latin Vulgate know what's going on here. But it appears that you don't. When the KJV says "stones", it's not talking about geology.

 

[BCP1928]

Academia considers a cherub as a cute little baby, posing for a Hallmark card.

When, in reality, a cherub is an elite fighting angel:

Academia can say what it likes. The Bible says it was Behemoth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Academia can say what it likes. The Bible says it was Behemoth.

Absolutely!

When academia changes words and/or definitions in the Bible to suit their standards. academia loses sight of reality.

 

[BCP1928]

Absolutely!

When academia changes words and/or definitions in the Bible to suit their standards. academia loses sight of reality.

So di creationists when they try to make it into a dinosaur or an elephant or something

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So di creationists when they try to make it into a dinosaur or an elephant or something

But of course it's perfectly fine when Creationists change the words and their definitions.

 

[RileyG]

Why can't it just be Behemoth? That's what the Bible actually says.

For the record, I do not think Behemoth or Leviathan were dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs were extinct LONG BEFORE humans came into existence.