creation myth

[spiced]

Nice Hippos unfortunately they do not have a tail the size of or like a cedar tree.....It also does not refer to their reproductive organ either, cause it aint the size of a cedar either.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

 

[Mistermystery]

Nice Hippos unfortunately they do not have a tail the size of or like a cedar tree.....It also does not refer to their reproductive organ either, cause it aint the size of a cedar either.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

Spiced: You of all creationists should know better by now that you are raping the bible. Yes I said that you are deliberatly tearing the bible appart so you can keep your feeble and stupid assumptions alive. This is the last time I'm going to explain the bible verse for you, I suggest you pay attention because I can't stand it that you deliberatly keep on lieing. This has nothing to do with "having a diffrent view" "an other interpretation" or whatever name you give it, it's simply a quote mine wat you are doing.

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.

- Funfact: No reptile lizard, dino, whatever has ever had a naval. Why? because that's an atribute to a mammal. Dinos laid eggs, therefor no naval.

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

So we acknowledge the tail, but forget to read past that? This is called quotemining Spiced. look closely, it clearly states that the animals had stones. Now are you literary suggesting the animal had stones attached to himself? Of course not. It's far more reasonable to assume that it's something completly diffrent then that.

Think about this one yourself, and leave the conclusion behind before you think about it.

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

If you are reading the bibel literal you are suggesting that dinos had metal like bars in their bones.

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.

If it really is a big dino, how can there be trees big enough to compass him? awnser: there aren't any trees big enough in the middle east! *dum dum dum*

the levithian gots similair problems. Like the problem that he breathes fire. Do you honestly believe that? Please Spiced tell me you don't. Tell me there is still hope for you left.

 

[spiced]

(grin) Help ma Boab! You`re lot keep bleeting on about transitional fossils then when the Bible mentions an example of Dino to mammal. You get all hot under the collar because it agrees with the theory. Strange????
However for an instant rebuttal of your claim about language used in the verse:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8612b.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

(grin) Help ma Boab! You`re lot keep bleeting on about transitional fossils then when the Bible mentions an example of Dino to mammal. You get all hot under the collar because it agrees with the theory. Strange????
However for an instant rebuttal of your claim about language used in the verse:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8612b.htm

So much for using innuendo.

Stones = testicles

Tail = penis

Dinosaurs did not have external genitalia or a navel. Therefore, the verse could not have been describing a dinosaur or any large reptile. You would think that the Bible, having been written by people with knowledge of all created things, that the dinosaurs would have been mentioned. You would think that if humans were alive during the time of the dinosaurs we would have some evidence of it. However, neither exists.

 

[spiced]

Read the link above:
Yep! Whilst it can been translated as "Stone" in reference to "testicles" In Hebrew culture this reference to "stones" is used to denote (a cause of shame akin to fear) the same Hebrew word is used to denote fear and trembling.
You are using your knowledge of English to make a Hebrew word say something completely the opposite. Think Hebrew, think Middle east, think morality think "fear, dread"on`t think English slang........
Now why would a hebrew writer write about fear and dread and shame of a creature so vast:
Hebrew "Pachad" (the object feared, by implication, the feeling dread) Also from a derivitive word to mean (sudden alarm, stand in awe, be afraid ,made to shake)from "Strongs concordance" Hebrew reference: 6342, 6343, 6344
With such a reference sounds like a dino to me.............

 

[spiced]

As for comments about the size of trees in the mid east. Thats of course if you think the world has remained in a constant uniform state. However utilising the same argument about trees, the last time i looked there were no Hippos in Israel/Canaan.

 

[Gwynne]

Given the OP, does anyone want to identify the one word used in that without a clear consensus of meaning, and hang their own definition on it? Whaddaya mean, "myth"? How are you using the term?

And why would God, speaking through Moses to a bunch of people that He's saved from slavery and is transporting across the wilderness, and trying to shape up into people that will follow Him and not go haring off on goofball ideas about how to keep the crops fertile or charm that pretty young thing into your bed, figure it was necessary to explain to them about his experiment with what can be done with archosaur body structure, which He'd finished with 65 million years before?

He had a point in telling the Creation story as He did -- that's why it's written as a myth. If He'd wanted to write a natural history of the world, that was not the place and time to do it.

So why do people insist on reading it as one?

They read it as one because they think it makes things easy. They don't have to think too hard and try to figure out what is allegory and what is literal if they just say it's all literal.

 

[Polycarp1]

Actually according to your logic, it proves that dinosaurs are a myth.

Nah, dinosaurs are an established fact. It's Dr. Dino that's a myth -- to be precise, a cautionary tale.

 

[Mistermystery]

(grin) Help ma Boab! You`re lot keep bleeting on about transitional fossils then when the Bible mentions an example of Dino to mammal. You get all hot under the collar because it agrees with the theory. Strange????
However for an instant rebuttal of your claim about language used in the verse:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8612b.htm

sharir. Scholars have suggested that the term originally meant “firm, hard,” hence, denoted “the firm parts of the belly”

There goes the notion that you believe in a literal bible! wheee! Right out of the window. They're not sure, so they are making things up on the spot. And that pathetic piece of text doesn't give an explaination of his stones either. Spiced, read your bible again.

 

[Mistermystery]

As for comments about the size of trees in the mid east. Thats of course if you think the world has remained in a constant uniform state. However utilising the same argument about trees, the last time i looked there were no Hippos in Israel/Canaan.

I am not saying that the hippos are literary in eden/canaan/whatever, that's your belief, not mine. I say that it's a piece of text that is used to describe the variaiety of animals, but not to be taken literary.

 

[spiced]

If I read my Bible literally it does not say Hippo anywhere in the text? So its not my belief as far as that portion of text reads.As for "stones"=testicles did you read what I said , the same Hebrew word "Pachad" used to translate as "stones" or "testicles" is utilised in this mid east culture to denote fear and awe and all the other derivitives mentioned in my previous post.Here is the rendering in the NASB version of the scriptures:
"Job 40:16 "And the power in the muscles of his belly"
It`s handy having a Hebrew lexicon,It is important to remember that "the book" is not western in nature it is not seeped in Anglo/American morality, metaphor, imagery.
It`s like the "flip flop" issue in the middle east: you`re in a group having a laugh and someone annoys you , you take of your flip flop to throw it at him. you would have insulted the company you keep. Taking your shoes of and hiting someone with it denoted you are wiping them of your feet like the dust of the ground.
Stones/ testicles denotes "fear and awe".
Behemoth/Behemah (a dumb beast, any large quadruped animal: Strongs reference 929,930) in a sense does not rule out Hippo, Elephant, cattle or Dino.........

 

[Jet Black]

As for comments about the size of trees in the mid east. Thats of course if you think the world has remained in a constant uniform state. However utilising the same argument about trees, the last time i looked there were no Hippos in Israel/Canaan.

true. there are no hippos in Israel and there are even less dinosaurs there.

 

[Mistermystery]

It`s handy having a Hebrew lexicon,It is important to remember that "the book" is not western in nature it is not seeped in Anglo/American morality, metaphor, imagery.

It's even more important to read the thing in context to that time, I agree there. Therefor it should be bloody obvious that dinosaurs are no possible.

Stones/ testicles denotes "fear and awe".

So if we agree that stones is something else, why do you know that tail doesn't mean something diffrently then simply "tail"?? You're depending on one word, nothing more, nothing less. All the other atributes are flat out wrong or need a 'diffrent interpretation'.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Hasn't this topic been beaten to death already? Anyhow, is your exegesis "more correct" than that of the many scholars who have created the various bible translations available? A quick browse of the bible versions available at www.biblegateway.com shows that, out of the 17 English versions there, 6 directly translates Behemoth as hippopotamus, 2 says it is an unknown large animal, and the remaining just says Behemoth. And of the foreign versions with languages I can understand, the Danish, Norwegian, Italian, Nederlands, and Swedish versions, all say hippopotamus.

If we look to the testicles quandry, most of the English versions do not use that word, but it is in the text upon which many of them are based, the Latin Vulgate:

10 Ecce Behemoth quem feci tecum faenum quasi bos comedet. 11 Fortitudo eius in lumbis eius et virtus illius in umbilicis ventris eius. 12 Constringit caudam suam quasi cedrum nervi testiculorum eius perplexi sunt.

10 Behold behemoth whom I made with thee, he eateth grass like an ox. 11 His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly. 12 He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together.

Also note that the word for tail (cauda) was used with the meaning penis in those days - see for example here: www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Pe/Penis.html#atranslation

An interesting thing when looking at http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job040.html#15, is that it has conflicting information. In the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, the likely translation is given as hippopotamus, whereas in the Hebrew Lexicon entry for 0930 b@hemowth, this is regarded as "patently absurd", and the dinosaur theory is put forward instead. I am unsure of where this "Outline of biblical usage" stems, but it seems that someone wanted to bias this particular entry. If you instead look to the root word, 0929 b@hemah, the given meaning is the more reasonable beast, cattle, animal.

As to the pachad meaning fear, well Strong's Lexicon does list the translation as ball with an additional connotation of shame or fear, but still, the entry is ball.

 

[notto]

As for comments about the size of trees in the mid east. Thats of course if you think the world has remained in a constant uniform state. However utilising the same argument about trees, the last time i looked there were no Hippos in Israel/Canaan.

Hippos (and crocodiles) live in the upper Nile, which is very close to Israel/Canaan. These people traveled and knew of the nile.

 

[notto]

This just in.

Hippo bones found in the Jordan River.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/jerusalem.html

 

[Jet Black]

This just in.

Hippo bones found in the Jordan River.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/jerusalem.html

oh, that is the HFC (Holy Fundamentalist Conspiracy, arch rival of the EAC) at work attempting to destroy all the evidence that contradicts their biblical literalism.

 

[notto]

oh, that is the HFC (Holy Fundamentalist Conspiracy, arch rival of the EAC) at work attempting to destroy all the evidence that contradicts their biblical literalism.

They must have removed all of the dinosaur bones.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I read my Bible literally it does not say Hippo anywhere in the text?

As has been pointed out, some translations do use hippo.

So its not my belief as far as that portion of text reads.

I don't care what you believe, I care about the truth.

As for "stones"=testicles did you read what I said , the same Hebrew word "Pachad" used to translate as "stones" or "testicles" is utilised in this mid east culture to denote fear and awe and all the other derivitives mentioned in my previous post.Here is the rendering in the NASB version of the scriptures:
"Job 40:16 "And the power in the muscles of his belly"

And what do you think these "muscles of the belly" are? Ever observed the placement of genitalia on a land mammal such as a hippo? Every observed the placement of genitalia on reptiles? They are not external like they are on land mammals and therefore if Job is describing a dinosaur then such a reference should no be in there.

I wouldn't say that these terms were used as fear and awe, but of strength and virility as in other cultures. I may be wrong, however.

It`s handy having a Hebrew lexicon,It is important to remember that "the book" is not western in nature it is not seeped in Anglo/American morality, metaphor, imagery.

No, but it is steeped in Jewish imagery which includes references to male genitalia.

Behemoth/Behemah (a dumb beast, any large quadruped animal: Strongs reference 929,930) in a sense does not rule out Hippo, Elephant, cattle or Dino.........

Strong's is not a book on biology. The description given in Job is not consistent with a dinosaur.

 

[John 10:10]

Eccles. 3:11 declares,

"God has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."

That includes dinosaurs and anything else you find in the bone/fossil record.

Who knows, maybe evolutionists will one day even find God. But you must look for Him not in the bone/fossil record of the things of time, but in the revelation of God's word to man. A good starting place is John 5:39-40 where Jesus declares,

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have eternal life."