Did God create the earth formless?

[Diamond72]

The description alone says dinosaur

Conditions (atmosphere) for dinosaurs were very wet. The sky was pink at the time. Turtles and Crocodiles were dinosaurs that survived the floods. We find the dinosaur bones in flood deposits today.

 

[JulieB67]

Turtles and Crocodiles

I can believe the leviathan was a crocodile but I don't believe the description of behemoth covers turtles or crocodiles.

 

[Job 33:6]

I can believe the leviathan was a crocodile but I don't believe the description of behemoth covers turtles or crocodiles.

What did you think of the videos I've shared?

 

[JulieB67]

What did you think of the videos I've shared?

I wasn't swayed by arguments that it's some super ox or bull -or that cultural euphemisms are at play. I believe the description still speaks for itself, concerning the tail, the fact that this animal is chief in it's ways and so on. Plus ox is in the description itself but only in comparison to grass eating. So that also tells me it's not an ox.

Also, the videos are portrayed as if they were debating the fact that they were in this present age with Job around and I don't believe that. I do believe all souls were created prior to this present one. And I believe dinosaurs existed (we have the fossils to prove it) as well in the prior age. And age that was destroyed in God's anger. It's why it can be said that we are born from above and why God knew Jeremiah before the womb, why some are chosen before the foundation of this world and so on but that's a different topic altogether.

 

[Job 33:6]

I wasn't swayed by arguments that it's some super ox or bull -or that cultural euphemisms are at play. I believe the description still speaks for itself, concerning the tail, the fact that this animal is chief in it's ways and so on. Plus ox is in the description itself but only in comparison to grass eating. So that also tells me it's not an ox.

Also, the videos are portrayed as if they were debating the fact that they were in this present age with Job around and I don't believe that. I do believe all souls were created prior to this present one. And I believe dinosaurs existed (we have the fossils to prove it) as well in the prior age. And age that was destroyed in God's anger. It's why it can be said that we are born from above and why God knew Jeremiah before the womb, why some are chosen before the foundation of this world and so on but that's a different topic altogether.

Why do you think that the KJV references behemoths "stones" or "testiculorum" in the Latin Vulgate if it's not talking about male generalia?

I mean, did you actually watch the video?

 

[David Lamb]

Why do you think that the KJV references behemoths "stones" or "testiculorum" in the Latin Vulgate if it's not talking about male generalia?

Well, the verse concerned says in the KJV:

“He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.” (Job 40:17 AV)

The Hebrew word translated "stones" is פחד pachad, which I understand means "thigh". Indeed, I have looked at 20 English translations of that verse, and they all translate it as "thigh."

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, the verse concerned says in the KJV:

“He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.” (Job 40:17 AV)

The Hebrew word translated "stones" is פחד pachad, which I understand means "thigh". Indeed, I have looked at 20 English translations of that verse, and they all translate it as "thigh."

A couple observations. Behemoths movement is also the same term as desire, used in places like:
Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4. But also in more common books such as
Deuteronomy 21:14 and
Esther 2:14

But also, the Latin Vulgate, in which the KJV followed, explicitly uses the term "testiculorum".

It's saying that the tendons between behemoths "stones" are tightly woven, that is, the stones of his thighs.

The KJV and latin Vulgate are quite clear on this. I guess it's a matter of how much trust people put in these translations.

And in the old testament, euphemisms were used to hide vulgar words. Similar to how women would expose a man's "feet" in the old testament, but "feet" was actually a word used for the male organ. Such as in Ruth 3:4 when Ruth exposes Boas feet. But it actually meant that she was lying down with him in a more intimate way.

 

[Job 33:6]

A couple observations. Behemoths movement is also the same term as desire, used in places like:
Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4. But also in more common books such as
Deuteronomy 21:14 and
Esther 2:14

But also, the Latin Vulgate, in which the KJV followed, explicitly uses the term "testiculorum".

It's saying that the tendons between behemoths "stones" are tightly woven, that is, the stones of his thighs.

The KJV and latin Vulgate are quite clear on this. I guess it's a matter of how much trust people put in these translations.

And in the old testament, euphemisms were used to hide vulgar words. Similar to how women would expose a man's "feet" in the old testament, but "feet" was actually a word used for the male organ. Such as in Ruth 3:4 when Ruth exposes Boas feet. But it actually meant that she was lying down with him in a more intimate way.

And in job 40:16, it says that behemoths strength is in his loins. And girding your loins is also a term in which a man basically hoists up his cloth to hold his male anatomy together. And it says that behemoths strength is in his beten:

The physical and metaphorical use of "beten" reflects the importance of family and progeny in Hebrew society, as well as the belief in God's active role in the creation and sustenance of life.

From strongs concordance. His progeny is his strength.

@David Lamb

All that to say, I wonder what people would think of the vulgates plain and direct use of "testiculorum"?

Personally, I think that this makes a lot of sense. Bovines like oxen are well known to have large male anatomy. And in ancient times, this was a type of strength or prowess. A real man. Behemoth. The king of the animal kingdom.

 

[David Lamb]

A couple observations. Behemoths movement is also the same term as desire, used in places like:
Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4. But also in more common books such as
Deuteronomy 21:14 and
Esther 2:14

But also, the Latin Vulgate, in which the KJV followed, explicitly uses the term "testiculorum".

It's saying that the tendons between behemoths "stones" are tightly woven, that is, the stones of his thighs.

The KJV and latin Vulgate are quite clear on this. I guess it's a matter of how much trust people put in these translations.

And in the old testament, euphemisms were used to hide vulgar words. Similar to how women would expose a man's "feet" in the old testament, but "feet" was actually a word used for the male organ. Such as in Ruth 3:4 when Ruth exposes Boas feet. But it actually meant that she was lying down with him in a more intimate way.

I'm not convinced, but I am sure that whether or not the Hebrew word refers to the Behemoth's sexual parts is not what I heard a preacher refer to as "the root of the matter", in other words, an essential part of the gospel. Incidentally, I don't think Ruth would be lying intimately with Boaz, as they weren't married at that stage.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why do I get the feeling that nobody actually watched the video on behemoth?

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not convinced, but I am sure that whether or not the Hebrew word refers to the Behemoth's sexual parts is not what I heard a preacher refer to as "the root of the matter", in other words, an essential part of the gospel. Incidentally, I don't think Ruth would be lying intimately with Boaz, as they weren't married at that stage.

Sexual euphemisms are used in excess in the old testament. And as noted before, the Vulgate very plainly just translates this as "testiculorum".

I'm not sure why you're fighting this one.

Why do you think it's important for Ruth to lay at boas' feet? Because it's not actually talking about his feet.

Isaiah 7:20
Ezekiel 16:25
1 kings 12:10

Are more examples of this.
Isaiah 7:20 NIV
[20] In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your heads and private parts, and to cut off your beards also.

Isaiah 7:20 ESV
[20] In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.

Here it is again. Compare the ESV with the NIV translations. Feet is interchanged with private parts.

Ruth 3:3-9 NIV
[3] Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. [4] When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.” [5] “I will do whatever you say,” Ruth answered. [6] So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do. [7] When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. [8] In the middle of the night something startled the man; he turned—and there was a woman lying at his feet! [9] “Who are you?” he asked. “I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer of our family.”

Sorry to break the news to everyone. But it's not talking about feet.

And that's exactly what is happening with behemoth. It's using the same style of writing, common in the old testament where rather than outright saying it, it's using words of double meaning in a clever linguistic style. And so some translators such as King James, recognize this and use the word "stones" or "testiculorum" while other more word-for-word translations like NASB just leave it as "thighs".

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not convinced, but I am sure that whether or not the Hebrew word refers to the Behemoth's sexual parts is not what I heard a preacher refer to as "the root of the matter", in other words, an essential part of the gospel. Incidentally, I don't think Ruth would be lying intimately with Boaz, as they weren't married at that stage.

I agree that it's not central to the gospel.

 

[JulieB67]

Sexual euphemisms are used in excess in the old testament.

I do believe this but in the case of describing behemoth I just don't see it, sorry.

 

[Abinowam]

No he did not, if you read the manuscripts, it says, the earth (became) void.