Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.The description alone says dinosaur
What did you think of the videos I've shared?I can believe the leviathan was a crocodile but I don't believe the description of behemoth covers turtles or crocodiles.
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.What did you think of the videos I've shared?
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 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.
Well, the verse concerned says in the KJV: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."
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: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.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.
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 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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?