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.
KerrMetric said:My God, use Google. Do people on here need a link provided for every last thing. This is a common point brought up in the behemoth story debate. Google, there are many pieces discussing this on both sides.
Let's get this straight, you are chiding Pats for being inaccurate by quoting the KJV?!?KerrMetric said:The KJV which is the most cited Bible.
LOL!-Mercury- said:[]
I wonder. I know I'll never cease to be humbled by Job 40:17. I mean... like a cedar tree! Wow.
Robert the Pilegrim said:Let's get this straight, you are chiding Pats for being inaccurate by quoting the KJV?!?
Ever seen a Hippo close up and personal?Pats said:If that logic applies to the writer of Job, why would they even include such a description of an animal of such mamoth proportions? If what you say is true, they had never seen such an animal, they hadn't dug any up yet... why would the human author include it at all?
-Mercury- said:First, why stop with verse 19?
The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose? (Job 40:20-24, NIV)
While this is a large creature that dwells mainly in water, it can be hidden by reeds and concealed by lotuses. In order to reconcile its status as a large animal with being covered by reeds, it seems as though this creature is often mainly submerged in water. Sounds quite a bit like a hippo.
As is typical of Hebrew poetry, the description of the behemoth consists of couplets: two lines that are thematically linked together. In each couplet, the second line generally re-states or expands in a complementary fashion on what the first line says.
Verse 16 says, "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, / and his force is in the navel of his belly." Both halves deal with strength, and "loins" and "belly" are closely related (loins either refers to the pubic region or hips, such as Genesis 37:34 and Exodus 28:42, or to the centre of a person's strength, such as Proverbs 31:17 and Nahum 2:1).
Verse 18 says "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; / his bones are like bars of iron." Again, the symmetry between the halves of the verse is obvious. So, we can expect that verse 17 also has this form, and since the verses on each side of it deal with strength, we can expect verse 17 to deal with strength as well.
Here's what it says in the KJV (I've again added a slash to divide the lines): "He moveth his tail like a cedar: / the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." There's two words that are interesting. First, the Hebrew word translated in the KJV as "stones" only occurs here in the Bible, so its meaning is speculative. In the KJV and other early English translations, it is rendered as "stones", a word which means "testicles" when it refers to a body part (see Leviticus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 23:1 for other examples of this usage). In the Latin Vulgate, this word is translated "testiculorum". In newer translations, it is often translated as "thighs" instead, although there's not much reason for this change, aside from the fact that it's less likely to induce giggles when read aloud from the pulpit. It appears quite likely that this word indeed refers to the creature's testicles.
The second interesting word is "moveth", which in Hebrew is the word chaphets. While this Hebrew word occurs 75 times in the Bible, it is only translated as "moveth" here. Every other time it is translated as either "delight", "please", "pleasure" or variations on that. In the Greek Septuagint, this word is translated as histemi, a word with a meaning that includes "to cause to make stand", "to make firm" and "to uphold or sustain".
Why don't translators consistently render the word in this instance and instead use a nearly opposite meaning, "moveth"? Perhaps because it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense otherwise -- unless you put all the pieces together. Verses 16-18 all describe the strength of the behemoth. Verse 16 ends with describing the force it has in its loins. In the next verse, the second half talks about tightly wrapped testicles, and we can expect that the first half somehow complements this thought. It refers to a "tail" that is delighted or pleasured so it is as firm, upheld and sustained as a cedar tree.
What ever could it be referring to?
And, how could this fit into the purpose of God's speech, which was to take Job down a few notches by showing wonders in God's creation that surpass or mystify Job in various ways? Is it at all relevant that male hippos happen to be one of the most well-endowed land animals?
I wonder. I know I'll never cease to be humbled by Job 40:17. I mean... like a cedar tree! Wow.
Robert the Pilegrim said:It seems well accepted that Chinese legends concerning dragons originated from finding dinosaur bones, and certainly some dinosaur bones are found near the surface, so the author may have been influenced by stories originating from dinosaurs.
I'll hold you to that in other threads.Robert the Pilegrim said:Being too lazy to google around I tend to accept
-Mercury-'s explanations.
rmwilliamsll said:It seems well accepted that Chinese legends concerning dragons originated from finding dinosaur bones, and certainly some dinosaur bones are found near the surface, so the author may have been influenced by stories originating from dinosaurs.
you need to be a little careful in vocabulary with reference to dragon bones for they are something quite specific in China and have nothing to do with dinosaurs. but rather are a mixture of various fossils and even oxen scapula that old dynasties used as oracles.
Pats said:My God, Google??? Well that just solved everything. No reason to discuss it any longer, thanks Kerr.
KerrMetric said:Come on. When I see something posted that I don't recall or know my first response isn't to scream "link please" which seems the internet modus operandi.
First I'll do a quick Google and see if I can find a reference or even better a synopsis of the issue so I can come back with something more intelligent than a plea for a link.
The topic about Behemoth has been beaten to death in creation/evolution debates and 5 seconds of your time would have allowed you to ask something germane or at least informed yourself on the main contentions.
This sort of goes back to my comments about people being lazy about researching things and being informed. They wont even spend the 5 seconds to 5 minutes checking something out as a branching point for more discussion. Instead they scream for someone else to do all the work for them.
To answer your question, most Creationists argue that dinosaurs were created on the Sixth Day, along with all the other beasts of the field, etc.BigChrisfilm said:So then when does the bible say dinos lived, I thought creation was only 7 days?
Given that we have evidence of dinosaurs existing many millions of years before the evolution of modern man, the Genesis account was intended allegorically, not literally.BigChrisfilm said:So then how did the dinosaurs live so much longer before man, do you think that days in the bible mean longer than the days of man? I don't know?
Literally or figuratively it wouldn't surprise me if according to God's accounting we were created at teh same time as the hippo.oldwiseguy said:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Or maybe just the chief of the pathways he inhabits, both on land and in the water.19 He is the chief of the ways (figuratively, 'of course of life' or 'moral character') of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (can read 'unto you'.)
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?