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.
-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.
Gwenyfur said:If no human has every seen a dinosaur (presumptuous at best unless you've spoken to every human who ever lived)
then explain this
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail.htm
If you are attempting to show some trackway evidence for humans and dinosaurs having coexisted together, you should know that the evidence that has been brought forth has been renounced not only by scientists (most of the tracks are caved-in theropod footprints; some are outright frauds) but also by your fellow creationists (such as AiG).Gwenyfur said:If no human has every seen a dinosaur (presumptuous at best unless you've spoken to every human who ever lived)
then explain this
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail.htm
As for Dragons
Bel and the Dragon 1:26But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without sword or staff. The king said, I give thee leave.
Bel and the Dragon 1:27Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder : and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.
Whole Chapter HERE
Dinosaurs left tracks in the mud that fossilized and were found millions of years later?
(I don't think that link is the one you intended to show).
notto said:Dinosaurs left tracks in the mud that fossilized and were found millions of years later?
(I don't think that link is the one you intended to show).
shernren said:And do you exorcise demons by burning fish livers?
Seriously, though, there's a reason why the Apocrypha isn't recognized in the canon of Scripture by the Protestants.
It's a Paluxy Track site.
Refuted here by fellow creationists:Gwenyfur said:human and dino tracks together on the same rock stata
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
Mallon said:Refuted here by fellow creationists:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255
"Though the dino tracks (in the Paluxy River Bed in Glen Rose, Texas, for instance) are real, perhaps the human prints were later 'clever carvings' by Indians (who must have gotten around other states a lot). Recent research, however, has shown that they CONTINUE under shale bulldozed away, and paleontologists like Dr. Camp of the University of California and Dr. G. Wescott of Ypsilanti, Michigan, have pronounced them genuine. Scores of other similar finds have come in: human skulls in the Pliocene strata; pollen and anthropods in Pre-Cambrian layers; even pictographs of a dinosaur among other animals on ancient canyon walls, which would knock some 70 million years out of the geologic column" (Acts, p.15, June 1996).
What bias? We're reading it off a website whose stated purpose is to promote the standpoint of intelligent design and biblical creationism. I think reading against the offered bias is justified. The ICR isn't exactly scientifically trustworthy, in my opinion. If they're willing to admit something that harms their position, though, I have to assume that it is true.Lion of God said:If you had read that without the evolutionary bias, you might have noted that they suspect that the prints have been tampered with in the last number of years to show the tracks as being of dinosaur origin rather than human.
It's cool to say that and all, but working in palaeontology myself, I know some people that work at Paluxy (Christians at that) and can tell you without hesitation that the tracks have not been tampered with. In fact, the collapsed theropod tracks have been known and documented in the literature long before the creationists came along.Lion of God said:If you had read that without the evolutionary bias, you might have noted that they suspect that the prints have been tampered with in the last number of years to show the tracks as being of dinosaur origin rather than human.
I've never even heard of these guys, and I highly question their credentials.Paleontologists think they are genuine.
Mallon said:I've never even heard of these guys, and I highly question their credentials.
What evidence? My work is in the relatively small field of vertebrate palaeontology. If these people you mention had any reputation in the field whatsoever, I would very likely either know them or have heard of them. In fact, a quick search of their names online turns up nothing but creationist websites (surprise, surprise). I can't find a single "Dr. Camp" at Berkeley. Can you, Lion of God?Lion of God said:That's normal. First line of defence for an evolutionist disagreeing with the evidence.
Mallon said:What evidence? My work is in the relatively small field of vertebrate palaeontology. If these people you mention had any reputation in the field whatsoever, I would very likely either know them or have heard of them. In fact, a quick search of their names online turns up nothing but creationist websites (surprise, surprise). I can't find a single "Dr. Camp" at Berkeley. Can you, Lion of God?
Lion of God said:Paleontologists think they are genuine.
Lion of God said:That's normal. First line of defence for an evolutionist disagreeing with the evidence.
What??? You don't think the Bible's historical value is literal...so now you're going to say another historical document isn't valid because it's not canonical???
apocryphal writings are just as valid as secular historical writings...such as jocephus....wouldn't you think?
Or are you going to say "It's not in the Bible so it's not valid?"
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?