Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Behemoth was not a dinosaur. It was probably a hippo or elephant.
Upvote
0
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.
How about a dinosaur that's a mammal?
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
I somehow don't think some would believe it, even if its DNA was described.No, since the Bible describes them so poorly.
Did you know that "plutoing" was chosen as the ADS word of the year for 2006?Behemoth was not a dinosaur. It was probably a hippo or elephant.
I don't agree. I don't think that there is credible support in the Bible or in extra-biblical contemporary literature for the assumption that Behemoth was any common creature. The folklore connection is too well established by Rabbinic commentary.Behemoth was not a dinosaur. It was probably a hippo or elephant.
So let me get this straight.Yes, in colleges, seminaries and whatever Jews call their theological training institutions.
So something mentioned is either a "common creature," or it's "folklore?"I don't agree. I don't think that there is credible support in the Bible or in extra-biblical contemporary literature for the assumption that Behemoth was any common creature. The folklore connection is too well established by Rabbinic commentary.
I don't just "happen" to believe it; there is enough evidence that it's hard to deny it and no reason to do so. The interpretation of Behemoth as a legendary beast is entirely compatible with Christian doctrine. No one really needs behemoth to be a dinosaur.So let me get this straight.
The Jews teach that Behemoth is folklore ...
... and you just ... well ... happen to believe that too.
Is that correct?
How coincidental.
I accept your admission of defeat.Did you know that "plutoing" was chosen as the ADS word of the year for 2006?
Those are the only two alternatives which have been offered so far: Behemoth is either a common creature; a hippo, elephant or dinosaur or something like that, or a popular legendary creature of the day. What's your alternative? What is your "middle ground?"So something mentioned is either a "common creature," or it's "folklore?"
Is this correct?
No middle ground?
I get accused of that a lot.
You know ... I get accused of being either black or white on an issue, just because I refuse to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
Are you kidding me?I don't just "happen" to believe it; there is enough evidence that it's hard to deny it ...
I don't agree. I don't think that there is credible support in the Bible or in extra-biblical contemporary literature for the assumption that Behemoth was any common creature. The folklore connection is too well established by Rabbinic commentary.
Are you kidding me?
Academia doesn't have enough evidence to deny the Loch Ness Monster, let alone Behemoth.
Is Nessie taught in college as a "myth"?
I pick "dinosaur" for the win.Those are the only two alternatives which have been offered so far: Behemoth is either a common creature; a hippo, elephant or dinosaur or something like that, or a popular legendary creature of the day.
To Behemoth?Speedwell said:What's your alternative?
Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.Speedwell said:What is your "middle ground?"
I totally agree.To the extent that it would ever be mentioned, it would be folklore, myth, or hoax.
You're right--it's taught as a legend, if it is referred to at all. "Myth" is a specialized form of literature, more sophisticated than "just a made-up story." Even if the first two books of Genesis were, as you believe, 100% word-for-word accurate literal history they would still qualify as "myth" because of how the stories are structured and used.Are you kidding me?
Academia doesn't have enough evidence to deny the Loch Ness Monster, let alone Behemoth.
Is Nessie taught in college as a "myth"?
I'm going to guess NO.
Not as "myth." As I said, "myth" is a specialized form of literature with definite characteristics. In any case, Behemoth, Leviathan and Ziz are well-established as characters in Hebrew folklore. You can make of that whatever you want.But it appears Behemoth is.
"Academia" doesn't really care all that much about the subject; it is mainly a topic of obscure interest to Bible scholars.That's because Behemoth is in the Bible; which is academia's prime target.
That is a loss. Dinosaurs did not have navels.I pick "dinosaur" for the win.
And a dinosaur with a navel to boot.
So some big-shot creationist academic named Linnaeus was wrong.
To Behemoth?
None.
Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
"legendary" I believe to be the correct term. Like Bigfoot or Yeti.I totally agree.
If it was ever mentioned in the Bible, it would be considered in academia as folklore, myth, or hoax.
But the fact that Nessie is mentioned outside of the Bible, you won't see her mentioned as a hoax.
(Not that I know of anyway. Perhaps an academian would care to speak up and tell me if I'm wrong here.)
I'd love to see the look on peoples' faces if, during the Millennial Reign, Jesus gave a personal tour of the Creation Week ... taking evolutionists back in time to 4004 BC and letting them witness what the angels witnessed.You're right--it's taught as a legend, if it is referred to at all.
I don't see the problem for a Christian in accepting the theory that Behemoth was a folkloric creature. Why do you think it needs to be a dinosaur?I'd love to see the look on peoples' faces if, during the Millennial Reign, Jesus gave a personal tour of the Creation Week ... taking evolutionists back in time to 4004 BC and letting them witness what the angels witnessed.
I'd say that, for some, that would constitute a real shock.
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?