What is the age of the Earth?

[KerrMetric]

The original Hebrew word here is not translated "navel", but rather part of the stomach. Pg 285 of "Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies" (by William Wilson, Hendrickson Publishers) also translates it as the muscles in the region of the belly.
So saying the creature has a navel is inaccurate.

Well other people totally disagree - but it isn't just a navel thing. Testicles and penis are also referred to. It's just that the prudes of the KJV didn't like the references and changed the language.

And none of this has much to do with the old age of the earth anyway.

 

[jad123]

Well other people totally disagree - but it isn't just a navel thing. Testicles and penis are also referred to. It's just that the prudes of the KJV didn't like the references and changed the language.

And none of this has much to do with the old age of the earth anyway.

Ahhhh. I got it. Changes were made to the Scriptures to take out certain wording. Yeah that is what a friend of mine said about the resurrection of Christ. Changes were made the the early church so it sounded like Christ actually rose from the dead.

 

[KerrMetric]

Ahhhh. I got it. Changes were made to the Scriptures to take out certain wording.

Well the KJV is renowned for it. Doesn't change the fact that Behemoth is far more mammalian in description than dinosaurian. All of which it off topic from the thread title anyway.

 

[simplyg123]

Well other people totally disagree - but it isn't just a navel thing. Testicles and penis are also referred to. It's just that the prudes of the KJV didn't like the references and changed the language.

And none of this has much to do with the old age of the earth anyway.

so what version did not take it out, cause i cant seem to find it

 

[simplyg123]

Well the KJV is renowned for it. Doesn't change the fact that Behemoth is far more mammalian in description than dinosaurian. All of which it off topic from the thread title anyway.

so now that you cant disprove the truth you want to talk about something else....yep he's a scientist

sorry, forgive me for being mean, i put a lot of faith in what is written, truth is we dont know if it was a dinosaur, however it is relevant to the subject.

if they were around here with man, that means they were hear for billions plus 2007 years, being as big as these animals are, wouldnt their be much more remains, and what about plants, i have seen fossilized plants from the day of the dino, they were also much bigger. wouldnt we have more coal due to the billions of years of decomposing?

 

[Macatee]

I'm protestant and believe that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

 

[KerrMetric]

so what version did not take it out, cause i cant seem to find it

I don't know of any version that uses the word penis. But the passage is poetic and the translation from Hebrew ambiguous. Most scholars I have read on this topic state that the translation to English should have used the word pens for tail and testicles for stones.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together

Stones are testicles.

 

[Zadok7000]

Says the Scriptures.

Very funny. Could you be a tad more specific?

 

[KerrMetric]

so now that you cant disprove the truth you want to talk about something else....yep he's a scientist

Yeah - I actually know how to understand science and handle the math. The fact is you can find many discussions of this topic and most scholars conclude the passage refers to a mammal. It's only people refusing to see the obvious usage of tail and stones that cling to the dinosaur hope.

By the way - shouldn't you stop using that piece of technology created via science to type these messages on? After all - isn't science the devil.

f they were around here with man, that means they were hear for billions plus 2007 years, being as big as these animals are, wouldnt their be much more remains, and what about plants, i have seen fossilized plants from the day of the dino, they were also much bigger. wouldnt we have more coal due to the billions of years of decomposing?

No.

Where on Earth do you get your info from? No one has ever said dinosaurs were around more than 250 million years ago. I don't think your knowledge base on this is suffficient to argue the points.

 

[simplyg123]

I don't know of any version that uses the word penis. But the passage is poetic and the translation from Hebrew ambiguous. Most scholars I have read on this topic state that the translation to English should have used the word pens for tail and testicles for stones.



Stones are testicles.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his male organs are wrapped together.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info


this is the only version i can find, and it plainly says it, but how can this one be right and all the others that say thigh, which, all 12 versions that i looked at referred it to, be wrong

 

[jad123]

Well the KJV is renowned for it. Doesn't change the fact that Behemoth is far more mammalian in description than dinosaurian. All of which it off topic from the thread title anyway.

Male reptiles do have testicles that are housed withing the body. Some reptiles do have a penis or hemipenis and is strictly an organ of reproduction, not connected to the urinary tract and can often be seen as two bulges behind the cloaca at the base of the tail.

 

[simplyg123]

Yeah - I actually know how to understand science and handle the math. The fact is you can find many discussions of this topic and most scholars conclude the passage refers to a mammal. It's only people refusing to see the obvious usage of tail and stones that cling to the dinosaur hope.

By the way - shouldn't you stop using that piece of technology created via science to type these messages on? After all - isn't science the devil.






No.

Where on Earth do you get your info from? No one has ever said dinosaurs were around more than 250 million years ago. I don't think your knowledge base on this is suffficient to argue the points.

You could be right, thats why im here, i want to learn, but if science contridicts the bible i go with the bible, im am just exploring the possiblities.

doesnt the bible also speak of dragons, clealy they are reptiles not mammels, but who knows

and as far as science goes, i do not think it is the devil, as far as what i am typing on, i prefer the term technology

 

[NeoGRizzly]

I believe that earth been aroud for just a few thousands years. from the time of the flood the Earth has got weeker and weaker. and at the rate the Earth is dying now , if it was the year 15 Billion things would be a lot worst.

 

[KerrMetric]

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his male organs are wrapped together.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info


this is the only version i can find, and it plainly says it, but how can this one be right and all the others that say thigh, which, all 12 versions that i looked at referred it to, be wrong

Most people on here seem KJV crazy and it uses stones. As I said - check out this topic and most scholars seen to favour stones (testicles). The problems on both sides of this issue are the ambiguous nature of thee translations. But most people seem to have come down on the non-mammalian side of this issue.

Eat grass like an ox is another argued phrase. Dinosaurs did not eat grass like an ox - certainly not the long tailed varieties people want to use as their behemoth. The mammal interpretation has far less problems on all levels than pigeon holing dinosaurs to fit the passage.

 

[KerrMetric]

and as far as science goes, i do not think it is the devil, as far as what i am typing on, i prefer the term technology

Technology is the application in producing the product. The theory explanation of how to produce the technology and the principles it operates by is the science. The same science and methodology that shows the Earth is old - no different. In fact the people responsible underwent the same education at the same institutions.

 

[simplyg123]

Most people on here seem KJV crazy and it uses stones. As I said - check out this topic and most scholars seen to favour stones (testicles). The problems on both sides of this issue are the ambiguous nature of thee translations. But most people seem to have come down on the non-mammalian side of this issue.

Eat grass like an ox is another argued phrase. Dinosaurs did not eat grass like an ox - certainly not the long tailed varieties people want to use as their behemoth. The mammal interpretation has far less problems on all levels than pigeon holing dinosaurs to fit the passage.

so what do you presume it to be?

A hippo? with a tail like a cedar? doubt it
an elephant? sorry itty bitty tail
Ox? same tail issue, so what?

 

[jad123]

Most people on here seem KJV crazy and it uses stones. As I said - check out this topic and most scholars seen to favour stones (testicles). The problems on both sides of this issue are the ambiguous nature of thee translations. But most people seem to have come down on the non-mammalian side of this issue.

Eat grass like an ox is another argued phrase. Dinosaurs did not eat grass like an ox - certainly not the long tailed varieties people want to use as their behemoth. The mammal interpretation has far less problems on all levels than pigeon holing dinosaurs to fit the passage.

I know this is off topic but I am just curious since you seem to be so down on the KJV what translaton do you use.

 

[jad123]

Most people on here seem KJV crazy and it uses stones. As I said - check out this topic and most scholars seen to favour stones (testicles). The problems on both sides of this issue are the ambiguous nature of thee translations. But most people seem to have come down on the non-mammalian side of this issue.

Eat grass like an ox is another argued phrase. Dinosaurs did not eat grass like an ox - certainly not the long tailed varieties people want to use as their behemoth. The mammal interpretation has far less problems on all levels than pigeon holing dinosaurs to fit the passage.

"Dinosaurs did not eat grass like an ox" How in the heck do any of us know that????????????????????

 

[simplyg123]

Technology is the application in producing the product. The theory explanation of how to produce the technology and the principles it operates by is the science. The same science and methodology that shows the Earth is old - no different. In fact the people responsible underwent the same education at the same institutions.

So tell me how scientist know how old the eath is? they cant compare the earth today with the earth of then. Obviously if dinos were running around, there were a few differences.

They do not know how many plants there were, how could they?

If there were more plants, which i presume there were considering there was more land and less water then today. their element for determining the earths age(which i believe has to do with the amount of coal) would not be credible or accurate

 

[KerrMetric]

Male reptiles do have testicles that are housed withing the body. Some reptiles do have a penis or hemipenis and is strictly an organ of reproduction, not connected to the urinary tract and can often be seen as two bulges behind the cloaca at the base of the tail.

I agree. But not swinging testicles external to the body.