|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
guitarzilla Inactive Member |
About Behemoth's navel, you guys bring up a seemingly good point, but you aren't doing your research. You need to look at the actual translation. The literal translation of the original text, though, is "the muscles of his belly." It's not saying that behemoth had a belly button. It's saying that the behemoth had a strong stomach. Also, to those who say maybe behemoth was an elephant or a hippo, pay more attention to the description given in the Bible. Do elephants and hippos have tails like cedars? No, they have small wimpy tails. Read about Leviathon where God asks, "Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on him you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" I don't think fisherman in a ship have reason to be this scared of an alligator. I'm sure they could easily kill it with a harpoon or spear. We've all heard of harpooning a whale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: You need to go back to the original translations as well. The original Hebrew is not talking about a tail but about a penis. When this verse was translated for the KJV they knowingly replaced penis with tail and this translation stuck in subsequent translations. Dinosaurs did not have external genitalia, another strike against the theory that these verses were talking about dinosaurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
guitarzilla Inactive Member |
Thankyou for that very mature, well educated reply. Maybe when you become an adult you will learn statements like that do nothing to help anyone, and simply show your lack of intelligence and ability to carry on a serious discussion. Please don't be so ignorant. You've only proven that you are not open to other ideas and only believe whatever you feel like believing. If you are an adult already, then forget it; if you haven't learned yet, you probably won't ever. I believe that the behemoth is a dinosaur, but I'm open to hearing thought out, educated reasons for why it is not a dinosaur. If behemoth isn't a dinosaur, then thats fine. The Bible doesn't come out and say, "Behemoth is a dinosaur," so if its not a dinosaur it doesn't change anything about what I believe in God. It just changes what I believe the behemoth to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Hello guitarzilla,
Just what do you find immature about loudmouth's post, the use of the word penis? It is a well known translation issue and not a facetious remark made by a child. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com-Change in Moderation? - Thread Reopen Requests -Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum -Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
guitarzilla Inactive Member |
Yes, but take it in context. Do you seriously think that God is talking about a penis like a cedar tree? God is talking about this great creature He created to show His power and He throws in the fact that behemoth has a penis like a cedar? No, its clear he is talking about his tail. The point I was making is you can't just say, its not a dinosaur because the King James version says behemoth has a navel. I expect that Loudmouth doesn't seriously think the actual translation in this context is penis, if he does then I think he's just being ridiculous. I think Loudmouth just felt like being a loudmouth. His point didn't do anything against my point. Suppose it did translate to what Loudmouth was saying, does that change the point that I was making that its not necessarily talking about a navel, but about the strong muscles in the behemoth's mid section. No, it doesn't. Along with the point I was making, the English definition of navel is not only used to describe where the umbilical chord was attached, but it can also be used to describe a central point. It is quite likely that the King James version was speaking about the central point, rather than a belly button. The King James version says, "his force is in the navel of his belly." So, insert center for navel. "His force is in the center of his belly." It sounds to me like God is saying behemoth has a strong belly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, but take it in context. In what context is "penis" not "penis"? Do you read Hebrew? Don't you think it's a bit ludicrous of you to adamantly deny that the Hebrew word used means "penis" when you don't actually speak a word of that language?
God is talking about this great creature He created to show His power and He throws in the fact that behemoth has a penis like a cedar? Sounds reasonable to me. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-04-2004 11:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
As with the others - I'm baffled with the point you are making.
Let's make this simple - can you refute, that in the original hebrew that it was not the word penis? if it was not penis, what word was it? You would agree that this is a central issue? What the word actually meant in the original text?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yes, but take it in context. Do you seriously think that God is talking about a penis like a cedar tree? Absolutely. If you want to impress human males, talk about a huge penis. Well known fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you seriously think that God is talking about a penis like a cedar tree? No, not GOD, the authors of the passage. And yes, they were saying that the critter was hung like an ox. They were, as was common in many fertility rites, equating the size of the genitals with overall power and prowess. Well, actually I'm pretty sure that is exactly what he thinks, as do almost all others who study the Bible. And that's what the sources say as well. It's not much different than current idimatic sayings such as "getting a piece of tail". If you think that refers to a genuine tail you've led a sheltered life. But just read the rest of your post. There you are simply interpreting, adding conotation based on your imagination. And there is nothing wrong with that. The passage was intended to create a vision of a powerful critter. But to jump from there to dinosaurs is really a leap of faith.
The point I was making is you can't just say, its not a dinosaur because the King James version says behemoth has a navel. You can say it's not a dinosaur because the authors didn't know about dinosaurs. There are some interesting finds though that show that bronze age folk were aware of fossils though and often puzzeled over what they were. There are indications that they based many of the fanciful creatures in myth on reconstruction (mental only) of the fossil remains. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
guitarzilla Inactive Member |
This is completely not where I expected this discussion to go, but it has, so here is my response. I apologize, I did not know that some believe penis to be the proper translation in this text. This is what I believe. The word used here is "zanab," which is the Hebrew word for tail. In the Bible the use of this word has consistently been used to mean "tail". A couple examples: Exodus 4:4 "Then the Lord said to him, 'Reach out your hand and take it by the tail.' So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake." Judges 15:4 "So he went out and caught three-hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs." There is no evidence that the word tail was ever used euphemistically in Hebrew. Another reason I believe God is speaking about an actual tail here is because when you describe an animal often features like a tail are mentioned. I don't think I've ever had a person describe an animal to me pointing out that one of the key features of this animal is its penis. For example if I described a horse to someone I would probably say it is a pretty large creature, strong and fast, walks on all four legs, and has a tail that flows back and forth. Or something like that. I would mention the tail because its a key feature. Here the webster dictionary describes a hippopotamus, " a very large herbivorous 4-toed chiefly aquatic artiodactyl mammal (Hippopotamus amphibius) of sub-Saharan Africa with an extremely large head and mouth, bare and very thick grayish skin, and short legs; also : a smaller closely related mammal (Choeropsis liberiensis) of western Africa." Maybe you guys include the penis in your description of animals and if you do, thats ok, but I don't and I don't know people that do. So my opinion is that the word "zanab" here is being used to describe a tail. I accept your opinion, but I personally don't believe it is correct. Just so I can know where you guys are coming from, what do you believe the behemoth is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Just so I can know where you guys are coming from, what do you believe the behemoth is? Another mythical critter like the unicorn, griffin, cyclops and so many others. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Let's make this simple - can you refute, that in the original hebrew that it was not the word penis? if it was not penis, what word was it? i can. it says tail, in hebrew. tail as in rear-end, behind, opposite of head. however, what it says and what it means are two entirely different things. it means penis. it's a euphemism. there's other examples of euphemisms in the bible too, such as:
quote: ...it ain't talking about feet, even if that's what it says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Do you read Hebrew? Don't you think it's a bit ludicrous of you to adamantly deny that the Hebrew word used means "penis" when you don't actually speak a word of that language? the word in job 40:17 is זנב. the word means tail, as in rear-end. it's the same word as in:
quote: tell me, did moses grab the snake's penis? do snakes even have penises? literally, it does not say penis, no. however, it's sort of like us saying the word "head." yes, it can mean the thing on top of our necks, but it can ALSO be something different. it's a euphemism. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-04-2004 06:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Do you seriously think that God is talking about a penis like a cedar tree? yes. god did, afterall, make penises too.
The King James version says, "his force is in the navel of his belly." So, insert center for navel. "His force is in the center of his belly." It sounds to me like God is saying behemoth has a strong belly. i think navel is, indeed, a mistranslation. but i'm not sure. i'll look into it. however, i see nothing in the text to suggest that it IS a dinosaur. however, i think there's a good case for behemoth being an elephant. ever seen an elephant's penis? it's like the males have 5 legs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If I was trying to be childish I would have used the words "cock", "manpipe", "dick" etc. I am very serious in what I claim. Let's look at the whole passage in context, shall we?
Job 40 — Behemoth 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. Notice the use of the word "loins". If it was refering to the place where the legs joined the author would have used the word "groin". Instead, the author used the word "loins", as in the reproductive organs. For an example, Exod. 1:5 says "All the persons who came from the loins of Jacob", which is obviously a reference to reproductive organs. Verse 17 also needs to be put into a Hebrew context. The word "moveth" is a translation of "caphets". When "caphets" is used elsewhere in the Bible it means desire, please, pleasure, and delight. So the behemoth swung his loins with pleasure as a cedar. Next, we have "the sinews of his stones are wrapped together". Already, this description is dealing with the "loins" so the meaning becomes quite apparent. The "stones" are testicles wrapped in a scrotum (notice I didn't say "balls in a man sack"). So we have an external penis that the animal swings with pleasure and large testicles. A dinosaur has none of the above, all of the dinosaurs reproductive organs were located inside it's body just as it's descendents, the birds, are arranged.
quote: You may want to look in a mirror.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024