Why Creationism?????

quote:

---

BYW - why do you reject the reading of "penis?" It seems to make a lot of sense. And of course it is quite pyschologically impressive in the broader context - God is after all trying to reinforce how puny Job is. What better way to bring a man down a peg than to compare him to the prodiguously endowed behemoth?

​

Also, what do you make of my point that behemoth cannot be a dinosaur because of the external testicles

---

1.stone- Pachad - thigh — Strongs references the Job verse in question.2.stone - 'eshek — testicle — Strongs references Leviticus 21:20 Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;I reject your assertion because it makes sense to me the other way around. In the verses around 17 (16,18,19,20,23) God looks to be describing a great beast. If all the verses are taken in context, it can easily be a dinosaur like animal.Anyway, doesn't look like we will see eye to eye on this one. I contend that the behemoth described in Job could very easily be a dinosaur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
1.stone- Pachad - thigh — Strongs references the Job verse in question.

---

My copy of Strong has keyword 6344 Pachad - testicle and references the same verse. Perhaps you are using an online version - some of these appear to have been "tidied" up. The Latin translation in the Vulgate is certainly "testiculorum."

quote:

---

Anyway, doesn't look like we will see eye to eye on this one. I contend that the behemoth described in Job could very easily be a dinosaur.

---

I guess we won't agree - but it seems to me a very poor description of a dinosaur and a very good, poetic, telling description of a large mammal.Put it this way - I wouldn't base on theories relying on it being a dinosaur!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Notice the same Hebrew word for tail is used in the verses below and it appears fairly obvious when describing an animal that tail means tail. The word 'tail' is used 9 times in the Old Testament and every instance refers to a tail; not a penis. Why would the Job reference be the exception?

​

Jud 15:4 And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails.

​

Ex 4:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:

​

---

I'll let Mr. P talk about "tail", as he seems to have a much more detailed knowledge of this than I do.What about the use of the word "stones"? You didn't cover that in your reply.

check post 16. I listed the Strongs definition for stones which Mr. P countered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Job 40:15 "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox". I am, admittadly, not an expert on croc diet, but I thought they ate about 70% fish. This creature is described as eating grass like an ox. Even if the croc could survive on plants, I doubt he would be described as eating grass like an ox. Starting to see a theme here?

​

Also note Job 41: 1 "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower? 2 Can you put a reed through his nose, Or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he make many supplications to you? Will he speak softly to you? 4 Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him as a servant forever? 5 Will you play with him as with a bird, Or will you leash him for your maidens? 6 Will your companions make a banquet of him? Will they apportion him among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons, Or his head with fishing spears? 8 Lay your hand on him; Remember the battle-- Never do it again! 9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false; Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him? 10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up. Who then is able to stand against Me?"

​

A croc could be hurt by harpoons and spears so I don't think that is the description here either. This 'leviathan' is something massive that no one would dare attempt to capture or fight. Another possible theme here for a dino type creature.

---

Or a whale perhaps ... do you have any idea how many whaling ships
were destroyed by whales even as recently as a few hundred years
ago. A very large whale would be very hard to kill with harpoons
and spears.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Or a whale perhaps ... do you have any idea how many whaling ships
were destroyed by whales even as recently as a few hundred years
ago. A very large whale would be very hard to kill with harpoons
and spears.

---

Job timeframe is a bit early for whalers.From Peter J. Bryant, University of California, Irvine"Whaling started in the first few centuries A.D. by the Japanese, and between about 800 and 1000 A.D. by the Norwegians and by the Basque people living on the north coast of France and Spain. The Dutch, British and Americans started in the 17th century. All of this early whaling was done from small boats using hand-thrown harpoons."Entire text here: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec04/b65lec04.htm

[QUOTE][b]I am, admittadly, not an expert on croc diet, but I thought they ate about 70% fish. This creature is described as eating grass like an ox. Even if the croc could survive on plants, I doubt he would be described as eating grass like an ox.[/QUOTE][/b]You misread my post. The Leviathan is the crocodile. My Bible concourse translates Leviathan as "crocodile" (as it translates Behemoth as "hippopotamus") The theme I referred to is the animal life of rivers. Note that the Behemoth you call a dinosaur can hide in the reeds. That's rather small for a herbivorous dinosaur with a literal "tail" the size of a cedar, don't you think?By the way, I thought you, as a literal believer in Genesis, believe crocs ate plant life. Along with every other carnivore. [QUOTE][b]A croc could be hurt by harpoons and spears[/QUOTE][/b]A dinosaur small enough to live in the marshes amongst reeds could be hunted and killed with harpoons and spears. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Likewise, if I handed you a spear and showed you a 15-ft crocodile, would you be willing to make a dinner out of it? [QUOTE][b]This 'leviathan' is something massive that no one would dare attempt to capture or fight.[/QUOTE][/b]Ever picked a fight with a hippo? Obviously not since you're alive. Did you know that: (1) The hippo is arguably the most dangerous animal in Africa (2) they have been known to crush small boats with their gaping mouths (3) they have been known to slice crocs in half?

quote:

---

Another possible theme here for a dino type creature.

---

[/B]Your "dino-type creature" cannot be larger than a hippo because it hides in the reeds (Job 40:21) and because the Jordan "rushes against his mouth" (40:23). Much too small for a "tail" literally as big as a cedar, regardless of if the "tail" is a true tail or something else.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Job timeframe is a bit early for whalers.

​

From Peter J. Bryant, University of California, Irvine

​

"Whaling started in the first few centuries A.D. by the Japanese, and between about 800 and 1000 A.D. by the Norwegians and by the Basque people living on the north coast of France and Spain. The Dutch, British and Americans started in the 17th century. All of this early whaling was done from small boats using hand-thrown harpoons."

​

Entire text here: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec04/b65lec04.htm

---

Yes, which is why at the time of job they had NO KNOWLEDGE
of whales and what they could do.Whales existed in the time of Job (whether you be YEC or
evolutionist this is the case), but would have been relatively
rare in the middle east.I'll try to be a little less subtle when making points in
future

I don't see why the "tail" couldn't be an elephant's trunk. No other animal that I know of has a similar nose, and it might be construed to be in some ways similar to a tail, at least to ancient people that know little about anatomy. The elephant's trunk is also long and round, as the trunk of a tree is, so that comparison make sense too. The elephant is a herbivore, though I don't know if it eats grass, so the reference to it eating plants could also be true. I'm pretty sure they like water too, or at least mud.Is it possible that these passages could have been mistranslated or retold in a slightly different way, changing the original meaning? If the person retelling the story had never seen an elephant or crocodile, he might very well make errors in describing one animal or another.Another possibility is that the Behemoth and Leviathan never actually existed. They could just be leftover mythical animals that people knew about at the time, as we know of unicorns and mermaids today. The person talking to Job could very well have been referring to a mythical animal.