Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs?
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 46 of 202 (294953)
03-13-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
08-31-2005 3:04 PM


Re: oliphant?
Ok, here are my thoughts on "is Behemoth a Dinosaur?"
lets start with several ideas that have come up:
1. "Behemoth has a navel. Only Placental Mammals have those. Behemoth is therefore not a dinosaur"
If you read just the King James Version of the Bible, it does seem to be a navel. And yet to add to the confusion, the Strong's concordance (Trust me, this isn't one of those arguments. Stay with me) it says that the Hebrew word ( Shariyr, pronounced "Shaw-reer" ) means "cord", or by analogy "sinew" (this is from "The New Strong's Expanded exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: red-letter edition", page 292 of it's Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary, number 8306 compared to the listing under "navel" on page 616 of it's Concordance section) But If you look at most Bible Translations today, it doesn't say Navel, but Muscles (See TNIV, ESV, The Message, NASB Updated, for example)Indeed, in the Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance: second edition, the word is said not to mean "cord" or "sinew" but "Muscle" (and the Hebrew word is spelt as "Sarir". See the same book, page 774 (under "Muscles") with Job 40:16 cited along number 9235 and then page 1505, under number 9235)
Now in "The Complete WordStudy Dictionary: Old Testament" on page 1200, the word is seen again, under the number 8306 (this uses the same numbering system that the Strong's concordance uses)
It says about the Hebrew word in question (Sariyr, in it's spelling), and I quote:
"A Masculine noun indicating Muscles, sinews; navel. It describes the powerful stomach muscles of Leviathan (Job 40:16; KJV, navel).
Now you can guess that they goofed when saying it referred to Leviathan instead of Behemoth (notice the verse quoted. LOL ) But nevertheless, the word here is said to describe powerful belly muscles, not a navel, in this particular passage.
Does this show that Behemoth was a dinosaur? No. But we can rule out that the Behemoth was not a dinosaur do to it having a navel.
Give me a sec, I'll come up with more info. I dont want to overload one post with tons of info. But there is more...
This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-13-2006 03:51 PM

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2005 3:04 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 47 of 202 (294965)
03-13-2006 4:42 PM


Ok, here's another.
2: Behemoth's tail means male sexual organ. Behemoth's "stones" are genetalia. This is no dinosaur.
OK, this one has been battled with on here, and the evos have been mopping the floor with a lot of the creos on this. But let's examine.
It's already been pointed out that the hebrew word in question means tail and only tail, and that it could be figurative for the sexual male organ. But what about "stones"?
First, let's remember that the KJV of the Bible uses stones to translate this, not the major and far better modern versions (if not most of them. I have many translations at my aid, but I dont have every english translation.) And also remember that the KJV was finished in 1611, long before the NIV, TNIV, and NASB. We know more about the ancient Hebrew language than the King James Translators did.
Now, forgive me for using it, but the Strong's Concordance seems to agree with the evos here. The hebrew word used here, "Pachad", means "testicle" (see the strong's concordance mentioned above, page 226 of hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary, number 6344, and compare to page 862 of it's concordance, look under word "stones" job 40:17 verse with number 6344)
But, once again the Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance: second edition, is at a dissagreement again. It labels the word as "Thighs" (I know some here have mentioned this, but bare with me. More is to come)on page 1139 under "Thighs", it mentions Job 40:17, and compares it to the number 7066. On page 1473, under the same number, it says that Pachad (labeled seemingly as a second meaning of Pachad) means "Thigh". The TNIV, considered the best Translation in the Protestant tradition, The NAB Bible, the best translation of the Catholic faith, the good and literla ESV, The CJB (Complete Jewish Bible), Both Nasb and updated NASB, the most literal Bibles you will ever read apart from a transliteration, the Message (a good paraphrase) and even the JPS translation of the Jewish Faith (pretty good translation, especially with the extra stuff you get with it when called "the Jewish Study Bible" which I have along with the others mentioned here)all translate the word as "thighs" and they are not the only ones.
Now in "The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary: Old Testament" it says on page 895, under 6344, that the word (spelt here "pahad") means either "thigh" referring to the upper part of a persons legs (and since many animals also have thighs, it would no doubt be used to refer to their thighs as well)as well as a Testicle. It traces the word to JOb 40:17 (and again mistakenly replaces "Behemoth" with "Leviathan" LOL)
It would seem here that the word might be referring to both the genetalia and the upper thighs of this animal. This is similar to the usage of "thigh" in Genesis 2 when referring to the oath That Abraham made a certain fellow take by putting his hand under his "thigh" which could either mean he put it on his genetalia or in the vicinity (See "The IVP Bible Background Commentary: OLd Testament." Page 55 under Genesis "24:1-9. Swearing Oaths"It is a commentary that deals more with the historical backgrounds, customs, and beliefs of the ancient world that the Bible was written in, instead of modern theology. but since the Bibles that I mentioned above apart from the KJV where translated by people who where skilled in reading the ancient Biblical languages (Koine Greek, Aramaic, and the most important in our discussion, Classical Hebrew)and have all translated this word as "Thighs" I have to go with the linguistic consensus here.
Now some may say that "Thigh" might be figurative for "Testicle" here, but there is a problem. Why would you use this hebrew word written to be as "thighs" to mean figuratively "genetalia" when the word can also mean "genetalia" literally? Why wouldn't it be just rendered as literally "genetalia"? if that is what the original author meant, then it seems that Behemoth's "tail" may be literally "tail" if the "genetalia" of this beast is meant to be literally "genetalia". If it was to mean literally "genetalia" then why didn't the author use a word that literally meant "fallice" (I hope I spelt that right) instead of "tail"? But since the word has been translated "Thighs" by most if not all modern and or reliable Biblical translators skilled in classical and possibly Paleo Hebrew, then that is what I have to go on.
As for "loins" : I always thought that "loins" meant "thighs", but I have found otherwise. According to Webster's UNiversal College Dictionary", the word "Loin" can be either the pubic and genital area, the parts of the Body between the hips and the lower ribs, a seat of physical strength and generative power, parts of the vertebrate body that lie on both sides of the spine between the ribs and the hip bones, or a cut off peice from this region. In the passage about the Strength of Behemoth's "Loins" (Job 40:16)it could either be the Pubic/genital region, or the area of the body between the lower rips and the hip bones, or maybe the vertebrate meaning. Since this aspect is followed by the "Muscles of his belly" it may be better to see this as the seat of strength and generative ability (reproductive as well as physical strength?)though I can be 100% sure.
I could wright more, but I should say it for a third post. Hold on, more is coming. Does all this prove that Behemoth is a dinosaur? no, but if "tail" meant "fallice" which animal would have one that could be compared to a Cedar tree in size, length, width, hardness or movement (or all three) : An elephant, a Hippo, or a 110 ton Argentinosaurus? I dont believe that behemoth was a dinosaur, (And Argentinosaurus lived in south America, not the Middle east. I used it as an example.) but can you imagine the size difference ther in the sexual organ?
To be continued....

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 10:41 PM LudoRephaim has replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 48 of 202 (294967)
03-13-2006 4:53 PM


3: Behemoth is an Elephant or Hippo, not a Dinosaur.
Lets look.
It says that the Behemoth's nose is difficult or impossible to pierce (Job 40:24)The TNIV says it more bluntly: Can anyone capture it by the eyes, or trap it and pierce its nose? (same verse)
Now if anyone has looked at an Elephant's trunk or has studied Elephant biology and morphology, you notice one thing: The Elephant's trunk is made of Muscle and flesh, yet lacks bone. Anybody with a metal spear, even a bronze one, with enough force could pierce an Elephant's nose right through. No much of a problem. A Hippo has a more sturdy nose, yet the ancients would kill them at times by piercing their nose to make them open their mouths, so that a harpoon could be thrust in to kill it (see "The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament." page 510, under "40:24. Means of Capture" )
Ralph O. Muncaster, an old earth Creationist, shows quite well in his book that the Hippo meets the criteria for Behemoth than the Elephant or the dinosaur in his book "Dinosaurs and the Bible" (see page 35 of this same book) But as we have seen, the Hippo doesn't cut the mustard. I believe that Aracnophilia (is that how it is spelt?) has posted that the Hippo doesn't seem to be the Behemoth.
This isn't proof that the Behemoth is a dinosaur, but it disproves that it was an elephant or hippo.
More to come.
This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-13-2006 04:54 PM

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 10:46 PM LudoRephaim has replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 49 of 202 (294972)
03-13-2006 5:11 PM


4: Behemoth is an Mythological animal.
I would prefer to say a "Supernatural/extra-Dimensional animal, due to the fact that I am a Christian, but what the heck.
The Behemoth seems to be a massive animal based on the passage. Some have identified it with El's Calf, Atik, or Arshu, and it is paired in Ugaritic texts with a seven-headed Dragon, a chaos monster named "Litan", sometimes identified with the Biblical Leviathan (See "IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Page 510, under "41:1. Leviathan." )
But even though it may seem like a mythical animal on par with Cerberus and the Nemean Lion, it really doesn't seem to be mythical in the passage. It just seems like a massive, super-strong animal that was at that period of history unable to be hunted without major casualties (if any would dare to fight it!) Now Leviathan in the next chapter seems mythical, since it seems to shoot fire and intense heat from it's mouth (Job 41:18-21). But then again it is said to have "shields" on it's body or back (Job 41:15) but I dont think that the animal actual was born with metal war shields on it's back. It's being figurative of it's hard scales. The "fire" is probably being figurative of some kind of defense mechanism, something that to ancient peoples like Job seemed like fire. And just because it was named after a mythical animal doesn't mean that it is a supernatural being. Tasmanian Devils in Tasmania are named after Satan. Does that make them demons? no. It was named after the devil because of it's fierce temper and frightening growls. Leviathan here was probably named as such because it was so terryfing.
I think these animals where beasts that where known to the ancients but died out before it could be studied by modern science.
I'll get to rebuttals against creos, but probably later. Tell me what you think.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ramoss, posted 03-13-2006 6:11 PM LudoRephaim has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 50 of 202 (294989)
03-13-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by LudoRephaim
03-13-2006 5:11 PM


The conclusion by Jewish sources is that the Behemoth is indeed mythical. It is the first 'Primal' animal , king of all animals on th eland (just as the leviathan was the water equivalent)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-13-2006 5:11 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-13-2006 11:47 PM ramoss has replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 51 of 202 (295047)
03-13-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ramoss
03-13-2006 6:11 PM


Hey Ramoss
I have heared also that Behemoth and Leviathan would battle each other at the end times, according to Jewish Legend or something.
I dont think that these animals are mythical or unreal creatures, but the Jewish interpretations of scripture must be considered. Plus they are way cool.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ramoss, posted 03-13-2006 6:11 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ramoss, posted 03-14-2006 8:10 AM LudoRephaim has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 52 of 202 (295128)
03-14-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by LudoRephaim
03-13-2006 11:47 PM


I dont think that these animals are mythical or unreal creatures, but the Jewish interpretations of scripture must be considered. Plus they are way cool.
One thing you can be sure on is that , particularly when looking at scripture, there will be a number of opinions on what that scripture means to the Jewish faith. The traditional way of studing torah and talmud is to take a passage, and debate on what that passage means. The
debates become rather heated sometimes.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-14-2006 09:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-13-2006 11:47 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-14-2006 12:48 PM ramoss has not replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 53 of 202 (295234)
03-14-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ramoss
03-14-2006 8:10 AM


Christians like myself can be very debateful as well. Once in my "man and Sin" class at college (I'm a Religion major) several students began to debate our teacher in class on the "unforgiveable sin". IN Class! I've ben through some debates myself there, but I find it a waste of time. Especially when you are being debated by a horde of people (like I have. I felt like I was in the Alamo!)

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ramoss, posted 03-14-2006 8:10 AM ramoss has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 202 (295771)
03-15-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by LudoRephaim
03-13-2006 4:42 PM


stones
But what about "stones"?
= testicles.
This is similar to the usage of "thigh" in Genesis 2 when referring to the oath That Abraham made a certain fellow take by putting his hand under his "thigh" which could either mean he put it on his genetalia or in the vicinity
an, euphemistically, testicles. think about the words "testify" and "testament" for a second.
but since the Bibles that I mentioned above apart from the KJV where translated by people who where skilled in reading the ancient Biblical languages (Koine Greek, Aramaic, and the most important in our discussion, Classical Hebrew)and have all translated this word as "Thighs" I have to go with the linguistic consensus here.
right, but it's also a euphemistic translation. i mean, it's a bit like missing the references to "giving head" in english. a head is clearly something that sits atop a person's neck, on their two shoulders.
it's entirely possible that they kept this particular rendering for the sake of cleanliness.
As for "loins" : I always thought that "loins" meant "thighs", but I have found otherwise. According to Webster's UNiversal College Dictionary", the word "Loin" can be either the pubic and genital area, the parts of the Body between the hips and the lower ribs,
"loincloth."
Since this aspect is followed by the "Muscles of his belly" it may be better to see this as the seat of strength and generative ability (reproductive as well as physical strength?)though I can be 100% sure.
virility is certainly an aspect, either way. the point i think i was making before was that "tail" was paired with "stones," which associates the two -- and since both can be read as genetalia, maybe we should read them virility references. the major point, however, is that "tail" is not a "tail" in the sense of a dinosaur.
Does all this prove that Behemoth is a dinosaur? no, but if "tail" meant "fallice" which animal would have one that could be compared to a Cedar tree in size, length, width, hardness or movement (or all three) : An elephant, a Hippo, or a 110 ton Argentinosaurus?
considering that crocodiles do not have an external penis (only when they are actually mating), and most birds are about the same, they wouldn't have a penis to make stand up. it's either there and being used, or inside the body.
dinosaurs would probably be about the same -- not running around dongs-a-dangling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-13-2006 4:42 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 10:51 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 66 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 202 (295773)
03-15-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by LudoRephaim
03-13-2006 4:53 PM


elephants vs. hippos
I believe that Aracnophilia (is that how it is spelt?) has posted that the Hippo doesn't seem to be the Behemoth.
you might me there, regarding noses. i doubt it's a hippo, because the animal is associated with land. so maybe a buffalo or ox of some kind?
you often see oxen in religious imagery in the middle east. it's even the origin of the character aleph in hebrew, aramaic, phoenican, and alpha in greek. (A in latin and english...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-13-2006 4:53 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 12:04 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 62 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 2:03 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 56 of 202 (295776)
03-15-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 10:41 PM


Re: stones
Good critic
I would give a response, but I'm a little tired. I'll carry this hopefully tommorrow night.
I'll say a few though: I think the word "testify" came from aRoman practice of a man putting his hand on another man's genitals and making him swear on his genitals to "testify" the truth. But it could have come from earlier mideast origin.
As for Croc and bird fallices: These two animals are the closest things we have to dinosaurs today, but for all the fossils we have, we dont know hardly anything about Dino Biology and morphology. For all we know their "tallywacker" (LOL) could have "stood up" like Behemoth's. but then again that is based on the translation "his tail stiffens like a cedar" which from what I've read is unkown in meaning in the classical Hebrew.
But there are some good points you make. Kudos
This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-15-2006 10:52 PM

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 10:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 11:02 PM LudoRephaim has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 202 (295781)
03-15-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by LudoRephaim
03-15-2006 10:51 PM


Re: stones
I'll say a few though: I think the word "testify" came from aRoman practice of a man putting his hand on another man's genitals and making him swear on his genitals to "testify" the truth.
yes, both come from the latin "testis" meaning "witness."
But it could have come from earlier mideast origin.
possibly. or it could be a coincidence. either way, the bible seems to report the same practice among the patriarchs. (nowadays, we put our hands on the bible...)
As for Croc and bird fallices: These two animals are the closest things we have to dinosaurs today, but for all the fossils we have, we dont know hardly anything about Dino Biology and morphology.
that's not entirely true. we know a fair deal about dino innards. we know sauropods had gizzards. we know theropods had lungs somewhat like a bird's (their bones are pneumatized).
but it stands the reason that if crocodiles and birds have a feature in common, dinosaurs probably did too. we can't really be sure, but it's a darned good indication.
i found some interesting pictures of how to extract a crocodile penis while doing a little research for that last post...
For all we know their "tallywacker" (LOL) could have "stood up" like Behemoth's. but then again that is based on the translation "his tail stiffens like a cedar" which from what I've read is unkown in meaning in the classical Hebrew.
well, not totally unknown. some of the particulars are a debatable, but we can be pretty sure it's one of the few biblical verses about an erection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 10:51 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 11:05 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 67 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 202 (295783)
03-15-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 11:02 PM


Minor nit
well, not totally unknown. some of the particulars are a debatable, but we can be pretty sure it's one of the few biblical verses about an erection.
Don't forget the Tower of Babel and the Pyramids. Now they were an erection.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 11:02 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 11:06 PM jar has not replied
 Message 60 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 9:41 AM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 202 (295784)
03-15-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
03-15-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Minor nit
haha, yes. well, minus the pyramids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 11:05 PM jar has not replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 60 of 202 (295888)
03-16-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
03-15-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Minor nit
Good one Jar LOL

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 11:05 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024