Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


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 61 of 202 (295944)
03-16-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 10:46 PM


Re: elephants vs. hippos
You're right about oxen being a major part of mesopotamian mythology. If the Behemoth is some kind of supernatural Bull, then it could be identified with the "Bull of Heaven" in the Epic of Gilgamesh (I have a copy at home. Great read )
This Bull was so powerful that whenever it snorted, it could make the Earth crack open and kill vast numbers of people, according to the Gilgamesh text ( Page 87-88 of penguin's classics "The Epic Of Gilgamesh")
THe Minoan civilization seemed to be fond of Bulls as well.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 10:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:40 PM LudoRephaim has replied

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


Message 62 of 202 (295972)
03-16-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 10:46 PM


Re: elephants vs. hippos
Now there was a gigantic species of cattle that lived at the time of Job. The Aurochs (or "Wild Ox) where huge critters: Their bulls reached 6 feet 6 inches at the whithers! That sounds like a huge, monster grass eater like Behemoth. The only problem is, it is already mentioned in the chapter before it (See Job 39:9-12. See also "Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary" page 1234 under "OX", Pages 97 (commentary under cave paintings of Aurochs), 103 (under "Aurochs") of the book "Land of Lost Monsters" by Ted Oakes, and Page 281 of "The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures" under "Bos" compared with a picture of a huge bull)
It would be unlikely that the Behemoth was an Auroch, and to My knowledge I dont know any species of oxen or breed of cattle that rivaled the Aurochs in size. So if it was some sort of buffalo, it must have ben FAR larger than the Auroch. Plus even the Auroch could have it's nose pierced, if a Hippo's nose can be peirced by ancient peoples.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 10:46 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 63 of 202 (296084)
03-16-2006 7:51 PM


on the other hand....
Okay, this is the arguments against the idea that Behemoth is NOT a dinosaur.
YOu dont have to do much here. After all you can show the paleontological evidence that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, as well as learn a little Sauropod biology...
It was once thought that dinosaurs (long necked sauropods, such as Brontosaurus/apatosaurus, Diplodicus, and Argentinosaurus)lived mostly in water to support their great bulk. That idea has been disproven. We know that they where fully land animals (Dinosaurs and the Bible, by Ralph O. Muncaster, page 35, under the footnote with the * on it)It would have made it impossible for them to breathe. Smaller dinosaurs could fit the bill, but you dont have to have a dinosaur to fit the bill. There where other large beasts that existed far more recently than dinosaurs in geological terms that could also fit it, such as the 11-20 ton Indricothere (see book "walking with Prehistoric Beasts")
This aint much, but I think it is good. Tell me what you think.
This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-16-2006 07:52 PM

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:38 PM LudoRephaim has replied

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


Message 64 of 202 (296350)
03-17-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 7:51 PM


Re: on the other hand....
Okay, this is the arguments against the idea that Behemoth is NOT a dinosaur.
YOu dont have to do much here. After all you can show the paleontological evidence that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago
....wait a second. it's not that easy.
why does the fact that dinosaurs are extinct eliminate the possibility that the behemoth is a dinosaur? large bones are rather routinely dug up -- and it's entirely possible that he's just a mythicized dino. the author would never have even had to see one.
i think this is unlikely, given the description, but you never know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 7:51 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 65 of 202 (296351)
03-17-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 12:04 PM


Re: elephants vs. hippos
You're right about oxen being a major part of mesopotamian mythology. If the Behemoth is some kind of supernatural Bull, then it could be identified with the "Bull of Heaven" in the Epic of Gilgamesh (I have a copy at home. Great read )
This Bull was so powerful that whenever it snorted, it could make the Earth crack open and kill vast numbers of people, according to the Gilgamesh text ( Page 87-88 of penguin's classics "The Epic Of Gilgamesh")
THe Minoan civilization seemed to be fond of Bulls as well.
that's sort of what i was thinking, although your next post has a good point:
Now there was a gigantic species of cattle that lived at the time of Job. The Aurochs (or "Wild Ox) where huge critters: Their bulls reached 6 feet 6 inches at the whithers! That sounds like a huge, monster grass eater like Behemoth. The only problem is, it is already mentioned in the chapter before it (See Job 39:9-12. See also "Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary" page 1234 under "OX", Pages 97 (commentary under cave paintings of Aurochs), 103 (under "Aurochs") of the book "Land of Lost Monsters" by Ted Oakes, and Page 281 of "The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures" under "Bos" compared with a picture of a huge bull)
It would be unlikely that the Behemoth was an Auroch, and to My knowledge I dont know any species of oxen or breed of cattle that rivaled the Aurochs in size. So if it was some sort of buffalo, it must have ben FAR larger than the Auroch. Plus even the Auroch could have it's nose pierced, if a Hippo's nose can be peirced by ancient peoples.
why mention oxen twice? i'll have to think about this one some more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 12:04 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:15 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 70 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:25 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 66 of 202 (296900)
03-20-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 10:41 PM


Re: stones
It is possible to read Behemoth's "tail" and "thighs" as sexual organs, like you say. But if the Hebrew word "Tail" can figuratively mean "fallice", then why did the author use the word "Pachad" which can mean literally "testicle" when it could have used a hebrew word that although didin't mean "testicle" could be used to represent Testicle figuratively (such as a Hebrew word than means and only means "stone")Even though Pachad can also mean "thigh" it still seems to me odd that they didn't used a different hebrew word to represent testicle, unless that was how the ancients did poetry back then.
But your interpretation is pretty good. It might just be the right one. But then again the passage could indeed mean literally tail and thighs. We dont really know, and cant make authorative statements about it either way. But it still doesn't make this a dinosaur, since some mammals of the prehistoric past had tails that where quite large (Megatherium, Deodicurus, Indricothere, and a good possibility, the omnivorous and bear-like Sarkastodon)
Now if we do take "tail" and "Thighs" as figurative of sexual organs, then it might be possible to name a few creatures that could fit the bill in the mammal sense.
Cave Bears (Ursus Spelaeus) where mostly vegetarian, and no doubt ate grass like Behemoth. Cave Bears could not doubt swim and wade in water like Brown Bears. They had strong bones, their sexual organs, if seen, might have been large, they where quite strong, and where very dangeous. But it would be hard to see them as "Behemoth", since Cave Bears, even if they survived the Ice age, would be found in the Middle east with it's hot and humid weather in 4,000 BC (the time that Job is believed to have taken place)Plus, The Cave Bear did in fact eat meat, which the Behemoth is never said to do.
Even if this passage is talking about the sexual organs of Behemoth, it doesn't go against my overall point: This animal, like Leviathan, was an animal that we dont know about, but the ancients knew over 4 millenia ago, and died out before modern science could study them.Or it could be some prehistoric anial that we know about in the fossil record, but may have survived in the Middle East until fairly recent times. The passage in Job 40, when looked at in the poetic sense, does not seem to show anything but a large, yet earthly animal, which also seems to go against the mythological theory.
More to come.
This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-20-2006 06:28 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 71 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2006 6:29 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

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


Message 67 of 202 (296905)
03-20-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 11:02 PM


Re: stones
BTW: I do know that "answersingenesis" website has an indepth article about the "tail" and "thigh" passage of Job 40, but since this is a young Earth site, and can go to extremes to prove a young Earth Biblically and scientifically, I am iffy on whether to post it or not. If you would like to see it, then i'll post a link. But THat particular website, although strong in it's standing on Genesis, is just not a super strong source to use for a debate here, if you catch my drift. Plus they are resentful of Old-Earthers like myself.

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

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 72 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2006 6:31 PM LudoRephaim has replied

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


Message 68 of 202 (296906)
03-20-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by arachnophilia
03-17-2006 5:40 PM


Re: elephants vs. hippos
BTW: I wans't actually trying to show that the Auroch was in fact Behemoth. I was just showing that it could be brought up as a canidate for Behemoth. It seems good at first, but when you dig, it just sinks with the Hippo and the Elephant.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:40 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 69 of 202 (296907)
03-20-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
03-17-2006 5:38 PM


Re: on the other hand....
If Behemoth was a mythologicalized dino based on dino fossils, then it seems to add greater weight to the idea that the "tail" and "thighs" mentioned in Job 40 where to be taken literally. A dinoraur's leg bones and tail bones can be fossilized, but their genetalia would not be fossilized, and therefore when the ancients saw the fossil skeleton of a dinosaur and it's leg bones and tail, they would more likely make up a mythological beast that included huge legs and a massive tail. Unless they mistook a femur for the fallice.
Plus, God seems to be describing an animal that he himself made, not something of the human imagination based on fossils, and the animal seems to be something that Job new about.
if this idea is right though, then Behemoth was indeed a dinosaur. Though it wasn't a live one...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 6:35 PM LudoRephaim has replied
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2006 6:36 PM LudoRephaim has replied

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


Message 70 of 202 (296909)
03-20-2006 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by arachnophilia
03-17-2006 5:40 PM


Re: elephants vs. hippos
NOw about the Indricothere: I just learned that this massive 15 ton beast was a browser, not a grazer, according to the "simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Beasts" and in the same book it said that it's nose bones where quite weak. It seems that even the Indricothere was not the Behemoth of JOb 40.
Leviathan, as I have shown is not to be taken as a supernatural beast (in this passage at least)but I would like to hear your reasons why it was mythological. Hope you reply soon

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:40 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 71 of 202 (296911)
03-20-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by LudoRephaim
03-20-2006 6:05 PM


Re: stones
It is possible to read Behemoth's "tail" and "thighs" as sexual organs, like you say. But if the Hebrew word "Tail" can figuratively mean "fallice", then why did the author use the word "Pachad" which can mean literally "testicle" when it could have used a hebrew word that although didin't mean "testicle" could be used to represent Testicle figuratively (such as a Hebrew word than means and only means "stone")Even though Pachad can also mean "thigh" it still seems to me odd that they didn't used a different hebrew word to represent testicle, unless that was how the ancients did poetry back then.
well, let me cut throug the circular logic here with a simple fact that most people seem to have missed.
pachad is ONLY used here in this way. everywhere else, it means "fear," even in job. so saying it means "thighs" or "stones" or whatever is a pretty bad idea. we have no other context to say that. this is the essentially problem with trusting that little dictionary attached to strong's concordance -- we can often figure out what something means by the context or how it's used elsewhere, but in cases like this, where does the definition come from?
Even if this passage is talking about the sexual organs of Behemoth, it doesn't go against my overall point: This animal, like Leviathan, was an animal that we dont know about, but the ancients knew over 4 millenia ago, and died out before modern science could study them. The passage in Job 40, when looked at in the poetic sense, does not seem to show an animal out of the ordinary, which also seems to go against the mythological theory.
well, does leviathan seem to be mythological?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:05 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

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


Message 72 of 202 (296912)
03-20-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by LudoRephaim
03-20-2006 6:13 PM


Re: stones
BTW: I do know that "answersingenesis" website has an indepth article about the "tail" and "thigh" passage of Job 40, but since this is a young Earth site, and can go to extremes to prove a young Earth Biblically and scientifically, I am iffy on whether to post it or not. If you would like to see it, then i'll post a link. But THat particular website, although strong in it's standing on Genesis, is just not a super strong source to use for a debate here, if you catch my drift. Plus they are resentful of Old-Earthers like myself.
i've gotten in trouble for saying this before in a debate, because people read it as an ad hominem. but through experience i have found that aig is not a very reputable source, scientifically OR biblically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:13 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:35 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 202 (296913)
03-20-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LudoRephaim
03-20-2006 6:20 PM


Re: on the other hand....
A dinoraur's leg bones and tail bones can be fossilized, but their genetalia would not be fossilized, and therefore when the ancients saw the fossil skeleton of a dinosaur and it's leg bones and tail, they would more likely make up a mythological beast that included huge legs and a massive tail. Unless they mistook a femur for the fallice.
I think you meant "phallus", and I trust you're unfamiliar with the story of gutter-minded proto-paleontologist Robert Plot, who uncovered this fossil in 1677
if this idea is right though, then Behemoth was indeed a dinosaur.
The Job author describes an animal that can hide in a cyprus grove and be concealed by trees. That rules out any sauropod dinosaur.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:20 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:38 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 74 of 202 (296914)
03-20-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by arachnophilia
03-20-2006 6:31 PM


Re: stones
I will take that into consideration. I'm glad I've met another person who feels about Answersingenesis like myself

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2006 6:31 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 75 of 202 (296915)
03-20-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LudoRephaim
03-20-2006 6:20 PM


Re: on the other hand....
If Behemoth was a mythologicalized dino based on dino fossils, then it seems to add greater weight to the idea that the "tail" and "thighs" mentioned in Job 40 where to be taken literally. A dinoraur's leg bones and tail bones can be fossilized, but their genetalia would not be fossilized, and therefore when the ancients saw the fossil skeleton of a dinosaur and it's leg bones and tail, they would more likely make up a mythological beast that included huge legs and a massive tail. Unless they mistook a femur for the fallice.
not neccessarily. ground dinosaur bones are still considered an aphrodesiac in china. and there's no gaurantee that they'd reconstruct the animal the right way. look at the origin of the cyclops...
Plus, God seems to be describing an animal that he himself made, not something of the human imagination based on fossils, and the animal seems to be something that Job new about.
did job know about leviathan?
behemoth doesn't seem overly mythicized, though, no. though you do have to remember of course that this is a science forum. and there's no gaurantee here (even in the bible forums) that god is indeed the author of the words attributed to him in the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:20 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-20-2006 6:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024