Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs?

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

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....

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

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

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

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

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

Good one Jar LOL

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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