Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?

quote:

---

If this is true then what would be the reason for God requesting that Job and his friends consider an unremarkable creature?

---

If you stood next to a hippo, rhino, or elephant would you think of them as unremarkable? The reason we have these creatures in zoos today is because we think of them as remarkable.Also, David (if I remember my Sunday School stories well enough) is credited with protecting his flock of sheep from certain danger. What were those dangers? A bear and a lion. Wouldn't you think that a much more impressive story would have been a T. rex or a raptor?

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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? 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've only proven that you are not open to other ideas and only believe whatever you feel like believing.

---

You may want to look in a mirror.

quote:

---

I just want to apologize to Loudmouth. I'm sorry.

---

Hey, we all make mistakes. At least you are capable of admitting that you make mistakes, a sure sign of maturity. Thanks.

quote:

---

I believe if God meant penis He would have used the word for penis. Which is "gzat". He used "zanab". Which is Hebrew for tail.

---

Imagine that a current day author wrote "The man sat in the corner and played with his cock." Would you picture a man sitting in the corner playing with a chicken? I sure wouldn't. Euphemisms are found throughout the Old Testament. Perhaps the most famous is the euphimism "knew" instead of "slept with", as in the phrase "Adam knew his wife". Even the Greek Septigunt, one of the earliest translations of the OT, knew that "tail" was a euphemism for penis.

quote:

---

There is no evidence that I have seen yet that shows Hebrews ever used "zanab" euphemistically to mean penis. If anyone has a clear example please show it to me, I would appreciate it.

---

I think I already did.

quote:

---

I also do not see the point in mentioning an animal's penis in the description.

---

City folk see no reason for mentioning genitalia, but rural fok such as myself know all too well what it is referencing. When you raise animals, such as the Jews, large testicles and penises are a sign of potency. Bulls that have large testicles are better able to impregnate more cows, for example. Bulls are actually bred for large testicles. The author was trying to relate the POWER and VIRILITY of the beast. It was not an attempt to write something dirty or perverse.

quote:

---

I also do not doubt that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, whether or not behemoth is a dinosaur.

---

What evidence do you base this on?

quote:

---

ITYM "When you raise animals, such as the Jews did, ..."

---

Hehe, thanks for the editing.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-07-2004 04:01 PM

quote:

---

Is it possible that all the accounts of fabulous critters resulted from Bronze and Stone Age folk finding such remains and then trying to imagine just what the critter looked like?

---

I don't think so. The Behemoth is described as hiding in reeds, drinking water, and lying under locust trees. To me, this sounds like an animal that a lot of people had observed in the wild, not as a fossil.As a counterexample, the dragons of asian folklore probably were inspired by fossils. Dragons often have spiritual powers and drawings of asian dragons do not resemble any dinosaur that ever lived but do resemble fossils somewhat. I happened to watch an episode of "Globe Trekker" on PBS where one of the travellers went across the Gobi dessert in Mongolia. His guide showed him many dinosaur bones that are buried only inches from the surface. The whole plain is supposedly littered with dinosaur bones. In this case it seems very plausible that dragons have their roots in fossil finds.