Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?

About Behemoth's navel, you guys bring up a seemingly good point, but you aren't doing your research. You need to look at the actual translation. The literal translation of the original text, though, is "the muscles of his belly." It's not saying that behemoth had a belly button. It's saying that the behemoth had a strong stomach. 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. Read about Leviathon where God asks, "Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on him you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" I don't think fisherman in a ship have reason to be this scared of an alligator. I'm sure they could easily kill it with a harpoon or spear. We've all heard of harpooning a whale.

Thankyou for that very mature, well educated reply. 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. Please don't be so ignorant. You've only proven that you are not open to other ideas and only believe whatever you feel like believing. If you are an adult already, then forget it; if you haven't learned yet, you probably won't ever. I believe that the behemoth is a dinosaur, but I'm open to hearing thought out, educated reasons for why it is not a dinosaur. If behemoth isn't a dinosaur, then thats fine. The Bible doesn't come out and say, "Behemoth is a dinosaur," so if its not a dinosaur it doesn't change anything about what I believe in God. It just changes what I believe the behemoth to be.

Yes, but take it in context. Do you seriously think that God is talking about a penis like a cedar tree? God is talking about this great creature He created to show His power and He throws in the fact that behemoth has a penis like a cedar? No, its clear he is talking about his tail. The point I was making is you can't just say, its not a dinosaur because the King James version says behemoth has a navel. I expect that Loudmouth doesn't seriously think the actual translation in this context is penis, if he does then I think he's just being ridiculous. I think Loudmouth just felt like being a loudmouth. His point didn't do anything against my point. Suppose it did translate to what Loudmouth was saying, does that change the point that I was making that its not necessarily talking about a navel, but about the strong muscles in the behemoth's mid section. No, it doesn't. Along with the point I was making, the English definition of navel is not only used to describe where the umbilical chord was attached, but it can also be used to describe a central point. It is quite likely that the King James version was speaking about the central point, rather than a belly button. The King James version says, "his force is in the navel of his belly." So, insert center for navel. "His force is in the center of his belly." It sounds to me like God is saying behemoth has a strong belly.

This is completely not where I expected this discussion to go, but it has, so here is my response. I apologize, I did not know that some believe penis to be the proper translation in this text. This is what I believe. The word used here is "zanab," which is the Hebrew word for tail. In the Bible the use of this word has consistently been used to mean "tail". A couple examples: Exodus 4:4 "Then the Lord said to him, 'Reach out your hand and take it by the tail.' So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake." Judges 15:4 "So he went out and caught three-hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs." There is no evidence that the word tail was ever used euphemistically in Hebrew. Another reason I believe God is speaking about an actual tail here is because when you describe an animal often features like a tail are mentioned. I don't think I've ever had a person describe an animal to me pointing out that one of the key features of this animal is its penis. For example if I described a horse to someone I would probably say it is a pretty large creature, strong and fast, walks on all four legs, and has a tail that flows back and forth. Or something like that. I would mention the tail because its a key feature. Here the webster dictionary describes a hippopotamus, " a very large herbivorous 4-toed chiefly aquatic artiodactyl mammal (Hippopotamus amphibius) of sub-Saharan Africa with an extremely large head and mouth, bare and very thick grayish skin, and short legs; also : a smaller closely related mammal (Choeropsis liberiensis) of western Africa." Maybe you guys include the penis in your description of animals and if you do, thats ok, but I don't and I don't know people that do. So my opinion is that the word "zanab" here is being used to describe a tail. I accept your opinion, but I personally don't believe it is correct. Just so I can know where you guys are coming from, what do you believe the behemoth is?

I just want to apologize to Loudmouth. I'm sorry. I did not think you were serious. I had never heard anyone argue that perhaps the tail is referring to a penis. My personal opinion still remains that it is a tail not a penis. 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. 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 also do not see the point in mentioning an animal's penis in the description. So, please accept my apology. I'm very busy right now, but I do have several reason's why I don't interpret this passage the way you do. Also, why I don't believe it is an elephant. I also do not doubt that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, whether or not behemoth is a dinosaur.