-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dinosaur Propaganda
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
Thanks for your simple to understand explanations.
We still, of course, have Behemoth and Leviathan in Job chapters 40 & 41, to show that Dinosaurs and man lived together in Job's time. I certainly would not like to run into Leviathan, especially when he "sneezes":
Job 41:18-21,
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
We still, of course, have Behemoth and Leviathan in Job chapters 40 & 41, to show that Dinosaurs and man lived together in Job's time. I certainly would not like to run into Leviathan, especially when he "sneezes":
Job 41:18-21,
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
Presumably, the ones that Job knew lived in Chaldea, where Job himself lived ("in the land of Uz" (Job 1:1)).
Orininally they would have been created in the same place as all the other animals that God created. Off the top of my head, I think this is generally accepted to be somewhere around modern Iraq.
I have not particularly looked into where these may have migrated after the Flood, but there are dragon "legends" from various parts of the world, not sure about Perth in particular. Did you mean Perth, Scotland or Perth, Australia?
Finally, was this intended as a serious question, or were you using the word "dragon" as a surreptitious reference to the female of the human species? Do you know of either kind of dragon in Perth?
That was a bit of humor, I believe.
Anne McCaffry's writes about dragons in her fantasy novels. If I remember correctly, they come from Perth.
**************************************
IMO, failure to separate poetic idiom from actual facts when reading these passages in Job lead many to believe tha Bible teaches that there are dinosaurs mentioned.
Fire breathing animals??? ...too fantastic and fanciful.
The reader needs to realize that they believe in the dinosaur interpretation because it supports their belief in a young earth.
Historically this has not always been the case.
They have been assocoated with hippo's and crocks since the 17th century.
Rob
Anne McCaffry's writes about dragons in her fantasy novels. If I remember correctly, they come from Perth.
**************************************
IMO, failure to separate poetic idiom from actual facts when reading these passages in Job lead many to believe tha Bible teaches that there are dinosaurs mentioned.
Fire breathing animals??? ...too fantastic and fanciful.
The reader needs to realize that they believe in the dinosaur interpretation because it supports their belief in a young earth.
Historically this has not always been the case.
They have been assocoated with hippo's and crocks since the 17th century.
Rob
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
The reader also needs to realize that Old Earthers do not believe in the dinosaur interpretation because it doesn't support their belief in an old earth.
Since when did a hippo "move his tail like a cedar" (Job 40:17)?
And since when did a crocodile breathe fire (Job 41:18-21)?
As to fire-breathing dragons being "too fantastic and fanciful" - God's creation is wonderfully fantastic because of His almighty power. We shouldn't limit God's creative power through unbelief.
God actually describes Behemoth as "the chief of the ways of God" (Job 40:19)
To me, that sounds like something much more grand than a hippo.
In Job chapters 40 and 41, God describes Behemoth and Leviathan to Job in such a way that it is obvious that Job knew these creatures.
Yours in Christ,
PlainSense
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
Sorry, missed out the bit about "poetic idiom"
Most of Job has a poetic structure, but that does not mean that it cannot be true. In my opinion, this is a convenient way of expaining away scripture that you do not want to accept as fact.
Most of Job has a poetic structure, but that does not mean that it cannot be true. In my opinion, this is a convenient way of expaining away scripture that you do not want to accept as fact.
The phrase, "tail like a cedar" (Job 40:17) has been explained a lot of ways, nevertheless a hippo’s tail is stiff and bristly, just like the cedar.
In the light of the morning, when the crocodile forcefully expires, the mist from the snout resembles that of smoke. Without the benefits of today’s close-up photography, the observers of Job’s time could easily describe it as a fiery vapor.
Idiom is a poetic way of describing the incredible. The hippo and the crocodile are amazing animals, perhaps even more so in Job’s time when their size may have been even bigger and man’s abilities to control them were puny in comparison.
Furthermore, in Hebrew the word used for Behemoth resembles an Egyptian word for water-horse/hippo.
Rob
In the light of the morning, when the crocodile forcefully expires, the mist from the snout resembles that of smoke. Without the benefits of today’s close-up photography, the observers of Job’s time could easily describe it as a fiery vapor.
Idiom is a poetic way of describing the incredible. The hippo and the crocodile are amazing animals, perhaps even more so in Job’s time when their size may have been even bigger and man’s abilities to control them were puny in comparison.
Furthermore, in Hebrew the word used for Behemoth resembles an Egyptian word for water-horse/hippo.
Rob
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
This is exactly the "text book" answer I expected. Modern Bible versions and Bible dictionaries usually pass Behemoth off as a hippo/elephant, and Leviathan as a crocodile. I expect Old Earthers will continue to do so, no matter what anyone may say who accepts them as the text describes. But, nevertheless:
Regarding Behemoth's tail, the text of Job 40:17 is:
"He moveth his tail like a cedar" (KJV)
"He doth bend his tail as a cedar" (YLT)
The KJV word "moveth" is the Hebrew word "chaphets" which means "to bend".
The word "cedar" is "erez", meaning "cedar" or "firmly rooted and strong tree". Erez is invariably translated to mean a cedar or, sometimes some other kind of tree. No matter how stiff and bristly a hippo's tail is, it does not resemble a "firmly routed and strond tree" of any kind.
Using the two descriptions together (chaphets and erez) indicates to me that Behemoth's tail is very large and is bent gracefully and powerfully by Behemoth, like a strong tree bending gracefully in a stiff breeze. The hippo's tail may be stiff and bristly, but it is also tiny.
As for your description of smoke from a crocodile's snout, it falls far short of the description of Leviathan's "sneeze".
Given the widespread acceptance that Behemoth is a hippo I am not suprised about the Egyptian word similarity. People like to interpret unfamiliar words in a way that describes things they are familiar with. I have no doubt that you, together with the majority of people, will continue to think of these two creatures as the hippo and crocodile. In my opinion, when you carefully examine the descriptions and the words used, the hippo and crocodile fall far short of what is being depicted.
PlainSense
Regarding Behemoth's tail, the text of Job 40:17 is:
"He moveth his tail like a cedar" (KJV)
"He doth bend his tail as a cedar" (YLT)
The KJV word "moveth" is the Hebrew word "chaphets" which means "to bend".
The word "cedar" is "erez", meaning "cedar" or "firmly rooted and strong tree". Erez is invariably translated to mean a cedar or, sometimes some other kind of tree. No matter how stiff and bristly a hippo's tail is, it does not resemble a "firmly routed and strond tree" of any kind.
Using the two descriptions together (chaphets and erez) indicates to me that Behemoth's tail is very large and is bent gracefully and powerfully by Behemoth, like a strong tree bending gracefully in a stiff breeze. The hippo's tail may be stiff and bristly, but it is also tiny.
As for your description of smoke from a crocodile's snout, it falls far short of the description of Leviathan's "sneeze".
Given the widespread acceptance that Behemoth is a hippo I am not suprised about the Egyptian word similarity. People like to interpret unfamiliar words in a way that describes things they are familiar with. I have no doubt that you, together with the majority of people, will continue to think of these two creatures as the hippo and crocodile. In my opinion, when you carefully examine the descriptions and the words used, the hippo and crocodile fall far short of what is being depicted.
PlainSense
I don't have too much trouble with someone comparing the animals to a dinosaur...I agree, it can be argued either way (although only one interpretation is right). The purpose of the text in Job is to show God's power over a created being of power.
But when YEC's try to bolster their case by using shaky, far-fetched, half-baked impossibilities; like Ken Ham's group telling us that Noah had baby dino's on the ark to conserve space.
...and showing kids pictures of men riding dinosaur like they were party rides.
...pictures of men fighting fire-breathing, brass-clad armor plated dragons reminisent of St. George and the Dragon...
This type of indocrination of our youth goes far into the deep end.
A much better tactic would be the PlainSense approach.
Leave the fanciful imaginations for the show preachers.
Rob
But when YEC's try to bolster their case by using shaky, far-fetched, half-baked impossibilities; like Ken Ham's group telling us that Noah had baby dino's on the ark to conserve space.
...and showing kids pictures of men riding dinosaur like they were party rides.
...pictures of men fighting fire-breathing, brass-clad armor plated dragons reminisent of St. George and the Dragon...
This type of indocrination of our youth goes far into the deep end.
A much better tactic would be the PlainSense approach.
Leave the fanciful imaginations for the show preachers.
Rob
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
Wow, a compliment - thank you!
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Because God shows these creatures to Job in a vision, I fail to see their evidentary value for animal life in the time of Job. Why couldn't God have given Job a vision of a dinosaur from the past, or from a distant planet?
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
God was talking to Job about creatures familiar to him:
Job 38:39-41,
39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
If you read on you will see that God also talks to Job about other creatures that Job was familiar with.
Then God went on to talk to Job about Behemoth and Leviathan.
God also said to Job that he made these creatures at the same time that he made man:
Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee" - God made dinosaurs at the same time that He made man
These creatures were not revealed to Job in a vision. The context of Job 38 - 41 shows that Job knew them already.
Job 38:39-41,
39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
If you read on you will see that God also talks to Job about other creatures that Job was familiar with.
Then God went on to talk to Job about Behemoth and Leviathan.
God also said to Job that he made these creatures at the same time that he made man:
Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee" - God made dinosaurs at the same time that He made man
These creatures were not revealed to Job in a vision. The context of Job 38 - 41 shows that Job knew them already.
PlainSense, you make a good case for translating the words as a hippo and crocodile when you say, “God was talking to Job about creatures familiar to him:”
Best guess at the time Job lived is before Moses. If Moses or others of his time put the story to paper
(papyrus) then hippos and crocodiles would be among those familiar animals. There is no proof biblically or scientifically that man and dinosaur ever interacted.
And when you wrote:
Note that there are two distinctly separate acts of creation noted in Genesis (1:24-27).
“God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man…”
The phrase you mentioned in Job 40:15 is translated in the KJV as: “…which I made with thee”. But it is better translated in the NAS; “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;” It is not the time of creation that is important (as you contend), but the fact but that both man and beast were created by our Most Powerful God. As you have just shown, translating “behemoth” as dinosaur adds additional meaning to the verse that isn’t in the original text.
Rob
Best guess at the time Job lived is before Moses. If Moses or others of his time put the story to paper
And when you wrote:
...here you went well beyond the meaning of the text.
Note that there are two distinctly separate acts of creation noted in Genesis (1:24-27).
“God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man…”
The phrase you mentioned in Job 40:15 is translated in the KJV as: “…which I made with thee”. But it is better translated in the NAS; “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;” It is not the time of creation that is important (as you contend), but the fact but that both man and beast were created by our Most Powerful God. As you have just shown, translating “behemoth” as dinosaur adds additional meaning to the verse that isn’t in the original text.
Rob
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I understand you believe that to be true but you have not said a thing to prove it to be true. Why can't God mention both animals Job knows and animals Job didn't know until God mentioned them to Job? Answer: a perfectly possible thing for God to do. He is not bound by your rules for His discourses.
Of course, if you take a naturalistic approach to this whole passage, and consider that the writer is merely putting words into the mouth of God, then the narrative could plausibly be limited to those animals known to men at the time of the composition of the work. Personally, I prefer to accept the possibility of supernatural knowledge being available to the composition.
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
Neither did you say anything to prove that this was a vision, which leaves me guessing as to why you think it is. I assume you say it is a vision because Job 40:15 starts with the words "Behold now behemoth...". I have had some trouble with a precise interpretation of the Hebrew for "Behold". The interpretation that seems most likely to me, based on very similar words which I can fathom the meaning of, is, "Look" or "Look at" or "See". Youngs Literal Translation has "Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth..." This, I think, leaves the meaning open. It could possibly mean that God showed behemoth to Job in a vision, or it could mean that God was bringing it to Job's thoughts, or it could possibly mean that Job could actually look and see these creatures (from a safe distance and vantage point). There is though, an absence of expressions associated with the reception of a vision. There is no phrase such as, “I saw,” “I beheld,” “I heard.” Instead, there is direct speech, God says "Behold now behemoth".
The text you quoted above says that "the beast of the earth" and man were both created on the sixth day.
The NAS has a different interpretation. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is a better interpretation. To use Young's Literal Translation again, this agrees with the AV: "Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee...". In my opinion, the fact that both man and "the beast of the earth" were both created on the same day makes me lean towards the AV/YLT interpretation.
If people have already made up their mind on this passage, then what I say is unlikely to change their mind. Having looked at these things afresh though, confirms in my mind that Behemoth and Leviathan are dinosaurs that Job already knew about, and which most likely were alive in Job's time.
Sorry Deacon, I have to disagree with you here too. Putting the Job passage aside, we are told in Genesis that:
"...out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field..." (Genesis 2:19-20)
God brought "every beast..." to Adam, and Adam gave them names. If you accept that the creation account is literal, as I do, then this is biblical proof that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and that they interacted, as least in as far as Adam naming them.
PlainSense
I too agree that man and beasts of the field were created on the same day (yet as you know I feel the text allows for a ‘day’ longer than twenty-four hours). Yet look more closely at the text. Genesis 1 has man being created after the beasts [Then God said….vs 26]. Genesis 2 has man being created before the beasts of the field [I will make him a helper…vs 18]. Here you are playing on one of the obvious differences between the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2. IMO, the second story doesn’t necessarily place things in a chronological order. Anyway, (I ramble on) they were not created together.
You are absolutely correct in saying that the literal meaning of Job 40:15 is “made with thee” the Hebrew word is a conjunctive preposition and translates “with+you”, unfortunately it’s frequently used as an idiom too. The KJV translates it various ways depending upon the context as: with, against, toward, as long as, beside, except, and in spite of.
The NAS provides a much broader range of meanings for the word. In Job alone it uses nine different shades of meaning for the Hebrew word translated in the KJV in Job 40:15 as “with thee”.
Given that both renditions of the Genesis creation account agree that man and beast were made separately (at different times within a given time period), I personally think the NAS provides the superior translation. …but this is not a versions debate, I stray….
I couldn’t agree more heartily! The point OP of the thread was to merely to discourage wild imaginations and encourage a responsible rendering of the verses in Job.
I think you do a fair job of it. My complaint isn’t against those who interpret the animals as dinosaurs but against those who go too far and take the belief to farcical conclusions.
Rob
PlainSense Bible believer
Member
Hi Deacon,
Thanks for your explanation. I can see what you mean now, based on a long "day" viewpoint.
You and I approach this from two different directions. You approach it from a long day viewpoint. I approach it from a literal twenty-four hour day viewpoint. This obviously, and inevitably, leads us to different interpretations and conclusions. I don't think there is any middle ground here, so I think we can only agree to disagree on such things. It's been good to discuss it though, especially in a calm manner, which is conducive to such discussion.
[we should renounce] "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
PlainSense
Thanks for your explanation. I can see what you mean now, based on a long "day" viewpoint.
You and I approach this from two different directions. You approach it from a long day viewpoint. I approach it from a literal twenty-four hour day viewpoint. This obviously, and inevitably, leads us to different interpretations and conclusions. I don't think there is any middle ground here, so I think we can only agree to disagree on such things. It's been good to discuss it though, especially in a calm manner, which is conducive to such discussion.
Coming from a young earth position, I am probably more amenable to this kind of thing than you are. Baby Dinosaurs were probably too young to fend for themselves after release, but I think it reasonable to suppose they may have been adolescent dinosaurs - of an age to be able to fend for themselves, and to breed, but still smaller than fully-grown adults. I think that in the kind of things you mention in your quotes above, there is room for reasonable speculation and explanation, but we have to be responsible custodians of The Word and not be found guilty of adding to God's word, or making it seem that God's word says things that it doesn't. 2 Corinthians 4:2 seems to sum this up well:
[we should renounce] "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
PlainSense
Gup20
Active Member
It should be noted that the word "Dinosaur" was not invented until after the Bible was written. The word for dinosaur in the Bible is "dragon".
BTW - Here is "Ham's Group" in their own words:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp
BTW - Here is "Ham's Group" in their own words:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp