The changing of Behemoth and Leviathan....

[JeffM]

In my Study Bible with study notes written by Henry Morris, he says that Job probably lived around the time of Abraham because there are no references to the Mosaic laws or even the children of Israel.

He also says that except for the first eleven chapters of Genesis, Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible. He says that it contains more references to the creation and the flood than any other book in the Bible besides Genesis.

 

[robycop3]

JeffM:In my Study Bible with study notes written by Henry Morris, he says that Job probably lived around the time of Abraham because there are no references to the Mosaic laws or even the children of Israel.

He may have lived even before that.

He also says that except for the first eleven chapters of Genesis, Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible. He says that it contains more references to the creation and the flood than any other book in the Bible besides Genesis.

Moses wrote Genesis about 1500-1400 BC, but we don't know if he copied some other written account of Creation or put an oral story into print. Job was definitely before Moses.

 

[pinoybaptist]

skanwmatos said:

.....Moses worked from written records passed down from Adam, Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob.

Wow !! Wouldn't it be just wonderful if God had preserved any of the above and somebody discovered them in our time ? I'd just like to see the evolutionists' faces especially with Adam describing how God created Him and how he walked and talked personally with God face to face before the fall.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Job was written before the flood. Job is the oldest book in the Bible.

Not so. Job was written circa the 1470's BCE. The writing of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus predate Job by some 50 years. The Book of Job covers a time period of roughly the 1650's BCE and 1470's BCE. Genesis, OTOH, covers a time period from "in the beginning" to roughly the 1650's BCE.

Where the book of Job is located in the Bible has no relevence to when it was written.

No one here says otherwise.

Job did not have pride. Pride is a sin.

No one here says otherwise.

 

[Scott J]

It wouldn't matter pb. Rejection of the Bible as a credible account of origins is considered scientific no matter what evidence is given to support it.

 

[HankD]

You've clearly never seen a cedar tree. A cedar tree is long and skinny, with scraggly branches. Just like a hippo's tail.

Whoa!! I live in Washington State and I have a Cedar tree in my front yard that has a 9 foot circumference.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JeffM:
Yes, I've seen cedar trees.....and you are really stretching it my friend.

Check out this cedar tree in Vancouver:

Uhhh, you might want to try a cedar that's indigenous to the area, and that's of average age, like this:

How do you know this with absolute certainy?

Interesting that you want me to know "with absolute certainty" that dinosaurs don't have external genitalia, yet no one can say "with absolute certainty" that the behemoth of Job was a dinosaur. However, to answer your question, we have abundant fossil evidence of multiple species of sauria, and they do not have external genitalia. To be a bit more graphic, the males did not have an external scrotal sac.

Now I may be a staunch creationist, but even I know we have no idea what dinosaurs were really like considering all we have are some bones.

Presuming that the behemoth was a hippopotamus, it neither refutes nor bolsters the creationist point of view. So one's YEC view is irrelevant.

I happen to think that Brontosaurus...

Interesting. You mention a brontosaurus. There's no such animal as a brontosaurus, which suggest some lack of knowlege on your part in regards to the topic.

Now a brontosaurus would definitely fit the description of Job.

A hippo would fit that description as well. The hippo is waterbound. Presuming you're referring to an apatarsaur or brachiosaur, they were not waterbound. Theyre were land roaming animals.

But God wouldn't need to show off. I can just look outside my window as I type this and wonder and give thanks to his wonderful creation.

So can I. And I do, frequently.

 

[HankD]

Cedars of Lebanon

http://www.exploitz.com/pictures/4514/index.php?pix=21

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Job was written circa the 1470's BCE. The writing of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus predate Job by some 50 years.

Why not start a thread on the dating of the Penteteuch/Job over on the Theology Forum?

I think your date for Job is off by at least half a millenia!

 

[Tangent]

Although we have a good idea of when Job lived, the date of the writing of the book is still very much in doubt. It could have been centuries later, much as Moses wrote about Abraham and Jacob centuries after they lived, probably based on earlier records. Nothing in the text suggests that Job wrote it himself. That doesn't affect its inspired character.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Why not start a thread on the dating of the Penteteuch/Job over on the Theology Forum?

I think your date for Job is off by at least half a millenia!

You may be right. They're the notes I have left over from my Bible college days. However, I think we're in agreement that the writings of book of Job, and events they depict, are most definitly post-Noah.

Anyhoo, I have no desire to start a separate thread. I was just commenting that the animals mentioned by Job are not a matter of doctrine. They very likely were contemporary animals, and acknowleng such does not in anyway compromise either scriptural teachings or a YEC view.

If someone else wants to start a separate thread, however, bon apetit.

 

[robycop3]

There's nothing in Scripture that says God cannot create new plants or animals now. In fact, some entomologists recently discovered several previously-unknown species of beetles in the Amazon rain forest. They were also previously unknown to the natives who assisted the entomologists. Some of these beetles were quite large & would NOT have been overlooked by the natives who'd spent their entire lives in this land, and who knew the smallest species of ants apart from one another, and in fact, whose "life knowledge" included knowing EVERY visible living thing, plant or animal, in their land.

Also, many species have become extinct within the history of man, such as the dodo & the passenger pigeon. Who's to say that the behemoth & the leviathan HAVE to be living animals known to us today? Each could well have been an animal now extinct, and which left no remains. For preservation of remains/fossilization to occur, the creature must be covered rapidly with a preserving material such as certain kinds of mud or silt. Ordinarily, when even the largest whales die naturally, their remains don't last too long; they're either eaten by other creatures, decay, or in the case of the harder remains such as bone & teeth, dissolved by the sea. This could've occurred with the Ls & Bs.

Who knows? The mystery of the Loch Ness monster remains unsolved.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Who knows? The mystery of the Loch Ness monster remains unsolved.

Two words: Ho Ax.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
They very likely were contemporary animals, and acknowleng such does not in anyway compromise either scriptural teachings or a YEC view.

No. However if they are not contemporary animals but rather some type of dinosaur then it would be a strong documented proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed- something that evolutionist vehemently deny and that all YEC affirm.

It is akin to the argument over dating methods. I could say "If the chemical dating methods used by evolutionists are false, it does not mean that the world is young." Which would be true. But, if the chemical dating assumptions used by evolutionists are absolutely true then YEC is disproven.

 

[Trotter]

Scott,

Mt. St. Helen has put carbon dating into a tailspin.

Although it erupted less than twenty years ago, the trees that were buried by the blast have already begun to petrify. Carbon dating done on them show them to be well over a thousand years old, but I remember when she blew her top. (As for my source, I don't remember. But it was printed in several major papers, probably on AP)

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Scott J]

I have seen the same type of stuff but I am not independently able to verify those claims... and it isn't something I expect evolutionists to hold a news conference on.

I have also seen accounts where rocks that were formed with the last few hundred years in other eruptions have been sent to labs for blind dating. According to these accounts, the dates ranged widely up into many millions of years.

If these types of tests are true then no honest scientist should trust this process.

 

[JeffM]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Scott,

Mt. St. Helen has put carbon dating into a tailspin.

Although it erupted less than twenty years ago, the trees that were buried by the blast have already begun to petrify. Carbon dating done on them show them to be well over a thousand years old, but I remember when she blew her top. (As for my source, I don't remember. But it was printed in several major papers, probably on AP)

In Christ,
Trotter

Not only is Mt. St. Helens an example of what can happen in an instant, it also has left us a mini-Grand Canyon to study.

When that river of mud pushed its way through the land, it cut out of the landscape a mini-Grand Canyon...within just a short period of time, not millions of years.

God is wonderful. Some look at the explosion as a tragedy, but now I look at it as God showing us just a sample of what happened during the flood. It was a training aid!

 

[Johnv]

The carbon dating issue really isn't all that pertinent to the topic at hand, though. There's no biblical requirement for the Behemoth and Leviathan to have been dinosaurs, especially since they're names that the Hebrews gave to animals that we know today. It's only when YEC's doctrinally insist that they're dinosaurs does it start to damage YEC credibility.

It's simply more of the old "hare chews its cud" type of arguement.

 

[Scott J]

I see the assertion but I don't see the insistence. I also don't see how these descriptions could describe a croc or hippo... but some folks insist that these must be options.

 

[Johnv]

It's called "etymology", Scott.

Hebrews called the animal we call the hippo a behmowth. They called a croc a levyathan. The KJV-era translators, not knowing the certainty of the word origins, chose to use the words (though anglicanized), straight across, and rightly so.

And before anyone says "crocodiles don't breathe fire", I should retort with "dinosaurs don't have testicles".