The changing of Behemoth and Leviathan....

[LadyEagle]

Well, did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the creation was six 24 hour days, but God created some things to look or appear to be really really older than that, like thousands of years older than that, just for variety, because He is creative, and because He is a Wonderful God?

 

[Trotter]

LadyEagle,

I had said the same thing for years. And have been mauled by a couple of posters here on the BB because I think that.

I order for their 'science' of evolution to be true, everything has to start from nothing. So the idea that God created something "old" doesn't fit. But, I ask you, who says that God didn't create the Grand Canyon just as it is? Or cause the stars to be hung where they are, with their light already shining on earth instead of having to travel for hundreds of thousands of years?

And who says that God didn't cause the writer of Job to use those words to describe what he saw, whatever it was.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[just-want-peace]

I had said the same thing for years. And have been mauled by a couple of posters here on the BB because I think that.

That's because you're stepping on their toes; even though it can't be proven, the fact that you may be correct is "challenging their beliefs" to the point of dis-comfort!

So much simpler and less frustrating to just accept God's word as it is, is it not?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:


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

It's called honest humility John.

The descriptions aren't of a croc and hippo. All you really have to say is that we don't know- they might be some extinct animal.

 

[semamiyth]

Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Job 32:2

Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram. Genesis 22:21

I have always liked hippopotamus cause they move their tails like cedar trees. And Crocs are great cause of their wonderful fire breathing abilities.

The gripe I could have about changing names of animals is the fact that there could be some symbology involed. I don't know much about new versions, but if they change the name in one place it should be changed everywhere else in the Bible.

Nice Ceder tree pictures.

 

[robycop3]

The woolly mammoth was larger than the modern elephant, & better-equipped to live longer, and to live in a variety of climates. In the wild, most elephants eventually die when their teeth wear out & they can no longer chew their food & can't digest it. The mammoth's teeth were much-harder than those of the elephant are. Yet, the elephant lives, while the mammoth does not.

There's a theory that says the quick-frozen mammoths found in Siberia were frozen at the time Sennacherib's army was destroyed before Jerusalem.The few Assyrian accounts of this destruction say that not a mark or wound was found on any of the bodies, & that most of them had died in their sleep, and the sentries had died suddenly, unaware of any impending disaster-and that all the bodies were very, very cold.

Shoot, I'm beginning to get off thetheme of the forum, so I'll shut up, but God does indeed work in mysterious ways His wonders to perform.

I still believe behemoth & leviathan were some species of animals no longer here. Not that it really matters; had they been triceratops and crocklegators, the DOCTRINE remains the same.

 

[rsr]

You're in a losing fight, John, though I don't have a clue as to what "symbology" is.

"I don't know much about new versions, but if they change the name in one place it should be changed everywhere else in the Bible."

So far as I know, this is the only place these names occur. As to the first statement, I'm sure you are correct.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Just for the sake of completeness, people who are interested in opinions about Behemoth and Leviathon should be aware of what it says in 2 Esdras 6:49 - 52. Esdras is here summarizing the creation narrative according to his understanding of it.

Then thou didst keep in existence two living creatures; the name of the one thou didst call Behemoth and the name of the other Leviathan. And thou didst separate one from the other, for the seventh part where the water had been gathered together could not hold them both. And thou didst give Behmoth one of the parts which had been dried up on the third day, to live in it, where there are a thousand mountains; but to Leviathan thou didst give the seventh part, the watery part; and thou hast kept them to be eaten by whom thou wilt, and when thou wilt.

I view this as an imaginative elaboration of what we have in the book of Job. The translation is the Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha.

 

[Deacon]

Back to the opening post:

Originally posted by JeffM:
Does anyone else have a problem with some of the translations turning awesome creatures (Dinosaurs?) such as the Behemoth and the Leviathan into hippos and crocodiles?

This very thing has changed me immensly. I used to doubt creation until I started reading a KJV Bible and studied what a behemoth and leviathan really were. Then it was like a light went on and when I realized what awesome creatures they must have been, even possibly being dinosaurs, I literally fell to my knees and asked the Lords forgiveness for doubting his word, and his creation. It was life changing for me to say the least. I was greatly humbled.

I could almost imagine what Job was going through as he listened to God explain just how mighty he really is and showing Job the awesome creatures that he created.

Now, when I read some of my older Bibles and see how man degrades and doubts God by replacing these awesome creatures with puny Crocs and hippos, easily subduded by man, it both saddens and angers me at the same time.

How do you feel?

In the history of biblical translation, interpreters have used a number of different methods to communicate the meaning of the Hebrew word Behemoth, which is used only one time in Job 40:15.

The Latin Vulgate (c. 423) translates the word behemoth as ‘beast’; (huic montes herbas ferunt omnes bestiae agri ludent ibi).

The Wycliffe Bible (c. 1388) uses the transliteration, “Lo! Behemot”.

Miles Coverdale Bible (c. 1535) “Beholde, the cruell beaste”.

The Bishops Bible (c. 1568) “Beholde the beaste Behemoth”.

The Geneva Bible (c. 1587) “Beholde now Behemoth”.

The Authorized King James Version, (c.1611) “Beholde now behemoth”.

I’d agree with Robycop3 when he wrote:

Thing is, NO DOCTRINE is affected by the exact or inexact definitions of the animals. A Jewish friend has told me that the positive identification of several species of animals named in OT Hebrew is a daunting task at best.

SAMUEL BOCHART (1599-1667), pastor of a Protestant church in Caen, France, in his book, Hierozoicon, (London, 1663) which deals with the animals of Scripture, was among the first to associate the “behemoth” with a hippopotamus ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705).

Here's a little bit about hippo's.

Hippos may look sluggish and clumsy, but they are superbly adapted to their mixed terrestrial and aquatic lifestyle. Their eyes, ears, and nostrils sit on top of their heads for living in the water, and they have wide snouts and thick lips for grazing grasses on land. The upper and lower canine teeth--often referred to as tusks--are long, thick, and very sharp. Yet despite their huge teeth and aggressive nature, hippos are strictly grazers (grass eaters). Each night the herd comes ashore and travels up to six miles inland along well-worn paths to graze on short grasses. Hippos are virtually hairless, with bristles only on their noses, ears, and tails.

When full grown, the Nile Hippo attains a length of twelve to fifteen feet and can weigh up to 8,000 pounds with a correspondingly colossal girth. They are powerful and surprisingly fast; they can gallop at up to 30 miles per hour and are a truly appalling spectacle when enraged. Adult Nile Hippos are very territorial and while best known for wallowing in the mud they cause more human deaths in Africa than any other big-game safari animal, including crocodiles.
Images of the hippopotamus are fairly common in ancient Egyptian art. To the ancient Egyptians, the hippopotamus was one of the most dangerous animals in their world. The huge creatures were a great hazard for small fishing boats and other rivercraft.
Today, people who live around crocodiles take them in stride even when the reptile swims by their canoes; but if a hippopotamus is about, it’s another story. White-water guides on the Zambezi River just below Victoria Falls tell rafting enthusiasts that if their rafts flip over to swim toward the Zimbabwe side where there are just crocodiles, and not toward Zambia where hippos live!

Their general sanitary habits leave much to be desired, male Nile hippos mark their territory with their excrement. Their urine and dung is showered over the bushes and grass near huge dung piles, propelled by a propeller-like whipping of their stiffened bristly tails. You don’t want to be within 30 feet of a hippo when they empty their load (and you might not want to sit next to a curious wife who got too close when it happened!).

I would have to say that the translators who use the word "dinosaur" are the newcomers.
Yeah, those modern translators aren't as careful as we'd like them to be, are they?

Rob

[ June 06, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

[robycop3]

This whole thread falls within the same frame as does a discussion of what the Hebrew ' re'em ' means. The AV man said, "unicorn", but before we laugh at them, we should remember they believed unicorns existed. The unicorn of mythology was not a dainty little critter, but was larger and more powerful than any horse, with the temper of a she-bear robbed of her cubs. There are certain species of oxen with that kind of power and temperament, so we cannot rule out the rendering "wild ox".

Same goes for "satyrs" of Isaiah 13:21. The hebrew word here is 'sa'ir', which is also rendered "goat" in many Scriptures. In that same verse, the Hebrew word 'raqad' there rendered "dance", also means, "to skip or jump about". Whise I believe Isaiah meant, "Goats shall skip about there", we cannot entirely dismiss the KJV rendering as ridiculous because again, the AV translators had many reasons to believe satyrs existed, and in mythology, satyrs did dance quite a bit. But given the toughness of several species of goat, I believe that's what Isaiah was saying.