Tim,
Do a google search on “red shift” Understand how the wavelength of light stretches as space expands. When we look at a star in the sky we can directly measure its red shift. It tells us how fast it is moving away from us. By looking at the red shift of its spectrum (hydrogen line) we can tell how old it is. This has been measured on billions of stars and hundred millions of galaxies.
Nothing supports a 6000 year old earth.
Tim,
Take a look at this concerning red shift measurements.
The procedures for dating fossils are not this arbitrary guesswork based on faulty methods that young earth people like to portray them as. They are reliable and I trust them. No link to a creationist website that you could provide will convince me otherwise.
It’s not my theory, and nope, I would not change my mind at all. Would an evolutionary biologist change their entire view of reality because you showed them information about a fossil from a website they know plays fast and loose with the truth and then talked to them about the logic of evolving airplanes? I doubt it. I’ll stick with what 99.9% of evolutionary biologists agree is reality.
I’m not sure Timothy, that we know what type of cedars Job was familiar with. Israel for example imported cedars of Lebanon, and so Job could have been familiar with all kinds of cedars. But even the context would lead you to think of a big cedar, not some little bush. It would not have been mentioned if that was the case.
*> The cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) is a tall evergreen tree which has been prized for its high quality timber, oils and resins for thousands of years. The national emblem of Lebanon (4) (5), it was famously used to build the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, as well as the ships and temples of the Egyptian pharaohs (2) (3) (5) (6) (7). The resin of the cedar of Lebanon was even used in mummification by the Ancient Egyptians (5) (6) (7). This conifer usually has a single, thick trunk with many horizontal, spirally arranged branches, which can be quite stout (*http://www.arkive.org/cedar-of-lebanon/cedrus-libani/
The behemoth did not have to be a brachiosauraus… there were many other dinosaurs, most of which were not quite as big. The other thing is that according to some fossils, some plants such as reeds were much larger in the past… some reeds grew like trees. Think also of the fossil of the dragonfly with a four foot wingspan. The problem with the elephant example is that people have domesticated them for ages, and this sounds very contrary to Job 40.
You are right. But, this does not invalidate the argument made about “old” birds looking similar to “modern” birds.
They are using the evolutionary paradigm to refute itself. You may not agree with the details of the argument, but it does not invalidate the argument itself. You might suggest that 125 bp modern birds fits in quite nicely with the evolutionary timeline of birds descending from dinosaurs… although then you would have to demonstrate how… but the earlier we find modern organisms, the more difficult it is to suggest that evolution happens thru slow gradual steps in a semi-logical fashion.
The only way that Job 40-41 makes sense , is that the behemoth and leviathan are real creatures that display the greatness of the creator. The whole book, and especially these chapters, is about Job’s (man’s) relationship to God, and how he has made things we cannot understand nor control.
Another way that Job 40-41 makes sense is that the behemoth and leviathan are fictional literary characters in a story written in the ANE thousands of years ago.
Originally, archeopteryx was thought to be a transitional bird ancestor. Today it is placed on its own “dead end” branch. Evolutionary trees are quite fluid because they are mostly based on speculation. We have no genetics of most fossils, and even that might not help to be definitive. So morphology is used, and then rejected later. None of this is as clear or firm as non-scientists like to think it is. However, your argument that if a bird stayed the same for a billion yrs then that demonstrates a lack of evolution, will not be valid, because just because we have some original organisms does not prove that other different organisms could not have evolved from them. For example, even though we have many varieties of wheat, that doesn’t mean that the original spelt wheats could not still exist. Of course, varieties of wheat, or types of dogs is not a proof of evolution either.
John, 90% of the proof text for the “Behemoth is a Dinosaur” narrative is in that one little verse: He moveth his tail like a cedar. What everyone seems to ignore is the single most important word in that verse… the action verb “moveth” which means to sway or to bend. This verse is not at all describing what the tail looks like. It’s simply describing how the tail moves back and forth. That’s it. If it was talking about a strong and sturdy tree then describing how it moves makes no sense, because that would imply it doesn’t move at all.
Most YECs that I know of demand that Behemoth is specifically a Brachiosaurus or a Diplodacyus, because they believe verse 19 says, “He is the chief of God’s ways” which they interpret to mean “the larges of all land animals”, which the Brachiosaurus or Diplodacyus is the largest of all know extinct land animals. So saying that it could have been a smaller dinosaur doesn’t even jive with what most YECs believe. If it IS describing a Brachiosaurus then why is there not a single mention of the creature’s neck? The neck is equally as impressive as its tail… why is there no mention? It talks about the creature’s eyes, nose, tail, stones, belly, and bone properties… but no neck.
verse 18
“His bones are as strong pieces of copper; his bones are like bars of iron.”
This verse perfectly describes the unique properties of Elephant bones, recently discovered by modern science. They are both flexible like copper, and strong like iron, so the huge animal can run 10-12 miles and hour without its bones breaking.
verse 23
“Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.”
Think about what this verse is saying, John. It’s saying that he can draw up Jordan INTO it’s mouth. What other creature can you think of, on earth, that would be described as scooping water out of a river, into it’s mouth, other than an elephant’s trunk that scopes up water?
verse 24
“He taketh it wish his eyes: his nose pierces through snares.”
Again, tell me. What creature fits the description of a nose that can pierce through snares? For most creatures this description makes little to no sense… but it does make perfect sense with that of an elephant.
Why try to fit a dinosaur into the description of Behemoth, when virtually everything in the 10 verse description fits an elephant to a tee? If being “the chief of the ways of God” really means the largest of all land animals, then that means the elephant. Which is the largest of all modern day land animals. The elephant spends much of it’s time under the shade of lotus trees and hanging out in the rivers and swamps.
I believe you’re missing the context of Job. God is not speaking to the world at large. He is speaking specifically to Job and his trying circumstances. Much of what we read in Job applies to us at times, otherwise we wouldn’t be reading it. But you have to take it into context. When a neighbor or loved one when is going through difficult financial and/or emotional hard times, then we think of Job and his extraordinary circumstances.
There is nothing in the book of Job that would imply that Job is familiar at all with wild African elephants, so whether or not other places like Thailand have domesticated them isn’t the point. Job lived somewhere in the area of 2000-1500 BC, so it is very possible that Job and his village did not domesticate them.
The reason why Behemoth and Leviathan are mentioned, are to be used as object lessons for Job. It is easier to tame these magnificent creatures, then it is to tame a man who is proud at heart. That’s the context.
Like I said earlier, Leviathan could be a real creature (Job isn’t the only book that mentions it… At the moment the Loch Ness monster and crocodile are likely candidates). If it is, then I think the fire-breathing imagery is metaphoric of the creatures intimidation value, when one comes near it. The horse is described as being clothed with thunder, implying the trenendous strength and vibration of it’s muscles (not that he is being blessed by Zeus)… It could easily be that breathing fire is talking about Leviathan’s hot, or ensnaring, breath.
Not sure why an aquatic creature would need the ability to breathe fire?
In any case you have to into consideration the other references to him. Him being the “King of all the Children of Pride”. Being Gods enemy that He will crush on the last day. The multiple head description in Psalm 74.
Am I the only one that sees the juxtaposition of Behemoth and Leviathan in their description? Behemoth is the chief of the ways of God. Leviathan is the king of the children of pride. Whatever these creaturs are, the Bible is describing them as opposites in characteristics that are pleasing to God and characteristics that are displeasing to God.
As far as the sea monster descriptions, the multiple heads, and him being God’s enemy, I can’t help but be reminded of the passages in Daniel and Revelations, that says the Beast will arrive out of the Sea having seven heads and ten horns. There is also a description of a dragon that wages war with the “woman clothed with sun who gives birth to Jesus” …
Maybe I’m crazy, but I’m seeing some similarities here…
-Tim
Patrick, you have a tendency to not read what people are saying in their posts. I clearly said that “other people (other than Kent Hovind) are better at defending the YEC position, though I am not PERSONALLY a YEC.”
I also said that it’s dubious that one can use telescopes to see distant objects and NOT KNOW if they are millions of lightyears away or only 6,000 thousand lightyears away.
I’m not arguing or a young universe. In fact I said the data from cosmology implies an old universe. My example to Christy and John, was an example in the past, where I used faulty logic to reach a conclusion that Genesis was proven correct… The description of water that existed behind the celestial objects… The sun, moon and stars. I realize that my logic WAS faulty.
Christy and John were arguing about Ken Ham’s methodology for arguing for discontinuity in evolutionary theory. John seemed to be saying that ancient birds were just like modern day birds that they could fly… While Christy seemed to be saying that the rhetoric doesn’t make sense because the evolutionist is holding up a fossil believed to be several millions of years old, while Ken Ham believes it is only 4,500 - 6,000 years old. This situation reminded me of my own situation with what NASA discovered on the far reaches of the galaxy: trillions of tons of water floating out there. I held it up as evidence for a literal reading of Genesis while simultaneously ignoring the fact the discovery was attached to “millions of lightyears away astronomer discover…”
This was my bad logic, that I used in the past.
Hope things are clearer now.
-Tim
If that was all, then why would he have to use an elephant? why not a camel, or a beaver, or a hyena? He is speaking to Job in the sense of who he is as a man, not merely as a diseased impoverished and severly whipped person. So I think you are misapplying in this case. God is describing the extraordinary. To say that Job could not control elephants while he could previously hire those who could is meaningless. And, if Job is not familiar with elephants, then the description would also be meaningless.
But I don’t want to pursue this endlessly and uselessly. I don’t know why you would have to work so hard to change the obvious. YEC are often accused of fighting tooth and nail to defend their position, but I see evolutionists doing the same thing. Just take the Job story the way it is written. It is a real stretch to see behemoth as an elephant for at least two reasons; just admit it and leave it. It doesn’t prove anything, but neither does trying to make it an elephant or hippo prove anything.
I’ve seen dozens of articulated dino skeletons and none have tails that look like a cedar tree.
Do you have further information on this, especially on the NASA web site?
Typically, I try my best to respond to most of your points, John, but you seem to ignore most of mine.
It is not obvious to me at all that Behemoth is taking about a dinosaur, and can only be made into one if that’s your position in the first place. The Leviathan is a much more likely candidate for a dinosaur with it’s sharp teeth and closely knit scales. I have less of a problem with people turning that into a dinosaur. I believe It’s possible.
Hippopotamuses are very territorial creatures, and elephants would be harder to train then would a camel. In any case, an elephant is a very impressive creature and could easily kill a person through a stampede.
Saying “working so hard to ignore the obvious” and “just admit and leave it” seems very hostile to me… Why would someone say something that it’s equivalent to “just stop talking about it” if that person had some arguments that could refute my points?
We can agree to disagree, for it seems very obvious to me that neither one of us will be convinced of the other’s position. But saying what can be interpreted as “shut up” isn’t helpful for anyone.
Saying Behemoth is not an elephant or a hippo obviously proves something. Why else would YEC groups make so much of it otherwise if Behemoth had nothing to prove?
I’m not against finding a dinosaur description in the Bible. But I simply do not see one in the description of Behemoth. The Leviathan would make an infinitely more compelling case for a dinosaur then would Behemoth.
I think you’re comparing this argument to an argument for evolution, of which I’m not trying to do at all. I’m not trying to argue for evolution… I’m merely demonstrating the falsities of making Behemoth into a dinosaur (and specifically a Brachiosaurus or Diplocadyus) … This is obviously very important for a YEC, because they have a position to defend. I, on the other hand, have no stake in the manner.
It doesn’t matter to me whether or not dinosaurs lived in Job’s time. My Christian belief wouldn’t change. Now I’m not characterizing ALL YECs but many, it seems to me, are doing a lot manipulation to make Behemoth into a Brachiosaurus. 90% of their focus is on the tail description, but they seemingly ignore the rest of the description that makes it very difficult for dinosaur-descriptions.
That’s my position.
Leviathan can be a dinosaur if one so wishes. It sounds awfully vicious and reptilian to me and would make a much more compelling case to me than that of Behmoth.
We are obviously not gonna very far with this conversation, but I at the very least wanted to let you know that finding dinosaur descriptions in the Bible doesn’t frighten me.
-Tim
Hey Beagle.
This is the discovery I was referring too. And apparently I was wrong. It’s not trillions of tons. It’s 140 trillion times the amount of water that it’s in our oceans today. That’s a lot of water.
As far as the dinosaur bones looking like a cedar tree, I think the Brachiosaurus could be a possible candidate. But you have to clarify two things in the Behemoth description… What cedar is being referred too? An American cedar? A cedar out of Lebanon that was used for building? Or the Lebanese cedar tree that is very flexible, and bends in the wind?
The other thing you have to clarify is what does the Bible even say? Is it talking about what the tail looks like or the way it moves? In this case that latter is true… And by knowing this nullifies most of the argument. Typically the Hebrews are more focused on descriptions of action and movement rather than visual descriptions, which makes sense in this case.
-Tim
Tim,
There is not only an abundance of water in the universe but also the building blocks of life that is abundant. See below.
Sorry about that, Timothy. I try to keep posts down to a shorter length, as difficult as it is for me as well. I don’t ignore your comments, even when I don’t respond to everyone. I try to concentrate on a few.
I have already refuted, and don’t wish to go around in circles, so I’m not so excited about continuing on Behemoth and Leviathan. As far as I can tell, everyone is speculating, period, and I’ve finished with my speculations.
Well it is important only in the possibilities. If behemoth and leviathan had never been mentioned, obviously YEC would not try to turn a peacock into a dinosaur. So even if these animals are not dinosaurs, it really doesn’t change a thing.
I am glad to hear that.
1 Like
Yes, I understand your position. But doesn’t the discussion of whether the behemoth was or wasn’t a dinosaur seem strange. Dinosaurs have been existent for 65 million years. At that time, there weren’t any people just mostly small mammals. At the time the Bible was written, wasn’t there only large mammals around? So if the behemoth was real, wouldn’t it have to be a mammal? And a mammal that was pretty much know in the ANE at the time? I guess I am wondering when you are going to use science to harmonize with your faith. It seems that you are picking and choosing what science to use and what to ignore.
Hey Patrick.
As far as Behemoth goes, the evidence seems fairly clear to me that it could easily be referring to an elephant. John doesn’t agree with me, but that’s okay … We can still be friends and have discussions without agreeing with everything.
As far as Leviathan goes I think it could be referring to some sort of sea monster. There has been many speculations on this such as a whale, crocodile, and even a pleisosaurus. It’s still up for discussion. Some think it’s a mythological depiction (perhaps depicting something fierce, beyond control, or even evil itself).
If the creature is talking about a pleisosaurus that Job actually saw, then what does mean for evolutionary theory? I don’t see it as refuting it, just as much as the many reported sightings of the Loch Ness monster. To my understanding, today’s theory is that dinosaurs got wiped out by a meteor 65 million years ago. Whether or not that’s true, it says nothing about the existence of an aquatic ocean-dwelling creature such as the Plesiosaurus. It isn’t hard for me to imagine there still being such a creature still in existence… I’m sure it was a surprise seeing the many fascinating creatures in Mariana’s Trench, with their sci-fi looking lights. There any even reports of a creature called a Megalodan — a beyond-belief ginormous shark.
If I’m understanding you right, you’re saying that my beliefs are lukewarm or that I’m selective in the data I accept, correct?
I view the Bible and science as two difference sources of knowledge. I cannot hope to find anything meaningful if all I research is in the realm of science. The stars will not tell me why I am here — and while some might find it interesting, or even poetic, that we are made of star dust, it still says absolutely nothing about the essence of what we are.
I find myself in the pages of the Bible. I see the greatest act of love and compassion in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. I see what it means to be human in the pages of ancient scripture and what it means to accept Jesus as savior … I do not see that in study of biology. I don’t think it’s possible to find love and mercy under a microscope. You might as well just reduce humanity to inanimate objects, because their is no grand difference, if that’s the way you think.
Seeing how I believe that God is responsible for Scripture and Creation, I take each both as serious as I can. And while they may overlap at times, and even compliment each other, I do not make the mistake in finding meaning and salvation in science, or finding complex technical scientific findings in the Bible.
-Tim
Really, a pleisosaurus?
It doesn’t.
I am sure you take the Scripture seriously but are you taking science seriously?
When they are in conflict on some really basic things (like behemoths), how do you harmonize your faith with science on really important things?