As I stated, for the benefit of Pete and anybody else:
Please read this thread. The succeeding verses, which are more lengthy and detailed, clearly contradict the idea of a sauropod dinosaur, which would be too large to hide in reeds or shade under lotus like water plants. That the idea of a dinosaur here is even entertained by YEC demonstrates their readiness to misrepresent both science and scripture in their blinkered pursuit of dogma.
Re-read what I have said more closely. I have never confused behemoth with leviathan, the multi-headed, fire breathing, sea monster.
Magyarosaurus dacus could have hid in reeds, but was not a very typical sauropod, being a 6-meter long, 1-meter tall dwarf titanosaur from Hatzeg (romanized) Island.
One thinks a crocodile might be a better match, though it doesn’t eat grass. Not sure how familiar a desert living culture would be with either, so may not be an accurate description of whatever it was. Of course, then the discussion goes towards the inerrancy issue, if it is taken literally.
Agreed that there are smaller dinosaurs, and it does not have to be restricted to a sauropod. But the image AiG and other YEC organizations present relates to the large animals, and such an identification is contrary to the rest of the passage in Job.
A herbivorous, fully-grown sauropod dinosaur would certainly match the description in Job 40. Consider for example Dreadnoughtus schrani , the former existence of which is now known from an “exceptionally complete” fossil skeleton unearthed in Argentina, reported in 2014.3 Lead discoverer Ken Lacovara of Drexel University (Philadelphia, USA) described Dreadnoughtus (‘fear nothing’) this way:
“So, everything about this dinosaur is giant . The femur [the longest, thickest leg bone] is six feet tall. … The tailbones are gargantuan with huge muscle scars that show us that it essentially had a weaponized tail that was 30 feet long. … this incredibly large and muscled individual that would have feared nothing in its landscape … And this is an incredibly bulky, massively muscled tail—everything about this speaks to its power .”
Now there’s a tail consistent with the ‘cedar’ parallel of Job 40. And as any child familiar with the pin-the-tail party game would surely recognize, such a bulky, massively-muscled tail doesn’t belong on a hippo, or elephant.
Note that nothing in that article even mentions the hiding in reeds.
In that case they are not going by the laws of the Jewish Sabbath. The Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday evening, not at some fixed time. If you’ve ever had an Orthodox Jewish co-worker, you know how he has to be home by sundown on Friday night.
So let me get this straight… you are rejecting my view because apparently a physical attribute of the biblical description of the animal is of no importance, however the ability of the large animal to hide in reeds (of which no one has seen in modern day times) should cause doubt in my argument?
Can anyone not see the problem here? Are you saying there were no large reeds in dinosaur times? Does anyone know what bamboo looks like and how tall it grows? Arewe also familiar itis a member of the grass family. Are we not aware there are other modern perenial grasses that can grow as high as 6m and and Australia for example these are known as a “giant reed”?
I am truly suprised that there appears to be the claim we can have incredibly large extinct animals but not equally massive plants that would support a population of large animals? To me that claim would be as silly as the claim God, as an after thought, allowed sin into this world to introduce a mechanism for population control!
We note that the verse may not actually be stating that the behemoth hid in the reeds. It says, it lies under the Lotus Trees in a covert of reeds and marsh.
Two things:
the description has the animal laying down…so the reeds and marsh do not need to be of a massive height for the animal to hide in that prone position and,
its lying under Lotus trees clearly shading itself using the cover of those trees and not specifically the reeds and marshes. I would argue that the simplest explanation is that these reeds and marshes are more of the term used to define the type of undergrowth and we know that very large animals can easily hide in rather small undergrowth when laying down…so i do not see a conflict with my belief here. That is entirely different from claiming a cedar tree like tail is found on a hippo…which is clearly false.
btw has anyone actually studied how large Lotus Trees grow? The Enclopedia Britannica outlines that these trees were capable of heights from 12-30 metres.
Wikipedia says
In the Bible, the Book of Job also has two lines (40:21–22), with the Hebrew word צֶאֱלִים ( tse’elim ),[5] which appears nowhere else in the Bible. A recent translation into English has been “lotus trees” since the publication of the Revised Version of the King James Bible of 1881. However it is otherwise rendered simply as “shady trees”.[6]
Christians are obliged to keep the Sabbath day (as part of the Ten Commandments), but are not obliged to keep it the same way Jews do. The Christian Sabbath is celebrated on Sunday (the day of the Resurrection), not Saturday.
Christians follow Jesus right. So where in the bible is your reference claiming Jesus changed the Sabath to Sunday?
i can show comprehensively that the day was changed after AD 150… 120 years after Christs death, and ratified in 4th century. That leaves the early 1st century Christians as Seventh day Sabbath keepers…incl all of the apostles!
From the ultimate source, Wikipedia:
“ The lotus tree (Greek: λωτός, lōtós ) is a plant that is referred to in stories from Greek and Roman mythology.
The lotus tree is mentioned in Homer’s Odyssey as bearing a fruit that caused a pleasant drowsiness, and which was said to be the only food of an island people called the Lotophagi or lotus-eaters. When they ate of the lotus tree they would forget their friends and homes and would lose their desire to return to their native land in favor of living in idleness.[1] Botanical candidates for the lotus tree include the persimmon ( Diospyros lotus ), which is a sub-evergreen tree native to Southwest Asia and Southeast Europe that grows to about 25 ft (7.6 m) bearing yellowish green flowers, as well as Ziziphus lotus , a plant with an edible fruit closely related to the jujube, native to the Mediterranean region of Europe, Asia and North Africa.
In Ovid’s Metamorphoses ,[2] the nymphLotis was the beautiful daughter of Neptune, the god of water and the sea. In order to flee the violent attention of Priapus, she invoked the assistance of the gods, who answered her prayers by turning her into a lotus tree.[3]
The Quran has a legendary plant, the Lote tree, that marks the end of the seventh heaven.[4] In the Bible, the Book of Jobalso has two lines (40:21–22), with the Hebrew word צֶאֱלִים ( tse’elim ),[5] which appears nowhere else in the Bible. A recent translation into English has been “lotus trees” since the publication of the Revised Version of the King James Bible of 1881. However it is otherwise rendered simply as “shady trees”.[6]”
Thus the problem with translation. It appears the RKJV uses a mythical tree from Greek mythology to translate a word that is only used twice in the Bible, and no one really knows what it means, but some think it means what they want it to mean. Perhaps having a mythical beast resting in the shade of a mythical tree is an accurate translation after all.
For the Christian community, the real question is not what the literal meaning is, but rather what is the message God is trying to convey through the ages using the concepts and understanding of the original author and audience.
You base all of that on this in your referencing of a ridiculous article…God is talking about a penis via a poetic statement of a Cedar tree like gigantic tail?
I’m sorry but that is fanciful at best.
I’ve not ever noticed a Cedar tree like penis sticking out of a hippos rear end before have you? This quote below is nonsense at best.
highly euphemistic language which focuses the reader upon one body part in particular: Behemoth’s penis. Through the transformation of the was.f , the poet highlights and emphasizes the monster’s massive genitalia
and the author above gets it penis visuals from the following? Really?
“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
