From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Behemoth
>>>CQ3> Where did you get your information that states that the word "Behemoth" (in Job) is the same as "dinosaur"?
>>CQ2> Hebrew B'Hemah means a large beast, it could apply to many animals.
>CQ> That it could. With that in mind, we must consider other evidence in our attempts to interpret.
Behemoth is the plural of Behemah, which is translated as either beast or cattle. Behemoth literally means beasts, but is used in the singular sense of large beast or intensified sense of beastly beast. (Or, grin, maybe even terrible-lizard, i.e., dino-saur. :)
>>CQ2> As I say nothing alive today fits this description, but, it does seem to fit Brontosaurus.
>CQ> The description also fits _Hippopotamus amphibius_, a large, gregarious mammal most of us are familiar with. Commonly known as "hippos,"... Such an animal would fill the bill quite nicely as "behemoth."
It only fills the bill of the term, not the description, since the hippo obviously doesn't have a note-worthy tail like a cedar.
>CQ> Of course... much of this is moot since Job is a poetical book and Behemoth may simply be symbolic.
Symbolic like the lion, raven, goats, horse, hawk, eagle, etc., mentioned just before behemoth? The eagle is said to dwell and abide on the rock, and able to "behold afar off." Sounds literal to me.
>CQ> Only the fundamentalists want to make Behemoth literally indicative of something.
What fundamentalists may or may not want, is not relevant. The account plainly begins: "Behold -NOW- behemoth, which I made -WITH- thee..." We're dealing with some sort of creature contemporary with Job which he could behold, either directly or in his mind's eye by being familiar with such a creature.
(Please see next message. Thanks. :)
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Behemoth
>>CQ3> Furthermore, this description of the behemouth fits that of a CROCODILE.
>CQ> I have to go with [name] on this one as far as the behemoth being a plant eater.
Yep, that "he eateth grass as an ox," was the 1st thing mentioned.
>CQ> Check out what else is said about him:
"He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about." (Job.40:21,22, Author's Version 1611 A.V.)
>CQ> It seems unlikely that a brontosaurus could be hidden in marshes. Large hippos certainly would have difficulty!
The behemoth was "hidden" (your term) from the sun by the SHADOW of the trees, not hidden from Job's sight by willows around him. Since we can't coax behemoth out of the shadow for a better look, how about we look closer at the description, in order, and behold:
>1> eateth grass as an ox (Job.40:15)
>2> strength in his loins (Job.40:16a)
>3> force in the navel of his belly (Job.40:16b)
>4> moveth his tail like a cedar (Job.40:17a)
>5> sinews of his -STONES- are wrapped together (Job.40:17b)
> (uh oh, so much for the hippo, crocodile and brontosaurus! grin :)
>6> strong bones, like brass/iron (Job.40:18)
>7> not easy to approach unto (Job.40:19)
>8> likes mountainous, shady, willowy areas. (Job.40:20-22)
>9> drinks a lot of water (Job.40:23)
>10> piercing (pointed?) nose (Job.40:24)
Behold now Stegosaurus:
1. plant eater; 2. strong loins; 3. forceful belly; 4. large tail with sharp spikes as chief means of protection; 5. distinctive large stone-like plates along it's backbone; 6. strong bones; 7. hard to approach (watch out for that tail!); 8. remains found in Rocky "mountains"; 9. remains found near water, in strata supposed to have been previously tropical; 10. pointed nose.
Pretty conclusive. The "stones" (Hebrew: pachad) seem to be the key. Pach is a plate, and as a verb, pachad is, to be startled or make to shake. Some time ago, I saw an animated portrayal of a Stegosaurus with it shaking the plates on it's backbone in a most startling way. Behemoth may be extinct now, but Job could certainly "behold" him! (Now if we could just learn the lesson of these things... grin :)
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be unto you. Amen. --Richard
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Re: Behemoth - Bronto/Hip
>>RC> Behemoth is the plural of Behemah, which is translated as either beast or cattle. Behemoth literally means beasts, but is used in the singular sense of large beast or intensified sense of beastly beast. (Or, grin, maybe even terrible-lizard, i.e., dino-saur. :)
>>>CQ> The description also fits _Hippopotamus amphibius_, ... Such an animal would fill the bill quite nicely as "behemoth."
>>RC> It only fills the bill of the term, not the description, since the hippo obviously doesn't have a note-worthy tail "like a cedar."
>CQ> That depends. Even a tiny tail on a four-ton specimen, small compared to the body of the animal, might be large by other standards.
But not "note-worthy." The behemoth is the 13th creature mentioned in the account, and certainly many of the others have tails, but not so worthy of especial notice like that of behemoth. Come on now Friend, look at a picture of a hippo: you have to look close to even see the tail. It's certainly not a major feature. (Give it up! :)
>CQ> It may interest you to know that there is no ancient Hebrew word that translates into "Hippopotomus."
No single word, but then, Hippo-potamus is from two words, meaning river-horse, which would correspond to hebrew "Nehar-soos." (grin :)
>CQ> So, in order to define what a "behemoth" might have been, we must take the description and compare it with known animal forms of the area. Dinosaurs were not extant when Job was being written.
"Ha, ha." The same people that tell you there were no dinosaurs in that area then, also say the hippopotamus wasn't there either. The hippopotamus supposedly "vanished outside of Africa by the end of the Pleistocene Epoch." The Jordan river is mentioned in the account, not the Nile. The land of Uz was in Asia, not Africa.
(Please see next message. Thanks. :)
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Stegosaurus Not!
OK, Friend, since we agree that some of those enumerated points match either the hippo or the stego, how about we look at those that don't:
>Behemoth:>
>>RC> 4. moveth his tail like a cedar (Job.40:17a)
>Stegosaurus:>
>>RC> 4. large tail with sharp spikes as chief means of protection;
>CQ> MOVETH? It doesn't say his tail either looked like a cedar or was as large. He simply moved it, in symbolic language, powerfully.
Movement of a LARGE TREE would hardly be symbolic of a barely noticable hippo-tail, but certainly symbolic of a stego-tail! Of all creatures, can you think of any with a more awesome tail?!
>Behemoth:>
>>RC> 5. sinews of his -STONES- are wrapped together (Job.40:17b)
>Stegosaurus:>
>>RC> 5. distinctive large stone-like plates along it's backbone;
>CQ> "Stones" does not appear in other translations.
Their loss. The "stones" (Hebrew: pachad) are the key. Pach is a PLATE, and as a verb, pachad is, to be startled or make to shake. Again, the most recent portrayals of the Stegosaurus show it shaking the plates on it's backbone in a most fearful way.
>CQ> If this were the appropriate echo, we could get into the uses of Hebrew words and what has happened from translation to translation as well as what we know now that the 1611 translators didn't.
Or what they knew that you don't? (Side-stepping the stones? :)
>Behemoth:>
>>RC> 10. piercing (pointed?) nose (Job.40:24)
>Stegosaurus:>
>>RC> 10. pointed nose.
>CQ> My version says "Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?" Nothing about a piercing or pointed nose, here, unless my Hebrew is REAL rusty.
"...his nose pierceth through snares." (Job.40:24b)
>Heb. 'aph - nose or snout >Heb. naqab - pierce or puncture
>Heb. 'al - through or between >Heb. mokashe - snare or noose
>CQ> The last stegosaurus died millions of years before Job was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
Says who? The hippo, brontosaurus, and crocodile don't meet all the specs. Only the stegosaurus matches all the descriptive points.
(If we could just learn the lesson of these things... grin :)
From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: BEHEMOTH - STEGOSAURUS! :)
>CQ> Gotta point this out. Just because Stegosaurus remains are found in the rockies, doesn't mean that they lived near mountains.
Stegosaurus remains have been found in the Black Hills of South Dakota in a notable area that includes such tourist attractions as the Petrified Forest and Mount Rushmore and of course, Dinosaur Park.
>CQ> We're talking about over 65 million years of plate tectonics.
We? Not me. I don't believe the so-called "geologic time scale" is the least bit reliable. You realize that it was based upon a limited area of sedimentary rocks in Europe, and then the rock sequence in that area was adopted as a "standard" (loose term) for other areas; and when the sequence in other areas doesn't match, they do a juggling act to explain why supposedly hundred-million year old rocks are found in RECENT strata. Come on, people, give me a break. (If circular reasoning is bad, then juggling reasoning is worse. :)
>CQ> Before you make that claim, you better check if the rockies were actually mountains back in the jurassic period.
Before you make claims about the so-called "Jurassic" period, you better get you a time scale based on facts and reality. (grin :)
>CQ> Also, the claim that the plates shook can't be taken as fact. No one knows how stegosaurus really looked.
What it looked like IN ACTION may not be certain, but its general appearance can be reasonably known from the remains found. But that isn't critical to the comparison. The text doesn't say whether or not the plate-like "stones" of Behemoth shook either. That the plates of the Stegosaurus were capable of movement is certain. Now, just what sort of movement... is left somewhat to conjecture:
"Although it had a small brain, it is now generally accepted that an enlargement of the spinal chord in the hip region controlled the large hind legs and tail with its spikes, so the lack of a large brain does not necessarily mean that it couldn't coordinate muscular control of the plates"; so maybe they just waved in a coordinated fashion, instead of shaking spasmodically involuntarily; Whatever.
>CQ> The location of the plates as radiator plates is really just a scientific theory that is generally accepted. To say that the plates shook, based upon an animated model, doesn't hold much water.
Again, the purpose of the plates (radiator or otherwise) is not critical to the comparison. And the animation was based upon the assumption that the plates were movable, not the other way around.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be unto you. Amen. -- Richard
| Go to Feedback Page to Reply to this message |
| Return to SCIENCE index | | Return to MAIN page |
URL of this page: http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/science/stego.htm