FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-07-2001, 01:30 AM   #1
emc2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post Dinosaur in the Bible?

It is mentioned (someone showed me but I can't recall where) where they felt a dinosaur was mentioned walking amongst the people. Common knowledge dictates that dinos haven't been around for mostly 65m yrs. So I am asking, what was this animal that the Bible was referencing that "had a tail of a tree trunk?" I can't answer this question based on my knowledge of animals that existed since Homo Homo Sapiens. Hopefully someone will know what I am referring to, but if not, I will have the passage in a few days.
emc2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 06:26 AM   #2
cloudyphiz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: rochester, ny, usa
Posts: 658
Post

i was pretty sure that the passage they were citing was in job. a quick search @ google.com turned up this:

i laughed until my head came off

maybe devnet or someone else will come along and explain the language better than this site does. as i understand it, job is most likely the oldest book in the bible and it's not of hebrew origin. my guess would be that 'leg' was mistranslated to 'tail' and the author was indeed talking about an elephant.

bible gateway would seem to back this up

-gary
cloudyphiz is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 06:34 AM   #3
cloudyphiz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: rochester, ny, usa
Posts: 658
Post

err... if you just read the rest of the chapter it's pretty clear that the author isn't talking about anything like the 'Diplodocus and Apatosaurus' as the xian propaganda site above would have it.

job 40:21
Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

i don't think reeds in a marsh will hide anthing much bigger than a hippo...

-gary
cloudyphiz is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 06:56 AM   #4
Oolon Colluphid
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Question

I've read that behemoth's 'tail' is a euphemism for penis (and hence it's not a dinosaur, which not being mammals wouldn't have had external genitalia). But the various translations I've tried (inc Young's literal) don't indicate this. Anyone know for sure?

TTFN, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 09:33 AM   #5
Boro Nut
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Post

This sort of misinformed blinkered American isolationist thinking realy gets to me. Fair enough, dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, I accept that. But behemoths and leviathns have been bred successfuly in European zoos for donkeys years. Please take time to get your facts right.
Boro Nut is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 11:38 AM   #6
Muad'Dib
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
<STRONG>I've read that behemoth's 'tail' is a euphemism for penis (and hence it's not a dinosaur, which not being mammals wouldn't have had external genitalia). But the various translations I've tried (inc Young's literal) don't indicate this. Anyone know for sure?</STRONG>
It is, just as "feet" is often used for the same purpose (which gives Ruth a whole new twist). Literal translations will tend to translate even euphamisms literally.
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 07:48 PM   #7
Late_Cretaceous
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Alberta
Posts: 1,049
Post


I know of a web-site that deals with dinosaurs in the bible. I honestly thought it was an elaborate joke. I even e-mailed the author complimenting him on his creativity. I was surprised to see that he was serious. My bad.

Here is the reply he sent me


From: Scott &lt;job41@yahoo.com&gt;
Date: Fri, Nov 2 2001 6:02:55 AM -0800 (PST)

Hi there.. thanks for the email and for
visiting my page on Creation and the Bible at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs
Please tell others about my site.

What is it that makes you think my site is a
sattire?

I am working on a new page for my friend Dr.
Cuozzo about Neanderthal man and how their
bones have been altered in an attempt to support
evolution. The website exposing this fraud is at http://www.jackcuozzo.com

Please let me know what you think of it.

thanks,
Scott
job41@yahoo.com


Late_Cretaceous is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 08:07 PM   #8
cloudyphiz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: rochester, ny, usa
Posts: 658
Post



Quote:
What is it that makes you think my site is a
sattire?
and it wasn't even a rhetorical question...


(edited because angelfire stinks)

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: cloudyphiz ]
cloudyphiz is offline  
Old 11-07-2001, 08:29 PM   #9
Jesse
Moderator - Science Discussions
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 9,908
Post

From Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against The New Creationism:

Quote:
Dinosaurs, they claim, are mentioned in the Bible as the Behemoth and the Leviathan. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) scientists say that the former was probably a dinosaur because of its Scriptural description. They give away posters of a seated man observing what appears to be an Apatosaurus with the scriptural passage from Job: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together" (40:15-17). At the Museum of Creation and Earth History, our guide drew the children's attention to the phrase "he moveth his tail like a cedar," noting that no animal we know of besides dinosaurs had a tail so large. Scholars of biblical Hebrew would have to stifle a chuckle if they heard this exegesis, for the King James translation utilizes the term "tail" as a common euphemism for the male genital member. Stephen Mitchell's authoritative translation of the book of Job removes the linguistic fig-leaf and renders the passage somewhat differently: "Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor."
I don't think it's 100% certain that the Hebrew word in question should be translated as "penis" here, although the fact that they immediately followed mention of the animal's "tail" with mention of its "stones" gives strong support to this interpretation. Anyway, Stephen Mitchell is not alone in translating it that way...from John Gill's (1697-1771) lengthy Bible commentaries, here's what he said about that verse:

Quote:
Verse 17. He moveth his tail like a cedar,.... To which it is compared, not for the length and largeness of it; for the tail both of the elephant and of the river horse [hippopotamus] is short; though Vartomannus {c} says, the tail of the elephant is like a buffalo's, and is four hands long, and thin of hair: but because of the smoothness, roundness, thickness, and firmness of it; such is the tail of the river horse, being like that of a hog or boar {d}; which is crooked, twisted, and which it is said to turn back and about at pleasure, as the word used is thought to signify. Aben Ezra interprets it, "maketh to stand": that is, stiff and strong, and firm like a cedar. One writer {e} speaks of the horse of the Nile, as having a scaly tail; but he seems to confound it with the sea horse. Junius interprets it of its penis, its genital part; to which the Targum in the King's Bible is inclined: and Cicero {f} says, the ancients used to call that the tail; but that of the elephant, according to Aristotle {g}, is but small, and not in proportion to the size of its body; and not in sight, and therefore can hardly be thought to be described; though the next clause seems to favour this sense:
the sinews of his stones are wrapped together; if by these are meant the testicles, as some think, so the Targums; the sinews of which were wreathed, implicated and ramified, like branches of trees, as Montanus renders it. Bochart interprets this of the sinews or nerves of the river horse, which having such plenty of them, are exceeding strong; so that, as some report, this creature will with one foot sink a boat {h}; I have known him open his mouth, says a traveller {i}, and set one tooth on the gunnel of a boat, and another on the second strake from the keel, more than four feet distant, and there bite a hole through the plank, and sink the boat.
{c} Navigat. l. 4. c. 9. {d} Aristot. Plin. Solin. & Isidore ut supra. (See Job 40:16.) {e} Nicet. Choniat. apud Fabrit. Gr. Bibliothec. vol. 6. p. 410. {f} Epist. l. 9. ep. 22. {g} Hist. Amimal. l. 2. c. 1. {h} Apud Hierozoic, par. 2. l. 5. c. 14. col. 758. {i} Dampier's Voyages, vol. 2. part 2. p. 105.
From http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/large/gill/job40.htm
Jesse is offline  
Old 11-09-2001, 11:51 AM   #10
emc2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

So am I to understand that this passage is actually in reference to a Hippo's stiffy?
emc2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.