Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bluefugue · 03-15-2002, 07:46 AM

Quote:

The descriptions of the physical and behavioural characteristics of Behemoth are also not consistent with mythological creatures.

That's a meaningless assertion. Obviously a mythological creature can have whatever characteristics one wants to assign to it!

lpetrich · 03-15-2002, 07:49 AM

You guys might try using search engines a bit more. Under "hippopotamus", I found a lot of entries, and yes this beast (1) likes to live near water and (2) likes to eat grass. Thus fitting the description in the Book of Job very well.

bluefugue · 03-15-2002, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Oh, spin might enjoy going through that page and pointing out for us any errors in translation. They discuss "tail" in detail, but nowhere do they consider that it was a penis. Oh no, you'll never see such dirty talk on AiG. But hints of it abound; possible translations like "stiff", "delight", "erect". How could one not consider the johnson?

Yeah, the whole passage talks about loins and testicles. This is something for a Hebrew-reader to answer. Spin, or devnet, or Apikorus. I mean, what is the original Hebrew word? What does it mean? Can it be interpreted many different ways? Honestly, how hard can it be to get this stuff straight? (Well heck, King James couldn't manage it... and he's an absolute monarch!

)

theyeti · 03-15-2002, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IesusDomini:

Yeti: Reptiles don't have penises? What do they have? Are eggs fertilized outside the body, as with fish? How about birds? What do they have?

I never realized I was so ignorant of non-mammalian anatomy.

They have hemipenises. They are internal until its time to copulate. I don't know much about them, but I'm pretty sure they look nothing like penises, though it's possible that they're homologous. Hemipenises are not used for excreting wastes like penises are. Instead, reptiles/birds/dinos (presumably) have a cloaca, which excretes both feces and nitogenous wastes (urea, which is insoluable, but we convert urea into soluable urine). Anyway, you're not going to see a hemipenis until it's time for mating, and even then I'm not sure that one would look that impressive.

theyeti

P.S. Just remembered, the StraightDope had an article about dinosaur copulation. Here it is: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001006.html" target="_blank">How did dinosaurs have sex?</a> My favorite line: "I guess it would work, although having studied the illustrations of hypothetical dinosaur couplings I still think you'd want one of those taxiway guys at the airport with flashlights." Enjoy!

[edited to add] <a href="http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/people/victorng/dino/dinosex.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is another page on dinosaur sex. It's quite possible that they had what we might call "penises" afterall. Here's the relevant passage:

Quote:

Again by looking at the sex organs of birds and reptiles, we have a two way choice for potential organs. For one choice, we have the cloaca. It is an organ which also serves as the animal's anus and both sexes have this organ. The couple performs a cloacal kiss that involves the two cloaca touching and sperm is transferred to the female during this time. Sex is usually brief and penetration is not deep because of the lack of any external protruding organs like a penis. Cloacae are found in most flying birds, probably because the male must fertilize the female quickly during flight (no time for foreplay while flying!). As many dinosaurs were bipedal and land-based, I think it would be more educational to look at the flightless birds like the rhea and ostrich. If we do, we get our second sex organ option - the external penis.

Turtles and crocodiles also have an external penis. Male lizards have a weird double sac structure while the female has a cloaca. I tend to believe male dinosaurs had an external penis instead of a cloaca for several reasons. Crocodiles are one of the older reptiles that may have been closer to dinosaurs than other reptiles. Similarly, the flightless birds had skeletal structures similar to several bird-like dinosaurs like Gallimimus. We could argue that a dinosaur's sex organs would be similar to its close relatives like the crocodile or to the birds that were most close in structure to dinosaurs - the flightless birds. We can further say that the very massive bodies of dinosaurs needed a very high percentage of fertilization because of the coordination needed during intercourse. An external penis could enter the female dinosaur and ensure that sperm could enter her. The penis also could serve as a physical guide and anchor to grip onto the female and keep the two dinosaurs locked together as they moved about during sex. The alternative of two cloaca would have the organs sliding over each other easily and possibly having a higher miss percentage for getting sperm into the female.

Still, no indication on how big they would be or whether or not they would get a stiffy.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]

nogods4me · 03-15-2002, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IesusDomini:
A hippo's penis (when erect) probably is pretty huge compared to a human's.

Speak for yourself

bluefugue · 03-15-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:


Speak for yourself

That's what I love about this board, the sober, mature scientific discussion...

RufusAtticus · 03-15-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IesusDomini:
Creationists also refer to the "Behemoth" passage in Job as suggesting a dinosaur living in Biblical times (King James version):

It is claimed (by Robert Pennock in Tower of Babel among others) that "tail" is a bowdlerization of "penis." (I can't read Hebrew, but the earlier mention of "loins" and the subsequent reference to "stones" would seem to support this interpretation.) If we remove the "tail" detail there is no reason the Behemoth couldn't be, say, a hippopotamus (unless hippos don't eat grass?). Yet I still hear the "Behemoth" passage mentioned by creationists from time to time. It's another one of those dubious memes that dies hard.

You should note that "penis" itself means tail. Check out any Latin dictionary. Don't you just love euphamisims.

-RvFvS

Kosh · 03-15-2002, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:

You should note that "penis" itself means tail. Check out any Latin dictionary. Don't you just love euphamisims.

Well,that's the last time I ask the wife for
"a little tail"....

spin · 03-15-2002, 04:07 PM

His penis stiffens like a pine;
his testicles bulge with vigor.

He moveth his tail like a cedar:
the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

The first translation is going beyond the literal text, ie penis is not in the text and the only other place that the word is found is in Judges 15:4, where it clearly means tail. As to the second part, the word translated as "stones" here is only used once in the Tanakh, so one cannot know from the Hebrew what is meant, yet the Latin phrase is interesting: "nervi testiculorum eius perplexi sunt" -- the nerves of his testicles are knotted/interwoven. That's where the "stones" translation comes from. The Greek gives up on the Hebrew word and doesn't translate it, giving only "sinews". We've gotta go with the Latin for the second part, hoping that translator knew what he was doing -- we have no other leads to go on!

Dr Rick · 03-15-2002, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
...his testicles bulge with vigor...

Dinosaur "blue-balls"?!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 07:49 AM	#22
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	You guys might try using search engines a bit more. Under "hippopotamus", I found a lot of entries, and yes this beast (1) likes to live near water and (2) likes to eat grass. Thus fitting the description in the Book of Job very well.

03-15-2002, 04:07 PM	#29
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. The first translation is going beyond the literal text, ie penis is not in the text and the only other place that the word is found is in Judges 15:4, where it clearly means tail. As to the second part, the word translated as "stones" here is only used once in the Tanakh, so one cannot know from the Hebrew what is meant, yet the Latin phrase is interesting: "nervi testiculorum eius perplexi sunt" -- the nerves of his testicles are knotted/interwoven. That's where the "stones" translation comes from. The Greek gives up on the Hebrew word and doesn't translate it, giving only "sinews". We've gotta go with the Latin for the second part, hoping that translator knew what he was doing -- we have no other leads to go on!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.