Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Job 40:15 to 41:10

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
1 ¶ Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

Pretty clear cut description of a brontosaurus{sp}{land dinosaur veggie eater} and a pleisiasaurus{sp}{water dinosaur}.

Although most Bibles footnote it to be a hippo and an alligator.

So how would Job have known what God was talking about without asking 'Whats up with that?' Did the palentologist already dug up the skeltons by jobs time so he would understand?

 

[JazzManJim]

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

And this is what I want on my gravestone.

Hell, you can say it at my funeral:

"Jimmie may not have been a great man, but, boy, the sinews of his stones were wrapped. And how."

Todd...enjoyed the last thread on the subject. I may even jump in once in a while. It's give my Thompson's Chain Reference Bible a good workout. It hasn't had one in a while.

 

[heterotic]

I'll have to give this round to the Bible. I've watched quite a few nature shows in my day, but I've never, ever seen a hippo with a tail like a cedar tree.
I think archaeology has a bit to learn about interpreting fossils, and there's a chance that humans and dinosaurs co-existed for some period.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

And this is what I want on my gravestone.

Hell, you can say it at my funeral:

"Jimmie may not have been a great man, but, boy, the sinews of his stones were wrapped. And how."

Todd...enjoyed the last thread on the subject. I may even jump in once in a while. It's give my Thompson's Chain Reference Bible a good workout. It hasn't had one in a while.

Thompson's Chain Reference Bible? Please just don't tell me its an NIV too?

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Thompson's Chain Reference Bible? Please just don't tell me its an NIV too?

<scoff>

Are you kidding? It's KJV, and far superior to the Scofield Reference I have, and the New Scofield (which apparently includes some translations that lead me to believe that maybe Mr. Scofield was drunk).

You don't dig the Thompson's? Man, it's the best reference Bible I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. It's a bit of an art among up Baptists, y'see. It's the one way we can subtly one-up our fellow Christians. We even engage in Study Bible snobbery, adding colored post-its and index tabs and note cards to further demonstrate our studiousness and piety. God help the poser who shows up with a <cough> gift bible without even the essentials of red-lettering and colored maps of the Holy Land. He'd be "cliqued out" in short order.

Ow...that hurt.

My tongue was too damned firmly stuck into my cheek. Remind me not to do that again.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

HEHEHE so true JazzManJim.

I don't really have anything against except Thompson's amillienial view spin on things, but for the most part doesn't affect the rest to badly.

Oh I know the baptist study bible snobbery well, I run for the most part in Baptist circles and the only way to fit in when I do is to carry my Vondervan Large Print, Interliner hebrew greek, KJV, Thompson chain, Expositional doctrinal 34 pound bible under my arm.

If your interested maybe you already have it or have seen it check out a NewBerry Bible

I agree Scoffield was drunk or smoking something

 

[Black_Bird]

Pretty clear cut description of a brontosaurus{sp}{land dinosaur veggie eater} and a pleisiasaurus{sp}{water dinosaur}.

... Um... I seriously doubt this. The description of the Behemoth speaks *nothing* about being able to reach the highest branch of a tree. In my mind, this would be the first thing they would point out. Also - brontosaurus didn't eat the grass on the ground, while Behemoth clearly did.

My guess: Behemoth and Leviathon were creatures of a myth that was told to Hebrew children to scare them into bed... a myth that has been lost.

Although most Bibles footnote it to be a hippo and an alligator.

Yep... both are far more likely then the animals you suggested.

So how would Job have known what God was talking about without asking 'Whats up with that?' Did the palentologist already dug up the skeltons by jobs time so he would understand?

Explaination above. Um... Just out of curiousity though, where were you going with this?

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Explaination above. Um... Just out of curiousity though, where were you going with this?

Well the above verses are God speaking to Job.

And where I was going was why if God was talking to Job would God use a myth? If he is trying to demostrate to Job, Job's inability compared to His{God} own ability. Why would he use something Job would only know about in story/mtyh form? Wouldn't it be more suitable to use something Job would be familiar with?

 

[Black_Bird]

Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Well the above verses are God speaking to Job.

And where I was going was why if God was talking to Job would God use a myth? If he is trying to demostrate to Job, Job's inability compared to His{God} own ability. Why would he use something Job would only know about in story/mtyh form? Wouldn't it be more suitable to use something Job would be familiar with?

*Shrugs* Good point. Maybe he and the other writers of the Bible doesn't know it's just a myth... Or maybe it really is a hippo and a croc.

My point is, it is highly unlikely that they are speaking about two Dinosaurs... but as I said before, until we clone the writers and ask just what the hell they were thinking, we will never know.

 

[phrodeau]

Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Well the above verses are God speaking to Job.

And where I was going was why if God was talking to Job would God use a myth? If he is trying to demostrate to Job, Job's inability compared to His{God} own ability. Why would he use something Job would only know about in story/mtyh form? Wouldn't it be more suitable to use something Job would be familiar with?

Why wouldn't God use a myth? He uses hyperbole - "Behold, he drinketh up a river", "His bones are as strong pieces of brass". He uses contradictory images - "He eateth grass as an ox", "Surely the mountains bring him forth food." (There's not much grass on the mountains.) He uses absurdities - "...mountains...where all the beasts of the field play." He insults Job and mankind with "He is the chief of the ways of God". (Of course, this is assuming the lauded KJV is an accurate translation.)

The last few chapters of Job are riddled with mythologic imagery, including an account of Creation far different than the Genesis accounts. How should anyone accept this as divinely inspired?

 

[Texan]

Just another thought

Many (most) biblical scholars believe the book of Job was written by at least five different authors. There are three separate sections with little congruity between the sections, and the writing styles are very different.

There is little doubt, the book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible. It is probably a compilation of older manuscripts that were written long before the authors had the Pentatuch upon which to base their "theology".

The book is a wonderful read, but causes problems for people who try to use it to "define" God.

 

[patient1]

tail like a cedar tree aside, couldn't this be just a poetic description of an elephant?

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Why wouldn't God use a myth?

Because in this case, God was illustrating a concrete point. The sections regarding Leviathin and Behemoth were part of a greater lecture form God to Job.

I'll paraphrase.

Job has been tormented directly by Satan in the hopes that he will renounce his belief in God. God has allowed this to prove to Satan that Job's belief is of the "fair weather" variety.

So, toward the end of the ordeal, Job is praying and asks God a very basic question, "Why?". He wants to know why, since he's been so very devout and such a good man and faithful, God has allowed such tragedy to befall him.

God shows up in a very impressive fashion and shows Job a few things: Behemoth and Leviathin - immense and powerful creatures, wonders of heaven and earth, etc. He then basically says to Job, "Did you make them? Can you make anything? No? Okay then. I did. I'm God, and I can do whatever I wish, without explaining anything to you."

It was a harsh answer, but it served to illustrate just how powerful God is and how small we are in the scheme of the universe. It also illustrated the more important point that, though we are so very insignificant in size and power in the Universe, God has chosen to love us and pay attention to our every minute of life, and that ought to mean something to us. If he pays us such attention, we shouldn't doubt for a moment that he is making sure that what happens to us does so for a damned good reason and, though we may not understand what those reasons are, He knows and we should have the basic level of trust in him that we do our earthly fathers that He is looking out for what, ultimately, is best.

That's the point of the whole passage, B&L included.

Yeah, the allegory is thick. It's thick for a reason. It's describing might and power in exaggerated terms, to emphasize the scale of size between them and us, and, incidentally, the power of the One who created them.

Whether or not B&L were dinosaurs isn't really important. Some Creationists use is as "proof", but, at best, it's suggestive of animals larger than a hippo or croc. I happen to think that the passage describe a couple dinosaurs quite well, but that by no means indicates that it's what I think was actualy described. It could be, but I don't know, and no one else, short of God and Job do either.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

The last few chapters of Job are riddled with mythologic imagery, including an account of Creation far different than the Genesis accounts. How should anyone accept this as divinely inspired?

Easy. Each places uses a different narrative style to tell the same story. Genesis uses a relatively sparse "reporterlike" style to tell what was happening, while Job uses far more poetic imagery designed to make a point.

In other words, if Job were "Casey at the Bat", then the Genesis account would read something like: "Mudville was behind by three runs in the bottom of the ninth inning when Casey Jones' turn to bat came. He struck out on three pitches. The crowd was disappointed".

The same event, told different ways for different purposes. We do it, why can't God?

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

The last few chapters of Job are riddled with mythologic imagery, including an account of Creation far different than the Genesis accounts. How should anyone accept this as divinely inspired?

Easy. Each places uses a different narrative style to tell the same story. Genesis uses a relatively sparse "reporterlike" style to tell what was happening, while Job uses far more poetic imagery designed to make a point.

In other words, if Job were "Casey at the Bat", then the Genesis account would read something like: "Mudville was behind by three runs in the bottom of the ninth inning when Casey Jones' turn to bat came. He struck out on three pitches. The crowd was disappointed".

The same event, told different ways for different purposes. We do it, why can't God?

 

[phrodeau]

tail like a cedar tree aside, couldn't this be just a poetic description of an elephant?

A footnote in one of my bibles marks "tail" as possibly "trunk".

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Because in this case, God was illustrating a concrete point. The sections regarding Leviathin and Behemoth were part of a greater lecture form God to Job.

Granted, but that's the whole point of myth and legend, isn't it? It helps people to put things they don't understand into concrete ideas.

I seriously doubt the dinosaur thought, simply because at that time, there weren't a whole lot of paleontologists around tellin people about dinosaurs, and it would be completely out of Job's realm of understanding. Hebrew myth, however would be something he could relate to his frame of reference, and therefore understand.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Granted, but that's the whole point of myth and legend, isn't it? It helps people to put things they don't understand into concrete ideas.

I seriously doubt the dinosaur thought, simply because at that time, there weren't a whole lot of paleontologists around tellin people about dinosaurs, and it would be completely out of Job's realm of understanding. Hebrew myth, however would be something he could relate to his frame of reference, and therefore understand.

You're right about the purpose of myth, but the entire context of the preceding chapters indicate that he was speaking concretely. His references to natural phenomena were all things Job had seen and experienced.

I generally read those sections about B&L to read, "You know those whopping huge animals you gawk at? I made those."

I don't know *what* animals he was talking about, but I believe, just based on the text of the conversation, that he was talking about things Job had some experience with.

Though I'll grant your point of view is very possible, and a lot of scholars think you're right. I just read it another way. It seems to suit the tone of the chewing out God was giving Job.

The more interesting thing about the whole passage though, IMO, is not the specific references, but the incredible lecture God gave to Job. He came to him not as an understanding God of love who is interested in spreading peace, love, and understanding, but as a ticked off God who has just had his motivations questions by one of his subjects and has shown up to give that upstart human a display of divine mojo. It's one of the uncommon instances where God shows up ready to deliver a butt-chewing to an otherwise devoted and faithful follower. Maybe the secondary lesson here is, "No matter how devout you are, you're not above an ass-chewing".

 

[phrodeau]

There are those who would argue that these verses provide evidence that at least some dinosaurs were still living (and commonly seen) in Job's time.

There's no evidence that even large mammals like the mammoth or the cave bear could have still been alive at the time the Semites developed writing. And even if they had survived, no large animals would have lived near their domesticated lands.

 

[patient1]

A footnote in one of my bibles marks "tail" as possibly "trunk".

Thank you. Sometimes a lot gets lost in a simple translation error.
That has me thinking...

"16) Lo now, his strength is in his loins, & his force is in the navel of his belly. "

"17) He moveth his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his stones are wrapped together."

Tail could just as easily be "Penis"

I agree with JazzmanJim on the overview of the Book of Job.



If the God who made both meand an aroused bull elephant pointed out the differences in our "packages", I know I'd feel very insignificant.

I'm sure that in this passage, a Behemoth is a bull elephant. In other references it may be mythical. I think this is pretty straight forward.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

I generally read those sections about B&L to read, "You know those whopping huge animals you gawk at? I made those."

Jimmie, I think you need to write a translation of the bible. We'll call it the Bubba Version!

Seriously though, I haven't read the bible since high school when I had to do my semester paper for Brit Lit on the KJV. Maybe I'll have to find a copy and look some stuff up.

 

[JazzManJim]

There are those who would argue that these verses provide evidence that at least some dinosaurs were still living (and commonly seen) in Job's time.

There's no evidence that even large mammals like the mammoth or the cave bear could have still been alive at the time the Semites developed writing. And even if they had survived, no large animals would have lived near their domesticated lands.

True. The passage could be used, on its face, to argue either position. As written, it's not compelling evidence either way.

And again, it's true that there's no evidence that such large animals were contemporaries with the Semites. However, the actual date of the writing of the book hasn't been conclusively fixed (though the majority opinion places it between 8000 and 5000 BC), much less the events that occur in the book, which is believed to have happened even earlier. There isn't even a great indication that Job and the others mentioned in the book were Jewish, though. They could have been of another nationality, though I suspect that they were Jewish.

It's a detail that just isn't important to the story itself.

 

[patient1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Bird's Todd/Bible Bashing thread: leviathon & behemoth

Job has been tormented directly by Satan in the hopes that he will renounce his belief in God. God has allowed this to prove to Satan that Job's belief is of the "fair weather" variety.

I read this too quickly at first. Didn't you mean to say:
God has allowed this to prove to Satan that Job's belief is not of the "fair weather " variety?

 

[Topher]

I think archaeology has a bit to learn about interpreting fossils, and there's a chance that humans and dinosaurs co-existed for some period.

No chance. Well, birds are dinosaurs, so ok. And maybe there are things like Nessie after all, so ok. But, even if there was some confusion about interpreting fossil data, they still wouldn't make mistakes that huge.

So, if somehow the Bible is describing the existence of dinosaurs, then what does that mean for the Greeks' Hydra (not to mention dragons like the dragon in the Argonauts story).

I think giving that much credit to the Bible is taking huge amounts of credit from the human imagination. Yeah, humans couldn't dream up monsters like this own their own.

I've never really studied this part of the Bible. I'll read the whole story (isn't Job short?) and compare it to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I've never really studied this part of the Bible. I'll read the whole story (isn't Job short?) and compare it to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

42 chapters