In the context, God is demonstrating His power to Job through the creatures He made. The Leviathan is described in chapter 41 as a creature with airtight "shields" on his back that cannot be pierced by sword or spear. God says of him in v.33, "On earth there is not his like, a creature without fear." Assuming that dinosaurs were present, it makes more sense that God would use a large dinosaur along with Leviathan to display his power, rather than Leviathan with a hippo, or even an elephant.
I use the English Standard Version because it is a word-for-word, literal translation from the original language. In this case, it was translated directly from Hebrew to English. If it was translated from Hebrew to English as "tail," why would it matter what the Latin word for tail was?
It's really not a bizaare theory at all, although it may seem like it compared to the traditional theory that they were extinct long before humans. There have been blood cells found in dinosaur bones that were not completely fossilized. (link) If you factor in a global flood a few thousand years ago, then the theory makes a lot of sense. I challenge you to read some or all of the articles here.
I definitely understand your point. I realize that whether the Behemoth was a dinosaur or not is not crucial to Christianity. I know that Christianity rests on the truth of the death and resurrection of Christ, and that believing a certain theory about our origins does not make or break the deal. BUT, I still believe that it does help spread the Good News and is worth defending. The main reason is that evolution is a common objection to Christianity and a major roadblock for many people to become believers. There are many people who don't believe in God because they think that all the creatures on the earth evolved naturally, and that God is just an alternate explanation for the uninformed. Our kids go through school learning that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for where we came from. And as a result, many of them decide that God does not exist and that life is ultimately meaningless. For example, author Lee Strobel grew up learning that evolution was true, and became agnostic. Eventually he became a believer in Christ... but only after he investigated evolution vs. creation and became convinced that creation was the better theory. You would be surprised how many people don't believe in God because they hold to evolution. So I thoroughly believe that somebody needs to stand up for creation.
I think you have to look at it from both sides. If you're already a believer, then these debates are not crucial to you. But let's look at it from the other side. Many people won't listen to you preach about Christ unless you answer their questions about evolution and creation.
Job 40:15-18
"Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
Some have translated "Behemoth" to be a hippopotamus. Give me a break... go look at a picture of a hippo. They're fat tubs of lard with puny tails. The description here is much closer to a dinosaur (who eats grass). Chapter 41 goes on to talk about the Leviathan, a great dinosaur-like sea creature. Before you say I'm crazy for claiming that dinosaurs and humans once lived together, your question might be answered here or here.
First of all, I admit that I believe in God and a literal interpretation of the Bible regarding the creation story. However, I don't support the whole Intelligent Design movement. I understand that ID is not scientific theory and that evolution is. The theory behind ID is basically that everything is too complex to have evolved, and therefore it must have been designed by some higher being. Because of this, ID proponents are simply trying to disprove evolution, which would not neccessarily make ID true. Because of all this, the whole idea of ID really bothers me. But, ID is not the only alternative to evolution. There is also Biblical creation. Before I go on, let me make it clear that ID and creation are NOT the same. Biblical creation is actually a reasonable alternative to evolution, and has evidence to back it up... far beyond the claim that we're simply too complex. While you still can't prove scientifically that God exists, you can find evidence that supports the Bible's accuracy.
Much of the same evidence that is used to support evolution can also be used to support Biblical creation. Most of it is up for interpretation, but we tend to only hear it from the evolutionists' side. So let's compare the different perspectives. If you're an evolutionist and you look at the fossil record, you would say it supports evolution. And it does. But if you're a creationist and you look at the same fossil record, you will see that it supports a global flood. And it does. Take a look at genetic mutations. You can say that the accumulation of random, positive mutations is responsible for much of evolution. And that's a reasonable theory. A creationist observes the effects of mutations in today's world, sees that they are responsible for increasing diseases and cancer, and that the accumulation of negative mutations is slowly turning our genetic code to gibberish. This supports the Biblical idea that the world is a prisoner of decay (Romans 8:20-25). Same goes for almost anything else... geology, archaeology, astronomy, history, genetics, biology. The findings that are typically explained by evolution can also be reasonably explained by Biblical creation. By itself, the evidence for evolution does not contradict the Bible... but the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence is what contradicts the Bible.
It's a shame that so many Christians end up compromising... "I still believe in the Bible, but the creation story is hard to believe, and there's so much evidence for evolution, so maybe God created humans through the process of evolution." First of all, the evidence does support Biblical creation. Second, this theory is very inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of who God is and His purpose for creating us. Try reading the articles from this site to get a better idea of how science could possibly support Biblical creation rather than evolution.
I hope I don't sound harsh towards evolutionists. I definitely have respect for them, and I'm not set out to disprove them. I understand that evolution is a very reasonable and convincing explanation of where we came from. But I just want to make it clear that it is not the only reasonable explanation, and that evidence in support of the Bible is just as viable. Also, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Personally, I would rather be confident that the Bible is accurate. If God does not exist and we evolved from single celled organisms, then this life is as good as it gets. If the Bible is true, then this life is as bad as it gets.
Before you start telling me how ignorant I am and then asking "well what about this?" and "how could that work?" take some time and read the articles from my link. Chances are, it's already answered.
You're right. That's what I meant. The argument is still the same... that Jesus healed somebody's chopped off ear. But yeah, it was Peter that did the chopping. Thanks for the correction.
Sure, if you believe that the resurrection was hokey, then obviously the feeding 5000 story doesn't have much merit either. But I was replying to the original author, who claimed to be raised Catholic. And the official Catholic belief is that Christ did in fact raise from the dead. My argument was that if you're a Catholic (who is supposed to believe in the resurrection), it seems odd to believe that He wasn't capable of feeding 5000, a lesser miracle.
For example, the story of the loaves and fishes isn't about Jesus "magically" making more bread and fish appear to feed a crowd. The story is about Jesus leading by example, giving what little food he had to the crowd and the each person in the crowd adding what little they had to it to feed everyone. Showing that being charitable is the way to encourage others to do the same is the "miracle".
If Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, as the Bible clearly portrays him, why do you have a hard time believing that He can do actual miracles? What about walking on water? Or healing Peter's chopped off ear? The dominant message of the New Testament, besides the Gospels, is having FAITH. Who cares if there is no scientific explanation for what He did. The whole point of the Gospels, especially John, is that Jesus IS God. You shouldn't have any problem believing that He could do something above and beyond science. Being charitable and encouraging others to do the same is not a miracle at all. How then, would you explain the ressurection of Christ? The whole faith rests on the truth that Christ raised from the grave. Catholics believe that Christ raised from the dead. This is a much greater miracle than feeding 5000+ people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. It's an a fortiori argument. If Christ can do the greater miracle, why couldn't he do the smaller miracle? Just some food for thought.
Slashdot Mirror
In the context, God is demonstrating His power to Job through the creatures He made. The Leviathan is described in chapter 41 as a creature with airtight "shields" on his back that cannot be pierced by sword or spear. God says of him in v.33, "On earth there is not his like, a creature without fear." Assuming that dinosaurs were present, it makes more sense that God would use a large dinosaur along with Leviathan to display his power, rather than Leviathan with a hippo, or even an elephant.
I use the English Standard Version because it is a word-for-word, literal translation from the original language. In this case, it was translated directly from Hebrew to English. If it was translated from Hebrew to English as "tail," why would it matter what the Latin word for tail was?
It's really not a bizaare theory at all, although it may seem like it compared to the traditional theory that they were extinct long before humans. There have been blood cells found in dinosaur bones that were not completely fossilized. (link) If you factor in a global flood a few thousand years ago, then the theory makes a lot of sense. I challenge you to read some or all of the articles here.
I think you have to look at it from both sides. If you're already a believer, then these debates are not crucial to you. But let's look at it from the other side. Many people won't listen to you preach about Christ unless you answer their questions about evolution and creation.
"Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
Some have translated "Behemoth" to be a hippopotamus. Give me a break... go look at a picture of a hippo. They're fat tubs of lard with puny tails. The description here is much closer to a dinosaur (who eats grass). Chapter 41 goes on to talk about the Leviathan, a great dinosaur-like sea creature. Before you say I'm crazy for claiming that dinosaurs and humans once lived together, your question might be answered here or here.
First of all, I admit that I believe in God and a literal interpretation of the Bible regarding the creation story. However, I don't support the whole Intelligent Design movement. I understand that ID is not scientific theory and that evolution is. The theory behind ID is basically that everything is too complex to have evolved, and therefore it must have been designed by some higher being. Because of this, ID proponents are simply trying to disprove evolution, which would not neccessarily make ID true. Because of all this, the whole idea of ID really bothers me. But, ID is not the only alternative to evolution. There is also Biblical creation. Before I go on, let me make it clear that ID and creation are NOT the same. Biblical creation is actually a reasonable alternative to evolution, and has evidence to back it up... far beyond the claim that we're simply too complex. While you still can't prove scientifically that God exists, you can find evidence that supports the Bible's accuracy.
Much of the same evidence that is used to support evolution can also be used to support Biblical creation. Most of it is up for interpretation, but we tend to only hear it from the evolutionists' side. So let's compare the different perspectives. If you're an evolutionist and you look at the fossil record, you would say it supports evolution. And it does. But if you're a creationist and you look at the same fossil record, you will see that it supports a global flood. And it does. Take a look at genetic mutations. You can say that the accumulation of random, positive mutations is responsible for much of evolution. And that's a reasonable theory. A creationist observes the effects of mutations in today's world, sees that they are responsible for increasing diseases and cancer, and that the accumulation of negative mutations is slowly turning our genetic code to gibberish. This supports the Biblical idea that the world is a prisoner of decay (Romans 8:20-25). Same goes for almost anything else... geology, archaeology, astronomy, history, genetics, biology. The findings that are typically explained by evolution can also be reasonably explained by Biblical creation. By itself, the evidence for evolution does not contradict the Bible... but the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence is what contradicts the Bible.
It's a shame that so many Christians end up compromising... "I still believe in the Bible, but the creation story is hard to believe, and there's so much evidence for evolution, so maybe God created humans through the process of evolution." First of all, the evidence does support Biblical creation. Second, this theory is very inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of who God is and His purpose for creating us. Try reading the articles from this site to get a better idea of how science could possibly support Biblical creation rather than evolution.
I hope I don't sound harsh towards evolutionists. I definitely have respect for them, and I'm not set out to disprove them. I understand that evolution is a very reasonable and convincing explanation of where we came from. But I just want to make it clear that it is not the only reasonable explanation, and that evidence in support of the Bible is just as viable. Also, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Personally, I would rather be confident that the Bible is accurate. If God does not exist and we evolved from single celled organisms, then this life is as good as it gets. If the Bible is true, then this life is as bad as it gets.
Before you start telling me how ignorant I am and then asking "well what about this?" and "how could that work?" take some time and read the articles from my link. Chances are, it's already answered.
You're right. That's what I meant. The argument is still the same... that Jesus healed somebody's chopped off ear. But yeah, it was Peter that did the chopping. Thanks for the correction.
Sure, if you believe that the resurrection was hokey, then obviously the feeding 5000 story doesn't have much merit either. But I was replying to the original author, who claimed to be raised Catholic. And the official Catholic belief is that Christ did in fact raise from the dead. My argument was that if you're a Catholic (who is supposed to believe in the resurrection), it seems odd to believe that He wasn't capable of feeding 5000, a lesser miracle.