Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs?

I was just wondering what other people's interpretations were about the Cryptids mentiioned in the Bible?My favorite is a reference to Mokolo-Mbembe, or at least that is how I see it.Job 40:15-24
¹⁵Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. ¹⁶Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. ¹⁷He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. ¹⁸His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. ¹⁹He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. ²⁰Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. ²¹He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. ²²The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. ²³Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. ²⁴He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.IMO this clearly states that there was some sort of living brontosaur/apotosaur (forgive my ignorace of the proper term. Is it sauropod?) in the time of Job. I am a fan of crytozoology, and think that this is a bible statement in reference to Mokolo-Mbembe, at the very least living at the same time as man. Released from PNT. --Admin

Well, after reading that verse the first thing I envisioned was an elephant or a hippo actually. The description seems consistent with how such animals were described by ancient authors- especially when you read : as the animal's penis and testicles - which several on this forum have suggested is the appropriate translation.Compare the description from Job to this description from Pliny the Elder's Natural History. (Pliny was, among other things, a Roman naturalist born about 23 AD)

quote:

---

The Nile produces a creature even mightier than the crocodile... It has hooves like those of oxen, a horse's back, mane and neighing sound; a turned-up snout; a boar's tail and curved tusks, although less damamging; and an impenetrable hide used for shields and helmets..."

---

Not as fanciful as Job, but still a fantastic description of a Hippo.An alternative is that the Behemoth is simply a mythological creature. Pliny describes several of these in Natural History as though they actually exist - e.g. manticores and basilisks- although he does not claim first hand knowledge of these beasts.I'm assuming Job is older than 50-60AD, so the idea that the author would describe 'legendary' yet non-existant creatures, or that he would describe strange yet real creatures in a fanciful way (e.g. the hippo) makes sense to me.This message has been edited by custard to fix stupid mistakes, 02-26-2005 16:06 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 17:52 AM

We placental mammals are the only critter I'm aware of that has a navel. Dinosaurs hatched from eggs, and had no need for an umbilical cord. So if we want to keep this verse, we've gotta stick with mammals.

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.Moves his tail like a cedar? I admit it has been a while since I went to my local zoo, but hippos or elephants don't have a tail anywhere near that description. As far as a crocodile, It could be, but interesting never the less.

I'm pretty that the last time we did this one, the bible experts decided that tail refered to the penis of the beast.

since when do you guys listen to the bible experts?
i guess only when its convienient. there is no way its a hippo or an elephant. made up possibly, but a hippo or an elephant, yeah right.
are these the same bible experts that say jesus' 1st miracle was turning water into.........grape juice, because they think that drinking wine is bad. pu-leeze, wake up.

Vercingetorix, I thought you were better than that.If somebody says something you don't want to be true then turning nasty is not an appropriate or adequate reply.You managed to make a good first impression. Please don't spoil it with the all-too-typical creationist behaviour of throwing false accusations as a rebuttal to points you disagree with.

i just think its funny that listening to bible experts is acceptable sometimes and other times its completely false, you people are too funny.

If you have a valid point - other than laughing at your own fantasies - I suggest that you actually try to deal with the situation rationally.

I'm afraid he was speaking of folk such as myself, Brian, Arach, DoctorBill and other members here. We may be opinionated, may even have a few facts, but I don't know that we're experts.But there is a weight of evidence that such creatures were either a generic critter of myth or poetic interpretations of common beasts. There is also a weight of evidence that they are not speaking of dinosaurs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

i just think its funny that listening to bible experts is acceptable sometimes and other times its completely false, you people are too funny.

---

So you won't accept the opinion of people that are experts on the very book that you base your faith on? Whose opinion will you listen to?

I'm guessing his pastor.Vercin: look, if you want to rebut the claim that 'cedar=penis' or 'behemoth=hippo,' there are more convincing ways of doing so than disparaging the opinions/interpretations of those with whom you disagree.Let's start again. I thought my comparison to Pliny was apt. What evidence or interpretation about the passage makes you think otherwise? The 'tail' description only?This message has been edited by custard, 02-28-2005 12:30 AM

thanks for quickly identifying yourself as someone not to bother with.regardsCharlesThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28 February 2005 14:03 AM

thanks for making it a point to be rude about the whole thing because someone disagrees with you, chuck.

quote:

---

thanks for making it a point to be rude about the whole thing because someone disagrees with you, chuck.

---

As can easily be seen from the thread that's not what Charles did. It's what YOU did.This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-01-2005 09:09 AM