Noah's Ark

quote:

---

Originally posted by believer:
Response to Shilohproject-
All I can see is like in Genesis 6:19-21 commands to bring in every kind. Where does it mention specific animals? I can’t find it. By the way Behemoth is a Brontisorous it talks about him in Job:40 feeds on grass;what strength;what power;his tail sways like a cedar

---

Couldn't have a more mundane explanation? Maybe an elephant?

quote:

---

The leviathan is talked of in Job:41, I guess its another dinasour.

---

You seem to be happy with just guessing.

quote:

---

If you’re implying that the flood was only a local flood you’re wrong. First of all logically it doesn’t make sence.

---

Logically a worldwide flood doesn't make sense or have supporting evidence.

quote:

---

Noah could have avoided the flood on foot,

---

Sure, that's why dozens, hundreds or thousands of people can be killed in local floods today. Pity they don't think to outrun the local flood.

quote:

---

and the ark’s size to so enourmouse it only makes sence if all the animals of the entire earth were to be gathered onto it.

---

How enourmouse? And how many animals would he have been trying to fit into his ark?

quote:

---

Besides that there are sediment layers all of the earth layed down by the flood, implying that it was anything but local.

---

There are sedimentary layers being laid today without the action of global or even local floods. I wonder what they would look like in a million years time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by believer:
Response to Shilohproject-
All I can see is like in Genesis 6:19-21 commands to bring in every kind. Where does it mention specific animals? I can’t find it. By the way Behemoth is a Brontisorous it talks about him in Job:40 feeds on grass;what strength;what power;his tail sways like a cedar The leviathan is talked of in Job:41, I guess its another dinasour. If you’re implying that the flood was only a local flood you’re wrong. First of all logically it doesn’t make sence. Noah could have avoided the flood on foot, and the ark’s size to so enourmouse it only makes sence if all the animals of the entire earth were to be gathered onto it. Besides that there are sediment layers all of the earth layed down by the flood, implying that it was anything but local.

---

Believer,Note: all referances in this particulat post are from KJV. (Other translations differ quite a bit. Go figure.)Are you refering to the behemoth in Job 40.15-24, the one with a navel (v.16), the one who is "chief of the ways of God"(v.19)? If so, it does't follow that this is a reptile or that it would become extinct, does it?As to the leviathan, I believe vv. 19-21 require a literalist to accept that this was, in fact, a fire breathing dragon. Read it; I think you'll see what I mean.What about the unicorn, vv.9-12? Where does he fit into all this? Why save them from a literal, world wide flood, only to have them become extinct a short time later?And another question: how old is this notion used by Creation Scientists that the flood was responsible for all the geologic stratification we see? Did anyone hear of it before the Morris bunch came along? Same with the dinosaurs-were-on-the-ark thing. Growing up in a solid Southern Baptist churched home, I'd read all the tracts about how the fossils were lies placed by Satan to deceive man, or that God placed fully formed fossils around to test man's faith, or that evil scientists were all conspiring to force shammed data on us to promote their wicked humanistic thinking (which was proved, of course, by the peer review process so commen to scientific thinking which outted the frauds for what they were, just like the human-footprints-with-dinosaur-footprints farce).Still my question remains, why no mention of any animal in any book of the Bible which is not to be expected in the region? (Other than fire breathing dragons, brontosaurs with navels, and the lovely yet untamable unicorn?)A literalistic reading of these passages, along with the two intermeshed Noah stories, leads us to miss the value of scripture. Or so I fear.-Shiloh[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-16-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by believer:
By the way Behemoth is a Brontisorous it talks about him in Job:40 feeds on grass;what strength;what power;his tail sways like a cedar

---

'Behemoth' is derived from the Hebrew BHM meaning And that tail isn't a tail. The real deal is close by but a bit forward of the tail. Think John Holmes.

quote:

---

The leviathan is talked of in Job:41, I guess its another dinasour.

---

Maybe you should ask yourself why no human and dinosaur remains are found in association?

quote:

---

Noah could have avoided the flood on foot

---

Ever tried to outrun a flood?

quote:

---

and the ark’s size to so enourmouse it only makes sence if all the animals of the entire earth were to be gathered onto it.

---

The ark is only slightly larger -- 30% or so-- than the largest wooden craft built in the west. The Chinese may have built something large enough to compare. That said, go visit a ship. Go visit the Victory. Then tell me if you think you can fit two of every animal on the planet on a boat that size, plus food. For that matter, wander around the QE2 and think about fitting everything on it and keeping everything alive for a year. It does not make sense.

quote:

---

Besides that there are sediment layers all of the earth layed down by the flood, implying that it was anything but local.

---

You assume that the layers were deposited by the Flood, when in fact a flood of global proportions would not have left a deposition pattern like the one we've got. The layers of sediment testify against you, not for you.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I believe we’re discussing two different things. What I mean is that the ocean plate would sink a little lower than the continental plate because it is under 3,800 meters of ocean water, (which is a lot of weight/pressure pushing down on the ocean plate). Nothing is being pushed up. The signifigance of the ocean plate being pushed down by the water, is that it provides a place for the water on what is now dry land, to run off into, thus producing the dry land. No, it couldn’t have been an elephant. Have you ever seen the rear view of an elphant? An elephant’s tail is absurdly small to be compared to a swaying cedar tree. Sorry for the mundane explanation, but that’s the best one. The most reasonable explanation for behemoth is a large animal, with a large tail, and since no animal living now fits that discription, behemoth is also extinct.Like John said the word ‘Behemoth is literally a plural form of a common Old Testament word meanaing ‘beast’. However, practically all commentators and translators have agreed that here we have an intensive or majestic plural, so that the meaning is something like ‘colossal beast’. The phrase ‘chief of the ways of God’ suggests Behemoth was one of the largest, if not the largest, animal God made.Gordis gives an interesting overview of how Behemoth has been interpreted throughout history, noting that ‘the interpretation has oscillated through the centuries between two poles, mythical and real’. Also since several passages in the bible make comparisons with cedars because of their great height (2 kings 19:23, Isaih 2:13,37:24 and Ezekiel 17:22, 31:3) it may be that the tail is also compared to the cedar tree for it’s hight. However in Psalm 92:12 we read that the righteous shall flourish like the palm tree and ‘shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon’. Here the key idea is simply that of the great size and strength, and height is not important. Also in Job 40:24 it says you can’t pierce Behemoth’s nose. Therefore he has a distinct nose, and not a trunk.Now if we believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible we must maintain that the words spoken about Behemoth (and also Leviathan), were spoken by their Creator, who would have known the intimate details of His own design. The description of the animals in chapters 38 to 41 is given to convince Job of his ignorance and folly. It is thus a critical observation that, when the purpose is to show how marvellous an animal is, surely the most amazing facts about that animal, and the ways in which it is different in habits or appearance from all others, should be stated. The elephant is outstanding for its trunk, its great size (especially its feet), its enormous appetite and its ears. None of these unique features are mentioned in our passage, but they ought to have been, if Behemoth was the elephant.Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation (which also takes the whole passage into account) is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge. There’s a picture of the Ark at this
site and I really think its worth looking at. The Arks bigger than you think. I think the answer to the question ‘is Genesis true’ is very important. First of all if Genesis isn’t true, what other parts of scripture aren’t? The salvation part? The ten commandments part? Where do you draw the line? Also if evolution is true instead of Genesis/Creation, then there is no need for God. Even if you believe God used evolution to bring us all about, that still puts death before Adam. The whole story of salvation, is about us being saved from death and sin, which the first Adam brought into the world, and the last adam (Jesus) conquers. However, if the whole garden of eden thing is just a myth, then we don’t really need to be saved. What would we be being saved from? The millions of years of death and decay that brought us into existance?So you see if Genesis isn’t true, then the authority, and the message of salvation are gone. Sorry, I guess I should have explained that statement a little more. My point is, if the flood were local, why did Noah have to build the ark? He could have just walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. Traveling just 12 miles per day, Noah and his family could have traveled over 2,000 miles in six months. God could have simply warned Noah to flee, as he did for Lot in Sodom.It doesn’t say the exact amount of time that is took Noah to build the ark and fill it with food and animals, but judging from its size it would have been all together faster and easier to just start walking when God told Noah of the oncomming flood.That’s all I have time for.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-28-2005 05:15 AM

Earlier, I said:
A literalistic reading of these passages, along with the two intermeshed Noah stories, leads us to miss the value of scripture. Or so I fear. believer,You seem content to sqeeze God and scripture into a very small box. The notion that it's all-or-nothing when it comes to the Bible is one which you may feel forced to believe, but I don't. To accept it all as literally true and historically accurate is to become totally blind to the obvious problems with such a reading.When we accept it for what it is, rather than trying to bend it to fit our own particular theologies, it becomes a wonderful thing for personal spiritual growth and is much more accessible for the non-believers around us.-ShilohThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-28-2005 05:18 AM

Does anone here think the Great Behemoth and great Leviathan from Job 40 and 41 still exist? Job 41 is my favorite chapter in all of the Bible because it speaks of a legendary animal that only a god could create. Please don't get me wrogn, but I think the Leviathan is not just a reference to an animal, but to the spirit that worketh evil among men. And still, I'm in love with the Leviathan.

Do I think that fairy tales are true? No.

Oh, they're fairy tales now, aren't they? What about the fossil records, the sightings of monsters in lochs, etc.?

You sick,sad unbeliever! Um, probably because all the human remains were compressed by flood sediment into the ground to become fossil fuels. This is the only explanation that makes somewhat some sense. No, I haven't, but the thousands in the Southeast Asia tried to run from a tsunami. I've got to give you the benefit of the doubt for catching the "believer" on this one. Wanna bet? All I can see from this is that you may think the Ark existed, and I'm pretty sure a three-story ark was much more larger than the example at the website given.
Besides, I think the whole story is taken out of context, for if God did not destroy the world once by water, then his promise in Gen. 8, that fire would destroy earth next, is a flop.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-28-2005 05:26 AM

Conduct this simple experiment AT HOME in your spare time.Fill one 5 gallon pail with water.Fill one 5 gallon pail with ANY load of rocks, pebbles, sand, powdered cement or concrete.Does the pail of water weigh MORE or LESS than the pail of rocks?Now, if you believe that the weight of the ocean water is pressing down to make deep ocean basins and the same amount of rock on the continents is doing nothing, then please answer the following question...If rock is heavier than water, then WHY haven't the continents plunged straight down to the center of the Earth? What's holding them up? The continents should be sinking because they are heavier. The oceans should be covering the continents because water is lighter than rock. Please explain why this hasn't happened.(:raig

Talking snakes and magic tricks? Yeah, sounds like fairy tales to me. You mean, fossils? I've seen plenty of fossils. Never seen a snake that could talk, though. Also fairy tales. I've been to Loch Ness. Didn't see anything but a rocky beach and a bunch of ducks. Froze my ass off. (Actually, like almost all of Scotland, it was breathtaking. But, no monsters I could see.)

Paragraphs, man, paragraphs.That said, tail is a euphemistic word used in place of penis. Key contextual points being how the tail stiffens, how Behemoth's strength is in his loins, and the mention of his stones. It's pretty obvious that tail refers to penis in this case. Behomoth itself is likely a bull.Leviathan is obviously based on exaggerated accounts of crocodiles. I shouldn't have to explain why.

alright. take it from a believer: it's talking about a penis.personally, my GUESS is that this bit in job is talking about a bull elephant. let's look at the context:

quote:

---

Job 40:16,17:
His strength is in his loins,
His might in the muscles of his belly.

​

He makes his _____ stand up like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.

---

now, these four lines are all talking about one thing. virility. they're describing this amazingly virile creature god has made. see that "thighs" bit? if you find another translation (such as the kjv, for instance) "thighs" becomes "stones."stones, meaning testicles. when deuteronomy talks about sexual diseases, it calls them disorders of the "stones." the hebrew here really, literally, says "thighs." but people have known this to to be talking about testicles for a long time.and so it's obvious that what we have here is a euphemism. the bible is actually full of them. stones are one example. feet are another.here's one for taking a piss:

quote:

---

1Sa 24:3 And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where [was] a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave.

---

here's another for some sort of sexual activity:

quote:

---

Rth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.

---

here's one for pee and poop.

quote:

---

2Ki 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own filth, and drink their own water with you?

​

(note, i've changed this to what the verse literally says in hebrew. most translations render it "dung" and "piss")

---

so let's go back and look at job. what we have is a parallelism. the second bit we know to be a euphemism for testicles. what's a parallel object for testicles, do you think?but here's another bit that will prove it. when i was a child, i wanted to be a paleontologist. so i used to know alot about dinosaurs. and you know something? dinosaurs don't have tails that stand up. they're used as counter balances, so they're always horizontal. always. in bipedal dinosaurs, it balances the weight of their torso, arms, and neck/head, over the hips. on quadripeds, it counterbalances the head and neck in the same fashion. dinosaurs are something like suspension bridges.so what is like a tail and vertical, that can be made to stand up? elephants don't have tails, do they? you know, with a penis THAT big, and four lines devoted to virility, i'm pretty sure that's the behemoth job speaks of. it's a euphemism for penis.

---

אָרַח

actually, you should. see, it says the leviathan breathes fire.

quote:

---

Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

---

it describes him as a dragon, not a croc. as we know from the ugaritic myths, leviathan has seven heads, and as we know from psalms, he's been around since the beginning.

quote:

---

Psa 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

---

genesis mentions in chapter one god creating dragons ("great serpents") in the waters.

quote:

---

Gen 1:21 And God created great serpents, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

and psalms and isaiah confirm that leviathan is a water dragon.

quote:

---

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.

---

as a theme, he's about primordial chaos, and is always associated with the deep (ala genesis 1). and he's refered to in revelation indirectly:

quote:

---

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

---

the great red dragon is also called "the ancient serpent"

quote:

---

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

---

john is basically drawing on the leviathan imagery, and combining it with the concept of satan. so no, leviathan is NOT a croc.personally, i think it's based on rumors of sea monsters. stories of sea serpents are quite common, and this one is sort of reminiscent of scylla from the odyssey. maybe it's even originally derived from a real encounter with a giant squid? who knows. but it seem to be referring to a semi-mythical creature, that they are not in close contact with.

---

אָרַח

Your last two messages are exceedingly interesting. Have you ever considered actual public speaking? I told you before, I'm only 13, and I took a public speaking class in High School. I never thought of idioms for KJV before!