Dinosaur Files

christians, about the dinosaur account in the book of job...?

do you think people will translate it as "dinosaur" if dinosaurs were not a scientific fact? what animal will you translate it into? elephants? a croc might not do because they usually bask in the sun, not under lotus trees. but it's possible...

Public Comments

1. There is no such account.
2. giant chickens LOL
3. They've had footnotes such as a hippopotamus or elephant. I believe it to be a huge crocodile because of how it describes the beast's tail.
4. no, because dinosaur is identified as such from its scientific name. i think it might translate into Behemoth, or maybe not have a specific name, just its desciption, as it is something that no longer exists.
5. dragons, which can also be like unto dinosaurs. Thanks for the question and have a great day!
6. I'd have to see the actual verse youre talking about. Adder_Astros Powerful member of the House of Light. []xxxxx[];;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>. http://www.adder-astros.com
7. They're banjo monkeys!! Stop eating all the pork rinds, St. Serpmekiclr! Aroint ye!
8. Dinosaur is a newish word. Whatever they are called, they are described - what animals do they sound like to you? (Job chapter 41) Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? His back has row of shields tightly sealed together; each is so close to the next that no air can pass between His snorting throws out flashes of light Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils Strength resides in his neck His chest is hard as rock Another in Chapter 40 Feeds on grass like an ox Strength in his loins power in the muscles of his belly Tail sways like a cedar (a cedar is a tree!) Bones are tubes of bronze His limbs like rods of iron
9. I'm not a worshiper, however the Book of Job is just as reliable as your scientific fact except that Job never changes but scientific fact is fact today, fiction tomorrow. Fiction writers actually knows and proves more than the religion called science.
10. Hippos and elephants have teeny little tails,not like cedar trees.Crocodiles have a good size tail but don't eat grass. It is obviously an herbivoric Diplodocus or some such Dinosaur.By the way ,Job is a book of the Talmud so it is believed by Jews too.Probably Leviathan is a Pleiasaur or some such. Are you insinuating that Christians wouldn't think it to be a dinosaur? See a web site on the Paulaxey River,Texas or Ica Stones .You'll see Dino-Human interaction.
11. If we didn't have the term 'dinosaur' we would translate it as 'behemoth' just as it had always been translated. The description does not fit an elephant. Long before we used the term 'dinosaurs' there were drawings, engravings, and other representations that depicted what we now call dinosaurs, particularly large herbevors and aquadic herbevors. Listen to the description for the behemoth: He feeds on grass, strong and belly and strong and tightly musceled legs, large tail 'like a cedar', bones as strong as metal, he likes the water, is large enough that even the 'raging' waters of the Jordan can not dislogde him, he eats both upon the hills and in the marshes, other wild animals play nearby, and he can not be captured or trained. Now think of the elephant and the hippopotamus, both animals that people who do not fully believe the Bible wish to use for the defination of 'behemoth'. Both have small tails, realtively weak legs for their size, and niether are large enough to withstand a river as large as the Jordan when its banks are full, much less swollen and raging. The elephant is not known to lie in the shallows of the water, particularly not in the "marsh" since elephants get mired in the mud. The hippopotamus does not roam the hills, nor do other animals play nearby as hippopotamus are foul-tempered. While the hippopotamus is considered untrainable he is easily captured, even by 'primative' man, meanwhile the elephant is not only easily captured but trainable as well and were trainable at the time Job was written. Finally, the word for both 'hippoptamus' and 'elephant' are both in the language of the time and if the writer MEANT elephant or hippopotamus he would have used the word for that animal. He didn't, he used the word for 'behemoth', and just like lyonns are not called lions behemoths are now called dinosaurs.