Essay 11-g
Giant Dinosaurs and Their Sea-Going Relatives Are in the Book of Job
A Giant Dinosaur: Behemoth in Job 40:15-24
Introduction
Job
40:15-24 God speaks of dinosaurs in the Bible
Evolutionists say dinosaurs died out millions of years before men existed, so they say the Bible, that began to be written ~4000 years ago, says nothing of dinosaurs. But they’re in the book of Job that says God made them when He made man, refuting a supposed extinction millions of years before men lived. Dinosaur, a modern term, isn’t in the Bible, but Job describes dinosaurs in detail otherwise known only in modern times. The book says Job knew of them, and he lived in Uz, near the land later called Israel, so dinosaurs roam- ed that area before Israel became a nation, showing us why Job 40:23 relates dinosaurs to Jordan river. As the only Bible book speaking of dinosaurs, Job is by far the oldest (see appendix).
a. Job 40:15 24 God speaks of dinosaurs in Job.
15. Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass…
16…His strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17. He moveth his tail like a cedar…
18. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars…
19. He is the chief of the ways of God…
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.
Like behemoth, a giant dinosaur ate grass. Like behemoth, the titanosaur was the chief of the ways of God, the largest animal in man’s sight on the land, as long as 100 feet, as heavy as 100 tons, as tall as a 5-story building, and hav- ing a tail as long as 50 feet. Behemoth had to be as big as a titanosaur to fit figurative language on ingesting a river. In accord with dinosaur facsimiles, muscular strength exertion, like that of behemoth, was centered around the belly to power the huge legs & tail (dinosaurs had no navel - the term in Job means center, which is the basic dictionary sense). Dinosaurs, unknown to us until the 19th century, fit the description of behemoth in Job that was written millennia before man discovered dinosaurs, so evolutionist theory cannot compete with the Bible that says God made man & dinosaurs together.
Evidence that dinosaurs lived during mankind’s history is seen by a find of soft tissue like blood cells in Tyrannosaurus bone fossils said to be 68 million years old; ongoing work refutes evolutionist efforts to disprove this find.1 This organic matter decomposes too rapidly in fossilization to last even many thousands, of years. Decomposition is slowed much by burial in sediment, but even then shorter-term decomposition results from moisture, bacteria & natural radioactivity. Doubtless, sediment from a relatively recent flood was involved, likely that of the Great Flood ~4400 years ago.
1. Schweitzer, M.H. et al. Science. Vol 307. #5717. p1952-55. Mar. 05. Schweitzer and a large team of scientists confirmed soft tissue in “80 million-yr. old” dinosaur fossil bone. (Schweitzer et al. Paleontology and Archaeology. April 2009). Pressure to refute the findings is great, and Schweitzer’s later 2-year lab tests allowed her to claim that iron in blood hemoglobin could preserve soft tissue, but 2-year lab tests have no bearing at all on millions or thousands or even hundreds of years of exposure in real-world environments.
RSV/NIV/NASV
footnotes support evolutionist theory, suggesting behemoth is a
hippopotamus. The RSV 40:17 says he makes his tail stiff
like a cedar, a possibility, but contextually, stiff like a
twig would be needed to denote the small hippo tail. In the Hebrew
cedar logically/contextually relates to the sense of a huge
tree bending by swaying (a hippo switches its tail rapidly).
Verse 40:23 is central to addressing the scholar denial that Job refers to dino- saurs. Here the NASV says If a river rages, he is not alarmed; he is confid- ent, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth. The NIV says When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure though Jordan should surge against his mouth. These renderings mask behemoth’s size & dinosaur identity, and a far smaller hippo is favored by poor syntax, distorted diction, verse sense & poe- tic style, and division of the verse into two thoughts is lost here, as we'll see.
Behemoth’s size is stressed in reiterative poetic style (behemoth this & behe- moth that, he/his opening most verses as the subject or subject possessive pronoun referring to behemoth). Behemoth, he, is the subject of the clauses in verse 23. here the NIV/NASV place undue emphasis on the role of the river, behemoth’s great size being the only emphasis intended.
Verse
23 begins Behold, stressing he (behemoth) as the
verse subject linked to the main verb in the Hebrew that means conquer (the poetic KJV drinketh up). Poetic style and a transitive verb make river
a direct object in the first clause, and the NIV/NASV lack of a
direct object for a transitive verb proves mistranslation.2 In these versions, attaching the subject he to rages as the main verb makes river the subject of the first clause, which, in conjunction with improper When / If in place of Behold, produces (in NASV
language) If a river rages, he (a river)
isn’t alarmed and he (a river) is confident,
though the Jordan rushes to his (the river’s) mouth. Intransitive rages makes the subject pronoun he, attached to this verb in the Hebrew, refer to river as the
clause subject, relating any subsequent he/his in the
verse to river. (They make the Hebrew read, Behold, he rages river, not he is alarmed...It should read, Behold, he (behemoth) conquers (drinketh up) a river). If (or when) im- properly replaces Behold, to justify the improper rages as the clause verb.
2. Gordis says the verb is transitive and calls the raging-river notion, dubious transla- tion: Gordis, R. 1978. The Book of Job. Commentary, New Translation & Special Studies. Jewish Theological Seminary of America. N.Y.C. Jamieson/Fausset/Brown Com. accepts the raging-river notion, but its overwhelm reflects conquers, not rages.
He
as the subject and the verb as transitive are correct grammar. The
initial verse-23 thought is not that a river rages, but that behemoth
drinketh up a river (poetic language), consuming it in the
sense of conquering it, crossing it easily, so he hasteth not
to cross since it’s no threat, due to his size.3
This is like the Job 39:24 sense, he (a horse)
swalloweth the ground, or consumes/ conquers terrain 4
(context & poetic-style make he a clause subject &
ground a direct object). Modern
translators follow this syntax here, but they deviate in 40:23 where they seem not to realize that they have made river the clause
subject. Lamsa’s Peshitta rightly makes behemoth the
clause subject, saying, Behold, if he plunges into the
river, but this too avoids the dinosaur identity.5
3. The NIV/NASV he is not alarmed isn’t justified; the Hebrew imperfect verb is not intransitive stative (state of being with the verb is), and the KJV intransitive fientive (action) verb hasteth not (JFB trembleth not) is indicated by the grammar.
4. Clarke, Adam. Clarke’s Commentary. N.Y. Abingdon-Coksbury Press.5. Job 40 context is one of emphasis as God contrasts His wisdom & power with Job’s. The 40:23 first clause & word stress the main subject, behemoth and include a pause, so the interjection Behold with a comma or exclamation point applies. RSV/ ESV, Behold, if the river…is supportive of Behold & a pause, but adds if to make river a clause subject; it’s if or Behold, not both. Use of If /when removes the pause & emphasis. NRSV Even if the river…HCSV though the river…NKJV Indeed the river…are all inadequate, minimizing emphasis & omitting a pause. In 40:15 the 1st clause opens in a way like that of 40:23, and modern versions render Behold or an equivalent, with a pause, as they must, for behemoth is named there (NASV Behold now Behemoth…NIV Look at the behemoth…), but they open 40:23 differently; thus they discount the dinosaur identity & avoid defying the evolutionist agenda.
Modern translators must follow poetic style where language excludes altern-atives, making behemoth a clause subject in 40:15,19,21, and other animals clause subjects in 39:3,7,8,14-16,18,21,22,24,25. But in 40:23 they resort to an alternative, as they do also in 40:17. The NIV 40:17 is altered as 40:23 is, deviating from poetic style & context to make tail the subject, stressing tail motion over size to further mask the dinosaur identity. Other modern vers- ions don’t do this in 40:17, and had no reason to do so in 40:23.
A second thought is that behemoth trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth, and draw up, like drinketh up, means behemoth conquers Jordan, now in the sense of drawing up all of it into his (behemoth’s) mouth, not a rushing of Jordan to a river’s mouth in what would be an inexplicable pattern of flow. Here his refers to behemoth drawing up Jordan into his mouth, and draw up means to drink, illustrating a poetic exaggeration; (a Hebrew athnah at hasteneth stipulates a colon, the second thought developing the first to suggest a size great enough to imagine the ingesting of a river by behemoth).
The NASV/NIV miss the second thought, making the two one, and missing the nature of Jordan’s motion. It’s not that Jordan rushes/surges; poetic style and a transitive verb make behemoth the subject and Jordan a direct object, and the verb as a transitive means bring forth, draw up (the NKJV into his mouth & Brenton’s Septuagint up into his mouth are fine, but their use of verbs like is confident & rushes/surges still distorts verse sense).
Another way the NASV/NIV miss the second thought is by reiterating the first in new
words, as is common in Hebrew poetry, but despite similarity of diction, the first isn’t just
reiterated here, but imparts more meaning to cons- truct a second one, as
noted above. He is confident/secure serves only to
just- ify though the Jordan rushes to continue an improper raging-river notion that makes Jordan the subject of a clause violating context on behemoth’s size. A KJV that in that he can
draw up Jordan preserves the true syntax, relating trusteth to
a clause with the object of trust, a conquest of Jordan, to construct
the second thought by continued emphasis on behemoth’s size. Job
40:24 too stresses behemoth’s size, saying he takes Jordan with
his eyes (owns it). A hippo is too small to
justify the size description, and unrelated pronouns are made the clause
subjects in the NIV & NASV. These versions sacrifice both thoughts in verse 23 by wrong syntax &
word choice, emphasizing rivers twice when behemoth’s great size is
the only emphasis. Dinosaurs are now well known, but scholars hide
behemoth’s identity, yielding to a notion that dinosaurs are not
spoken of in the Bible. They were unknown in 1611, yet the KJV introduced them at that time,
marking a Providentially-ordained transation that reveals God's Hand in the writing of holy scripture.
A Sea-Going Fire-emitting Dinosaur Relative: Leviathan in Job 41
1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook…
2. Canst thou put a hook into his nose…
10. None is so fierce that dare stir him up…
14. Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible…
17. They (scales) are joined one to another, they stick together...
21. His breath kindleth coals…a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22. In his neck remaineth strength...
26. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold...
27. He esteemeth iron as straw...
31. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot…
Many
see Leviathan as mythical due to oral fire-emission, and an
evolutionist notion that giant reptiles became extinct before man
existed. Now giant sea-going dinosaur relatives once existed
(sea-going giant plesiosaurs are well-known). The foolishness of
fishing for Leviathan with a hook shows he is very large. Verse 31
boiling
of the
deep is
poetic language about an air-bubble wake that he makes in moving upon
the sea. Sea-going reptiles would need the strong necks seen in verse 22.
Verses 10,22, 27 show Leviathan is fierce and strong. His scaly flesh
in verses 15-17 shows he’s a reptile. In verse 14, he has great
teeth like those of a dinosaur. This description in ancient Job
agrees with modern facts on giant reptiles unknown until the 19th
century A.D. Like all giant reptiles, Leviathan now appears to be
extinct.
Leviathan
seems mythical since, unlike dinosaurs, it’s been ignored, due to the
view that oral fire-emission is mythical, but that is unjustified. The creature’s body could contain a flammable chemical in sacs,
and the means of automatic ignition & eject- ion of
the chemical. A related system exists in an insect, the bombardier beetle; its body contains sacs of a flammable chemical & oxidizer that undergo an exothermic (heat-generating) reaction by internal contact with other chemicals, and the pressure generated by the reaction propels the hot mixture. The result is a self-defense system that bears a functional similarity to a soldier's flame-thrower. Now if this system of sophisticated self-defense has been provided for a mere insect, why can't a similar one be provided for a giant reptile?
Men once said flying in the atmosphere was too incredible a notion to take seriously, but in God’s providence the incredible of yesterday becomes the routine of today. It is bias that hinders our knowledge of truth, and God-rejecting evolution is an enemy of truth that forever colors observation with bias. Ancient people would experience matters relating to science, and what we call legend results from observation colored by primitive imagination. It’s unintelligent to reject reports of fire-emitting dragons common in cultures from America to Europe to Australia to Asia. Job preserves a matter widely reported by early mankind, and having a definite technical credibility, and the KJV further preserves the matter.
Just
how unscientific evolution advocates can be in denying the truth is
seen in the liberal New English Bible that renders crocodile
for Leviathan,
calling it chief
of beasts and
chief of
God's works.
It refers to the crocodile, not as eating grass, but eating cattle as
if they were grass, and who can imagine such a prodigious appetite in
a creature with a stomach smaller than one cow. And what crocodile
emits fire from its mouth? This committee indulged in a flight of
fancy to avoid the identity of the beast since that contradicts
its preferred evolution theory.
RSV footnotes call Leviathan a crocodile, which is silly in view of the fire-emission and a size so great it treats iron like straw. And Leviathan's domain isn’t rivers and streams of crocodiles, but the sea, as in Ps.104:25-26. Isa.27:1 calls Leviathan the dragon in the sea, a giant reptile that once traveled the sea.
