the movement of the behemoth's tail (if it was an elephant) could have easily been described as being like the swaying of river rushes or Reed's, given it's small size. The cedar tree is often equated in the Bible and in Hebrew culture with strength and immense size. Why would God describe the tail of the behemoth as being like a cedar tree if it was comparatively so pathetically small and weak? A tail like that of a brontosaurus is certainly big and strong enough for the symbolism of a cedar tree to be warranted. Additionally, if dinosaurs DID exist after the flood, as evidence shows they certainly must have, then why would God use such a comparatively miniscule creature as a mere elephant to describe the "chief among His creations?" It doesn't add up.
In terms of the full phrase, it sounds like it discribing a dinosaur. If you understand the hebrew words for "navel" which it isnt the word navel. And the you look at the full phrase. th-cam.com/video/p32CV_uZLh8/w-d-xo.html
"Moveth like a cedar tree", also sometimes translated as "extendeth like a cedar tree" An elephant tail more closely matches the lebanese cedar tree than does a sauropod tail. The verse is often also interpreted to not be talking about an actual tail at all, namely the animal's penis.
I hate to keep saying "in the original", but with some simple research it all becomes clear. In the original Hebrew of Job 40:23, the context is that the behemoth is able to drink the waters of the Jordan without being concerned for how much water it's drinking or how forceful the flowing is; the sauropod is powerful enough to weather this. And as you yourself said, the sauropod would have no concern for the flooding waters of the Jordan. The phrase "gushing into his mouth" as it is written in many translations, was originally in Hebrew the act of drinking those waters. Truth be told, if the elephant is small enough to be able to SWIM in a river, than just imagine how little control it would have should that river flood and rage around it. Only a creature too big to swim within the river would stand a chance of weathering its torrent.
@@snaptrap5558 the Jordan river currently flows at only 15% of what it did in biblical times, and an elephant would have had considerable difficulty crossing the Jordan at its deepest with figures like that, especially in flooding season when the waters were more turbulent.
@@jonahwashburn9573 Elephants can swim, and they can use their trunks as snorkels. Thus, the Jordan would "rush at their mouths, and yet they would not be afraid".
@@snaptrap5558 yes, they can swim, but not through a tumultuous rapid in the flooding season. the wording of the verse clearly would not allow an elephant to fit the description.
the original Hebrew word often translated in Job 40:21-22 as "lotus tree" is "tse'el", which does not translate actually as "lotus tree", but rather "shady tree", and the term "lotus" was only introduced in Greek and Latin translations where it has never been mentioned. It could have been any tree tall enough for the behemoth to rest under.
The tallest native tree that wasn’t imported to Israel in modern times is the Banyan tree. They stand at maximum 15 meters tall. Since this passage is clearly talking from an Israel/Judah based perspective that’s definitely not a tree that would cover an imaginary 30 meter tall dinosaur that never existed
@@narrowistheway77 the verse describes the behemoth as lying in the waters of the river, so the trees wouldn't need to cover the sauropods entire standing height, but only enough as it was lying down, and partially submerged.
@@jonahwashburn9573 GOD didn’t put dinosaurs anywhere in scripture and that was a statement someone would only make if they weren’t a student of scripture. If you knew Hebrew to read the Masoretic text or Greek to read the Septuagint or Aramaic to read the Peshitta you’d especially know this too. There is absolutely no mention of any dinosaur-like creature in scripture. The absolute closest thing you could come back with from those is Tanin in Hebrew/Aramaic, Leviathan in Hebrew, or Drakon in Greek. Spoiler these are only referenced as being in the “seas” or “waters” and in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic that is often a symbolic term for “many people and many languages”. In Hebrew lore the Tanin and Leviathan are both considered to be a spiritual creature that lurks behind men and acts as a deceiving spirit. In Greek the word for wild beast is “θηρίον” which also leaves the open possibility that the beast is spiritual and not necessarily literal. Drakon in Greek is where we get our term Dragon and the Drakon was also in lore thought to be a purely spiritual creature who acted as a deceiver and influenced the hearts and minds of people. Jonah, stop talking about things you don’t know, it is a disservice to GOD to lie about his word like you now have. I’ll pray for you to receive spiritual discernment! GOD Bless! ❤️
Btw, when it describes behemoth's "tail", it may not have been referring to its tail. Just saying. Also, it's possible that in an Iron Age mythology that there was a mythological creature mentioned. It wouldn't be too surprising lol.
In the original Hebrew of Job 40:21, the word is not "covert" but rather "shelter", not from prying eyes but likely from the sun, given that it's already lying in the marshy regions of the river to cool off.
In the original Hebrew, Job 40:19 says “he that made him [the behemoth] can make his sword to approach into him.” there is never any mention of God providing the behemoth itself with a sword-like tool or appendage, but this verse clearly shows the power and terrifying strength of the beast as so great that nobody but the Creator is able to approach it with his sword.
What level of Hebrew training have you received? That’s something that’s very interlinear sounding. Best possible translation of this verse should read; “He is the foremost of the works of GOD; He that hath made him hath furnished him with swords to attack his enemies” Hereb in this verse should be understood as plural. That’s something I don’t understand why it is constantly misunderstood, it’s pretty obvious. The Greek Septuagint has a plural word for swords there also. You’ve been in error this whole time, there is no such thing as Dinosaurs. Trust the LORD not the false sciences he warned you would come! GOD Bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 I've heard this translation before, but it is an addition that is not included in the oldest versions available, and is only ever referenced by people who want to further the narrative that dinosaurs never existed. the simple truth is that the plain text makes it clear if you bother to consider it thoroughly.
@@jonahwashburn9573 I have copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls and every other early manuscript on my Logos software. Why are you lying Jonah? It’s pretty obvious you can’t read these languages yourself
@@narrowistheway77 why are YOU lying? I can understand you simply being mistaken or misinformed, as was my assumption when you first replied, but claiming to have copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain passages that they don't contain is demonstrating exactly how low you are willing to stoop in order to win an online argument. please, show some maturity.
@@jonahwashburn9573 The point that clearly went over your head was that I have access to every single older manuscript that’s available through Logos software of all older manuscripts, not that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained them. As you should know the Leningrad Masoretic Text is the oldest Hebrew copy of this section of Job that we have. The Dead Sea scrolls only have complete(or nearly complete) manuscripts of Deuteronomy, Pslams, and Isaiah. The rest of the OT books only have fragments and there’s no copies of Esther found from Qumran. There are no older Greek manuscripts that record Job 40 differently than how I stated it. So who’s the liar Jonah? You are because there is no earlier manuscript with a variant of this verse! I know these things far better than you do. You are a liar and perpetrator against GOD’s word, I am now marking you out and avoiding your lies as scripture commands. I will let you be accursed if that is your choice. I pray you seek Jesus in spirit and in truth before your dying day. GOD Bless! ❤️
"the anatomy of the sauropod doesn't work for this" in reference to the implication "alone among the river animals, his snout is dry" is not exclusive of elephants. In fact, the elephant is far more likely than a sauropod to have a wet trunk, considering it's able to swim and submerge at all where the sauropod likely is not. A creature as massive as a Titanosaur would be able to hold its head and its snout well above the raging river and keep it dry with ease.
The Bible describes only his maker can approach him with it's sword so God gave behemoth a sword so the tail is the sword because elephant tusks are made to stab and a very long heavy powerful tail can't stab it can swipe right and left so the sword is the tail a elephant tail can't swipe you
@@ChristianLandmark job 40:17 "it tail sways like a cedar" and elephant tail doesn't fit to this discription and their is no such animals that has a tail located in front of it's body.
@@reverseforsafety3750 thanks for the comment. Did you listen to the presentation? I specifically addressed the 'sways like a cedar' issue. The verse can be translated 'straightens stiff like a cedar' which is exactly what an elephant does when alarmed. Look up some other translations (ESV He makes his tail stiff like a cedar)
A few points to remember. 1: Job is written as a parable, not a history. God doesn't actually kill off his followers because he was out drinking with Satan and made a bet. So the Behemoth and Leviathan might as easily be symbolic creatures from mythology rather than physical animals from the landscape. 2: The tail is part of a couplet. In that part of Job, one line states an idea and the next line restates or expands on the first. What's the other half of the couplet? Its strength is in its thighs, or in it's loins. I believe the Latin Vulgate uses the term "testiculorum". The "tail" is something around the thighs that can stiffen like a cedar and symbolizes some kind of power or virility. 3: The Hebrew Bible uses a lot of euphemisms when talking about reproductive issues. The Patriarchs "knew their wives" and such vague references. So a member around the loins that stiffens to show virility and probably looks like a tail is probably another euphemism. So what is Behemoth? Semantically, it would be a really large and fierce behema, some kind of beast of the field; usually an ox in normal usage. In this case, a super aurochs, symbolizing uncontrolled power and virility. A chaos monster that only God could tame. The people of the time would understand the reference. We only have trouble with it because we're trying to shoehorn the Bible into being a science textbook rather than reading it as the moral instruction that it was meant to be.
Your argument that ancient civilizations never used dinosaurs in warfare, and therefore the "stiffening tail" could only have been descriptive of elephants, assumes that humans never saw dinosaurs and never would have been able to describe their behaviors, which is not biblically founded. Not only that, but the same passage about the behemoth even had God saying that the behemoth was a creature so powerful only God could tame it, and that no man could stand before it or "pierce its nose with (a) bronze (ring)". Considering that the elephant WAS tamed by humanity quite often (as you kindly pointed out), this rules out the elephant conclusively as a candidate for the behemoth. In addition, the phrase "his nose pierceth through snares" in no way excludes the sauropod; rather, a beast of such size and strength as a Titanosaur would be able to break a snare with maybe any part of its body, but certainly with its nose, supported by it's incredibly strong and powerful neck.
@@PeaLord125 not according to the evolutionist timeline, but this does not reflect real history. the presence of birds in the fossil record, for example, shows that the supposed evolution of the species from dinosaurs over millions of years after the K2 extinction event is not evidentially founded, and there is therefore no logical reason to doubt the cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs.
@@jonahwashburn9573 Nothing you said is true infact it's the exact opposite lol birds are dinosaurs btw all the evidence supports this rather you wanna deny it or not reality doesn't care about your feelings.
So are you saying he moves his tail like a cedar is ONLY referring to the movement? I strongly disagree. Do cedars stiff out then? I believe it also takes into account the size... Great sweeping motions akin to the great cedar.
Thanks for your reply Jason. I was pointing out in my presentation that legitimate translations notice the translation issues with this verse. For example, the ESV: "He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together" and the NASV "He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together." When put together with the other issues I mention (hiding/covert in the rushes, doesn't work with the massive size of the sauropod, God gave the behemoth a sword - tusks etc) I think it is necessary to concede that the elephant is the much better choice and is intended by the Holy Spirit as the true interpretation of this verse. That doesn't mean we have to abandon the young earth position, it just means that the Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. Our hermeneutic in interpreting scripture must be honest and actually represent what God wants us to see in the text.
Actually Behemoth is a type of Sauropod Dinosaur. Job 40:17 "it's tail sways like cedar" if you compare elephant tail to this discription it did not fit. Job 40:19 "it ranks first among the work of GOD," but why does elephant hunt by Lion as their prey, see it didn't actually fit the description and fron same verse "yet it's maker can approach it with his sword" in other words this animal can't easy approach by man for it's large tree like tail way from right to left but elephant hunt by human for century. Behemoth means gigantic and elephant is smaller compare to paraceratherium (extinct mammal) and this mammal is smaller compare to Brachiosaurus Dinosaur or to Sauropod family of Dinosaur.
Thanks James. There is no evidence that Job was written before the flood. He can be dated to around 1700 B.C. In fact, read the following article which someone else wrote on the dating of Job. Here is the link for that article: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/77756/are-job-and-jobab-the-same-person Thanks for your comment! Genealogy An article by Dr. John Osgood from 2014 delves into the Biblical genealogies to narrow down when Job might have lived. In “Job? Who was Job, when did he live, and where did he live?”, the author finds his best correlations between Job and the rest of Scripture not with Job, but with his friends. Eliphaz is introduced in chapter four as “the Temanite”. This would make the oldest of the friends a descendant of Teman, first son of Eliphaz, a son of Esau, as stated in Genesis 36:9-19. This means that he likely hailed from the kingdom of Edom. This connection consequently places Job after Esau, in the time of the patriarchs between Abraham and Moses. Bildad is introduced in chapter eight as “the Shuhite”. The tribe of the Shuhites descended from Shuah, son of Abraham via his concubine Keturah, as revealed in Genesis 25:2. The Assyrians called them the Suhu, and they lived east of the Syrians on the south bank of the Euphrates. Their location would thereby have been just north of Edom, home of Eliphaz. Shuah was born after Sarah’s death, approximately 1813 BC, after Abraham married Keturah. So Bildad may have been the great-great-grandson of Shuah. Zophar was identified as a Naamathite, but that trail runs cold. However, the Septuagint calls him the King of the Mineans, in southern Arabia, or modern day Yemen. Centuries later, this kingdom would be overrun by the same Sabeans who oppressed Job, who then founded Saba, also known as Sheba, famous because of the Queen of Sheba, who visited King Solomon. Elihu is introduced in chapter thirty-two as being younger than Job. His ancestry is given as the son of Barachel the Buzite, hence of the kindred of Ram. Buzites were descended from Buz, a son of Abraham’s brother Nahor and maybe from the city of Nahor in the Balih valley north of the Euphrates, beside a tributary of the Euphrates. (Genesis 22:20-24) He was therefore an uncle of Aram (v 21), whose name could also have been Ram. Buz would have been born somewhere around 1850 B.C., with his descendant Elihu born generations later. To make things clear, Elihu lived near both Eliphaz and Bildad. Job is harder to place, as he is identified solely by his country of origin - Uz, not his family. Two people named Uz appear in Genesis. The first is the son of Aram (in Genesis 10:23) who lived shortly after Noah. The ancient Jewish scholar Josephus wrote that his descendants the Aramites (aka Syrians) settled south of the Euphrates, a geographical possibility. The second Uz (in Genesis 36:28) was a grandson of Seir the Horite (or Hivite) and gave his name to the region of Mount Seir captured by the Edomites (Genesis 36:8 and Lamenations 4:21). This better fits with the time period and locations in which the ‘friends’ lived. Did Job have a rank or title of nobility? In Job 1:3 he is called “Greatest of all the men of the East”. In chapter twenty-nine, Job’s habit of resolving disputes before the city gate and having the respect of princes suggests that he was a nobleman. Especially telling is this verse: I directed their course and presided as chief. I lived as a king among his troops, like one who comforts those who mourn. (Job 29:25, HCSB) Job may have been Lord over a city state or even a king. His proper name may have been the longer name Jobab, abbreviated to Job to emphasize the persecution he suffered. If Jobab was his full name, there are two associations possible. Jobab, son of Joktan, an ancestor of the south Arabian people and the Chaldeans, (Genesis 10:29), was born close to 2200 B.C. - near the dispersion from Babel. That is too early to be consistent with much of the other information we have about him and his companions. Jobab, son of Zerah, on the other hand was the second king of Edom. (Gen.36:33) From Genesis 36 we find this Jobab was the great grandson of Esau through son Reuel, via grandson Zerah. Assuming Esau was born 1790 B.C., and using thirty years to approximate a generation, this second Jobab would have been born approximately 1730 B.C. and reached maturity in 1700 B.C. If the idea of linking Jobab to Job is correct, and Job lived 140 years after his ordeal (as per Job 42:16), then he died after 1560 B.C.
The Holy Spirit wrote Job. It is a post-Babel narrative that is also pre-Abrahamic. The biggest clue to that is the fact that the very beginning let’s you know he’s off in the East in the land of Uz(a son of Aram in the Table of a nations in Genesis 10). Today we call that area Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan. I like to joke that GOD was flexing his skills when he wrote Job. The exact prophet who wrote it is unclear and the writing style and vocabulary usage are somewhat unique to other known Authors. Who ever wrote it was certainly GOD breathed though. There’s a chance it was written originally as a part of the book referenced as Jasher in scripture(not the fake Jasher they sell online that was written in the 1600’s in Spain). GOD Bless! ❤️
@@ChristianLandmark Job is a narrative that’s actually far away from the Holy Land. Job actually preceded Abraham in generations and even Jewish lore on Job clarifies this. Although the Jewish lore does almost certainly wrongly say he was a relative of Abraham through Abraham’s mother’s mother because based on where he seems to have been that seems like an unlikely journey his daughter would have taken. Especially since intertribal(and even interfamilial) marriage was the norm at this time. Strictly following the narrative we get a myriad of clues that this story is happening not long after the Babel and that it’s happening to the East of where Noah landed in the Ark which is why the story clarifies him as the richest man in the East(Biblically the East was in reference to the land beyond the Tigris River at this time) and that he’s in the land of Uz. One thing that’s extremely clear in the story is that Job may have lived as long as 200-300 years which places him at least one to three generations before Abraham. It’s worth noting that the Testimony of two or more witnesses disagrees with the Masoretic post-flood timeline and that the vast majority of texts support this timeline after the flood(but the Masoretic has a perfect timeline up to Arphaxad’s birth); *Arphaxad had Salah at 135 *Salah had Eber at 130 *Eber had Peleg at 134 *Peleg had Reu at 130 *Reu had Serug at 132 *Serug had Nahor at 130 *Nahor had Terah at 79 *Terah had Abraham at 130 ^This reading is supported on 4-5 of the following five sources per Patriarch with the Masoretic text dropping 100 years for the first six(they erased the Hebrew letter for 100) and 50 years for the final two(they changed the first letter for Nahor and the entire reading for Terah). Those sources are the Aramaic Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, the Qumran texts, The Samaratin Pentateuch, and the books of the Jewish Historian Josephus. You can even clarify that the Masorete Rabbi’s edited the text there within the text itself by paying close attention between Genesis 11-12. In chapter 11 they claimed Terah was 70 when Abraham was born but they forgot to edit chapter 12 where Abraham was 75 when his father died at 205 which automatically clarifies that Terah was indeed 130 when Abraham was born. Furthermore the reason for these changes takes very little study of Rabbinical Judaism to comprehend their motives. These Masorete scribes very clearly were exposed to the New Testament and zeroed in their focus on the Epistle to the Hebrews because they claim that Shem was Melchizedek and that the rights to that priesthood therefore belong to the Levites. With the correct timeline we can see that Shem was long dead before Melchizedek and Abraham would have been born 😉 The Holy Spirit wrote the book of Job and no one in Israel knew Job personally at any time. There’s an interesting fact that the author occasionally had a heavenly perspective too. These other tribes are certainly not related to Esau and Abraham, they preceded them both and they’re almost certainly all descended from Uz the son of Aram. As for the link you shared and the longer ending of Job 42, that’s actually an extreme minority reading only taking place in a couple of later manuscripts and the earliest copies of the Greek Septuagint book of Job do not include this longer ending, nor do the majority. This ending is not found in the Syriac Peshitta or the Hebrew Masoretic text either. We have no portions of this section of Job in the Dead Sea scrolls so that’s not a source we can reference for this. GOD said to follow the testimony of two or more witnesses to know the truth, Jobab is a different person unrelated to Job. Job however may well have been related to the contents of the Book of Jasher in the reference in scripture as this word Jasher means “Upright” or “Righteous”. The end of Job in the Syriac Peshitta has a variant that says “The end of the writing of Job the Righteous”. Job was the most upright man alive before Abraham lived, so it’s worth considering that his book was the original Jasher. Remember that many cultures besides the Jews maintained the knowledge of GOD before departing into paganism after the Babel. Even Melchizedek was a Canaanite and Christ chose to inherit his priesthood 😉 An interesting study you might want to do is check out the connection between the Chinese written language and the religion of YHWH. They even had a priesthood doing animal sacrifices in a manner like the Jews did for a long time before they appear to have gotten into dragon/pagan worship. The meanings of many of their characters represent that they had knowledge of the true religion for a long time, my favorite example is their character for “boat” was 8 people inside a boat. Their translation of the Bible has many GOD breathed elements as well like their translation of Jesus as Ye-Su which means “A joyous celebration of the Resurrection”. GOD Bless! ❤️
The Hebrew actually even lets you translate Job 40:19 as “He is the foremost of the works of GOD; He that hath made him hath furnished him with swords to attack his enemies”. The word Hereb(sword) should be translated as being plural in this verse 😉👍🏼
Mi querido hermano es errónea la traducción siguiente: Su cola mueve como un cedro, Y los nervios de sus muslos están entretejidos. Job 40:17 La palabra hebrea יַחְפֹּ֣ץ. Que en este versículo usted traduce haciendo referencia a movimiento de la cola no significa movimiento. Hace referencia sentimiento de tomar una opción. En otros versículos es más claro el uso de la palabra. Y si el hombre no quisiere (יַחְפֹּ֣ץ)tomar a su cuñada, irá entonces su cuñada a la puerta, a los ancianos, y dirá: Mi cuñado no quiere suscitar nombre en Israel a su hermano; no quiere emparentar conmigo. Deuteronomio 25:7 No hace referencia a movimiento. Hace referencia a sentimientos lo mismo que en Job. Mi amigo no soy lingüista pero en Job 40:17 sencillamente dice que le agrada su cola que es como un cedro.
New International Version Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. New Living Translation Its tail is as strong as a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are knit tightly together. English Standard Version He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. Berean Standard Bible His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. King James Bible He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. New King James Version He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. New American Standard Bible “He hangs his tail like a cedar; The tendons of his thighs are knit together. NASB 1995 “He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. NASB 1977 “He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. Legacy Standard Bible It hangs its tail like a cedar; The sinews of its thighs are knit together. Amplified Bible “He sways his tail like a cedar; The tendons of his thighs are twisted and knit together [like a rope]. Christian Standard Bible He stiffens his tail like a cedar tree; the tendons of his thighs are woven firmly together.
@@miguelplanell7528 thank you again! My point is that scripture plainly reveals that Dinosaurs did not walk on the earth after the flood. We know this because all animals on the ark were to be kept alive and flourish 15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” New King James Version (Ge 8:15-17). ABOUND on the earth. Dinosaurs did not ABOUND on the earth after the flood. Therefore, it is wrong to teach they were on the ark. They were not. But we know that two of EVERY living land animal went into the ark before the flood. Therefore, it is logical that dinosaurs were not alive before the flood. They were not alive BEFORE the flood, they were not alive AFTER the flood, ergo they never lived. They must have been fossils from the very beginning. God created fossils in the ground to confound the wicked and those who hate him. Don't teach something the Bible doesn't say my friend! Again, thank you!
A sword not swords and then he god had the sword not give him. Don't make up your own bullshit now. It's never an elephant, not even a mammoth that was the bigger version if you would wanna continue with this hypothesis plz just say the mammoth
I’ve been to museums with dinosaur fossils on display and they’re all fake. You can ask the museum guides directly and be inquisitive and they’ll literally admit that they’re all models and completely fake with all the dinosaurs. The only real fossils at those museums are not dinosaurs, they claim they’re too fragile to put on display but in reality they’re just fake propaganda to push an ancient Earth and evolutionary hocus pocus on your mind. GOD Bless! ❤️
@@nordscan9043 is that really how you talk about people who study the Bible and know it better than you? None of the early Bible manuscripts would ever agree with any animal other than an elephant. The heretics are the people lying to you to make you believe in imaginary creatures that never even existed. Jurassic Park is what we call “propaganda theater”. GOD Bless! ❤️
The Jordan river in Israel Jerusalem is about 50 to 200 feet deep the elephant is about 13 feet tall at shoulder and 50 feet is too deep for elephant but the dinosaur is well over 130 feet at the head but the Jordan is rushing and the Jordan river isn't calm it's fast moving
Thanks for the reply Crazy, appreciate it! The sources I have access to say that the Jordan river is shallow: "When William F. Lynch sailed down the Jordan in 1847, the depth at the Sea of Galilee was 2.5 feet deep and 7 feet deep at the Jabbok River." This has been historically true. Your 50-200feet figure refers to the Jordan River Valley, not the river itself. The valley is 200 feet deep at the greatest point, but the water is only on average 12 feet deep. There is no way a titanosaur dinosaur could have stood in the Jordan and had the river in its mouth.
Here is another encyclopedia entry which can be found online: The Jordan River is shallow, with its high-water period lasting from January to March, while its low-water period occurs at the end of summer and the beginning of autumn. Its current is swift, carrying a heavy load of silt. It is unnavigable due to its precipitous upper course, its seasonal flow, and its shallow, twisting lower course.
Hey Benson, no, the Behemoth in scripture is an elephant. There were no dinosaurs on the ark--the bottom line of 'apparent age' is that dinosaurs never walked the earth, they have existed only as fossils in the ground, created at the beginning, never alive. thanks for the comment!
@@ChristianLandmark But some discovered dinosaur bones are not just mere fossils. Some are actual bones with residue of their blood cells, confirming they have lived. If they never walked on earth, where do the bones and fossil came from? And, if behemoth is an elephant, how it came that it can be defeated by humans, killed by humans, if God said it can only be tame by their creator, which is God himself. I'm not sure if behemoth is a dinosaur but I don't think it is an elephant.
@@marithommartinez7525 I don't have any issues with blood, protein, and possibly DNA being found in the fossils. God put them there in the ground 6000 years ago, so it makes sense. The dinosaurs never roamed the earth. They were part of the earth's crust from the very beginning. Also, the correct translation of that verse is that God gave the behemoth a sword, it doesn't really say that only God can tame him. DARBY: He is the chief of God's ways: he that made him gave him his sword. Obviously, if sauropods were around today, we humans would be able to tame and control them too, just as we do everything else.
So sad when people try to change the word of God to fit their world view. I would rather please God than man. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than scripture. These misled people, like the man speaking here will only cause doubt in the word of God.
It’s a sauropod no elephants live in the Middle East and their are many sauropods discovered in that area and some sauropods were only about the size of a elephant which was the size of many sauropods found in the Middle East and Africa and most sauropods in Africa and many sauropods in Africa lived in around or in swamps and rivers and held their neck and head more parrel to the ground and the sword and cedar tree things could be spikes on the body and tail giving the tail a ceded tree like aperence
Except that the behemoth is described as having a navel, a bellybutton. Reptiles don’t have navels, only mammals do. They also say it eats grass like an ox, and no dinosaur ate grass.
@@MattyGears1583 Yep, sauropods are herbivores, but grass does not denote all plants. Sauropods were highly specialized to eating from trees, specifically conifers and ferns, and true grass didn’t even exist until the Cenozoic, so sauropods would have never encountered it.
Hey Dustin, thanks for watching. I appreciate it. So watch my other video on apparent age. In that video I explain that God created the earth with 'apparent age' some 6000 years ago. In other words, the dinosaurs never lived. They were created in the ground as fossils. They never walked the earth. They never were side by side with men. Why did God do this? The same reason Adam was created as a full grown man and not as a baby (i.e. with apparent age). Because the secret things belong to God (Deut 29:29). He doesn't have to explain anything to us. th-cam.com/video/BLUVqZALy0w/w-d-xo.html
I used to be like these guys. Trying to take the Bible and the world-view from my scientific background and mesh them together to form some kind of in-between truth. I quickly came to realise that it's either one or the other, God does not want us to be lukewarm. If there are dinosaurs in the ground it means they were created by our God on the same day as man along with the other land animals and they were indeed on the ark as God said that EVERY animal of its kind would be on the ark. God does not create dead things in the earth to confuse us, he gave life. If we believe in His Word then we reject any idea that things lived or should have lived millions of years ago. Radiometric dating fails to correctly date things of known age over and over again often dating them higher by powers of 10. What's great is that recently archeologists found soft dinausour tissue with tact cells and blood vessels!! Definitely not millions of years old, just thousands! His word speaks of behemoth and behold, centuries later we find it in the ground. He does indeed reveal Himself in our world and we should rejoice and not twist God's word to fit into worldly theories that date things to millions of years ago.
The "tail like a cedar" quote probably refers to its trunk, remember, these people had no point of reference for an elephant, much like Europeans had no reference for crocodiles and rhinos, describing them as bizarre, armored creatures.
Gracias por tu comentario Jorge. Los hombres ciertamente podrían derrotar a un brontosaurio o un dinosaurio marino en la batalla. Los hombres pueden matar a cualquier criatura viviente. Pero los hombres no pueden vencer a Satanás, él es un ser espiritual. Por eso Leviatán es Satanás. Solo Dios (Jesús el Hijo) derrotó a Satanás con la espada de Su boca (es decir, Su justicia sin pecado y sus palabras justas).
with due respect.... the tail and the long neck.................................elephant........... i have to reallllllyyyyyyyyyyy streatchhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my imagination really long..... I believe its an animal that`s extinct now.... what ever it was
long neck? Where do you get that from the text? Also, the book of Job probably was written around the time of the patriarchs, maybe a few centuries earlier, so it wasn't that long ago. Extinct? Unlikely. Has to be an animal alive today. Thanks for your reply!
@@ChristianLandmark I believe that Dinosaurs lived with humans. I believe that most dinosaurs died during the flood. But i cannot digest the fact that Bohemoth is an elephant.. its most likely a dinosaur
You do realize the text in full context of Job 40 in the Hebrew Masoretic text, the Greek Septuagint text, and the Syriac Peshitta text that none of them say anything about a long neck right? What English Bible do you read?? None of them that I’m aware of put that lie in the text. Where did you get this from?!?
the movement of the behemoth's tail (if it was an elephant) could have easily been described as being like the swaying of river rushes or Reed's, given it's small size. The cedar tree is often equated in the Bible and in Hebrew culture with strength and immense size. Why would God describe the tail of the behemoth as being like a cedar tree if it was comparatively so pathetically small and weak? A tail like that of a brontosaurus is certainly big and strong enough for the symbolism of a cedar tree to be warranted. Additionally, if dinosaurs DID exist after the flood, as evidence shows they certainly must have, then why would God use such a comparatively miniscule creature as a mere elephant to describe the "chief among His creations?" It doesn't add up.
Exactly
It’s tail sways like a cedar tree never said anything about the tail being a cedar tree.
@@silasr20 neither did I.
In terms of the full phrase, it sounds like it discribing a dinosaur. If you understand the hebrew words for "navel" which it isnt the word navel. And the you look at the full phrase.
th-cam.com/video/p32CV_uZLh8/w-d-xo.html
"Moveth like a cedar tree", also sometimes translated as "extendeth like a cedar tree"
An elephant tail more closely matches the lebanese cedar tree than does a sauropod tail.
The verse is often also interpreted to not be talking about an actual tail at all, namely the animal's penis.
I hate to keep saying "in the original", but with some simple research it all becomes clear. In the original Hebrew of Job 40:23, the context is that the behemoth is able to drink the waters of the Jordan without being concerned for how much water it's drinking or how forceful the flowing is; the sauropod is powerful enough to weather this. And as you yourself said, the sauropod would have no concern for the flooding waters of the Jordan. The phrase "gushing into his mouth" as it is written in many translations, was originally in Hebrew the act of drinking those waters. Truth be told, if the elephant is small enough to be able to SWIM in a river, than just imagine how little control it would have should that river flood and rage around it. Only a creature too big to swim within the river would stand a chance of weathering its torrent.
The Jordan river would never be deep enough to rush against a sauropod's mouth.
@@snaptrap5558 the Jordan river currently flows at only 15% of what it did in biblical times, and an elephant would have had considerable difficulty crossing the Jordan at its deepest with figures like that, especially in flooding season when the waters were more turbulent.
@@jonahwashburn9573 Elephants can swim, and they can use their trunks as snorkels.
Thus, the Jordan would "rush at their mouths, and yet they would not be afraid".
@@snaptrap5558 yes, they can swim, but not through a tumultuous rapid in the flooding season. the wording of the verse clearly would not allow an elephant to fit the description.
That’s actually incorrect. Are you reading an interlinear or actually reading it?
Or the Behemoth could have been the Extinct Mammoth since it was larger and taller than the elephant right
right, i agree, could have been the Mammoth
Mammoths have long necks don't they? Doughnut!
Mammoths were actually smaller than modern African elephants.
@@nordscan9043 The Bible never claims that Behemoth had a long neck.
They don't live in swamps or the Jordan River though
the original Hebrew word often translated in Job 40:21-22 as "lotus tree" is "tse'el", which does not translate actually as "lotus tree", but rather "shady tree", and the term "lotus" was only introduced in Greek and Latin translations where it has never been mentioned. It could have been any tree tall enough for the behemoth to rest under.
The tallest native tree that wasn’t imported to Israel in modern times is the Banyan tree. They stand at maximum 15 meters tall. Since this passage is clearly talking from an Israel/Judah based perspective that’s definitely not a tree that would cover an imaginary 30 meter tall dinosaur that never existed
@@narrowistheway77 the verse describes the behemoth as lying in the waters of the river, so the trees wouldn't need to cover the sauropods entire standing height, but only enough as it was lying down, and partially submerged.
@@jonahwashburn9573 Sauropods never existed, that’s a great delusion.
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 then why did God describe them as being real creatures in the Bible?
@@jonahwashburn9573 GOD didn’t put dinosaurs anywhere in scripture and that was a statement someone would only make if they weren’t a student of scripture. If you knew Hebrew to read the Masoretic text or Greek to read the Septuagint or Aramaic to read the Peshitta you’d especially know this too. There is absolutely no mention of any dinosaur-like creature in scripture. The absolute closest thing you could come back with from those is Tanin in Hebrew/Aramaic, Leviathan in Hebrew, or Drakon in Greek. Spoiler these are only referenced as being in the “seas” or “waters” and in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic that is often a symbolic term for “many people and many languages”.
In Hebrew lore the Tanin and Leviathan are both considered to be a spiritual creature that lurks behind men and acts as a deceiving spirit. In Greek the word for wild beast is “θηρίον” which also leaves the open possibility that the beast is spiritual and not necessarily literal. Drakon in Greek is where we get our term Dragon and the Drakon was also in lore thought to be a purely spiritual creature who acted as a deceiver and influenced the hearts and minds of people.
Jonah, stop talking about things you don’t know, it is a disservice to GOD to lie about his word like you now have. I’ll pray for you to receive spiritual discernment!
GOD Bless! ❤️
Btw, when it describes behemoth's "tail", it may not have been referring to its tail. Just saying. Also, it's possible that in an Iron Age mythology that there was a mythological creature mentioned. It wouldn't be too surprising lol.
In the original Hebrew of Job 40:21, the word is not "covert" but rather "shelter", not from prying eyes but likely from the sun, given that it's already lying in the marshy regions of the river to cool off.
Maybe a hippo or a crocodile?
@@silasr20 neither of them fits the descriptions satisfactorily
@@jonahwashburn9573 well hipposand elephants do lay under the shady trees and in the swamps too
@@silasr20 but hippos don't have tails that sway like cedar trees and crocodiles don't graze from the fields like cattle
@@jonahwashburn9573 u do have a point but it’s describing how the tail moves like a cedar tree the way it bends soo it could possibly be the elephant
In the original Hebrew, Job 40:19 says “he that made him [the behemoth] can make his sword to approach into him.” there is never any mention of God providing the behemoth itself with a sword-like tool or appendage, but this verse clearly shows the power and terrifying strength of the beast as so great that nobody but the Creator is able to approach it with his sword.
What level of Hebrew training have you received? That’s something that’s very interlinear sounding. Best possible translation of this verse should read;
“He is the foremost of the works of GOD; He that hath made him hath furnished him with swords to attack his enemies”
Hereb in this verse should be understood as plural. That’s something I don’t understand why it is constantly misunderstood, it’s pretty obvious. The Greek Septuagint has a plural word for swords there also. You’ve been in error this whole time, there is no such thing as Dinosaurs. Trust the LORD not the false sciences he warned you would come!
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 I've heard this translation before, but it is an addition that is not included in the oldest versions available, and is only ever referenced by people who want to further the narrative that dinosaurs never existed. the simple truth is that the plain text makes it clear if you bother to consider it thoroughly.
@@jonahwashburn9573 I have copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls and every other early manuscript on my Logos software. Why are you lying Jonah? It’s pretty obvious you can’t read these languages yourself
@@narrowistheway77 why are YOU lying? I can understand you simply being mistaken or misinformed, as was my assumption when you first replied, but claiming to have copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain passages that they don't contain is demonstrating exactly how low you are willing to stoop in order to win an online argument. please, show some maturity.
@@jonahwashburn9573 The point that clearly went over your head was that I have access to every single older manuscript that’s available through Logos software of all older manuscripts, not that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained them. As you should know the Leningrad Masoretic Text is the oldest Hebrew copy of this section of Job that we have. The Dead Sea scrolls only have complete(or nearly complete) manuscripts of Deuteronomy, Pslams, and Isaiah. The rest of the OT books only have fragments and there’s no copies of Esther found from Qumran. There are no older Greek manuscripts that record Job 40 differently than how I stated it. So who’s the liar Jonah? You are because there is no earlier manuscript with a variant of this verse!
I know these things far better than you do. You are a liar and perpetrator against GOD’s word, I am now marking you out and avoiding your lies as scripture commands. I will let you be accursed if that is your choice. I pray you seek Jesus in spirit and in truth before your dying day.
GOD Bless! ❤️
"the anatomy of the sauropod doesn't work for this" in reference to the implication "alone among the river animals, his snout is dry" is not exclusive of elephants. In fact, the elephant is far more likely than a sauropod to have a wet trunk, considering it's able to swim and submerge at all where the sauropod likely is not. A creature as massive as a Titanosaur would be able to hold its head and its snout well above the raging river and keep it dry with ease.
The Bible describes only his maker can approach him with it's sword so God gave behemoth a sword so the tail is the sword because elephant tusks are made to stab and a very long heavy powerful tail can't stab it can swipe right and left so the sword is the tail a elephant tail can't swipe you
No, the tail isn't the sword. The behemoth's sword is the tusks of the elephant!
@@ChristianLandmark tusk is made for stabbing and a long tail acts like a sword to whip or slash tusk isn't flexible it can only stab
@@ChristianLandmark job 40:17 "it tail sways like a cedar" and elephant tail doesn't fit to this discription and their is no such animals that has a tail located in front of it's body.
@@reverseforsafety3750 thanks for the comment. Did you listen to the presentation? I specifically addressed the 'sways like a cedar' issue. The verse can be translated 'straightens stiff like a cedar' which is exactly what an elephant does when alarmed. Look up some other translations (ESV He makes his tail stiff like a cedar)
@@ChristianLandmark th-cam.com/video/gs-DztE8cq0/w-d-xo.html
Click the link
A few points to remember.
1: Job is written as a parable, not a history. God doesn't actually kill off his followers because he was out drinking with Satan and made a bet. So the Behemoth and Leviathan might as easily be symbolic creatures from mythology rather than physical animals from the landscape.
2: The tail is part of a couplet. In that part of Job, one line states an idea and the next line restates or expands on the first.
What's the other half of the couplet? Its strength is in its thighs, or in it's loins. I believe the Latin Vulgate uses the term "testiculorum". The "tail" is something around the thighs that can stiffen like a cedar and symbolizes some kind of power or virility.
3: The Hebrew Bible uses a lot of euphemisms when talking about reproductive issues. The Patriarchs "knew their wives" and such vague references.
So a member around the loins that stiffens to show virility and probably looks like a tail is probably another euphemism.
So what is Behemoth? Semantically, it would be a really large and fierce behema, some kind of beast of the field; usually an ox in normal usage. In this case, a super aurochs, symbolizing uncontrolled power and virility. A chaos monster that only God could tame.
The people of the time would understand the reference. We only have trouble with it because we're trying to shoehorn the Bible into being a science textbook rather than reading it as the moral instruction that it was meant to be.
Your argument that ancient civilizations never used dinosaurs in warfare, and therefore the "stiffening tail" could only have been descriptive of elephants, assumes that humans never saw dinosaurs and never would have been able to describe their behaviors, which is not biblically founded. Not only that, but the same passage about the behemoth even had God saying that the behemoth was a creature so powerful only God could tame it, and that no man could stand before it or "pierce its nose with (a) bronze (ring)". Considering that the elephant WAS tamed by humanity quite often (as you kindly pointed out), this rules out the elephant conclusively as a candidate for the behemoth. In addition, the phrase "his nose pierceth through snares" in no way excludes the sauropod; rather, a beast of such size and strength as a Titanosaur would be able to break a snare with maybe any part of its body, but certainly with its nose, supported by it's incredibly strong and powerful neck.
Right on, man.
Exactly! This guy is way off
Because dinosaurs didn't live with humans
@@PeaLord125 not according to the evolutionist timeline, but this does not reflect real history. the presence of birds in the fossil record, for example, shows that the supposed evolution of the species from dinosaurs over millions of years after the K2 extinction event is not evidentially founded, and there is therefore no logical reason to doubt the cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs.
@@jonahwashburn9573 Nothing you said is true infact it's the exact opposite lol birds are dinosaurs btw all the evidence supports this rather you wanna deny it or not reality doesn't care about your feelings.
I Am Sorry If This Comment Make You Sad But Elephant Don't Have Ribs Are Like Bars Of Iron And Bones That Like Beams Of Bronze
So are you saying he moves his tail like a cedar is ONLY referring to the movement? I strongly disagree. Do cedars stiff out then? I believe it also takes into account the size... Great sweeping motions akin to the great cedar.
Thanks for your reply Jason. I was pointing out in my presentation that legitimate translations notice the translation issues with this verse. For example, the ESV: "He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together" and the NASV "He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together." When put together with the other issues I mention (hiding/covert in the rushes, doesn't work with the massive size of the sauropod, God gave the behemoth a sword - tusks etc) I think it is necessary to concede that the elephant is the much better choice and is intended by the Holy Spirit as the true interpretation of this verse. That doesn't mean we have to abandon the young earth position, it just means that the Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. Our hermeneutic in interpreting scripture must be honest and actually represent what God wants us to see in the text.
You sir are a liar.
Actually Behemoth is a type of Sauropod Dinosaur.
Job 40:17 "it's tail sways like cedar" if you compare elephant tail to this discription it did not fit.
Job 40:19 "it ranks first among the work of GOD," but why does elephant hunt by Lion as their prey, see it didn't actually fit the description and fron same verse "yet it's maker can approach it with his sword" in other words this animal can't easy approach by man for it's large tree like tail way from right to left but elephant hunt by human for century.
Behemoth means gigantic and elephant is smaller compare to paraceratherium (extinct mammal) and this mammal is smaller compare to Brachiosaurus Dinosaur or to Sauropod family of Dinosaur.
There is no mention that the tail has the size of a cedar. There is not even a description of the neck.
@@stephencastro4723 th-cam.com/video/gs-DztE8cq0/w-d-xo.html
click the link
@@reverseforsafety3750 CREATIONIST NONSENSE. I don't buy Bible twisting and erroneous interpretations.
I agree with you, if we have evidence for Sauropods, which we do, then elephants cant be the "chief" as they are tiny in comparison.
@@jaybfalcon2 They can be if the biblical authors had never had any kind of knowledge of them. Which they wouldn't have had.
Was not Job written before the flood?
Thanks James. There is no evidence that Job was written before the flood. He can be dated to around 1700 B.C.
In fact, read the following article which someone else wrote on the dating of Job. Here is the link for that article: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/77756/are-job-and-jobab-the-same-person Thanks for your comment!
Genealogy
An article by Dr. John Osgood from 2014 delves into the Biblical genealogies to narrow down when Job might have lived. In “Job? Who was Job, when did he live, and where did he live?”, the author finds his best correlations between Job and the rest of Scripture not with Job, but with his friends.
Eliphaz is introduced in chapter four as “the Temanite”. This would make the oldest of the friends a descendant of Teman, first son of Eliphaz, a son of Esau, as stated in Genesis 36:9-19. This means that he likely hailed from the kingdom of Edom. This connection consequently places Job after Esau, in the time of the patriarchs between Abraham and Moses.
Bildad is introduced in chapter eight as “the Shuhite”. The tribe of the Shuhites descended from Shuah, son of Abraham via his concubine Keturah, as revealed in Genesis 25:2. The Assyrians called them the Suhu, and they lived east of the Syrians on the south bank of the Euphrates. Their location would thereby have been just north of Edom, home of Eliphaz. Shuah was born after Sarah’s death, approximately 1813 BC, after Abraham married Keturah. So Bildad may have been the great-great-grandson of Shuah.
Zophar was identified as a Naamathite, but that trail runs cold. However, the Septuagint calls him the King of the Mineans, in southern Arabia, or modern day Yemen. Centuries later, this kingdom would be overrun by the same Sabeans who oppressed Job, who then founded Saba, also known as Sheba, famous because of the Queen of Sheba, who visited King Solomon.
Elihu is introduced in chapter thirty-two as being younger than Job. His ancestry is given as the son of Barachel the Buzite, hence of the kindred of Ram. Buzites were descended from Buz, a son of Abraham’s brother Nahor and maybe from the city of Nahor in the Balih valley north of the Euphrates, beside a tributary of the Euphrates. (Genesis 22:20-24) He was therefore an uncle of Aram (v 21), whose name could also have been Ram. Buz would have been born somewhere around 1850 B.C., with his descendant Elihu born generations later. To make things clear, Elihu lived near both Eliphaz and Bildad.
Job is harder to place, as he is identified solely by his country of origin - Uz, not his family. Two people named Uz appear in Genesis. The first is the son of Aram (in Genesis 10:23) who lived shortly after Noah. The ancient Jewish scholar Josephus wrote that his descendants the Aramites (aka Syrians) settled south of the Euphrates, a geographical possibility.
The second Uz (in Genesis 36:28) was a grandson of Seir the Horite (or Hivite) and gave his name to the region of Mount Seir captured by the Edomites (Genesis 36:8 and Lamenations 4:21). This better fits with the time period and locations in which the ‘friends’ lived. Did Job have a rank or title of nobility? In Job 1:3 he is called “Greatest of all the men of the East”. In chapter twenty-nine, Job’s habit of resolving disputes before the city gate and having the respect of princes suggests that he was a nobleman. Especially telling is this verse:
I directed their course and presided as chief. I lived as a king among his troops, like one who comforts those who mourn. (Job 29:25, HCSB)
Job may have been Lord over a city state or even a king. His proper name may have been the longer name Jobab, abbreviated to Job to emphasize the persecution he suffered. If Jobab was his full name, there are two associations possible.
Jobab, son of Joktan, an ancestor of the south Arabian people and the Chaldeans, (Genesis 10:29), was born close to 2200 B.C. - near the dispersion from Babel. That is too early to be consistent with much of the other information we have about him and his companions.
Jobab, son of Zerah, on the other hand was the second king of Edom. (Gen.36:33) From Genesis 36 we find this Jobab was the great grandson of Esau through son Reuel, via grandson Zerah. Assuming Esau was born 1790 B.C., and using thirty years to approximate a generation, this second Jobab would have been born approximately 1730 B.C. and reached maturity in 1700 B.C. If the idea of linking Jobab to Job is correct, and Job lived 140 years after his ordeal (as per Job 42:16), then he died after 1560 B.C.
The Holy Spirit wrote Job. It is a post-Babel narrative that is also pre-Abrahamic. The biggest clue to that is the fact that the very beginning let’s you know he’s off in the East in the land of Uz(a son of Aram in the Table of a nations in Genesis 10). Today we call that area Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan. I like to joke that GOD was flexing his skills when he wrote Job. The exact prophet who wrote it is unclear and the writing style and vocabulary usage are somewhat unique to other known Authors. Who ever wrote it was certainly GOD breathed though. There’s a chance it was written originally as a part of the book referenced as Jasher in scripture(not the fake Jasher they sell online that was written in the 1600’s in Spain).
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@ChristianLandmark Job is a narrative that’s actually far away from the Holy Land. Job actually preceded Abraham in generations and even Jewish lore on Job clarifies this. Although the Jewish lore does almost certainly wrongly say he was a relative of Abraham through Abraham’s mother’s mother because based on where he seems to have been that seems like an unlikely journey his daughter would have taken. Especially since intertribal(and even interfamilial) marriage was the norm at this time.
Strictly following the narrative we get a myriad of clues that this story is happening not long after the Babel and that it’s happening to the East of where Noah landed in the Ark which is why the story clarifies him as the richest man in the East(Biblically the East was in reference to the land beyond the Tigris River at this time) and that he’s in the land of Uz. One thing that’s extremely clear in the story is that Job may have lived as long as 200-300 years which places him at least one to three generations before Abraham.
It’s worth noting that the Testimony of two or more witnesses disagrees with the Masoretic post-flood timeline and that the vast majority of texts support this timeline after the flood(but the Masoretic has a perfect timeline up to Arphaxad’s birth);
*Arphaxad had Salah at 135
*Salah had Eber at 130
*Eber had Peleg at 134
*Peleg had Reu at 130
*Reu had Serug at 132
*Serug had Nahor at 130
*Nahor had Terah at 79
*Terah had Abraham at 130
^This reading is supported on 4-5 of the following five sources per Patriarch with the Masoretic text dropping 100 years for the first six(they erased the Hebrew letter for 100) and 50 years for the final two(they changed the first letter for Nahor and the entire reading for Terah). Those sources are the Aramaic Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, the Qumran texts, The Samaratin Pentateuch, and the books of the Jewish Historian Josephus. You can even clarify that the Masorete Rabbi’s edited the text there within the text itself by paying close attention between Genesis 11-12. In chapter 11 they claimed Terah was 70 when Abraham was born but they forgot to edit chapter 12 where Abraham was 75 when his father died at 205 which automatically clarifies that Terah was indeed 130 when Abraham was born. Furthermore the reason for these changes takes very little study of Rabbinical Judaism to comprehend their motives. These Masorete scribes very clearly were exposed to the New Testament and zeroed in their focus on the Epistle to the Hebrews because they claim that Shem was Melchizedek and that the rights to that priesthood therefore belong to the Levites. With the correct timeline we can see that Shem was long dead before Melchizedek and Abraham would have been born 😉
The Holy Spirit wrote the book of Job and no one in Israel knew Job personally at any time. There’s an interesting fact that the author occasionally had a heavenly perspective too. These other tribes are certainly not related to Esau and Abraham, they preceded them both and they’re almost certainly all descended from Uz the son of Aram.
As for the link you shared and the longer ending of Job 42, that’s actually an extreme minority reading only taking place in a couple of later manuscripts and the earliest copies of the Greek Septuagint book of Job do not include this longer ending, nor do the majority. This ending is not found in the Syriac Peshitta or the Hebrew Masoretic text either. We have no portions of this section of Job in the Dead Sea scrolls so that’s not a source we can reference for this. GOD said to follow the testimony of two or more witnesses to know the truth, Jobab is a different person unrelated to Job. Job however may well have been related to the contents of the Book of Jasher in the reference in scripture as this word Jasher means “Upright” or “Righteous”. The end of Job in the Syriac Peshitta has a variant that says “The end of the writing of Job the Righteous”. Job was the most upright man alive before Abraham lived, so it’s worth considering that his book was the original Jasher.
Remember that many cultures besides the Jews maintained the knowledge of GOD before departing into paganism after the Babel. Even Melchizedek was a Canaanite and Christ chose to inherit his priesthood 😉
An interesting study you might want to do is check out the connection between the Chinese written language and the religion of YHWH. They even had a priesthood doing animal sacrifices in a manner like the Jews did for a long time before they appear to have gotten into dragon/pagan worship. The meanings of many of their characters represent that they had knowledge of the true religion for a long time, my favorite example is their character for “boat” was 8 people inside a boat. Their translation of the Bible has many GOD breathed elements as well like their translation of Jesus as Ye-Su which means “A joyous celebration of the Resurrection”.
GOD Bless! ❤️
The Hebrew actually even lets you translate Job 40:19 as “He is the foremost of the works of GOD; He that hath made him hath furnished him with swords to attack his enemies”. The word Hereb(sword) should be translated as being plural in this verse 😉👍🏼
wow. Thanks for that... pretty cool.
I agree. Thanks
thank you! share if you approve of the content.
It is not a elephant because elephant don't blow a fire... Please read all the verse of Job chapter 40
T
You will se..Job 40:18-21 please read before you agree
Arvin Javelosa you are talking about Leviathan chap 41 - behemoth is a different creature. please see my other video on leviathan
Arvin Javelosa
th-cam.com/video/DvQ8q7DogCs/w-d-xo.html
Mi querido hermano es errónea la traducción siguiente:
Su cola mueve como un cedro, Y los nervios de sus muslos están entretejidos.
Job 40:17
La palabra hebrea יַחְפֹּ֣ץ. Que en este versículo usted traduce haciendo referencia a movimiento de la cola no significa movimiento.
Hace referencia sentimiento de tomar una opción. En otros versículos es más claro el uso de la palabra.
Y si el hombre no quisiere (יַחְפֹּ֣ץ)tomar a su cuñada, irá entonces su cuñada a la puerta, a los ancianos, y dirá: Mi cuñado no quiere suscitar nombre en Israel a su hermano; no quiere emparentar conmigo.
Deuteronomio 25:7
No hace referencia a movimiento. Hace referencia a sentimientos lo mismo que en Job. Mi amigo no soy lingüista pero en Job 40:17 sencillamente dice que le agrada su cola que es como un cedro.
thank you for your reply! I must disagree, the majority of translations connect this verse with movement. Here are a few examples:
New International Version
Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
New Living Translation
Its tail is as strong as a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are knit tightly together.
English Standard Version
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
Berean Standard Bible
His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
King James Bible
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
New King James Version
He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
New American Standard Bible
“He hangs his tail like a cedar; The tendons of his thighs are knit together.
NASB 1995
“He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
NASB 1977
“He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
Legacy Standard Bible
It hangs its tail like a cedar; The sinews of its thighs are knit together.
Amplified Bible
“He sways his tail like a cedar; The tendons of his thighs are twisted and knit together [like a rope].
Christian Standard Bible
He stiffens his tail like a cedar tree; the tendons of his thighs are woven firmly together.
That makes my point. The Elephant stiffens its tail when it is angry, like a cedar is stiff.
@@ChristianLandmark pero no el hebreo original. Y he buscado la misma palabra en otros versículos y tampoco indican movimiento.
@@miguelplanell7528 thank you again! My point is that scripture plainly reveals that Dinosaurs did not walk on the earth after the flood. We know this because all animals on the ark were to be kept alive and flourish 15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” New King James Version (Ge 8:15-17). ABOUND on the earth. Dinosaurs did not ABOUND on the earth after the flood. Therefore, it is wrong to teach they were on the ark. They were not. But we know that two of EVERY living land animal went into the ark before the flood. Therefore, it is logical that dinosaurs were not alive before the flood. They were not alive BEFORE the flood, they were not alive AFTER the flood, ergo they never lived. They must have been fossils from the very beginning. God created fossils in the ground to confound the wicked and those who hate him. Don't teach something the Bible doesn't say my friend! Again, thank you!
A sword not swords and then he god had the sword not give him. Don't make up your own bullshit now.
It's never an elephant, not even a mammoth that was the bigger version if you would wanna continue with this hypothesis plz just say the mammoth
Im sry but based on resent discoveries the behemoth perfectly describes a sauropod dino THE largest creature ever to walk on land
Also explain the giant bones they find thigh bones bigger then elephant
You need to watch my video on apparent age for an explanation for these dinosaur bones. th-cam.com/video/BLUVqZALy0w/w-d-xo.html
He's a heretic.
I’ve been to museums with dinosaur fossils on display and they’re all fake. You can ask the museum guides directly and be inquisitive and they’ll literally admit that they’re all models and completely fake with all the dinosaurs. The only real fossils at those museums are not dinosaurs, they claim they’re too fragile to put on display but in reality they’re just fake propaganda to push an ancient Earth and evolutionary hocus pocus on your mind.
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@nordscan9043 is that really how you talk about people who study the Bible and know it better than you? None of the early Bible manuscripts would ever agree with any animal other than an elephant. The heretics are the people lying to you to make you believe in imaginary creatures that never even existed. Jurassic Park is what we call “propaganda theater”.
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 You are a clown🤡
The Jordan river in Israel Jerusalem is about 50 to 200 feet deep the elephant is about 13 feet tall at shoulder and 50 feet is too deep for elephant but the dinosaur is well over 130 feet at the head but the Jordan is rushing and the Jordan river isn't calm it's fast moving
Thanks for the reply Crazy, appreciate it! The sources I have access to say that the Jordan river is shallow: "When William F. Lynch sailed down the Jordan in 1847, the depth at the Sea of Galilee was 2.5 feet deep and 7 feet deep at the Jabbok River." This has been historically true. Your 50-200feet figure refers to the Jordan River Valley, not the river itself. The valley is 200 feet deep at the greatest point, but the water is only on average 12 feet deep. There is no way a titanosaur dinosaur could have stood in the Jordan and had the river in its mouth.
Here is another encyclopedia entry which can be found online: The Jordan River is shallow, with its high-water period lasting from January to March, while its low-water period occurs at the end of summer and the beginning of autumn. Its current is swift, carrying a heavy load of silt. It is unnavigable due to its precipitous upper course, its seasonal flow, and its shallow, twisting lower course.
I don't agree
thanks for watching anyway. th-cam.com/video/BLUVqZALy0w/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/m3vQvgfwvbc/w-d-xo.html watch this, it's amazing!!
Please replay if triceratops dinosaur is behemoth
Hey Benson, no, the Behemoth in scripture is an elephant. There were no dinosaurs on the ark--the bottom line of 'apparent age' is that dinosaurs never walked the earth, they have existed only as fossils in the ground, created at the beginning, never alive. thanks for the comment!
@@ChristianLandmark But some discovered dinosaur bones are not just mere fossils. Some are actual bones with residue of their blood cells, confirming they have lived. If they never walked on earth, where do the bones and fossil came from? And, if behemoth is an elephant, how it came that it can be defeated by humans, killed by humans, if God said it can only be tame by their creator, which is God himself. I'm not sure if behemoth is a dinosaur but I don't think it is an elephant.
@@marithommartinez7525 I don't have any issues with blood, protein, and possibly DNA being found in the fossils. God put them there in the ground 6000 years ago, so it makes sense. The dinosaurs never roamed the earth. They were part of the earth's crust from the very beginning.
Also, the correct translation of that verse is that God gave the behemoth a sword, it doesn't really say that only God can tame him. DARBY: He is the chief of God's ways: he that made him gave him his sword.
Obviously, if sauropods were around today, we humans would be able to tame and control them too, just as we do everything else.
th-cam.com/video/BLUVqZALy0w/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/m3vQvgfwvbc/w-d-xo.html watch this, it's amazing!!!
So sad when people try to change the word of God to fit their world view. I would rather please God than man. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than scripture. These misled people, like the man speaking here will only cause doubt in the word of God.
Wrong
It’s a sauropod no elephants live in the Middle East and their are many sauropods discovered in that area and some sauropods were only about the size of a elephant which was the size of many sauropods found in the Middle East and Africa and most sauropods in Africa and many sauropods in Africa lived in around or in swamps and rivers and held their neck and head more parrel to the ground and the sword and cedar tree things could be spikes on the body and tail giving the tail a ceded tree like aperence
Except that the behemoth is described as having a navel, a bellybutton.
Reptiles don’t have navels, only mammals do.
They also say it eats grass like an ox, and no dinosaur ate grass.
@@richardblazer8070Sauropods are herbivores
@@MattyGears1583 Yep, sauropods are herbivores, but grass does not denote all plants. Sauropods were highly specialized to eating from trees, specifically conifers and ferns, and true grass didn’t even exist until the Cenozoic, so sauropods would have never encountered it.
13:02 - 13:03 Lol, there's an elephant in the room
Sauropod and Spinasaurus
Of course it was a dinosaur. There was dinosaurs on the are. The Bible states two of every living creature was aboard.
Hey Dustin, thanks for watching. I appreciate it. So watch my other video on apparent age. In that video I explain that God created the earth with 'apparent age' some 6000 years ago. In other words, the dinosaurs never lived. They were created in the ground as fossils. They never walked the earth. They never were side by side with men. Why did God do this? The same reason Adam was created as a full grown man and not as a baby (i.e. with apparent age). Because the secret things belong to God (Deut 29:29). He doesn't have to explain anything to us. th-cam.com/video/BLUVqZALy0w/w-d-xo.html
God bless you. Keep searching for God.
@@ChristianLandmark but archaeologist have found thigh bones as tall as a human and it's twice the size of elephants giant leg bones
I used to be like these guys. Trying to take the Bible and the world-view from my scientific background and mesh them together to form some kind of in-between truth. I quickly came to realise that it's either one or the other, God does not want us to be lukewarm. If there are dinosaurs in the ground it means they were created by our God on the same day as man along with the other land animals and they were indeed on the ark as God said that EVERY animal of its kind would be on the ark. God does not create dead things in the earth to confuse us, he gave life. If we believe in His Word then we reject any idea that things lived or should have lived millions of years ago. Radiometric dating fails to correctly date things of known age over and over again often dating them higher by powers of 10. What's great is that recently archeologists found soft dinausour tissue with tact cells and blood vessels!! Definitely not millions of years old, just thousands! His word speaks of behemoth and behold, centuries later we find it in the ground. He does indeed reveal Himself in our world and we should rejoice and not twist God's word to fit into worldly theories that date things to millions of years ago.
@@madzie5191 yes
The "tail like a cedar" quote probably refers to its trunk, remember, these people had no point of reference for an elephant, much like Europeans had no reference for crocodiles and rhinos, describing them as bizarre, armored creatures.
Behemot es un dinosaurio dice claramente es el principio de los caminos de jehova !
Nadie puede matar a behemot solo Dios a un elefante puedes matarlo desde la antigüedad
Gracias por tu comentario Jorge. Los hombres ciertamente podrían derrotar a un brontosaurio o un dinosaurio marino en la batalla. Los hombres pueden matar a cualquier criatura viviente. Pero los hombres no pueden vencer a Satanás, él es un ser espiritual. Por eso Leviatán es Satanás. Solo Dios (Jesús el Hijo) derrotó a Satanás con la espada de Su boca (es decir, Su justicia sin pecado y sus palabras justas).
😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳
with due respect.... the tail and the long neck.................................elephant........... i have to reallllllyyyyyyyyyyy streatchhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my imagination really long.....
I believe its an animal that`s extinct now.... what ever it was
long neck? Where do you get that from the text? Also, the book of Job probably was written around the time of the patriarchs, maybe a few centuries earlier, so it wasn't that long ago. Extinct? Unlikely. Has to be an animal alive today. Thanks for your reply!
@@ChristianLandmark I believe that Dinosaurs lived with humans. I believe that most dinosaurs died during the flood. But i cannot digest the fact that Bohemoth is an elephant.. its most likely a dinosaur
You do realize the text in full context of Job 40 in the Hebrew Masoretic text, the Greek Septuagint text, and the Syriac Peshitta text that none of them say anything about a long neck right? What English Bible do you read?? None of them that I’m aware of put that lie in the text. Where did you get this from?!?
Lol God biggest creation is an elephant....haha. yep there is no dino name in history its not name dino yet