ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- RTB 101: What Were Job's Leviathan and Behemoth?
With Hugh Ross
Dig Deeper: www.reasons.or...
Help us create even more empowering resources!
Support Reasons to Believe at: reasons.org/2819
Follow 28:19 for updates!
Facebook: / 2819-show-276730302832238
Twitter: / 2819show
Instagram: / 2819show
Website: www.reasons.org
Follow RTB_Official for updates!
Facebook: / rtbofficial
Twitter: / rtb_official
Instagram: / rtb_official
Website: www.reasons.org
![🎤 จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.1] (2/2) เพื่อนจับได้คำไหน..ต้องร้องคำนั้น เริ่ม! 💓🎶 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1bJvMJXmeS4/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy is purposefully dismissing what the Word of God says about these subjects. He neglects many key details and blends in his own subjective viewpoint.
That’s fax
True
So? He needs to cater to the world to and it's money
As an African, I can vouch for the violence of hippos. More deaths occur by hippos than any other animal here, and they are not herbivores, they are omnivores. Even “taming” hippos is nearly impossible despite what he says about raising them.
JUST CURIOUS...WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THIS CAUCASIAN FASCINATION/OBSSESION WITH ANIMALS THOUGH? AFRICANS AND OTHER RACES ARE NOT LIKE THAT 😀
When we go back into history, let's say ancient Egyptian history, hippos were hunted and killed with harpoons for sport especially by the Pharoahs.
The book of Job describes this enormous powerful animal, Behemoth where no man could approach it with sword.
It's tail is compared to a cedar tree.
Hippos can be hunted and killed with a sword like weapon or like the ancient Pheroahs did, they harpooned them for sport.
Yes, hippos like any other wild animals are territorial and can get aggressive to kill.
The huge beast described in the book of Job therefore can not have been a hippo
if the Behemoth is just only hippopotamus
explain this...
Job 40:22-24 NET 22 The lotus trees conceal it in their shadow; the poplars by the stream conceal it. 23 If the river rages, it is not disturbed, it is secure, though the Jordan should surge up to its mouth. 24 Can anyone catch it by its eyes, or pierce its nose with a snare?
Exactly. All this trying to make Levi & Behe out to be normal animals is pretty stupid. Leviathan was a kind of Ur-serpent/dragon that we encounter in so many origin myths, in various religions. On the top of my head there's Tiamat (Babylonia), Jörmungandr (Norse), Apep (Egypt), Vritra (India). It is most likely Leviathan is just that, taken from a mythology before a time of streamlined Judaism. Job being one if not the oldest texts in the Bible also supports this.
@@almightytallestred MEANING ALL WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IS JUST ABOUT PROTECTING A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS VIEW POINT RATHER THAN PRESENTING THE TRUTH BY FACTS I GUESS 😔 SAD 😔
Are you sure it wasn't a chicken
"Lotus trees" might be a translation error, think of (Egyptian) Lotus as a sort of water lily,...
Dr Michael Heiser has, I think what makes more sense on this subject
Hippos and crocs are way too common animals, for the title of behemoth and leviathan. Are we forgotting that dinosaurs exist?
dinosaurs are not biblical because theyre before we were made and theyre not mentioned in the bible? i dont know really lol but behemoth as a hippo is reasonable as theyre beasts we cannot tame
so if dinosaurs exist they werent made before us right? im quiet confused on this subject
th-cam.com/video/vf_roE4qiRs/w-d-xo.html i found this video it help me understand better. i need to read the bible more but im still new to the faith
@@tyler-qr5jn brachiosaurus. Is the behemoth here
In the beginning GOD create the Earth and The Heavens. But The Earth was filled with VOID & DARKNESS!!
Tail like a tree trunk. Does that sound like a 🦛?
aribbonatatime sounds like dinosaurs
riiiiiight
@@crossrazor Brachiosaurus
No the Bible says he sways his tail as a cedar tree doesn’t say that it’s the size of a tree
@@silasr20
A hippos tail doesn’t sway like a tree
hippo can't stand on rushing river and many hippo died or killed by people,
but the bible said we can't pick its nose by snares
Actually, more hippos kill people than the other way around.
"the bible said we can't pick its nose by snares"
It nowhere says that.
Idk I still thing the Leviathan in Isaiah is Satan. Remember Satan is the Serpant and in Revalations it mentions the imprisonment of the serpant. Isaiah is a prophetic book yknow.
Isaiah 27:1 - In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.
Job 41:1-34 - Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down?
Genesis 1:24-31 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Psalms 104:26 - There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.
satan isnt literally a serpent. it is a mepthor for him. he was made as the most beautiful angel. but i can see why you could get mixed up with it
Correct leviathan is the dragon that serpent of old
@@K.Graham-2012 😇🙏
@Tyler he was also known as the anointed cherub.
@@K.Graham-2012 yea. He not anymore. Michael kicked his butt and sent him to earth on God's order.
This channel's background set is gorgeous w/all the wood and iron work.
But Psalms 104:26 refers to Leviathan living in the sea not rivers
what did you say? no creature fires on its mouth? take a loo at a bombadeer insect if God can create small insect that can create fire he can do it in larger one
Those Beatles still don’t shoot fire out of their mouths, they shoot burning chemical reactions of their their rears, it’s a specialized form of an ability that many Beatles can already do.
No animals breathe fire.
I agree hippos are dangerous animals.
The one thing I'm struggling with that in Job it describes it's tail as that of a cedar tree.
There are many descriptions biblically that describe cedar tree, cedar are tall trees.Tbe creator was describing it as he saw it.
I've seen hippos, the ground definitely does not vibrate as they walk.
Hippos also don’t have iron bones, it’s flanderization and hyperbole.
A hippo does not have a tail like a cedar and a crocodile does not breath fire.
Actually maybe I missed the whole point but what I got from the story of Jobe was that when God was showing Jobe the universe that he pointed out the two wants and said even though they were big and dangerous and could eat him they were actually not evil they were part of the good world how is that possible?
That's not the purpose of God pointing out the Leviathan. It was to illustrate a Gage. If job couldn't do anything with something so powerful that God created, then what business did he have questioning His purpose?
@@madmonki5890 ok thanks
Dinosaurs. They didnt have ill intent. At least Behemoth is a dinosaur. I think Leviathan is SATAN though.
@@madmonki5890 because Job is human the bibles prophets questioned God ALL the time. We are fallen and have sin. Adam and eve wouldnt have questioned God but Job was born in sin he is guilty to such things. Get it?
@@shaolinshowdown1123 Adam and Eve did question God. That was the very nature of thier sin in the heart. Which is the problem to begin with. God told Adam not to eat of the tree and he allowed Eve to do it. Satan questioned Gods word. He knew that there was a misunderstanding of the time table between a day to us and a day to God. They questioned Gods word. They only had one commandment....
1000 years is a day to God according to the Bible. Adam died at 930. In the day in which he sinned. Job's sin was questioning his purpose. He had known idea people would still discuss his life for 3000 years.
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. He just talked him (Boring) self out of a fantastic comparison in scripture. The word Tayneen is used to describe reptiles from snakes to crocodiles but also the Great sea Serpents. These were specifically not in the fins or swamps. They were in the deep. David said, there in the ocean is the Great Sea Serpent Leviathan.
If it lived in the Ocean and we didn't hunt it, than it is still there.
The description of the animal hints to its native feeding grounds. If I describe a dark skinned people. You would look for them in warmer climates. If the Bible describes a White beast with grey hair in the water. Then it would be below the aphotic depth in which photosynthesis is no longer possible. The majority of animals below 3,280 poduce thier own bioluminescent light. To lore other animals but also light is required to see. It says that his Eyes are like the eyelids of Dawn. There are 4 verses deitcted to describing bioluminescent and fire breathing. If it is just trash talk, Why spend so much time driving it home?
It says he makes the sea look like a pot of boiling ointment.
That means this animal is long swimming in circles. Bubbling from the heat it produces and the ferocity of its swimming.
It says you would think the ocean to be hoary. This word meant old gray hair. If it has scales and hair, it is likely a mammal. And warm blooded like a whale. According to the Bible it gets really warm. And burns the air around it.
Historically we have told stories for thousands of years about killing beast that fits this description. In every culture we have talked about it. The term Dinosaur was coined 1st in 1847. Prior to that the world called magnificent beast ...Dragons.
And brave men slayed them.
If you don't believe what is written in the Bible, then don't try to teach it away because your mind is to small.
Yea!!! I like.. but also I think Leviathan is actually satan. Because in Isaiah 27:1 that The LORD (Jesus) will return to slay Leviathanwith his sword. Why would he do that if Leviathanis a beast? What significance is he?
Isaiah27:1- In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.
This also References Revalations I think 18 where it speaks about the serpent and his imprisonment in chains. And the last day Armageddon. Fits the description of Stan dont you think? Remember satan came to Adam and eve as a serpent. And the firmament under the ocean could be the Marianas Trench where some scientist believe theres a ghastly cloud not allowing for exploration or animals under there to pass through. The movie " Megalodon " talks about it. And the masters of thee Abyss will be unleashed in the end times remember?
Pretty plausible huh? 😊🙏🙌
@@shaolinshowdown1123 there is a lot of truth to what you say. No doubt Satan is described as leviathan.
BUT☝️
The Leviathan is a real creature that God used to reference his power. Satan can appear as a Lord of light or serpent. It doesn't matter.
His cloack doesn't change what the animal is. God always uses natural things to perform marvelous wonders.
We still see Snakes and serpents today.
The serpent was cursed for its submission in the garden of eden. That was a snake. They are still around. It wasn't figurative. David said there ie Leviathan that crooked Serpent in the sea. It mentions Leviathan in Genesis when God speaks of the animals he put in the sea. But never does it ever mention Satan likes water. Dont forget Christ was described as the Lion of Judah. It represents his character. Satan a serpent, character identity. Search mysterious creatures caught by satelite images.
@@madmonki5890 leviathan is not mentioned in genesis. That could very well be Satan.
@@realone3602 don't be so certain. You may not be as read as you think. Genesis 1:21 says that God Create
( the KJV says Whales)
Tanniyin in the sea. The same Aramaic term used for the Leviathan in Job 41.
But in Genesis 3:1 when it speaks of Adam's temptation, its the Aramaic term
Nachash used for serpent. These words are not the same nor are the creatures the same. But Satan has been describe in specific situations as both. Satan used the Serpent (snake) in the garden but the Leviathan his in the ocean and lives in the deep.
@@madmonki5890 the serphant in revelation is talking about leviathan. The same leviathan in Job and the precept matches in revealation. Jesus ain't coming back to slay a big fish. Leviathan is Satan. Thay just did the animal sacrifice three weeks ago that hasn't been done since the days of Noah. Look it up....
I read this in your treasures in Job book. Very helpful Dr. Ross.
Does this mean most larger dinosaurs were aquatic or amphibious? Did TRex swim?
This man dont really know job 40 is talking about the dinosaur, if he read the first sentence it gives a key word that God made the behemoth along with man , the key word is made which mean is a literal creation,
Leviathan: its tail is like a cedar? how will you explain this? cedar is like a tree a big big tree..
I think it says the Cedar tree is on the Behemoth, not the Leviathan. Would make more sense on the Leviathan since Crocs have such huge tails. But he says the Hebrew word we translate to tail may mean the whole hind quarters.
Behemoth had a tail like a cedar.
The biggest animal is the elephant...today..could the earth had a lesser gravitational pull? maybe its more dense from all the debit accumulating from space. They say the moon is getting further away..millions of years ago..could the gravitational force of the moon counter act earths? IDK
we don't have big shallow seas after the big flood,
many body of waters washes away right after the big flood.
Interesting. I really want this ministry to grow. I like this ministry.
No it's barugon and godzilla
This is why people fall from their faith🥱🙄
Ya I would to if I learned this first I would more likely be a atheist if I have not learned the truth about his word
Bro, Dr. sir, you’re wrong. God doesn’t describe a hippo, or a crocodile. Hippos don’t have tails like cedars. And crocodiles don’t breath fire! God describes a sauropod dinosaur, and either a mosasaur or a spinosaur.
"Hippos don’t have tails like cedars."
Text nowhere says anything about the behemoth's size. It doesn't say: "His tail is [as large] as a tree".
Why are they talking about hippos and elephants,dinosaurs. Some folks should leave the bible alone. These animals are real.
I agree, this guy should shut up immediately.
No bible real but I dont agree with this bald dudes interpretation.. behemoths are definitely dinosaurs for sure. Leviathan is Satan though.
Why should the Bible talk about fairy tale creatures that don't actually exist in the time of their writing?
@@roosarobin3383 it did that's the thing
@@shaolinshowdown1123 no. The scientific evidence says it died millions of years before. I know stories of dinos in the time of man feel fantastic and all fairy tales about dragons are cool, but they didn't exist anymore.
No one could bring a sword to this massive creature.
I'm am sure they could be hunted down with swords.
The description in Job tells me that it's skin or perhaps scaled wouldn't allow swords to penetrate.
If one had to throw a sword or spear into a hippo of elephant?
It is gonna penetrate if one's aim is right.
That’s describing leviathan, which mentions its many plates of armor that air could not penetrate. This is an obvious reference to the rows of osteoderm scutes on crocodiles.
Godzilla and angurous
The only danger this expert gives about hippos is that they can capsize your boat lol
Not a hippo, that's for sure.
Did I just watched an astronomer talking about marine creatures in the Bible?
What's a behemoth?
I'm going to look at each verse of Job 40:15-24, using the NIV Bible, and also Psalm 50:9-11. I'm going to see if the translation is accurate and reliable. I'll look at the Hebrew words used (I'll use transliterations), I'll use Strong's dictionary from the Biblehub site, I'll look at the expressions and possible meanings, I'll compare the translation to one that is produced by Jewish linguists (I'll refer to this as JL), and use the Latin Vulgate as well. I'll compare certain words to other instances in the Bible where those same words are also used, and I'm going to incorporate some of the classical Jewish exegeses; mainly that of Rashi. If you don't know who that is, please Google the name. I won't incorporate external, mythical writings pertaining to the animal in question (only Bible). My intention is to show how the translation used in the NIV, which is a very popular one, can differ from what the text is really saying, and how most people's understanding of what a behemoth is, is complete nonsense. Spoiler alert, if you don't want to know what the behemoth is, because you're probably not going to like what I have to say about that, then you should just keep watching Japanese Kaiju movies. I'll add some of my own comments and thoughts of course. Note that I am neither a follower of Judaism, nor Christianity. If you think this disqualifies my input, then know that I'm simply looking at the text, the language and commentaries of Jewish orthodoxy. Warning; long comment ahead!
NIV
Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. (v15)
JL
Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.
1.) ‘im·māḵ in Hebrew means "with you". Does this mean that when mankind was created, this animal was created simultaneously? Not necessarily. It means that the animal is made to be with us. It's among us. In Genesis 3:6 it reads in the NIV: "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." The word used there for "with her" is ‘im-māh. The meaning of the verse is that Eve is eating fruit, and she gives Adam some, and he was right there next to her. Another example: in Genesis 13:1, we read: "So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him." It doesn't actually say; "with his wife", but it says; "he and his wife". The Hebrew ‘im-mōw means "with him", and it means that Lot accompanied him. In Genesis 23:4 it reads: "I am a foreigner and stranger among you. Sell me some property for a burial site here so I can bury my dead." The word ‘im-mā-ḵem occurs twice, but the NIV doesn't render the second occurrence in its translation. Where it says "here", it should instead say "among you". The point is that the preposition ‘im in Hebrew means nearness. So when the verse says that God made the behemoth with you, it's saying that the animal is either right there among the people, and it is made for the benefit of the people, or that it dwells nearby. Worth noting that the verse draws attention to cattle. In Exodus 22:30 we read: "Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days..", and here too, "with their mothers" uses ‘im. The young animals are in close proximity to their mothers. In Daniel 4:5 it reads: "You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals..", and "with the wild animals" again uses the same preposition. The NIV includes "along" in its translation of Job 40:15, but the Hebrew text lacks the word, and it's an interpretation and should've therefor been placed in [brackets], and it alters the meaning.
2.) The NIV renders yō·ḵêl as "which feeds", but this is a third person masculine singular form of the verb, and should therefor be translated to mean "he feeds". This means that the animal that is being described is a male. It'll become clear why it should be "he" and not "it". The Semitic noun bā·qār means cattle, ox or steer, heifer or cow. So that's fine. The animal is a grazing herbivore. If this is a macronarian sauropod like a Brachiosaurus, as some people suggest, then this is already problematic. For starters, Brachiosaurs fed on vegetation high off the ground. Two, grasses only appeared around the Albian (middle Cretaceous: 110 mya), and weren't wide-spread until the very end of the Mesozoic. I know this immediately evokes a reaction for Christians, but it's a valid point to make, regardless of your beliefs. Three, sauropod dinosaurs were never "with us". Not only are we separated by 65 million years, but as discussed above, it would be difficult to imagine how people kept giant dinosaurs around the house and in the field. A domesticated herd of Brontosaurs kept like cattle? I don't think so.
NIV
What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! (v16)
JL
Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.
1.) "Loins" refers to the part of the body on both sides of the spine between the lowest ribs and the hip bones, or it means the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power. Both meanings are used throughout the Bible. Rashi favors the latter meaning here. As such, it refers to the animals testicles; meaning that it's a very virile animal: it has a strong sex drive. What good will that do it if there isn't any female of his species around to mate with? Rather, this behemoth male is reproducing, which means that there are females of his kind as well. It's therefor not just one animal, but there are many like it. It'll become clear why this is so. The behemoth here represents a particularly strong individual. It exists with Job, but will also be with the people in the future, and so it's either an immortal individual, or it's reproducing as a species. It's either a mythical, legendary creature, or it's a real-world animal.
2.) The NIV renders the noun š·rî·rê as "muscles". Strong's dictionary lists this as a separate word, unique in the Bible, but still translates it as "cord". It also gives the meaning of "sinews", from which the NIV gets "muscles", I guess. The word means "navel". Consider Song of Solomon 7:2, where we read: "Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine..", and this is from the NIV. The word used for "your navel" here is šā·rə·rêḵ, which is the same root word as in Job 40:16 according to Rashi. If we read Proverbs 3:8, it says: "This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones." lə·šār·re·ḵā is interpreted to mean "to your body", but it literally says "to your navel". In the Vulgate it reads: "umbilico tuo", and you don't need to know Latin to know what that means. The Targum Jonathan agrees. It's an expression that means that the body is healthy: the navel is nicely visible, so the person isn't obese or useless. See Titus 1:12 where it literally says "slow bellies", referring to "lazy gluttons". So a well-defined, flat stomach and the visible navel are used to express physical health. Nor is the beast emaciated. The navel is regarded as the centre of vital strength. So these two descriptions inform you that the behemoth is a very powerful, healthy and physically capable animal, and that it's a virile male. The fact that "he" has "loins" (i.e. testicles) obviously rules out that this is a dinosaur, because dinosaurs did not have testicles. It's clearly a mammal, because the Hebrew word š·rî·rê refers to the umbilical cord, which is why this is rendered as "navel" by Jewish translators. The Vulgate reads: "et virtus illius in umbilicis ventris eius", meaning "his power is in the navel of his belly". Needless to say: dinosaurs didn't have navels, because they hatched from eggs and lacked an umbilical cord.
NIV
Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. (v17)
JL
His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his testicles are knit together.
1.) Let's start with the second expression first, because it ties in with the previous discussion. Strong's dictionary claims that š·rî·rê can mean "sinews", but the Hebrew word gî·ḏê (verse 17), Strong's dictionary also renders as "sinews". It also gives "tendon" as a possible meaning, as well as "thongs", which are the leather strips at the end of a whip. That's fine. The NIV then translates p̄a·ḥă·ḏāw as "thighs", for no good reason, because according to Strong's dictionary, it means "testicles". The Jewish linguists also render it as testicles. The Latin Vulgate reads: "nervi testiculorum eius perplexi sunt"; also using the word "testicles". In translation it says: "the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together". Also notice how the NIV doesn't render the pronoun as "his", but opts for "its" instead, which I find peculiar. Rashi comments on the sinews, saying: "..it is an expression of twisted cords". The imagery here is that of a set of properly functioning balls, to be blunt. By now, it should be clear that the NIV translation is seemingly trying to hide these descriptions for some reason. It's almost as if the translators don't want the reader to know that this animal is a very potent male, with testicles, or that it's a mammal. Why not though? Why hide the meaning and purposely mistranslate the Bible? Is it because they're so prudish that the mentioning of the animal's virility and testicles makes them feel ashamed? Or do they want to keep the text too ambiguous to actually identify what kind of animal is being described? These manipulated translations lead to confusion and speculation, and nowhere is this more evident than in the following description.
2.) The first part of the verse is why people think that this is about a giant dinosaur. The mentioning of its gigantic tail! Except that the similitude here says nothing about size. It compares the hardness of the tail to the hardness of the wood of a cedar tree. It's not comparing the size of the tail to the size of a tree. It doesn't say: "His tail is like a cedar", after all. And what does it even mean when you say that his tails sways like how a cedar sways? How does a tree sway? In the wind, right? So his tails sways in the wind? The verb there doesn't mean "sways". Swaying implies a back-and-forth, rocking motion, which in turn implies doubt. The Hebrew verb used there has the opposite meaning: yaḥ·pōṣ never implies doubt or hesitation (i.e. going back and forth between two points or options). Look at all the instances this word and its derived forms occur in the Old Testament, it always has the meaning of a clear-cut, straight path, moving from one thing to another. Whether it means "to desire", "to like", "to want", "to incline towards", "to bend", etc., this always refers to a direct movement from A to B, without hesitation, distractions or doubts. Translating this to "swaying" conflicts with that inherent meaning, as this implies moving from A to B, returning to A and repeating these movements. Rather, the verb here means that the animal's tail moves from a hanging, loose position, upward, until it stands erect and becomes as hard as wood. This is also according to Rashi. The Latin Vulgate reads: "constringit caudam suam quasi cedrum", which literally translates to: "His tail tightens like cedar", meaning that it becomes stiff and hard, until it's comparable to the hardness of wood. That's what the likeness is about, and it's most certainly not about the size. The tail can be relatively short, no problem. My own personal opinion is that "tail" here could be a euphemism for "penis". The word in Hebrew "his tail", or zə·nā·ḇōw can also mean "end" or "stump", according to Strong's dictionary. This isn't at all far-fetched, considering the context. This description is explicitely referring to the animal's libido. Why mention how hard the tail gets and then describe its scrotum? I'm actually extremely surprised that you don't find this in the commentaries. It's really rather obvious. That's what a male bull does. That's what people use them for: for reproduction, so that the male breeds with your cows and you get calves and milk (i.e. food and drink). This may be why it's regarded as such an important beast. More important than any other animal that people keep. An average bull nowadays might cost you around 4,5 thousand dollars. The most expensive breeding bull sold was 1,51 million dollars!
NIV
Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron. (v18)
JL
His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron.
This is fine. Both expressions describe the weight of the animal's bones. They are literary devices that use some exaggeration. Note again that this isn't necessarily saying much about the size. It's about weight. A small iron marble can weigh more than a helium balloon. The femur of an elephant would weigh significantly more than a similar sized dinosaurian femur, because dinosaur bones were hollow and filled with air chambers, and relatively light in weight, especially compared to mammalian bones, but at this point it should be obvious that the text is not describing a dinosaur. So I suggest you perish the thought.
NIV
It ranks first among the works of God, yet its Maker can approach it with his sword. (v19)
JL
His is the first of God's ways; [only] his Maker can draw His sword [against him].
1.) Some argue that "first of God's ways" means that it's an elephant and not a hippopotamus, but it seems unlikely that Job would've been familiar with either animal. It's neither, and I'll explain why that is in a moment. In my opinion, this is referring to the strongest animal in Job's region. A big male mammal in the middle-east that didn't have any natural predators. "Chief among all animals" can also refer to the importance of the animal to mankind. Elephants and hippos are impressive creatures, but they're not that important to most people. Elephants are useful, but if this were an elephant, why not describe its impressive ears, or the unusual trunk? Why compare it to cattle?
2.) The second expression is always interpreted to mean that no one can kill this beast, except God, but that's not the case. The verse just says that "his Maker will apply His sword", and that's all it says. People can certainly kill the behemoth if they combine their efforts and use weapons or tools. Besides, it would contradict with Genesis 1:26, in which we read: "..they (i.e. human beings) shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth". The text is saying that this animal in particular will be killed by God Himself, in the future. Now, most aren't aware of this, but according to the Jews, this behemoth is going to be slaughtered for some feast that is going to occur in the future. Here's where I'm going to jump to Psalm 50:9-10.
NIV
I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens. (v9)
JL
I will not take from your household a bull, from your pens any goats.
This pertains to a sacrifice. Normally, people will sacrifice one of their domesticated cattle to God, as an offering. You give up something that is very dear to you, and offer it to God. But here, God says that He doesn't require a young bull or a steer or a goat that these people own. The Latin Vulgate reads: "non accipiam de domo tua vitulum neque de gregibus tuis hircos", which means: "I will not take calves out of your house: nor [male] goats out of your flocks". It uses "calves", not "bulls", and this is important. It's mentioning mere calves and small goats for a reason. These will not do. For this feast, something more powerful, healthy and majestic is required.
NIV
For every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. (v10)
JL
For all the beasts of the forest are Mine, the behemoth of the thousand mountains.
1.) The Hebrew uses bə·hê·mō·wṯ, and Strong's dictionary states that this means: "a dumb beast, any large quadruped, animal". The Latin Vulgate uses "pecudes", which means "cattle". The Hebrew is in a plural, female form here, according to Strong's dictionary. The ḇə·hê·mō·wṯ of verse 15 from Job is singular, masculine. So there's more than one. The one discussed before is a particularly impressive male specimen, but it's one of many. A mammal, a virile, powerful male, still has his testicles, so it's not castrated, i.e. it's not a domesticated ox. Its kind is important to people, and others of its kind are kept by people; created to be with people. But this behemoth is a wild animal, and when the day of the feast comes, God will kill it Himself, so it's not a mere bullock that people sacrifice. Why they don't render it as "behemoths" here while the commentaries mention that it's a plural form, I have no idea. It's not like the word "ninja", where the plural form is "ninja" (not ninjas), but ok.
2.) Rashi comments on the meaning of "the behemoth of the thousand mountains", saying: "That is the bull destined for the future feast [of the righteous], which grazes on a thousand mountains daily, and every day they grow back. Others explain this to mean one thousand mountains or one thousand parasangs (i.e. one mountain that is 1,000 parasangs long), or perhaps it should read: 1,000 bulls. The plural “mountains” indicates that there were many mountains of that type [Shem Ephraim]. Others explain that this is like Deuteronomy 7:13: “the litter of your cattle”, i.e. mountains full of cattle, because He says: “I will not take from your household a bull.” - end quote.
So as you can see, there's actually more discussion about the meaning of "a thousand mountains" than there is about the identity of the beast. The Jews have always said it's a wild bull. At least, those who have knowledge and don't engross themselves in fanciful conjectures. While we're here, I also want to mention Psalm 50:11.
NIV
I know every bird in the mountains, and the insects in the fields are mine. (v11)
JL
I know all the fowl of the mountains, and the creeping things of the field are with Me.
Here we find one of the other mythical Kaiju that people often mention: the infamous Ziz! Which they say is a giant bird-like creature; master of the sky!! The Hebrew here uses zîz, and the word occurs in Psalm 80:13 as well, with a similar meaning. According to Rashi: "the creeping things of the field are called ziz because they move (m'ziz) from place to place." This word that Rashi uses there is similar to the Moroccan m'shi, which means "to go [to somewhere]". To me, m'shish sounds like the things that are going, scurrying about. "The creeping things in the fields" are mice, rats, lizards, bugs, etc. And the text clearly distinguishes between flying animals, and these creeping, crawling things in the fields. So much for the Ziz! Let's return to Job 40:20.
NIV
The hills bring it their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. (v20)
JL
For the mountains bear food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
Nothing to add here, except that hippos are rarely seen grazing in the mountains (ahum).
NIV
Under the lotus plants it lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. (v21)
JL
Does he lie under the shadows, in the covert of the reeds and the swamp?
The Vulgate reads: "sub umbra dormit in secreto calami et locis humentibus", meaning: "He sleeps under the shadow, in the covert of the reed, and in moist places". If you look at the Arabic translation of this verse in the ERV-AR, the text actually uses a transliteration in Arabic for the English word "lotuses", which is just funny to me. The Ketab Al Hayat, another Arabic translation, reads in the English translation: "Crouching under the lote tree". The Hebrew reads ta-ḥaṯ- ṣe-’ĕ-lîm yiš-kāḇ, which literally means: "underneath [the] shadows he lies". The Arabic shouldn't be all that different, but it is in both those translations. The Ketab Al Hayat has shajarati in it; the word for tree, but it isn't in the Hebrew text. It's an interpretation of the word "shadows". And why does it use the verb for "crouching" when the Hebrew verb means "lying down"? A "covert", by the way, means a thicket in which game hides. Rashi says about the shadows: "the shades of trees". The 1545 Luther Bibel renders the first part of this verse as: "Er liegt gern im Schatten", meaning: "He likes to lie in the schadows", and it isn't translated to "lotus plants". By the way, I'm multilingual (all major West-Germanic languages, some Semitic languages, some Romance languages), so I have access to several translations.
NIV
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround it. (v22)
JL
Do the shadows cover him as his shadow? Do the willows of the brook surround him?
1.) The reason why some Bible translations put "lotus trees" there might be because they think it must be referring to a hippopotamus or an elephant, and so they assumed the river to be the Nile, and they looked at the plants that grow in the Nile Delta and decided that "lotuses" was most appropriate. Or perhaps the word "shady [trees]" sounds similar to the Hebrew word for "lotus tree". I'm not sure.
2.) Vulgate: "protegunt umbrae umbram eius circumdabunt eum salices torrentis", meaning: "The shades cover his shadow, the willows of the brook shall compass him about." In Latin, it doesn't mention any trees at all; it just says "shadows". The bovine spends time in water, swamps and marshes, and also mountains. Is the text asking a hypothetical question? Are they indeed questions, or not? This isn't entirely clear to me. The text seems to be documenting some of its behavior. Eating grass in the mountains, resting underneath the trees in the swamp, and then it goes and has a drink.
NIV
A raging river does not alarm it; it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth. (v23)
JL
Behold, he plunders the river, and [he] does not harden; he trusts that he will draw the Jordan into his mouth.
1.) Rashi says that "the river" means the Euphrates. This is where this wild bull lives, and it's certainly possible that there used to be herds of water buffaloes in that region. It also fits the description of "reeds and swamp" in verse 21, as the Euphrates is a huge drainage basin, with plenty of swamplands and marshes, and there are lots of mountains in that area.
2.) Rashi comments on the meaning of "he trusts that he will draw the Jordan into his mouth", saying: "He is confident [of his ability] to draw the whole Jordan into his mouth were he to drink there", so this is hypothetical. The animal resides in and around the Euphrates river, and not in the Jordan river. And not in the Nile Delta. Rashi says that it's the Euphrates, and he lived in the 11th century. English translations of this text weren't produced until the 17th century, so if he says it's the Euphrates, but Christian, English speaking exegetes in the 19th, 20th and 21st century claim it's the Nile, then I tend to take Rashi's opinion over theirs. The reason why Rashi mentions the Euphrates river is because Job is said to have been from the land of Uz, which was located "beyond the Euphrates". "[His belly] does not harden", means from his drinking, which is a literary device and an exaggerated way of describing the bovine's insatiable thirst.
3.) The nā·hār, which is the Semitic word for "river" isn't coupled with an adjective in the sentence. The word ya·‘ă·šōq means "to oppress", and it's a verb, relating to the animal, and not the river. The bull is gulping up the water. The river itself is not described as "raging". So the NIV is painting a wrong picture. It is giving the impression that this huge creature is standing in the midst of a gushing river, not being bothered by the raging water. But it's describing the animal's thirst, health and confidence.
NIV
Can anyone capture it by the eyes, or trap it and pierce its nose? (v24)
JL
With His eyes He will take him; with snares He will puncture his nostrils.
1.) Rashi writes: "The Omnipresent will take him by looking at him, and he quakes from fear of Him." This, of course, refers to that future feast again. This is why the text isn't suggesting that people cannot kill these animals. There is one behemoth in particular that is going to be killed by God Himself, in the future. In other words: people will not kill this animal and offer it up as a sacrifice, but it's going to be a gift from God to the righteous; i.e. God Himself will slay the animal. How exactly this happens, I do not know. I do know that God is not a man in Jewish theology, and anthropomorphic expressions are always interpreted, and not taken in a literal sense. So God is not going to be swinging a sword or something. Perhaps that pertains to an angel of God. Or "God will apply His sword" may be describing the gaze of God, I don't know. The text says that the animal will die because of a glance. What that means exactly, again, I don't know.
2.) Finally, the puncturing of the animal's nostrils means that in the end, this behemoth will be tamed and subjugated prior to its death, just as we put nose rings in cows and oxes.
I think that about covers most of it. The Behemoth was an Iron Age, Near East bull water buffalo. I'm sure all of this triggers some people tremendously, but that's not my problem. This is about a proper reading of the text, it's not about sensationalism. The NIV translation should be dismissed imo.
Bohemoth is a dinosaur probably a Brachiosaurus the description is clear
What about the neck? No where in Job 40 is w description of a neck
Brachiosaurus also didn’t eat grass or have a navel.
I think that the Behemoth is a sauropod dinosaur.
Both are Dinosaurs. God won't tell job behold behemoth if he can't behold the behemoth
Behemoth was clearly Supermac18 doing a Target dance party and Leviathan was obviously a digitally remastered version of a movie staring sigourney weaver
😂
Hugh man... you are deliberately ignoring detail and fall back on metaphors... take off your evolution glasses and read it again...
Leviathan in Hebrew means: dragon/sea serpent/crocodile💁🏻♂️
Sorry I highly disagree with this guy
Thank you for this Dr Ross. It makes the most sense theologically and definitely more sense than actual descriptions of dinosaurs.
Behemoth was a sauropod and the leviathan is either a plesiosaur or just figurative language. This is like common knowledge my guy.
Except that makes no sense.
Sauropods didn’t eat grass. Sauropods didn’t have navels. Sauropods didn’t have external genitalia, they had cloacas, so the strength in its loins verse doesn’t make sense. None of it lines up. It is very clearly depicting a mammal.
Leviathan is described with tightly packed plated armor, an obvious reference to the rows of osteoderm scutes that are present in crocodiles. No plesiosaur or pliosaur have osteoderm scutes or any armor at all. Preserved integument show they had smooth skin and fatty blubber.
Leviathans were fed to Hebrews by Yah. They kill gentile when they saw them, just to see them killed heathens.
The Leviathan is only tamed by Yah
Why not dinosaurs.?..coz they extinct millions of year
Leviathan and Behemoth were symbolic animals. They were symbols well known to the people of the era.
If you look at the Bible as a whole, you see that the Leviathan was killed at the creation, breathes fire and has multiple heads. And it will be killed again at the end times and fed as the feast.
Behemoth is the superlative of Behema. It's a beast of the field, writ large. The word usually refers to an ox.
In this case it would be the symbol of the wild ox, the aurochs, as a giant force of chaos, capable of leveling mountains an dwell beyond the power of mortal man to control. But God can bring order to the chaos.
Will the wild ox (Taurus in winter) be willing 'to serve you -can you bring him to the furrow? No! you cannot. Did you give wings to the peacocks or wings and feathers to the ostrichs: She (the ostrich=winter) scorneth the horse and his rider (the Sun). Did you give strength to the horse, and clothe his neck with thunder? You did not!
Behold now (spring) behemoth (all cattle, collectively; plural of behemah) which I made with thee; he eateth grass as oxen. His strength is in his loins (the latter end of summer); his force is in his navel (the same being a mere pleonasm) of his belly. He moves his tail (at the end of summer, when cattle are fat) like a cedar (i.e., strongly). The mountains (summer months, where all the beasts play, bring him forth food. In the hot weather he frequents the shady trees, the covert of the reeds and fens, as cattle still do. See you, it is impossible to take him, for you can’t hook his nose! “ He trusteth that he can draw up Jordan (spring equinox) into his mouth!” a not impossible conclusion. The ox eateth grass like an ox. Note: Aries = the head and Pisces = the feet.
Not even close, where the heck did you come up with this bogus interpretation lol? These are real singly made creatures. Read Enoch and 2 Esdras, as well as Isaiah and psalms. This shown is also pathetic too. They have no idea what their talking about lol.
@@paulmetzler89
When you discuss the bible, you are talking about pagan mythology.
@@harveywabbit9541
Sorry you feel that way, that is not even close to the truth. Jesus Christ crucified and buried and resurrected is not pagan mythology lol. Its historical fact.
@@paulmetzler89
Any history in the bible is accidental.
Gerald McFarlin Accidental? Wow. You’re extremely confused. Smh.