Behemoth is NOT a dinosaur

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Behemoth is NOT a dinosaur

Postby Horus » Fri May 25, 2007 9:42 am

How many times have you heared creationists use Behemoth as proof for dinosaurs?. In this topic ill show why this argument fails.

Why this isn't a problem to evolution:
There is no problem with job having described a dinosaur (or other extinct animal). The thing is, though, that doesn't mean that anybody saw a living dinosaur at that time, they might have been imagined or exaggerated stuff. Espicially when you look at Job 41 when Leviathan is described as having breath of fire and coil, credit the ancient scribes of antiquity with imagination
There are known sites in the ancient world where dinosaur fossils were easily obtained at the surface. It doesn't take much to put two and two together when you find a 6-foot thigh bone and realize that something huge once walked the earth. For example:
http://www.geocities.com/stegob/mayorarticle.html
Fossils have been available in China for prior to 300 BC. Basically, all fossils, dinosaur or not, were considered the remains of dragons with several ancient countries


Why Behemoth isn't a dinosaur:
If Behemoth is a dinosaur, then both Job 40:21 and 22 are wrong.
Because Behemoth can't be a big dinosaur with a large tail yet lies under lotus plants

Yet if Behemoth is an average/small sized dinosaur then that would contradict Job 40:19 and 23. It is clear that they are describing a beast of frightening and "Kingly" scale: not a Procompsognathus.

The Brachiosaur was the largest land animal of all time and is the only one that could be called "chief in the ways of God" (Job 40:19). However, this still invalidates verse 15. While Brachiosaur was indeed a herbivore, it did not eat grass as an ox. It ate leaves off of the trees. Not the same thing.

You're left with a very simple problem. If Behemoth is a Brachiosaur, then Job 40:15 is wrong. If Behemoth is NOT a Brachiosaur, then Job 40:19 is wrong.

No matter how you look at it, Behemoth is not a dinosaur


Why having dinosaurs on the ark is preposterous(for the obvious reasons):
Dinosaurs are way too big, too difficult to handle and too many to be feasible steerage-passengers on Maru Ark. The logistical problems in feeding and mucking out the brutes would be horrendous. Not only dinosaurs, but also the 'prehistoric' reptiles, amphibians, mammals, flying and aquatic (oh yes) creatures would need to be included. These would need to be in large enough numbers to be viable breeding colonies once released into the wild.

There would also need to be, in addition for grub for these hordes of creatures, nosh to feed them after going ashore again since, after the flood, there would need to be a couple of years before the flora regrew and the herds of prey increased to where they could be hunted without becoming extinct in short order.

Finally, the art and writings of the time refer to or depict animals of the non-prehistoric type, but none of the prehistoric kind. In addition to this, if they were about in that sort of timescale, we would not be surprised to find a number of organic remains. All of them are fossils, apart from some Pliestocene bones found in tarpits and frozen tundra.

Putting dinosaurs on the ark makes an impossible situation absolutely ludicrous.


So what was Behemoth?:
the fact of the matter is, a behemoth is a well-established, well-defined creature of ancient Hebrew mythology. It doesn't refer to a real creature in the real world, any more than unicorns
http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/ ... p?Post=110

I hope this helped
Horus
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:09 pm

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Michaelalut and 1 guest

cron