Replies

“The word “tail” is being used as a euphemism for phallus in this passage. “

That is the silliest explanation I have ever heard for this.

The word for ‘tail’ in that passage translated ‘tail’, and it means tail, not phallus, literally or by euphemism. Every other time it is used literally in the Old Testament it means a tail on a creature of one sort of another.

“The word that is translated as “moveth” is chaphets which is used elsewhere to mean “pleasure” or “delight”.”

True, but it is never used in a physical pleasure sense. It is used in the sense of delighting in one’s honor or taking pride.

“The passage is a description of the power and virility of behemoth, which from the context is pretty clearly a hippopotamus.”

Not very likely.

“Not to mention the fact that the presence of a navel”

Where does the passage mention a ‘navel’?

Nothing silly about it, it's the only reasonable interpretation if you take an honest look at the facts rather than attempting to twist the passage into an assertion of YEC.

Take a look at the various translations of the passage: • REV: His tail is rigid as a cedar. • RSV: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar. • Septuagint (Greek): He sets up/erects (estesen) his tail like a cypress. • Vulgate (Latin): He ties up/binds (constringit) his tail like a cedar. • Luther (German, 16th C): His tail stretches (streckt sich) like a cedar. • Statenvertaling (Dutch, 17th C): According to his pleasure (Als ‘t hem lust), his tail is like a cedar. • Diodati (Italian, 16th C): He raises (rizza) his tail like a cedar.

Are you saying that all these translations really support the idea that the passage is talking about a dinosaur tail? Indeed, the etymology of the English word penis is "1676, perhaps from Fr. pénis or directly from L. penis "penis," earlier "tail" (cf. Eng. tail in both senses, the sexual one slang)". Like I said, the word tail is being used as a euphemism for phallus, not that it should be translated as phallus every time it appears. Just like today, while the modern english word "tail" can be used as a euphemism, it is also used in its literal meaning.

What is being described is a grass-eating herbivore(which doesn't fit sauropod dinosaurs) that dwells in and near rivers, which fit the hippopotamus perfectly. As does the description of an animal that is aggressive and dangerous if provoked, as fiercely territorial hippos are responsible for more human deaths each year in Africa than any other large animal.

This is how the passsage has historically been viewed. It's how the 17th century Matthew Henry commentary sees it. The 'navel of his belly' (umbilicus in the Latin Vulgate) is mentioned in Job 40:16. And as I've pointed out, only placental mammals(which hippos are and dinos ain't) have navels.

Put simply, an honest interpretation of the passage in Job shows it to be a hippopotamus. A dinosaur simply doesn't fit, for several reasons. The idea that a dinosaur is being described in Job was invented in the last couple of decades by biblically illiterate creationists eager to distort scripture for their own ends.

Tail/Tree Metaphor

Behemoth, in the passage, is said to have strength in his hips and powerful muscles in his belly. However, the next verse after that is a victim of quote-mining and quoting out of context. Job 40:17 says:

“He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”

But is often interpreted to mean:

“His tail is like a cedar: the sinews (or tendons) of his stones are wrapped together.”

This would mean that the tail of Behemoth was as big and thick as a cedar tree, which cannot be assumed from the original text. Thus, reinforcing the notion that Behemoth was sauropod dinosaur, as unlike the tail of an elephant and the hippo, sauropod dinosaurs have long, thick tails similar to the trunk of a tree.

Allan K. Steel, on Answers in Genesis gives out what he claims to be a technical explanation of Behemoth by presenting a list of various translations of Job 40:17 and concludes that the tail of Behemoth was like the trunk of a cedar tree. Thus, Behemoth, according to Steel, was indeed a dinosaur because its tail is exactly like a cedar tree.

The verse in does not say “His tail is like a cedar.” The verse actually says, “He moveth his tail like a cedar..” which means that it does not necessarily indicate the size of the tail, only the motion pattern. It could be reasoned that the tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.

[edit] Alternate meanings of ‘tail’
The word ‘tail’ in Job 40:17, may have nothing to do with cedar trees or animal tails. It could be that ‘tail’ may have been a euphemism for a male sex organ!

In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:

“What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit...”

This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.

The NIV version does not, like other versions, make any specific mention of the belly possessing a navel, but simply states “the muscles of the belly”. The NIV also avoids association with loose interpretation of “testiculorem,” found in the Latin Vulgate Bible.

Therefore, the NIV in particular does not specifically insist that the tail is identical in size to a cedar tree, making a sauropod interpretation unnecessary; nor does it make mention to properties of the animal in a way which would rule out such an interpretation. The emphasis though, is clearly on the strength of the animal’s loins, regardless of the kind of animal and regardless of the size of the tail. The point of the verse appears to have nothing to do with proving whether Job saw a sauropod or not; but is a lesson in not questioning divine providence by showing examples of other creatures who would appear to have a reason to and yet do not.

In comparison to the translation of these verses by professional translator Stephen Mitchell in 1992, who wrote and published in closer association with the Vulgate his own translation of The Book of Job, the verses read:

“Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor.”

This version very strongly suggests that behemoth, whatever it was, was a creature in heat at the time of description. In no way does this interpretation suggest a whiplash tail. Instead, the verses refer to the sexual display behavior of Behemoth - that of a mammal.