The Truth About Behemoth
From EvoWiki
YECs believe that there are dinosaurs found in the Bible. In a way, they are right. Passages, such as Isaiah 40:31 for example, do give references to dinosaurs such as eagles, sparrows, owls, ravens, and doves. But in another way they are wrong. If you ask them are there dinosaurs in the Bible, they will tell you 'yes' and point out a passages in Job 40 that, to them, gives out a detailed description of a alleged sauropod dinosaur known at that time as 'Behemoth'. The word 'Behemoth' literally means "beast," with the Hebrew indicatives of meaning "colossal beast," and the passage does describe a large creature that "..eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron (Job 40:15-18 KJV)." Here, click on this Biblegateway link to read the whole Behemoth passage.
This passage is what creationists claimed to be one of the evidences of human beings encountering live dinosaurs. The evidence is entirely invalid because that doesn't explain how come there are no remains of humans found in and around dinosaur remains in the fossil record. Whether YECs like it or not, the Behemoth passages does not describe a dinosaur. Some would even claim that the 1950's movie The Giant Behemoth may have prompted the dinosaur postulation view's popularity, though it certainly did not end with that movie.
Why Behemoth Is Not A Dinosaur
No matter how many times they insist on him being a dinosaur, Behemoth is still not a dinosaur. Here is the factual reason to why it is so.
According to the passage, Behemoth is said to eat grass like an ox. Although, nowadays, it is known that some sauropods like Diplodocus have horizontal necks that can easily reach the ground for ferns to eat, sauropods, unlike cows, completely lack chewing teeth (e.g., molars). Sauropods were wholly incapable of chewing their food at all. Their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They ate vegetation by grasping the food with the teeth, and pulled away with the head, thereby "raking" the leaves into the mouth. In order to "chew" the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called "gastroliths") that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards.
Believe it or not there was grass growing at the time of the dinosaurs. Once thought to first appeared around 40 million years ago, grass is now known to begin to grow in the late Cretaceous period at the very end of the dinosaur age. Grass must have evolved their main methods of defense against the marauding chewing jaws of dinosaurs like Homalocephale and Edmontosaurus simply by having the ability to grow fast and have very tough, silica-enriched cellulose fibers that made things exceptionally difficult for grazing herbivores by being so difficult to digest so as to require complex digestive systems, and being so tough so as to wear down grazers' teeth. Thus, the dinosaurs of that time, such as Titanosaur, took advantage of this new food source and begin eating it, as suggested by a coprolite fossil recently unearthed by scientists containing remnants of grass blades. The fossil dung is dated back between 70 and 65 million years ago and the grass inside of it is believed to have been eaten by Titanosaurs, which likely explains why they, along with the Hadrosaurs, have broad mouths. Although, it is now known that there were species of grass growing at the time of the dinosaurs as depicted in Rudolph Zallinger's dinosaur paintings, this does not serve as a justification of Behemoth being a sauropod dinosaur due to the dinosaur's lack of chewing teeth as described above. (Reference: Here)
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.
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.
The Danger Side to Behemoth
Moving to the rest of the passage, we find that the animal is being the “chief amongst the ways of God,” ranking first in God's creation and has huge, strong bones and is extremely dangerous when provoked. Anyone, approaching the creature, must arm himself with raw firepower; any weapon needed to kill this vicious monstrosity, including a sword. The hippopotamus (river horse) is such a creature, a highly dangerous animal that has been said to kill humans more than any other dangerous animal in Africa. It can also snap a crocodile in two with just one bite of its massive jaws filled with strong, sharp ivory teeth. Its hide can resist bullets with the exception of the head which the hunters aim their rifles at in order for them to shoot down their intended target without causing it to attack.
The reference to behemoth in the latter half of chapter 40, according to the NIV, indicates that the creature is peaceful until provoked. It indicates that the creature is also very difficult to suppress.
Indications of an Amphibious Animal
The rest of the passage also talks about mountains bringing the creature food as well as seeing him hiding among the lotus plants and lounging among the willow plants while keeping himself cool and being brave when water rages around him. When thirsty, he drinks a lot of water including the waters of the Jordan River in Israel. This animal has real tough skin that can easily resist traps and can never be tamed, just as the last verse of passage indicates.
The rest of the passage refers to Behemoth being a large amphibious mammal. Sauropods, on the other hand, contrare to popular belief embraced by people in the early to mid 1900s, would not enjoy being stuck, bogged down, and up to their armpits in mud, mire, and water all the time and, in other cases, be drowned in their own tissue while standing in deep water as I'll explain below.
What People Used To Think Sauropods Were and What Sauropods Really Were
Sauropods were once thought to be amphibious dinosaurs who spent nearly all of their lives in the water as depicted in the famous painting of Apatosaurus standing and feeding in the swamp created by Charles R. Knight a little over a century ago. People, many decades ago, didn't think that sauropods were capable of walking on land because of their massive weight. So, they envisioned the sauropods as huge swampbound giants that spent nearly all of their lives in the water to lighten up their weight, ate water plants because of their weak teeth, and to be safe from meat-eating dinosaurs that could not swim. In the 1970s, however, scientists began to learn that sauropods were not at all what people think they were.
Careful studies made in 1970s tell us that sauropods were able to live quite comfortably on land after all, eating dry plants due to the teeth being worn from raking in plants with their peg and/or spoon shaped teeth depending on species of sauropod. They were able to carry their weight just fine with the help of their strong, yet hollow bones that reduced their weight and made it easy for the sauropods to walk on dry land. Unlike the hippo's feet, the toes on the feet of sauropods are not splayed. Instead, the feet were all compact together like elephants and were supported by soft, squishy pads that gave the feet lots of support while walking on land. It would be useless to have them stand in a damp, muddy, swampy area, for their elephant-like feet, not suitable for walking on soft muddy terrain, along with their massive weight, would sink the sauropods into the mire and get them helplessly bogged down and stuck there. While the hippo body is round and barrel-like, sauropod bodies were narrow and compact like elephants, also useless for swamp-like living, not to mentioned the fact that if a sauropod stood in deep water, the weight of the water would have crushed their lungs to the point where sauropods could easily suffocate and drown in their own tissue. And finally, in St George, Utah, there is a special site that features well preserved footprints belonging to a meat-eating dinosaur that could swim even in deep water. Thus, debunking the old-fashioned myth about aquaphobic carnosaurs unable to get at their dinner because their dinner is way out of reach in deep water.
Hippo, Not Dinosaur
The passage could not be describing a dinosaur, but the hippopotamus, truly a wild animal that "eateth grass like an ox," can never be tamed, and makes his home in the swamps, lakes, and rivers of Africa. They were once common in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, but were not seen anymore in that area due to them being hunted down for their ivory teeth, meat, and hide by humans.
The hippopotamus fits the description of Behemoth far better than any other animal. Steel, however, claims that the Egyptian word reference for the hippo, pehemou or pehemout which means ox of the water doesn't exist. He is right. But what Steel fails to mention is that the actual Egyptian word for the hippo is db or deb. And this animal db, a mammal, not a dinosaur, is the Behemoth God is describing to Job. Even if the passage does describe a dinosaur, that still does not explain why there are no remains of humans found in and around dinosaur remains in the fossil record. A find of dinosaur bones may have inspired the Behemoth text if it was not a hippo. Writers of the Old Testament would not have analysed dinosaur bones as modern paleontologists do. Alternatively descriptions of hippos confused with dinosaur finds may have inspired the text. The text may also refer to a hippo and nothing else.
To know more about this well known African animal of the swamps, check out these links.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus
- http://nature-wildlife.com/hipptxt.htm
- http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Hippopotamus_amphibius.html
- http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-hippopotamus.html
- http://www.scz.org/animals/h/hippo.html
- http://www.awf.org/wildlives/140
