Job 40:19b behemoth

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby SteveMiller » Thu May 09, 2019 8:44 pm

kwrandolph wrote:Let’s take the assumption that God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago, what would we expect to find?

• Dinosaurs were created at the same time as mankind Job 40:15
• That there would be historical references to dinosaurs, albeit under different names.
• That there would be ancient statuary and images of dinosaurs
• That there may be references even today of living dinosaurs.


I don't think the Tanach says that God created the universe < 10k years ago.
It says He created man < 10k years ago, but the time line only goes back to Gen 1:3, the morning of "one day" that was followed by a second, 3rd, ... and 7th day.

If we take the assumption that God created the universe < 10k years ago, then we should expect to find dinosaurs clearly alive today
because if God created them with Adam, then God would have put them on Noah's ark,
and God would not have put them on the ark for the purpose of having the whole genus go extinct.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Isaac Fried » Thu May 09, 2019 9:05 pm

"Isaac, What you say makes sense except that יַגֵּשׁ never means "endowed" as far as I know."
OK, then replace "endowed" with "presented to", "gave to". Don't forget that this is high poetry, and don't let the "grammar" obscure the sense. God gave this mighty beast a harming "sword".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Isaac Fried » Thu May 09, 2019 10:14 pm

חָרְבּוֹ may refer also to the beast's horn.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Isaac Fried » Thu May 09, 2019 10:34 pm

In 2Sam. 17:29 we read
וּדְבַשׁ וְחֶמְאָה וְצֹאן וּשְׁפוֹת בָּקָר הִגִּישׁוּ לְדָוִד וְלָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל
where הִגִּישׁוּ = היא-ג-היא-ש-הוּא is not merely 'brought near', but actually 'gave, presented'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby SteveMiller » Fri May 10, 2019 12:14 am

Isaac Fried wrote:חָרְבּוֹ may refer also to the beast's horn.


Could be. Or a tusk like dugongs have.

Isaac Fried wrote:In 2Sam. 17:29 we read
וּדְבַשׁ וְחֶמְאָה וְצֹאן וּשְׁפוֹת בָּקָר הִגִּישׁוּ לְדָוִד וְלָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל
where הִגִּישׁוּ = היא-ג-היא-ש-הוּא is not merely 'brought near', but actually 'gave, presented'.


Thanks Isaac. That could work.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Isaac Fried » Fri May 10, 2019 10:57 am

Yes horn or tusk! Job is possibly excitedly recounting the big animals he saw upon his safari in east Africa:
1. The White Rhinoceros
2. The African Elephant
3. The Hippopotamus
or he is possibly wrapping them all into one typical monstrous beast.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Isaac Fried » Fri May 10, 2019 11:23 am

The root חרב XRB, 'ruin, destroy, demolish', is certainly a close relative of the root קרב QRB, 'approach, close, near'. How? because the stones of a ruined house, a חָרְבָּה, are heaped close קרוֹבים together, as is the קֶרֶב QEREB, the system of internal organs. See, for example, Ex, 29:13.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

kwrandolph
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby kwrandolph » Fri May 10, 2019 8:19 pm

SteveMiller wrote:I don't think the Tanach says that God created the universe < 10k years ago.


How long after God created the earth did God create light? We measure time by physical movement. Before God created light, there was no physical movement.

And we don’t start counting year #1 until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. How long did they live in the garden after creation until they ate the forbidden fruit?

SteveMiller wrote:It says He created man < 10k years ago, but the time line only goes back to Gen 1:3, the morning of "one day" that was followed by a second, 3rd, ... and 7th day.


Yes, there you have the start of physical movement.

SteveMiller wrote:If we take the assumption that God created the universe < 10k years ago, then we should expect to find dinosaurs clearly alive today
because if God created them with Adam, then God would have put them on Noah's ark,
and God would not have put them on the ark for the purpose of having the whole genus go extinct.


Did they go extinct? Or were they killed off by man?

Take for example an animal mentioned from about 1500 years ago in Europe. It was bipedal, had large jaws large enough that it could bite off a man down to his waist in one gulp. It had relatively weak and small forearms. An animal that fits this description is mentioned as still living in the wilds of west Australia, the aborigines call it a “burrunjor”. Medieval Germanic speaking Europeans called it “grendel” or “grindel”. A city in Switzerland is still called “Grindelwald”—“Forest of the Grindels”.

That’s just one of many examples.

What we find today is a western solipsism that if an animal hasn’t been observed by someone with a western “PhD” after his name, therefore that animal doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how many local people have observed said animal and described it, it doesn’t exist. That’s not only true of dinosaurs, but other “extinct” animals as well.

While mentioning the claim that God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago was merely a rhetorical devise in my last message, there are many people who believe it to be true, including scientists. Those who claim that belief to be true have no problem in recognizing that the animal mentioned in Job 40 is a sauropod.

Karl W. Randolph.

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Isaac Fried » Sat May 18, 2019 8:51 pm

SteveMiller wrote:
Or a tusk like dugongs have.

Reading Job 40:15-24 suggests that the בְהֵמוֹת is rather a, water loving, but land animal. I doubt that the חָצִיר in
הִנֵּה נָא בְהֵמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּךְ חָצִיר כַּבָּקָר יֹאכֵל
NIV: “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you (which is now in front of you) and which feeds on grass like an ox"
refers to sea-grass.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Saro Fedele
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:03 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Job 40:19b behemoth

Postby Saro Fedele » Mon May 20, 2019 1:02 pm

@ Karl W. Randolph

I'm glad you agree with me that the LXX's 'problem' you mentioned is, really, in common - sometimes - with other Bible texts, MT included.
So, 'a trouble shared is a trouble halved'...

I apologize the wrong wording of mine. Instead to write 'in any case', or, 'anyway', I wrote 'in every case'. Sorry.


You said:
"I’m not sure what you mean by this, especially by your use of 'eclectic mode'."


Perhaps my wobbly English wasn't enough correct to explain well this linguistical term. In any case (I hope I'm using this expression correctly, now!), there are two basic modes of approaching to a TaNaKh translation: 'diplomatic' and 'eclectic'. Instead to let my head to spin to the purpose of explain you these terms I prefer to indicate you a couple of references in good English: (1) A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Paul D. Wegner (2006), sections 4.10-4.11; (2) Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by Emanuel Tov (2012), see - on the inside of the index - the entries 'editions' > 'Hebrew Scripture' > 'diplomatic' [...] 'eclectic'. For my viewpoint, the eclectic mode is the better way to approaching to a TaNaKh translation (like I'm performing in a Genesis translation).


You said:
"Where did they get their understandings?"


From the same place you get your understanding about the concept that, like you said, "[the term 'desolation'] most likely had a different pronunciation than 'sword'", that is, Logic. Yes, just like it is only logical to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations (so we can distinguish one or another derivatives), in the same manner it is only logical to conclude that two verbs which possess superimposable semantic areas, along with 2 radicals out of 3 in common, can be considered homosemantic terms.


You said:
"You haven’t shown by good evidence that they had a common meaning."


Sorry, but now I'm not quite with you. I've yet mentioned the scholarly comments of Davies and Fuerst that assign the same meaning to both roots. Now, if you don't go along with them you have every right to do so, but this doesn't mean that I haven't presented a 'demonstration'. Instead, this indicates that I have presented a 'demonstration' that you are free to agree with or not.
You mentioned also the necessity - for my part - to show a 'pattern'. I have no need to demonstrate any pattern. My purpose was to demonstrate that it was possible - in the past - that 'hheth' and 'kaph' were (sometimes) swapped each other. And for this goal, also one example - like that I cited - is fully enough (moreover, why you ask for 2 or 3 examples? Aren't 4, 5, 10, 350 examples better? Are you established a minimum amount of this kind of examples, to consider they are 'enough'?).
This single example I've cited demonstrates, adequately, that a swapping of this kind was possible and that it occurred, actually.


You said:
"At the same time, a perfectly good understanding of the verse can be made without changing a letter. All is needed is to consider all the possibilities available in the consonantal text."


If we may get "a perfectly good understanding of the verse can be made without changing a letter" why readers/scholars (among them our user Steve Miller) think the stich does not 'make sense'? If we are discussing on Job 40:19 is because the B19 (or, another Bible Hebrew net-of-diacritical-points text, also) doesn't offer us enough information to give a number of us a persuasive understanding.

Saro Fedele


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests