Dinosaurs in the Bible

It is obvious that in the early church, the Scriptures were regarded as a source of absolute truth; that any claims anyone made, if verified by Scriptures, were true (Acts 17:11, 18:28). Therefore, since the guys leading the church back in those days (Paul, Peter, etc.) knew what Jesus wanted his followers to do way better than we could--since they all had personal contact with Him--I think it's a good idea to consult the Bible for any questions we have...ever.

So to test this theory--that the Bible can be used to determine the truth on any matter--let's try to use the Bible to prove that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man. That seems like a pretty random truth to look for, but if the Bible is the source of all knowledge, the answer should be in there.

The next question we must address is this: What exactly, if found in the Bible, will be sufficient to determine whether or not dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans? I believe that if we find a description of an animal written in present tense (implying that the animal being described exists at the same time as the author) that fits the profile of a dinosaur better than any other creature known to man, and if we can conclude that the animal being described is not symbolic, but actually exists, then the most rational conclusion is that at least one dinosaur existed at the same time as humans. This is what I will strive to find in the Bible.

Luckily, just such a passage exists in the Bible. In Job 40, there is a description of an animal called the Behemoth, which under careful study is found to have more features in common with a dinosaur than any other animal known to exist. Before diving in to this passage however, it is important to get some backgroung on what has beeing going on in Job up to this point.

Job had been a rich, powerful, and righteous man all his life; in fact he was called "blameless and upright" by God himself (1:8). Then one day Satan walks up and claims that the only reason Job is so righteous is because he is also so wealthy and powerful. So God give Satan permission to take away all Job's land, his money, his children, his animals, and even to inflict him with a terrible disease, as a test to see if Job is really faithful to God. Then for 36 chapters, Job and some of his friends discuss pretty much everything about God; his justice, his faithfulness, his power, etc. And in the process of this Job openly expresses his hurt and anger at God. Finally in chapter 38, God speaks. Instead of explaining why he has allowed Job to be punished so severely, he begins to name some of the countless things God does without fail, such as puts constellations in the sky (38:32), makes lightning (38:35), causes rain (38:25), and many others. Then, he starts talking about the different animals, and all their power and strength. God is basically telling Job that since he has no idea how all these things happen, or how animals work, he can have no idea how to run the things of God, which are far more complex than the minor things that happen on earth. And this is where the Behemoth comes in. God describes the enormous, powerful Behemoth who no man can even come near, basically telling Job, "if you can't overcome the power of one of my creations, how can you expect to overcome me?" So the point of the Behemoth is to show the amazing and unparalleled power of God. That being said, let's move on to the actual passage:

Alright, so now you've read the passage. You may be saying to yourself "Well that could also describe an elephant or a hippo just as well as a dinosaur," and that is the view that many people who refuse to compromise their belief in an Old Earth will say. However, on a close inspection, it is easy to see both the elephant and the hippopotamus fail to satisfy several of the descriptions given to the Behemoth. So in order to bring those up, I'm going to go through the verses one by one and address each descriptive phrase about the Behemoth and objectively compare it to a number of animals that have been proposed as candidates for the Behemoth (including the crocodile, the hippopotamus, the rhinocerous, the elephant, a sauropod, or a stegosaurus). Like I said, I will be as objective as possible and if there are any phrases that are in contradiction to a dinosaur, I will not fail to mention them.

Verse 15

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."

This short verse actually contains quite a bit of information needed to figure out just what exactly this animal is. The first thing to notice is that God says "Behold now" as in "look over there and see what I'm talking about." In fact the NIV even says "Look at..." So the we can deduce from this that they were actually visually looking at whatever they were talking about (i.e. the Behemoth existed right then).

Secondly, we should figure out what exactly the word "behemoth" means. Behemoth does not literally mean any specific animal, so it is actually just the sound of a Hebrew word spelled out in English letters. The Hebrew word "behemoth" is the plural of the singular word "behemah" which means beast or cattle. (You may at this point say want to think that Behemoth is just an ox, but notice it is compared to an ox in the first verse...you can't compare something to itself. Plus almost every other verse denies that theory anyway.) The plural of the word can of course be used to mean "many beasts," but can also mean one extremely large or magnificent beast¹. Since the rest of the passage talks about one single animal, in this case, it takes the latter meaning.

Thridly, this verse states that God made the behemoth "with [Job]." I can think of three possible meanings for this phrase: 1.) Completely literally, just looking at the words, it could mean God made them both on the same day, so Job and the behemoth are the same age. This seems really random and pointless to say, so I don't think that's what it means. 2.) It could also be referring to the original creation, or more specifically, the sixth day, when God made land animals and humans. Also kind of random. 3.) I think this one is the most likely. It could mean that God just made both of them. It's just declaring that God is the creator of both of these creatures.

So far, we've just covered some specifics about the opening of the passage, but now we'll get into the actual controversy.

The final point of interest in this verse is the last clause, "he eateth grass as an ox." It is important first off to say that hippos, elephants, and rhinos all eat grass. Crocodiles can, but usually they stick to meat. However, many skeptics use this verse to try to disprove the dinosaur theory, but all their arguments are ultimataely without merit. One objection I've heard is that dinosaurs eat meat, so this can't describe a dinosaur. It is true that some dinosaur fossils have teeth that can tear apart meat, but an equally large amount of dinosaur fossils have been found with teeth only suitable for eating plants; therefore, for the remainer of this discussion, we will only focus on two types of plant eating dinosaurs, the sauropod and the Stegosaurus. Another objection is that grass didn't exist in the age of dinosaurs. This one is just as wrong as the previous one. Obviously, if it turns out to be a dinosaur, then it exists at the same time as humans, and we know grass existed when humans existed. Thirdly, many people claim that the weight of a sauropod's neck would prevent it from reaching the ground to eat grass. However, many recent studies have shown that it is entirely possible for the ligament in a sauropod's neck to support the enormous weight that would be required to move the head to the ground². Also, some large-hipped sauropods, such as the Mamenchisaurus had necks specially designed to stay level with the ground³. Plus, even if all that is somehow disproven, the Hebrew word translated as "grass" is also translated as "greenness, herbs, hay, or herbage," which can apply to leaves and trees as well⁴. Of course if the dinosaur is a stegosaurus, it can graze easily from the ground. (See Fig. 3)

So far so good, using just this verse, the Behemoth could be any of those animals. So let's move on.

Verse 16

"Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly"

First off, if you're like me, you weren't very familiar with the word "loins" when you read that, so in order to start off on the right foot, I'll give you the dictionary.com definition:

"He moveth his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his stones are wrapped together"

The first clause of this verse poses the most significant problem for opponents of the dinosaur theory. Of all the creatures that could possibly be the Behemoth, only one has a tail that could conceivably move like a cedar: A dinosaur. The elephant, hippo, and the rhino all have really wimpy tails that move more like blades of grass than huge trees. Crocodiles have a bit more prominent tails, but they still don't remind me of a cedar. Rarely is a crocodile's tail straightened out like a cedar; in fact, it is usually somewhat wavy, which indeed looks nothing like a cedar. But you can make the decision yourself:

Figure 6a. A Cedar Tree

Figure 6b. A Brachiosaurus Tail

Figure 6c. A Hippopotamus Tail

Figure 6d. An Elephant Tail

Figure 6e. A Rhinoceros Tail

Figure 6f. Crocodile Tails

If you have the NIV version of the Bible, you may notice that there is a footnote under this passage that proclaims that in this case "tail" is actually referring to a trunk, implying that the Behemoth is an elephant. This is basically just an attempt to avoid the conclusion that the Behemoth is a dinosaur, because there is no evidence that the word should actually be "trunk." The Hebrew word translated as "tail" is zanab, which is used in other verses that are definitely referring to an actual tail (Deut. 28:13)⁴.

Another objection is that this verse only says that the tail is moving like a cedar, and so technically, as long as it moves like a cedar, it can be any size. This is not the case. The Hebrew word chaphets in this case does not imply movement; instead, it implies that the behemoth takes extreme delight in his tail, which in turn implies that his tail is impressive⁴.

One of the more bizarre suggestions is that the word for tail is actually used in conjunction with a later part of the verse ("his stones") to refer to the creature's genitals. Thus, it wouldn't be a dinosaur since they did not have reproductive organs like...that... (Yes someone did actually make this claim⁹.) Basically, it's like saying that if the passage had said "the Behemoth's arms are strong" that would be a euphemism for the creatures genitals. Of course this is such a strange claim that it is kind of hard to disprove, but it will suffice to say that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. It appears is if it was just an idea someone invented to avoid making the conclusion that the passage logically points to⁸. In order to avoid the conclusion that this passage means exactly what it sounds like it means, the reader must avoid logic and follow his own biases instead of reason.

The second part of the verse is actually quite different from Bibles such as the NIV or NASB to the King James Version. In fact, there are two completely different ways to interpret this part of the verse.

In the King James Version, God says that "the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." The word translated as "stones" in this version is pachad. "Pach" as a noun means "plate" and as a verb it means "to be startled or to make shake." This could very well be a reference to plates on the back of a Stegosaurus, which in all possibility could have shaken as the Stegosaurus moved around¹. Using this interpretation, it's obvious that none of the other animals in question fit the description.

In other translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, you will find the phrase, "the sinews of his thighs are close-knit." In this case, they have translated the word "stones" as "thighs," and a study of Old Testament words shows that this can be acceptable translation as well. The word "sinews" is from the Hebrew word gid which you can think of like a cord or a tightly wound rope⁴. From this phrase, we can deduct that the muscles are visible through the skin and appear to be extrememly prevalent. (Refer to Figure 9.)

Figure 9a.

This is what I think of when I think of sinews being wrapped together. Like this rope is made of many strands wound together, the Behemoth's thigh was a bunch of sinews wrapped together, like this drawing of a human thigh shows.

Figure 9b.

To decide if this would apply to dinosaurs, first remember that dinosaurs are reptiles. Refer to the skin on the lizard in Figure 7. Its thin skin is stretched so tightly over its body that you can even see its veins. Now imagine this same skin stretched over a giant lizard with extraordinarily strong muscles bulging out. It's easy to see that this verse can apply to dinosaurs without any problem. Hippos, on the other hand have extremely thick skin, about as strong as kevlar (the stuff they make bullet-proof vests out of). It's hard to imagine being able to see any definition of their muscles through a bullet proof vest. Elephants and Rhinos likewise have much thicker skin than reptiles, which does not clearly display their muscles (See Fig. 8). Crocodiles hardly even have thighs, and much less muscles bulging out of them.

Figure 7.

"The sinews of his thighs are knit together" __________Job 40:17b (NASB)

Figure 8.

Verse 18

"His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron"

I was looking at a web page about this passage, and the author made the conclusion that the Behemoth was not a dinosaur because his bones are not made out of metal, and this verse claims that they are10. So since Hippos and Elephants have bones made of bronze, one of them is the more likely candidate for the Behemoth...obviously this verse is a metaphor. Basically all this verse is saying is that the Behemoth had thick, strong bones. Of course a Sauropod, whose bones were sturdy enough to support three other dinosaurs of equal weight on its back4, had enormous bones. However, stegosauruses, elephants, hippos, and rhinos all have quite sturdy bones as well, so any of them could fit this description. But crocodiles, on the other hand, have relatively thin bones (compared to elephants or rhinos). Dinosaurs definitely had much larger bones than humans, and thus would be impressive to Job (see comparison in Figure 10.), but elephant bones can also still be considered as strong as brass.

Figure 10. Sauropod______Human Bone__________Bone

STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION---JULY 7, 2004----

Chart of Resemblances

*I have added pertinent conclusions about the characteristics in this passage that I have reached above in my commentary. They are inserted into the characteristics box in italics. If you choose not to accept my conclusions, knock one point off where necessary.

Note: If you wonder why I gave certain ratings somwhere or wish to debate the rating I gave for a certain box, contact me at gravis127@hotmail.com.