From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"The Hebrew behemoth is equated with the Persian Hadhayosh, as the leviathan is with the Kar and the ziz with the Simurgh." Equated, really? I'd bet not "equated" except in some interpreter's imagination. Where? When? By whom? Equivalents are so much less informative than distinctions. But this is babble as it stands, is it not? --Wetman 12:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A naively strong statement as it is without explanation. "Parallels can be drawn between" perhaps but justification is still required. Note amusingly that the Kar link directs to Karaoke. --Air 13:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to some christian creationists, dinosaurs must logically have been among the animals Noah brought on his ark. I found it interesting that they noted that the description of the behemoth (huge, dangerous, with a tail like a tree) fits rather well with some species of dinosaurs. Quoting "In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called ‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!"

I found this an interesting (and, I have to admit, slightly humorous) piece of information; would it fit to be mentioned, in an appropriately neutral fashion? I'm too new a WPer to dare to do it myself.. ;) MMad 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you Google the phrase "Hadhayosh," you get an article on the free dictionary uncannily similar to the Wiki. -- 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Your Only Real Friend

Not unlike EVERY OTHER ARTICLE on the free dictionary.

So? Wikipedia's copiable--check the GDFL license. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Behemoth as dinosaur 'theory'[edit]

Why is this discussed in detail? Why is it even mentioned? It's completely impossible because humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. It is ridiculous to think that in the spirit of evenness, such nonsense should be dealt with in anything more than passing mention. (And, for all I care, a link toward an article on esoteric believes and/or pseudo-science. - jfl —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's impossible, at least in their view; the whole basis of the Young Earth hypothesis is that the central assumption of carbon dating is wrong, that the level of carbon in the atmosphere drastically changed at (I believe) about the time of Noah's flood. If this were the case, it would be entirely possible. It's a legitimate interpretation, albeit not a widely held one, and Wikipedia isn't just about promoting the most popular viewpoints, yes? (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very obvious that in the name of logic, no evidence mean nothing, it only means no evidence. Like in a court case, no evidence showing others did it does not give the conclusion that the only suspect is guilty, you need to have actual evidence saying the suspect is guilty. MythSearchertalk 09:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually since isotope dating is pretty much guaranteed by the stability of 'c', the speed of light, I would say it is in fact very much impossible. We know for a fact the earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs where tens of millions of years ago. And we know for a fact humans have only been around a few hundred thousand years to 2 million years (Depending on where you draw the evolutionary line at 'human'). Its silly to contemplate the question, both for science and respectable theology (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I just read the section where the dinosaur theory first got mentioned. I fail to see any context or reason for it being there. If anything I guess this "theory" could be mentioned but added in a new section at the bottom of the article. Maybe "Possible Real Life Origin" or something. Id doesn't belong in the description section at least. (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The mention of Behemoth being a dinosaur is there because some Young Earth Creationists want people to think Behemoth was a dinosaur.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Underneath the heading “Identity”, the article has a sentence that makes no sense. The sentence was edited to promote two conflicting ideas. It reads, “Young earth creationist believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived together, but this contradicts the established facts that the earth is over 4 billion years old and that the last of the sauropods became extinct 65 million years ago when a large asteroid struck the Earth.” Whoever edited the sentence, added a flawed statement just for argument. First, there is no established facts on the age of the Earth or exactly how the dinosaurs became extinct. The Earth is believed to be 4 billion years old and the evidence appears to support that for now; even though, it's not established fact. Secondly, there has been many asteroids that have stuck the Earth over the course of it’s existence, but it’s still not a proven fact if an asteroid brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs. That seems to be the most popular thought, but it’s not an established fact. This sentence should be split and edited to show that they are two distinct schools of thought. 06/02/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutRight (talkcontribs) 19:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Outright, please read this essay on Wikipedia's stance regarding evolution. Evolution is acknowledged as a fact by the mainstream scientific community, despite what the American Conservative Protestant echo-chamber keeps telling itself. There is ample scientific proof for it, moreso even than for the theory of gravity. It is not simply "the most popular thought," it is the thought with the most evidence. Wikipedia goes with mainstream sources, and does not give equal validity to non-mainstream views. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
the passage says it MOVES like cedar. Cedar trees do not move except in one way:the branches through the wind. This description fits an elephant much better than a sauropod. And the most prominent feature of a sauropod is its neck. Surely, if it was describing a sauropod, even if it was a skeleton, don't you think the writers would pick up on the fact that it has a giant neck? Why is the neck of the creature not described, unless it was a in fact an elephant or similar creatures, which have no particularly noticeable neck? (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Such is the heartache of Young Earth Creationists desperate to steal the star power and validity of dinosaurs for their own for Jesus' sake. Having said that, you're preaching to the choir, as a) Wikipedia editors aren't making the claim that Behemoth was a sauropod, Young Earth Creationists are, and b) it would be better to discuss this and other fatal flaws in the Behemoth-as-sauropod hypothesis with the Young Earth Creationists, themselves, if their egos would permit, of course.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Doesn't it seem that the section dealing with the theory that the Behemoth is a dinosaur biased against the dinosaur theory. For example, those two reasons that were listed are innacurate due to the fact that the Apatosaur isn't the only dinosaur that is a candidate for being the Behemoth. Saying that a Sauropod has been proposed would be more appropriate. I'm going to go ahead and change this in awhile. In the meantime if anyone has any suggestions feel free to say something --AirLiner 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also found this to be rank speculation: "1) grasses were not yet found in the apatosurus's environment and" Using that sort of speculation as evidence is ridiculous.--Marhawkman 02:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and as mentioned by Airliner pretty much any sauropod would fit the bill,--Marhawkman 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the characteristics listed in the book of Job disprove the Sauropod theory.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
This sounds like the behemoth was a carnivore, since everyone knows Sauropod's are herbivores its kind of impossible by the books own standards. 07:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also there is nothing in the Bible that realy says the earth is such and such thousands years old, even if you take a literal interpretation of it. That stems from a interpretation of a monk in the middle ages trying to figure out the age of the earth. It's a common misconception. It's just a common interpretation from people who claim to take the bible literally, a specific viewpoint. For instance you aren't going to get the same arguement from the Pope in Vatican.

Different viewpoints like there is no apple mentioned anywere in the garden of eden; it says that Adam and Eve weren't the first people created (the rest of humanity was created on the sixth day, were as Adam and Even weren't created until after God has his rest on the seventh); there is no rapture mentioned or referenced anywere (the concept wasn't created until the 1800's or so in the US); Easter is a obvious mistranslation(having entered into christainity at a much later date to attract pagans to convert), etc etc. All the people that beleive those things are operating on a purely matter faith and is not anyway based on a literal interpretation since none of them are realy in the bible. (not saying that it's invalid so much, just explaining that it's not there)

As you can see there is considurable conflict between viewpoints. Saying that people who take a literal interpretation believe this or that because they beleive that science is incorrect is VERY misleading and innaccurate to say the least. (and frankly quite offensive to some people) That section should be removed for accuracy.

Although it's good to mention that this viewpoint is very contriversal (for the reasons already stated in the article). Also saying that different people take different view points is perfectly accurate.

There are modern accounts of a sauropodlike animal called Mokele-mbembe living in Africa. As both creatures are rumored to be dinosaurs, some believe that Mokele-mbembe and Behemoth may be one and the same.

I think rumors would be the more appropriate word. Account seems to indicate a somewhat reliable source. I will change it. 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a scholarly source that suggests that they are the same beast? This sounds too much like some pet hypothesis.--Mr Fink 05:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some major problems with the sauropod theory. Verse 15 states that the behemoth ate grass which would be an immense waste of energy for sauropods lowering theirheads to ground level, then lifting them again. They more likely ate from trees.

Verse 16 says ". . . His strength is in the navel of his belly." Navels are the scar-tissue of umbilical chords which only occur in animals that give birth to live young which sauropods did not.

Verse 22 speaks of trees towering over "him" most sauropods are too tall for that to describe.

Verse 24 shays ". . . His nose pierces through snares." this seems to describe a horned animal. (Cappuccino Joe 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure the "navel" issue is really that important. If there really were sauropods alive in Biblical times, then I doubt anyone would be able to get close enough to check if it had a navel or not. I would interpret that to just be a poetic way of describing the belly region. Similarly, (in my opinion) "eats grass like an ox" could just be a poetic way of saying "it eats grass", not "it chews the cud".

Anyway, my own personal opinion is that the description of the behemoth fits that of a sauropod far, far better than it does any of the other suggested animals. However, as I'm not a Creationist, I propose this explanation: a fossilised sauropod skeleton (or skeletons) was/were discovered in the Middle East in Biblical times. The people of that time named this creature "behemoth", and it/they were famous enough and impressive enough to earn a mention in the Bible as an example of the mightiest of God's creatures. Comments about its diet, ability to drain whole rivers, only being killable by God, etc were just assumptions people made based on its size and appearence. Wardog 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire subsection dealing with Young Earth Creationism seems way, way off topic to this article. The rest of the article is a pretty objective and sensible description of the being and the sections relating to the theories on what real animal it may have described seem fine, but two paragraphs to argue that it could have been a dinosaur seems excessive. I vote give this just a brief mention (like the elephant and hippo get) and leave the discussion on Creationism in the relevant article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice article[edit]

Surprisingly good and balanced, with a lot of useful (and sourced!!) information. Kudos. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure if I've read the article throughly, but I'm confused as to weather it is a demon, or on God's side.Therequiembellishere 10:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Bible, Behemoth is simply one of God's creatures. One of God's greatest creatures, but a creature, nonetheless. Demonologists later said that Behemoth was a demon, with one French demonologist saying that he was the "Wine Steward of Hell," and was the chief demon in charge of the sin of gluttony.--Mr Fink 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It does say in the Bible that he is "chief in the ways of God," though.--Maier 03 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely just an animal. and thus "on God's side"(Cappuccino Joe 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

predates the advent of grass?[edit]

perhaps i am wrong but grass does not seem like something that would require an advent nor does it seem like something that hasn't been around that long its not liek its the wheel or fire, or the sword we're talking about, its grass something i am fairly sure was around 65 million years ago the statement is misleading and confuzing and i think it needs to be reworked--Manwithbrisk 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would "evolution" or "origin" sound better then? The first sauropods appear during the late Triassic, while the first evidence of grass, in the form of dung with grass' characteristic silica bits, appear during the late Cretaceous, 60 million years ago.--Mr Fink 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
if grass is only 60 mil years old as you say then i would conceed to something along those lines--Manwithbrisk 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism[edit]

Moreover, some suggest that "tail" is a euphemism for male genitalia. Support for this is based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones" (the Vulgate uses the word "testiculorum"].

Maybe this is just me, but does this just seem like eloquently written vandalism?--Maier 03 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No. [1]--Mr Fink 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you back up your opinion, please? I'm just saying that there isn't even a footnote.--Maier 03 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And what's wrong with the link I provided?--Mr Fink 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a rhino.[edit]

People seem to ignore verse 24 that says " . . . [his] nose pierceth through snares." when trying to determine what kind of animal the behemoth is. The rhinoceros seems to comply with this. Its nose tends to pierce through things, its herbivorous, large, and has a thick protective skin.

On the other hand, the rhino does not have a cedar-like tail. It's possible that the behemoth is some sort of cerapod or distant, extinct relative of the rhinoceros.(Cappuccino Joe 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)) briefly mentions the rhinoceros theory. I haven't found any sources to support the cerapod one. (Cappuccino Joe 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Verse 16 describes the behemoth's "navel" which, of course is a feature only found in animals that give birth to live young. Dinosaurs are thought to have laid eggs so the behemoth must have been some sort of mammal.

(pov) until I come across some solid evidence I'll have to say this behemoth is some sort of horned creature that has yet to be discovered.(Cappuccino Joe 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Has anyone considered that in biblical times the aurochs was still in existence which was up to six feet at the shoulder? Also, even today animals like the gaur which is a bull that stands over seven feet at the shoulders exist. A gaur is bigger than most rhinos according to wikipedia. --Victorcoutin 09:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Question or problem?[edit]

"There is a legend that the Leviathan and the Behemoth shall hold a battle at the end of the world. The two will finally kill each other, and the surviving men will feast on their meat." I am not Jewish but I am pretty sure that the flesh of these animals would not be Kosher, especially after they killed each other. Steve Dufour 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Food not in accord with Jewish law is termed treif, trafe (Yiddish: טרייף‎ from טְרֵפָה ṭərēp̄āh) ("torn"); the Hebrew term refers to animals (from a kosher species such as cattle or sheep) which had been either incorrectly slaughtered or mortally wounded by wild beasts and therefore were not fit for human consumption. -From the WP article on Kosher Steve Dufour 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Behemoth means 'Hippopotamus' not only in Russian, but also in modern day Hebrew. See the Hebrew article for Hippo:בהמות XamiXiarus 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning Part 2[edit]

The recent edits by Kh123 don't sit too well with me. If you all will pardon the pun, but, I find it very hard to swallow that the description of Behemoth grazing grass like an ox is actually referring to a sauropod browsing in a tree. I know that the Ancient Hebrews liked flowery prose, but, I would think that if they were referring to a giant, column-legged lizard eating a tree, wouldn't they mention it eating the tree rather than eating grass?--Mr Fink 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As has already been stated, sauropod dung has been found with evidence for grass or (at least) a grass-like plant in it. Not all sauropods ate from treetops; Brachytrachelopan had such a short neck it was basically impossible, and Nigersaurus was also a low-browser with very wide, vacuum cleaner-like jaws. If ever a Nigersaurus lived in a region that had grass, I see no reason why it wouldn't have eaten it. Obviously grass did exist when the book of Job was written, so if a sauropod had somehow survived until then, by extension it would live alonside grass at that time. The grass wouldn't cease to exist just so that sauropods could live without it. (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Among other things, do realize that the coprolites with grass-silica remnants are from 66 million years ago in India, while Nigersaurus is from the Early Cretaceous of Niger, 119 to 99 million years ago, and Brachytrachelopan is from the Latest Jurassic of Argentina. Also, the Indian coprolites show that, if it is true that the indigenous titanosaurs did make them, the indigenous titanosaurs were indiscriminate feeders that ate both ground vegetation (including grass), and tree foliage. Lastly, got any verifiable sources that demonstrate that the Ancient Hebrews were referring to Nigersaurus, Brachytrachelopan or Indian titanosaurs, and not, say, the hippopotamus?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Unsourced Statements[edit]

I removed this unsourced paragraph, it shifts too much toward a creationist-friendly POV, and no one has ever bothered to attribute it to anyone:

"Since Job is not dated by the author (and is thought to be written before the Torah was compiled), it can denote any period of time where the common fauna (herding or domesticated) could be any classification; hence, "baqar" does not have to be restrictively bovine in the context of Job. Furthermore, the term for "grass" (chatsir) is used of leeks, hay, onions, or any other mature-sized herbage ("ripe greens"), and not restrictively modern "grass"[citation needed]. (Compare "deshe", translated as "grass"; Job 6:5, Gen 1:11; immature or tender grass.) Thus, cud is not required to consume or digest all that falls under the term "chatsir" (grass). Finally, the term used for "chew" is aval (Qal imperfect tense), meaning "to consume, devour". It does not specify chewing or mastication per se, but merely consuming material in any manner (i.e., fire, pestilence, etc, are also included in the use of avar as a verb). Hence, molars are not required for a behemoth to "eat", as is stated in Job.[citation needed]"

Furthermore, it sounds too much like your typical creationist's ad-hoc argument in my opinion.--Mr Fink 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can get removing it if its unsourced, but your second comment doesn't make sense - while you and I might not be creationist, removing an "argument" because you don't agree with it is against WP:POV. (The "sounds too much like your typical creationist's ad-hoc argument" thing)
Frankly, this entire article, and most related ones, is mostly OR or POV - people who agree or disagree with creationism put stuff like the above, or the comments, trying to argue for it - why can't you just stick to verifiability and sourcing?KrytenKoro 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if the 19 out of the every 20 creationists I encounter weren't vandals, I would be less inclined to assume their contributions were vandalism or some sort of other attempt to degrade the articles.--Mr Fink 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying you don't understand WP:POV? The articles should remain neutral, so even if one of the viewpoints (in your view) contributes a lot of vandals, ONLY the vandalism should be removed. (By the way, the other side has thrown in a good bit of vandalism, OR, and unencyclopedic content as well.)KrytenKoro 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you just stop with the snide commentaries and trying to put words into my mouth? I don't appreciate that.--Mr Fink 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"I would be less inclined to assume their contributions were vandalism or some sort of other attempt to degrade the articles" - I don't see how that statement is anything but POV.KrytenKoro 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


We should really have a link between these two pages, since the sauropod thing seems so connected. Also - is there nay notable group that believes that the Behemoth is a sauropod but NOT the young-earth thing? I mean, though I wouldn't fight for the "belief", I would be willing to accept that the Behemoth could be something like Mkole-Mbembe - the rarity implied by the latter "legend" would fit well with the former.KrytenKoro 07:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Mkole-Mbembe was mentioned in this article before, but, no sources were given, and googling Mkole-Mbembe + Behemoth turns up nothing beyond a blurb in a forum.--Mr Fink 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I had the wrong spelling. Here is the correct search: results
The majority of those sites googled are of Creationists saying how Behemoth and Mokole-Mbembe are dinosaurs, and that finding Mokole-Mbembe will be the death knell of Evolutionism. On the other hand, on second thought, it wouldn't hurt to mention Mokole-Mbembe as being another legendary herbivorous river monster.--Mr Fink 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how the fact that they are creationist has anything to do with it - it does show that it is more than just one person's idea that the two are linked, at least to creationists (you can even say that creationists think it, and place all the blame you want on them - however, fully discounting anything they say, JUST BECAUSE they are Creationists, is very disappointing ad hominem-ism).KrytenKoro 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it my fault that Creationists are notoriously poor scholars? Did you find out that it was really me who forced all of those poor hapless Creationists who work at Answers In Genesis and ICR to sign written oaths never to contradict the Bible? Perhaps if you actually took the time to read those sites rather than taking the time to lambast me for being so evil and contemptibly biased, you'd realize that they're all parroting each other, and that none of them produce any evidence of Mokole-Mbembe beyond Bibilical passages describing Behemoth and Roy Mackal's failed expedition to find Mokole-Mbembe.--Mr Fink 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If we really want to be fair to those poor persecuted Creationists, why don't we revise the articles to mention that Creationists have proof that Grendel and his mother were actually T. rexes, that the Tarrasque is actually a Triceratops, and that the dragon that Saint George slew was actually a Baryonyx? I mean, after all, the question of why the descendants of Cain would be T. rexes, or the facts that T. rexes, and Triceratops have never been found in Europe, nor have Baryonyx remains have ever been found in Libya where St George slew his dragon are not important.--Mr Fink 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did I ever once say that they were right? No. I said that banning people from adding to articles, or reverting their edits, based on their stance, and not on the actual info itself, is very poor behavior for an editor. I agree with you that grendel is in no way a Tyrannosaurus Rex, or that the Tarrasque was NOT a Triceratops. I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOUR STANCE. I am disagreeing with the way you are editing (or at least, the reasoning you gave, and continue to press, for your edits).
As I understand it, however - this page is almost nothing BUT what one side says versus what the other does - so if creationists say that the Mokole Mbembe and the Behemoth are related, then we can add that THEY SAID IT. No, we should not say that they ARE related - because we have no evidence that they are, except in the Creationists minds. I agree almost wholeheartedly - the Behemoth, if it based on anything at all, is almost certainly a Hippopotamus, Rhinoceros, or some such thing.
PS: If you really want to say something like "Why is it my fault that Creationists are notoriously poor scholars?", then you should really look more at some of the anti-Christian sites too - MANY of them do the exact same thing - parrot what the others have said, none of them with any proof, and the few that do take the time to try to back themselves up exhibit monstrously poor understanding of what the Bible actually said and what context it was in.
I would highly suggest actually sticking to what the guidelines of wikipedia say - verifiability, not truth, notability, and the others, especially no OR. However obvious the errors in others' edits, or in the article itself, please make sure you are following those guidelines before you revert.KrytenKoro 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}Maybe it's a dino?

Could we add the "reference to a navel" to the reasons why it isn't a dinosaur please.

I've disabled the editprotected request. This article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make changes to the article. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You can add the navel thing if you find a non-primary source using that as a reason - we're not allowed OR.KrytenKoro 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoudn't we merge this with[[2]]? I want to hear your opinions on the matter.(but i certainly think there is no need for a whole new article...)


First of all, I'd like to say that it's hilarious that this is a page watched by WikiProject Cryptozoology. Secondly, there should be some mention of Behemoth in Mikhail Bulgakov's Master and Margarita in this article - the Master & Margarita character list links here, and this article even mentions the Russian meaning of the word. I'll add this information. Fuzzform (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian depiction[edit]

we should add information about the Christian depiction of the Behemoth and Ziz, like what was done with the Leviathan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Learn Your Pluralisations[edit]

Don't assume that everything ending in -us can be pluralised -i.. Hippopotamus is not Latin. It's a Greek word made up of Hippo (Horse) and Potamus (River), Potamus being a second declension noun, thus having the plural form Potamoi.. Thus it would be Hippopotamoi, NOT Hippopotami.

  • In any case things are much clearer when the plural is -s or -es. (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
New stuff goes at the bottom. I'm not going to change it, but English is a creole language that hangs around in dark alleys and beats up other language for loose vocabulary -- the plural form of Hippopotamus either follows tradition or goes with whatever gets used the most (so if someone else changes it, I won't revert the revert, either). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I've done a search, and neither Hippopotami nor Hippomotamoi is used anywhere in the artice or this discussion page. Why did you post this? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It also means animal[edit]

In Tehillim (Psalms) ch. 36 line 7 "Man and animal you will save G=d." and other parts of the oral and written tradition, behama means literally animal, period. In fact in modern Hebrew, this is the simple meaning of the word. Ask any Israeli. It never is used to refer to something being large. It sometimes is used to referred to a disgusting person as it is used in English. Check also Ezekiel Chapter 14, line 21 and chapter 36, line 11 among others. You are correct in your assertion that the behemoth referred to in Job is speaking of the giant Leviathon at least according to some interpretations. In that regard it is probably true that the word modern word behemoth comes fromt the Hebrew as it used here. However, you should also state that the word has a less specific meaning of animal in modern Hebrew as well as parts of the wrttten and oral law. Do a word search and you will see that I am right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftofmatt (talkcontribs) 07:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see our guidelines on reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


YEC Rephrase?[edit]

Job 40[edit]

Specifically I'm wondering where the line "His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron." comes from?

I've seen this written as the opposite. From the Vulgate: "ossa eius velut fistulae aeris cartilago illius quasi lamminae ferreae" which translates to "His bones are like pipes of brass, his gristle [or cartilage] like plates of iron." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpszafir (talkcontribs) 21:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Under the Christianity section, the article speaks of Young Earth Creationists, then dismisses their beliefs by citing another group's belief, that the earth is over 65 million years old. Young Earth Creationists believe that the "asteroid" never happened, and was created as part of the "appearance of age" or alongside the double-view, which allows for the earth to be both young and old, depending on where in space-time you are perceiving it.

So, to state a viewpoint then refute it with a point from the viewpoint of a different group's is pretty... not neutral.

Forgive me, but I don't know how to use Wikipedia. Been looking for how to do this, and this is the closest I got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowchipsbotme (talkcontribs) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One can point out that a position is fallacious or is a fringe position held by a small minority and still be "neutral." Wikipedia is ultimately biased towards the consensus majority, and is not obligated to give undue weight to a minority or fringe position.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not one of neutrality, but of relevance. The article is about the behemoth and lists various theories about what the animal might have been. The point of the article is not to serve as a rebuttal of theories that are generally believed to be fallacious, but to simply show what the various theories are. There is no need to turn the article into a commentary and rebuttal of any of those theories, particularly if the theories are clearly labelled as such. In the case of the Young Earth Creationists' belief, the opening sentence already states what these people believe about dinosaurs. What's more, they are YOUNG EARTH believers, so it makes no sense to rebut their belief using evidence that presuppose an OLD EARTH, even if old earth is the majority scientific view. It is not out of respect for neutrality that that sentence should be removed, but because of relevance. There is a place on Wikipedia to whitewash the Young Earth Creationists for their beliefs, but this is not that place. --leuce (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't be done, because if it is relevant to mention a fallacious claim, then it is also relevant to mention why the claim is fallacious, too, otherwise one would unfairly give undue weight to a fringe view.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You have a good point, Mr Fink, but I still feel that the phrasing is particularly malicious towards young creationists and could be neutralised even further (as I will try to do, and I look forward to your response). --leuce (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge "In Christianity" section with "Identity" section[edit]

The section currently termed "In Christianity" is really about one particular Christian view. Most Christians (even those who hold to a young earth view) do not believe that Behemoth was a dinosaur, as is shown by the fact that most Bible translations translate it as other animals such as a crocodile or hippo. The dinosaur theory has novelty value, but it does not deserve a section of its own. I think it should be simply merged with the preceding section "Identity". When that is done, I also think that the other theories could be expanded a bit by adding information about what the reasons for those theories were, or why they were considered inadequate or incorrect (for example, can't be a crocodile because Behemoth is plant-eater). -- leuce (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Go for it, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Chaos monsters[edit]

Both beasts are chaos monsters destroyed by the deity at the time of creation, although such a conflict is not found in the creation account.

Then where *is* this conflict found? I don't see it in Job either. Marnanel (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding recent IP edits[edit]

I have reverted edits such as those shown here because they assume that Creation science is empirically and undeniably true (in contradiction to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE), because it incorporated a lot of creationist-slanted original research, and because it removed actual academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about reliable source[edit]

A recent edit was reverted because it cited something which was not a reliable resource. I have no problem with calling a creationist not a reliable resource on a fact, but - as I understand it - the creationist was cited as being a reliable resource on there being creationists who believe such-and-such. Or is this a case of "original research" - that one must cite for belief in such and such, not someone who believes it, but a secondary, reliable source which says "there are people who believe this"? Guidance and clarification are welcome. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)