I think I should clarify why I insisted the description in Job sounded like a Dinosaur/Sauropod, if only to clear up my own confusion as to how else the term 'Behold' can be used.

One rebuttal to my opinion was that 'Behold' means to look at something in the present moment as in "Hey, look at this I have in my hands." But I have always held the idea (and I could be wrong) that 'Behold' can also be used when a person wants to inform another person of something. Something that cannot be literally looked upon - but draws attention to some fact the speaker wants to impart.

Example:

"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?

In all the above examples, there is nothing to observe/look at in the present moment. In this form, 'Behold' is used to draw someone's attention to something that has happened in the past.

Hope that makes sense (even if my reasoning is incorrect).

Dark energy wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

Dark energy wrote:QURAN is not a book of science.it is a book of signs.

the spring stuff is just metaphor and allegory.

Did you watch the whole video? That apologetic is addressed in the video. It clearly wasn't understood as a metaphor.

Also see Quran 2:2. The Quran is supposed to be clear, unambiguous. If this were a metaphor, it should be

a) clear to all that this is a metaphor

and

b) clear what it is a metaphor about

So I ask you. What is the sun setting into a spring clearly a representing, in a way that's plain and obvious to any reader?

check this link
http://www.answering-christianity.com/s ... sunset.htm

i am not a scholar well versed with it,even though i want to learn Quran,time doesnt allow me.

Then you should shut up about it.

Passer wrote:I think I should clarify why I insisted the description in Job sounded like a Dinosaur/Sauropod, if only to clear up my own confusion as to how else the term 'Behold' can be used.

One rebuttal to my opinion was that 'Behold' means to look at something in the present moment as in "Hey, look at this I have in my hands." But I have always held the idea (and I could be wrong) that 'Behold' can also be used when a person wants to inform another person of something. Something that cannot be literally looked upon - but draws attention to some fact the speaker wants to impart.

Example:

"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?

In all the above examples, there is nothing to observe/look at in the present moment. In this form, 'Behold' is used to draw someone's attention to something that has happened in the past.

Hope that makes sense (even if my reasoning is incorrect).

The main problem there is that 'behold' doesn't mean that and isn't used in that way, whatever your personal want is. It means to see, gaze upon or observe, literally. I mean sure, argue with me if you like, I did after all only check the first ten dictionary definitions on google, including the OED, Macmillan and Cambridge. This is still very much looking like you manipulating facts in order to justify your own erroneous beliefs, though.

In the REB, 'behold' is replaced by 'consider'. Which makes more sense.

'Behold' in the archaic sense is used as an imperative to call attention.

Fallible wrote:

Passer wrote:I think I should clarify why I insisted the description in Job sounded like a Dinosaur/Sauropod, if only to clear up my own confusion as to how else the term 'Behold' can be used.

One rebuttal to my opinion was that 'Behold' means to look at something in the present moment as in "Hey, look at this I have in my hands." But I have always held the idea (and I could be wrong) that 'Behold' can also be used when a person wants to inform another person of something. Something that cannot be literally looked upon - but draws attention to some fact the speaker wants to impart.

Example:

"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?

In all the above examples, there is nothing to observe/look at in the present moment. In this form, 'Behold' is used to draw someone's attention to something that has happened in the past.

Hope that makes sense (even if my reasoning is incorrect).

The main problem there is that 'behold' doesn't mean that and isn't used in that way, whatever your personal want is. It means to see, gaze upon or observe, literally. I mean sure, argue with me if you like, I did after all only check the first ten dictionary definitions on google, including the OED, Macmillan and Cambridge. This is still very much looking like you manipulating facts in order to justify your own erroneous beliefs, though.

I just gave an example of why I thought it might be a sauropod. As I said earlier, I no longer believe it is any kind of dinosaur. I'm not arguing with you or anyone.

Alan B wrote:In the REB, 'behold' is replaced by 'consider'. Which makes more sense.

'Behold' in the archaic sense is used as an imperative to call attention.

That makes sense. Behold is in the Hebrew too.

"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

Reading the bible in another language is an interesting exercise in the study of translation.

Passer the bible only refers to one planet but not as a planet but as the total universe. The same is true in the koran.

How about all the other planets and stars? How about the other planets where life exists? No great floods are mentioned or other disasters which this deity is unable to solve. All that seems to matter is this little rock orbiting (which was not known when the bible was written) a third grade star. Bugger the trillions of other heavenly bodies(!).

NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bugger the trillions of other heavenly bodies(!).

Yeah, but if God had his way they would all 'fall' from the sky or something...

Alan B wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bugger the trillions of other heavenly bodies(!).

Yeah, but if God had his way they would all 'fall' from the sky or something...

We would not last long if they did.

Passer wrote:

Pebble wrote:It is only through the lens of faith that one can construe the bible as true. This seems an odd place to come to get to the point of being comfortable with accepting the veracity of the bible. Does this mean that you want to become comfortable with the lack of veracity of the bible?

I've had my faith for as long as I can remember and I've also had doubts for as long as I can remember. Recently I decided to research what it is I think I know. What I learn might lead me away from Christianity.

Why would the lack of veracity lead you away from christianity? Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible beings and to be interpreted rather than accepted as the word of god. They treat it as inspired by god, and retain a strong faith in what they take to be its core messages.

Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible

Passer wrote:

NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.

Or, to be more precise, has been translated into "behold." An expert in ancient Hebrew could probably opine as to how accurate that is.

Passer wrote:"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"

I can't recall ever seeing the word used in such a context. From where did you get those quotes?

Shrunk wrote:

Passer wrote:

NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.

Or, to be more precise, has been translated into "behold." An expert in ancient Hebrew could probably opine as to how accurate that is.

I'm beholden to you for that observation. Now all we have to do is scout up the etymology of behold, which has more to do with holding (in the sense of maintaining or grasping) rather than simply seeing. Keep your lamp trimmed and burning, see what the Lord has done. Go find it on YouTube.

I don't have a clue about the original Hebrew that someone translated into 'behold', but behold! we're thirteen pages into this clusterfuck thread that started out asking about science and the bible, led by Passer, throwing punches at the air.

Punching above his weight, is he?

Huge success this thread is.

---
edit: punching above his weight? How could that be on round 13? lol Gimme break.

Pebble wrote:

Passer wrote:

Pebble wrote:It is only through the lens of faith that one can construe the bible as true. This seems an odd place to come to get to the point of being comfortable with accepting the veracity of the bible. Does this mean that you want to become comfortable with the lack of veracity of the bible?

I've had my faith for as long as I can remember and I've also had doubts for as long as I can remember. Recently I decided to research what it is I think I know. What I learn might lead me away from Christianity.

Why would the lack of veracity lead you away from christianity? Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible beings and to be interpreted rather than accepted as the word of god. They treat it as inspired by god, and retain a strong faith in what they take to be its core messages.

The bible is supposed to be the word of God. So I can't help think the message should be clear with no ambiguities. After all we are talking about an omnipotent and omniscient being. If I am saying the errors are down to man, then how can I distinguish that from any other man made book? It's unfalsifiable

Shrunk wrote:

Passer wrote:"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"

I can't recall ever seeing the word used in such a context. From where did you get those quotes?

It's just something I've always considered to be the case. Guess I was wrong