T Rex vs Cro Magnon

JohnV, my NASB says bronze not brass. So, what's your point??
It was a sidenote about a translational error that may interest some. It had nothing to do with the topic. That's why I noted is as a "sidenote".

As for a behomoth being a hippopotamus, you should read the definition in Job again.
I read the Hebrew translation for bhemowth, which is water-ox. The water ox is what we today call a hippopotamus.

No hippo has a tail that bends like a cedar tree. That is symbolism to show how massive its tail was.
Cedar trees are long ans skinny, with scraggly branches. Sounds like a hippo tail to me.

By the way, I doubt your statistic is true regarding most Christians not believing that Genesis is historical narrative.
I didn't post such a statistic.

John, he's not interpreting it. He's taking it at face-value.
Which he's allowed to do. I take it as face value as well. An allegorical face value, not a factually narrative one.

That's your belief, and you are welcome to it. However it was written as a factual narrative and accepted as one for several thousand years, up to an including the present, by many of us.
A six day creation is by no means the only narrative that has survived. It was not an issue of contention for the early Greek and Roman churches, who not only had differing beliefs about earth origins.

Christ referred to it as factual.
That's assumed, imo. It's just as likely to assume that he was referring to it as allegorical, just as he referred to other allegorical narratives, which could also be assumed to be factual.

Strongs, which is what you evidently used, is giving the current understandings of these words.
You mean Strongs thinks it was a hippo too? I must be in good company, then. Actually, it's something I remember from Bible college. I have a Hebrew-to-English dictionary that agrees. I did not look up the Strongs reference, but Strongs appears to be in agreement as well. It'a also referring to a hippo in the Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897, and Webster's Dictionary of 1996 (unabridged).

Why must I take a six day creation at literal face value, yet I can't take what Job meant by behemoth at face value??

 

Well, the problem with that is that we have two people (me & thee) who both think that what they see is obvious. To me, it's perfectly clear that it's a hippo, and others would agree. You, OTOH, think it's obviously a dinosaur, and others would agree.

 

There are some fossils of a hippo type dinosaur that matches the description found in Job.

Once we follow that light of reasoning, we get a little vague, though. The Hebrew word is "water-ox" which is what they called hippos, so it's clear to me that the verse in Job was referring to a hippo.

Otherwise, one could hypothetically say that Jesus referred to dinosaurs when he said "look at the birds of the air", since there are bird-like dinosaurs and flying reptiles.

 

Let me know when the tiny little tail of the hippo 'sways'!

The Hebrew word is chaphets which doesn't mean "sway". It means simply to "bend". This is supported contextually that the Hebrew word used word for "tail" is zanab, which inferrs to flapping or wagging, not swaying. The hippo tail indeed looks straight, skinny, and scraggly like a cedar, which bends in a wagging manner.

 

Well, we generally have fossil impressions of skin and feathers, but that's all. There have been one or two exceptions of tissue remnants (such as homeglobin). But these finds are incredibly rare.

 

The mammoths are in ice; therefore the corpses are preserved. Without that ice, flesh rots.

While some mammoths have been found in ice, most aren't. We've found mammoths in southern climates, and their remains are skeletal, and date to the same time frame as woolys found in ice. As for jurassic or triassic animals, none have ever been found preserved, let alone carbon dated to an era close to humans or wooly's.