Creation.com disagrees with me about Behemoth’s penis
Creation.com has published this piece attempting to debunk my research on the biblical monster Behemoth. Those of you devastatingly attractive loose-cannon rock stars that have read my book on the Creation Museum (Why haven’t you? The reviews melt faces.) know that I argue Behemoth was not a real animal, but a west Semitic chaos deity. Along with many Semitists from backwards, rinky-dink institutions you’ve probably never heard of like the Hebrew University of Jerusalem or Oxford, I believe Behemoth was probably a mythological creature based around the attributes of a bull--a view going back to early Judaism.Rob Alter at Berkley or Edward Greenstein at Bar-Ilan University that the infamous verse about Behemoth’s tail being “like a cedar” is likely a reference to the creature’s penis.
That last sentence is what we call foreshadowing in the writing biz and is designed to hold everyone's internet napalmed attention spans over while we all join hands and embark on this magical journey together. (Oh, believe me, it gets magical.)
'Everyone who disagrees with me and my Creationist friends are liberals'
|screenshot of Price's article|
Price opens by breaking some dark news to my friend Rob Rowe and me. We didn’t know this about ourselves, but he’s diagnosed us straight from the title... We're liberals: “Responding to Liberal Scholarship on Behemoth.”
Now, before my irises turn completely black, my tongue forks, and I start expressing all my political opinions exclusively through Harry Potter references, a clarification: Many of you darling naïve old timers with academic education within the marmoreal halls of Western theology are probably thinking that Price’s accusation here means Rob and I advocate for that complex theological project birthed in the late 18th century Germanic tradition of Schleiermacher that matured into the Princeton Modernist controversy. Maybe we subscribe to the Bushnellian critique of the atonement? Maybe we chat approvingly between cigar drags about Munger’s emphasis of true religion, not as doctrine but living, or of the ecumenical value of Rudolf Otto's sensus numinis?—you know the actual defining hallmarks of the tradition of theological liberalism?
Absolutely not. That’s dumb. You’re dumb.
Liberal here is instead being used in its more contemporary totally badass sense—a pejorative you call the other guy so your own team can immediately determine who the villain is. The closest definition Price gives of our liberalism is the diagnostic: “All these scholars likely accept an evolutionary worldview...and would thus be unwilling to consider that... [Job] might include a description of a living dinosaur.” In this usage, I’m inferring the semantic range of liberal circumscribes everyone who isn’t a Young Earth creationist.
Good to know.
About that picture of a brachiosaurus being stabbed to death in the Creation Museum
|Display in the Kentucky Creation Museum Lobby|
Their date of the Flood is frankly ridiculous
|Dinosaurs onboard Ken Ham's $100 million|
Ark Encounter (source: Wiki commons).
The biggest reason we know behemoth is a supernatural animal and not a dinosaur
“The context [of Behemoth] clearly indicates that God is describing something real that He created, just as he described many other real-world animals in the prior chapters just before this.”