Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
'God created the great creatures of the sea ... '(verse 21) These are not, as in the myths of the pagans, divine bodies from which the earth was created, but simply God's creatures.
What's your take on Psalm 74:12-17? Verse 15 seems to describes how Leviathan provides food for the creatures. God splits its body to form springs and brooks, which allow the carcass to be fertile and grow plants for food. Not a divine body, of course, but it still seems to echo the imagery of other myths.
I don't know; is this backed by any similar-sounding creation stories in the Bible? I'm very emotionally attached to the idea that (in Colin Gunter's words) the creation story of Genesis 1 is a "demythologization of the neighbouring myths". The commentaries I've seen interpret this as a recounting of the crossing of the Red Sea, with Leviathan as an image of Egypt, which I admit sounds strange to me too. Then again, there is no element of struggle recounted on the part of Leviathan, nor is it a divine body as you noted. So while I don't like its apparent lack of fit with the pattern of "demythologization", I don't see that it would be in conflict with the general veneer of how God is described as a creator in the Bible. It does add depth to the question.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I don't know; is this backed by any similar-sounding creation stories in the Bible?
There's obviously other mentions of Leviathan, but beyond that, I couldn't say. This account does draw on the imagery from other biblical creation accounts -- verses 13 and 16-17 mirror some of Genesis 1 -- so it is not entirely disconnected. There seems to have been quite a degree of artistic license in how bits of various creation stories were combined, and I think that goes to show that the authors were more concerned with the meaning of the imagery than its literal historicity.
The Psalm 74 view of creation, where God triumphs over the unruly elements of his creation, adds a dimension not found in the pre-planned placidity and hands-off nature of Genesis 1. Similarly, Genesis 2 adds the idea of providence with God creating in response to needs instead of a fixed timetable. Both Genesis 2 and Psalm 74 add important corrections to how we'd view creation if we only had Genesis 1 to go by. This is similar to how the parables of the lost coin and lost son add extra dimensions to how God seeks the lost that don't all fit into the first parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15). Jesus' many parables of what the kingdom of God is like are another example. No single story can fully encapsulate the reality, but different stories give more windows into the reality.
Then again, there is no element of struggle recounted on the part of Leviathan, nor is it a divine body as you noted. So while I don't like its apparent lack of fit with the pattern of "demythologization", I don't see that it would be in conflict with the general veneer of how God is described as a creator in the Bible. It does add depth to the question.
I think it's a de-deification of myth or something like that. It does surprise me that the Bible sometimes describes actual events (such as creation or the exodus) in mythical terms, especially when those accounts borrow imagery from other cultures. However, it appears that God is willing to use any means necessary to convey his nature and his works to the Hebrews and the rest of the world. He even allows himself to be described in language borrowed from polytheistic times. Of course, the difference is that none of the other gods, like Leviathan or Rahab (the monster, not the woman), are uncreated or true competition for God. They are put in their place, but yet still allowed to be part of Scripture's vocabulary.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "When the half-gods go, God arrives." C.S. Lewis took this a bit further. He expanded on Emerson's thought in a way that explains his inclusion of Bacchus in Narnia and also makes sense of this psalm and similar parts of the Bible: "When God arrives (and only then) the half-gods can remain."
What's your take on Psalm 74:12-17? Verse 15 seems to describes how Leviathan provides food for the creatures. God splits its body to form springs and brooks, which allow the carcass to be fertile and grow plants for food. Not a divine body, of course, but it still seems to echo the imagery of other myths.
Your parsing and interpretation of verse 15 is unique, to say the least. There is nothing in that verse to indicate it is still talking about Leviathan.
-lee-
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
