Leviathan

Breetai · #41 26th February 2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Breetai, Juvie: There's a whole history of mythological and metaphysical significance surrounding the ancients' understanding of Leviathan that I don't think you have an appreciation for. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan

Again, with this complicated history in mind, I think it is a bit of a stretch to insist, based on one passage from the Bible, that Leviathan must have been just another everyday creature. The more I read about it, the more I come to agree with shernren and Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Leviathan represents something greater than flesh and bone.

I'm aware of these ideas, and I really do understand what you are getting at. Yet, you might also look at the lion, which is also a very real animal, in a similar way, which has a very heavy symbolism is ancient Hebrew thought.

I'm not convinced that what we see in Job were not real creatures. I am, however, open to further suggestions.

Mallon · #42 26th February 2008, 02:36 PM

If only we could all get away with redefining words to suit our own needs.

Breetai · #43 26th February 2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

No, I did not insult your faith in the least. I simply pointed out that I, too, have a high reading of Scripture (since you implied that I did not), and that it is possible that it could be even higher than yours since I know mine is as high as could possibly be for a human and I have no idea where yours is. So, it was an accurate description, and not insulting in the least. If your is as high as mine, great!

No worries, then. I do prefer not to describe my faith as "great", though. There is always infinite room to build it. I sincerely hope that you do not really believe that your "high reading of Scripture" is "as high as high as could possible be for a human". If mine is so high, then what is the point of further study?

If I insulted you earlier, then I apologize.

As for geocentrism, of course they were all geocentrists, since EVERYONE was a geocentrist until Copernicus, and most were even after him until Galileo's new scientific discoveries began to be accepted by the Church and Christians changed the way we read certain Scripture.

Uhhh, I need to stop posting at 4am. I had "flat-earth" in mind when I said that. From a certain perspective, you could say that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

Since the scientific discovery that the earth revolved around the sun (and not the other way around) was not made until the 1500's, it is clear that every writer of the Bible (the last of whom died probably in the early 100's), would have held a geocentric view of the universe. Do you have any evidence to contradict that reasonable assumption?

Nope, I don't! I completely mixed up the geocentric believe with the idea of a flat-earth.

It's easier to make a case at the earth is at the centre of the universe then to say the ancients believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Breetai · #44 26th February 2008, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

If only we could all get away with redefining words to suit our own needs.

It wouldn't be the first time "dinosaur" has been redefined!

At least I don't take redefining words as far as the Mormons do...

Vance · #45 26th February 2008, 02:55 PM

Oh, I don't want to give the impression in the least that I have nothing at all to learn about Scripture (that would sound too much like a strict literalist!), but only that I hold Scripture as high as a Christian can: as the holy, inspired and inerrant Word of God. You really can't get any higher than that, even if you don't understand it all. Not all Christians want to go that far, and I can respect that and don't find a belief in absolute inerrancy to be an essential of salvation, but that is still where I stand on the spectrum.

What is important is to realize that a person can have that "far right of the spectrum" position, and still not insist on literalness.

Edit to add: On the issue of geocentrism, I would agree that a more figurative reading of many of the Scriptures gets to the idea that Earth is the effective center of God's focus in the universe. The problem is that so many Christians were reading Scripture too literally, insisting that heliocentrism, as a scientific proposition, MUST be incorrect since it "clearly" contradicted Scripture. They forgot the one important thing that so many modern creationists forget: we are not talking simply about what God's Word says, but about how we, as fallible humans, interpret it to be saying. They got it wrong then, and the new scientific evidence about how things REALLY worked was able to inform them, and they were actually able to read Scripture more correctly.

juvenissun · #46 26th February 2008, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Not that we know of. None have been found with osteoderms, if that's what you're getting at.

Sure. But again -- why in the world are you so keen on insisting the Leviathan is a dinosaur when there's nothing about the Bible's description of Leviathan that would have us believe that it is???

No, just as said in my OP, I do not insist on anything. I am exploring. It just happened that a dinosaur or a "saur" would have a few characters that fit the descriptions.

So you are saying those xxxsaurs lived in ocean did not have scales as hard as that of a croc. OK, I will make a note on this. In my simple recognition, they would then more like fishes. Right?

gluadys · #47 26th February 2008, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

No, OK, I will make a note on this. In my simple recognition, they would then more like fishes. Right?

No more that whales or dolphins are. Whales and dolphins are marine mammals. Plesiosaurs and mosasaurs are extinct marine reptiles. Fish were and are fish.

LutheranChick · #48 26th February 2008, 05:13 PM

We had a guest speaker at our church a few months ago, speaking on creationism vs evolution. One of the topics mentioned was the Behemoth and the Leviathan. If you look at a description of the 'Super Croc' discovered in the Saharah a few years ago, it perfectly fits the description of Leviathan. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/supercroc/

Our speaker explained the 'fire-breathing' could very well have been steam, or mist shooting out of the creature's nostrils, not literal 'fire'. (appearing like smoke) Just like the book of Job describes the behemoth as having a 'tail like a cedar' well, of course its tail wasn't made of wood- it is a metaphor. If you look at a picture of an apatasaurus, it fits very well with the description of the behemoth.

juvenissun · #49 26th February 2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

No more that whales or dolphins are. Whales and dolphins are marine mammals. Plesiosaurs and mosasaurs are extinct marine reptiles. Fish were and are fish.

Marine reptile. Do you mean they breathed air and breathed like dolphin and whale? Do we have any marine reptile today? Hmm.. turtle?
And their scales are harder than fish scales. Right? May be comparable to that of crocodile?

Mallon · #50 26th February 2008, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by LutheranChick

If you look at a description of the 'Super Croc' discovered in the Saharah a few years ago, it perfectly fits the description of Leviathan. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/supercroc/

It may fit Job's description, but not the psalmist's description. Odd that YEC's do not combine these two different descriptions of Leviathan as they do the two different descriptions of creation.
And why would Super Croc fit the bill any better than a living crocodile?

Our speaker explained the 'fire-breathing' could very well have been steam, or mist shooting out of the creature's nostrils, not literal 'fire'. (appearing like smoke) Just like the book of Job describes the behemoth as having a 'tail like a cedar' well, of course its tail wasn't made of wood- it is a metaphor.

I agree that Job's description is quite metaphorical. So how do we know that Leviathan itself isn't a metaphor for something else? It seems quite surreal.

If you look at a picture of an apatasaurus, it fits very well with the description of the behemoth.

I disagree.