Mythical Creatures IN THE BIBLE?

[St.PaultheApostle]

Sorry for bothering everyone, and for this "childlike first question", but I have a habit of opening up my Bible to a random page, and reading, and I opened to something EXTREMELY abnormal. In Job 39:9-12 it mentions... unicorns... I am REALLY confused about this, because it directly states the word "unicorn". I don't know whether to be skeptical, or to be accepting.

Job 39:9-12
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

I researched into this, and it gets even odder, after moving past several snickering atheistic opinions on the matter, saying that the Bible is a fairy tale because of these incidences, I found some good sources, and apparently, IT MENTIONS THEM MORE THAN ONCE. But that's not the only odd things I found in my research, the Bible mentions creatures resembling DINOSAURS? Upon even further research, the term "dinosaur" Latin for "terrible lizard" wouldn't have been invented until the 16th century at least. And the word behemoth means "great being".

Job 40:15-21
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. e as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

But wait! It even gets even more odd, with the mention of "leviathans" aka the "kraken".

Psalm 74:13-14
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Job 41
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? ...

Isaiah 27:1
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

I understand that the leviathan can refer to satan in "serpent-form", but what intrigues me is that it could also refer to the Architeuthis squid which is well documented, both scientifically and mythologically.

What am I supposed to think here? I realize that the Bible is not meant to be used as a scientific text, but the occurrences are numerous, throughout the Bible.

I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time with something so trivial, but I honestly do not know what to think. Should I be skeptical, or should I be accepting of this?

Opinions?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Sorry for bothering everyone, and for this "childlike first question", but I have a habit of opening up my Bible to a random page, and reading, and I opened to something EXTREMELY abnormal. In Job 39:9-12 it mentions... unicorns... I am REALLY confused about this, because it directly states the word "unicorn". I don't know whether to be skeptical, or to be accepting.

Job 39:9-12
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Unicorns are not myths.

They are biological facts that any child can observe in the zoo.

'Unicorn' deer is found in Italian nature preserve - Science - MSNBC.com

"This is fantasy becoming reality," Gilberto Tozzi, director of the Center of Natural Sciences in Prato, told The Associated Press. "The unicorn has always been a mythological animal."

***

I researched into this, and it gets even odder, after moving past several snickering atheistic opinions on the matter, saying that the Bible is a fairy tale because of these incidences, I found some good sources, and apparently, IT MENTIONS THEM MORE THAN ONCE. But that's not the only odd things I found in my research, the Bible mentions creatures resembling DINOSAURS? Upon even further research, the term "dinosaur" Latin for "terrible lizard" wouldn't have been invented until the 16th century at least. And the word behemoth means "great being".

Job 40:15-21
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. e as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

But wait! It even gets even more odd, with the mention of "leviathans" aka the "kraken".

Psalm 74:13-14
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Job 41
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? ...

Isaiah 27:1
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

I understand that the leviathan can refer to satan in "serpent-form", but what intrigues me is that it could also refer to the Architeuthis squid which is well documented, both scientifically and mythologically.

The Bible is of course referring to dinosaurs, namely sauropods and plesiosaurs, none of which are myths.

Dinosaurs and the Bible

What am I supposed to think here? I realize that the Bible is not meant to be used as a scientific text, but the occurrences are numerous, throughout the Bible.

I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time with something so trivial, but I honestly do not know what to think. Should I be skeptical, or should I be accepting of this?

Opinions?

The Bible is in fact the greatest scientific text ever written.

 

[St.PaultheApostle]

lol, didn't say that it WASN'T the best historical/scientific source in the world, just said that it wasn't meant to be :-D , hoping for a skeptic's view to weigh opinions, but im siding with you

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry for bothering everyone, and for this "childlike first question", but I have a habit of opening up my Bible to a random page, and reading, and I opened to something EXTREMELY abnormal. In Job 39:9-12 it mentions... unicorns... I am REALLY confused about this, because it directly states the word "unicorn". I don't know whether to be skeptical, or to be accepting.

Job 39:9-12
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

I researched into this, and it gets even odder, after moving past several snickering atheistic opinions on the matter, saying that the Bible is a fairy tale because of these incidences, I found some good sources, and apparently, IT MENTIONS THEM MORE THAN ONCE.

You problem here is using the King James version, which got 'unicorns' from the Greek Septuagint translations which says monoceros 'single horn' here. But the Hebrew is re'em which means a wild bull or the extinct aurochs. Get yourself a modern translation and you will avoid a lot of these problems.

But that's not the only odd things I found in my research, the Bible mentions creatures resembling DINOSAURS? Upon even further research, the term "dinosaur" Latin for "terrible lizard" wouldn't have been invented until the 16th century at least. And the word behemoth means "great being".

Job 40:15-21
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. e as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

But wait! It even gets even more odd, with the mention of "leviathans" aka the "kraken".

Psalm 74:13-14
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Job 41
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? ...

Isaiah 27:1
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

I understand that the leviathan can refer to satan in "serpent-form", but what intrigues me is that it could also refer to the Architeuthis squid which is well documented, both scientifically and mythologically.

What am I supposed to think here? I realize that the Bible is not meant to be used as a scientific text, but the occurrences are numerous, throughout the Bible.

I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time with something so trivial, but I honestly do not know what to think. Should I be skeptical, or should I be accepting of this?

Opinions?

Yes you should be skeptical. Some Christian writers want to find dinosaurs in the bible, but dinosaurs were reptiles and reptiles don't have navels. They fit a poetic description of a hippo and crocodile much better than any dinosaur.

You do need to watch with Leviathan references. The term was used for a variety of aquatic monsters from crocodiles to whales, it would even fit a giant squid as you say, the problem is the word was also used metaphorically for the spiritual enemies of God, same as a serpent can be talking about snakes, or Satan. It doesn't mean Satan took serpent form and more than the Pharisees took serpent form when Jesus called them a brood of vipers.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Some Christian writers want to find dinosaurs in the bible, but dinosaurs were reptiles and reptiles don't have navels. They fit a poetic description of a hippo and crocodile much better than any dinosaur.

Are Dinosaurs in the Bible? Behemoth Dinosaur Creation Evolution

The original Hebrew word here is not translated "navel", but rather part of the stomach. Pg 285 of "Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies" (by William Wilson, Hendrickson Publishers) also translates it as the muscles in the region of the belly.

So saying the creature has a navel is inaccurate.

You can not use an English dictionary to define a Hebrew word. The Hebrew word simply means stomach, and should have been translated as such.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Deer with one deformed antler are not unicorns. They are deer with one deformed antler. Unicorns are a horse with a horn pointed forward.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Deer with one deformed antler are not unicorns. They are deer with one deformed antler. Unicorns are a horse with a horn pointed forward.

Unicorn simply means "one horn" in Latin.

Thus many animals fit the description of a unicorn.

"And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes." -- Daniel 8:5

 

[Mallon]

Good find, St.PA. As AoS points out, some YEC organisations like Answers in Genesis really want the creatures mentioned in the Bible to be dinosaurs to fit their agenda, but I think a careful look at the details shows they can't be. Assyrian already pointed out that the behemoth has a navel, which dinosaurs did not have (they're reptiles, not placental mammals). Job also goes on to say that the behemoth hides beneath the lotus plants in the marsh -- this would be pretty hard to do with a 50-ton sauropod.
The leviathan is even harder to defend as a dinosaur, I think. For one, it breathes fire (under water, at that!), which is something that should automatically clue us into the fact that we're talking about a mythical creature here. The Psalms also describe the leviathan as having multiple heads, which no known dinosaur is known to have, and which, again, should tip us off about its mythical nature.
If we HAD to attribute real animals to these things, I think a hippo and croc would best fit the descriptions, respectively (these also live along the Nile river where the Hebrews were likely to see them). The Bible is already filled with hyperbole, and I think it's consistent to understand the description of the behemoth and leviathan in the same light. (BTW, if you're wondering about the tail of behemoth that "moves like a cedar"... remember that the comparison is made to the movement of the cedar, not the size of the cedar.)

 

[sfs]

You do need to watch with Leviathan references. The term was used for a variety of aquatic monsters from crocodiles to whales, it would even fit a giant squid as you say, the problem is the word was also used metaphorically for the spiritual enemies of God, same as a serpent can be talking about snakes, or Satan. It doesn't mean Satan took serpent form and more than the Pharisees took serpent form when Jesus called them a brood of vipers.

I would say that some of the references to Leviathan, and to sea monsters generally, are more than simple metaphors; they also pick up mythological overtones from Canaanite beliefs. These beliefs included a battle between the god Hadad (Baal) and the sea-god Yam, which culminated in the defeat both of Yam and of his servant, the multi-headed sea monster Lotan (cognate with Hebrew "Leviathan"). I think this, and more widespread myths about battles between the gods and the sea, are in the background of a number of passages.
Isaiah 27:1

In that day,
The LORD will punish with his sword,
His fierce, great and powerful sword,
Leviathan the gliding serpent;
He will slay the monster of the sea.

Isaiah 51:9-11

Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength,
Arm of the LORD;
Awake, as in days gone by,
As in the generation of old.
Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces,
Who pierced that monster through?
Was it not you who dried up the sea,
The waters of the great deep,
Who made a road in the depths of the sea,
The waters of the great deep,
Who made a road in the depths of the sea
So that the redeemed might cross over?

Psalm 74:12-17

But you, O God, are my king from of old;
You bring salvation upon the earth.
It was you who split open the sea by your power;
You broke the heads of the monster in the waters.
It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan
And gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.
It was you who opened up springs and streams;
You dried up the ever flowing rivers.
The day is yours, and yours also the night;
You established the sun and moon.
It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth;
You made both summer and winter

Which is not to say that the biblical authors likely believed any of the mythological stories -- the second quotation from Isaiah is literally talking about the Exodus, not a mythical battle with the sea, for example -- but the myths formed part of the cultural background that gave this metaphor power.

 

[Mallon]

Great point, sfs. I wish AiG would provide this background.

 

[marlowe007]

According to eastern European folk tales, the unicorn was admitted to Noah's ark but he had to throw it overboard as punishment because the unicorn was jostling all the other animals. The unicorn was strong, and swam for forty days and forty nights, but it eventually drowned after the birds perched on its horn - and that's why there are no more unicorns now!

 

[crawfish]

Job 40:15-21
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. e as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

I believe this passage probably refers to a hippo. Consider this:

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Hippos do eat grass, among other things.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Hippos are incredibly strong, territorial and aggressive. They are more dangerous than any other animal the locals would encounter if they entered its territory.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

This is what throws people off. A cedar trunk does not move; however, the tail of a hippo sways very much like a cedar branch and leaves.

His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Consider how a hippo attacks; they have razor-sharp tusks and fight by whipping their heads back and forth. Like a sword.

It's not inarguable, but it makes perfect sense, especially considering that hippos would have been known in that part of the world.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Assyrian already pointed out that the behemoth has a navel, which dinosaurs did not have (they're reptiles, not placental mammals).

The only problem for history-deniers is that the Hebrew doesn't say navel.

Job also goes on to say that the behemoth hides beneath the lotus plants in the marsh -- this would be pretty hard to do with a 50-ton sauropod.

Flora was giant in the past, just like the fauna.

The leviathan is even harder to defend as a dinosaur, I think.

Ever seen a plesiosaur?

For one, it breathes fire (under water, at that!), which is something that should automatically clue us into the fact that we're talking about a mythical creature here.

Wrong.

"Dinosaurs had a lot of vegetable materials in their stomachs and it would have produced a lot of methane gas. Sea dwelling reptiles could have easily had it too, especially if they ate kelp and similar aquatic plants. So, here we would have a source of fuel for a fire breathing dragon." -- Grady S. McMurtry, theologian, 2009

The Psalms also describe the leviathan as having multiple heads, which no known dinosaur is known to have, and which, again, should tip us off about its mythical nature.

Reptiles and snakes have two heads frequently.

Any child can observe this biological reality in a zoo.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Unicorn simply means "one horn" in Latin.

Thus many animals fit the description of a unicorn.

The etymology of "unicorn" is indeed from the Latin for "one" and "horn." That may be why the translator of the KJV put the word there. However, the word unicorn today invokes the magical horse with a horn. It probably wasn't the best translation to use. Most modern translations translate it as an actual animal. Unicorns (i.e. magical horse with a horn) do not exist.

The unicorn issue is also completely unrelated to the other mythological creatures in the Bible.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The etymology of "unicorn" is indeed from the Latin for "one" and "horn." That may be why the translator of the KJV put the word there.

I agree.

However, the word unicorn today invokes the magical horse with a horn.

It only invokes magic if you believe in magic.

And then we'd have to define magic.

Is magic: (1) a violation of the laws of nature?

or is magic: (2) physics and chemistry that ignorant people don't understand?

I don't believe in option (1) but I do believe in option (2).

Unicorns (i.e. magical horse with a horn) do not exist.

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.

Just because you haven't experienced something does not mean it does not exist.

The unicorn issue is also completely unrelated to the other mythological creatures in the Bible.

What mythological creatures in the Bible?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.

Just because you haven't experienced something does not mean it does not exist.

Using that logic you can come up with all kinds of wacky ideas. The empirical evidence we have supports the idea that unicorns don't exist. If you must, apply Occam's razor and we can say further that unicorns don't exist.

What mythological creatures in the Bible?

You know what I'm talking about: the creatures being talked about in this thread.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Using that logic you can come up with all kinds of wacky ideas.

Exactly.

Science is like a game chess.

You can only discover the truth by considering all possibilities, even the wacky ones.

The empirical evidence we have supports the idea that unicorns don't exist.

Empirical evidence is utterly useless when it comes to determining whether or not unicorns actually exist.

Ever heard of David Hume's problem of induction currently known as the problem of the Black Swan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)

The term, black swan, comes from the ancient Western misconception that all swans were white. Thus, the black swan is an oft cited reference in philosophical discussions of the improbable. Aristotle's Prior Analytics most likely is the original reference that makes use of example syllogisms involving the predicates "white", "black", and "swan." More specifically Aristotle uses the white swan as an example of necessary relations and the black swan as improbable. This example may be used to demonstrate either deductive or inductive reasoning, however, neither form of reasoning is infallible since in inductive reasoning premises of an argument may support a conclusion, but does not ensure it and similarly, in deductive reasoning, an argument is dependent on the truth of its premises. That is, a false premise may lead to a false result and inconclusive premises also will yield an inconclusive conclusion. In the nineteenth century John Stuart Mill first used the black swan narrative to discuss falsification.

Ironically after the seventeenth century "discovery" of black swans in Australia use of the term metamorphosed to connote an exception to the rule and the very existence of the improbable. Thus, the limits of the argument behind "all swans are white" is exposed - it merely is based on the limits of experience (e.g. that every swan one has seen, heard, or read about is white). Hume's attack against induction and causation is based primarily on the limits of everyday experience and so too, the limitations of scientific knowledge.

***

If you must, apply Occam's razor and we can say further that unicorns don't exist.

Occam's Razor tells me that unicorns do exist and in fact must exist.

You know what I'm talking about: the creatures being talked about in this thread.

I say all of them are real and none of them are myths.

Even if they were myths they would still be true.

"... what is myth to-day is often history to-morrow." -- Lewis Spence, translator, July 1908

"... science is no different from other mythologies, including Native American myths, all of which are equally valid ...." -- Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, historians, 2002

 

[Mallon]

The only problem for history-deniers is that the Hebrew doesn't say navel.

I'll give you that.

Flora was giant in the past, just like the fauna.

Not that big.

Ever seen a plesiosaur?

There's one on the wall of the building where I work. Leviathan isn't a plesiosaur.

Wrong.

"Dinosaurs had a lot of vegetable materials in their stomachs and it would have produced a lot of methane gas. Sea dwelling reptiles could have easily had it too, especially if they ate kelp and similar aquatic plants. So, here we would have a source of fuel for a fire breathing dragon." -- Grady S. McMurtry, theologian, 2009

You're citing a theologian, not a biologist. Dinosaurs didn't light their farts. It's dangerous. Doesn't it bother that in order to defend your interpretation that the Leviathan was a dinosaur, you have them lighting blue angels (something with no biological precedent... please don't cite bombardier beetles...)?

Here's a good link:
CH712.1: Fire-breathing dinosaurs

Reptiles and snakes have two heads frequently.

Rarely. And those kinds of mutations are generally degenerative. They certainly don't persist long in a species.

(It also strikes me that if either behemoth or leviathan were a sauropod or plesiosaur, respectively, the author would have made at least passing mention of their most striking features: ridiculously long necks.)

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Leviathan isn't a plesiosaur.

Citation needed.

You're citing a theologian, not a biologist.

Charles R. Darwin was a theologian not a biologist.

something with no biological precedent... please don't cite bombardier beetles...)?

Why? Because they refute your absurd claims?

Here's a good link:
CH712.1: Fire-breathing dinosaurs

LOL. So your definition of "good" is atheist?

Here's a good link and this one is actually a Christian website and not an atheist propaganda site:

Dinosaurs and the Bible

(It also strikes me that if either behemoth or leviathan were a sauropod or plesiosaur, respectively, the author would have made at least passing mention of their most striking features: ridiculously long necks.)

Do you claim that behemoth and leviathan have short necks?

Citation needed.