Mythical Creatures IN THE BIBLE?

[Mallon]

Citation needed.

Leviathan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apparently, the Jews -- the very people who introduced us to Leviathan -- thought it was a giant whale-eating fish. And apparently there was only one Leviathan -- it was an individual monster, not a species. Just doesn't sound very real to me. With all these different descriptions of the leviathan floating around, it sounds more like a myth or legend than an actual creature.

Charles R. Darwin was a theologian not a biologist.

True, but Charles Darwin actually understood what he was talking about because he worked hands-on with the material he wrote about. He published in the peer-reviewed literature. Grady McMurtry is no Charles Darwin.

Why? Because they refute your absurd claims?

No, because bombardier beetles are irrelevant to your claims. They don't light their farts as you think the leviathan did.

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

No idea what you're talking about here. Assuming you're referring to the website, it contains good information regardless of whether its owner is atheist or not. Heck, you yourself have quoted atheists. Does that therefore discount every argument you've made so far?

Do you claim that behemoth and leviathan have short necks?

There's nothing to suggest they have long necks. If the author of Job was trying to describe their magnificence in order to bring glory to the Creator, you'd think he would have at least mentioned the record-setting long necks of the sauropods and plesiosaurs, respectively. They have the longest necks of any animal ever to have lived on land or in the ocean. I guess Job forgot.

Anyways, if you want to believe that the leviathan was a plesiosaur that lit its own farts and that the behemoth was a sauropod that lived in the swamps (there goes the last 40 years of palaeontology), I won't stop you. In the long run, I actually think its ridiculous YEC claims like those (not to mention post-Flood hyperevolution with no mechanism, catastrophic plate tectonics with no mechanism, accelerated nuclear decay with no mechanism, "canopy theory", watermelon eating tyrannosaurs, etc., etc., etc.) that lead educated people away from YECism. It's a refrain we've heard here many times.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Exactly.

Science is like a game chess.

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

The hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
The experiment: Study the fossil record, current known species, etc to see if we can find a unicorn.
The conclusion: We have yet to find a unicorn, or evidence of one.

That is not to say that it's not possible for a unicorn to exist, but it makes it highly, highly unlikely.

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)



***

You are reading what you want into that. Hume was an empiricist. His attack against inductive reasoning was to show its limits (it even says that in the article you quoted). Empirical evidence is never absolute, and Hume recognized that. However, the more empirical evidence we have that something isn't true, the more we can conclude that it it is right. After several hundred years, we still have not demonstrated existence of unicorns. That article doesn't even say what you're trying to make it say.

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

Even if they were myths they would still be true.

True in the sense that they may convey some allegorical truth, but not true in that they must exist. I guess if you decide to redefine the modern word "unicorn" as anything with one horn, then you can say "unicorns exist." But the mythological creature known as the unicorn, that is to say, a horse with a horn, does not exist--barring some deformity on part of a horse. That doesn't make it an entirely separate species and suddenly make a mythological creature real.

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

That's nice, but irrelevant.

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

Likely out of context. In the context you're trying to present it, it's dead wrong. Also irrelevant.

 

[sfs]

True, but Charles Darwin actually understood what he was talking about because he worked hands-on with the material he wrote about. He published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Which is to say, Darwin was indeed a biologist. A biologist isn't someone who has a degree in biology -- it's someone who does biology. Darwin was an extremely good biologist (and not just in his work on evolution).

 

[St.PaultheApostle]

Leviathan refers to the Architeuthis squid, not the plesiosaur, I believe.

Many headed serpent? Could be referring to its tentacles.

The Architeuthis, aka "Giant Squid" actually eats off of whales. This is proven.

The word "leviathan" is also used in GrekoRoman Mythology to refer to the "Kraken" a sea-monster that attacks ships, which would be understandable. I once watched a special on either the Animal Planet, or the Discovery channel which explained that they do attack ships, and there is a kind of squid that is surface dwelling for part of the day that does attack them. I forget what that type of squid was called though :-/ .

 

[Mallon]

Leviathan refers to the Architeuthis squid, not the plesiosaur, I believe.

But squids don't have scales or breathe fire as Job says.

The Architeuthis, aka "Giant Squid" actually eats off of whales. This is proven.

Very true. I doubt they eat a whale a day, as Jewish tradition has it, though.

The word "leviathan" is also used in GrekoRoman Mythology to refer to the "Kraken" a sea-monster that attacks ships, which would be understandable.

I suspect "Leviathan" refers to any number of mythological sea-monsters.

 

[Zadok7000]

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.

Unicorn (Job 39 but also in Numbers Psalms and Isaiah) = "re'em"; wild (from the root "rising up") animal (IE ox or bull). The KJV translators really messed up on that word.

the Bible mentions creatures resembling DINOSAURS?

Behemoth definately is a dinosaur, IMO. Look at the way it is described. No other creature would fit it.

Leviathan (also mentioned in Psalm 74 and 104 and Isa. 27) is "the piercing serpent", "the crooked serpent", the "dragon in the sea"; IE "the great dragon, that old serpent called the devil and satan" (Rev. 12).

 

[metherion]

Unicorns are not just horses with horns. They also have a billy goat beard and a lions tail, as well as cloven hooves. *nod*

Carry on.

Metherion

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Leviathan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not an accurate or reliable resource.

He published in the peer-reviewed literature.

You mean like Dembski?

Marks, R.J., and Dembski, W.A., Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, Systems Man and Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions, Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1051-1061, Sep 2009

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
The experiment: Study the fossil record, current known species, etc to see if we can find a unicorn.
The conclusion: We have yet to find a unicorn, or evidence of one.

That is not to say that it's not possible for a unicorn to exist, but it makes it highly, highly unlikely.

You are ignoring the actual observable and physical evidence that unicorns exist. They have one in an Italian zoo.

After several hundred years, we still have not demonstrated existence of unicorns.

Empiricists said the same about black swans and they were sadly mistaken. All it takes is one single observation like the one in Italy to utterly destroy the wishful thinking of solipsistic empiricism.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Behemoth definately is a dinosaur, IMO. Look at the way it is described. No other creature would fit it.

I agree.

Darwinists and other science-worshippers don't believe in the historical record or physical evidence.

"The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon [Havasupai Canyon, Arizona] upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain." -- Samuel Hubbard, paleoanthropologist, November 1924

 

[Mallon]

Wikipedia is not an accurate or reliable resource.

Neither are most of the people you quote. Check out the references, though, if you don't want to take the wiki's word for it. That's what they're there for.

You mean like Dembski?

You were arguing earlier that ID pushers couldn't get published in the peer-reviewed literature, and now you're saying they are. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Neither are most of the people you quote.

It's irrelevant who I quote. All that matters is the evidence and the facts.

You were arguing earlier that ID pushers couldn't get published in the peer-reviewed literature

I never said that. What I said is that scientists don't want it in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[shernren]

Hooray, Behemoth and Leviathan!

It's been a while since anyone mentioned them here. I miss those critters.

Of course, we know that Behemoth and Leviathan aren't simply critters of any sort simply because the exegesis of Job demands it. If you examine the structure of God's speech to Job, it looks like this:

The majesty of inanimate nature (Job 38)
The majesty of the animal kingdom (Job 39)
Interlude: The challenge to match God (Job 40:7-14)
Behemoth (Job 40:15-24)
Leviathan (Job 41)

Looking at that structure, the immediate question is: if Behemoth and Leviathan are simply big animals, then what difference do they make? God has already referred to many animals in chapter 39. What difference would another animal make? Granted, the dinosaurs (if that's what they were) are big, but they're just huge dumb walking mounds of flesh at the end of the day. God has already referred to the very stars of the sky and the flashing thunderclouds that envelop the sky from horizon to horizon.

Why would a dinosaur make any difference, and why would God have to pause before introducing it?

The inescapable conclusion is that God, after referring to the powers of the inanimate world in Job 38 and the powers of the animate world in Job 39, is finally peeling back the curtain and showing Job the powers of the spiritual world in Job 40-41. Remember that Job, while trusting God's sovereignty in his troubles, has come within a whisker of impugning God's integrity as his punisher. He knows that God is good, and that a great evil has struck him, but he cannot reconcile the two facts, and in his bewilderment he has declared that this unfairness is something that he can demonstrate to God Himself.

So what makes the great difference? Why, God has shown Job Satan himself. Job thought that all he needed to do to reverse his fortunes was to make a passionate appeal to God's justice. But now God is showing Job that the great power assailing him is going to be much harder to deal with than just that. Job now sees just what he has been shaking his fist against.

And that explains the interlude of Job 40:7-14. God is preparing Job for this final revelation. He is asking Job: "Are you ready to stare in the face of evil incarnate? You've been shaking your fist at heaven: do you really want to know how powerful your true adversary is?" When Job sees Satan in all his horror, he knows that he has no chance whatsoever of correcting the injustices in this world, even though he (implicitly) thought he could. He responds not only that he is small (which he had admitted in Job 40:4 - if that was all he had to learn, God could have stopped there!) but that God is big (42:2), thus admitting that the problem of sin and evil was a God-sized problem, not a Job-sized problem, and thus that it should have been left in God's hands instead of Job's.

And that makes sense of Job 40-41. Not this big dumb dino business that the creationists peddle.

 

[St.PaultheApostle]

I love this forum already. :-D

Its true that this topic doesn't really apply to achieving Salvation, but I sometimes come across odd things in my research (and whenever I open my Bible up to a random page, :-D), I really hope I didn't bother anyone with this, thanks everyone for clarifying everything!

 

[Zadok7000]

Looking at that structure, the immediate question is: if Behemoth and Leviathan are simply big animals, then what difference do they make? God has already referred to many animals in chapter 39. What difference would another animal make? Granted, the dinosaurs (if that's what they were) are big, but they're just huge dumb walking mounds of flesh at the end of the day. God has already referred to the very stars of the sky and the flashing thunderclouds that envelop the sky from horizon to horizon.

Why would a dinosaur make any difference, and why would God have to pause before introducing it?

FYI, while I believe Behemoth is a dinosaur (Brontosaurus or similar), I do not believe that they coexisted with flesh man. I believe the reason for God telling this to Job is to teach him (and us) about "the way things were". He shows him Behemoth and Leviathan "from the whirlwind". He asks very pointedly "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

Those are not idle questions, but for our instruction. Put these things together: Morning star, sons of God, foundations (katabole/overthrow) of the world.

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...

The "world that was" containted Behemoths on the earth, and Leviathan was corrupting the stars/sons of God in heaven. Then God acted, and all became "without form and void", paving the way for the heaven and earth we have now.

 

[1whirlwind]

Unicorn (Job 39 but also in Numbers Psalms and Isaiah) = "re'em"; wild (from the root "rising up") animal (IE ox or bull). The KJV translators really messed up on that word.



Behemoth definately is a dinosaur, IMO. Look at the way it is described. No other creature would fit it.

Leviathan (also mentioned in Psalm 74 and 104 and Isa. 27) is "the piercing serpent", "the crooked serpent", the "dragon in the sea"; IE "the great dragon, that old serpent called the devil and satan" (Rev. 12).

Yes! Levi-athan. The tribe of Levi are the priestline. The leviathan, the piercing serpent that pierced the Savior, are the false priests, prophets, teachers.