PHOENIX: Does Job 29:18/Bible show Fiery Mythological Bird as Biological Fact or Myth

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom

I love studying biology - especially the world of the avian kingdom. Birds have been some of the most adaptable creatures in all of creation - especially when it comes to migration...and because of how birds had the evolutionary ability to adapt as they did, they were often able to survive in places other species could not. They were also glorified in various cultures for their skills.

One such bird that comes to mind and has been on my mind is the Phoenix...a creature that has been discussed in various cultures around the world.

• The Mythical Zoo: An Encyclopedia of Animals in World Myth, ... - Page 150

The Phoenix is the stuff of legend - but imagine if there really was such a colourful bird which was several times bigger than an eagle and it was only one of its kind - a lonely bird -only one and and seen once in a lifetime

Reading on it today when studying a book on the issue of birds/their adaptability, I found where some have said that Egyptian phoenix, or bennu, was based on the concept of the Purple Heron. And historically, legendary birds around the world are often linked to the phoenix, including “phoenix counterparts” such as the Persian Simurg, Chinese Feng Huang, and Russian firebird (Zhar-ptitsa). More specifically, these birds arose from their own local folklore. In example, it has been the case that Swarthmore Professor of Russian Sibelan Forrester says Slavic lore hosts two mythical birds, the traditional firebird (star of Stravinsky’s ballet) and Finist the Bright Falcon, whose name is derived from the Greek phoenix. Additionally, the Chinese phoenix Feng Huang (Ho-o in Japan) is a completely separate bird dating back at least 7,000 years...but this celestial fowl became entwined with the Western phoenix through Scottish sinologist James Legge, who translated Chinese classics in the 1800s. -

Nonetheless, despite all of that, I wonder. In wondering on the issue, I went online and found it interesting to consider the ways in which the Phoenix was considered to be something that was well-known within the ancient world....

​

Seeing the ways others tried to take the imagery of Phoenix and make it a bad one due to how it seemed abused, I was a bit uncomfortable when the concept came to my mind in certain respects ...until I did more research....and I actually saw what others within the early church felt on the issue. In example, it shocked me to see how Clement of Rome was the first Christian to connect the phoenix with that of Christ's resurrection:

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, "Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee; " and again, "I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me; " and again, Job says, "Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things." (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, chapters XXV-XXVI).

In Christian theology, what I had seen in what Clement of Rome stated in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is very amazing. And from a modern perspective, C.S. Lewis used the phoenix in his Chronicles of Narnia series in The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle. .

I never realized how a symbol such as the Phoenix could symbolize the power of the resurrection and what is promised to those who wake up:..in regards to apotheosis:

Awake, awake O sleeper,
Arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you. (Ephesians 5:14)

​

What shocked me even more, however, was that it seems there were others who have long felt that scripture has actually mentioned the concept of Phoenix before anything in the early church:

Job 29:18
I thought, 'I will die in my own house, my days as numerous as the grains of sand.

As seen in Job 29:18: “Then I thought, ‘I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the Phoenix.’” The translation of the Hebrew word KHOL has two meanings. And many translations say ‘sand’ but it can also be translated ‘phoenix bird.’

Others have felt that Clement's idea that the phoenix dies and its nest and the returns for a length of days has its origin here...if checking out Barnes' Notes on the Bible


Additionally, as another source said best (for brief excerpt) on the subject:

The Hebrew translation is debated. The Hebrew word chol is typically translated in one of three different ways:

1. sand
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree
​

In nearly every context, the Hebrew word chol means "sand." We should expect then that to be the Jewish interpretation. But instead, the post-Christian rabbis have almost unanimously interpreted the passage in Job as referring to the mythical bird, the phoenix. The midrashic document the Genesis Rabba or Bereshit Rabba (19:5) explains that Eve “gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol.” (Job 29:18). The Genesis Rabba was composed no later than A.D. 450. From this point on, Jewish rabbinical scholars (e.g. Rashi) simply assume that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird that is able to rise from the ashes. In fact, if you consult almost any Jewish translation of Job, you will find that Job 29:18 has been translated as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand."The Septuagint oddly presents the Hebrew word chol as with the Greek word phoinikos, which technically refers to the palm tree. Yet it is very close to the Greek word phoinix or "phoenix." Some believe that the original word of Job 29:18 in the Septuagint tradition was in fact "phoenix." St. Clement in 1 Clement likely had Job 29:18 in mind because he quotes Job just after describing his chapter on the phoenix (25). He does not quote the Job 29:18 passage directly, but still Clement quotes Job to prove the long expected hope of the resurrection. It is not surprising then to conclude that St. Clement's phoenix sermon illustration for the resurrection of the dead also has its origins in Job
​

​

Again, alot of the things I've been learning of late have been rather fascinating. And part of me has been wondering whether or not it's possible that the bird was indeed a REAL bird---on the same level as something such as a Levithan , a creature noted to be apart of the Lord's fearsome works( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc )--or other possible creatures such as Dragons and other animals of legend


Who knows...

Does anyone here feel that evolution would've allowed for a creature such as the Phoenix to be in existence? For those that do not believe in Evolution, do you believe that such a creature was ever created by the Lord at any point? Or do you feel that such creatures are simply myths? Whatever your thoughts, would love to hear sometime

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Does anyone here feel that evolution would've allowed for a creature such as the Phoenix to be in existence? For those that do not believe in Evolution, do you believe that such a creature was ever created by the Lord at any point? Or do you feel that such creatures are simply myths? Whatever your thoughts, would love to hear sometime

For more clarification on where I'm coming from....

​

The Phoenix is a bird that seems to be described as rising from the ashes of its own destruction without ever needing a mate. When considering its biological description, it seems to have been alone because it reproduced through parthenogenesis, a form of asexual reproduction in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization....and occurs naturally in many plants, some invertebrate animal species (including nematodes, water fleas, some scorpions, aphids, some bees, some Phasmida and parasitic wasps) and a few vertebrates (such as some fish, amphibians, reptiles and very rarely birds).

With the concept of a Phoenix, some feel it could be based on an actual creature and "mythologized" into something more. Maybe a bird that made its nest in or near inhospitably hot places or something like that.

Even crows or ravens have been seen dancing in the embers of dying fires, fanning them with their wings. It is understood that they do this in order to obtain some relief from feather mites which cause skin irritations. ..and this is often referenced as one possible explanation for the origin of the idea of the "bird of fire" (phoenix). There are other possibilities from habits observed in other breeds of birds as well.

However, seeing how brilliant God is, there's nothing to say that a creature like a Phoenix - one which is literally on fire - could not somehow set itself on fire. No more than it was never the case that a beetle could not shoot out fire - as is the case with the Bombardier beetle in the way it can cause small scale limited explosions to protect itself...and some feeling it somehow defies evolution because of it's unique design.

And with that comes discussion on other creatures which have been similar in regard to breathing out what appears to be fire - other possible creatures such as Dragons (found in nearly every culture and discussion...some remaining today potentially (like Megalania). With the possibility of certain creatures existing, some of it seems similar to when others used to tell stories of "man beasts" in Africa and others scoffed, until they realized what the creatures were/discovered gorillas. The same goes for a host of other creatures within cryptozoology..as it concerns how a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but that is unrecognized by a scientific consensus. Many things that were thought to be scientifically impossible later are deemed to be quite realistic when seeing how they were diagnosed (and on that note, there was an excellent series on the issue that I'm an avid fan of, known as "Lost Tapes"---and for more, one can go here or here to Lost Tapes : Animal Planet ).

I would have no reasons to doubt a creature like a Phoenix (or a Dragon and other mythical creature) than it'd be with other creatures that people once thought to not be real, be it Giant Squids or even things like the ancient fish coelacanth...an interesting example, seeing that at one point people considered them to be extinct for a LONG time/ancient....and then when one was discovered in the early 1900's, they realized that the fish itself was actually a DEEP-Sea fish. When they realized where its environment was, they began to find more.

And bird wise, there are other creatures no longer in existence that were immense in size - some still seeing sightings of such, like the Terratorns/"ThunderBirds" of legend that were massively huge and who hunted big game (including humans).

Again, are there any believers here that feel that creatures such as Phoenixes were simply make-believe animals? Or do you feel as if they were real creatures yet to be understood...in the same way that there seemed to be creatures listed within the scriptures that seemed to have a supernatural nature?

It's already the case that within scripture, there seems to be the supernatural reality of animals in the Heavenlies. The book of Kings notes where the armies of Heaven ride upon chariots of fire, with horses of fire as well.

2 Kings 2:11
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
2 Kings 2:10-122 Kings 2

2 Kings 6:16-18/2 Kings 6

16 “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17 And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, LORD, so that he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hillsfull of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 18 As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, “Strike this army with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.

Moreover, in the book of Revelation, there seems to be many pictures/images of animals in the spiritual...such as the horses ridden upon by certain spirits (the white horse/its rider from Revelation 6:1-3 ). And even Christ will return PHYSICALLY and SPIRITUALLY from the heavens...riding on an animal of epic proportions:

Revelation 19:11
[ The Heavenly Warrior Defeats the Beast ] I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.

Revelation 19:10-12
​

Seeing the ways that supernatural creatures seem to exist in the Heavenlies themselves that are not necessarily bound to being flesh/blood and limited in their abilities, I must also wonder if the same could be said for the Phoenix myth. For if the Lord possibly designed a bird able to set itself on fire and be reborn, how would that be a problem?

I don't believe it to be impossible that "mythical" creatures stated in the Bible or culture could have once existed or may exist in Heaven. Nothing is impossible with G-d.


Many have considered how multiple cultures around the world have described such creatures in their own folklore and religious stories, just as its the case that stories of the Flood seem to be universal...as they weren't just making things up out of the hat....

But with creatures that are not necessarily biological in/of themselves, I think we have to be open to this...for if not, there's not any real point to texts showing otherwise like the horses of fire/their chariots that appeared with the angels in 2 Kings 6:16-18/2 Kings 6 or with Elijah and others. Just as the physical mirrors the spiritual, I think alot of the animals we see on the earth may have a supernatural counterpart or parallel that we've yet to understand. Phoenixes being one of them, as it is not hard to imagine the Lord making a bird setting itself on fire/being reborn since other creatures in the supernatural realm were of fire.

And as Job 29:18 could be a possible translation of a Phoenix, I do have to wonder....

​

​

​

Some of it gets interesting in light of how many often try to speak as if the scriptures don't already speak to things happening in the mythologies of other cultures...yet even Paul seemed to be aware of how other cultures could still have truth (abeit partial), such as when he referenced their ideologies at Mars Hill (Acts 17) and even quoted their poets in making his case biblically on the revelation of the Messiah. The same principle seems present with other dynamics when it comes to scripture verifying certain stories or tales.

Again, if anyone has any thoughts, I'd greatly appreciate it...

 

[Assyrian]

Are there Hebrew references for this meaning chol that predate the Septuagint? Otherwise it makes more sense that the
association of chol with the Phoenix only came in when the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek and it was the Greek
word for palm, phoinix that had this extra possible meaning.

We find phoinix in the NT too, I love the imagery it adds to Jesus' triumphant entry John 12:13 So they took branches of
palm trees (phoinix) and went out to meet him, crying out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
even the King of Israel!" Sadly think these really were palm branches.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Are there Hebrew references for this meaning chol that predate the Septuagint? Otherwise it makes more sense that the
association of chol with the Phoenix only came in when the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek and it was the Greek
word for palm, phoinix that had this extra possible meaning.

We find phoinix in the NT too, I love the imagery it adds to Jesus' triumphant entry John 12:13 So they took branches of
palm trees (phoinix) and went out to meet him, crying out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
even the King of Israel!" Sadly think these really were palm branches.

It is interesting to consider the Pre-Septuagint reading. And it adds to Jesus's entrance.

Do you feel such a creature was once real? Or can be explained by evolution?

 

[Assyrian]

It is interesting to consider the Pre-Septuagint reading. And it adds to Jesus's entrance.

Do you feel such a creature was once real? Or can be explained by evolution?

Flesh and blood does not stand up that well to fire, so no, they are mythological.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Flesh and blood does not stand up that well to fire, so no, they are mythological.

I'm not certain one could make an argument for something being mythological alone due to certain elements being a problem for certain species - as there's the reality that animal species (man included when comparing early man/Pre-Fall Adamic man to later versions) are vastly different in capabilities than they used to be. Where certain things like immortality and being long-lived (near millennia ) used to be normal for mankind, those things got curtailed due to the fall - and even the animal world was impacted. Some of this was shared before in regards to the topic of how death was potentially present before the Fall ...and that Adam/Eve were not made immortal (although they had the physical ability to remain such due to their lifestyle/choices when it came to eating the Tree of Life to live forever - as shared earlier in #24,#25 and #40 )...

And with animal species today, it's interesting seeing how certain animals (like jellyfish in example) can effortlessly handle ocean depths that man is unable to and has to use tons of metal in equipment in order to deal with.....and other creatures are able to live in utter darkness like caves, as seen with how dangerous caverns in South Mexico and others being required to use Respirators and poison-gas monitors for protection from the hydrogen sulphide gas and lethal sulphuric acid deep inside the Cueva de Villa Luz cave...even though within this noxious environment life thrives - be it Microbes, spiders, insects, crabs, or fish and other creatures. With the fish living in sulphric acid, some have noted that it's probable that a long, long time ago, a species gained some advantage from feeding at the edge of this environment..and over time, it adapated to the environment and was progressively able to safely penetrate this hostile environment to do whatever it is doing in there.

And in the same way, the same can go for other creatures when it comes to elements like fire itself - with some substances being fire-proof already than man utilizes and some species potentially developing an organic version of such things to handle it.

I'm really not certain it's possible to say such creatures like a Phoenix are simply mythological - and as said before, 2 Kings 2:10-12 and 2 Kings 6:16-18 describe how the armies of heaven itself have chariots/horses made of fire ...so why would it be impossible for there to be wildlife in existence made of fire when it's already the case in the heavenlies?

 

[pshun2404]

Job is speaking of himself (the OP)...the reference in 1 Corinthians is allegorical

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not certain one could make an argument for something being mythological alone due to certain elements being a problem for certain species - as there's the reality that animal species (man included when comparing early man/Pre-Fall Adamic man to later versions) are vastly different in capabilities than they used to be. Where certain things like immortality and being long-lived (near millennia ) used to be normal for mankind, those things got curtailed due to the fall - and even the animal world was impacted. Some of this was shared before in regards to the topic of how death was potentially present before the Fall ...and that Adam/Eve were not made immortal (although they had the physical ability to remain such due to their lifestyle/choices when it came to eating the Tree of Life to live forever - as shared earlier in #24,#25 and #40 )...

I think the idea humans and animals were very different before the fall is pure speculation, the argument are all 'well they must have been because of...' the accounts themselves give no hint of it. Interestingly this idea of prefall superpowers is completely missing in Eastern Orthodox reading of the text. But once you realise Adam and Eve were not created immortal, but had access to everlasting life through the tree of life, the main argument for a prefall superman, an immortal Adam, disappears.

While I think the long life spans in Genesis is figurative, even if humans really did live that long, it really isn't that much of a biological difference, lifespans already vary enormously in living creatures. It is nothing compared to the concept of flesh that will not burn up in a fire.

And with animal species today, it's interesting seeing how certain animals (like jellyfish in example) can effortlessly handle ocean depths that man is unable to and has to use tons of metal in equipment in order to deal with.....and other creatures are able to live in utter darkness like caves, as seen with how dangerous caverns in South Mexico and others being required to use Respirators and poison-gas monitors for protection from the hydrogen sulphide gas and lethal sulphuric acid deep inside the Cueva de Villa Luz cave...even though within this noxious environment life thrives - be it Microbes, spiders, insects, crabs, or fish and other creatures. With the fish living in sulphric acid, some have noted that it's probable that a long, long time ago, a species gained some advantage from feeding at the edge of this environment..and over time, it adapated to the environment and was progressively able to safely penetrate this hostile environment to do whatever it is doing in there.

You realise our stomach produces concentrated hydrochloric acid? It only takes a thin layer of mucus to protect it. Even your deep sea example is because we have adapted to use gaseous oxygen from the air. Deep sea pressures collapse the lungs we need to breath. That is not a problem for fish who get their oxygen from water through their gills. Mammals like sperm whales and elephant seals who have had time to adapt, can deal with these problems too. Sperm whales store most of the oxygen in myoglobin in their muscle tissue, but still need to take their time rising to the surface to avoid the bends. I had thought of extremophiles, but this is mainly a case of adapting metabolic processes to operate at higher temperatures, to metabolise concentrations of chemicals in the environment we are not adapted to handle, or metabolise different chemicals to the ones we use. But it is still variations on the same basic metabolisms. But in fire, any attempt to use the flames as a new environment to adapt you metabolism to is futile when the fire simply uses the living cells as more fuel.

And in the same way, the same can go for other creatures when it comes to elements like fire itself - with some substances being fire-proof already than man utilizes and some species potentially developing an organic version of such things to handle it.

You do realise fire isn't an element? Plants can grow from tiny seeds, if these are encased in thick fire resistant casings, they can survive a forest fire and germinate in the newly cleared competition free ground. The charred casing provides more minerals for the plant to absorb through its roots. Animals need to develop and grow as embryos, they need food they can metabolise provided by the mother or in their egg, charred ashes simply would not do.

I'm really not certain it's possible to say such creatures like a Phoenix are simply mythological - and as said before, 2 Kings 2:10-12 and 2 Kings 6:16-18 describe how the armies of heaven itself have chariots/horses made of fire ...so why would it be impossible for there to be wildlife in existence made of fire when it's already the case in the heavenlies?

You are talking about spiritual beings here, not actual flesh and blood birds.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think the idea humans and animals were very different before the fall is pure speculation, the argument are all 'well they must have been because of...' the accounts themselves give no hint of it. .

Not according to the actual text - lest one assumes that Adam/Eve had flaws BEFORE the Fall and were just as we are now...or that all animals were the same. There's much in the way of evidence when it comes to showing the differing atmospheres from the early world and today - and with that, the early world environments impacting the process of growth/development. Christianity/the early church was very honest when it came to the issue of the Fall damaging the Spiritual/Physical nature of man - including in physcial capabilities.

Interestingly this idea of prefall superpowers is completely missing in Eastern Orthodox reading of the text

Those in Orthodoxy are not against the concept of pre-fall abilities when it comes to understanding what Adam/Eve were capable of, actually. And the early church fathers spoke on it often.

Historically and anciently, Christianity has taught that, come the Second Advent, those who will experience heaven will not only return to the state that Adam and Eve had before the Fall, but go even further: a true transfiguration, not to lose their humanity or substance and essence, but for their Communion with God to always become closer and closer eternally..and become as Jesus (the SECOND Adam - able to do physical traits no one could do, from teleportation to walking on water to levitation in the air and many other things - with his Ressurected state being the kind of body man is going to have....I Corinthians 15, Romans 8, etc.).

This is the concept (known as Theosis) that Adam and Eve are not necessarily where man is heading back to....just as Creation itself is not going to be made into an exact replica of how things used to be when the New Heavens and New Earth come into being. Rather, the Lord is taking us beyond where they were into a more glorious state just as He'll do with the rest of transformation....and for those saying that Adam/Eve were technically in a process of glorification that was hindered by the enemy, many have said that Theosis is essentially a restoration of the transformation of man into something great--a finished product that was not fully seen in Adam/Eve even though they were made perfect/good. In many ways, Adam/Eve were a snapshot of the process the Lord intended for mankind---but it was not the fullness thereof.

Thus, while Adam/Eve in the state they were in are not necessarily where the Lord desires man to be ultimately, they are the prototype in that they show what it means to be in process/development---and at that point where they were going actively after the Lord, we're to do likewise Adam and Eve were a "snapshot" of the process, especially when Jesus is prefigured as the Tree of Life.

But once you realise Adam and Eve were not created immortal, but had access to everlasting life through the tree of life, the main argument for a prefall superman, an immortal Adam, disappears.

Not really - seeing that the TREE of life did not give Adam/Eve access to every abilitiy. Adam and Eve didn't lose access to being intelligent with superb abilities simply because of the Tree of Life - nor the ability for adapatation, although it became very limited....and the same goes for other things in creation. The TRree of Life gave immortality - not necessarily the ability for long life since that happened for centuries until the Flood, when man's life got shorter and environmental changes altered a lot of things. There've been numerous studies in the world of science showing where certain abilities in the genetic code of man have been locked away and could help man greatly - be it with genes that allow for our bodies to continually heal themselves at advanced rates (in the same way newts can) or allow for greater strength and many other things. ..higher intelligence included.....as it concerns genetic abilities accessed. All in line with man's call to have dominion over the environment.

Even with things like the ability to fly, with supernatural abilities due to communion with the Lord it's not an issue anymore than it was with other saints experiencing things in the supernatural - like Philip teleporting away in Acts 8 after the Ethiopian Eunuch...or with others who've levitated. (folks like St. Joseph of Cupertino born 17 June 1603 who reportedly levitated high in the air, for extended periods of more than an hour, on many occasions ..or Saint Francis of Assisi is recorded as having been "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits" )

While I think the long life spans in Genesis is figurative, even if humans really did live that long, it really isn't that much of a biological difference, lifespans already vary enormously in living creatures. It is nothing compared to the concept of flesh that will not burn up in a fire.

Not necessarily, seeing that having life span for CENTURIES at a time is not a small feat, nor is it the same as showing that flesh/blood are unable to handle differing environments at varying points just like some species handle other things.

You realise our stomach produces concentrated hydrochloric acid? It only takes a thin layer of mucus to protect it. Even your deep sea example is because we have adapted to use gaseous oxygen from the air. sea pressures collapse the lungs we need to breath. That is not a problem for fish who get their oxygen from water through their gills. Mammals like sperm whales and elephant seals who have had time to adapt, can deal with these problems too. Sperm whales store most of the oxygen in myoglobin in their muscle tissue, but still need to take their time rising to the surface to avoid the bends.

Sadly, we haven't adapted to live in the conditions of the deep sea, Bruh Creatures at the bottom don't just survive because of oxygen - but they also survive due to the fact that their bodies are adapted to handle immense pressure, even though it still baffles scientists when seeing how light-weight they are. The dynamic of adapting our skin to handle certain pressures and our lungs for breathing (as Sperm Whales and other mammals have done) is something humanity did not go into...even though it's more than possible man could've done so at one point

Also, handling acid INSIDE our bodies is not the same as the amazing feat of handling them on the outside - or living near such environments without sufficient damage. And as said before, some creatures are able to handle more than other.



Thus, there's nothing saying a creature could never evolve to have greater resistance to elements like fire at any point.

I had thought of extremophiles, but this is mainly a case of adapting metabolic processes to operate at higher temperatures, to metabolise concentrations of chemicals in the environment we are not adapted to handle, or metabolise different chemicals to the ones we use. But it is still variations on the same basic metabolisms. But in fire, any attempt to use the flames as a new environment to adapt you metabolism to is futile when the fire simply uses the living cells as more fuel.

As far as we know - and as said before, it is already the case some birds literally dance on fire...just as some humans have been trained to walk on hot coals. Thus, adaptation to elements where fire is involved isn't impossible.

You do realise fire isn't an element?

Seeing that one of the technical variations is that it is made up from other elements in creation and an extension thereof as others scientists have noted..

Plants can grow from tiny seeds, if these are encased in thick fire resistant casings, they can survive a forest fire and germinate in the newly cleared competition free ground. The charred casing provides more minerals for the plant to absorb through its roots. Animals need to develop and grow as embryos, they need food they can metabolise provided by the mother or in their egg, charred ashes simply would not do.

Nonetheless, seeing that no one is saying all aspects of a mythological creature are how a real creature would've been necessarily, focusing on ashes isn't the same as showing a creature able to adapt to fire.

There are many creatures which have adapted to the use of fire - and Many species of plants and animals are fire dependent, requiring fire to live and thrive while many others are fire-adapted, able to live in a frequently burned ecosystem.

Thus, to see the concept of a bird able to do so is not something I can dismiss outright when seeing what is already present in the world today. Such a creature like a Phoenix may not exist anymore, but it's possible one lived a long time ago.

You are talking about spiritual beings here, not actual flesh and blood birds

Spiritual beings also have body types as well - just as Christ still had a physical body, even though he was also spiritual - and just as animals in the heavenlies are made of fire, there's nothing saying others weren't as well when it comes to wildlife.

The OP was focused on the concept of a creature like a Phoenix existing due to what the scriptures and culture have noted - and I don't dismiss wildlife animals of fire anymore than I'd dismiss horses/chariots of fire

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Job is speaking of himself (the OP)...the reference in 1 Corinthians is allegorical

Definitely see where Job was speaking in reference to himself - although what was noted was that the analogy he used of himself was something in regards to Phoenix - indicating awareness.

 

[Assyrian]

I think the idea humans and animals were very different before the fall is pure speculation, the argument are all 'well they must have been because of...' the accounts themselves give no hint of it. .

Not according to the actual text - lest one assumes that Adam/Eve had flaws BEFORE the Fall and were just as we are now...or that all animals were the same. There's much in the way of evidence when it comes to showing the differing atmospheres from the early world and today - and with that, the early world environments impacting the process of growth/development. Christianity/the early church was very honest when it came to the issue of the Fall damaging the Spiritual/Physical nature of man - including in physcial capabilities.

That is still a 'they must have been because of...' argument. Once you accept that Adam and the rest of the natural world could have been created mortal, then all of the physical frailties that go with mortality can come along with it. The bible says nothing of the fall damaging our physical nature, (or our spiritual nature, but that is a whole different discussion).

Those in Orthodoxy are not against the concept of pre-fall abilities when it comes to understanding what Adam/Eve were capable of, actually. And the early church fathers spoke on it often.

I think the big difference with the Orthodox approach to Adam is that they saw him having a childlike innocence, rather than being the super intellect that modern creationists think of.

Historically and anciently, Christianity has taught that, come the Second Advent, those who will experience heaven will not only return to the state that Adam and Eve had before the Fall, but go even further: a true transfiguration, not to lose their humanity or substance and essence, but for their Communion with God to always become closer and closer eternally..and become as Jesus (the SECOND Adam - able to do physical traits no one could do, from teleportation to walking on water to levitation in the air and many other things - with his Ressurected state being the kind of body man is going to have....I Corinthians 15, Romans 8, etc.).

This is the concept (known as Theosis) that Adam and Eve are not necessarily where man is heading back to....just as Creation itself is not going to be made into an exact replica of how things used to be when the New Heavens and New Earth come into being. Rather, the Lord is taking us beyond where they were into a more glorious state just as He'll do with the rest of transformation....and for those saying that Adam/Eve were technically in a process of glorification that was hindered by the enemy, many have said that Theosis is essentially a restoration of the transformation of man into something great--a finished product that was not fully seen in Adam/Eve even though they were made perfect/good. In many ways, Adam/Eve were a snapshot of the process the Lord intended for mankind---but it was not the fullness thereof.

Thus, while Adam/Eve in the state they were in are not necessarily where the Lord desires man to be ultimately, they are the prototype in that they show what it means to be in process/development---and at that point where they were going actively after the Lord, we're to do likewise Adam and Eve were a "snapshot" of the process, especially when Jesus is prefigured as the Tree of Life.

I think on of the mistakes modern creationist make is to think Christ's death on the cross was meant to restore the world to Eden. But you realise that the resurrection and new creation goes way beyond the first creation. If that is the case, then there is simply no reason to read features of the resurrection back into Genesis. Especially when there isn't a hint of these abilities in the Genesis account.

Not really - seeing that the TREE of life did not give Adam/Eve access to every abilitiy. Adam and Eve didn't lose access to being intelligent with superb abilities simply because of the Tree of Life - nor the ability for adapatation, although it became very limited....and the same goes for other things in creation. The TRree of Life gave immortality - not necessarily the ability for long life since that happened for centuries until the Flood, when man's life got shorter and environmental changes altered a lot of things. There've been numerous studies in the world of science showing where certain abilities in the genetic code of man have been locked away and could help man greatly - be it with genes that allow for our bodies to continually heal themselves at advanced rates (in the same way newts can) or allow for greater strength and many other things. ..higher intelligence included.....as it concerns genetic abilities accessed. All in line with man's call to have dominion over the environment.

You would hardly expect the short mention of the Tree of Life in Genesis to give a complete catalogue of all the changes that will come with it. However in 1Cor 15 where Paul contrasts the first and second creation, the changes that come with the resurrection come from Christ, again you seem to realise this when you recognised that the Tree of Life prefigured Christ.

Again I don't take the long lives ascribed to the Patriarchs literally. Was Moses' life expectancy 120 years Deut 34:7, or 'threescore and ten' Psalm 90:10? But if you wanted to take them literally, you are right there are simple genetic markers, telomeres, that determine life expectancy. There is a tradeoff between the number of time our cells replicate and cancer rates, the more cells copy themselves the more mistakes can happen. But at least with longevity, you have a biblical basis for the ability. There isn't for other supposed abilities.

Even with things like the ability to fly, with supernatural abilities due to communion with the Lord it's not an issue anymore than it was with other saints experiencing things in the supernatural - like Philip teleporting away in Acts 8 after the Ethiopian Eunuch...or with others who've levitated. (folks like St. Joseph of Cupertino born 17 June 1603 who reportedly levitated high in the air, for extended periods of more than an hour, on many occasions ..or Saint Francis of Assisi is recorded as having been "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits" )

I thought miracles were the opposite of natural human abilities?

Not necessarily, seeing that having life span for CENTURIES at a time is not a small feat, nor is it the same as showing that flesh/blood are unable to handle differing environments at varying points just like some species handle other things.

Sadly, we haven't adapted to live in the conditions of the deep sea, Bruh Creatures at the bottom don't just survive because of oxygen - but they also survive due to the fact that their bodies are adapted to handle immense pressure, even though it still baffles scientists when seeing how light-weight they are. The dynamic of adapting our skin to handle certain pressures and our lungs for breathing (as Sperm Whales and other mammals have done) is something humanity did not go into...even though it's more than possible man could've done so at one point

Also, handling acid INSIDE our bodies is not the same as the amazing feat of handling them on the outside - or living near such environments without sufficient damage. And as said before, some creatures are able to handle more than other.

The biggest changes with pressure with be for any gas filled organs an organism uses like swim bladders or lungs. It is much easier for organisms where all the spaces are filled with fluids. These compress very little even under very high pressures. There will be differences in reaction rates and enzyme function, but these are as easily adapted to as temperature differences between Arctic and tropics. I would have though it would be more difficult to adapt to carrying a bag of acid inside your delicate internal organs than to have an acid resistant out coat.

Thus, there's nothing saying a creature could never evolve to have greater resistance to elements like fire at any point.

Our metabolism harnesses the oxidation of the food, the fuel we eat. If something else eats us, they convert us into fuel. Fire is that oxidation running at full speed. When it consumes us, as it is said to consume the Phoenix, it doesn't stop until it has turned every part of the metabolism that is trying to use fuel slowly, into fast burning fuel itself.

As far as we know - and as said before, it is already the case some birds literally dance on fire...just as some humans have been trained to walk on hot coals. Thus, adaptation to elements where fire is involved isn't impossible.

Embers may be very hot but the don't conduct heat that fast, birds are clever at using aromatic herbs in their nests as pesticides, or apparently using smoke from fires to rid themselves of parasites. But this is very different form the Phoenix myth where the old Phoenix is consumed by the flames of a fire and the new one rises from the ashes. The birds who use smoke never raise the temperature of their cells to a temperature where protein denatures, let alone to the temperature of the fire itself which would first roast them just as surely as your thanksgiving turkey, then char, and turn them into ashes. That turkey isn't coming back.

Seeing that one of the technical variations is that it is made up from other elements in creation and an extension thereof as others scientists have noted..

It was alchemists who thought fire was an element. It is a process, a reaction between elements, producing heat, light and incandescent gasses, but it is not an element.

Nonetheless, seeing that no one is saying all aspects of a mythological creature are how a real creature would've been necessarily, focusing on ashes isn't the same as showing a creature able to adapt to fire.

There are many creatures which have adapted to the use of fire - and Many species of plants and animals are fire dependent, requiring fire to live and thrive while many others are fire-adapted, able to live in a frequently burned ecosystem.

Thus, to see the concept of a bird able to do so is not something I can dismiss outright when seeing what is already present in the world today. Such a creature like a Phoenix may not exist anymore, but it's possible one lived a long time ago.

Spiritual beings also have body types as well - just as Christ still had a physical body, even though he was also spiritual - and just as animals in the heavenlies are made of fire, there's nothing saying others weren't as well when it comes to wildlife.

The OP was focused on the concept of a creature like a Phoenix existing due to what the scriptures and culture have noted - and I don't dismiss wildlife animals of fire anymore than I'd dismiss horses/chariots of fire

The basic limit is the ability of DNA and other key molecules to survive and function at higher temperatures. Too hot and the DNA simply falls apart. If you want to know the limits to biological adaptation, look up extremophiles. Now they may be able to exist at temperatures way too hot for our comfort, but these temperatures are way below the temperatures you get in a fire. It is also worth noticing that these extremophiles live in water. They are not going to dry up and simply end up more combustible fuel like an organism in a fire.

 

[sfs]

The biggest changes with pressure with be for any gas filled organs an organism uses like swim bladders or lungs. It is much easier for organisms where all the spaces are filled with fluids.

Wholly gratuitous and pedantic nitpick: you mean organisms where all the spaces are filled with liquid. Lungs are already filled with a fluid, namely air.

 

[Assyrian]

Wholly gratuitous and pedantic nitpick: you mean organisms where all the spaces are filled with liquid. Lungs are already filled with a fluid, namely air.

Doh!

 

[Jadis40]

I would categorize the phoenix as being nothing more than a myth.

The Bible does have a mention of a unicorn, but it's actually referencing the aurochs, a breed of cattle that's gone extinct. As far as the behemoth and leviathan, while we're on those subjects, I'm convinced they have nothing at all to do with dinosaurs.

To understand the Biblical reference to those creatures, it helps to have some understanding of Ancient Near East mythology.

Leviathan was identified as being a sea serpent, which makes perfect sense given the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish, which predates Genesis. It's the same basic concept, and I don't think it's by accident that the story opens with God's spirit moving over the waters, which reflects this:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them. (Dalley 233)

It also helps to understand Apsu and Tiamat. They represented sweet and salty waters, respectively which mingled at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Everything falls into place when you consider Mesopotamian civilization, which included Sumer, is the land where these stories originated.

So, it's not too surprising that Moses basically ran with the same idea when he wrote Genesis, as it also mentions the Tigris and Euphrates. It's basically the trope of a deity or group of deities conquering chaos and creating order from it.

Also, I think this is confirmed by Isiah 27:1

English Standard Version (©2001)
In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

And, Psalm 74:13-14
English Standard Version

You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is still a 'they must have been because of...' argument. Once you accept that Adam and the rest of the natural world could have been created mortal, then all of the physical frailties that go with mortality can come along with it. The bible says nothing of the fall damaging our physical nature, (or our spiritual nature, but that is a whole different discussion)..

Technically, it'd still be an argumentation of the same that you said happened - as assuming that man must have PHYSICAL frailties is "they must have been because..." argument when there's nothing at all saying that being made mortal must mean one is frail. It just means one will die at some point - not that one is on a frail level.

The scriptures already note where the Fall damaged the physical nature of man (as it concerns sickness and disease - things the Lord came to redeem ) - but indeed, that is an entirely differing discussion (more here and here )
)

I think the big difference with the Orthodox approach to Adam is that they saw him having a childlike innocence, rather than being the super intellect that modern creationists think of.

One wouldn't need to assume that having childlike innocence equates to not having a super-intellect. That doesn't even go with what's seen in everyday life - particularly with child prodigies where they have amazing giftings/talents and are exceptionally brilliant at things (i.e. music, art, etc.) even though they may be highly innocent at the same time.

See it all the time working with kids - and the same goes for working with children who have disabilities.

That is still a 'they must have been because of...' argument. Once you accept that Adam and the rest of the natural world could have been created mortal, then all of the physical frailties that go with mortality can come along with it. The bible says nothing of the fall damaging our physical nature, (or our spiritual nature, but that is a whole different discussion)..

Technically, it'd still be an argumentation of the same that you said happened - as assuming that man must have PHYSICAL frailties is "they must have been because..." argument when there's nothing at all saying that being made mortal must mean one is frail. It just means one will die at some point - not that one is on a frail level.

The scriptures already note where the Fall damaged the physical nature of man (as it concerns sickness and disease - things the Lord came to redeem ) - but indeed, that is an entirely differing discussion.

I think the big difference with the Orthodox approach to Adam is that they saw him having a childlike innocence, rather than being the super intellect that modern creationists think of.

One wouldn't need to assume that having childlike innocence equates to not having a super-intellect. That doesn't even go with what's seen in everyday life - particularly with child prodigies where they have amazing giftings/talents and are exceptionally brilliant at things (i.e. music, art, etc.) even though they may be highly innocent at the same time.

See it all the time working with kids where I'm at (one of them who's 6yrs and plays piano masterfully) - and the same goes for working with children who have disabilities and yet some of the highest intellects in many areas.

• Child Geniuses - Business Insider
• 10 black child geniuses you should know - Rolling Out
• Child Geniuses And Autism Connected - Medical News Today

You can have innocence and exceptional abilities/intelligence at the same time..

And as it concerns advance abilities, more has been discussed by other Orthodox (Coptic Orthodox, to be specific) elsewhere on the matter. As said here:

Our teaching tells us that the fall induced a full degradation of humankind. Full, not just spiritual and mental. Full. I encourage you to go back to Genesis and read. You will find that pre-fall Adam and Eve lived on fruits and vegetables and no real animal protein. They could "walk with God" in the Garden. However, post-fall humanity started to be under dominion of the flesh. Thus, life expectancy fell, disease set in, and all other fleshy ailments. They began to eat meat and thus the spirit had to really war against the flesh in order to be fed. As we know, that is the whole purpose of fasting; we break the flesh to restore our bodies back to the glory days of Adam where the spirit leads us. Of course, post-fall humanity suffered the spiritual punishment of separation from God. They became subject to evil thoughts and evil intentions. Let us also remember the example of the Tower of Babel and how God descended to confuse them. You see; they even fell in expression.

​

Good thoughts to consider...and for more, one should consider investigating have not read H.G. Bishop Youssef's "Q&A" on the Resurrection (more here and here) or other Oriential Orthodox who've done some good discussions on the subject - especially as it concerns evolutionary theory and the way Adam/Eve were and how Christ reflects the restoration (as seen here).

For Orthodoxy, it's believed that God made man in INcorruption; and that through sin, our nature did change. It changed from a nature of INcorruption to a nature of Corruption. Essentially, this means that when sin entered man, he became corrupt. It also means that he died since he was cut off from life. God created man eternal (in INcorruption) - but through the envy of Satan, man chose to disobey and by his opinion, he rejected God's commandment. In doing so his nature changed. He died. He didnt know death BEFORE he sinned.

Thus, Christ came to redeem us back to our original nature, an eternal INcorrupt nature. This is supported by one our most beloved sons of the Church - as St Gregory even expresses this in the Holy Liturgy in Gregorian mass:

"O You who created man in Incorruption, and by the envy of Satan...etc"
​

The whole idea of salvation is to return man back to his original state. God came to redeem man, to redeem Adam back to his former glory. If you read St Athanasius' "on the incarnation" ("THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD" - full extract here ), you'll find this explained perfectly. Man was by nature corruptible and mortal, but through the special grace of God that was unique for man, they were granted incorruptibility and immortality. However, when they were seperated from God by sin, they lost this special gift, and therefore became corruptible again. In this sense they were created in incorruption, because sin was alien from them and through the grace of God man indeed was incorruptible, yet not by nature.

I think on of the mistakes modern creationist make is to think Christ's death on the cross was meant to restore the world to Eden. But you realise that the resurrection and new creation goes way beyond the first creation. If that is the case, then there is simply no reason to read features of the resurrection back into Genesis. Especially when there isn't a hint of these abilities in the Genesis account.


You would hardly expect the short mention of the Tree of Life in Genesis to give a complete catalogue of all the changes that will come with it. However in 1Cor 15 where Paul contrasts the first and second creation, the changes that come with the resurrection come from Christ, again you seem to realise this when you recognised that the Tree of Life prefigured Christ.

Again, one has to assume that the point of the Resurrection was disconnected from restorting aspects of the ORIGINAL Eden in addition to adding new aspects to it on an entirely differing level. It's why the Ressurection of Christ was seen as a means of RESTORING Man to the original way he was meant to live in the Early Church.

That is what the concept of Theosis has long kept in view. There's a really awesome article on the issue that may help to break things down further - as seen if going online/looking up a work entitled ".Holiness in the Early Church (Holiness Heritage Series)" And for more info, one can go online and investigate some of the following under their respective titles:

• “C.S. Lewis and the Doctrine of Deification” ( )
• "Theosis: East and West"

• "Theosis: The True Purpose of Human Life" ( )

• An Eastern Orthodox Conception of Theosis and Human Nature" ().
• " The Orthodox Worldview and C. S. Lewis (Part I) << Road to Emmaus" ( )
• "Shine as the Sun: C. S. Lewis and the Doctrine of Deification << Road to Emmaus" ( )

Even outside of that, there were already aspects of the old being present in the new when it comes to eschatology. The same TREE OF LIFE present in Genesis 3 is present in Revelation 22:18-20 /Revelation 22:1-3 and Revelation 2:6-8 (which gave eternal life)- and the issue of Christ walking in the garden will also be present in the life to come. It's all about restoration to how the Lord intended - but in the future, it's on an entirely more advanced level....and even in the future, the same dynamic of partaking in the Tree of Life will be present as it was in Genesis. For some good places for review on such:

• Exile from Eden (Gen 3)
• Paul, Christ, and Adam | internetmonk.com
• In the King's Garden (Gen 2), part one | internetmonk.com
• In the King's Garden (Gen 2), part two | internetmonk.com
• Another Look: Surd Evil, Serpents, and the Cosmic Battle | Internetmonk
• Another Look: Life in the King's Garden (Bible Studyâ,Genesis 2) |Internetmonk

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Again I don't take the long lives ascribed to the Patriarchs literally. Was Moses' life expectancy 120 years Deut 34:7, or 'threescore and ten' Psalm 90:10? But if you wanted to take them literally, you are right there are simple genetic markers, telomeres, that determine life expectancy. There is a tradeoff between the number of time our cells replicate and cancer rates, the more cells copy themselves the more mistakes can happen. But at least with longevity, you have a biblical basis for the ability. There isn't for other supposed abilities.
.

Disagree, to a degree - paticularly when it comes to noting intent. With Psalm 90, this seems a low estimate for the time of Moses, since he himself died at a hundred and twenty (Deuteronomy 34:7), Aaron at the age of a hundred and twenty-three (Numbers 33:39), and Miriam at an age which was even more advanced (Numbers 20:1; Exodus 2:4). But these may have been exceptional cases, and we have certainly no sufficient data for determining what was the average length of human life in the later period of the wanderings. And while some were blessed to get past the 70-80yr mark Moses noted, it didn't mean that was the rule of thumb in his time...hence, the boundary marking he made generally for all in his era. The exceptions don't make the rule, essentially - and that varies from age to age.....

And the period of the wanderings was just that - the PERIOD of the wanderings. Not the state of life man was in Before the Flood or in the earlier stages afterward where lifespans were exceptionally long ...and environmental changes may make a world of difference on those things. Variances in ages do not mean that the current age one author lists as being a blessing to reach is dismissing the fact that others before that timeframe reached far longer in age....and there are many good reasons for believing such.

As said best by another Bible Commentary:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The days of our years are threescore years and ten,.... In the Hebrew text it is, "the days of our years in them are", &c. (a); which refers either to the days in which we live, or to the persons of the Israelites in the wilderness, who were instances of this term of life, in whom perhaps it first took place in a general way: before the flood, men lived to a great age; some nine hundred years and upwards; after the flood, men lived not so long; the term fixed then, as some think, was an hundred and twenty years, grounding it on the passage in Genesis 6:3, but now, in the time of Moses, it was brought to threescore years and ten, or eighty at most: of those that were numbered in the wilderness of Sinai, from twenty years and upwards, there were none left, save Joshua and Caleb, when the account was taken in the plains of Moab; see Numbers 14:29, so that some must die before they were sixty; others before seventy; and perhaps all, or however the generality of them, before eighty: and, from that time, this was the common age of men, some few excepted; to the age of seventy David lived, 2 Samuel 5:4,
​

In Genesis 47:9, Jacob, speaking to Pharaoh, said: &#8220;The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years: few and evil have been the days of my life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.&#8221; '

Jacob was making the point that even at his advance age, he was nowhere close to the level of life his precedessors were. He was 130 years old, yet he stated that even at that great age, his days had not reached &#8220;the days of the years of the life of my fathers.&#8221; It should be considered that if he was 130 years old, and yet he had not reached the age of some of the patriarchs who preceded him, just how old would &#8220;his fathers&#8221; have been?

After the Flood the ages in which people lived fell off dramatically...as the Bible says Noah lived 930 years and his son Shem 600 years. However, Terah the father of Abraham, lived for only 205 years ..and the numbers get less/less.

As said before, there were aspects during the time of Adam/Eve that did not take full effect at the time. In their world, there was a lack of disease at this early time. And since Adam and Eve fell from a perfect state, it would have taken some time for disease to increase. This could have also contributed to the longevity of the patriarchs. One can also note that if the earth were to be populated by humankind, (Genesis 1:26) then long life-spans at the beginning were somewhat of a necessity...lest it would have taken an enormous amount of time to fulfill the commandment to fill the earth with people. With this comes the reality that, if the early inhabitants of the earth did live for long periods of time, they would have accumulated knowledge to help them survive longer.

With this also comes (as said before) the reality of environmental conditions. ...climatic conditions that could have been a factor in the longevity of the ancients.

Many other things besides that to consider. Hugh Ross (Progressive Earth Creationist) did an excellent review of the issue in his article entitled Long Life Spans: "Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died".

I thought miracles were the opposite of natural human abilities?

Miracles can include that - yet they have also been seen as God going beyond what seems impossible....including in times when things which used to be possible no longer were such because of various factors. It's the issue of God going past boundaries that get set up in order to reveal His Glory...

The biggest changes with pressure with be for any gas filled organs an organism uses like swim bladders or lungs. It is much easier for organisms where all the spaces are filled with fluids. These compress very little even under very high pressures. There will be differences in reaction rates and enzyme function, but these are as easily adapted to as temperature differences between Arctic and tropics. I would have though it would be more difficult to adapt to carrying a bag of acid inside your delicate internal organs than to have an acid resistant out coat.

The idea of what's more difficult (i.e. having an acid resistant outer coat organically vs an interally acid-resistant body) will always be in variance depending on the group you're conversing with.


But indeed, for organisms able to adapt to certain pressures/depths, having fluid fillled in all parts of one's body makes a world of difference - and that's not something others easily got to.

Our metabolism harnesses the oxidation of the food, the fuel we eat. If something else eats us, they convert us into fuel. Fire is that oxidation running at full speed. When it consumes us, as it is said to consume the Phoenix, it doesn't stop until it has turned every part of the metabolism that is trying to use fuel slowly, into fast burning fuel itself.

Embers may be very hot but the don't conduct heat that fast, birds are clever at using aromatic herbs in their nests as pesticides, or apparently using smoke from fires to rid themselves of parasites. But this is very different form the Phoenix myth where the old Phoenix is consumed by the flames of a fire and the new one rises from the ashes. The birds who use smoke never raise the temperature of their cells to a temperature where protein denatures, let alone to the temperature of the fire itself which would first roast them just as surely as your thanksgiving turkey, then char, and turn them into ashes. That turkey isn't coming back.

...
The basic limit is the ability of DNA and other key molecules to survive and function at higher temperatures. Too hot and the DNA simply falls apart. If you want to know the limits to biological adaptation, look up extremophiles. Now they may be able to exist at temperatures way too hot for our comfort, but these temperatures are way below the temperatures you get in a fire. It is also worth noticing that these extremophiles live in water. They are not going to dry up and simply end up more combustible fuel like an organism in a fire

Indeed...

Nonetheless, as said before, mythology involves describing something in existence as best as possible - even if what's described isn't exactly what is being seen. Thus, when it comes to the legend of a Phoenix consuming itself in fire, those who describe such are assumed to have really seen something like that. It may've been the case they saw a creature in flames or a flame like environment surviving - and went from there to embellish the rest of the tale saying it literally was consumed at all parts. From a literal perspective as we see it today, no creature could survive it - but understand if what ancient writers described was actually being seen literally or interpreted as such is key.

The same thing goes for the issue of what was noted before with SUPERNATURAL occurrences. There is no escaping the fact that supernatural occurrences have happened in human existence - the Bible itself describing that often when it comes to creatures in the Heavenly Realms manifesting. If there are such things as Horses on fire in the Heavenlies, there's nothing saying other creatures could've existed and been seen - only for others to mistake what was seen/roll with it in saying more than what was present.

I am aware of extremophiles - one of them being the Pompeii Worm: The Most Fireproof Animal on Earth...able to handle temperatures that'd melt human skin off.

And as it concerns animals able to handle high temperatures in the natural, that is something that needs to be considered. It's already the case, for example, that we have a heat-resistant worm that can live miles beneath the Earth's surface ( as one can find out more via Nature ). Creatures that evolved to become capable of enduring life in the hot, high-pressure zone beneath Earth's crust. Thus, I don't see where it could ever be the case that NO other creature was capable of enduring other high-temperature environments at some point.."

Life finds a way...evolution.

It was alchemists who thought fire was an element. It is a process, a reaction between elements, producing heat, light and incandescent gasses, but it is not an element.

Doesn't change the fact that fire is a dynamic utilizing elements to make something (which is why it has been understood to be an element) - and the substance is the focus.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I would categorize the phoenix as being nothing more than a myth.

The Bible does have a mention of a unicorn, but it's actually referencing the aurochs, a breed of cattle that's gone extinct. .

Not exactly certain of where your reference for the Unicorn was coming from...scripture wise.

As far as the behemoth and leviathan, while we're on those subjects, I'm convinced they have nothing at all to do with dinosaurs.

To understand the Biblical reference to those creatures, it helps to have some understanding of Ancient Near East mythology.

Leviathan was identified as being a sea serpent, which makes perfect sense given the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish, which predates Genesis. It's the same basic concept, and I don't think it's by accident that the story opens with God's spirit moving over the waters, which reflects this:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them. (Dalley 233)

It also helps to understand Apsu and Tiamat. They represented sweet and salty waters, respectively which mingled at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Everything falls into place when you consider Mesopotamian civilization, which included Sumer, is the land where these stories originated.

So, it's not too surprising that Moses basically ran with the same idea when he wrote Genesis, as it also mentions the Tigris and Euphrates. It's basically the trope of a deity or group of deities conquering chaos and creating order from it.

Indeed..

I don't think the Levitihian was a Dinosaur at all..

Also, I think this is confirmed by Isiah 27:1

English Standard Version (©2001)
In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

And, Psalm 74:13-14
English Standard Version

You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness

Fearsome creature indeed - and something that is powerful to behold...

 

[Calminian]

You may want to take in the novel, "The Days of Peleg" sometime. It's a very interesting read about early postdiluvian times soon after the flood. I believe the early postdiluvians were great shipbuilders and sailor/explorers. I believe they took juvenile animals with them of all sorts, including the extinct animal known as the thunderbird to the americas. It could have been a pterosaur or a large ancient bird of some sort. I think the magical things surrounding it may have been exaggerations of the hunters and hunted them (like the fishtales of fishermen).

Think about all the ancient cultures we find on remote islands all over the world. How did they get there? Did they evolve separately? That's silly. The better answers is the ancients were adept and prolific sailors and explorers, and transported juvenile animals to every corner of the world.

Again I highly recommend the Days of Peleg for anyone interested in the topic of origins. Trust me, regardless of your current origins beliefs, you'll never be the same after reading it. It will forever transform your thinking of ancient man.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You may want to take in the novel, "The Days of Peleg" sometime. It's a very interesting read about early postdiluvian times soon after the flood. I believe the early postdiluvians were great shipbuilders and sailor/explorers.

...Think about all the ancient cultures we find on remote islands all over the world. How did they get there? Did they evolve separately? That's silly. The better answers is the ancients were adept and prolific sailors and explorers, and transported juvenile animals to every corner of the world.

Again I highly recommend the Days of Peleg for anyone interested in the topic of origins. Trust me, regardless of your currently origins beliefs, you'll never be the same after reading it. It will forever transform your thinking of ancient man.

Thanks for the book reference. Will definately have to look into it - as it sounds promising And on the book, I've been of the mindset that what it discusses (as you shared) is more than plausible with immense ability for maritime travel over extensive distances ..and trans-migration (more discussed in #2 when it came to seeing the ways archeologists and anthropologists have been perplexed at seeing similarities between cultures seperated by vast distances...and surmising that there was some level of cultural diffusion).

Convergent Evolution is something that I do think has a lot of merit when it comes to developments with similarities if facing the same kind of environmental struggles - and on the same token, there's also the realityi of continents changing when men traveled...leading to some being stranded in certain areas (even remote islands) and managing to survive.

The concept of being adept travelers makes good sense for why certain animals may've been spread in various parts of the world - and thus, similarities on the legends of those creatures occurred across distances. Mobile Zoos

I believe they took juvenile animals with them of all sorts, including the extinct animal known as the thunderbird to the americas. It could have been a pterosaur or a large ancient bird of some sort. I think the magical things surrounding it may have been exaggerations of the hunters and hunted them (like the fishtales of fishermen).

Truthfully, I'd say it was really a Thunderbird in the sense of an Avian creature rather than a pterosaur....although it's possible such creatures migrated over vast distances and had no need of others taking them along. Big Birds of Prey are powerful and impressive...

And for most men, such creatures would've been a terror to even contend with seeing what they could do. Would not want to mess with a Thunderbird:

Lost Tapes (Complete) Season 1 Episode 04 - Thunderbird

​

With other creatures, I think it's possible sailors may've encountered them and tried to take them for as long as possible. Concerning the OP issue of whether the Phoenix creature ever existed (be it in the literal sense or even in a sense where it was exaggerated in its features due to what men saw), I think the same could be possible for them as well.

​

 

[Calminian]

The concept of being adept travelers makes good sense for why certain animals may've been spread in various parts of the world - and thus, similarities on the legends of those creatures occurred across distances. Mobile Zoos

Well if you grant that Noah and the Ark existed, it would seem sailing and transporting animals would have been something his early descendants would have been very good at.

But shipbuilding is a very technical skill, so it's also equally plausible the technology was lost after a few generations elapsed.

But again, I ask, how did all these ancient cultures reach these distant remote islands so long ago? They either evolved separately (which is utterly silly) or their ancient ancestors were very good sailors.