Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm aware of these ideas, and I really do understand what you are getting at. Yet, you might also look at the lion, which is also a very real animal, in a similar way, which has a very heavy symbolism is ancient Hebrew thought.
No worries, then. I do prefer not to describe my faith as "great", though. There is always infinite room to build it. I sincerely hope that you do not really believe that your "high reading of Scripture" is "as high as high as could possible be for a human". If mine is so high, then what is the point of further study?
Uhhh, I need to stop posting at 4am. I had "flat-earth" in mind when I said that. From a certain perspective, you could say that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.
Nope, I don't! I completely mixed up the geocentric believe with the idea of a flat-earth.
It's easier to make a case at the earth is at the centre of the universe then to say the ancients believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
No, just as said in my OP, I do not insist on anything. I am exploring. It just happened that a dinosaur or a "saur" would have a few characters that fit the descriptions.
Marine reptile. Do you mean they breathed air and breathed like dolphin and whale? Do we have any marine reptile today? Hmm.. turtle?
It may fit Job's description, but not the psalmist's description. Odd that YEC's do not combine these two different descriptions of Leviathan as they do the two different descriptions of creation.
I agree that Job's description is quite metaphorical. So how do we know that Leviathan itself isn't a metaphor for something else? It seems quite surreal.
I disagree.
To be honest, that's how it sounded.
Okay!!! Now I'm clued in!
IMO, you can't take everything as literal. The leviathan, as it appears in Isaiah and the Psalms, for example, is not literal.
Agreed!
Except it would have been incapable of eating grass since grass is full of silica and requires very specialized teeth with thick enamel (hypsodonty) to process. Sauropods like Apatosaurus had very simple, peg-like teeth with thin enamel. All this to say nothing of the fact that sauropods and rush grasses have never been found in association (grasses didn't dominate the landscape until well after dinosaurs went extinct).
The shape and size of the tail isn't what is being compared to a cedar in this passage. The movement of the tail is what is being compared to a cedar (check out a more up-to-date translation). And as we all know, cedars sway in the breeze, as most tails do.
Sauropod bones are actually quite light for their size because, like birds, they are hollow. Mammal bones are much denser and heavily built.
Neither would, say, a much smaller hippo, which spends most of its time wading in rivers. We know from the palaeoenvironments in which they were found that sauropods did not spend a lot of time in water anyway.
There are many reasons why one might not be able to pierce the nose of an animal, including the remoteness of the animal's habitat and its temperament (or its stature, as you suggested).
Super Croc was a huge creature- and most likely quite vicious- T-Rex probly wouldn't have even wanted to tangle with it! In the passages in Job, God is reminding Job of his awesome power, by referenceing the great and mighty creatures he has made- so huge that a puny human being cannot subdue them. If he is reminding Job of his awesome power, he is going to talk about creatures that Job knows of- not a metaphor- even though he does use metaphors to describe the creatures.
You're more than welcome to believe that the author of Job was referring to Sarchosuchus when he wrote the book. The creature described does sound quite a bit like a croc, except for the whole fire-breathing thing. In which case, I will point out that by reinterpreting Job to explain away references to fire-breathing, you are taking liberties with the Bible in much the same way that YECs accuse evolutionary creationists of doing. I might just as well level AiG's tired old arguments against you, like "If you can't trust God's Word as given in Job, can you trust Him when it comes to the gospels?" or "If you interpret this passage metaphorically, what prevents you from interpreting the whole Bible metaphorically?"
I think if you do a little reading, you'll find that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by two different authors since they use very different language (such as the names used to refer to God). But don't take my word for it, read for yourself:
I'll say. You've managed to ignore all other evidence I've given against Behemoth being a dinosaur!
Sorry, I don't use wikipedia as my source for Biblical answers. I go to my Pastor, and other church resources- people who have studied the Bible extensively, and also knows it in the original Hebrew language. WELS has a great website with answers to questions and here is what they say about Genesis:
I saw your 'evidence' as very weak.I'll say. You've managed to ignore all other evidence I've given against Behemoth being a dinosaur!
Also, check out Job 40:21. How does a 75 ft-long, 23 ton apatosaur hide under lotus plants and reeds???
