Crap I hate about Creationism

[abacabb3]

Getting a little off topic here, so I'll give you the last word on that.

 

[JM]

YEC is not a doctrine of Orthodoxy.

This is not a forum for those in the Eastern Orthodox DENOMINATION. You may not promote your DENOMINATIONAL views.

 

[JM]

The label "psuedo" is much derided in Orthodoxy, but at any rate, apophatic theology substantially predates the 6th century. Orthodox mysticism is essentially indistinguishable from OT mysticism.

Apophatic theology predates the 6th century and can be found in Chinese Daoism and later Mahayana schools of Buddhism. It’s originals can be traced to Greek philosophy which was heavily used by the East. This is one of the reasons they strayed so far. Too much reliance on Greek philosophical foundations and, cannot forget, the State essenially took over the church in the East (and Rome).

 

[Leslie B]

I can't help but notice that these days being a YEC is some sort of Orthodoxy. I'm almost all the way there, but I am really not that concerned about it. I just don't see the Bible dwelling on it.

So, on Facebook someone asks who Leviathan is in Job 41. Everyone is giving the answer that he's a dinosaur, of course!

I wrote back that historically, exegetes have found that Leviathan is Satan, and I named Aquinas and Joseph Carryl in support. The responses I got back were mockery. The "literal" interpretation is that he must be a dinosaur. Then they went back to talking about dinosaurs.

FYI YECs! For 1900 years when the Church had no idea dinosaurs existed, they profited from Job 41 and its meaning. Archaeology didn't unearth for us new information that helped us finally understand a part of the Bible that was useless until then.

/end rant

I can't help but notice that these days being a YEC is some sort of Orthodoxy. I'm almost all the way there, but I am really not that concerned about it. I just don't see the Bible dwelling on it.

So, on Facebook someone asks who Leviathan is in Job 41. Everyone is giving the answer that he's a dinosaur, of course!

I wrote back that historically, exegetes have found that Leviathan is Satan, and I named Aquinas and Joseph Carryl in support. The responses I got back were mockery. The "literal" interpretation is that he must be a dinosaur. Then they went back to talking about dinosaurs.

FYI YECs! For 1900 years when the Church had no idea dinosaurs existed, they profited from Job 41 and its meaning. Archaeology didn't unearth for us new information that helped us finally understand a part of the Bible that was useless until then.

/end rant

I think you are actually not far from being correct and I agree based on Isaiah 27:1 that Leviathan *is* most certainly a real spiritual being, possibly Satan or another principality of Hell who God will one day judge.

Isaiah 27:1
On that day theLord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.

I also want to point out that "spiritual satanists", or those who are monotheistic and worship only Satan, claim that Leviathan is one of Belial's names and he is one of the crown Princes of hell.

 

[Leslie B]

Job is one of my favorite books

 

[His Disciple]

"Dinosaur" is the Johnny-come-lately term used to over-write the word dragon. Everyone was calling them dragons before modernists came along and told them to call the beasts dinosaurs, instead. "Dinosaur" may be a new word

Yep, people have always known about dinosaurs. The just didn't call them dinosaurs until relatively recently.

As for the OP, I think the poster is objecting to taking Job literally. It's not purported to be a dream or vision, or anything else suggesting there author did not intend a literal meaning. The poster just cannot accept that the author of Job would have known anything about dinosaurs. Maybe Aquinas didn't know anything about dinosaurs.

People call it a hippopotamus. The thing has a tail like a cedar and they're calling it a hippopotamus?!

"Ancient people didn't know anything about dinosaurs. I don't care what it sounds like."

"It's not a stegosaurus. It's not a stegosaurus. It's not a stegosaurus. Ancient people didn't know anything about dinosaurs. I don't care what it looks like."

 

[abacabb3]

As a side note, we also have pictures of ancient astronauts and such:

We have to be careful not to interpret ancient pictures with modern eyes.

 

[His Disciple]

As a side note, we also have pictures of ancient astronauts and such:

We have to be careful not to interpret ancient pictures with modern eyes.

The biblical description of the behemoth and the carving stegosaurus are not at all in the context of someone just imagining or dreaming of something. The only reason anyone has to doubt they are what they appear is the belief that ancient people didn't know about dinosaurs, exactly the position asserted in the OP.

From the context in the above painting, we know those "astronauts" are not at all intended to be astronauts. Also, we'e not debating the existence of ancient astronauts. Everyone (for practical purposes) agrees that ancient astronauts did not exist.

 

[abacabb3]

The fact in Job 7 Job says that Leviathan was defeated at creation, it lends credibility that Leviathan was not a beast that Job had first hand knowledge of. The fact that Leviathan breaths fire and such lends credibility that God is referring to a mythological analogue for Satan.

The majority of interpreters in history have agreed that Leviathan is Satan. That includes Gregory the Great, the first commentator on Job; Thomas Aquinas, the greatest raw genius in Church History; John Calvin, the greatest systematic theologian in Church History, Joseph Caryl, writer of the longest commentary on Job in Church History, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Silas Durand, and A.W. Pink.

None of those men were compelled to view Behemoth or Leviathan as dinosaurs. As I said before, those that do are reading Job with 21st century eyes, just as ancient alien "experts" look at old paintings and stories and read into the language and pictures aliens.

 

[His Disciple]

The fact in Job 7 Job says that Leviathan was defeated at creation, it lends credibility that Leviathan was not a beast that Job had first hand knowledge of.

Where does the book of Job say Leviathan was defeated as creation?

God asks Job, "Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook
or press down his tongue with a cord?" That implies this creature is something that existed in Job's time, and something he's familiar with. If this creature matched the description of a living species, I doubt anyone would think it symbolic or mythical, based on the context which treats it as an actual creature.

 

[abacabb3]

It's an opaque reference without background: "Am I the sea, or the Sea Monster, that you set a guard over me" (Job 7:12)?

In Job 38, God makes clear that the "guard" is in reference to the "bolt and doors" set upon the sea at the beginning of creation:

"“Or who enclosed the sea with doors
When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9 When I made a cloud its garment
And thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 And I placed boundaries on it
And set a bolt and doors,
11 And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
And here shall your proud waves stop’" (Job 38:8-11)?

The explicit link between the waters, Leviathan, and creation is Ps 74:13-17:
"You divided the sea by Your strength; [n]You broke the heads of the sea monsters [o]in the waters. 14 [p]You crushed the heads of [q]Leviathan; [r]You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. 15 [t]You broke open springs and torrents; You dried up ever-flowing streams. 16 Yours is the day, Yours also is the night; [v]You have prepared the [w]light and the sun. 17 [x]You have established all the boundaries of the earth; [y]You have [z]made summer and winter."

So, Leviathan existed at the beginning of time. Job' reference in 7:12 allows us to infer that Job was aware of this. Hence, when GOd asks Job to consider the creature, we have no reason to believe it means that Job had firsthand experience.

If I were to tell you now to consider a dragon, and give you a description of a dragon, you would be able to understand without having ever seen a real one.