Leviathan

[juvenissun]

Just a question, not challenging anything.

Why is the "Leviathan" not a dinosaur?

 

[Breetai]

Just a question, not challenging anything.

Why is the "Leviathan" not a dinosaur?

Many believe it is. Many believe it isn't. Perhaps those who believe that it isn't is because popular theory says that dinosaurs did not exist at that time. As well, dragons are mythological creatures. Therefore, it is not a dinosaur.

I realize that I've told you nothing you probably didn't already know.

Have a nice day!

 

[juvenissun]

Many believe it is. Many believe it isn't. Perhaps those who believe that it isn't is because popular theory says that dinosaurs did not exist at that time. As well, dragons are mythological creatures. Therefore, it is not a dinosaur.

I realize that I've told you nothing you probably didn't already know.

Have a nice day!

Does that mean other descriptions about the Leviathan fit how a dinosaur was or could be? May be the part of breathing flames is another common objection. But could I say that there are many more descriptions that fit than those that do not fit?

 

[gluadys]

Just a question, not challenging anything.

Why is the "Leviathan" not a dinosaur?

Leviathan is a sea-monster. Dinosaurs were terrestrial.

Note that marine reptiles like Ichthyosaur were not dinosaurs.

 

[Breetai]

Does that mean other descriptions about the Leviathan fit how a dinosaur was or could be? May be the part of breathing flames is another common objection. But could I say that there are many more descriptions that fit than those that do not fit?

The other descriptions usually given to not fit.

 

[Breetai]

Leviathan is a sea-monster. Dinosaurs were terrestrial.

Note that marine reptiles like Ichthyosaur were not dinosaurs.

They are if you use children's dinosaur books like me.

 

[Mallon]

Maybe a better question would be what makes you think it is a dinosaur, juvie?

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe a better question would be what makes you think it is a dinosaur, juvie?

Do dinosaurs have tight scales as their armor plate?

 

[Mallon]

Do dinosaurs have tight scales as their armor plate?

Many reptiles do, including dinosaurs. But as gluadys pointed out, the Leviathan is described as being an aquatic animal, and dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial.
All this to say nothing of the fact that Psalm 74:13-14 describes the Leviathan as having multiple heads, like a hydra. If this isn't evidence of the mythological nature of this creature, I don't know what is.

 

[Breetai]

Many reptiles do, including dinosaurs. But as gluadys pointed out, the Leviathan is described as being an aquatic animal, and dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial.
All this to say nothing of the fact that Psalm 74:13-14 describes the Leviathan as having multiple heads, like a hydra. If this isn't evidence of the mythological nature of this creature, I don't know what is.

Does the context of Job read as a myth, or as a factual dialogue? The Psalms are poems, but is Job? How was this part of Job written?

 

[Vance]

Calvin did not think that Job was literal history, for what that is worth.

 

[juvenissun]

Quote: Originally Posted by juvenissun

Do dinosaurs have tight scales as their armor plate?

Many reptiles do, including dinosaurs.

In Job 41:30: Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

Do you know any species of dinosaur have the shape of its belly that fits this description? I don't think crocodile has a "sharp" belly. May be the tail could count. The under side of a tail could be sharp and hard, right?

 

[Vance]

Juvi, when you finally gather all the evidence and conclude that God must have made the universe billions of years ago and that dinosaurs did, indeed, live tens of millions of years ago (and not in any time overlapping humans), you will regret having spent so much time on these wild goose chases.

 

[gluadys]

Does the context of Job read as a myth, or as a factual dialogue? The Psalms are poems, but is Job? How was this part of Job written?

All of Job is poetry except for the prologue (before Job's first speech) and the epilogue (last chapter).

Of course, literary genre does not give information about whether a passage is literal or figurative. Figures are more common in poetry, but poetry is not exclusively symbolical. No more than prose is exclusively literal.

 

[Breetai]

All of Job is poetry except for the prologue (before Job's first speech) and the epilogue (last chapter).

Of course, literary genre does not give information about whether a passage is literal or figurative. Figures are more common in poetry, but poetry is not exclusively symbolical. No more than prose is exclusively literal.

I bolded that part which I found relevant. Is the section in question intended to be a literal passage, or purely symbolical? How does it read?

Perhaps there were some currently unknown beasts alive at the time Job was written. How would we know? The fact is we don't know. It's also true that if these beasts described were real, or even if a "living dinosaur" were found today, it wouldn't change anyone's argument. Some would still say that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago as well, and some would say that it lends support to a young earth. Nothing would change.

I think they only thing that we can conclude is that, if the unknown animals mentioned in Job were real, no one today knows what they are.

 

[Vance]

I bolded that part which I found relevant. Is the section in question intended to be a literal passage, or purely symbolical? How does it read?

Perhaps there were some currently unknown beasts alive at the time Job was written. How would we know? The fact is we don't know. It's also true that if these beasts described were real, or even if a "living dinosaur" were found today, it wouldn't change anyone's argument. Some would still say that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago as well, and some would say that it lends support to a young earth. Nothing would change.

I think they only thing that we can conclude is that, if the unknown animals mentioned in Job were real, no one today knows what they are.

Yes, that is true, but the weight of the evidence indicates that it could not have been a dinosaur for a few reasons. First, the literary genre does not seem to be pointing to literalness. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever of dinosaurs for the last many, many millions of years. Third, the description does not really fit a dinosaur at all.

On the "literalness" issue, keep in mind that a figurative or poetic rendition of a literal creature would be just that: figurative and poetic. It would not be a literal description. Just as we have in Revelation in the description of the "dragon". This might very well be referring to a very literal thing (person, nation, satan, etc), but we do not think that the actual physical description is literal.

 

[Breetai]

Yes, that is true, but the weight of the evidence indicates that it could not have been a dinosaur for a few reasons. First, the literary genre does not seem to be pointing to literalness.

How'd you come to this conclusion? Is that the general consensus, or just the opinion of one school of thought?

Second, we have no evidence whatsoever of dinosaurs for the last many, many millions of years.

Again, can you validate this claim? Others claim that there is evidence; cave paintings, stories, footprints appearing contemporarily with humans, and the like. You can choose to reject or interpret that evidence differently if you like, but I'm not sure if it's correct to say that "we have no evidence whatsoever."

Third, the description does not really fit a dinosaur at all.

In some ways it does. Of course, that "fire breathing bit" does make one wonder. If we're taking the Psalms literally, then it's also got multiple heads.

On the "literalness" issue, keep in mind that a figurative or poetic rendition of a literal creature would be just that: figurative and poetic. It would not be a literal description.

The issue in Job is that it's listed alongside real creatures. For this reason, it seems to make sense that the leviathan and behemoth would also be, or at leave have been, literal creatures. Were the other creatures elaborated upon? Why would the description of the leviathan be any different?

Just as we have in Revelation in the description of the "dragon". This might very well be referring to a very literal thing (person, nation, satan, etc), but we do not think that the actual physical description is literal.

I don't think that's a fair comparison, because the creatures in Revelation were buried in figurative speech. The mention of Leviathan in Job is surrounded by real creatures.

 

[Vance]

How'd you come to this conclusion? Is that the general consensus, or just the opinion of one school of thought?

Again, can you validate this claim? Others claim that there is evidence; cave paintings, stories, footprints appearing contemporarily with humans, and the like. You can choose to reject or interpret that evidence differently if you like, but I'm not sure if it's correct to say that "we have no evidence whatsoever."

In some ways it does. Of course, that "fire breathing bit" does make one wonder. If we're taking the Psalms literally, then it's also got multiple heads.
The issue in Job is that it's listed alongside real creatures. For this reason, it seems to make sense that the leviathan and behemoth would also be, or at leave have been, literal creatures. Were the other creatures elaborated upon? Why would the description of the leviathan be any different?

I don't think that's a fair comparison, because the creatures in Revelation were buried in figurative speech. The mention of Leviathan in Job is surrounded by real creatures.

Oh, gosh, I don't know if there is a consensus regarding whether Job should be read figuratively, I was just giving my opinion on that. But I do think that this portion is considered figurative by the majority of Christian commentators. You would have to do a bit of a survey yourself, I suppose. As I mentioned above, even someone as literal as Calvin considered Job to be figurative.

As for the evidence of dinosaurs within recent times (last few million years), all the propose evidence has been shown to be either mistakes or frauds (as with the paintings, I believe). A serious review of the evidence shows that the vast weight of the evidence is against any recent dinosaurs.

As for the other, actual creatures, if a person was writing a figurative account, using symbology or typology, there is nothing that would say he could not use a real creature as one symbol and a fictional one as another. Especially when the human author actually believes that such a fictional creature might be real. Think about how, even recently, people believed in some pretty bizarre creatures based on descriptions being passed down through dozens of mouths, completely distorting what a real creature looked like.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Again, can you validate this claim? Others claim that there is evidence; cave paintings, stories, footprints appearing contemporarily with humans, and the like.

Even AiG recommends that the Paluxy Tracks is an invalid argument (I live in Texas and have actually seen the tracks).

Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

 

[Breetai]

Even AiG recommends that the Paluxy Tracks is an invalid argument (I live in Texas and have actually seen the tracks).


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

The point is that there is evidence that some see as being in support of dinosaurs living quite recently.