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.
This is really the point of the debate, isn't it; how highly do you view the Bible? Is it the inspired Word of God, or is it the words of men alone that inspired major religions? Did God merely have His hand in some of the Bible, and we're left to ponder which parts have the mark of the Divine?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.
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?
Job 41:26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.Maybe a better question would be what makes you think it is a dinosaur, juvie?
I hold Scripture as high, or higher, than you do, guaranteed. I think it is the wholly inspired and inerrant Word of God. I think that it contains God's message to humanity, and He allowed that message to be written by humans using their voice, their understanding, their styles, their limitations. Since human authors of Scripture all believed in a geocentric universe, many of the descriptions reflect this viewpoint, and God allowed that, and we don't think that Scripture is false for that reason.This is really the point of the debate, isn't it; how highly do you view the Bible? Is it the inspired Word of God, or is it the words of men alone that inspired major religions? Did God merely have His hand in some of the Bible, and we're left to ponder which parts have the mark of the Divine?
..that inhabited the deep was widespread throughout the ancient world. In the Old Testament there are several allusions to a primordial combat between God and a monstrous adversary variously named Leviathan or Rahab. Although the references to Leviathan usually indicate a dragon-like creature, the name has also been used to denote a sea monster in general (see dragon).
Sure. Ever seen the hide of a croc? It's lined with bony scutes called osteoderms that are very hard to penetrate:Job 41:26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
Would this description apply to crocodile?
No. Because, for the third time, the fact that we're talking about an aquatic animal rules out dinosaurs a priori.Crocodile is much smaller than a big dinosaur. So, if we proportionally increase the size and the thickness of the scales, then I think it would probably be a true description for some dinosaurs. Right?
You do not have to remind me that the Leviathan is a poetic creature. What I am doing here is to discuss the detail.Sure. Ever seen the hide of a croc? It's lined with bony scutes called osteoderms that are very hard to penetrate:
Regardless, that passage I cited from Psalms earlier lends credence to the idea that we're talking about a mythological creature, rather than a biological one. Breetai might think that the psalmist reference to the several heads of Leviathan is poetic in nature, but let's be honest: the language of Job is nothing less than flowery, too. To say nothing of the fact that vertebrates don't breathe fire (especially aquatic ones).
I imagine the Leviathan of the Bible to be something more like this:
No. Because, for the third time, the fact that we're talking about an aquatic animal rules out dinosaurs a priori.
Other than penguins and other marine birds, there are no dinosaurs that spent all their time in water. I suspect some ceratopsids spent their time wading in swamps, but these had only one head, and otherwise do not match the description of the Leviathan at all.From the description in Job, I don't see this creature must live in the high sea. And I only focus the detail on the description in Job. This thing may have activity in shallow water environment include shallow marine. This is possible for some dinosaurs. How many species of dinosaur are aquatic (amphibian) in nature (similar to the crocodile)? Is it true that that is only one like Glaudys said?
You How many species of dinosaur are aquatic (amphibian) in nature (similar to the crocodile)? Is it true that that is only one like Glaudys said?
OK, not dinosaurs. But they are some kind of sauros, which is fine and can be applied. Do they have hard armors too? I would guess so.NOT dinosaurs:
OK, not dinosaurs. But they are some kind of sauros, which is fine and can be applied.
Not that we know of. None have been found with osteoderms, if that's what you're getting at.OK, not dinosaurs. But they are some kind of sauros, which is fine and can be applied. Do they have hard armors too? I would guess so.
Sure. But again -- why in the world are you so keen on insisting the Leviathan is a dinosaur when there's nothing about the Bible's description of Leviathan that would have us believe that it is???Job describes this creature is able to leave tracks on mud. This indicates that they are not entirely aquatic. Could I assume dinosaurs were able to play in beach, lake, or swamp environments?
First you insult my faith, then you claim unprovable things about the authors of the Bible. Care to take any of this back?I hold Scripture as high, or higher, than you do, guaranteed. I think it is the wholly inspired and inerrant Word of God. I think that it contains God's message to humanity, and He allowed that message to be written by humans using their voice, their understanding, their styles, their limitations. Since human authors of Scripture all believed in a geocentric universe, many of the descriptions reflect this viewpoint, and God allowed that, and we don't think that Scripture is false for that reason.
In the context of Isaiah, I would agree with you. I'm not sure if you can apply this same logic to Job, though, as the leviathan is put along side well-known, real, creatures. This happens else where in the Bible as well, with things like serpents, snakes, lions, etc.Ultimately, the question should be, at the time Job was written, how would the Hebrews have understood the meaning Leviathan?
Take off the glasses of 21st century Christian interpretation for a moment. I think YECs are somewhat guilty of reading something into the text that is far from describing a literal creature.
There's a verse in Isaiah that also mentions leviathan:
Isaiah 27:1
In that day, the Lord will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent;he will slay the monster of the sea. (NIV)
Now, going back to what I mentioned about Jewish mythology - the Jews saw Leviathan or the sea as personifications of chaos. Ultimately, they believed that God would emerge triumphant over both the forces of chaos and of the adversary.
I quote the following from part of an article from here:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-337936/Leviathan
Where else does this happen in scripture, where a list of real things is being presented and there are some random mythological things thrown in with it?Another possibility is that it is a description of a real animal, but described symbolically.
From the perspective someone who studies literature or a student of taxonomy, this makes sense as it's happened before. From the perspective of someone who takes the Bible as the inspired Word of God, free from error (in general!), it would be hard to accept such an idea.Still another possibility is that it is not a real creature, but the author thought it was. For example, if a person thought a hypogriff was a real creature, there is no reason he would not include it in a catalogue of animals.
Were the authors of the Biblical books prone to promote such mythology? I suppose that question is a bit redundant, as it depends on how "inspired" you consider the writers of the Bible to be.And it certainly appears to be the case that ancient peoples believed in the real existence of creatures such as the phoenix and the unicorn.
I think you've presented the best case against the leviathan while remaining P.C.So why not the leviathan?
Shemren, we aren't debating on the point that was being made in Job. We're debating of one of the unknown creatures in job was actually real or not, and if it was a dinosaur* or not.No, I think God's got to be making a bigger point than just Survivor: Jurassic Park, especially considering all that Job has gone through in the nearly 40 chapters preceding this.
First you insult my faith, then you claim unprovable things about the authors of the Bible. Care to take any of this back?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?