Leviathan

juvenissun · Feb 28, 2008

Mallon said:
The thing is that what you are proposing is entirely untestable. Sure, maybe dinosaurs spat flames. Heck, maybe they shot lasers from their eyes or farted rainbows. But as I told our sister LutherChick, if you're going to build your entire case on an unprovable, untestable hypothetical with no modern analogue, then there's little reason to continue our discussion.

No, you are not. Because what you are proposing is untestable, and hence, unscientific. You're dreaming and nothing else.

Don't be so fast. Think as a scientist.

What I suggested is just an idea, not a model yet. From this idea, a testable model might be able to build.

For example (just a brainstorming for a model), what would be the metabolism of a dinosaur like if it produced, e.g. CH4 in its food and blood circulation systems? What kind of food should it take, and what kind of air it should breath (don't forget the 10% higher amount of oxygen in the air at that time. I am sure other minor gases in the air were also different) so this metabolism would become a more favorable possibility? How about temperature, moisture of the environment? Would the environment be more sulfur rich due to the very high activity of volcanoes? Could all these factors be put together so the dinosaur can produce flammable gas in its breathing system? Could we simulate this system in the lab? .... Do you want me to go on? It would easily be pages long.

In stead of giving up and saying it is untestable, why don't we trace the result (Biblical truth) backward and construct a workable model for it? May be we could make an important contribution to illustrate a special environment in the Mesozoic time.

Nobody ever try to construct this model because every one is laughing at the fire breathing statement in the Scripture. To me, as one who believe in the literal true of the Bible, this laughable statement is nothing but a very precious scientific treasure. Mallon, should we cooperate on this for a small NSF grant? We do not have to mention anything said in the Book of Job.

-------

Besides, the existence of fire breathing, dragon-like creature is not limited to Biblical culture. Many other cultures also have similar legendary creatures. They are all dragon-like. I have never heard any story about fire breathing lion or tiger. Have you ever asked yourself why is that?

Bombila · Feb 28, 2008

Juvenissun, just FYI, the Chimaera, a lion-goat-snake creature, was purported to breathe fire.

http://www3.unifi.it/surfchem/solid/bardi/chimera/origins.html

Mallon · Feb 28, 2008

juvenissun said:
Don't be so fast. Think as a scientist.

What I suggested is just an idea, not a model yet. From this idea, a testable model might be able to build.

For example (just a brainstorming for a model), what would be the metabolism of a dinosaur like if it produced, e.g. CH4 in its food and blood circulation systems? What kind of food should it take, and what kind of air it should breath (don't forget the 10% higher amount of oxygen in the air at that time. I am sure other minor gases in the air were also different) so this metabolism would become a more favorable possibility? How about temperature, moisture of the environment? Would the environment be more sulfur rich due to the very high activity of volcanoes? Could all these factors be put together so the dinosaur can produce flammable gas in its breathing system? Could we simulate this system in the lab? .... Do you want me to go on? It would easily be pages long.

Juvie, what you are proposing is nothing more than science fiction with a twist of blue angel college humour. Are you really suggesting dinosaurs could light their burps and farts? What would they use to ignite their gas with? And what do you mean there was 10% more oxygen in the air at that time? What time are you referring to? I certainly hope you aren't referring to the "Age of Dinosaurs" given the YEC framework you're working in. Because if you're assuming that dinosaurs and humans lived together, then I suspect the same environmental conditions you're proposing would have allowed humans to breathe fire as well. And do you know how dangerous it is to light one's farts? How would the dinosaurs have protected against lighting themselves on fire? Please don't dig your hole any deeper and claim that maybe their intestines were lined with fire retardant.

In stead of giving up and saying it is untestable, why don't we trace the result (Biblical truth) backward and construct a workable model for it?

Careful. You're now equating your fallible interpretation of the Bible with "Biblical truth". I think it is far from true that Job was talking about a living, breathing dinosaur.

To me, as one who believe in the literal true of the Bible, this laughable statement is nothing but a very precious scientific treasure. Mallon, should we cooperate on this for a small NSF grant? We do not have to mention anything said in the Book of Job.

Sure. Write it up and pass me a draft.

Besides, the existence of fire breathing, dragon-like creature is not limited to Biblical culture. Many other cultures also have similar legendary creatures. They are all dragon-like.

Many cultures also have stories of fairies, unicorns, and chimaeras. Does that make them any more believable?

I have never heard any story about fire breathing lion or tiger. Have you ever asked yourself why is that?

Probably because people have seen lions and tigers and know they don't spew fire. Call me crazy.

juvenissun · Feb 28, 2008

Mallon said:
Juvie, what you are proposing is nothing more than science fiction with a twist of blue angel college humour. Are you really suggesting dinosaurs could light their burps and farts? What would they use to ignite their gas with? And what do you mean there was 10% more oxygen in the air at that time? What time are you referring to? I certainly hope you aren't referring to the "Age of Dinosaurs" given the YEC framework you're working in. Because if you're assuming that dinosaurs and humans lived together, then I suspect the same environmental conditions you're proposing would have allowed humans to breathe fire as well. And do you know how dangerous it is to light one's farts? How would the dinosaurs have protected against lighting themselves on fire? Please don't dig your hole any deeper and claim that maybe their intestines were lined with fire retardant.

Careful. You're now equating your fallible interpretation of the Bible with "Biblical truth". I think it is far from true that Job was talking about a living, breathing dinosaur.

Sure. Write it up and pass me a draft.

Many cultures also have stories of fairies, unicorns, and chimaeras. Does that make them any more believable?

Probably because people have seen lions and tigers and know they don't spew fire. Call me crazy.

Very disappointing. Such a scientist. Sigh!

Vance · Feb 28, 2008

The point that is being made is that there is no reason, whatsoever, to go around trying to squeeze literal creatures into such texts. The text is either describing a non-literal creature, or describing a literal creature with figurative elements, but without the intent to describe anything "scientifically", but to convey a particular theological point.

Only damage to Christianity can be done with this line of "proving up the Bible" since it does something very dangerous. It causes people to associate the Bible's "truthfulness" with its literalness and the accuracy of that literalness. If you say "look, we can trust the Bible because it contains literal accounts of scientific matters, and it gets them right!", then what you have done is say this also: "the Bible IS attempting to convey literally accurate scientific propositions throughout, so if you conclude that any of the propositions are not accurate, you will have to disbelieve the Bible".

THAT is a very dangerous and irresponsible way of handling the Bible texts.

Mallon · Feb 28, 2008

juvenissun said:
Very disappointing. Such a scientist. Sigh!

Like I said, juvie, if you want to see whether your idea has any scientific merit whatsoever, let's write up a proposal for an NSF grant proferring to test the idea that dinosaurs spewed fire. Less talk; more action. The proposal guidelines are here:

http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp

PM me and I'll give you my email address where you can send a draft to.

shernren · Feb 28, 2008

juvenissun said:
For example (just a brainstorming for a model), what would be the metabolism of a dinosaur like if it produced, e.g. CH4 in its food and blood circulation systems? What kind of food should it take, and what kind of air it should breath (don't forget the 10% higher amount of oxygen in the air at that time. I am sure other minor gases in the air were also different) so this metabolism would become a more favorable possibility? How about temperature, moisture of the environment? Would the environment be more sulfur rich due to the very high activity of volcanoes? Could all these factors be put together so the dinosaur can produce flammable gas in its breathing system? Could we simulate this system in the lab? .... Do you want me to go on? It would easily be pages long.

Juvie, do you have any formal training whatsoever in anything remotely related to biochemistry, or even to chemical thermodynamics? Dinosaurs were large aerobic respirators. They obtained their energy by oxidizing organic material, i.e. turning carbon and hydrogen into carbon dioxide and water and harnessing the energy thus released. Only anaerobic processes will produce reduced chemicals like methane or hydrogen gas. And seriously. You're expecting dinosaurs to perform this kind of crude anaerobic process ... in a 35% oxygen atmosphere?

Seriously?

juvenissun · Feb 28, 2008

shernren said:
Juvie, do you have any formal training whatsoever in anything remotely related to biochemistry, or even to chemical thermodynamics? Dinosaurs were large aerobic respirators. They obtained their energy by oxidizing organic material, i.e. turning carbon and hydrogen into carbon dioxide and water and harnessing the energy thus released. Only anaerobic processes will produce reduced chemicals like methane or hydrogen gas. And seriously. You're expecting dinosaurs to perform this kind of crude anaerobic process ... in a 35% oxygen atmosphere?

Seriously?

I know what you said. But I wonder if some special thing, like a special gland, could be developed in some species of dinosaur. The problem is to figure out a special physiological process which could produce the flammable gas or liquid. I don't know biology. But I suspect such a biological process does exist in some modern life. I think this is a very reasonable speculation. And it should not be a problem to a biologist.

-------

What else said in the Book of Job which rules out the possibility that the Leviathan is a dinosaur? or a water (dino)saur?

LutheranChick · Feb 29, 2008

juvenissun said:
What else said in the Book of Job which rules out the possibility that the Leviathan is a dinosaur? or a water (dino)saur?

Really, nothing rules out the possibility. The bottom line is, the Bible doesn't tell us exactly what type of creature it was- just as we don't know exactly what type of creature it was describing when the behemoth was mentioned. What we know for sure is that God is describing REAL creatures, because He was showing Job how mighty God is. He is telling Job- look at the mighty creatures I have created. It makes no sense that God would be talking about some imaginary creature in this context.

gluadys · Feb 29, 2008

LutheranChick said:
What we know for sure is that God is describing REAL creatures, because He was showing Job how mighty God is. He is telling Job- look at the mighty creatures I have created. It makes no sense that God would be talking about some imaginary creature in this context.

How do we know that for sure?

Let's remember that we don't even know for sure that Job existed.

He could be nothing more than a character in a story. And when one is telling a story, even God is a character in the story. So God says whatever the author puts in his mouth. If the author has God talking to a possibly fictional character like Job, why not have him describing a mythological creature as well?

LutheranChick · Feb 29, 2008

gluadys said:
How do we know that for sure?

Let's remember that we don't even know for sure that Job existed.

He could be nothing more than a character in a story. And when one is telling a story, even God is a character in the story. So God says whatever the author puts in his mouth. If the author has God talking to a possibly fictional character like Job, why not have him describing a mythological creature as well?

That is your opinion. I don't believe that the Bible is a mere story book. Start down that line of thinking and you can deny everything in the Bible- there was no Jesus, no resurrection - and if there was no resurrection there is no salvation- so why even bother with religion.

Mallon · Feb 29, 2008

LutheranChick said:
That is your opinion. I don't believe that the Bible is a mere story book. Start down that line of thinking and you can deny everything in the Bible- there was no Jesus, no resurrection - and if there was no resurrection there is no salvation- so why even bother with religion.

... says the one who interprets Job's description of fire-breathing in the Leviathan as a metaphor for watery mist blown from the nostrils.

LutheranChick · Feb 29, 2008

Mallon said:
Quote:
It's quite the stretch to claim that "most people who have studied the Bible extensively... reject strict Mosaic authorship." Within Lutheranism (since this thread seems to only involve Lutherans!!!), the only major branch that supports the JEDP idea in substantial numbers is the ELCA and its affiliates.

... which is by far the largest Lutheran denomination in the world and accounts for the majority of Lutherans, I would think.

Matthew 7:13
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

Just because confessional Lutherans are outnumbered, does not make them wrong. God didn't say 'majority wins'.

Vance · Feb 29, 2008

LutheranChick said:
That is your opinion. I don't believe that the Bible is a mere story book. Start down that line of thinking and you can deny everything in the Bible- there was no Jesus, no resurrection - and if there was no resurrection there is no salvation- so why even bother with religion.

Well, that is what I call the "phantom menace", since a lot of people say that, but it is not what actually happens. I have never once seen a person who concluded Job was a fictional story who then, somehow, ended up concluding that Acts was a fictional story. I mean, Calvin thought that Job was fictional, as did C.S. Lewis, and I don't think either one of them slipped down that slope that you seem to think it inevitable.

Remember, the Bible is not a single book. It is an anthology of texts written by dozens of authors over possibly 1500 years, using different styles and genres, coming from very different cultures and backgrounds. We have it all gathered into one "bonded leather" book, all translated into the same type of English, so it sounds very uniform. But think about a series of texts written from the time of the Dark Ages in Europe until modern times. You got something from the ancient Celts, something from the middle ages, a bit from Shakespeare's time, a piece from the Enlightenment and some modern stuff. Would you say that if you read something from those Celts, you would read it the same way you read something from our modern scientist or historian contributor?

No, you take each text on its own, realizing that it is all God's Word, even, as I believe, an inerrant presentation of what God wants to tell us. Thinking that Revelation is a figurative account of future events, or Genesis is a figurative account of past events does not mean that you have to read Mark as a figurative account of events about Jesus.

Mallon · Feb 29, 2008

LutheranChick said:
Matthew 7:13
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

Just because confessional Lutherans are outnumbered, does not make them wrong. God didn't say 'majority wins'.

I never made that claim. I was simply supporting my point that many, if not most, studied Lutherans don't necessarily subscribe to strict Mosaic authorship of the Torah.

LutheranChick · Feb 29, 2008

Mallon said:
... says the one who interprets Job's description of fire-breathing in the Leviathan as a metaphor for watery mist blown from the nostrils.

You still seem to think that one cannot say there are metaphors in the Bible without having to say the Bible consists entirely of metaphors. By the way, what I said was it COULD BE, not that it was. The bottom line is we don't know for sure WHAT the creature was.

Mallon · Feb 29, 2008

LutheranChick said:
You still seem to think that one cannot say there are metaphors in the Bible without having to say the Bible consists entirely of metaphors.

Please let me remind you of what you just said literally three posts ago:

LutheranChick said:
I don't believe that the Bible is a mere story book. Start down that line of thinking and you can deny everything in the Bible- there was no Jesus, no resurrection - and if there was no resurrection there is no salvation- so why even bother with religion.

You feel that by not interpreting the entire book of Job as history, we risk sliding down a slippery slope to rejecting the Bible as fantasy and, ultimately, to atheism. The only way around this is to interpret Job (and the rest of the Bible) as literally and historically as we can.
And yet you have no problem with interpreting the alleged fire-breathing in Leviathan as the illusion of smoke produced by mist from the nostrils. Do you not also think that by reading even this one passage metaphorically ("not taking God at His word", as some YECs put it), that you risk trodding down the same slope you accuse evolutionary creationists of? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your approach?

Vance · Feb 29, 2008

I think the point is that, no matter what else we know, the description does not match up very well with any existing creature, or any creature that we have a record of from that time. You would have to begin adjusting either the description (taking things in the text figuratively) or adjusting known creatures in order to morph it into something that would fit the description. Basically, you have to make up a new creature we have no evidence for.

So, which is more likely? That the text should be read figuratively, or that it is referring to a creature that we have no evidence of? I think it is dramatically more likely that the text needs to be read figuratively than that there was some creature out there we have no evidence for, some creature we would have to make up entirely.

LutheranChick · Feb 29, 2008

Vance said:
Well, that is what I call the "phantom menace", since a lot of people say that, but it is not what actually happens. I have never once seen a person who concluded Job was a fictional story who then, somehow, ended up concluding that Acts was a fictional story.
No, you take each text on its own, realizing that it is all God's Word, even, as I believe, an inerrant presentation of what God wants to tell us. Thinking that Revelation is a figurative account of future events, or Genesis is a figurative account of past events does not mean that you have to read Mark as a figurative account of events about Jesus.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is exactly what the liberal seminarys are doing. They deny the miracles of the bible, calling it a book of myths- including denying the virgin birth and the resurrection. I know this for a fact because our Pastor went to a liberal seminary many years ago. He admits that back then he wasn't even a Christian, because of what he had been taught to believe. Thank God his eyes were opened.

Vance · Feb 29, 2008

LutheranChick said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is exactly what the liberal seminarys are doing. They deny the miracles of the bible, calling it a book of myths- including denying the virgin birth and the resurrection. I know this for a fact because our Pastor went to a liberal seminary many years ago. He admits that back then he wasn't even a Christian, because of what he had been taught to believe. Thank God his eyes were opened.

Well, of course there are those who hold those beliefs. What I am saying is that it is not as if someone slides down to that belief starting with a figurative reading of Job. They START there to begin with, because they have a liberal theology.

I am talking about Biblical inerrantists, like me and others who have a very high view of Scripture. This is not impacted IN THE LEAST by recognizing that many of the texts that make up the Bible were not meant to be read as strict literal historical narrative. There is no good hermeneutical reason to start with "literal" and work from there. You should start from "let's see what literary genre this was written in", knowing that there are many choices, all within a conservative, even inerrant, perspective.

Liberal interpreters can do what they want, and they will. I am talking about how conservative, high-Scripture readers should approach the text and how taking a reasonable, historical/literal analysis of the texts is going to lead to much LESS "crisis of faith" issues.

Leviathan

... and God saw that it was good.

Veteran

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency