Leviathan

[LutheranChick]

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?

I really don't know what part of COULD BE you don't get. I have said many times WE DON'T KNOW what this creature is. Maybe this excerpt from the WELS website will explain things better: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl...qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=811&cuItem_itemID=6308It is helpful to keep the context of the end of Job in our answer. In chapter 38 -39 God reminds Job of a simple truth. God is wise. What can we humans know in comparison? Who are we to think we can question God or contend with his plans? In chapter 40 God speaks again. This second discourse shifts the emphasis from God's wisdom to God's power. God says "I am powerful; you can do nothing. Who are you to contend with me?"

Throughout chapters 40 & 41 God gives example after example of his power as displayed in his creative acts. God made powerful forces of storms. God made mighty creatures on land and sea. The behemoth and the leviathan are huge creatures. Some even suggest that the descriptions by the Old Testament writer could match descriptions of huge dinosaurs. Regardless, we have God speaking about massive creatures. No puny human could tame them, but God made them. What an awesome God we have!

In all of this, God reminds us that he need not defend himself against man's accusations. God is all powerful and all wise. God is in control of all things. The only proper attitude for a human being is one of humility and thanks. We are humble as we consider the infinite God and his power and control of all the universe. We are humble to confess that we don't always understand his ways. (See Is. 55:8-9) We are thankful as we remember God's saving mercy and his love to save sinners through his Son Jesus. When we cannot always understand the trials and tribulations of life, we content ourselves with the clear promises of a powerful God. "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Ro. 8:28

 

[Mallon]

I really don't know what part of COULD BE you don't get.

I get it. I get it. I get it. The point is the fact that you even allow for the possibility of such metaphor places you on the same slippery slope you warn others of.

 

[Vance]

I get it. I get it. I get it. The point is the fact that you even allow for the possibility of such metaphor places you on the same slippery slope you warn others of.

Right, and I would add that the slope does not have to be that slippery with a good pair of hermeneutical boots.

 

[juvenissun]

I have said many times WE DON'T KNOW what this creature is.

I started this thread with a question.
I want to make a claim at end of my discussion:

The Leviathan described in the Book of Job is most likely a dinosaur (in general definition, includes those swam). Because most of the descriptions fit, and there is nothing we know, which could say in certainty that it is not.

 

[Vance]

I started this thread with a question.
I want to make a claim at end of my discussion:

The Leviathan described in the Book of Job is most likely a dinosaur (in general definition, includes those swam). Because most of the descriptions fit, and there is nothing we know, which could say in certainty that it is not.

Other than the fact that we have dramatically strong evidence that the dinosaurs died tens of millions of years before that was written, and we have absolutely no convincing evidence that any dinosaurs (or the watery kind, if you like) lived on to nearly the present (since the writing of Job is nearly the present in these relative time frames). And, since IF such creatures lived on into the near present, we would almost assuredly have some additional record of its existence, this is one of those cases where the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. We are not talking about the likelihood of a particular fossil of a particular species from 60 million years ago being preserved, but the idea that an entire species could continue to live for tens of millions of years without leaving any evidence whatsoever. It is possible (we are finding new species all the time), but the odds are very, very low.

So, to say that "we can not know with certainty, and it sounds kind of like it, so we should believe it" is an extremely unsupportable position to take. It think it is infinitely more likely to say that it was just some one-off creature God created and then it died off. While I think that this likelihood of that being the case is almost nil, it is still higher than the idea that it was dinosaur.

The much more sensible and reasonable interpretations is that either

1. the text is referring to a literal creature, but it is just described badly (which is perfectly consistent with inerrancy).

or

2. the text is referring to a creature that humans believed to have existed, and God allowed it to be described along with the rest since it's being literally accurate had nothing at all to do with the point being made.

 

[juvenissun]

Other than the fact that we have dramatically strong evidence that the dinosaurs died tens of millions of years before that was written, and we have absolutely no convincing evidence that any dinosaurs (or the watery kind, if you like) lived on to nearly the present (since the writing of Job is nearly the present in these relative time frames). And, since IF such creatures lived on into the near present, we would almost assuredly have some additional record of its existence, this is one of those cases where the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. We are not talking about the likelihood of a particular fossil of a particular species from 60 million years ago being preserved, but the idea that an entire species could continue to live for tens of millions of years without leaving any evidence whatsoever. It is possible (we are finding new species all the time), but the odds are very, very low.

Why should dinosaur and Job live at the same time? What is wrong it they did not?

 

[Vance]

Why should dinosaur and Job live at the same time? What is wrong it they did not?

Why would you insist that it was referring to a literal dinosaur that neither the author or the reader would have ever known about? Explain how the whole passage should be interpreted in a way that the dinosaurs had not lived for millions of years by the time Job was written, but we should still read it as referring to a literal dinosaur?

 

[juvenissun]

Why would you insist that it was referring to a literal dinosaur that neither the author or the reader would have ever known about? Explain how the whole passage should be interpreted in a way that the dinosaurs had not lived for millions of years by the time Job was written, but we should still read it as referring to a literal dinosaur?

God is telling Job about Mesozoic dinosaurs.

Why not? God is telling us about dinosaurs even today. Were they the most beautiful creatures every existed on the earth?

 

[Vance]

God is telling Job about Mesozoic dinosaurs.

Why not? God is telling us about dinosaurs even today. Were they the most beautiful creatures every existed on the earth?

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, sure, God could be telling Job about a long-extinct animal, but would you really think that is the most likely thing to be going on?

 

[Mallon]

For those who believe Leviathan spat fire, here's a question: Why did it breathe fire? What purpose would it have served?

 

[juvenissun]

For those who believe Leviathan spat fire, here's a question: Why did it breathe fire? What purpose would it have served?

It probably won't take a scientist to answer this one: Would it be an effective weapon?

Or dino likes to eat smoked food? Or to put off forest or prairie fire by anti-fire?

I think all creatures should evolve toward having this ability.

 

[gluadys]

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-

Do you automatically equate identifying a story in the bible with denying the truth of the story?

Why?

 

[gluadys]

And, since IF such creatures lived on into the near present, we would almost assuredly have some additional record of its existence, this is one of those cases where the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. We are not talking about the likelihood of a particular fossil of a particular species from 60 million years ago being preserved, but the idea that an entire species could continue to live for tens of millions of years without leaving any evidence whatsoever. It is possible (we are finding new species all the time), but the odds are very, very low.

Especially as the vast majority of new species found are small: the sort that are easily overlooked like new species of ants, worms, snails, etc. The largest recent find I heard of was a frog.

I very much doubt that anything as large as a dinosaur would go unnoticed.

Unless it was really, really remote, like the Yeti.

 

[Mallon]

It probably won't take a scientist to answer this one: Would it be an effective weapon?

Or dino likes to eat smoked food? Or to put off forest or prairie fire by anti-fire?

I think all creatures should evolve toward having this ability.

Cool. So obviously, you think it evolved after the Fall.

Enter my follow up question: Did the evolution of fire-breathing in Leviathan involve the generation of "new information"?

 

[juvenissun]

Cool. So obviously, you think it evolved after the Fall.

I don't know what are you talking about.
But, I tend not to think so.

Enter my follow up question: Did the evolution of fire-breathing in Leviathan involve the generation of "new information"?

If it were evolution, then probably yes.
If not, then probably not.

-----

How do you like my answers? I don't know much. But to bad questions, I can usually give a very good answer.

 

[Mallon]

I don't know what are you talking about.
But, I tend not to think so.

You must think so because your framework requires you to think so. If fire-breathing was used as a means of killing or cooking food, as you said above, then it must have come about as a result of the Fall after death came into play. And if this adaptation evolved after the Fall, as your framework necessarily implies, then it must have involved a total reorganization of the Leviathan's physiology, including the ability to not only harness internal gases and ignite them, but to prevent the animal from igniting itself. Without a doubt, as special creationists define the term, this would have involved the generation of "new information". So your acknowledgment of the Leviathan as a real, mundane animal forces you to accept the same evolutionary scenarios you rail against every day. That's quite the catch-22.

 

[juvenissun]

You must think so because your framework requires you to think so. If fire-breathing was used as a means of killing or cooking food, as you said above, then it must have come about as a result of the Fall after death came into play. And if this adaptation evolved after the Fall, as your framework necessarily implies, then it must have involved a total reorganization of the Leviathan's physiology, including the ability to not only harness internal gases and ignite them, but to prevent the animal from igniting itself. Without a doubt, as special creationists define the term, this would have involved the generation of "new information". So your acknowledgment of the Leviathan as a real, mundane animal forces you to accept the same evolutionary scenarios you rail against every day. That's quite the catch-22.

It is quite amazing to see how many logic flaws can be found in this short paragraph. It is even worse than an essay written by a student in my introduction class.

Just go from the first one: Why would it have to be at time after the Fall? You seems understand me so much that you think I believe there were no death before the Fall. This is the first error.

Jump to the last one: Do many Creationists also think the Leviathan is most likely a (dino)saur? Why should I be forced to accept evolution if I agreed with them?

 

[Mallon]

It is quite amazing to see how many logic flaws can be found in this short paragraph. It is even worse than an essay written by a student in my introduction class.

You'll have to forgive me, juvie, but for some reason I'm still having a hard time believing you're actually a professor.

Just go from the first one: Why would it have to be at time after the Fall? You seems understand me so much that you think I believe there were no death before the Fall. This is the first error.

So do you think there was death and carnivory before the Fall?

Jump to the last one: Do many Creationists also think the Leviathan is most likely a (dino)saur? Why should I be forced to accept evolution if I agreed with them?

You would have to if you thought there were no such thing as death before the Fall. But now apparently you don't. So what do you believe about the Fall, juvie?

 

[Vance]

Creationists who believe Leviathan was a dinosaur are also those who believe all the dinosaurs we know about existed at the same time as humans. They were all created at the same time, and all lived on this world within the last 6,000 years.

So, are you believing that leviathan is most likely a dinosaur because you see no reason NOT to agree with those folks?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

quote..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.
good point, I've never read this before. If the Leviathan is mythical, what about the Behemoth? I have seen on those facinating 'oopart' websites, evidence for dinosaur survival. I don't think these ooparts should be dismissed off hand. There is a relief carving in Cambodia Ankor Wat, Ta Prom temple of a stegasaur. (I've actually been to Ta Prom by the way, but didn't know about the stegasaur, I saw it on a website). The only explanation for this is ..
1.It is a recent forgery
2.There were surviving stegasaurs in the forrest of Cambodia in the year approx 1400AD.