Leviathan

[Breetai]

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.

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?

 

[gluadys]

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?

It doesn't make an enormous difference. There is no reason within ancient culture not to describe a mythical beast alongside real animals.

Another possibility is that it is a description of a real animal, but described symbolically. A favorite candidate of those who subscribe to this theory is the crocodile. Most of the description in Job (except for breathing fire) sounds like a hyperbolic description of a crocodile. That doesn't account for the multiple heads in Psalms, though.

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.

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. So why not the leviathan?

 

[juvenissun]

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

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? Suppose the weapon is made of iron, not steel.

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?

 

[Vance]

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?

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.

 

[Jadis40]

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

..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).

 

[Mallon]

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?

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:

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?

No. Because, for the third time, the fact that we're talking about an aquatic animal rules out dinosaurs a priori.

 

[shernren]

I think of Behemoth and Leviathan as reifications of metaphysical entities for a fairly different reason. If you follow the logic of God's speeches in Job, God has already brought Job through a display of nature and a walk through the Little Pet Shop of Horrors. Well, not quite, but when God marvels at the ox and donkey for stubbornness, the ostrich for stupidity, and the war-horse and bird of prey for bloodlust, you have to wonder what His point is.

Job's already seen animals. Plenty of them. Is God's big punchline in Job 40 and 41 really ... just dinosaurs? Huge ones, mind you, but still brute mindless beasts nonetheless.

God: And now, I present ... the T-Rex!
Job: [yawns] I like koalas more. Koalas are cute. Can we go to Australia now? I wanna see the kangaroos, too.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You do not have to remind me that the Leviathan is a poetic creature. What I am doing here is to discuss the detail.

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?

 

[Mallon]

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?

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.

Again, why are you so persistent on insisting this thing might be a dinosaur, juvie? What have you invested in this idea?

 

[gluadys]

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?

I did not mention even one aquatic dinosaur. However, some people make the mistake of thinking all ancient reptiles were dinosaurs.

So I pointed out that the marine reptiles we have fossils of were NOT dinosaurs.

 

[Mallon]

NOT dinosaurs:

 

[juvenissun]

NOT dinosaurs:

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.

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?

 

[gluadys]

OK, not dinosaurs. But they are some kind of sauros, which is fine and can be applied.

The 'saur' ending comes from the Greek word for 'lizard'. "dinosaur" means "thunder lizard".

The same ending is also used in the scientific names of many other reptiles which are not dinosaurs.

 

[Mallon]

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 that we know of. None have been found with osteoderms, if that's what you're getting at.

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?

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???

 

[Breetai]

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.

First you insult my faith, then you claim unprovable things about the authors of the Bible. Care to take any of this back?

 

[Breetai]

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

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.

 

[Breetai]

Another possibility is that it is a description of a real animal, but described symbolically.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

So why not the leviathan?

I think you've presented the best case against the leviathan while remaining P.C.

 

[Mallon]

Breetai, Juvie: There's a whole history of mythological and metaphysical significance surrounding the ancients' understanding of Leviathan that I don't think you have an appreciation for. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan

Again, with this complicated history in mind, I think it is a bit of a stretch to insist, based on one passage from the Bible, that Leviathan must have been just another everyday creature. The more I read about it, the more I come to agree with shernren and Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Leviathan represents something greater than flesh and bone.

 

[Breetai]

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.

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.


*dinosaur may either mean a large, extinct reptile which lives primarily on land, or it may also in include reptiles and possibly amphibians that also live in the water, and it may even include birds, depending on who you talk to. Personally, I define dinosaur as a big lizard-like creature. Plesiosaurs count, because they appeared in my dinosaur picture book when I was a child. A bird is not a lizard. Therefore, a bird is not a dinosaur.

 

[Vance]

First you insult my faith, then you claim unprovable things about the authors of the Bible. Care to take any of this back?

No, I did not insult your faith in the least. I simply pointed out that I, too, have a high reading of Scripture (since you implied that I did not), and that it is possible that it could be even higher than yours since I know mine is as high as could possibly be for a human and I have no idea where yours is. So, it was an accurate description, and not insulting in the least. If yours is as high as mine, great!

As for geocentrism, of course they were all geocentrists, since EVERYONE was a geocentrist until Copernicus, and most were even after him until Galileo's new scientific discoveries began to be accepted by the Church and Christians changed the way we read certain Scripture.

Since the scientific discovery that the earth revolved around the sun (and not the other way around) was not made until the 1500's, it is clear that every writer of the Bible (the last of whom died probably in the early 100's), would have held a geocentric view of the universe. Do you have any evidence to contradict that reasonable assumption?