• 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.

Who is Rahab?

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If the names refer to the same being, is there any reason they should not? Jesus is referred to by other names (such as Son of Man), God the Father has many many names, and how many ways is Satan referred to?

It might be for something as innocent as fitting a meter or rhyming. But I don't know the mind of the author of Job when he wrote it, nor God when He inspired it to be written.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Creationists often point to Leviathan and Behemoth as descriptions of dinosaurs in the Hebrew Bible.

Many scholars believe they are references to mythical beings, drawing on imagery from the worldview of the Ancient Near East to bring up a point of Yahweh's power over the things the ancient world feared most.

The Leviathan is mentioned several other places in Job. It clearly describes a fire breathing dragon:

12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has[c] rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze, (Job 41:12-21)​

Compare to the Genesis 3 account of the Serpent and this one from the Revelation:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev 12:9 )​

Creationists do not agree. They are literal creatures being discussed. The Bible would not use ANE imagery and mythology because it is not true - therefore to use it would make the Bible untrue.

The Bible does use figurative language to describe various things, that much is true. I don't think Job had a dinosaur in mind when he spoke of the 'leviathan'.

Fair enough. Truth can be a difficult thing to determine where lines should be drawn in literature - we all need lines and boundaries, otherwise anything the Bible says becomes entirely subjective and can potentially lose connection with the real world and real history.

What really stands out in my statement is how you are using 'anything'. By that do you mean the incarnation or would that be taking it to far?

But is this a fair place to draw the line? If the Bible is not allowed to draw on ANE imagery to depict Yahweh to the people, then who is Rahab?

1. The word Rahab occurs twice in the book of Job, it's a reference to Egypt:

If he snatches away, who can stop him?
Who can say to him, "What are you doing?"
God does not restrain his anger;
even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet. (Job 9:12-13)

By his power he churned up the sea;
by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.
By his breath the skies became fair;
his hand pierced the gliding serpent. (Job 26:12-13)​

Other biblical passages:

to Egypt, whose help is utterly useless.
Therefore I call her Rahab the Do-Nothing. (Isaiah 30:7)
I will record Rahab and Babylon
among those who acknowledge me --
Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush --
and will say, "This one was born in Zion." (Psalm 87:4)

You rule over the surging sea;
when its waves mount up, you still them.
You crushed Rahab like one of the slain;
with your strong arm you scattered your enemies. (Psalm 89:9-10)

Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength,
O arm of the Lord;
awake, as in days gone by,
as in generations of old.
Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces,
who pierced that monster through?
was it not you who dried up the sea,
the waters of the great deep,
who made a road in the depths of the sea
so that the redeemed might cross over? (Isaiah 51:9-10)​

The Job passage especially seems to draw heavily from the arc-type storm god vs sea/chaos deity at the dawn of creation.

You missed the whole point. Job is talking in highly figurative language and God answers Job from the whirlwind using the same language.

If you are ever interested in an actual exposition of the text just let me know.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
mark wrote:
The Bible does use figurative language to describe various things, that much is true.

mark, I agree with you here - that parts of whichever Bible you choose can be figurative, not literal. At the same time, I hope you agree that many other creationists don't agree with you, especially about leviathan and behemoth in Job.

From Answers in Genesis:

The Bible therefore paints a clear picture of Leviathan as a creature very much like a plesiosaur or other ancient marine reptile—not a whale.
From: News to Note, July 3, 2010 - Answers in Genesis


Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation (which also takes the whole passage into account) is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge.

From: Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?


So, mark, do you think that AIG is clinging to a literal interpretation when both the text and God's other book, the real world, point to a figurative interpretation?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Was Job written pre- or post- Exodus?

If post, why is there practically no reference to God's covenant?

If pre, how can Rahab in Job be a post-Exodus reference?

I'm sure mark will write us a thrilling exposition on the book of Job - once he's finished with the half-baked copypasta he intermittently spews every time he feels the need to disinvite theistic evolutionists from Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
From Answers in Genesis:

The Bible therefore paints a clear picture of Leviathan as a creature very much like a plesiosaur or other ancient marine reptile—not a whale.
From: News to Note, July 3, 2010 - Answers in Genesis


Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation (which also takes the whole passage into account) is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge.

From: Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?


So, mark, do you think that AIG is clinging to a literal interpretation when both the text and God's other book, the real world, point to a figurative interpretation?

Papias

Notice the question mark in the title, they are just exploring the possibility. The fact is that the Leviathan is a dragon and of course you have completely ignored the fact that Satan is the Red Dragon of Revelations.

You do dabble in Biblical expositions right? I'm just asking because you seem obsessed with arguing against the Bible and those who believe it's historicity.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Was Job written pre- or post- Exodus?

If post, why is there practically no reference to God's covenant?

If pre, how can Rahab in Job be a post-Exodus reference?

I'm sure mark will write us a thrilling exposition on the book of Job - once he's finished with the half-baked copypasta he intermittently spews every time he feels the need to disinvite theistic evolutionists from Christianity.

The 'cut and paste' was because of the Scriptural quotes, not the historical import. The fact is that I believe Job lived well before the Exodus, perhaps a contemporary with the patriarchs.

BTW I have no idea what the point of your link is but I suppose that's shernren being shernren. You don't have to be clear just unduly harsh

I still love you though :hug: your my favorite strawman. Sometimes I think you secretly want to promote creationism by making bad arguments to make us look good. You just make it too easy.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Mark wrote:

Notice the question mark in the title, they are just exploring the possibility.

Mark, they used the very common technique of asking a question in the title, and then answering it in the article. By reading the article (as I'm sure you did), you saw that their closing answered the question - here is their answer:

Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation (which also takes the whole passage into account) is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge.


The fact is that the Leviathan is a dragon and of course you have completely ignored the fact that Satan is the Red Dragon of Revelations.

Did you even read my post? I'm not disagreeing with your view - I'm only pointing out that Answers in Genesis, the main Young Earth Creationist group - disagrees with you. You are taking text that YECs say is literal in a figurative way. I agree with you that the text is obviously figurative.


You do dabble in Biblical expositions right? I'm just asking because you seem obsessed with arguing against the Bible and those who believe it's historicity.

I'm not arguing against the Bible. I'm pointing out that you and I both see the text here as figurative (I'm agreeing with you). I'm pointing out that you are disagreeing with the YECs, in the way that those evil liberal theologians do.

Also, you didn't answer my question:

So, mark, do you think that AIG is clinging to a literal interpretation when both the text and God's other book, the real world, point to a figurative interpretation?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
What do you make of the fact that we're told in the psalms that Leviathan has several heads?
## Livyatan is the Ugaritic monster Lotan, "tyrant of the seven heads", & the "fleeing serpent" whom JHWH will slay.

Lotan/Leviathan is part of the recipe for the GRD in Rev.12
 
Upvote 0