|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
BTW: You say that the modern hebrew word for "Leviathan" is for "whale" but what whale? What species? It seems that all whales are under the modern hebrew "Leviathan"
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I fail to see your point. Whales are named "Leviathan" in modern hebrew, yet any large animal of the prehistoric world and modern times can be called "Leviathan" do to it's size. Giant Squid? Leviathan! Whale Shark? Leviathan! Liopleurodon? Leviathan! If a massive sea reptile like Kronosaurus or Liopleurodon where around today in abundance, the they, not whales, might have been called "Leviathan" in modern hebrew. Usually anything massive and huge in the sea can and has been called "Leviathan". Just becuase whales are called as such in modern hebrew ultimately proves that the Leviathan of Job 41 is mythical? well, that IS my point. the leviathan described is NOT a whale. it could be anything -- and that's the point. it's not a real animal at all. the whale is the real animal. the giant squid is a real animal two. leviathan is neither of these things -- he plays a mythicized role in the hebrew tradition. not just job, but elsewhere in the bible too. look at the description of satan in revelation, the "great red dragon" with seven heads and ten horns. that "ancient serpent" is partially calling on the image of leviathan. is he a real animal?
So what if whales are named after Leviathan in modern hebrew? It doesn't automatically make the "Leviathan" of Job 41 mythical. no, but fire-breathing dragons are. and leviathan is a fire breathing dragon, not a whale. the point is that it is not describing the very real animal we associate with the name "leviathan" but that it is describing something wholely different. it's not talking about a mosasaur or a kronosaur, either. it's talking about something more similar to lothan and tiamat. it's talking about a fire-breathing, serpentine, dragon that is highly associated with the chaos outside and before creation. that's the role leviathan and his relations play in other semitic cultures.
The scales? Crocs and snakes have scales, and they are not mythical. they're also not whales.
"Fire" ? this is probably as I have said before, a self denfense mechanism. Bombarder Beetles shoot out super hot liquid from their abdomens. Fireflies generate light in their rears. The electric eel can generate electricity. Yet Leviathan in this passage has to be mythical becuase it emits "fire" which is more than likely something which resembled fire to the ancients? his breath lights coals. smokes comes out of his nose. firebrands and sparks stream from his mouth. his sneezes make lightning. i'm going to make another post out of this, i think. because if you look at this in comparison to the other animals in the last section of job, it's quite different.
If this was the supernatural Leviathan, the one with many heads (as Litan of Ugaritic legend and the "Leviathan" of Psalm 74:14) why does the "Leviathan of Job 41 have only one tongue, one nose, one jaw (Job 41:1-2)That does not sound like a multi-headed beast of myth/supernatural like That of Psalm 74:14 and Isaiah 27:1. so are you saying that the leviathan of job is not related to the other mentions of leviathan elsewhere in the bible?
As for the Gorgons: Yes, I knew that the Protomammal "Gorgon" was named after the "Gorgons" of greek myth. That was the point I was making. If the Protomammal "Gorgon" was named after the "Gorgons" of Greek myth becuase it was horrendous and terrifying in appearance, then the "Leviathan" of Job 41 was most likely named after the supernatural "Leviathan" due to it's ferocity and formidability. right, but you're still losing perspective here. the leviathan of the bible is the myth, and the livyatan (whale) of modern hebrew is the real animal that is named after it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
BTW: You say that the modern hebrew word for "Leviathan" is for "whale" but what whale? What species? It seems that all whales are under the modern hebrew "Leviathan" what species do you mean when you say "whale?" it just means whale. they probably append adjectives to it to differentiate what kind of whale, much like we do: "gray whale" "balean whale" "blue whale" etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
I have already shown that the "fire" is poetic wording no doubt refferring to the "Leviathan's" self defense mechanism. Do you think that it has actual shields like warriors use on it's back (Job 41:15)? Does Behemoth actually have bronze bones (JOb 40:18)? Then why are you adamant that the fire/lighting here is literal? Why is it mythical?
And yes, the "Leviathan" of Job 41 is NOT the same as the supernatural Leviathan mentioned elsewhere. The supernatural one, like Litan, has many heads. It will be fought by God in the last days. This Leviathan in Job 41 is only one headed, and if you remember the poetic language (Job is widsom and poetry) then you can see that it is nothing more than a real animal, one that science has yet to discover. Do you have any evidence, based on the text, that this "Leviathan" of Job 41 is mythical? "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 933 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Do you have any evidence that it is NOT mythical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 933 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Do you have any evidence that it is NOT mythical? You claim it is real, just not found yet.
It seems a lot of assumptions are going into that statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Answer my question first and i'll answer yours.
Do you see anything in the passage that points to myth? "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 733 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes: Do you see anything in the passage that points to myth? The fire-breathing ought to be your first clue. (Forget about bombardier beetles. A big animal has no use for a chemical "defense mechanism" - he can crush his enemy like a bug.) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The fire-breathing ought to be your first clue. what's even more curious to me is the crossover of this thread and another: leviathan, a fire breathing dragon, is a real animal. but snake has to be supernatural because it talks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Ringo writes: The fire-breathing ought to be your first clue Do you know what firgurative language is?
Ringo writes: (forget about bombadier beetles. A BIG animal has no use for a chemical "defense mechanism"- he can crush his enemies like a bug.) Elephants dont need to use their tusks to defend themselves against natural predators, for size alone protects them. Yet those tusks come in handy for a bull elephant when a rival male challenges him into a fight. Komodo Dragons dont have to rely on their disease infected saliva that they use when they bite their prey (Land of Lost Monsters" by Ted Oakes, page 60)to defend themselves from much smaller creatures. their bite alone is good enough to dispatch much smaller creatures. Yet it's bacteria infested saliva, when applied to their sharp teeth in a savage bite, makes an effective weapon against large prey. BTW: I did some research on the web. It seesm that the "fire" that Leviathan seems to emit could very well be figurative of a hiss that a Crocodile makes. If you combine the hiss of a croc with the breath of a Croc on a cold morning (could be seen by ancient people as "smoke") then you could very well have people writing of Crocs as having "breath of fire" in a poetical, figurative sense. The info abou fire/croc hiss can be found at: Leviathan - Wikipedia Given the above info, it seems that I was probably wrong to think that the "Leviathan" of Job 41 was some unknown animal; It seems likely to be a Croc. But I was right in that the "fire" was figurative of something else. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
As for your "snake" comment:
There is a tale of a talking Donkey in Numbers 22:22-35. In this passage, the Donkey is given the ability to talk by God himself. This animal is not a supernautral spirit, just an animal that was divinly gifted with human speech (wonder if he knew Shrek....) The Serpent could no doubt have been supernaturally gifted with speech, though it was not likely from God (i'm thinking Satan possibly)This is not to be a scienftific discussion when dealing with the talking serpent. Just a theological one. But you are right that the serpent is seen as nothing more than a snake in the text. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
BTW: "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary" does agree with you: Behemoth's "tail" more than likely means "Phallus" (Page 488)
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 733 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes: Do you know what firgurative language is? When figurative language is used, how do you tell if it is referring to an actual beast or a myth?
It seesm that the "fire" that Leviathan seems to emit could very well be figurative of a hiss that a Crocodile makes. Sounds pretty far-fetched. If I was describing a hiss, I'd probably call it a "hiss". On the other hand, if I was trying to make up a really scary myth, I might talk about fire-breathing.
It seems likely to be a Croc. But I was right in that the "fire" was figurative of something else. It's more likely that the whole @#$% thing is figurative - bits and pieces of real animals frankensteined together to make up a mythological beast. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Although it seems that the modern Hippopotamus ("Riverhorse" in greek, if i'm not mistaken)does not fit the bill of the Biblical "Behemoth" it doesn't mean that it was not some sort of Hippo. "Hippopotamus Gorgops" a much larger hippo than the modern one, lived up to relatively recent times, living in PLeistocene East Africa (Page 268 of "The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Beasts")it is not impossible for this animal to have survived up to recent times, and it might have lived in the Middle East or near it When Job was written (pre-2000 BC to 4th century BC, depending on who you ask)
This Hippo was very, very large, and it's nose might have therefore been too large and strong to be pierced, like Behemoth of Job. Possible, but not proven. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Ringo writes: When figurative language is used, how do you tell if it is reffering to an actual beast or a myth? "It's snorting shakes the Heavens! It's tail does cut the Gods! When it roars, even RA does tremble!"
Ringo writes: Sounds pretty far fetched. If I was describing a hiss, i'd probably call it a "hiss". well, you are not the author of Job, are you? You dont live back in the distant ages of antiquity, do you?
Ringo writes: it's more likely that the whole @#$% thing is figurative- bits and pieces of real animals frankensteined together to make up a mythological beast I think that's similar to what scientists thought when they saw for the first time the body of a Duck Billed Platypus (page 123 of "LIFE: The Seven Wonders of the World") But everybody has their point of view. If you belief that, that's fine. You believe one thing, i'll believe another. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025