|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: leviathan IS a dragon. Yes, and by tradition it might be a real flesh-and-blood animal. My point is that it is not an "ordinary", known animal, like a crocodile. In the story, it has to be "larger-than-life" - of mythic proportions and capabilities, or there isn't much point in mentioning it. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Yes, and by tradition it might be a real flesh-and-blood animal. My point is that it is not an "ordinary", known animal, like a crocodile. In the story, it has to be "larger-than-life" - of mythic proportions and capabilities, or there isn't much point in mentioning it. quite. and part of that, of course, is by nature exageration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Arachnophilia writes: To be fair, I think you are being a little over-literal here Arachnophilia writes: Also, it's speaking consistently in the singular, as if one individual represents a species THank you Arach It is hard to get that across for some reason. The Wild Ox is mentioned over and over as singular, yet there was an entire species of Aurochs and countless numbers of them in history. Leviathan is mentioned in the same singular sense, yet it HAST to be just one lol. Thank you for the help. I knew about the tradition of the Leviathan you spoke of. It is very interesting. There is a ancient story that in the end times Behemoth and Leviathan would battle to the death. Their dead flesh would be edible and used for food by the Jews. These are neat traditions and stories. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Ringo writes: Yes, I know you think unicorns and dragons are real "Unicorn" as rendered in the Good ol' King James Version (which you seem to LOVE to quote) is better rendered "Wild Ox" which is why more modern and far, far, far better Bible translations render it "wild Ox" The idea of a species of horse with a horn in it's head is as far as I know not Biologically impossible, nor is a deformity on a Horse that seems to resemble a "horn" is not biologically impossible either (Ripley's "Believe it or not" has a file on a man who was actually growing a horn on the back of his head. Freaky stuff) But until somebody brings forth a fossil or some kind of powerful proof for Unicrons to exist, I will regard it a possible, though not probable. Plus, the Unicorn might have been partially based on the Rhino, which from what i've heared is somewhat related to horses. So there you go. As for Dragons: Anybody with a brain would know that Dragons are real animals. Just do research on an animal known as The KOmodo Dragon "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4380 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Also known as the Komodo (island) monitor or generally just Komodo for people with expertise in that area. It has no connection at all with dragons in the mythical sense, so I'm unsure why you'd use it as evidence that "dragons" exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes: ... The KOmodo Dragon.... We also have dragonflies, which are not real dragons. As Arach pointed out, Leviathan was thought of as a dragon by the Hebrews - i.e. a figurative beast, not a real one. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
"Unicorn" as rendered in the Good ol' King James Version (which you seem to LOVE to quote) is better rendered "Wild Ox" which is why more modern and far, far, far better Bible translations render it "wild Ox" the modern hebrew refers to this unicorn-inspiring animal: i think this is an example of the modern animal named after the mythological reading. but it certainly is another questionable entry...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
So God was asking Job if he could tame an oryx?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no, i doubt it. an aurox seems like a better candidate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Charles Knight writes: It has no connection at all with Dragons of the mythical sense True, but the name is still used to describe it. We dont call them "Komodos" we call them "Komodo Dragons" and if an mideval European was ever to see one, they would probably call it a dragon as well. It may not breathe fire or fly or sack Castles, but it is called "Komodo Dragon" because it is so friggin big. In a sense, dragons do exist, but as Komodo Dragons, not as creatures of mythology and fairy tales. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Ringo writes: We als have dragonflies, which are not real dragons But you seem to miss the wording. It's called a Dragonfly. It is not called a dragon, but the way the wording is used, a fly that is LIKE a dragon. Plus in prehistoric times there where dragonflies so large that they could be jokingly called just "Dragons".
Ringo writes: A Figurative beast, not a real one. How do you define figurative? hehehe "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes: How do you define figurative? "Figurative", in the context of the Leviathan story, means stylized, exaggerated, etc. to make a point. The point being that Leviathan was no ordinary animal that Job could kill. The point being that Job was nothing compared to God. If Leviathan was a mere real animal, what's the point? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4380 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Actually we do just call them Komodos and some people call them Komodo monitors.
Plus in prehistoric times there where dragonflies so large that they could be jokingly called just "Dragons". Like what? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-May-2006 03:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Charles Knight writes: like what? Meganeura a Dragonfly with a 2.5 feet long wingspan. Meganeura - Wikipedia BTW: Do they also call Komodo Dragons just "giant monitors?" "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Ringo writes: If Leviathan was a mere animal, what's the point? If Job cannot take on a mere animal, how can he take on God? "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 © 2024