Missing sea creatures

there's an underlying mythology to genesis, and a good deal of the old testament.man is made from the dust of the earth. when he is banished, he banished to the desert, to futily till the dust. the israelites are lagrely associated with the land, and desert.water, on the other hand, is primordial chaos in the text. it's unexplored and dangerous, and the substance of creation. one of the sea creatures in genesis that *IS* mentioned are the tanniyn: dragons. the ocean is associated with these great water serpents, such as the leviathan. there's also hints to mythology of el conquering these serpents. (see psalm 74. something similar appears in ugaritic myths)so it would make sense for fish to be the only thing man is given control over in the water. the authors were probably scared by it, somewhat. but they did go out in boats and fish, and they did have to justify the fact that they ate something from the water. god must have given them that.also, god hates shrimp.

god's not ranting or raving. he's boasting. the whole speech from god, which extends several chapters, is all about the majesty of god's ability to create. job has challenged god, and god replies, basically, "who do you think you are?" from the available descriptions of leviathan (not just in the bible, btw), it's a seven-headed fire breathing dragon, and probably a member of the group of tanniyn in genesis 1.it is possible it's legend is based on something the authors thought was real. it is rather out of place to put a single "mythological" creature at the end of job after descriptions of a dozen very real, very common animals (do a search for the behemoth debates). it's quite possible that they thought this was a real animal that lived out in depths of the ocean, or used to. the were not especially sea-faring folks.i say used to, because there are references to god destroying the leviathan. it's possible such was implied just by saying his name, and so job 41 would not only be saying "look at this cool thing i made" but "and i broke him for his pride, too." that would fit the context of job quite well, and explain why job recants in the next few verses. job is no match for leviathan, and certainly not for god. there is no such thing as an aquatic dinosaur. dinosaurs are a class of animals that live only on the land. plesiosaurs and elasmosaurs are marine reptiles. dinosaurs are not part of the class of reptiles, they are their own class. genesis 6 is not a theory. it's a chapter of the bible. furthermore, it's not a working model of any kind that represents any sort of explanation for anything.but i wouldn't worry about dinosaurs not being in the bible. cats aren't either, and i got two of them living in my house.

quote:

---

Leviticus 11:9-12:

​

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

---

goddamned straight.

it says they are an abomination.

hahaha.perhaps you'd be interested in this post,

yes and no. no, don't be silly. god made shrimp.

if god makes stuff post-fall, how is that different than say, evolution?also, i theologically disagree with "the fall." biblical evidence shows adam and eve to have been mortal in the garden.

HEATHEN! STRAIGHT TO HELL WITH YOU!!!(can i have some too?)

hi. welcome to a DEBATE board. we debate anything and everything here, and this *IS* the correct thread for it, in the correct forum.now, i disagree with the fall theologically. there is no evidence of any "fall" of any kind, only a set of curses given to adam, eve, and the serpent, that are presumably heriditary (all snakes go about on their bellies).furthermore, the evidence in genesis 3 suggests that there was death prior to the fall. god is worried about them eating from the tree of life, so they would live forever and become gods. this tells us that they hadn't already, and were mortal to begin with.furthermore, there is debate as to whether the effects of the tree of knowlegde were hereditary. there is no reason they should be seen as such according to the text, although there are some neet modern symbolic interpretations that rely on it. (for instance, the birth of conciousness)."original sin" is a silly concept as well, since numerous people in the bible are described as perfect in the eyes of god. and to sin, we must know the path we are missing which would require -- the tree of knowledge of good and evil. how were they to know the difference before? rainbows are not animals. and i suspect the laws of refraction were already in place well before the flood, and that god just used it as a sign.

no, i mean, i disagree with it TOTALLY. there's lots of face-to-face contact with god throughout the book of genesis, well after the supposed "fall." god wrestles jacob in the desert. god appears to abraham.the apparent "severed connection" doesn't seem to have been severed at all. not even a little. not for adam and eve they didn't. no one before noah was allowed to eat meat. and even in moses's time, people weren't allowed to eat shrimp either. in fact, jews STILL aren't.so yeah, that'd be WAY after the fall.(also, people tend to overlook responses for a few months if you don't use the little red reply button. i only noticed because jar linked to it in a response to a new thread)

---

אָרַח