Jonah and the whale - It happened!

In February 1891 apprentice sailor James Bartley 1870 - 1909) of the whaling ship Star of the East, was swallowed by a whale near the Falkland Islands. The whale was killed with harpoons and Bartley was taken out alive after 15 hours in the stomach:The sailors had much difficulty in restoring him to consciousness. It was not till three months nursing that James Bartley recovered his reason. (Hastings et al 1902)This seems like a pretty tight citation. I think that is what ken is trying to say. Jonah got swallowed up. Just like this guy.

I take it, then, that you're not familiar with the level of honestly that those in the maritime profession are generally accredited with? Hint: there's a reason they call them "fish tales."How long was this guy supposed to be in the whale? Maybe, 15 hours? And he almost died? And how long was Jonah in his whale?

Unfortunately the story you report can't be substantiated and probably isn't true.Page not found - BBC Bitesize
http://ship-of-fools.com/Myths/04Myth.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010914.htmlBut the real question is how does any of this show that the story of Jonah happened ? Even if that part of it is just incredibly unlikely instead of definitely false it isn't positive evidence in any way.

Ah, I get Ken's point now (I think).Am I right in assuming that Ken believes that if he can prove that a man can live inside a whale for 3 days then this means that the story of Jonah is true?Or am I oversimplifying his stance?Brian.

I can. His point is that the Jonah and the whale/great fish story really might have happened (although he uses "scientifically possible" to say that).He missed your point, too, which is that if it's possible that God created an animal specifically to swallow Jonah, then of course it's "scientifically possible" for such an animal to swallow Jonah, but neither you nor hardly anyone else is going to believe God created a great sea animal just to swallow Jonah.I think he's wondering whether anyone will try to say that no human could survive in the belly of any creature for three days and nights, because he's saying that it is possible.

Dear Truth:Yes, that's it. I cannot accept the following:1) That a fish large enough to swallow a man entirely into the fish's stomach subsequently could remain in a stable enough physical condition to swim around, navigate to shore, and regurgitate the man without at least partially digesting the fellow. Is Ken saying that the fish's digestive system totally shut down?2) That a fish's stomach provides satisfactory habitat for a man to remain alive for three days. Show me the oxygen supply.3) That either Nature or God has ever produced an animal specifically for the single purpose of swallowing another live being whole, carrying that being alive inside it's digestive system for three days, and then regurgitating the other living being whole, alive, and sound.4) That either the writers of the Bible, or God for that matter, ever intended every single word of every single biblical story to be interpreted literally rather than as metaphor, parable, moral lesson, etc. That would be an obviously rediculous concept in and of itself.5) That any individual would even advance the possibility of the Jonah Story to be factual, attempt to back it up with National Inquirer-style accounts, present it as "scientifically possible" and actually waste his own time pondering the "possibility" rather than spend the same time exploring the moral and spiritual basis of the story. I mean, get a grip and put some meaning in it. This isn't Sunday School for Kindergartners.[First of all, Ken, look into the Phonecian sea people's practices regarding human sacrifice during perilous storm events at sea, and then compare that with the Jewish teachings contemporary to the time of "Jonah."]Peace

To: BrianIt could have been other sea creatures too. Please reread the article if you have any interest in doing so.To: PaulKre: Unfortunately the story you report can't be substantiated and probably isn't true.
Page not found - BBC Bitesize
http://ship-of-fools.com/Myths/04Myth.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010914.htmlPaul, I was the writer in the debate who posted that information. You are not really telling me anthing new. Yes, there was probably a hoax. But there are hoaxes in many fields. That does not means that everything in a field of study is a hoax however. If that were the case we would have to abandon the field of archaeology which I think would be unwarranted.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-18-2004]

I notice that you didn't answer my question. How does any of this show that the story of Jonah is literally true ?That's the point directed at you. Instead all we get is an agreement that I was correct and some comments which have no real bearing on anything I said.

Hi, But what I am getting at is it doesn't matter what the creature was, it doesn't matter how many examples of modern day reports of men surviving inside various sea creatures you provide, this does not prove that Jonah was inside a whale for three days. It suggests that it is possible but it in no way verifies that the Jonah event ever happened.I personally don't think a man can survive inside anything's stomach for three days and you certainly haven't shown that it is possible.The title of your thread shows an ignorance of historical methodology, just because you can support a man living inside a whale for a day does not prove that Jonah existed, or that he was inside a whale, this is not a sound historical conclusion.So, just because somehting is possible it does not follow that it happened. If I said yesterday I ran 100 metres in 9.98 seconds, does the fact that it is possible for a man to run at this speed prove that my story is true?I hope you can see the problem with your evidence and how it does not prove that Jonah was swallowed by a whale/sea creature.Cheers.Brian.

You're doing a fine job on this topic; you go dude. You show no signs of discouragement or loss of control despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to debate these guys on Biblical terms alone. Just like the children of Israel; they saw the pillar of fire, heard God's voice, their shoes/clothes didn't wear out even after 40 years of use, were fed by manna from heaven, and on and on; they were eyewitnesses of the power of God, but yet they still rebelled. The evidence of God was "in their face" but yet they still worshipped "other" gods even though those "gods" showed no evidence of any power or miracle producing ability. Your debating skills and discipline are about the best I've seen on this forum; I'll be keeping up with you!
If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)

It is not nice to try and make a fool of someone like this, Ken was doing his best please do not try to ridicule him.Brian.

You're doing ok, Ken. I spend a lot of time making my way through all these gauntlets. These secularist people just don't get this supernatural stuff like a god who made the lion sending angels to shut the lion's mouths, people surviving in firey furnaces, Lazarus walking out of a grave, after having already having begun to stink, animals, by instinct heading out with one thing in mind -- to get in an ark, talking serpents, talking asses (hmm....... never mind, I won't say it} , pitchers and trumpets for toppling gigantic walls, a kid's lunch to feed 8 or 10 thousand, sticks becoming snakes, etc, etc, etc. They have no concept of the existing spiritual invisible in the universe. Their minds are so narrow and temporal that they've got this proud egotistical idea that beings of higher intelligence than us just can't be in this great wonderful universe. They think earth, this itty bitty speck within the galaxy, Milkyway, one of the countless billions of galaxies contains all the answers as to intelligence and dimensions of awareness there is existing.They do often scrape the bottom for refute stuff, but keep hacking away at their hard shells. There's some real gems within some of them once they get out, cut and polished. Such often become great in God's kingdom. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-05-2004]

I guess you're just angry from losing so many arguments and from having your bigotry and hipocrisy exposed.I mean I must be narrow-minded to actually READ the Bible and see what it really says rather than taking your word for it. With the result that you start ranting about bias because you can't accept that the Bible says things you don't want it to. I suppose it is narrow minded not to simply accept your unsupported opinions as facts, too. You complain about that often enough.And so you run away from arguments - and then attack your opponents because you lost and turned tail. This is one of the reasons I have no respect for you.

Here are some comments I made on another forum regarding the Jonah issue:To Skeptic X REGARDING STOMACH ACIDITY:Here is what ANONYMOUS wrote:"A scientific answer seems unavailable. Would digestive juices with their digestive enzymes, for example, cease to flow if the whale were near death?"I think this raises a good question in light of the fact that ANONYMOUS wrote:"As already stated, dying Sperm Whales often vomit out the contents of their stomach. Regarding the fish which swallowed Jonah the story reads:
it vomited out Jonah upon dry land. (2:10)A reasonable speculationif the story is truewould be that the fish which swallowed Jonah was a Sperm Whale which later became stranded in shallow water."1) I do not know the answer to question of dying sperm whales and their digestive juices or the question of sperm whales who have digestive problems but who might not be close to death.I do think the dying sperm whale vomiting commentary does give an added "ring of truth" to the Jonah account.2. Also, I still am not sure about the acidity throughout the whole animals digestive tract and its various concentrations. Could Jonah have stayed near the beginning of the digestive tract and would that have saved him? I do not know.3. The getting in the pouch questionHere is what ANONYMOUS wrote:"Would there be breathable air in the stomach?Macloskie (1942) argued that the whale has to expel superfluous water from its mouth after receiving food. In the process a creature trapped in the mouth might reach the laryngeal pouch below the larynx. The pouch is big enough to hold a human who would, in addition, use the whale’s own air supply and have no worries about digestive juices. The Bible phrase "belly of the fish" should not count against this hypothesis since ancient peoples did not distinguish as many internal organs as we do today. In other words the entire front (=ventral surface) of a fish or whale might be referred to as the "belly"."My commentary:In ANONYMOUS's essay people assumed that a man could not fit down a gullet. But it turned out a man could fit down a gullet but not a fat man. I am not volunteering for the task of seeing if a man could get into the above pouch in a live whale. But perhaps, if we offer a reward we may get volunteers. Perhaps, the site owner could start a kitty fund. Whether or not he would be expelled by the whales lung power I do not know.POST #2TO Skeptic X1. I reread the Jonah account. It seems as if God did direct the whale to Ninevah.2. If God could direct the whale (if it was in fact a whale and not some other sea creature) to Ninevah He could direct the whale to open its mouth so Jonah could breathe. I realize that whales do not normally open their mouth to breathe like people who have allergies do.3. I never said that all whales who are dying vomit food up if memory serves. If I did, and I do not think I did, I meant to say that some are known to do this. For example, some dying men gasp but not all do. Therefore, if that whale was dying what was the whales acid formation rate. Also, could the whale have been dying to a lack of acid formation. In other words, a digestive illness.4. I am not sure of the certainty level the experts have regarding the "pouch question" (residing in a portion of the respiratory system). I had always heard the gullet was to small, but it was urban myth. We also have to consider the whale might have had a deformed pouch entrance in some way. Also, could the whale have had a defective respiratory opening and that is why it perhaps was a dying whale (vomiting Jonah up).Further commentary:I read some Christian commentary from a website. The Christian pointed out that Jonah could have died and God resurrected Him! I do not think this happened since that would have been a spectacular thing and so my argument against this would be a argument from silence which is not always a firm foundation. I would say, however, that God could have intervened in other ways such as one I mentioned before: the whale opening its mouth and coming up to the surface more. On the other hand, using the same reasoning you could say that God provided more air supernaturally since the Bible declares nothing is impossible with God. In short, after reading this gentleman's commentary I realized what a hopeless position this is for the skeptics.POST #3To SKEPTIC Y:re: 3 days and 3 nightsPlease see: Page not found - Apologetics PressAlso, here is what Anonymous wrote in the debate transcipts I gave the link to:"Most conclude the phrase was "idiomatic Hebrew" (Schulze 1965), which meant "part of three natural days" (Poole 1963) and could be "32 to 34 hours". (Wedderspoon 1931) This would, however, require a separate debate."I agree with this scholars that "3 days and 3 nights" is an emphatic way of saying three days and the Hebrew consindered 3 days not be 72 hours. I think the link I gave before and Esther and other verses clearly show this.I know some readers of the Bible bring a cultural imperialism to the Bible and try to force their culture on the semetic culture. I disagree with this approach. I think a certain humility is required to glean what the Jewish writers were conveying. I have no interest in trying to twist your arm.

To: BuzzsawI live in NY too.Sincerely,Ken