Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs?

The whole point of the Leviathan story in Job seems to be that Leviathan can not be killed by "mere men". It's just silly to talk about the scales on a croc's back and ignore the soft underbelly.

quote:

---

Job 41:7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons?

---

His skin includes his belly. There is no such emphasis at all. If God had said to Job, "Canst thou shingle the mighty roof?", Job would have gathered up his buddies and bought some beer (and shingles) and got the job done. Same with Leviathan. Not "singular sense":

quote:

---

Job 41:33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

---

It says specifically that there is only one Leviathan. No. The wild ox is never said to be only one. "Supernatural" is something that we can't detect with our senses or understand with our intellect - e.g. God. "Mythical" is something that is not real, but is part of a cultural tradition - e.g. unicorns or dragons. (Yes, I know you think unicorns and dragons are real. )Mythical creatures may or may not have supernatural powers.Leviathan is a myth. There is an element of the supernatual about him, and his description may have been based on one or more real animals. But making him a real animal destroys the impact of the story.Edit: ficksed spelling.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-05-05 05:04 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

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

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

"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

Exactly. If the animal was a mere crocodile, Job could take it on.(And don't say he can't have help. There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There are subtle differences between the wild-ox story and the Leviathan story:

quote:

---

Job 39:9 Will the wild-ox be willing to serve thee? Or will he abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the wild-ox with his band in the furrow? Or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Job 39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? Or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Job 39:12 Wilt thou rely on him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather the corn of thy threshing-floor?

---

Notice that the question is not just "Can you tame the wild-ox?". It's "Can you trust him?".Can you leave him to work on his own? No. Will he bring the harvest back to you instead of keeping it for himself? No.The wild-ox will do what God created him to do, not what Job wants him to do. Job would have to send a servant to "supervise" the wild-ox.On the other hand, the Leviathan story suggests a "higher" level of beast:

quote:

---

Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant forever?

---

God tells Job that he can't make a servant of Leviathan - but the wild-ox would be a servant of a servant.-------------Anyway, my point is that Leviathan was a creature of mythical proportions, not a mere crocodile.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Exactly. No. That's where I was trying to point out the subtlety.God asked Job if he could trust the wild ox to work on its own like a human servant. The answer, of course, was "no". The ox, no matter how "tame", would always be an animal - not a willing servant. It had no knowledge of good and evil. It could only follow its own instincts.It was tameable (and killable and eatable), but Job had no power to change its nature.Leviathan, on the other hand, was not killable - Job had no power over it at all.In chapter 39, God showed Job that his influence over God's creation - e.g. the wild ox - was limited. In chapter 41, God showed Job that he had no influence on some of God's creations - e.g. Leviathan.Unless Leviathan was a mythical super-beast, Job would always have had a "Yeah, but...."

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't know where you get this "Job and nobody but Job" nonsense.The book of Job was written about Job - it wasn't written for Job. It was written for everybody to understand how powerful God is compared to all of us.So what if Job himself couldn't tame the wild ox? People reading the book of Job will say, "So what if a sick old man can't tame a wild ox? I can." What are they supposed to learn from the story?As I have said, there is a subtlety that you are missing. The ox will eat your crops if you let him. It doesn't matter if you can tame him. He is still the way God made him.Only God can make an ox. Whether we can tame him or not, he is still as God made him.So what if Job himself couldn't kill Leviathan? People reading the book of Job will say, "So what if a sick old man can't kill a crocodile? I can." What are they supposed to learn from the story?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Once again, that's not the point. The SUBTLE message is that the ox can not be TRUSTED to plow on his own, bring in the harvest on his own, etc. His NATURE is under God's control only.The point of the leviathan story is different: some parts of God's creation are completely beyond man's control - e.g. Leviathan. As I have been trying to say, that point is lost unless Leviathan is a mythical creature - for all intents and purposes "unkillable".-------------I have asked and asked and asked, and I don't think I've gotten an answer: What do you think the point of the story is if Leviathan is a mere crocodile?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Once again, the tameability of the wild ox is irrelevant. The subtle point is that the wild ox is never fully controlable by Job - regardless of whether or not he can "tame" it.Leviathan is different in that he is not only uncontrolable, but also (virtually) unkillable. That's just what I'm saying though. A crocodile can be taken on by ordinary men with simple weapons, as I have shown in Message 139. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Job - a sick old man - has to wheel himself out and kill Leviathan without any help. The clear implication is that Leviathan is stronger than any man.If Leviathan was a puny crocodile, the comparison with God would be a joke.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

True. But if the comparison is going to have any impact, Leviathan has to be a lot more powerful than any man.If Leviathan was only a crocodile and a sick old man wasn't allowed any help in killing it, then God was really only putting Himself two steps above a sick old man.Ludo has God saying, "You can't get up out of your sick-bed and kill Leviathan." Job's response could have been, "Maybe not, but I know eighty guys that could do it." Then (muttering under his breath), "And a couple of them could kick your ass, too."Now Job didn't have that reaction - and it's kinda the point of the story that he didn't - but there's no impact to the story if he could have had that reaction.Similarly, there's no impact to the wild-ox story if Job could have said, "Sure, I can trust the wild-ox to reap the harvest and bring it into the granary by himself." We all know that no man has that kind of control over animals.And we all know that the only animal that man can't kill is a mythical one.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thanks for keeping an eye on me. Keeps me honest.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Look at the questions God asks about the wild-ox:

quote:

---

Job 39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? Or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Job 39:12 Wilt thou rely on him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather the corn of thy threshing-floor?

---

He is not describing an animal that is untameable. He is describing an animal that can not be completely trusted, an animal that will always have the animal instincts that God gave him - even if you can tame him. So what? The Bible is not scientifically accurate? Big surprize! What does that have to do with the meaning of the Leviathan story? I think I have answered that, but I like to repeat myself: I don't see much significance.The Bible writers were mistaken about the ostrich. So what?The Bible writers never said the wild-ox was untameable - only that it was not comepletely controllable.The Bible writers did make it fairly clear that Leviathan was unkillable (and that "Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear"). Leviathan was different from the wild-ox, which is why both stories were told. Doesn't matter if "everybody" can kill a crocodile, as long as somebody can. Doesn't matter if Job knew how to, as long as somebody did. I have shown that some "primitive" people know how to kill crocodiles. It would be up to you to show that the people of Job's time didn't. Physical strength is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Whatever happens we have got
the Maxim gun and they have not. (Hillaire Belloc)

---

Weaponized, we are stronger than all of the above. Stronger than any human. Otherwise the story is meaningless.Stronger than every human. Otherwise the story is meaningless.Stronger than any combination of humans, with any array of human weapons. Otherwise the story is meaningless.And God is even stronger than that.Clear enough? (I can be even clearer, with effort. ) Very puny. No match for three guys with spears and ropes.Edited by Ringo, : shpelling

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The wild-ox's "consent" is not the issue. You're still ignoring the word "trust":

quote:

---

Job 39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labor to him?
Job 39:12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

---

It doesn't matter whether or not Job could tame the wild-ox. It doesn't matter whether or not the wild-ox "consented" to anything. The point that God was trying to make to Job was that even if the wild-ox did "consent" to do Job's bidding, he would still eat the grain if he got the chance. That's the way God made him and Job could not do anything about that. You can't just assume that the Bible writers were mistaken about everything. And the ostrich is named in the book of Job - the crocodile is not. Yeah, those cold-blooded crocs really love the cold weather, don't they? If God was trying to emphasize His power compared to Leviathan's, why would He describe a crocodile at one of it's weakest, most sluggish moments? (If I was going to hunt a croc, that's exactly when I would do it - when he's "breathing fire".) Don't be silly. I'm saying that the crocodile's physical strength is irrelevant when confronted by well-armed men. Your "untold thousands" would all have won their battles if they had been armed and ready. Don't take things so literally. "Stronger" is a perfectly apt word to describe weaponized man versus puny croc. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about man with ALL of his capabilities against a croc with all of his. No contest. Dead croc. God's claims would be empty. Yes, the "ice bear" legend is based on a real animal. (Probably a polar bear, not a grizzly - no grizzlies in Inuit country.)And yes, the descriptions of Leviathan were based on descriptions of real animals. (Probably a whale.)Notice all the references to fish, fishing and fishermen:

quote:

---

Job 41:1 (40:25) Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fish-hook?

---

quote:

---

Job 41:6 (40:30) Will the bands of fishermen make a banquet of him?

---

quote:

---

Job 41:7 (40:31) Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish-spears?

---

(That's the JPS, by the way. )Sounds more like an aquatic creature than an amphibious one, doesn't it? Except for the scales, there's really nothing about it that resembles a crocodile. And little fish have little scales, so the Bible writers can be forgiven for assuming that a really big fish (whale) would have really big, really tough scales.The desription of Leviathan was probably based on what little they knew about whales, but Leviathan had to be a monster of mythic proportions, or God's comparison to him would be meaningless. (And you still have not addressed that issue.)(Duelling websites)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC