Bible Cryptids/Dinosaurs?

But God did talk about trusting the wild-ox, so He must have taken for granted that it was tameable. I'll say it again: the ox's consent is not the important issue. The important issue is can you TRUST him? Address the issue of trust. Don't worry, my "bubble" isn't burst. I don't have access to the books you cited and the Wikipedia article doesn't mention brown bears, so... I'm standing by my statement until I see some evidence: brown bears do not live in Inuit country.(And even if you can produce that evidence, the polar bear is still the most common bear known to the Inuit people.) And of course, I never said that - I said that Leviathan was unkillable. I'm glad you liked it. I picked it at random to show that you can find any kind of crap on the Internet. If you find a site that claims Leviathan was a crocodile, I can find one that says he was a T. Rex - which makes a certain amount of sense, by the way. So you say, but you haven't shown it. In any case, a crocodile is pretty unlikely - too easy to kill.I'm still waiting for an answer to the question: Why would God compare His power to a puny creature like a crocodile? Why would God brag about being more powerful than a creature that can easily be killed by man?I'm also waiting for an answer to the question: Why would the Bible writers use so much fish/fishing imagery if they were talking about a crocodile? If you can set aside your crocodile fixation for a moment, doesn't the story just sound more like a sea monster?

---

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

*shrug* It wouldn't be the first time. My heart won't break and my bubble will be fine.And it does nothing for your argument that Leviathan was a crocodile. And yet you have been responding to it for more than a month now. Like it or not, a crocodile is a puny creature when confronted by heavily-armed men. Leviathan could not be a cocodile. This is a science forum. You are expected to provide evidence that is accessible - not just to me but to anybody else who might be reading the thread. It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect us to go out and buy books to confirm your claim - which is already off-topic in a mostly off-topic thread.The essence of science is: No, I don't believe it until I see the evidence. Not to burst your bubble, but I couldn't care less whether you continue the debate or not.It should be pretty plain to anybody reading this thread that Leviathan was a mythical beast. If you want to withdraw and concede that point, I wish you the best in your future endeavors. Edited by Ringo, : spell-czech malfunction.

---

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

Yup. Job was a 90-lb weakling and a croc would be like a 500-lb wrestler - easily killed. (And Andre the Giant is dead, isn't he? Unlike Leviathan. ) Exactly. Now you're getting it. Strength and puniness depends on all factors - weapons, etc. - not just a few cherry-picked features like big teeth and scaly backs. We are not in any way, shape or form talking about bravery or cowardice. We are talking about capability. The smallest, weakest coward on earth can still kill the biggest, strongest bravest croc on earth, if he's properly armed.Bye bye croc. Hello Leviathan.

---

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

No. My sources showed that crocodiles are routinely hunted by "primitive" people with primitive weapons. I never said that the descriptions of Leviathan were not based on what was known about existing animals. I said that Leviathan was not an existing animal. Don't move the goalposts. And I never said that the descriptions of Leviathan were not based on what was known about existing animals. Nor did I deny that those descriptions could have been mistaken or exaggerated. Don't move the goalposts. "Leviathan" was a generic term for "big scary monster". The fact that it is described in different ways makes it less likely that it was a real animal. Mythical creatures - giants, ogres, dragons, etc. - were described in different ways because there were no eyewitnesses. If it was "entirely unknown", where did the descriptions come from? How do you tell the difference between an entirely unknown creature and an entirely non-existant one? "Supernatural" and "mythical" mean pretty much the same thing in this context. That's what I've been saying: the key word is "mythology". The story has significance beyond any ordinary hide-and-bones "real" creature. No problem. I'll be here whenever you drop by and there's still a hundred posts left in this (mythical) puppy. Take care of the sicklies. Just don't mistake my new prettier-than-thou image for a kinder, gentler Ringo. I'm still as tough and mean as ever.

---

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

If you can penetrate it anywhere and kill it, the "impenetrable" parts are irrelevant.

---

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