Can fundamentalists explain Job 26:12-13 for me?

Anyway you got words in verses 12 and 13 confused in your posts above. I was going to respond a while back. Rahab is the actual Hebrew word for one thing. Not the English translation. You really need to read a parallel transliteration. Of verses 12 and 13

The word "proud" in the KJV was the translation of Rahab. This is verse 12. Rahab was the actual Hebrew word and not just an English translation.You feel that the "crooked serpent" in verse 13 was the verse that modern translations use "Rahab" in place of. Actually all translations (new and old - including the King James ) agree here, with the only difference between them being whether a Hebrew word should be translated "formed" (like the older translations ) or WOUNDED like all the newer ones.Rahab is in verse 12Crooked Serpent is verse 13Most fundamentalists try to say Rahab is not the same thing as the crooked serpent, but they aren't the same word, and aren't even in the same verse (or more accurately, not the same LINE, since the verses are inventions of English translation and organization attempts )

All translations, and especially the King James, rely on the Septuagint for the Job word definitions.It translates rahab as whale. But the King James decided to translate it as proud.The Septuagint text for verse 12 has Rahab being a slain whale.This is the Jewish translation from before the time of Jesus Christ.Instead of twisting serpent in verse 13, there is a verse about stars.I suppose Rahab will always be written off as a creation AFTER the Earth was created, but it isn't what the scholars have determined the text (both the Hebrew and the oldest translation into European languages ) says.A primeval dragon is a CREATION of God, according to the actual text, so do you accept the facts of sacred scripture?(I am pleased to tell you that this CREATION Of GOD doesn't add any falsifiable issues to Creationism so far as I know so there won't be any scientific problems to deal with )Do you accept?

Evolutionary scientists ( and scientists of all stripes ) don't care about the creation of God before the Big Bang ( or whatever creationism teaches was the material used for the origin of the universe ) which is what the Job text is saying that the PRIMEVAL DRAGON is.Evolution is irrelevant and this dragon is very much a BEFORE time and space (almost ) metaphysical issue.Science teaches us that physical laws would be all jumbled up in this (hypothetical stage ).The very laws of physics would be different - "physics don't apply"!This is strictly a faith issue and one aspect of creationism that can't be falsified (amazing but true! )Can I ask you something personal David Jay?Do you reject the scripture because you feel that it is something embarrassing and beneath your dignity?(I sense that you bring in the fundamentally irrelevant issue of "evolution" out of a desire to be culturally accepted by the academic community, and it clearly has caused you to compromise the plain reading, not to mention the integrity, of the Holy Scripture. )You need to really understand what a God truly is.It is God's business if he wants to create a primeval dragon for material to use for the soon to be Universe. Remember that scripture says God created man in his imagination. You are created in the image of God, according to scripture. It doesn't say David Jay created God in David Jay's own image.Don't worry about what you think is the foolishness of the God of the Bible. Worry about what the Bible says is God's creativity. God has his own mind. I imagine he would tell you to mind yours, while he gets along just fine without your consent and approval of his creative works.Does it matter if you appreciate his method ? Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I need to ask a question about what exactly you mean by the endless rambling about the Evolution issue. You keep sidestepping the actual discussion and my actual questions, so I forced myself to wonder what your reason is for endlessly bringing it up.I "prayed about it " and a light came on.I assumed that you were talking about biological Evolution ( what the TOE is about - biology ), but it just occurred to me that you are a Young Earth Creationist, and your beef might be against nuclear physics and the idea that hydrogen fuses to form helium . Is your "Evolution" and "Evolutionist" and "Theory of Evolution" obsession based on the YEC rejection of Fusion and the outright rejection of the idea that the stars are the source of oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen? (YEC theory on stars are the "giant candle burning down" idea I am thinking ) The winding back of the nuclear clock is opposed by YECs but it is irrelevant to this Rahab discussion actually.The YEC view is the (secular historian's) assumed cosmological view of Job, and it is assumed that he didn't consider biological life to exist until after the waters were divided but before the stars were made. Additionally, Rahab (as the Primeval Dragon that it clearly is ) isn't seen as a contradiction to the YEC view at all. The reason is that it can be seen as elemental and not biological. Job could have seen Rahab as the raw material for the later (for example ) 4 elements of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air (this is just an illustration of what Job might have thought ).The various Old Earth Creationist views also place biological life after the water division but I suppose that there is a division as to whether the stars came before or after biological life. But the Primeval Dragon is compatible with Old Earth Creationist views - which all happen to reject biological Evolution ( but certain theories allow for what you might call Cosmic Evolution though I shouldn't use the capital E since cosmic evolution is NOT the TOE which is strictly related to biology ).The Primeval Dragon is compatible with all creationism theories. I mentioned that is isn't even incompatible with Theistic Evolution cosmological views . I also pointed out that it isn't even falsifiable in purely secular scientific investigations ( due to an inability to make observations "before the bang ") . BUT UNDERSTAND WHY I MENTIONED THE BIG BANG ISSUE!All cosmological views place biological life later than the start of the Earth and the water present on earth.
All cosmological views allow for something before the beginning of the universe.READY TO UNDERSTAND, David Jay?Here is the reason. I pointed it out so we wouldn't have to spend a second's worth of time worrying about the Big Bang or YEC or any various cosmological view. The sad irony was that you not only choose to dwell on secular scientific views, but you actually ended up turning the (un-necessary to start with ) dwelling into a complete, total, 100% sidestepping of the actual discussion. (To make matters far worse, you choose to bring in what appears to be the biological evolution TOE - though I am wondering if you were referring to the nuclear physics issues of the chemical elements fusing when you mention evolution )The issue we need to examine is this :Use the Bible text of Genesis 1 and Job 26 in a harmony so we can chronologically place the entire text into sync, which will help us greatly in deciding where to place Rahab and the twisting serpent ( which are in verses 12 and 13 respectively ) Quote the entire text from both chapters but interlace the verses in a harmony.ALSO, ANOTHER QUESTION:Do you feel that God is incapable of using a primeval dragon for the raw material for the universe? You seem to deny that God could even exist before and outside the universe ( you said precisely that and more than once ) so is that the source of your denial of a pre-universe dragon?

A comment was made about the widespread use of the Primal Dragon in the world's mythology.

quote:

---

All of the evidence shows that different cultures from all over the world and all periods of time came up with similar creation myths. One recurring theme is some serpent or dragon or great fish that represents chaos and slaying the critter brings about order. In addition regional cultures adopted and exported the myths to and from their neighbors. Who has priority on some concept or image really seems irrelevant when discussing a story where such passages are used only as a plot device.

---

Then Phat made reference to the Indo Iranian history (I havn't re read the entire thread, but it reminded me of the primeval dragon being mentioned in the Macropaedia of Encyclopedia Britannica on the entry for Indo Iranian religion or something).The dates for the Ancient Middle Eastern dragon motif are relevant.The Enuma Elish text could be from the Amorite Old Babylonian period (the dates depend on the Venus tablets of Amizaduka with could be used to date the Hammurabi ascension if one works back) of around 1800 to 1500, or the Kassite period (after 1600-1500 BCE), or just after 1100 BCE.Enma Eli - WikipediaThere is the Ugaritic reference that is after 1500 BCE but prior to 1100 BCE.Then the Hebrew texts which are later still. Though Exodus 15 is food for thought because it might have something to do with the dragon slaying issue or at least its attractiveness to the late Hebrew authors.(Exodus 15 might be older than the latest possible date for Enuma Elish but the Sea Peoples - which included the Philistines - destroyed Ugarit along the way to Palestine, and the Philistines being mentioned in Exodus 15 means the Song of the Sea text is later)From J.J. Collins Introduction to the Hebrew Bible.

quote:

---

The sea imagery continues to exercise a powerful effect on the religious imagination of ancient Israel. As we saw in chapter 1, other ancient Near Eastern peoples had stories of combat between a god and the sea, or a sea monster. The Ugaritic myth of Baal and Yamm is the one closest to the context of Israel. The battle between Marduk and Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish is also relevant. In the biblical psalms, too, we often find that YHWH is said to do battle with the sea. In Psalm 114 we are told that the sea looked and fled before the Lord. Psalm 77 also says that the waters were afraid, in view of the thunder and lightning of the Lord, as he led his people. One of the most vivid passages is found in Isa 51:9—11*, where the prophet asks: Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Rahab and the dragon were sea monsters, supposedly defeated and slain by YHWH in the process of creation (although this story is never narrated in the Bible). The exodus, in the view of the prophet, was an event of the same type. It would not be too much to say that the exodus was the creation myth of Israel, and that the sea imagery provided a powerful way to give expression to its mythic character. Just as the ancient Near Eastern myths provided paradigms through which various events could be viewed and endowed with meaning, so the exodus became the paradigm for understanding later events in the history of Israel. We shall find that the prophets imagined a new exodus, as a way in which Israel might start over, and renew its relationship with its God. This motif becomes especially important after the Babylonian exile, in the form either of return from exile or of a final, eschatological deliverance.

​

One other theme in the accounts of the episode at the sea requires comment. The hymn in Exodus 15 declares: YHWH is a warrior, YHWH is his name! The idea that gods are warriors was a common one in the ancient Near East. A major reason why the early Israelites worshiped YHWH was that they believed that he was a powerful warrior, who could help them defeat their enemies

---

The Vrtras were a primeval dragon among the Indo Iranians and the slaying was among the oldest parts of the Vedas. The Vedic textual source might be older (in its oral origin) than Enuma Elish and the possibility must be considered at least 50-50.The Rig Veda/Mandala 4/Hymn 42 - Wikisource, the free online libraryThe Vedic composition might back up some of what jar said.Almost (pretty much) every other example is not proven to be as old as the Middle Eastern myths.But back to the oldest strain of the Exodus that many prominent scholars see.The view of the original exodus (in history) was that the Israelites fled in a ship by sea and composed a song to celebrate it. The mention of Philistia in the old song (chapter 15 of Exodus) dates it in the 12th century at the earliest.It could have caused the Israelites to be attracted to myths of God defeating Yam (Sea), which included dragon slaying myths of the Canaanites (and also from whatever Hurrians were still around).This view is backed up by the various strains and varieties of the dragon slaying language in the Hebrew Bible.