Noah's Ark

Does anone here think the Great Behemoth and great Leviathan from Job 40 and 41 still exist? Job 41 is my favorite chapter in all of the Bible because it speaks of a legendary animal that only a god could create. Please don't get me wrogn, but I think the Leviathan is not just a reference to an animal, but to the spirit that worketh evil among men. And still, I'm in love with the Leviathan.

Oh, they're fairy tales now, aren't they? What about the fossil records, the sightings of monsters in lochs, etc.?

You sick,sad unbeliever! Um, probably because all the human remains were compressed by flood sediment into the ground to become fossil fuels. This is the only explanation that makes somewhat some sense. No, I haven't, but the thousands in the Southeast Asia tried to run from a tsunami. I've got to give you the benefit of the doubt for catching the "believer" on this one. Wanna bet? All I can see from this is that you may think the Ark existed, and I'm pretty sure a three-story ark was much more larger than the example at the website given.
Besides, I think the whole story is taken out of context, for if God did not destroy the world once by water, then his promise in Gen. 8, that fire would destroy earth next, is a flop.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-28-2005 05:26 AM

Your last two messages are exceedingly interesting. Have you ever considered actual public speaking? I told you before, I'm only 13, and I took a public speaking class in High School. I never thought of idioms for KJV before!

That's only logical. I see you as a debating lawyer, and also as a theologian.

Topic drift is a problem in itself. We shgould make a new forum thread about it !!!But seriously, the great leviathan and Noah's Ark are very coexistent. Now, why couldn't Noah take the Leviathan on the ark? Obviously it was too big. Therefore, the Leviathan was able to travel to another part of the world during the Flood. And it most likely settled in the Slavic regions...
And about the behemoth...why aren't we talking about him? If Job was the first authored book in the bible, then was this after or before the Flood? Of is the book of Job a human fable?This message has been edited by Specter, 05/05/2005 10:01 AM

Did yo unot understand? The Leviathan would have been right at home, but it would have also swam about.That wasn't the criterion. All things with the breath of life were to be taken. Therefore Leviathan did not have the breath of life.

​

Oh yeah, JohnF, there is a serious doubt in my mind that breath was the criterion. But just in case I'm wrong, please show me the verse, translation, and source from which you gathered that information. I'm always ready to accept new Truths.

​

[by the way...If it's New, it's probably Not True.]

I'm sorry ,Arachnophilia; I forgot to register that quote of yours as a quote in my last post. I didn't originally write that! By the way, what does mean?
And JohnF, thank you for the website (After devastation ... the recovery).This message has been edited by Specter, 05/06/2005 10:00 AM

Aren't we getting off topic here? So does the Behemoth exist nad does the Leviathan exist? Answer my simple question. I don't want to wander through life hunting something that isn't there!

Thank you so much for that analysis, Arachnophilia. But before I print this thread to use as a guide for other eyes, would you please have your forummates explain... Excuse me? I thought only 97% of the most diverse creatures' DNA is similar. Don't you think the GTCAs of DNA would get confounded over time quicker than most scientists can observe. And what biologist has lived over 120 years? Can you explain and tell me the genome of a plant that lived in the "Antediluvian" period, if there was such aperiod in Earth's brief history? Please help me out. And by prejudging the motvie of Brian the Machir, he only inputted his comment in to nitpick, and then confirm the mythology of the Flood.Tell me now, are you creo or evo?Creo: Is that a Christian attitude?
Evo: And you call yourself ascended from the lower, picky animals...ONe more thing: The word is not mutated; it's adapted.This message has been edited by Specter, 05/10/2005 09:55 AM

Umm, no. This dwas not directed towards you. But you didn't answer my question. Creo or Evo?Oooh...you're into drugs & you're a Christian.ANd no more nitpicking. Both of you are right. ANd obth of you are wrong. So let's agree on that, OK?This message has been edited by Specter, 05/11/2005 12:40 PM

Not really. Actually, It's my area. And just for gratification, Arach, I was asking whether you were evo or whether you werent evo! SO which are you, Arachnophilia.

I'll be sure to try it soon. (LOL!) But first, is this an obvious implication that in order to understand the Bible more fully, you must go to the hebrew source? Besides, there is a strict biblical penalty for expounding on things to twist them into sophistry. So it's not always beneficial to translate the Bible to make it fit your ways.My father is first elder in my church, and he got in trouble once for
trying to translate the Bible to become adverse to the church.

I'm very sorry, preacher, sir. I meant to reply to another person here, but I guess the reply buttin I chose was the incorrect one. Sorry.Specter

Therefore, are you saying that the sources could be telling us that the Babylonian area only flooded and not the whole world, yet the bodacious tempest made it seem like the whole world flooded?Either way, it destroys our interpretation of God.
Which is why we need the Faith to trust in the Bible's interpretation.