Dinosours

that guy looks like Riddel

 

Found it. The verse is still referring to the leviathan, not God. I think the point of saying that would be that there are things in nature that can squash man like a bug whenever he gets too big for his britches.

 

Spontaneous combustion can happen when two separate chemicals are combined and oxygenated. Is it really so difficult to concede the possibility, however remote, of an animal having the ability to produce such incindieries?

 

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

Ok, so Job isn't discussing a dinosaur at all but a fire breathing dragon? I am following this right aren't I?

 

Job uses neither the term 'dinosaur', nor the term 'dragon' in his text. Those are labels we are trying to apply to what he's writing about.

 

Here's the original Post

Here's your reply

You seem to be saying that Dinosaurs, a term that I well know didn't even come into being until the 19th century, is exactly what Job is talking about.

Later, when the fire breathing is brought up, you begin to rationalize explanations for not just a "dinosaur" in the Bible, but an honest to goodness fire breathing dragon.

Those seem to be labels that you want to apply. I also imagine that during Biblical times that the Earth revolved around the Sun also as is written in the Holy Book.

Not trying to being a smart ass, but rationalizations and inferences that defy logical thought especially from smart people, in an attempt to portray every part of the Bible as some sort of literal truth are really starting to get to me a bit.

 

That was an inference on my part. We all know dinosaurs existed. Whether they were alive or not, the evidence was there in Job's time. It just seems to me the most logical fit for the references given. One could certainly argue that the text is referencing purely mythological creatures, but what would be the point? The purpose of the message would be lost. God doesn't have to refer to mythical beasts to intimidate people. There are plenty of them walking around the earth to use as examples, and they're much more effective illustrations, IMO.

All of that to say, I could be absolutely wrong. I don't think I am, but I'm certainly willing to entertain contrarian arguments to convince me otherwise.

All I was trying to infer is that "fire-breathing" isn't as impossible in the natural world as it may seem. I'm just suggesting it's possible, not absolute, and maybe not even probable. But aside from that debate, I know of no dominant evidence to the contrary. In other words, has anyone in the zoologic community ever proven it to be impossible? If so, I'll gladly review that evidence and I'm willing to concede the entire issue if the evidence is sound.

I'm just trying to be scientific and logical about this. And it's my understanding that when looking for an objective answer, all introduced possibilities must be at least considered before being ruled out by evidence.

'Dinosaur' was the label introduced at the start of this thread, which you pointed out. I have suggested and believe that the creatures described in Job are most likely what we call dinosaurs, which is why when people ask me if the Bible mentions dinosaurs, I present those passages.

Whether the breathing fire description is meant to be figurative or literal, I don't know, but I haven't been able to rule it out completely with logic or science. Until I can, I feel a need to keep that particular possibility on the table.

Not that I've seen.

I don't deny that was very likely the belief of the people, but those who would call themselves God's people believed (and believe) many things that are not written in the Bible.

I know you're not trying to be a smart ass, Vito, and I haven't taken your posts that way. I know we look at this from different angles, and I'm cool with that.

But how does what I've suggested in this thread defy logic? If I have, please point it out to me. Honestly, it really doesn't make much difference to me. I'm not going to lose sleep over whether or not Job's behemoth and leviathan are dinosaurs or myths. This is just an academic exercise as far as I'm concerned.

 

Glad you take it that way. As I've posted before in my views on much of the Bible, much of the language that is of a metaphorical nature, and I have a feeling that this part of Job is of a mythical/metaphorical nature, is shoehorned by many to try to fit a literal interpretation.

The book of Job is viewed by many Christians as the literal story of one man and his personal relationship with God. When viewed in that context, I can easily see how one could view the discussions of Leviathans and Behemoths as being literal creatures.

When viewed in a literary as opposed to literal sense, Job makes more sense. It is a wonderful examination of mankind's attempt to understand the nature of God.

 

leviathan and behemoth, from what i've read, really are just the sort of "ultimate" water and land animals respectively. ziz is the ultimate flying animal. there's some sort of myth about them all fighting at some point. i think that battle is supposed to take place in tokyo.