PDA

View Full Version : Is the Leviathn in Job 41 refer to a dragon?



Paladin54
Jan 13th 2009, 02:02 AM
Dragons appear in the history of many cultures.

Could he Leviathan described in Job 41 refer to a dragon? Perhaps dragons are not mystical beasts and they did really exist at one time?

What really strikes me are these versus:

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.



They seem to really refer to a fire breathing beast of some sort.


So what do you think? Not a doctrinal question, just a curiosity.

Romber
Jan 13th 2009, 02:56 AM
It is exactly as it reads. Dragons or tanniyn (the hebrew word) are more specifically are Dinosaurs. Since dinosaur wasn't term coined until the 1840's, it obviously is not in the bible. The leviathan is clearly a dinosaur (just look at the massiveness in the scripture describing it).

We have exploding bugs, what says we can't have fire-breathing dinosaurs? Would explain the persistent fire-breathing dragons we find in cultures all around the world-the people actually saw the animal!

bennie
Jan 13th 2009, 03:38 AM
Dragons appear in the history of many cultures.

Could he Leviathan described in Job 41 refer to a dragon? Perhaps dragons are not mystical beasts and they did really exist at one time?

What really strikes me are these versus:

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.



They seem to really refer to a fire breathing beast of some sort.


So what do you think? Not a doctrinal question, just a curiosity.


in the contro section Tgallison and Jerome1( members) goes into big detail of what the beast/ animal is. it is in:" An indepth study on Job".
There is a second thread aswell. Jerome1 ask some good questions in that tread. Both are on Job.
Very informative.
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=140623 this is the original study
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=143944 this is the response to questions.

Very good read and study mate

bennie

soultoucher
Nov 1st 2016, 01:53 AM
If you read Genesis it is compelling that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve and there is the possibility that before the flood killed them, some species had been domesticated as pets to help complete household chores like plowing fields.

mailmandan
Nov 1st 2016, 02:12 AM
It is exactly as it reads. Dragons or tanniyn (the hebrew word) are more specifically are Dinosaurs. Since dinosaur wasn't term coined until the 1840's, it obviously is not in the bible. The leviathan is clearly a dinosaur (just look at the massiveness in the scripture describing it).

We have exploding bugs, what says we can't have fire-breathing dinosaurs? Would explain the persistent fire-breathing dragons we find in cultures all around the world-the people actually saw the animal! Amen! I believe that both leviathan and behemoth mentioned in the book of Job are dinosaurs.

Tony P
Nov 1st 2016, 02:17 AM
Dragons appear in the history of many cultures.

Could he Leviathan described in Job 41 refer to a dragon? Perhaps dragons are not mystical beasts and they did really exist at one time?

What really strikes me are these versus:

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

They seem to really refer to a fire breathing beast of some sort.

So what do you think? Not a doctrinal question, just a curiosity.

Don't forget the last verse.

34 He beholds every high thing;
He is king over all the children of pride.”

More scripture on Leviathan.

Job 3:8 May those curse it who curse the day, Those who are ready to arouse Leviathan.
9 May the stars of its morning be dark; May it look for light, but have none, And not see the dawning of the day

Psalm 74:13 You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea serpents in the waters. 14 You broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces, And gave him as food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Isaiah 26:20 Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors behind you; Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, Until the indignation is past. 21 For behold, the Lord comes out of His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover her slain. 27:1 In that day the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong, Will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; And He will slay the reptile that is in the sea.

teddyv
Nov 1st 2016, 03:15 AM
Thread zombie! On Halloween!

bluesky22
Nov 1st 2016, 04:07 AM
Amen! I believe that both leviathan and behemoth mentioned in the book of Job are dinosaurs.

Spot on brother, the bible does not make a big deal about "dinosaurs" because they are just another of Gods creations frOm day 6 like the elephant or giraffe.

But it does reference the massive creations of Gods first works.

And even today, we still live with these amazing creatures!


http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/266225-Evidence-for-a-Young-Earth-and-that-man-walked-with-quot-Dinosaurs-quot

bluesky22
Nov 1st 2016, 04:16 AM
Thread zombie! On Halloween!


https://youtu.be/v17lMr0j2D8

birdy
Nov 1st 2016, 09:58 AM
Dragons appear in the history of many cultures.

Could he Leviathan described in Job 41 refer to a dragon? Perhaps dragons are not mystical beasts and they did really exist at one time?

What really strikes me are these versus:

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.



They seem to really refer to a fire breathing beast of some sort.


So what do you think? Not a doctrinal question, just a curiosity.

Thanks for asking the question, Paladin54. The thing about the Bible is that it is written in parable form, so that creatures and animals are symbolic of other things than just the creatures themselves. If the Bible were not written in parable form, God would expect people who are true believers to go around picking up literal serpents (Rattlesnakes, Coral Snakes, Cobras and such) according to Mark 16:18. Instead of God wanting that, serpents in that verse mean those persons and doctrines under evil control, not real snakes. Further, when the Bible says in John 10:11 that the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep, a literal interpretation would mean that literal sheep are the ones God came to save. Instead, however, the sheep mean those persons who are saved. Persons, not animals. It is no different with dragons. The word dragon occurs in the Bible at least 19 times. Consider, for example, Ezekiel 29:3: "Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself." In this example, it is easy to see that the dragon is Pharaoh king of Egypt. The rivers are the gospel, but unfortunately Pharoah is a picture of someone who has come to the conclusion that the gospel is from himself rather than from God. It is just like the king who boasts, 'is not this great Babylon which I have built?" Anyhow, considering that dragons are mentioned so often in the Bible, it would not be surprising to see this parable form used in the book of Job as well. It is not like it would be discovering suddenly the only place where dragons exist in the Bible. However, some readers see this as a dinosaur instead. While others see this as the beast, and so forth. No matter what creature you consider it to be in the surface text, your real mission should be to find out what the creature is a picture of in its interpreted (parable) meaning. Fortunately, the chapter you mention (Job 41) has lots and lots of description clues to help you work out what person or persons are being represented by the creature. Consider that the creature is called "a king over all the children of pride." (the word for 'pride' can be translated 'dignity' as well.) Or consider, as you have, that fire comes out of his mouth: "Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out." Did you know that Revelation 11:5 talks about people who have fire coming out of their mouths: "And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth". These people in Rev 5 are the true believers. The Bible uses the terminology of fire to mean the unsaved condition, spiritually. Fire means spiritual condemnation or judgment. When a true believer shares the gospel it is life coming out of their mouths to save the new convert. However, if the person hearing the true believers gospel rejects that gospel, it is effectively fire (condemnation and judgment) that hearer experiences. There is no literal fire coming out of their mouths. This is the Bibles way of saying that life and judgment are proceeding from the gospel that the true believers have. Fire means simply judgment, which is to say the unsaved condition.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 1st 2016, 02:01 PM
The Bible is not all written in parable form.

It is written in many different literary genres, and it is important to understand the genre when interpreting any given passage.

And Mark 16:18 is not in the original text.

BrianW
Nov 1st 2016, 02:24 PM
If you read Genesis it is compelling that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve and there is the possibility that before the flood killed them, some species had been domesticated as pets to help complete household chores like plowing fields.

Care to elaborate? Which Scriptures have you read that lead you to these conclusions?

Aviyah
Nov 1st 2016, 11:49 PM
Thanks for asking the question, Paladin54. The thing about the Bible is that it is written in parable form, so that creatures and animals are symbolic of other things than just the creatures themselves.

Parts of the Bible are parables, but Job 41 is basically the end of a list of animals God was giving Job... starting in chapter 39. So He mentions a lion, raven, goat, ox, donkey, horse, leading up to a behemoth (some sort of large land animal) and a leviathan (large sea animal, AKA dragon). I don't see why God would tell Job to look around at creation and mention all literal objects like the stars, rain, etc - then literal animals - only to end with a figurative one.

I think people believe the leviathan is figurative only because there's no obvious comparison or it sounds unrealistic. It might not have been a dragon like movies and TV portray (Job 41 doesn't mention it having wings and terrorizing villages), but I'm not skeptical of a deep sea creature which boils the water to kill its prey... all the biological necessities for it to be possible have been observed in nature. There are far stranger things in the oceans that we still can't explain, and yet we've discovered more of the surface of Venus than the oceans here on Earth. How do you describe something like this without sounding like a sci-fi writer, lol:

http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/deep-sea-creatures-new-species-okeanos-explorer-3.jpg

birdy
Nov 2nd 2016, 03:37 AM
The Bible is not all written in parable form.

It is written in many different literary genres, and it is important to understand the genre when interpreting any given passage.

And Mark 16:18 is not in the original text.

Yes, I am familiar with this sort of reaction. However, I believe differently. I believe the Bible tells us it is all written in parable form. Mark 4:34: "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." God speaks through the Bible. The 'all things' in this verse is talking about all Bible things which God expounds to his disciples. He is saying that he did NOT speak without a parable: "But without a parable spake he not unto them". In other words, he only speaks WITH a parable. Psalm 78 backs this up, saying that the law of God (the Bible) is a parable: "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable". I find that surface interpretation of the Bible leads to many wrong conclusions, and has spawned all kinds of unusual doctrines that are apart from the truth.

jaybird
Nov 5th 2016, 08:40 PM
Dragons appear in the history of many cultures.

Could he Leviathan described in Job 41 refer to a dragon? Perhaps dragons are not mystical beasts and they did really exist at one time?

What really strikes me are these versus:

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.



They seem to really refer to a fire breathing beast of some sort.


So what do you think? Not a doctrinal question, just a curiosity.

i always thought the serpent in the garden was a dragon.

few want to consider what you said, pretty much every ancient culture has dragons in their oral traditions. few of the cultures knew each other, strange they would all make up the same stories.

jaybird
Nov 5th 2016, 08:43 PM
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/deep-sea-creatures-new-species-okeanos-explorer-3.jpg

what is this?


the message you have entered is too short. please lengthen your message to at least 15 characters
OK i did.

Aviyah
Nov 6th 2016, 12:16 AM
what is this?

Some type of ctenophore which is an animal similar to jellyfish, but they don't sting. :saint:

And here's a man-eating Japanese spider crab in an aquarium in Germany :o (actually they are harmless):

http://freizeitparks.de/uploads/pics/SEA_LIFE_Japanische_Seespinnen_mit_Kind.jpg

teddyv
Nov 6th 2016, 03:26 AM
For my answer the OP, Leviathan is a chaos monster.

mailmandan
Nov 6th 2016, 11:39 AM
Could dinosaurs still be alive?

Some dinosaurs may still be alive today. For almost 100 years there have been reports from the Congo Basin in central Africa of a monster known to the natives as ‘Mokele Mbembe’, and which seems to look like a dinosaur. It reportedly varies in length from five to 10 metres (17 to 35 feet), much of this being made up by its long tail and very long neck. Professor Mackal, who has led expeditions into the Congo in search of the elusive creature, believes it to be a small dinosaur. His research suggests it may specifically be a surviving Atlantosaurus.

One “evidence” that continues to circulate widely among creationists is the report of the “plesiosaur” that was found in 1977. Many claim the find as evidence that evolutionists “got it wrong.” After all, if evolutionists say that something is long extinct and then a modern example is found, doesn’t that make them wrong about everything?

In April 1977, the Japanese fishing trawler Zuiyo-maru operating off the coast of New Zealand snagged a large carcass at a depth of about 1,000 feet. The carcass was brought to the surface and onto the ship. The dead creature was about 33 feet long and weighed about 4,000 pounds.

The ship’s company was unsure about the identity of the carcass. Some thought it might be a rotting whale. Others thought it could be a giant turtle that lost its shell. Ultimately, no one could identify it for certain.

The captain did not want this rotting creature on the ship for fear of spoiling the fish catch, so he decided to release it back into the sea. One of the crew had a few minutes to examine the creature. He took a few photographs and even managed to obtain pieces of horny fiber from an anterior fin. Then the carcass was returned to the sea.

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2010/09/plesiosaur.jpg

teddyv
Nov 6th 2016, 05:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that was determined to be a dead basking shark or something like that. I recall seeing that picture before.

Aviyah
Nov 6th 2016, 06:46 PM
After all, if evolutionists say that something is long extinct and then a modern example is found, doesn’t that make them wrong about everything?

Well it could be that the species just evolves very slowly like deep sea squids.


I'm pretty sure that was determined to be a dead basking shark or something like that. I recall seeing that picture before.

Yep ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuiyo-maru_carcass

mailmandan
Nov 6th 2016, 09:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that was determined to be a dead basking shark or something like that. I recall seeing that picture before. That's a strange looking shark. LOL

teddyv
Nov 6th 2016, 11:26 PM
That's a strange looking shark. LOLIf you mean the one in that photo, well it was mostly rotted away. But basking sharks are bit odd looking sharks (and very big) as well.

Tony P
Nov 6th 2016, 11:33 PM
That's a strange looking shark. LOL

Did you read the article in the previous post? They were unable to determine with certainty what the creature was. They assumed in was a shark. To assume otherwise would put the whole "old theory" in jeopardy. There is no way science would take the chance that the Bible may be right about the earth's age.

teddyv
Nov 6th 2016, 11:34 PM
Did you read the article in the previous post? They were unable to determine with certainty what the creature was. They assumed in was a shark. To assume otherwise would put the whole "old theory" in jeopardy. There is no way science would take the chance that the Bible may be right about the earth's age.Oh yea, the massive worldwide conspiracy.

mailmandan
Nov 6th 2016, 11:41 PM
Did you read the article in the previous post? They were unable to determine with certainty what the creature was. They assumed in was a shark. To assume otherwise would put the whole "old theory" in jeopardy. There is no way science would take the chance that the Bible may be right about the earth's age. You have a point. I would not be a bit surprised to find out that certain dinosaurs are still around.

Aviyah
Nov 7th 2016, 12:33 AM
They assumed it was a shark.

If by "assumed" you mean "took a tissue sample and compared it to other basking sharks," then yes they did.

bluesky22
Nov 7th 2016, 02:44 AM
You have a point. I would not be a bit surprised to find out that certain dinosaurs are still around.

There are many. We call them "living fossils". The ones that are gone are simply like the dodo bird. Gone.

bluesky22
Nov 7th 2016, 02:54 AM
Oh yea, the massive worldwide conspiracy.


There is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth. By [ influenced by ] Satan himself, ultimately.

There is no doubt in my mind that spiritual forces have converged to ignore [ and to lead if possible astray from ] the biblical understanding of the history of the world.

Edit : (although many are genuinely deceived through lack of knowedge, ( Hosea 4:6 ) strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11) herd mentality, deception and/or spiritual darkness.

Ephesians 6:12King James Version (KJV)

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

bluesky22
Nov 7th 2016, 02:58 AM
Could dinosaurs still be alive?

Some dinosaurs may still be alive today. For almost 100 years there have been reports from the Congo Basin in central Africa of a monster known to the natives as ‘Mokele Mbembe’, and which seems to look like a dinosaur. It reportedly varies in length from five to 10 metres (17 to 35 feet), much of this being made up by its long tail and very long neck. Professor Mackal, who has led expeditions into the Congo in search of the elusive creature, believes it to be a small dinosaur. His research suggests it may specifically be a surviving Atlantosaurus.

One “evidence” that continues to circulate widely among creationists is the report of the “plesiosaur” that was found in 1977. Many claim the find as evidence that evolutionists “got it wrong.” After all, if evolutionists say that something is long extinct and then a modern example is found, doesn’t that make them wrong about everything?

In April 1977, the Japanese fishing trawler Zuiyo-maru operating off the coast of New Zealand snagged a large carcass at a depth of about 1,000 feet. The carcass was brought to the surface and onto the ship. The dead creature was about 33 feet long and weighed about 4,000 pounds.

The ship’s company was unsure about the identity of the carcass. Some thought it might be a rotting whale. Others thought it could be a giant turtle that lost its shell. Ultimately, no one could identify it for certain.

The captain did not want this rotting creature on the ship for fear of spoiling the fish catch, so he decided to release it back into the sea. One of the crew had a few minutes to examine the creature. He took a few photographs and even managed to obtain pieces of horny fiber from an anterior fin. Then the carcass was returned to the sea.

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2010/09/plesiosaur.jpg



https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/didnt-a-fishing-boat-find-a-dead-plesiosaur/

mailmandan
Nov 7th 2016, 11:44 AM
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/didnt-a-fishing-boat-find-a-dead-plesiosaur/ So according to answeringenesis.org it's undecided:

Several investigations into this matter have shown that the carcass is very similar in appearance to the rotting corpse of basking sharks. Now, does the comparison of photographs of rotting carcasses give us a definitive answer? No, it does not. However, the weight of evidence suggests enough uncertainty to call into question any definitive identification of this creature as a plesiosaur.

Is our evidence strong enough to continue to perpetuate the plesiosaur tale? Ultimately, would this be a deathblow to evolution if the specimen were, in fact, a plesiosaur? The answer is “no” on both counts. The evidence is not strong enough, but even if we did find a plesiosaur alive today, would that really be enough to convince an evolutionist? Probably not. So what about the Loch Ness monster? Plesiosaur or fairy tale?

Aviyah
Nov 7th 2016, 06:16 PM
even if we did find a plesiosaur alive today, would that really be enough to convince an evolutionist? Probably not.

Crocodiles are alive today and they are believed to have lived since the same period as plesiosaurs. So if we found a living or recently dead plesiosaur, it would only mean the species also survived the extinction 60M years ago. Not saying it's the right or wrong interpretation, but discovering a living "dinosaur" wouldn't be inconsistent with the theory - just the assumption that certain ones went extinct. The descendants of dinosaurs after all are still here today.

Tony P
Nov 7th 2016, 06:58 PM
If by "assumed" you mean "took a tissue sample and compared it to other basking sharks," then yes they did.

Amino acids were similar, but the results were inconclusive. Therefore, a conclusion can only be assumed. Either way. I have no idea what it was.

Aviyah
Nov 7th 2016, 07:12 PM
Amino acids were similar, but the results were inconclusive.

No they were basically an exact match, and there is no evidence to suggest it was anything but a shark. But you don't have to believe the lab results. :saint:

Tony P
Nov 7th 2016, 07:42 PM
No they were basically an exact match, and there is no evidence to suggest it was anything but a shark. But you don't have to believe the lab results. :saint:

An exact match would be conclusive. It wasn't an exact match. Which is why it is inconclusive. The whole thing could be a hoax as far as I know. It makes no difference to me.

Aviyah
Nov 7th 2016, 10:15 PM
An exact match would be conclusive. It wasn't an exact match.

All the tests suggest there is no reason to believe it was anything other than a shark or to even be skeptical of that fact.


The whole thing could be a hoax as far as I know.

It's not a mystery. :saint: