I never thought this was a literal 6 day as opposed to a six step creation. Could have taken millions of years for all I know.
Some require photosynthesis, some do not.
Possibly in the Bible as Job 40:15-24 mentions the behomoth and Job 41 mentions the leviathan
Which would have been something the ancients could not have conceived of conceptually.
I can see how that can be a problem for an elementary school kid but as a STEM graduate it should be a no brainer.
Leviathan of Job chapter 41 seems very simple. It surprises me how many preachers and donât look beyond the very literal description.
Isaiah 27:1, "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."
The last verses of Job chapter 41 pretty much sums up who Leviathan is.
Job 41:33, âUpon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.â
Is He speaking of satan?
I like to take the Bible as literal as it can be taken. I know many details are lacking, but what is written can be taken literal.
I even like a literal take of John 3:15, âThat whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.â
1 Like
It sure seems to be the point that is being made. Though when we first read of Leviathan we donât know what he is, but Job speaks of it as a personified male creature. If we look further in the scripture many times the Bible will add to the description.
1 Like
Which part?
The time period of âmillions of yearsâ, or the idea that âthere were ages that came before usâ, or something else?
I havenât seen anything that suggests that the ancients were particularly dumb or ignorant, but perhaps weâre talking about different things.
Thereâs an ingredient called âdragon boneâ thatâs a part of Chinese herbal medicine. Itâs made from fossilized bone. Mastodon is usually used nowadays, but it seems likely that dinosaur fossils were also used.
Mining for minerals has been attested since at least the Shang dynasty, so 1600-1000 BC.
âDragon boneâ was cataloged in writing as a medicinal as early as 200 BC from oral traditions.
It seems quite possible that the idea of dinosaurs were known across the ancient world, in various degrees between âpure mythologyâ and âI have seen the fossilsâ. Thereâs documented interactions between Rome and China. The Silk Road passed through the lands of whatâs now modern Israel.
Dragons were totally real. Like birds, their bones were hollow enough to allow flight and didnât stick around over the years, and like some reptiles, they could spit venom that burned you, hence the âfire-breathingâ stories we have now.
I donât actually know if I believe dragons existed, but I donât think itâs impossible that a dragon-like dinosaur mightâve once been around.
1 Like
Totally.
I imagine someone came across some fossilized bones, couldnât match it with anything they knew, and the closest match was âdragonâ. Either way, Chinese nomenclature is known for being poetic.
Like the great flood stories, it is interesting how many disparate cultures have dragon myths.
I had looked into behemoth briefly a couple decades ago. I thought it too might have been a description of Satan. But it never sit well with me. When you mentioned behemoth, I decided to look a little deeper. I interpret Job 40:15-24 completely different now.
Behemoth is the polar opposite of leviathan. Both of whom are creations of God.
With leviathan itâs âcanst thou,â âcanst thou,â canst thou," suggest that Job cannot stand up to leviathan. But with behemoth God says, âBehold now behemoth.â Job has been talking with God acknowledging he is powerless to his situation and God says âbehold now behemoth!â
As we read Godâs description we see he is a vegetarian, and not a threat to man, but he is powerful and does not fear man or any animal.
As a commentary says it, âAnd Behemoth is OK with all of that. Itâs at rest. It fears nothing â not water, not other animals, not man. Itâs not even presented as being anxious in the presence of its Creator that bears the sword that will slay it. Behemoth is just living the life that God has given it â no fear. Entirely at rest.â
Job is to be like behemoth. Behemoth doesnât know Godâs ways, but doesnât need to. He just trusts Godâs wisdom. He is just living the life God gave him. Job doesnât understand Godâs ways, but he should just trust Godâs wisdom. He should live life fearlessly with the strength God gives.
There are many details that can further enlighten the role model that behemoth shows.
I am just scratching the surface with the scripturesâŠi tend to interpret literally
That seems like a very⊠eastern⊠take on things.
Behemoth is a Samurai, a Zen Buddhist, a Daoist.
I havenât read this closely before. Iâm a little confused at the beginning of Job 41. Job 40:15-24 is talking about Behemoth.
The way Iâm reading it is that Job 41:1 is contrasting Leviathan with Behemoth, but then continues to describe Behemoth, not Leviathan.
The message I get from it seems to be, roughly, âbe strong such that you can remain untainted and undamaged by the worldâ. And that humility should be the default position with that kind of strength, rather than pride.
I only see Job 41 describing that crooked serpent. What verses do you see describing behemoth? I donât see one.
Leviathan seems to be the sole antecedent to all the following third person pronouns in the verses in chapter 41.
IMO, that is where we should start. Understand the literal if you can, before you look for a deeper message. One problem with behemoth is that I cannot think of a single animal that is being described. But that said, I believe âthe message to Jobâ is more important than knowing the literal animal being described.
2 Likes
Well, the only animal I can think of is a dinosaurâŠbrontasaurus maybe
the tail of a cedar
strong belly and loins
eats grass
Did you know there is (or was) a dispute that Brontosaurus is the appropriate name? It seems that in 1877 Othniel Marsh had called the sauropod that he discovered an Apatosaurus. Then in 1903 Elmer Riggs found that the Brontosaurus was the same as the Apatosaurus. The rule was that the oldest name has priority.
New studies appear to show that the neck of the Apatosaurus was thicker than the Brontosaurus, giving it back a chance to not experience a second âextinction.â
So supposedly, at this time there are three known species of sauropods:
- Diplodocus
- Apatosaurus
- Brontosaurus
But who here really cares. Just a little dinosaur trivia, that I just ran into.