Justin Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 So, we have unicorns, dragons, satyrs, cockatrices, behemoth, leviathan and the fiery flying serpents. Some christians say that the cockatrice refereces to a serpent, behemoth is a dinosaur, the unicorn is a wild ox or rhino, and the satyr's are goats. Ok, i can understand the unicorn being both an ox or a rhino, but i cannot see how satyr translates to ox when in Isiah 13: 21 it says, "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." Never seen a goat that danced. But satyr's in mythology did just that. The bible i have translates dragons as ostrichs. WTF? The cockatrice is said to be serpents but why does Jermiah 8:17 say "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD." ? Why would they refer to the same thing using two different words? This would be like me saying i took a walk in the woods and saw 2 dogs and 1 canine, or i saw a skunk and then an hour later saw a polecat. Fiery flaying serpents... WTF? On the AnswersinGenesis site i saw an article from a funie who tried to say that these were Pterosaurs. I've seen enough about Behemoth to know they are not refering to any dinosuar but are more than likely talking about Behemoth, the giant bull in the mythologies of that region. Leviathan seems to be just a fanciful, imaginative monster like Medusa or the Centaur, especially given the specific description of it in Job 41. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 20, 2008 Super Moderator Share Posted October 20, 2008 "Never seen a goat that danced." You can get a goat to dance, but you have to buy her a couple of drinks first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SmAshley Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 well it's true that christianity "borrowed" other things from ancient religions so maybe they borrowed some animal species too.... intersting to think about though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 A lot of the animals assigned to the stories were made from guessing during translation, because several of them are really unknown. The translators didn't really know what animal they refer to, so during the first English translation (KJV) in the 17th century, they picked whatever they thought best at that time. And later they have figured out some, but others not, and they just picked some other animals that didn't sound as fairytale as the earlier translations. Leviathan seems to be just a fanciful, imaginative monster like Medusa or the Centaur, especially given the specific description of it in Job 41. From what I heard, the Leviathan is the sea-monster, and it would loosely be related to "Chaos". The whole Jahveh fighting Leviathan and subdue him, is the old believe that before the existence of the universe, chaos existed. Chaos became Cosmos. Disorder became Order. Through the hands of the hero God. Call him Jahweh, El, Mithras, or whatever, it's the same idea. It's traces from the earlier creation stories, embedded in the Bible text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The cockatrice is said to be serpents but why does Jermiah 8:17 say "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD." ? Why would they refer to the same thing using two different words? This would be like me saying i took a walk in the woods and saw 2 dogs and 1 canine, or i saw a skunk and then an hour later saw a polecat. Not really. It could be a parenthetical type statement (ie. I saw a dog, a boxer, in the woods). The two words used for serpents and cockatrices are different. The problem is the one used for "cockatrice." No one really knows what it meant (or means). It comes from a root for "to extrude" and the "to extrude" is akin to the tongue coming from the snakes head. That's it. That's the argument. They assume it's a poisonous snake but from what I've read in the past little while there are no poisonous snakes in that region so it seems unlikely (maybe that's why they need to be sent). Pliny describes the critters that eventually get placed into the KJV but basilisk might be closer though it's more a flightless cockatrice than anything. The real answer is nobody knows what is supposed to go there but whatever it is it bites, can fly and appears to come from a serpent (when you combine the places the word gets used). Fiery flaying serpents... WTF? On the AnswersinGenesis site i saw an article from a funie who tried to say that these were Pterosaurs. Sure. Why not? Anything is possible in the magical world of the bible. Leviathan seems to be just a fanciful, imaginative monster like Medusa or the Centaur, especially given the specific description of it in Job 41. Job 3:8 Let it be cursed by those who put a curse on the day; who are ready to make Leviathan awake. Job 41:1 Is it possible for Leviathan to be pulled out with a fish-hook, or for a hook to be put through the bone of his mouth? Psalm 74:14 The heads of the great snake[Leviathan] were crushed by you; you gave them as food to the fishes of the sea. Psalm 104:26 There go the ships; there is that great beast[Leviathan], which you have made as a plaything. Isa 27:1 In that day the Lord, with his great and strong and cruel sword, will send punishment on Leviathan, the quick-moving snake, and on Leviathan, the twisted snake; and he will put to death the dragon which is in the sea. Leviathan is more than just a fanciful monster. It is one of the primordial creatures. It lies at creation itself for several cultures. There are a number of stories of Leviathan as to what it is and when it was "created" and the like. The thing is it actually leads to other interesting things (other than the fact, from what you can see above, that the "author" of Psalms can't seem to decide if Leviathan(s) are still around or if it's romping around the sea...all others feel it's around). It's when you go to Psalm 74:13 "The sea was parted in two by your strength; the heads of the great sea-beasts were broken." The word for "sea-beasts" is Tanniyn. And in Genesis 1:21 it's used for the whales that are created. So "sea-beasts" must be whales. But in Exodus 7:9-12 it's translated "serpent" (where the rod became a serpent). So the "sea-beasts" must be serpents. In Deuteronomy 32:33 and Nehemiah it's "dragon." So the sea-beasts" must be dragons. In Job 7:12 it's "sea-beasts," but in Job 30:29, get this, it's "jackals" (same as Psalm 44:19). 91:13 has "great snake" but Psalm 148:7 is back to "sea-beast." Skipping a few I found Isaiah 34:13 has "foxes." I could be mistaken but I think Isaiah 35:7 has "sheep." Skipping a bunch more I found Ezekiel 29:3 that has "river-beast." That's it (well, that's all I'm doing). Different translations use different words (the KJV is fairly consistent with "dragon") but what is the Tanniyn? Was the "dragon" created in place of whales? Did the rod turn into a dragon? Do dragons hang out in the wilderness with owls and ostriches? Perhaps there was a single pair of these on the ark and that explains it all? They seem to be the "every" animal. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Net Eng Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 A lot of the animals assigned to the stories were made from guessing during translation, because several of them are really unknown. The translators didn't really know what animal they refer to, so during the first English translation (KJV) in the 17th century, they picked whatever they thought best at that time. And later they have figured out some, but others not, and they just picked some other animals that didn't sound as fairytale as the earlier translations. But Han... The translators of the bible were inspired by gawd so how could they not translate every last word correctly?? I have heard this issue about the bible argued at work on several occasions by xians. My only question is if they mis-translated some of the stuff about animals what else did they screw up?? Stoney silence usually follows... <sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 A lot of the animals assigned to the stories were made from guessing during translation, because several of them are really unknown. The translators didn't really know what animal they refer to, so during the first English translation (KJV) in the 17th century, they picked whatever they thought best at that time. And later they have figured out some, but others not, and they just picked some other animals that didn't sound as fairytale as the earlier translations. But Han... The translators of the bible were inspired by gawd so how could they not translate every last word correctly?? I have heard this issue about the bible argued at work on several occasions by xians. My only question is if they mis-translated some of the stuff about animals what else did they screw up?? Stoney silence usually follows... <sigh> Good point Net Eng. Great avatar btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 Leviathan is more than just a fanciful monster. It is one of the primordial creatures. It lies at creation itself for several cultures. Like Behemoth and that bird? I can't think of it's name, but it, Behemoth and Leviathan where often depicted together on artwork and in myths in that time in that region. Anyway, Job states that Leviathan had armored scales so close together that no air could get between them and that no spear could pierce. That same chapter states that it breathed fire too. Whatever it was, it was most certainly not a whale or anything dwelling in the realm of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 "Never seen a goat that danced."You can get a goat to dance, but you have to buy her a couple of drinks first. And remember to take them to the edge of a cliff so they push back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 "Never seen a goat that danced."You can get a goat to dance, but you have to buy her a couple of drinks first. And remember to take them to the edge of a cliff so they push back! LMFAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Justin you have a knack for identifying the contradictions and the absurd in the wholly babble. These people believed in a flat earth, a firmament to hold the stars, and talking snakes and magical invisible sky people. A few unicorns or a couple Leviathans was no stretch at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts