what passages would these be because your statement about behemoth for example, obviously referencing the claim its a hippo. A hippos tail looks nothing like the massive trunks of cedar trees. The massive size portrayed in Job is not indicative of a hippo. The only common theme between behemoth and a hippo is that they spend time in the water. A major problem with the hippo theory…elephants and we know the elephant is not what Job is talking about.
As for the Leviathan, what animal do you consider fits the description in Job?
i dont know why you harp on about this…so ill answer it with a quote:
The anti-creationists will always bring up some “contradiction” to Flood geology. In reading the article, it first of all looks like the smoothing effect is only on some boulders (Figure 2), and not others, as shown in figures 1 and 3. I would think this is front he wind and not from rubbing with other boulders.
I do not know how they dated the top of the boulders to millions of years, but my guess would be in situ Be-10, a cosmogenic isotope. Cosmogenic isotopes have assumptions and old age built in. Reading farther, yes they have dated the top of boulders by this method. I wrote an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly dealing with this subject: Oard, M.J. 2021. Much greater cosmic rays during the Ice Age and before. Creation Research Society Quarterly 58(1):30–48. Humpreys in the last ICC has another mechanism dealing with more cosmic rays from effects within the sun.
Earthquakes seem like a viable mechanism, but they are using uniformitarianism and their stretched out dating methods to claim old age, as shown by the following statement: “The erosion of that bedrock is occurring at extremely slow rates—as low as 1/10 of a meter per million years or 100 thousandth of a centimeter per year.” Earthquakes in the past could have been much stronger and more often.
Besides, when the boulder reaches a very low slope, I would say they have a problem getting them there. But in a YEC model, one or more large earthquake could have started boulders moving at high speed downslope to come to rest on a low slope. I cannot see small to medium earthquakes being able to continue moving boulders on a low slope, even over thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years. So, they have a problem also.
Other possible mechanisms are that the last vestiges of Flood runoff left the boulders down the slope.
Another possible mechanism is that a large mass flow spread debris, containing large boulders, far down the slope reaching almost level ground. Then wind eroded away the small to medium rocks. The Atacama Desert is dry today, but during the Ice Age, it likely was much wetter, which would aid the downslope movement of debris.
In answer to the boulders being igneous, they likely would be solid late in the Flood and afterwards.
very funny but of no theological value. If people here are wanting to engage in any Christianity, they would at least need consistent supporting resources in favour of the bible, not stupid statements that give rise to atheists calling the entire bible a mythological fairytale!
Psalm 74:14 speaks of Leviathan as having multiple heads, in keeping with the archaeological depictions in the middle east. Behemoth and Leviathan were thoroughly discussed in this thread.
I was talking about theology and the scriptures – stop trying to change the subject.
I’m talking about scholars who actually read not just ancient Hebrew but the other important languages back then, and who know the literature of the ancient near east well enough to recognize the several types of literature that the opening Creation account uses plus the fact that the writer adopted the Egyptian creation story’s order of events (which are pretty much identical in all the ancient near east). Anyone who can’t do that does not actually qualify as an Old Testament scholar.
If you understood ancient literature you would realize that the question is a joke.
You’re trying to impose modern categories on ancient literature. It’s no different from what the Roman Catholic church did more than once over the last thousand years, and if you extend the category to include all the times that people have tried to force the scriptures to fit human theology, it’s the same thing that Arius did, that Nestorius did, that Montanus did, that Sabellius did plus all the others whose names are on the list of rejected teachings.
Until you learn to grapple with the opening chapters of Genesis as the ancient literature that they are you’re not even doing theology, you’re engaging in nothing more than conjecture.
More to the point, His physical death wrenched the destiny of human beings back to where it was meant to be before things got derailed by disloyalty to YHWH that we call sin. The first humans weren’t immortal, but that was the intended destiny as revealed by the report of the second special tree in the Garden, the Tree of Life!
Apparently one does not have to be very old to be a curmudgeon.
Next time you ask a stupid question, give your audience a clue regarding the kind of answer you’re looking for, failure to do so gives us Christians the impression that you have not read the New Testament.
P.S. atheists hardly need any stupid statements to justify their calling the entire bible a mythological fairytale.
Only one contradiction is necessary to invalidate “flood geology”: the Earth is here.
If “flood geology” was true there would be a ring of dust around the sun in the orbit that presently belongs to our planet.
Ah, the absolutely non-scholarly argument from incredulity!
Oh, and the “God miraculously cooled them down faster than His regular rules allowed” argument.
Nice – too bad it’s closed!
Reading it reminded me of how YECists doing their very best have always sounded to me: like the drunken off-the-wall conjecturing we used to do in grad school after finals! It’s just ad hoc notions dragged in due to sounding like something else and seeming useful at the time.
Well, congratulations. I haven’t seen a YEC try to answer that before. It’s still pretty ludicrous as @St.Roymond has already pointed out. It might help if you supplied the link for your quote, because the figures cited do not appear to correlate to the figures in the article I linked to most recently…
13You divided the sea by Your strength;
You smashed the heads of the dragons of the sea; 14You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
You fed him to the creatures of the desert.
you are as usual ignoring other verses in this chapter in the bible…look at the verse preceeding 14 where it talks about heads of dragons…clearly its not saying dragons have multiple heads in verse 13, so why are you twisting verse 14?
It is not necessarily making the statement that Leviathon has multiple heads, however, i do not see the relevance of the number of heads in any case. it appears that you are attempting to use this as a means of claiming the animal is mythological and not real. That is not the reading of the depiction job which is very specific because God is illustrating to Job using known animals of massive size, how great our Creator is and how insignificant Job is.
in terms of the reference to another Biologos forum post about “kinds” under the post heading is Baraminology even Scriptural… This is a stupid argument and i dont know why evolutionists attempt to use it for the support of their world view as it actually goes against their own claims of single origins…its a red herring at best!
Whilst on this point, please explain to me how it is that Australian budgies in the wild are all green and yet in captivity, we find an array of colours? Would you not agree that clearly there is coding within the greens that has the capacity to produce all the captive budgie colours we find today or do you wish to claim someone painted them all? I would argue that this coding is indicative of intelligent design in that God created the capacity for all kinds to come from a smaller group of individuals. To me that is what evolution is, not a completely new species, but the ability of kinds to develop new features in order to survive within a changing world (for one thing, as a consequence of sin). I frankly see this as a non issue when compared with the dilemmas that evolution faces in terms of explaining how the big bang actually started given the fundamental rule of all science “energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed”
Finally, TEism has still not provided an adequate answer to the following (and these are just two theological issues it faces)
1. Why did Chist physically die on the Cross (and not just spiritually)
2. The 4th commandment states…“in six days God created the heavens and the earth, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God”
The only twisting going on is by you: “Dragons” is plural and so one assumes that the “heads” are distributed one per dragon (though this is not stated), but “Leviathon” is singular while “heads” is plural, so that the grammatical option is that Leviathon had multiple heads.
The RATE project was a huge breakthrough for creation scientists. It especially explained why secular scientists get millions and billions of years from radiometric dating. Quaternary dating methods also need evaluating. One of these dating methods is cosmogenic nuclide dating caused by the bombardment of the Earth by cosmic rays. Production rates of cosmogenic nuclides vary by location on the Earth, altitude, and time and depend upon many variables. They have many geological applications, such as inferring erosion rates and the burial rates of sediments. Carbon-14 is the most well-known cosmogenic dating method, but it has a practical age limit to only 50 ka. In situ beryllium-10 (10Be or Be-10) can be easier to use and can ‘date’ the rest of the Quaternary. Another cosmogenic dating method calculates the ratio of Al-26/Be-10 in sediment, which can determine the time since burial. Seven Be-10 measurements are used as showcases for an old Earth. They produce tens to hundreds of thousands of years in the uniformitarian timescale. When transforming the Be-10 values into Biblical earth history, creation scientists run into four complications which make it impossible to be accurate. In spite of this, it appears that the cosmic rays were very high during the Flood and tailed off rapidly during the Ice Age. These measurements have four implications: 1) high cosmic rays could be due to a nearby supernova or supernovae that may also be a cause for accelerated radiometric decay during the Flood and Ice Age; 2) it accounts for the rapid increase in C-14 after the Flood; 3) accelerated radiometric decay after the Flood telescopes other Quaternary dating methods to the time after the Flood; and 4) finally, we can account for the Be-10 measurements in ice cores.
So basically, he’s trying to play the accelerated nuclear decay card.
That means you don’t need to waste your time reading any further.
Accelerated nuclear decay is an outright failure of the FizzBuzz of nuclear physics. It’s the kind of thing that, in an interview for a science-based job, would immediately short-circuit the conversation to the “Have You Any Other Questions For Me?” stage. You don’t need a “secular” worldview to see this either. It’s a claim that is so blatantly bad that I’ve even had young earthists say to me that they think it’s some sort of atheist parody to “discredit creationism.”
Far from being a “huge breakthrough” that he claims, the RATE project of which he speaks concluded with the admission that if there really had been enough nuclear decay to squeeze the radiometric evidence into six thousand years, it would have raised the temperature of the Earth to 22,400°C. I repeat: that was NOT an objection from “secular science”; it was the young earthists’ own admission.
As for the idea that a local supernova could have accelerated decay rates to that extent, if that really had happened then the Earth wouldn’t be here. We know what kind of conditions it takes to accelerate nuclear decay rates to any significant amount: temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees and very contrived laboratory setups. To get anywhere near those conditions, you’d need to be right at the centre of the supernova. An explosion even as close as one or two light years away simply wouldn’t cut it.
so you are using a single text to form your entire opinion of biblical theology whilst ignoring the significant issues you face with the following
Jesus died physcially on the cross to save us from our sins (where the wages of sin is death Romans 6:23)
Exodus 20: 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
I have far more texts that support my view than you do with Leviathon and Behemoth as evidence of allegory. The number of heads on a creature is completely irrelevant to the issue…it makes no difference. Leviathon can be used as both singular or plural…its the same English word unless in your use of language you wish to use for example leviathons as the plural or to use another example, “sheeps” as the plural of sheep? In any case, it does not override the overwhelming majority of biblical theology that supports literal creation.
As i have said time and time before and no one has yet come up with a satisfactory answer to this…You still have not even managed to come up with a single decent explanation for why, if Adam and Eves death prediction by God was only a spiritual one, the savior came and lived among us and died physically on the cross for sins of mankind! If it was only spiritual and God is spirit, why the Son of Man dying for our sins? It doesnt stand up to the stink test to be frank and it certainly isnt supported by overwhelming number of bible references about sin, death, and salvation.
> How can Leviathan have a symbolic, poetic meaning in these passages, but represent a real creature in Job 41? It’s important to note that just because two passages use the same word, it doesn’t mean the word is representing the same thing.
*> * > So perhaps the answer is to recognize that while Job’s Leviathan was a real aquatic creature, Leviathan in Psalms and Isaiah is something different altogether. So when Job talks about an animal that scorns fish hooks, it is referring to an actual fearsome, water-based creature. By contrast, when Isaiah and the Psalms talk about a multi-headed monster in the context of foreign nations and gods, it is probably talking about the false god, depicted as a sea monster.
