RE: [asa] dinos

Ted,
Wow, I missed that one. Of course it's so obvious:-)

Really, I thought the piece was a work of sarcasm or at least fiction when I saw the authors signage at the bottom "Jacqueline McGuyer-Christian Fiction Author" but it seems it was written in all seriousness.

Don,
Regarding your suggested poetic interpretation, I certainly see that as valid, if not likely, as well. I just thought that it is potentially interesting to think about the text as having a partly literal connection but not the one we normally think of. The leviathan might have really been thought to exist and thus represents an excellent comparator to God's power but its features might still be embellished in a poetic manner. The larger point or question with Job is not the interpretation of these specific verses but a question of genre identification and the YEC camp tends to have a lot trouble in this area.

Joel

>>> "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu> 01/10/07 4:39 PM >>>writes:

The YEC claim of dinosaurs extant with man based on Job 40 I have always
thought was one of the dumbest examples of an overly literalistic
hermeneutic. How many hundreds of web sites an YEC articles point to
the Bohemoth in Job 40 as evidence of post-flood dinosaurs because the
Behemoth "moveth his tail like a cedar" and has "bones like bars of
iron." See http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp for
an over the top analysis. Do they not ever read chapter 41? The
article linked goes to great lengths to discover the nature of the
Behemoth and very briefly suggests that the Leviathan too much represent
a real and literally described animal. But I've seen no such detailed
analysis of Chapter 41 in which the Leviathan is clearly described as
breathing fire "His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his
mouth" (41:21). Where is the speculation about animals that once had
fires contained in their belly? When I have brought this chapter to
the attention of YEC friends of mine who think the behemoth is a
dinosaur I have yet to find one of them that has enough
faith/consistency in their system of interpretation to say they believe
that there were dragons that breathed real fire. I guess even they know
enough biology to know that this would be ridiculous.

Ted responds:
Not so fast, Joel. This is precisely what some YECs have claimed: that
bombardier beetles "prove" that Leviathan was a fire-breathing dragon. Read
on:

<Now comes one really interesting creature that God wants Job to consider
as a very powerful mean critter. If you are going to give an example of
power to an individual; you will pick something that they are familiar with
and can easily relate to; the same with God. Job Chapter 41 is totally
dedicated to God's description of this Terrible Lizard, so Job's perspective
is very clear. Leviathan is NOT a crocodile as your Bible footnote suggests.
God's accurate and exacting description of this animal does not even come
close to describing a crocodile.

God is actually describing a fire- breathing dragon. Does this give you any
heartburn? Well, it shouldn't. First, does God know about what He is saying?
I'd say He does. Second, does Job understand God? I would imagine he does.
Third, what terms and words does God use? A child can understand what He is
saying and the description is actual, physical and accurate. This monster
has airtight rows of shields or scales that cover its body. Fire, flames and
smoke shoot out of its mouth and nostrils. I've never seen an alligator or
crocodile with airtight scales, and for sure, they do not emit fire and
smoke. So what is all this fuss about fire and smoke anyway? Hey, there's
that small beetle we talked about earlier that can do it. In fact, the
Brachinus beetle is living proof the Leviathan was actually a fire-breathing
dragon as God's Word clearly tells us. Let's trust God's Word and not man's
limited understanding.>

From http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1196890

ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:03:04 -0500