Avgvsto
Dapper Reveler
Aporeia
(?)Community Member
Shameless Mystic
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:15:40 +0000
Sandokiri
CuAnnan
Sandokiri
The Peppermint Bunny
Humans were not on this planet the same time as dinosaurs.
While I know what you're intending to say here (that tyrannosaurus, stegosaurus, etc never cohabited the earth with man,) I do need to say this:
Humans are on this planet the same time as dinosaurs. You might know them as birds (link is provided for a more complete explanation than I can give about birds being dinosaurs.)
And sharks and either crocodiles or alligators.
Neither.
1. Sharks are fish, and were fish 200 million years before there were any dinosaurs. 3nodding
2. Crocs and gators (different families under Order Crocodilia)... they're archosaurs, but they're not dinosaurs. The best analogy I can find for this in a moment is this: dogs are Carnivora, but dogs are not felines.
Archosaurs split into two clades, pseudosuchia and ornithodora, during the Permian; pseudosuchia leads eventually to Crocodilia, while ornithodora leads to the split between pteranodons and dinosaurs (and ultimately to birds.)
Avgvsto
(?)Community Member
Dapper Reveler
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:18:07 +0000
Sandokiri
CuAnnan
Sandokiri
The Peppermint Bunny
Humans were not on this planet the same time as dinosaurs.
While I know what you're intending to say here (that tyrannosaurus, stegosaurus, etc never cohabited the earth with man,) I do need to say this:
Humans are on this planet the same time as dinosaurs. You might know them as birds (link is provided for a more complete explanation than I can give about birds being dinosaurs.)
And sharks and either crocodiles or alligators.
Neither.
1. Sharks are fish, and were fish 200 million years before there were any dinosaurs. 3nodding
2. Crocs and gators (different families under Order Crocodilia)... they're archosaurs, but they're not dinosaurs. The best analogy I can find for this in a moment is this: dogs are Carnivora, but dogs are not felines.
Archosaurs split into two clades, pseudosuchia and ornithodora, during the Permian; pseudosuchia leads eventually to Crocodilia, while ornithodora leads to the split between pteranodons and dinosaurs (and ultimately to birds.)
Sandokiri
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:35:23 +0000
Aporeia
I'm not sure how accurate this was, but I thought the general rule for determining dinosaur vs giant reptile was leg structure. Dinosaurs stood with knees partially or fully extended, while giant reptiles were squat.
The distinction between "reptiles" (lepidosaurs, which includes lizards, snakes, other things you typically think of as reptiles that aren't crocodile-shaped) is made in the sternum and teeth. Snakes are here because they're evidently related to lizards.
Between crocodiles and dinosaurs, it's ankle structure; crocs can surprisingly switch between squat and upright running, with squat being more energy-efficient but slower.
Then there are some "giant reptiles" (such as dimetrodon) that are actually synapsids - the ancestors of mammals - rather than being actual reptiles. This is determined by skull structure.
Avgvsto
Is it possible the word dragon could encompass all of these however?
It'd require me to think like Bronze Age scientist...
There are four words of apparently similar root:
Tan (used uniquely in Ezekiel 32, rendered "whale" in KJV); contextually may refer to jackals which are known for their howling.
Tanah (used uniquely in Micah 1); the word literally means "inhabitant", and is not related to tan or tannyn.
Tannym (used uniquely in Ezekiel 29, referring to Pharaoh as the "dragon" of the Nile); Gesenius suggests this is a corrupt hypercorrection of tannyn. Given the imagery used here compared to Job 41's depiction of leviathan, the crocodile would appear to be indicated.
Tannyn is the most common form, with its various usages noted previously.
---
So we know that the Old Testament dragons refer to:
-Venomous snakes
-Crocodiles
-Jackals
-Leviathan (variously a seven-headed sea serpent, or as in the Job 41 description, a paragon crocodile.)
anonymous attributes
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:14:17 +0000
Sandokiri
Aporeia
I'm not sure how accurate this was, but I thought the general rule for determining dinosaur vs giant reptile was leg structure. Dinosaurs stood with knees partially or fully extended, while giant reptiles were squat.
The distinction between "reptiles" (lepidosaurs, which includes lizards, snakes, other things you typically think of as reptiles that aren't crocodile-shaped) is made in the sternum and teeth. Snakes are here because they're evidently related to lizards.
Between crocodiles and dinosaurs, it's ankle structure; crocs can surprisingly switch between squat and upright running, with squat being more energy-efficient but slower.
Then there are some "giant reptiles" (such as dimetrodon) that are actually synapsids - the ancestors of mammals - rather than being actual reptiles. This is determined by skull structure.
Avgvsto
Is it possible the word dragon could encompass all of these however?
It'd require me to think like Bronze Age scientist...
There are four words of apparently similar root:
Tan (used uniquely in Ezekiel 32, rendered "whale" in KJV); contextually may refer to jackals which are known for their howling.
Tanah (used uniquely in Micah 1); the word literally means "inhabitant", and is not related to tan or tannyn.
Tannym (used uniquely in Ezekiel 29, referring to Pharaoh as the "dragon" of the Nile); Gesenius suggests this is a corrupt hypercorrection of tannyn. Given the imagery used here compared to Job 41's depiction of leviathan, the crocodile would appear to be indicated.
Tannyn is the most common form, with its various usages noted previously.
---
So we know that the Old Testament dragons refer to:
-Venomous snakes
-Crocodiles
-Jackals
-Leviathan (variously a seven-headed sea serpent, or as in the Job 41 description, a paragon crocodile.)
Modern classifications cannot be applied to the ancient. They put bats in the classification of fowl, they put whale as fish, and dinosaurs as dragons. Ancient cultures called what we know today to be called dinosaurs, they called dragons, all over the world. They had depictions of them, writings and descriptions of them which fit what we know today to be dinosaurs, yet they called them dragons, serpents, terrible beast, monster.
Ancient peoples depicted dinosaurs on rocks and pottery, even riding them like horses, and other things that we know today as fossils.
How did they know what they looked like? Mere guess? Or did they find fossils too? There is also the skin pattern depicted as well by the ancient people. How could they have known what that looked like? We know that it is real since we have found dinosaur skin with the same pattern on it, much like a thumb print but much much larger. How did they know? Did the ancient people also find dinosaur skin? Not if its millions and millions of years old still containing blood.
You might say it survived by a special way. Not if it was covered by clay its not and not for millions of years. Anyone who believes that is either lying or ignorant I dare say.
ALSO.
The leviathan described as neither having seven heads, nor having any similarities with the crocodile. Lets get it together people. Check your sources. Please do not spread fraudulent information.
In job we find that leviathan has scales. Crocodile do not have scales.
Job 41:15-17 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
In Job we find that Leviathan can RAISE himself up. Crocodiles cannot do this. They float like logs, they do not raise their bodies or even their heads. Job 41:25 "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves."
Leviathan cannot be hurt he is so strong.
Job 41:26-29 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.(Obviously he is very large as well)
Consider this also.
Job 41:33-34 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
The Behemoth.
Here are a few things mentioned of Behemoth.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
Ratttking
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:30:23 +0000
Which dictionary from the 1600s did you use for the definition of unicorn, A Table Alphabeticall, the Glossographia or The New World of English Words Or A General Dictionary ?
Sandokiri
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:35:14 +0000
anonymous attributes
Modern classifications cannot be applied to the ancient. They put bats in the classification of fowl, they put whale as fish, and dinosaurs as dragons.
Except that they didn't describe dinosaurs. We've already handled re'em and behemoth; tannyn and leviathan are no harder.
Quote:
Ancient cultures called what we know today to be called dinosaurs, they called dragons, all over the world. They had depictions of them, writings and descriptions of them which fit what we know today to be dinosaurs, yet they called them dragons, serpents, terrible beast, monster.
The word dragon (from the Greek) means giant water snake; they only picked up the more conventional "Smaug" look in the Middle Ages, by analogy to evolving imagery of Satan and demons.
Before that, there was no real difference between drakwn, Jörmungandr, chiang lung, Lotan, or other such "dragons." They were serpentine aquatic creatures, and often (at least outside of Asia) associated with myths in which a dragon represented primordial chaos and was slain by a hero (a motif called Chaoskampf, or Chaos Battle.)
The dragon motif is indeed widespread; several theories exist as to why, ranging from fossils, to crocodiles back when more climates could support them, to an evolved instinctual fear of predators (which would be great cats, large raptor-birds, and snakes.) Or, perhaps, even a combination of these factors.
Quote:
Ancient peoples depicted dinosaurs on rocks and pottery, even riding them like horses, and other things that we know today as fossils.
The artifacts you describe are known to be fake.
Quote:
How did they know what they looked like? Mere guess? Or did they find fossils too? There is also the skin pattern depicted as well by the ancient people. How could they have known what that looked like? We know that it is real since we have found dinosaur skin with the same pattern on it, much like a thumb print but much much larger. How did they know? Did the ancient people also find dinosaur skin? Not if its millions and millions of years old still containing blood.
The skin pattern, which happens to resemble that of crocodiles and lizards and suchlike. The depiction of these "dragons" as being leathery, when we have evidence of dinosaurs (especially theropods) being downy if not outright feathered.
Quote:
You might say it survived by a special way. Not if it was covered by clay its not and not for millions of years. Anyone who believes that is either lying or ignorant I dare say.
If you're talking about the blood, that was exaggerated in the media. What was found was fossilised traces of heme, which is the blood iron, the lack of which is common anemia.
Quote:
The leviathan described as neither having seven heads, nor having any similarities with the crocodile.
The Mesopotamian analogues of leviathan, such as Lotan, had seven heads. The Nile Delta was described in Psalm 74 as "the heads of leviathan," evoking an image of leviathan as multi-headed.
Quote:
In job we find that leviathan has scales. Crocodile do not have scales.
In Job we find that Leviathan can RAISE himself up. Crocodiles cannot do this.
In Job we find that Leviathan can RAISE himself up. Crocodiles cannot do this.
Crocodiles can in fact raise themselves up, and it's impressive to behold.
Also, per your first point, we're dealing with people who thought bats to be birds (not flying mice) and rabbits to be cud-chewers (they're caecotropes, not ruminants.) It's entirely reasonable that they'd describe crocodile leather as scales. After all, they did describe shields (as in the things you hold so that you can stop an axe chop or mace bop) on its back.
Quote:
Leviathan cannot be hurt he is so strong.
Now, refer to everything I've said about paragon animals. Take the strengths of the crocodile - its thick armour, its fearsome jaws, the line it drags in the mud (when squat-walking,) the way it stirs up the river as it swims. Now amplify them to mythic strength, such that God alone would have the strength to defeat such a beast (which is, after all, the whole point of describing it.) That's leviathan.
Oh, and just as with elasmotherium, I've just done some quick research; there are 7+-meter long crocodiles (eg, Crocodylus anthropophagus and C. thorbjarnarsoni) known within human prehistory, and humans were on the menu for them.
So yes, we have evidence for ancient crocodiles that could give rise to mythical paragon versions.
As for behemoth: "The sinews of his stones are wrapped together" excludes dinosaurs, as external testicles are a development in mammals. I'll go with something like a paragon hippo. Regular hippos are already rather vicious beasts.
anonymous attributes
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:41:22 +0000
Sandokiri
anonymous attributes
Modern classifications cannot be applied to the ancient. They put bats in the classification of fowl, they put whale as fish, and dinosaurs as dragons.
Except that they didn't describe dinosaurs. We've already handled re'em and behemoth; tannyn and leviathan are no harder.
Quote:
Ancient cultures called what we know today to be called dinosaurs, they called dragons, all over the world. They had depictions of them, writings and descriptions of them which fit what we know today to be dinosaurs, yet they called them dragons, serpents, terrible beast, monster.
The word dragon (from the Greek) means giant water snake; they only picked up the more conventional "Smaug" look in the Middle Ages, by analogy to evolving imagery of Satan and demons.
Before that, there was no real difference between drakwn, Jörmungandr, chiang lung, Lotan, or other such "dragons." They were serpentine aquatic creatures, and often (at least outside of Asia) associated with myths in which a dragon represented primordial chaos and was slain by a hero (a motif called Chaoskampf, or Chaos Battle.)
The dragon motif is indeed widespread; several theories exist as to why, ranging from fossils, to crocodiles back when more climates could support them, to an evolved instinctual fear of predators (which would be great cats, large raptor-birds, and snakes.) Or, perhaps, even a combination of these factors.
Quote:
Ancient peoples depicted dinosaurs on rocks and pottery, even riding them like horses, and other things that we know today as fossils.
The artifacts you describe are known to be fake.
Quote:
How did they know what they looked like? Mere guess? Or did they find fossils too? There is also the skin pattern depicted as well by the ancient people. How could they have known what that looked like? We know that it is real since we have found dinosaur skin with the same pattern on it, much like a thumb print but much much larger. How did they know? Did the ancient people also find dinosaur skin? Not if its millions and millions of years old still containing blood.
The skin pattern, which happens to resemble that of crocodiles and lizards and suchlike. The depiction of these "dragons" as being leathery, when we have evidence of dinosaurs (especially theropods) being downy if not outright feathered.
Quote:
You might say it survived by a special way. Not if it was covered by clay its not and not for millions of years. Anyone who believes that is either lying or ignorant I dare say.
If you're talking about the blood, that was exaggerated in the media. What was found was fossilised traces of heme, which is the blood iron, the lack of which is common anemia.
Quote:
The leviathan described as neither having seven heads, nor having any similarities with the crocodile.
The Mesopotamian analogues of leviathan, such as Lotan, had seven heads. The Nile Delta was described in Psalm 74 as "the heads of leviathan," evoking an image of leviathan as multi-headed.
Quote:
In job we find that leviathan has scales. Crocodile do not have scales.
In Job we find that Leviathan can RAISE himself up. Crocodiles cannot do this.
In Job we find that Leviathan can RAISE himself up. Crocodiles cannot do this.
Crocodiles can in fact raise themselves up, and it's impressive to behold.
Also, per your first point, we're dealing with people who thought bats to be birds (not flying mice) and rabbits to be cud-chewers (they're caecotropes, not ruminants.) It's entirely reasonable that they'd describe crocodile leather as scales. After all, they did describe shields (as in the things you hold so that you can stop an axe chop or mace bop) on its back.
Quote:
Leviathan cannot be hurt he is so strong.
Now, refer to everything I've said about paragon animals. Take the strengths of the crocodile - its thick armour, its fearsome jaws, the line it drags in the mud (when squat-walking,) the way it stirs up the river as it swims. Now amplify them to mythic strength, such that God alone would have the strength to defeat such a beast (which is, after all, the whole point of describing it.) That's leviathan.
Oh, and just as with elasmotherium, I've just done some quick research; there are 7+-meter long crocodiles (eg, Crocodylus anthropophagus and C. thorbjarnarsoni) known within human prehistory, and humans were on the menu for them.
So yes, we have evidence for ancient crocodiles that could give rise to mythical paragon versions.
As for behemoth: "The sinews of his stones are wrapped together" excludes dinosaurs, as external testicles are a development in mammals. I'll go with something like a paragon hippo. Regular hippos are already rather vicious beasts.
We've already handled re'em and behemoth; tannyn and leviathan are no harder.
Unicorn was not an argument for dinosaurs. "-and behemoth; tannyn and leviathan are no harder." Not if you use rubber its not. You are doing a whole lot of stretching in this post of yours, and its riddled with personal opinion.
"The word dragon (from the Greek) means giant water snake;" Hold it right there. Am I arguing from a Greek standpoint? This is a straw man argument. "they only picked up the more conventional "Smaug" look in the Middle Ages" Smaug look? Am I arguing for modern mythological depictions too?
"The artifacts you describe are known to be fake." Dated from ancient times to 450 AD? "The skin pattern, which happens to resemble that of crocodiles and lizards and suchlike. The depiction of these "dragons" as being leathery" I was referring to those depicting circle patters on the skin, and the fact that there was fossilized dinosaur skin found about 20 years ago that had the same circle patterns on its skin. But, "The artifacts you describe are known to be fake." You thought you were addressing my argument, but its amazing what being a little vague does in revealing the opponents argument. There are thousands of depictions, which many depict real dinosaurs, and their not modern either.
The Mesopotamian analogues of leviathan, such as Lotan, had seven heads. The Nile Delta was described in Psalm 74 as "the heads of leviathan," evoking an image of leviathan as multi-headed.
Psalm 74:13 "Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psalm 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness."
1. Its possible you are seeing something I am not, but Which part is referring to the delta?
2. Can you help me find 7 heads of leviathan without using pagan sources, and that was killed and eaten for meat?
3. Which part of the delta can you eat as meat?
4. It says also. "thou brakest the heads of the dragons" heads is plural, and so is dragons. How many dragons where there? Since its plural the least amount of dragons is 2, leaving 14 heads, but did not the delta have 7?
5. This one is an important question because If you are right, what does this have to do with the description in job? You are attempting to lead the conversation into darkness by dismissing previous statements and textual evidence in previous discussion.
Consider also besides Job. Psalm 104:25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
Psalm 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
Psalm 104:27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.
Crocodiles can in fact raise themselves up, and it's impressive to behold.
That's not stretching the argument, that's a whole new story sister. Lets again compare that little leap with what is described in Job.
Job 41:25 "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:" Is this a crocodile? Not with those little leaps that you linked me.
Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride." Does a crocodile look upon high things? Not if he is not large like leviathan, can't raise himself up, and not like that video you linked before.
It's entirely reasonable that they'd describe crocodile leather as scales. After all, they did describe shields (as in the things you hold so that you can stop an axe chop or mace bop) on its back.
Dealing in more rubber, are we? "Also, per your first point, we're dealing with people who thought bats to be birds"
Absolutely not! That was never discussed and is not found in scripture that they thought that either. What was said was how things were classified, not what they thought they were. For example, My grandma calls all bugs, ALL bugs worms. Because they did not have modern classifications does not mean they thought bats were birds. You either misunderstood what I said, or its an outright lie. If there is a third option, let me know.
"and rabbits to be cud-chewers." That answer is here. http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
"It's entirely reasonable that they'd describe crocodile leather as scales." No, its not. The context does not provide it. Lets look...again...
Job 41:7 "Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?" pierce his head? if its a crocodile, yes.
Job 41:15 "His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal." Nothing resembles scales on a croc, and nothing that is shut up as with a close seal. No..This is not a croc.
Job 41:16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
Job 41:17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
Job 41:26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. (you can stab a croc with a sword)
Job 41:27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. (Crocs cant esteem brass as rotten wood, a brass javelin could be put through a croc)
Job 41:28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. (You can use arrows on crocs)
Job 41:29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. (You can use spears on croc)
"Now, refer to everything I've said about paragon animals." No, I wont. The context doesn't support it. "Take the strengths of the crocodile" No, I wont. The context doesn't support it. "Now amplify them to mythic strength" No, I wont. The context doesn't support it. God was making a point that leviathan was very great, not mythical. A mythical example to Job would not have served the purpose and example God was making.
Oh, and just as with elasmotherium, I've just done some quick research; there are 7+-meter long crocodiles (eg, Crocodylus anthropophagus and C. thorbjarnarsoni) known within human prehistory, and humans were on the menu for them.
So yes, we have evidence for ancient crocodiles that could give rise to mythical paragon versions.
No it wouldn't. We also have giant human skeletons too. And the fact that you said Pre'historic' means before history, therefor if it was before history, there cannot be any stretching of the truth making it into myth. "History" means "His story." your statement simply does not work. Not that I actually believe people didn't make myth and glorify things above what they were, but according to your argument, its refuted, and its self contradictory.
As for behemoth: "The sinews of his stones are wrapped together" excludes dinosaurs, as external testicles are a development in mammals. I'll go with something like a paragon hippo. Regular hippos are already rather vicious beasts.
This cannot be a hippo if he has a tail like a ceder. lets try again on that.
sin·ew
ˈsinyo͞o/
noun
plural noun: sinews
1.
a piece of tough fibrous tissue uniting muscle to bone or bone to bone; a tendon or ligament.
I am not sure I follow your last statement. I am reluctant to answer on that yet.
Sandokiri
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 03:06:14 +0000
Shortening post with spoiler tags. This is likely to be my last post for this thread. Not certainly, but likely.
It's based on more facts than your creationist sources can muster.
Except that the Septuagint translated those terms drakwn (or drakontos, in the genitive,) wherefore the Latin used draconos, wherefore the KJV used the term "dragons." No straw man to be had here.
Just providing a bit of background, to make sure the word "dragon" wouldn't be equivocated - a problem that also comes up with unicorn.
Undatable due to lack of source, plus we know of people creating those artifacts currently. (Ica stones.)
The Acambaro artifacts were found in ruins of ~12th century *CE* Tarascan culture, not of ancient culture - and appear to have been made by peasants trying to cash in on a bounty on artifacts at the dig... in the 1940s. CE.
And here I was, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now I can't.
It's symbolic. Leviathan, in the passage, is a poetic reference to the Nile - and by extension Egypt. If you wish to deny this, however, then what you are left with is that Leviathan literally has a non-singular number of heads.
Without using pagan sources? Depends on if you count the Jewish apocalyptic literature as pagan; therein, Leviathan is to be killed and eaten, with its skin used as a tent canvas. The imagery found its way into Christianity in the form of the "hell mouth," the image of a head of Leviathan swallowing the souls of the damned.
"Devour" is not necessarily literal eating; Egypt is crushed, and "fed" to the desert tribes.
The tannyn in 74:13 are not Leviathan. They're ordinary Nile crocodiles. Leviathan is mentioned separately, in 74:14. This is not a problem.
If Egypt and the Nile can be symbolically referred to as a multi-headed creature called Leviathan, then it means that the ancient Hebrew understanding is that Leviathan has multiple heads. If 74:14 refers to literal Leviathan and not just symbolically, then Leviathan has multiple heads.
Since "what is Leviathan" is the question, this is indeed the relevance.
It's a sea creature, which we've already established (Isaiah 27:1) - Leviathan is the twisted serpent, the coiled serpent, the "dragon" of the sea.
...paragon. You still refuse to understand this basic concept of mythological ontology. If you have a powerful creature, you can imagine a paragon of it simply by making it bigger and making the description more vivid. It helps that mankind did coexist with some of the megafauna, and is drawing on remembered stories passed into legend for some of them.
A creature with the attributes and abilities of a crocodile, with some added embellishment (eg, breathing fire,) and you have Job 41's Leviathan.
I'm not exactly sure what the keck you're talking about when you say that. The ancient Hebrews classify bats as birds based on having wings. With that sort of low-level understanding, it is reasonable to suppose that they could not distinguish a crocodile's leathery hide from scales, as it's a mistake that is reasonable for the uninformed to make even today.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it appears that you just violated non-contradiction. How things are classified is grounded in what the classifier thinks the things are.
This applies whether you're in the Bronze Age or the Space Age. Just as an example, pangolins (Order Pholidota) used to be classified as xenarths (ie, with the armadillos) based only on morphology. Based on DNA comparison, however, it's found that pangolins are more closely related to Order Carnivora (including dogs, cats, and bears,) but that Pholidota are not themselves Carnivora; rather, they're branches of the Ferae clade.
Sarfati's science is correct, in that there is a difference of method between rumination and refection, and that their intent (having a second go at the nutrients in food) is the same. However, his claim that "chewing the cud" had a broader definition to the ancient Hebrews is not sustainable because of what the difference is.
In fact, it'd pro'ly be easier to argue if the Hebrew word DID translate as chew; but 'alah does in fact mean "lift up." Rabbits don't bring up anything; they poo out the pellets, and eat them (that is, to a low level understanding, they eat dung.)
Just to put in perspective how much of a problem this is: Strong's Concordance (an ancient language to English dictionary) openly engages in creationist apologetics in trying to identify behemoth and leviathan as "possibly dinosaurs," handwaving the reasonable alternatives as "patently absurd." But when it comes to the cud-chewing rabbit, Strong's suggests not translating 'arnebeth.
As for behemoth, it's "the sinews of its stones," stones being testicles. And as for the rest, what I'm saying is not supported by your chosen interpretation.
Dinosaurs are not dragons.
Dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, except possibly as mythical depictions of fossils; but those depictions could just as easily be legendary depictions of Upper Palaeolithic megafauna or their fossils.
This may be my last post. I'd recommend looking for resources that are not creationist or apologetic; you could learn a fair bit.
anonymous attributes
Not if you use rubber its not. You are doing a whole lot of stretching in this post of yours, and its riddled with personal opinion.
It's based on more facts than your creationist sources can muster.
Quote:
Hold it right there. Am I arguing from a Greek standpoint? This is a straw man argument.
Except that the Septuagint translated those terms drakwn (or drakontos, in the genitive,) wherefore the Latin used draconos, wherefore the KJV used the term "dragons." No straw man to be had here.
Quote:
Smaug look? Am I arguing for modern mythological depictions too?
Just providing a bit of background, to make sure the word "dragon" wouldn't be equivocated - a problem that also comes up with unicorn.
Quote:
Dated from ancient times to 450 AD?
Undatable due to lack of source, plus we know of people creating those artifacts currently. (Ica stones.)
The Acambaro artifacts were found in ruins of ~12th century *CE* Tarascan culture, not of ancient culture - and appear to have been made by peasants trying to cash in on a bounty on artifacts at the dig... in the 1940s. CE.
Quote:
You thought you were addressing my argument, but its amazing what being a little vague does
And here I was, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now I can't.
Quote:
1. Its possible you are seeing something I am not, but Which part is referring to the delta?
It's symbolic. Leviathan, in the passage, is a poetic reference to the Nile - and by extension Egypt. If you wish to deny this, however, then what you are left with is that Leviathan literally has a non-singular number of heads.
Quote:
2. Can you help me find 7 heads of leviathan without using pagan sources, and that was killed and eaten for meat?
Without using pagan sources? Depends on if you count the Jewish apocalyptic literature as pagan; therein, Leviathan is to be killed and eaten, with its skin used as a tent canvas. The imagery found its way into Christianity in the form of the "hell mouth," the image of a head of Leviathan swallowing the souls of the damned.
Quote:
3. Which part of the delta can you eat as meat?
"Devour" is not necessarily literal eating; Egypt is crushed, and "fed" to the desert tribes.
Quote:
4. It says also. "thou brakest the heads of the dragons" heads is plural, and so is dragons. How many dragons where there? Since its plural the least amount of dragons is 2, leaving 14 heads, but did not the delta have 7?
The tannyn in 74:13 are not Leviathan. They're ordinary Nile crocodiles. Leviathan is mentioned separately, in 74:14. This is not a problem.
Quote:
5. This one is an important question because If you are right, what does this have to do with the description in job? You are attempting to lead the conversation into darkness by dismissing previous statements and textual evidence in previous discussion.
If Egypt and the Nile can be symbolically referred to as a multi-headed creature called Leviathan, then it means that the ancient Hebrew understanding is that Leviathan has multiple heads. If 74:14 refers to literal Leviathan and not just symbolically, then Leviathan has multiple heads.
Since "what is Leviathan" is the question, this is indeed the relevance.
Quote:
Consider also besides Job. Psalm 104:25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
Psalm 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
Psalm 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
It's a sea creature, which we've already established (Isaiah 27:1) - Leviathan is the twisted serpent, the coiled serpent, the "dragon" of the sea.
Quote:
That's not stretching the argument, that's a whole new story sister. Lets again compare that little leap with what is described in Job.
Job 41:25 "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:" Is this a crocodile? Not with those little leaps that you linked me.
Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride." Does a crocodile look upon high things? Not if he is not large like leviathan, can't raise himself up, and not like that video you linked before.
Job 41:25 "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:" Is this a crocodile? Not with those little leaps that you linked me.
Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride." Does a crocodile look upon high things? Not if he is not large like leviathan, can't raise himself up, and not like that video you linked before.
...paragon. You still refuse to understand this basic concept of mythological ontology. If you have a powerful creature, you can imagine a paragon of it simply by making it bigger and making the description more vivid. It helps that mankind did coexist with some of the megafauna, and is drawing on remembered stories passed into legend for some of them.
A creature with the attributes and abilities of a crocodile, with some added embellishment (eg, breathing fire,) and you have Job 41's Leviathan.
Quote:
Dealing in more rubber, are we?
I'm not exactly sure what the keck you're talking about when you say that. The ancient Hebrews classify bats as birds based on having wings. With that sort of low-level understanding, it is reasonable to suppose that they could not distinguish a crocodile's leathery hide from scales, as it's a mistake that is reasonable for the uninformed to make even today.
Quote:
Absolutely not! That was never discussed and is not found in scripture that they thought that either. What was said was how things were classified, not what they thought they were.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it appears that you just violated non-contradiction. How things are classified is grounded in what the classifier thinks the things are.
This applies whether you're in the Bronze Age or the Space Age. Just as an example, pangolins (Order Pholidota) used to be classified as xenarths (ie, with the armadillos) based only on morphology. Based on DNA comparison, however, it's found that pangolins are more closely related to Order Carnivora (including dogs, cats, and bears,) but that Pholidota are not themselves Carnivora; rather, they're branches of the Ferae clade.
Quote:
That answer is here.
Sarfati's science is correct, in that there is a difference of method between rumination and refection, and that their intent (having a second go at the nutrients in food) is the same. However, his claim that "chewing the cud" had a broader definition to the ancient Hebrews is not sustainable because of what the difference is.
In fact, it'd pro'ly be easier to argue if the Hebrew word DID translate as chew; but 'alah does in fact mean "lift up." Rabbits don't bring up anything; they poo out the pellets, and eat them (that is, to a low level understanding, they eat dung.)
Just to put in perspective how much of a problem this is: Strong's Concordance (an ancient language to English dictionary) openly engages in creationist apologetics in trying to identify behemoth and leviathan as "possibly dinosaurs," handwaving the reasonable alternatives as "patently absurd." But when it comes to the cud-chewing rabbit, Strong's suggests not translating 'arnebeth.
As for behemoth, it's "the sinews of its stones," stones being testicles. And as for the rest, what I'm saying is not supported by your chosen interpretation.
Dinosaurs are not dragons.
Dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, except possibly as mythical depictions of fossils; but those depictions could just as easily be legendary depictions of Upper Palaeolithic megafauna or their fossils.
This may be my last post. I'd recommend looking for resources that are not creationist or apologetic; you could learn a fair bit.
anonymous attributes
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:11:10 +0000
Sandokiri
Shortening post with spoiler tags. This is likely to be my last post for this thread. Not certainly, but likely.
It's based on more facts than your creationist sources can muster.
Except that the Septuagint translated those terms drakwn (or drakontos, in the genitive,) wherefore the Latin used draconos, wherefore the KJV used the term "dragons." No straw man to be had here.
Just providing a bit of background, to make sure the word "dragon" wouldn't be equivocated - a problem that also comes up with unicorn.
Undatable due to lack of source, plus we know of people creating those artifacts currently. (Ica stones.)
The Acambaro artifacts were found in ruins of ~12th century *CE* Tarascan culture, not of ancient culture - and appear to have been made by peasants trying to cash in on a bounty on artifacts at the dig... in the 1940s. CE.
And here I was, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now I can't.
It's symbolic. Leviathan, in the passage, is a poetic reference to the Nile - and by extension Egypt. If you wish to deny this, however, then what you are left with is that Leviathan literally has a non-singular number of heads.
Without using pagan sources? Depends on if you count the Jewish apocalyptic literature as pagan; therein, Leviathan is to be killed and eaten, with its skin used as a tent canvas. The imagery found its way into Christianity in the form of the "hell mouth," the image of a head of Leviathan swallowing the souls of the damned.
"Devour" is not necessarily literal eating; Egypt is crushed, and "fed" to the desert tribes.
The tannyn in 74:13 are not Leviathan. They're ordinary Nile crocodiles. Leviathan is mentioned separately, in 74:14. This is not a problem.
If Egypt and the Nile can be symbolically referred to as a multi-headed creature called Leviathan, then it means that the ancient Hebrew understanding is that Leviathan has multiple heads. If 74:14 refers to literal Leviathan and not just symbolically, then Leviathan has multiple heads.
Since "what is Leviathan" is the question, this is indeed the relevance.
It's a sea creature, which we've already established (Isaiah 27:1) - Leviathan is the twisted serpent, the coiled serpent, the "dragon" of the sea.
...paragon. You still refuse to understand this basic concept of mythological ontology. If you have a powerful creature, you can imagine a paragon of it simply by making it bigger and making the description more vivid. It helps that mankind did coexist with some of the megafauna, and is drawing on remembered stories passed into legend for some of them.
A creature with the attributes and abilities of a crocodile, with some added embellishment (eg, breathing fire,) and you have Job 41's Leviathan.
I'm not exactly sure what the keck you're talking about when you say that. The ancient Hebrews classify bats as birds based on having wings. With that sort of low-level understanding, it is reasonable to suppose that they could not distinguish a crocodile's leathery hide from scales, as it's a mistake that is reasonable for the uninformed to make even today.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it appears that you just violated non-contradiction. How things are classified is grounded in what the classifier thinks the things are.
This applies whether you're in the Bronze Age or the Space Age. Just as an example, pangolins (Order Pholidota) used to be classified as xenarths (ie, with the armadillos) based only on morphology. Based on DNA comparison, however, it's found that pangolins are more closely related to Order Carnivora (including dogs, cats, and bears,) but that Pholidota are not themselves Carnivora; rather, they're branches of the Ferae clade.
Sarfati's science is correct, in that there is a difference of method between rumination and refection, and that their intent (having a second go at the nutrients in food) is the same. However, his claim that "chewing the cud" had a broader definition to the ancient Hebrews is not sustainable because of what the difference is.
In fact, it'd pro'ly be easier to argue if the Hebrew word DID translate as chew; but 'alah does in fact mean "lift up." Rabbits don't bring up anything; they poo out the pellets, and eat them (that is, to a low level understanding, they eat dung.)
Just to put in perspective how much of a problem this is: Strong's Concordance (an ancient language to English dictionary) openly engages in creationist apologetics in trying to identify behemoth and leviathan as "possibly dinosaurs," handwaving the reasonable alternatives as "patently absurd." But when it comes to the cud-chewing rabbit, Strong's suggests not translating 'arnebeth.
As for behemoth, it's "the sinews of its stones," stones being testicles. And as for the rest, what I'm saying is not supported by your chosen interpretation.
Dinosaurs are not dragons.
Dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, except possibly as mythical depictions of fossils; but those depictions could just as easily be legendary depictions of Upper Palaeolithic megafauna or their fossils.
This may be my last post. I'd recommend looking for resources that are not creationist or apologetic; you could learn a fair bit.
anonymous attributes
Not if you use rubber its not. You are doing a whole lot of stretching in this post of yours, and its riddled with personal opinion.
It's based on more facts than your creationist sources can muster.
Quote:
Hold it right there. Am I arguing from a Greek standpoint? This is a straw man argument.
Except that the Septuagint translated those terms drakwn (or drakontos, in the genitive,) wherefore the Latin used draconos, wherefore the KJV used the term "dragons." No straw man to be had here.
Quote:
Smaug look? Am I arguing for modern mythological depictions too?
Just providing a bit of background, to make sure the word "dragon" wouldn't be equivocated - a problem that also comes up with unicorn.
Quote:
Dated from ancient times to 450 AD?
Undatable due to lack of source, plus we know of people creating those artifacts currently. (Ica stones.)
The Acambaro artifacts were found in ruins of ~12th century *CE* Tarascan culture, not of ancient culture - and appear to have been made by peasants trying to cash in on a bounty on artifacts at the dig... in the 1940s. CE.
Quote:
You thought you were addressing my argument, but its amazing what being a little vague does
And here I was, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now I can't.
Quote:
1. Its possible you are seeing something I am not, but Which part is referring to the delta?
It's symbolic. Leviathan, in the passage, is a poetic reference to the Nile - and by extension Egypt. If you wish to deny this, however, then what you are left with is that Leviathan literally has a non-singular number of heads.
Quote:
2. Can you help me find 7 heads of leviathan without using pagan sources, and that was killed and eaten for meat?
Without using pagan sources? Depends on if you count the Jewish apocalyptic literature as pagan; therein, Leviathan is to be killed and eaten, with its skin used as a tent canvas. The imagery found its way into Christianity in the form of the "hell mouth," the image of a head of Leviathan swallowing the souls of the damned.
Quote:
3. Which part of the delta can you eat as meat?
"Devour" is not necessarily literal eating; Egypt is crushed, and "fed" to the desert tribes.
Quote:
4. It says also. "thou brakest the heads of the dragons" heads is plural, and so is dragons. How many dragons where there? Since its plural the least amount of dragons is 2, leaving 14 heads, but did not the delta have 7?
The tannyn in 74:13 are not Leviathan. They're ordinary Nile crocodiles. Leviathan is mentioned separately, in 74:14. This is not a problem.
Quote:
5. This one is an important question because If you are right, what does this have to do with the description in job? You are attempting to lead the conversation into darkness by dismissing previous statements and textual evidence in previous discussion.
If Egypt and the Nile can be symbolically referred to as a multi-headed creature called Leviathan, then it means that the ancient Hebrew understanding is that Leviathan has multiple heads. If 74:14 refers to literal Leviathan and not just symbolically, then Leviathan has multiple heads.
Since "what is Leviathan" is the question, this is indeed the relevance.
Quote:
Consider also besides Job. Psalm 104:25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
Psalm 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
Psalm 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
It's a sea creature, which we've already established (Isaiah 27:1) - Leviathan is the twisted serpent, the coiled serpent, the "dragon" of the sea.
Quote:
That's not stretching the argument, that's a whole new story sister. Lets again compare that little leap with what is described in Job.
Job 41:25 "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:" Is this a crocodile? Not with those little leaps that you linked me.
Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride." Does a crocodile look upon high things? Not if he is not large like leviathan, can't raise himself up, and not like that video you linked before.
Job 41:25 "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:" Is this a crocodile? Not with those little leaps that you linked me.
Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride." Does a crocodile look upon high things? Not if he is not large like leviathan, can't raise himself up, and not like that video you linked before.
...paragon. You still refuse to understand this basic concept of mythological ontology. If you have a powerful creature, you can imagine a paragon of it simply by making it bigger and making the description more vivid. It helps that mankind did coexist with some of the megafauna, and is drawing on remembered stories passed into legend for some of them.
A creature with the attributes and abilities of a crocodile, with some added embellishment (eg, breathing fire,) and you have Job 41's Leviathan.
Quote:
Dealing in more rubber, are we?
I'm not exactly sure what the keck you're talking about when you say that. The ancient Hebrews classify bats as birds based on having wings. With that sort of low-level understanding, it is reasonable to suppose that they could not distinguish a crocodile's leathery hide from scales, as it's a mistake that is reasonable for the uninformed to make even today.
Quote:
Absolutely not! That was never discussed and is not found in scripture that they thought that either. What was said was how things were classified, not what they thought they were.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it appears that you just violated non-contradiction. How things are classified is grounded in what the classifier thinks the things are.
This applies whether you're in the Bronze Age or the Space Age. Just as an example, pangolins (Order Pholidota) used to be classified as xenarths (ie, with the armadillos) based only on morphology. Based on DNA comparison, however, it's found that pangolins are more closely related to Order Carnivora (including dogs, cats, and bears,) but that Pholidota are not themselves Carnivora; rather, they're branches of the Ferae clade.
Quote:
That answer is here.
Sarfati's science is correct, in that there is a difference of method between rumination and refection, and that their intent (having a second go at the nutrients in food) is the same. However, his claim that "chewing the cud" had a broader definition to the ancient Hebrews is not sustainable because of what the difference is.
In fact, it'd pro'ly be easier to argue if the Hebrew word DID translate as chew; but 'alah does in fact mean "lift up." Rabbits don't bring up anything; they poo out the pellets, and eat them (that is, to a low level understanding, they eat dung.)
Just to put in perspective how much of a problem this is: Strong's Concordance (an ancient language to English dictionary) openly engages in creationist apologetics in trying to identify behemoth and leviathan as "possibly dinosaurs," handwaving the reasonable alternatives as "patently absurd." But when it comes to the cud-chewing rabbit, Strong's suggests not translating 'arnebeth.
As for behemoth, it's "the sinews of its stones," stones being testicles. And as for the rest, what I'm saying is not supported by your chosen interpretation.
Dinosaurs are not dragons.
Dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, except possibly as mythical depictions of fossils; but those depictions could just as easily be legendary depictions of Upper Palaeolithic megafauna or their fossils.
This may be my last post. I'd recommend looking for resources that are not creationist or apologetic; you could learn a fair bit.
...paragon. You still refuse to understand this basic concept of mythological ontology.
Is that all you say, paragon? I refuse to understand a concept? I study symbolism, I have for years, its one of my favorite topics. Your accusation is out of weakness. It is on the very basis that I understand that I reject your absurd claim, not the opposite. Your only answer is "If only you would put on the paragon glasses you would understand." The context does not provide any such conclusion you are asking for, and the paragon glasses would distort the text.
If you have a powerful creature, you can imagine a paragon of it simply by making it bigger and making the description more vivid.
Look at all the rubber. Is all we have to do is use our imaginations, make something up, and be vivid. As long as you stretch the text, you will be in a fairy tail.
mankind did coexist with some of the megafauna. Now you are lying. You said "prehistory" are the 7+-meter long crocodiles prehistory, or not? you are talking out of both sides of your face, which is an argument made on clear bias. And you want me to wear your paragon glasses.
Leviathan in Job is simply not a glorified crocodile. Firstly it's very description has nothing closely similar to a crocodile, and lastly, if it was a mythologized creature it would not serve the purpose and example that God was trying to make to Job. The fact that you choose not to address that in the context is astounding. In job, God is attempting to show Job in these passages who's boss of the universe. God is not putting Himself up against a fake creature. That and foremost is why you are wrong.
Secondly, as stated before, there is nothing similar in the description in Job about the Leviathan that has anything similar to do with a crocodile, and I shouldn't have to make stuff up as you suppose just to see it. That is an elementary mistake on your part.
The ancient Hebrews classify bats as birds based on having wings. With that sort of low-level understanding--
Now you are attempting to make other people look dumb so you will look smart. Low level understanding? They did not classified "Bats" AS "Birds" Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means, function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).
--it is reasonable to suppose that they could not distinguish a crocodile's leathery hide from scales.
No, it is not! I don't know anyone who would think a crocodile had scales! Not to mention the way they are described in Job and the fact that leviathan can lift himself up! And you don't understand what I mean I say you're using rubber, you are stretching. You are doing more then that actually, you are making a whole new story.
Sarfati's science is correct, in that there is a difference of method between rumination and refection, and that their intent (having a second go at the nutrients in food) is the same. However, his claim that "chewing the cud" had a broader definition to the ancient Hebrews is not sustainable because of what the difference is.
In fact, it'd pro'ly be easier to argue if the Hebrew word DID translate as chew; but 'alah does in fact mean "lift up." Rabbits don't bring up anything; they poo out the pellets, and eat them (that is, to a low level understanding, they eat dung.)
It sounds like you just proved the point. Thank you very much.
"the sinews of its stones,"
sin·ew
ˈsinyo͞o/
noun
plural noun: sinews
1.
a piece of tough fibrous tissue uniting muscle to bone or bone to bone; a tendon or ligament.
Now that we know what sinews is, lets see what this says (Sorry for the detail people) "the sinews of its stones" in other words, the piece of tough fibrous tissue uniting muscle to bone or bone to bone of his testicles is not a description of mammal character. The fact that it mentions the stones at all is not an indication of where they are at. That was not a logical argument on your part. If anything the description of the sinews would suggest otherwise than what you are saying.
Sandokiri
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:59:45 +0000
anonymous attributes
Is that all you say, paragon? I refuse to understand a concept?
I'm encouraging you to look at it in another way. You're refusing because you're locked into your own preconceived idea.
Quote:
mankind did coexist with some of the megafauna. Now you are lying. You said "prehistory" are the 7+-meter long crocodiles prehistory, or not?
You don't even understand the word prehistory: it refers to all of time before the development of writing (around the 3000s BCE). The Palaeolithic period is defined starting with the invention of stone tools by human ancestors, about 2.5 million years ago.
In other words, between 2500kya and 5-6kya is the time period in which human prehistory exists. There were megafauna that existed even in the later portion of that time period. No contradiction, no lie, no ground for your accusation.
And yes, the Job description IS strengthened in its intent if those creatures are mythic as opposed to actual: is it stronger to be beyond the possible, or beyond the impossible? That's the entire point of Job 38-41: that God is so powerful that It is beyond the impossible and, for that reason alone, Job has no standing to seek an explanation for his suffering.
Quote:
It sounds like you just proved the point. Thank you very much.
Actually, I didn't. I proved the exact opposite: rabbits don't bring up cud, and therefore do not chew cud by definition. The Levitical author is wrong in a point of fact, and unnecessarily so; it would have been sufficient to say that the rabbit does not divide the hoof and is unclean for that reason.
anonymous attributes
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 01:01:59 +0000
Do not touch the topic of trolling when it is between me and you, unless you are confessing.
I admit, I thought I knew the word PREHISTORY. It seems I am corrected on that. But it doesn't really help your argument.
You're refusing because you're locked into your own preconceived idea. I read the text, and this is what it claims, whether it is true or false. But I know that an evolutionist cannot account for those creatures to be real in Job. THAT is called a preconception idea. But I tell you, whether it is true or false, I read the text, and it describes real creatures, despite popular belief or not. There is a lot of text you must ignore in order to support your suggestion, and I am not willing to ignore text. You also have not addressed the text/context as a whole in this conversation, and therefore this conversation is finished.
This is not speaking of a mythological creature according to its context and description.
Job 41
41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon 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.
The rabbit does not chew the cud in your opinion because of the modern definition. Again you are failing to allow the text itself to speak. This is a recurring theme on your part which is demonstrated in time past. You are attempting to apply modern definitions to ancient times instead of allow the text to speak for itself and declare itself. I post the whole text now for easy access for spectators.
Some of the food laws have been attacked by sceptics as ‘proof’ that the Bible makes mistakes, meaning it could not be God’s written word. For example, Leviticus 11:3–6 says:
‘Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud, among the animals, that you shall eat.
‘Only, you shall not eat these of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: the camel, for he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
‘And the rock badger, because he chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’
We showed a photo of the camel’s hoof in Creation 19(4):29, 1997, proving that the Leviticus 11:4 assertion was right that the camel did not completely ‘divide the hoof’, despite what some sceptics claim. Other sceptics have claimed that the Coney (Hebrew shaphan, = hyrax, rock badger) and hare (Hebrew ’arnebeth = hare/rabbit) don’t chew the cud.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs.1 Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
In particular, another name for this process is called cecotrophy, because the material is taken in a pouch at the beginning of the large intestine called the cecum or ‘blind gut& (Latin caecus = blind). In the cecum, a process called ‘hindgut fermentation’ occurs, where bacteria help digest the food by breaking down cellulose into simple sugars. Then the special dropping, called a cecotrope, is expelled and re-eaten. This cecotrope is very different from normal feces, thus cecotrophy is very different from other forms of coprophagy (eating dung) practised by animals such as pigs and dogs.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
I admit, I thought I knew the word PREHISTORY. It seems I am corrected on that. But it doesn't really help your argument.
You're refusing because you're locked into your own preconceived idea. I read the text, and this is what it claims, whether it is true or false. But I know that an evolutionist cannot account for those creatures to be real in Job. THAT is called a preconception idea. But I tell you, whether it is true or false, I read the text, and it describes real creatures, despite popular belief or not. There is a lot of text you must ignore in order to support your suggestion, and I am not willing to ignore text. You also have not addressed the text/context as a whole in this conversation, and therefore this conversation is finished.
This is not speaking of a mythological creature according to its context and description.
Job 41
41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon 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.
The rabbit does not chew the cud in your opinion because of the modern definition. Again you are failing to allow the text itself to speak. This is a recurring theme on your part which is demonstrated in time past. You are attempting to apply modern definitions to ancient times instead of allow the text to speak for itself and declare itself. I post the whole text now for easy access for spectators.
Some of the food laws have been attacked by sceptics as ‘proof’ that the Bible makes mistakes, meaning it could not be God’s written word. For example, Leviticus 11:3–6 says:
‘Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud, among the animals, that you shall eat.
‘Only, you shall not eat these of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: the camel, for he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
‘And the rock badger, because he chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’
We showed a photo of the camel’s hoof in Creation 19(4):29, 1997, proving that the Leviticus 11:4 assertion was right that the camel did not completely ‘divide the hoof’, despite what some sceptics claim. Other sceptics have claimed that the Coney (Hebrew shaphan, = hyrax, rock badger) and hare (Hebrew ’arnebeth = hare/rabbit) don’t chew the cud.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs.1 Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
In particular, another name for this process is called cecotrophy, because the material is taken in a pouch at the beginning of the large intestine called the cecum or ‘blind gut& (Latin caecus = blind). In the cecum, a process called ‘hindgut fermentation’ occurs, where bacteria help digest the food by breaking down cellulose into simple sugars. Then the special dropping, called a cecotrope, is expelled and re-eaten. This cecotrope is very different from normal feces, thus cecotrophy is very different from other forms of coprophagy (eating dung) practised by animals such as pigs and dogs.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
Sandokiri
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 04:13:47 +0000
Short form: If you're going to keep quoting creationists, then you're not going to hold my interest. Biblical crypto-zoology is something that I do kinda have interest in - and I will say that in the course of this thread I have learned some things - both of palaeo-zoology and of ancient Hebrew. It's not in every such discussion that I can walk away with that.
However, I'm not interested in what creationist evangelists said several years ago, which I rejected when I first encountered them and continue to do so on the same grounds.
First, there is no "evolution-ism." Second, the creatures don't need to be accounted for as real; all the same, I think it's possible that they can be with legends derived from certain megafauna known to have coexisted with man. I can even grant that fossils of even older creatures (even dinosaurs, as one hypothesis holds for the griffin and protoceratops) could possibly contribute to some of those legends.
I don't ignore any text, actually.
It's a creature that spends time in the water. Can you catch and tame it? That's the question in so many lines.
It's a creature that is fierce in battle, so much so that if you find one sleeping, you wouldn't screw with it. How much more God?
The climax of God's discourse throughout the end of the book. Job has no right to question God, because God is impossibly powerful. Might makes right, in its ultimate statement.
Powerful jaws, full of teeth, and seeming to wear a double coat of armour.
Something that an ancient poet understood to be scales.
Pausing for a moment, if we take them to be actual scales, then that limits us to scaled fish, serpents (which normally have very few teeth,) lizards (keeping in mind that archosaurs are not lizards,) and pangolins (which, however, have no teeth.) If "scales" is a description for a scale-like leather pattern, then it's not inconsistent with crocodiles.
The term for scales used here is interesting: afic magen literally means strong shields, with afic referring to the "strong as brass" bones of behemoth just previously, and magen generally referring to shields as in protective devices. The word for scales (as fish have them, in Leviticus 11) is casceseth, and is used both for natural scales and for scale-mail (when describing Goliath's suit of armour.)
This is where it gets mythical. The bombardier beetle explosively decompresses a caustic mixture; it's not fire, and the mechanism could not produce a flaming breath. Some cobras and vipers can spit their venom, but this is again not fire.
It has a powerful, muscular neck.
It's solidly built, doesn't give a damn, and makes people s**t themselves when it thrashes about. Yes, that is what "purify themselves" means here.
The Hebrew for "raise" here is se@th, which does not refer to standing up (though crocodiles can do that as you've seen and rejected against evidence,) but swelling. Either literal swelling, like certain diseases as described in Leviticus, or swelling in majesty or excellence in its symbolic sense - which occurs two other times, with reference to God's excellence, in Job.
The previously established thick armour protects it from the weapons of the day.
It drags itself along the mud, creating sharply defined divots. "Spreads sharp pointed things" is an awkward translation, as the term charuts also refers to threshing tools (but most often, strangely, to gold plating.)
And it stirs up the water when it swims, making it murky and bubbling as though hot.
The problem here, which I get the feeling you'll reject, is one of Hebrew poetry, which employs these doubled statements for emphasis of meaning. "High" isn't always used to refer to literal height either; it is also used in context of arrogance (eg, Isaiah 5:15, where the KJV renders the word as lofty.) So there's a doubling of the idea that leviathan is better than even the proudest creatures of the wilderness in their pride - that is, the other apex predators. In short, leviathan is a badass, and knows it.
So none of that is a problem for a giant / exaggerated crocodile, save for the fire-breathing. Indeed, the descriptions of its movement in 30-32 would appear to suggest it.
The text is made of language that describes something. If that something does not comport to reality, then the problem IS NOT WITH REALITY but with the text. Rabbits are not ruminants; and the same phrase, which clearly describes a method of action, cannot be validly used to describe both.
If 'alah ha-gerah does NOT refer to rumination but to something that is shared by lagomorphs and ruminants, then the translation "chewing the cud" is misleading, even in the 17th century language. If it DOES refer to rumination (as the Latin translators evidently understood,) then rabbits are being described as doing something that they do not. It's that simple.
I think I mentioned this, how Strong's Concordance doesn't even try to defend the idea of rabbits "chewing the cud," but suggests that arnebeth is an unknown critter and its name should not be translated.
Also: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15373#page/12/mode/1up Linnaeus did not identify Lepus (rabbits) as ruminants, but as Glires.* If there's evidence from before the publication of Systema naturae, it would take the form of a discarded hypothesis, so I'm not sure what value it holds for Sarfati to mention it.
*An order that includes lagomorphs and rodents. Pecora is ruminants.
However, I'm not interested in what creationist evangelists said several years ago, which I rejected when I first encountered them and continue to do so on the same grounds.
Quote:
I read the text, and this is what it claims, whether it is true or false. But I know that an evolutionist cannot account for those creatures to be real in Job.
First, there is no "evolution-ism." Second, the creatures don't need to be accounted for as real; all the same, I think it's possible that they can be with legends derived from certain megafauna known to have coexisted with man. I can even grant that fossils of even older creatures (even dinosaurs, as one hypothesis holds for the griffin and protoceratops) could possibly contribute to some of those legends.
Quote:
There is a lot of text you must ignore in order to support your suggestion, and I am not willing to ignore text.
I don't ignore any text, actually.
Quote:
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
It's a creature that spends time in the water. Can you catch and tame it? That's the question in so many lines.
Quote:
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
It's a creature that is fierce in battle, so much so that if you find one sleeping, you wouldn't screw with it. How much more God?
Quote:
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
The climax of God's discourse throughout the end of the book. Job has no right to question God, because God is impossibly powerful. Might makes right, in its ultimate statement.
Quote:
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
Powerful jaws, full of teeth, and seeming to wear a double coat of armour.
Quote:
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
Something that an ancient poet understood to be scales.
Pausing for a moment, if we take them to be actual scales, then that limits us to scaled fish, serpents (which normally have very few teeth,) lizards (keeping in mind that archosaurs are not lizards,) and pangolins (which, however, have no teeth.) If "scales" is a description for a scale-like leather pattern, then it's not inconsistent with crocodiles.
The term for scales used here is interesting: afic magen literally means strong shields, with afic referring to the "strong as brass" bones of behemoth just previously, and magen generally referring to shields as in protective devices. The word for scales (as fish have them, in Leviticus 11) is casceseth, and is used both for natural scales and for scale-mail (when describing Goliath's suit of armour.)
Quote:
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
This is where it gets mythical. The bombardier beetle explosively decompresses a caustic mixture; it's not fire, and the mechanism could not produce a flaming breath. Some cobras and vipers can spit their venom, but this is again not fire.
Quote:
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
It has a powerful, muscular neck.
Quote:
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
It's solidly built, doesn't give a damn, and makes people s**t themselves when it thrashes about. Yes, that is what "purify themselves" means here.
The Hebrew for "raise" here is se@th, which does not refer to standing up (though crocodiles can do that as you've seen and rejected against evidence,) but swelling. Either literal swelling, like certain diseases as described in Leviticus, or swelling in majesty or excellence in its symbolic sense - which occurs two other times, with reference to God's excellence, in Job.
Quote:
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
The previously established thick armour protects it from the weapons of the day.
Quote:
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
It drags itself along the mud, creating sharply defined divots. "Spreads sharp pointed things" is an awkward translation, as the term charuts also refers to threshing tools (but most often, strangely, to gold plating.)
And it stirs up the water when it swims, making it murky and bubbling as though hot.
Quote:
33 Upon 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.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
The problem here, which I get the feeling you'll reject, is one of Hebrew poetry, which employs these doubled statements for emphasis of meaning. "High" isn't always used to refer to literal height either; it is also used in context of arrogance (eg, Isaiah 5:15, where the KJV renders the word as lofty.) So there's a doubling of the idea that leviathan is better than even the proudest creatures of the wilderness in their pride - that is, the other apex predators. In short, leviathan is a badass, and knows it.
So none of that is a problem for a giant / exaggerated crocodile, save for the fire-breathing. Indeed, the descriptions of its movement in 30-32 would appear to suggest it.
Quote:
The rabbit does not chew the cud in your opinion because of the modern definition. Again you are failing to allow the text itself to speak. This is a recurring theme on your part which is demonstrated in time past. You are attempting to apply modern definitions to ancient times instead of allow the text to speak for itself and declare itself.
The text is made of language that describes something. If that something does not comport to reality, then the problem IS NOT WITH REALITY but with the text. Rabbits are not ruminants; and the same phrase, which clearly describes a method of action, cannot be validly used to describe both.
If 'alah ha-gerah does NOT refer to rumination but to something that is shared by lagomorphs and ruminants, then the translation "chewing the cud" is misleading, even in the 17th century language. If it DOES refer to rumination (as the Latin translators evidently understood,) then rabbits are being described as doing something that they do not. It's that simple.
I think I mentioned this, how Strong's Concordance doesn't even try to defend the idea of rabbits "chewing the cud," but suggests that arnebeth is an unknown critter and its name should not be translated.
Also: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15373#page/12/mode/1up Linnaeus did not identify Lepus (rabbits) as ruminants, but as Glires.* If there's evidence from before the publication of Systema naturae, it would take the form of a discarded hypothesis, so I'm not sure what value it holds for Sarfati to mention it.
*An order that includes lagomorphs and rodents. Pecora is ruminants.
anonymous attributes
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:36:20 +0000
Sandokiri
Short form: If you're going to keep quoting creationists, then you're not going to hold my interest. Biblical crypto-zoology is something that I do kinda have interest in - and I will say that in the course of this thread I have learned some things - both of palaeo-zoology and of ancient Hebrew. It's not in every such discussion that I can walk away with that.
However, I'm not interested in what creationist evangelists said several years ago, which I rejected when I first encountered them and continue to do so on the same grounds.
First, there is no "evolution-ism." Second, the creatures don't need to be accounted for as real; all the same, I think it's possible that they can be with legends derived from certain megafauna known to have coexisted with man. I can even grant that fossils of even older creatures (even dinosaurs, as one hypothesis holds for the griffin and protoceratops) could possibly contribute to some of those legends.
I don't ignore any text, actually.
It's a creature that spends time in the water. Can you catch and tame it? That's the question in so many lines.
It's a creature that is fierce in battle, so much so that if you find one sleeping, you wouldn't screw with it. How much more God?
The climax of God's discourse throughout the end of the book. Job has no right to question God, because God is impossibly powerful. Might makes right, in its ultimate statement.
Powerful jaws, full of teeth, and seeming to wear a double coat of armour.
Something that an ancient poet understood to be scales.
Pausing for a moment, if we take them to be actual scales, then that limits us to scaled fish, serpents (which normally have very few teeth,) lizards (keeping in mind that archosaurs are not lizards,) and pangolins (which, however, have no teeth.) If "scales" is a description for a scale-like leather pattern, then it's not inconsistent with crocodiles.
The term for scales used here is interesting: afic magen literally means strong shields, with afic referring to the "strong as brass" bones of behemoth just previously, and magen generally referring to shields as in protective devices. The word for scales (as fish have them, in Leviticus 11) is casceseth, and is used both for natural scales and for scale-mail (when describing Goliath's suit of armour.)
This is where it gets mythical. The bombardier beetle explosively decompresses a caustic mixture; it's not fire, and the mechanism could not produce a flaming breath. Some cobras and vipers can spit their venom, but this is again not fire.
It has a powerful, muscular neck.
It's solidly built, doesn't give a damn, and makes people s**t themselves when it thrashes about. Yes, that is what "purify themselves" means here.
The Hebrew for "raise" here is se@th, which does not refer to standing up (though crocodiles can do that as you've seen and rejected against evidence,) but swelling. Either literal swelling, like certain diseases as described in Leviticus, or swelling in majesty or excellence in its symbolic sense - which occurs two other times, with reference to God's excellence, in Job.
The previously established thick armour protects it from the weapons of the day.
It drags itself along the mud, creating sharply defined divots. "Spreads sharp pointed things" is an awkward translation, as the term charuts also refers to threshing tools (but most often, strangely, to gold plating.)
And it stirs up the water when it swims, making it murky and bubbling as though hot. "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment." Which part of this is murky, inserting that for added crocodile effect? It says its in the sea, its a sea creature, and he maketh the deep to boil. crocs do not maketh the "deep" to boil. They don't go deep to my knowledge.
The problem here, which I get the feeling you'll reject, is one of Hebrew poetry, which employs these doubled statements for emphasis of meaning. "High" isn't always used to refer to literal height either; it is also used in context of arrogance (eg, Isaiah 5:15, where the KJV renders the word as lofty.) So there's a doubling of the idea that leviathan is better than even the proudest creatures of the wilderness in their pride - that is, the other apex predators. In short, leviathan is a badass, and knows it.
So none of that is a problem for a giant / exaggerated crocodile, save for the fire-breathing. Indeed, the descriptions of its movement in 30-32 would appear to suggest it.
The text is made of language that describes something. If that something does not comport to reality, then the problem IS NOT WITH REALITY but with the text. Rabbits are not ruminants; and the same phrase, which clearly describes a method of action, cannot be validly used to describe both.
If 'alah ha-gerah does NOT refer to rumination but to something that is shared by lagomorphs and ruminants, then the translation "chewing the cud" is misleading, even in the 17th century language. If it DOES refer to rumination (as the Latin translators evidently understood,) then rabbits are being described as doing something that they do not. It's that simple.
I think I mentioned this, how Strong's Concordance doesn't even try to defend the idea of rabbits "chewing the cud," but suggests that arnebeth is an unknown critter and its name should not be translated.
Also: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15373#page/12/mode/1up Linnaeus did not identify Lepus (rabbits) as ruminants, but as Glires.* If there's evidence from before the publication of Systema naturae, it would take the form of a discarded hypothesis, so I'm not sure what value it holds for Sarfati to mention it.
*An order that includes lagomorphs and rodents. Pecora is ruminants.
However, I'm not interested in what creationist evangelists said several years ago, which I rejected when I first encountered them and continue to do so on the same grounds.
Quote:
I read the text, and this is what it claims, whether it is true or false. But I know that an evolutionist cannot account for those creatures to be real in Job.
First, there is no "evolution-ism." Second, the creatures don't need to be accounted for as real; all the same, I think it's possible that they can be with legends derived from certain megafauna known to have coexisted with man. I can even grant that fossils of even older creatures (even dinosaurs, as one hypothesis holds for the griffin and protoceratops) could possibly contribute to some of those legends.
Quote:
There is a lot of text you must ignore in order to support your suggestion, and I am not willing to ignore text.
I don't ignore any text, actually.
Quote:
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
It's a creature that spends time in the water. Can you catch and tame it? That's the question in so many lines.
Quote:
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
It's a creature that is fierce in battle, so much so that if you find one sleeping, you wouldn't screw with it. How much more God?
Quote:
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
The climax of God's discourse throughout the end of the book. Job has no right to question God, because God is impossibly powerful. Might makes right, in its ultimate statement.
Quote:
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
Powerful jaws, full of teeth, and seeming to wear a double coat of armour.
Quote:
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
Something that an ancient poet understood to be scales.
Pausing for a moment, if we take them to be actual scales, then that limits us to scaled fish, serpents (which normally have very few teeth,) lizards (keeping in mind that archosaurs are not lizards,) and pangolins (which, however, have no teeth.) If "scales" is a description for a scale-like leather pattern, then it's not inconsistent with crocodiles.
The term for scales used here is interesting: afic magen literally means strong shields, with afic referring to the "strong as brass" bones of behemoth just previously, and magen generally referring to shields as in protective devices. The word for scales (as fish have them, in Leviticus 11) is casceseth, and is used both for natural scales and for scale-mail (when describing Goliath's suit of armour.)
Quote:
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
This is where it gets mythical. The bombardier beetle explosively decompresses a caustic mixture; it's not fire, and the mechanism could not produce a flaming breath. Some cobras and vipers can spit their venom, but this is again not fire.
Quote:
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
It has a powerful, muscular neck.
Quote:
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
It's solidly built, doesn't give a damn, and makes people s**t themselves when it thrashes about. Yes, that is what "purify themselves" means here.
The Hebrew for "raise" here is se@th, which does not refer to standing up (though crocodiles can do that as you've seen and rejected against evidence,) but swelling. Either literal swelling, like certain diseases as described in Leviticus, or swelling in majesty or excellence in its symbolic sense - which occurs two other times, with reference to God's excellence, in Job.
Quote:
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
The previously established thick armour protects it from the weapons of the day.
Quote:
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
It drags itself along the mud, creating sharply defined divots. "Spreads sharp pointed things" is an awkward translation, as the term charuts also refers to threshing tools (but most often, strangely, to gold plating.)
And it stirs up the water when it swims, making it murky and bubbling as though hot. "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment." Which part of this is murky, inserting that for added crocodile effect? It says its in the sea, its a sea creature, and he maketh the deep to boil. crocs do not maketh the "deep" to boil. They don't go deep to my knowledge.
Quote:
33 Upon 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.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
The problem here, which I get the feeling you'll reject, is one of Hebrew poetry, which employs these doubled statements for emphasis of meaning. "High" isn't always used to refer to literal height either; it is also used in context of arrogance (eg, Isaiah 5:15, where the KJV renders the word as lofty.) So there's a doubling of the idea that leviathan is better than even the proudest creatures of the wilderness in their pride - that is, the other apex predators. In short, leviathan is a badass, and knows it.
So none of that is a problem for a giant / exaggerated crocodile, save for the fire-breathing. Indeed, the descriptions of its movement in 30-32 would appear to suggest it.
Quote:
The rabbit does not chew the cud in your opinion because of the modern definition. Again you are failing to allow the text itself to speak. This is a recurring theme on your part which is demonstrated in time past. You are attempting to apply modern definitions to ancient times instead of allow the text to speak for itself and declare itself.
The text is made of language that describes something. If that something does not comport to reality, then the problem IS NOT WITH REALITY but with the text. Rabbits are not ruminants; and the same phrase, which clearly describes a method of action, cannot be validly used to describe both.
If 'alah ha-gerah does NOT refer to rumination but to something that is shared by lagomorphs and ruminants, then the translation "chewing the cud" is misleading, even in the 17th century language. If it DOES refer to rumination (as the Latin translators evidently understood,) then rabbits are being described as doing something that they do not. It's that simple.
I think I mentioned this, how Strong's Concordance doesn't even try to defend the idea of rabbits "chewing the cud," but suggests that arnebeth is an unknown critter and its name should not be translated.
Also: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15373#page/12/mode/1up Linnaeus did not identify Lepus (rabbits) as ruminants, but as Glires.* If there's evidence from before the publication of Systema naturae, it would take the form of a discarded hypothesis, so I'm not sure what value it holds for Sarfati to mention it.
*An order that includes lagomorphs and rodents. Pecora is ruminants.
Keeping you interested isn't my goal. Speaking of what I think is the truth, that is my goal.
I don't ignore any text, actually. Whether you do or do not, really I do not know, but as far as presenting it here, you haven't done up until now.
It's a creature that spends time in the water. Agreed.
It's a creature that is fierce in battle, so much so that if you find one sleeping, you wouldn't screw with it. How much more God? Agreed.
Powerful jaws, full of teeth, and seeming to wear a double coat of armour. Agreed.
Pausing for a moment, if we take them to be actual scales, then that limits us to scaled fish. Disagree. I am debating an extinct creature here that we do not see today, a great creature. That is the whole reason I am debiting. You are assuming such a great creature could not exist because you do not see it today. I don't see a lot of things today, but that is not conclusive logic.
Also, you I am sure are not trained in Hebrew, and since neither am I, I can't verify your work. For future reference in any other debate, I wont allow it.
You say it literally means "shields" Scales nor Shields are a description of any kind of leather. The context also does not allow for a "leather pattern" it says that the scales(Shields) are very strong and are very tightly fit together. Leather is not very tightly fit together.....
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
This is where it gets mythical.
That is not logic. You assume because we don't have anything of this today, that it must be mythical. It must be accounted for that thw book of Job is dated very old to some time shortly after the time of the flood which is said to be 4400 years ago. The reason for this dating is because according to the Bible people were living much longer at that time, and Job lives long enough to have a second family and see them grow up, concluding, that according to the Bible timeline, it must be sometime shortly after the flood, when people were claimed to live 400, 300 and 200 years old. What does this mean? That this creature is thousands of years old. And because you do not see it today, you stamp it as mythical. That inconclusive and illogical, its not proof. That is why I believe it is at least claiming to be a real creature whether its contrary to popular belief or not according to its context.
It has a powerful, muscular neck. Agreed.
The Hebrew for "raise" here is se@th, which does not refer to standing up. There is no reason to look at the Hebrew here. I didn't necessarily think that it did, and as you can tell I didn't argue that point. But if this is a very large serpent type sea creature, it very well could raise its neck above the water, or on land like a cobra, only very large, and not like a croc that jumps or leaps.
The previously established thick armour protects it from the weapons of the day. Agreed.
And it stirs up the water when it swims, making it murky and bubbling as though hot. It didn't say murky, you added that for added effect, "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment." Which part of this is murky? It says its in the sea, its a sea creature.. That is not an argument for a crocodile. The very creature I am arguing for to what I see according to the context could do the same thing, even hippos can do that with the water.
33 Upon 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.
The problem here, which I get the feeling you'll reject, is one of Hebrew poetry, which employs these doubled statements for emphasis of meaning. "High" isn't always used to refer to literal height either- I know about the Hebrew poetry that you refer to, doubled statements for emphasis. Why is it a problem? I can see by the very context that its not necessarily talking about actual literal height. The context would suggest otherwise. I never argued for literal height in this passage.
In short, leviathan is a badass, and knows it.
So none of that is a problem for a giant / exaggerated crocodile, save for the fire-breathing. Indeed-
Context. While you try to prove one verse you forget another.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
Except that crocodiles don't have scales or shields as described as scales on crocs. Crocodiles arent serpents either. Crocodiles don't breath fire. It can't be mythologized since the context pares leviathan with the attempts of people that might go up against him. And that is what I meant by context. So what? you acknowledged the context when I presented it making small comments, but this is what I mean when I say CONTEXT.
It cannot be mythologized because God said He created him and all the creatures under heaven(11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.) And all the other verses that you do not remember for the sake of context.
God would have no reason to mythologized His own creation, and furthermore just to make a point about Jobs pride. Yes that is what its about, his pride, and no about not being able to make inquires to God. God would have no need to pair Himself up against a fake creature of awesomeness as an example of His own awesomeness. That-just-doesn't-make-sense to the context. God had a problem with Jobs pride, that is why He mentions His creation, not His fairy tales, as being great, and He even is far greater. He was humbling Job.
We still disagree, and I think we will have to agree to disagree at this point.
_______________
Concerning the rabbit. if there was a dictionary that defined cud as the inside of the mouth or throat of a beast that chews the cud, that would work, would it not?
Sandokiri
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:22:39 +0000
anonymous attributes
[Whether you do or do not, really I do not know, but as far as presenting it here, you haven't done up until now.
I had been unaware of any specific request to do a line-by-line analysis of the chapter, so there is that. We'll set that aside though, as it is no longer of consequence. yum_puddi
Quote:
Disagree. I am debating an extinct creature here that we do not see today, a great creature. That is the whole reason I am debiting. You are assuming such a great creature could not exist because you do not see it today. I don't see a lot of things today, but that is not conclusive logic.
You might have noticed that I allow for that possibility - that it could be (or be based on) something that did exist but does not now.
Quote:
Also, you I am sure are not trained in Hebrew, and since neither am I, I can't verify your work. For future reference in any other debate, I wont allow it.
For future reference, this online Bible is what I refer to, which includes its access to the Hebrew text as well as Strong's Concordance and Gesenius's Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. I use these resources, especially when it comes to "what were the authors talking about to their contemporary audience," to get a better understanding.
The alternative is using 21st century understandings of 17th century English.
Quote:
You say it literally means "shields" Scales nor Shields are a description of any kind of leather. The context also does not allow for a "leather pattern" it says that the scales(Shields) are very strong and are very tightly fit together. Leather is not very tightly fit together.....
Let's allow observational evidence to determine this, then.
Crocodile hide
Knob-scaled lizard
Monitor lizard hide
There are also lizards (such as the frilled lizard) that have the more conventional scale-mail looking scales, as well as those that have the diamond shaped scales fairly common to snakes.
And yes, crocodile hide is scaly, produced by the same mechanism as the scales on birds' feet, as well as turtle shells. The scales, called scutes (from the Latin scutum, a type of shield,) don't overlap the way lizard (or pangolin) scales do - which could explain why the author of Job chose to call them strong shields rather than scales.
Quote:
That is not logic. You assume because we don't have anything of this today, that it must be mythical. It must be accounted for that thw book of Job is dated very old to some time shortly after the time of the flood which is said to be 4400 years ago.
Jewish tradition says Moses wrote it (but also that Job actually committed a sin, namely letting Pharaoh enforce his decree against the sons of Israel in Exodus 1, and was smitten for that reason - a reaction to early Christians claiming a Jesus prophecy in Job 19.) We can constrain the book's most recent date to about 600 BCE, as Ezekiel makes a character reference to Job and we can establish a definite date for Ezekiel within that book's text. There are also Persian and Aramaic influences in the text, which bring its likely date forward.
It is, however, more recent than Ezra, as there was not yet a concept of "Satan" as a single personal entity; much like in Zechariah, the adversary is called the satan (ha-satan) in Job.
Quote:
The reason for this dating is because according to the Bible people were living much longer at that time
And I reject that for the same reason that I reject the Sumerian kings list and its claim that kings lived tens of thousands of years - incredible royal lifespans that suddenly weren't so long after the Shuruppak flood, coming down to more "reasonable" hundreds of years. They're not actually reasonable, by the way, because they still claim that tens of thousands of years passed in what we can determine from archaeology to be about 350.
I reject Ussher's dating, because it describes a flood where the evidence does not - the flood of Noah is the Shuruppak flood of ~2900 BCE, just as the other flood stories of the Middle East.
Also, what I'm declaring as mythical isn't the existence of a creature, but of its fire-breathing attribute. This is a simple appeal to natural selection: the ability to breathe a gout of flame would be very well indicated for the creature that had it, both for attack (eg, hunting or securing a kill) and defence (deterring and/or harming predators,) and thus would be selected for, and the fire-breathing trait propagated in later generations.
Now, while there may be a possibility that there were fire-breathers but they simply didn't survive one of the several mass extinctions, we would need evidence in the fossil record that could support such a thing.
Quote:
And it stirs up the water when it swims, making it murky and bubbling as though hot. It didn't say murky, you added that for added effect, "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment." Which part of this is murky?
The ointment part, as ointments are oily by nature.
Quote:
It says its in the sea, its a sea creature.. That is not an argument for a crocodile. The very creature I am arguing for to what I see according to the context could do the same thing, even hippos can do that with the water.
Just for reference, what creature are you arguing for?
Quote:
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
Except that crocodiles don't have scales or shields as described as scales on crocs.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
Except that crocodiles don't have scales or shields as described as scales on crocs.
Actually, yes, they do. I invite you to do your own research on crocodile biology for this one. 3nodding
Quote:
Crocodiles arent serpents either. Crocodiles don't breath fire.
"Not serpents" is an objection I can possibly grant. "Not fire-breathers" isn't; see above for why.
Quote:
It can't be mythologized since the context pares leviathan with the attempts of people that might go up against him.
So Medusa actually existed until Perseus killed her? Theseus really fought a minotaur, and Odysseus thwarted a real Cyclops as well as actual monsters (not merely natural navigational hazards) called Skylla and Kharybdis? Did the half-demonic Questing Beast actually roam England, just because it's described in the Arthurian cycle among humans?
I know I'm going a bit afield with these questions, but the point is this: the presence of humans in a myth is not evidence for the existence of the gods, magic, or monsters therein, even if the humans are described in direct interaction with those elements.
Quote:
It cannot be mythologized because God said He created him and all the creatures under heaven(11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.)
Prevent = confront. A paraphrase would be this: "Who are you to step to me and demand anything? Everything belongs to me. But let me keep describing this Leviathan thing."
Quote:
God would have no reason to mythologized His own creation, and furthermore just to make a point about Jobs pride. Yes that is what its about, his pride, and no about not being able to make inquires to God.
In the whole context of Job, I don't see that. God inflicted arbitrary suffering on the man; the middle contains discourses on divine justice; and the end is God saying "This is how strong I am. If you think you're strong enough to step to me, I'll give you your answer."
Also, Job's repentance was for speaking in ignorance - not for pride: that's in Job 42.
Quote:
Concerning the rabbit. if there was a dictionary that defined cud as the inside of the mouth or throat of a beast that chews the cud, that would work, would it not?
I'd be rather curious about that dictionary. I know some give a definition suggestive of chewing tobacco - or chewing gum (I remember a German teacher who'd identify gum-chewers with the taunt Du kaust wie eine Kuh!) - but have seen none that refer to the inside of the mouth as a cud.