Can Leviathan really exist?

[ambelamba]

I don't think ancient people had real good observation skills so...I'd go with whales.

[+Link of Hyrule]

You do realize the bible is THE most proven historically accurate text in the entire world right?

Just as a matter of interest, "the Bible" is not just one text, but a collection of several works. According to the current canon, most consider it based on 66 separate texts written by nearly 40 authors over a period of 1400 years.

So when one makes such sweeping comments as "the Bible" is the most proven historically accurate text, I'm always wondering WHICH texts of the Bible - for example, the Song of Solomon has virtually zero history considering it is a piece of poetry.

Just at thought

~ PA

[SilverKya]

There is a book out called Understanding Leviathan by Richard Lee. It talks about Leviathan as a metaphor. Here is the website http://understandingleviathan.com/ . The book is pretty interesting, a good read.

Btw, if someone mentioned this already. I am sorry. D: I just skimmed thought the posts.....

[Watchers]

Of all books, the Bible has the most number of surviving texts found in antiquity. Thus, we can ascertain that the text has passed down to us more or less intact. Some people woule refer to this as being historically accurate.

Historically accurate, however, means something completely different. It means that the events within it are portrayed accurately.

If the Bible was the most proven historically accurate text in the entire world, then Historians would use it as a primary source. As it's not used as a primary source by Historians, that should tell you everything you need to know in regards to it's proven accuracy.

There are plenty of historical textbooks out there that completely contradict each other. Just because it's not cited 100% of the time doesn't give credence to it being false or inaccurate.

And by historically accurate--if you compare the events, the people, the geography, and the cities with any ancient history text-book, they match up nearly perfectly. And in fact, in many, many cases history textbooks have speculated one thing, and then archaeological evidence has proven the history textbook wrong, and actually given more credence to the accuracy of the bible.

And if you think I'm just talking out my ass, I'll give you some "starter" topics to whet your appetite with:

- Ebla archive discovery in Syria in the 1970s (Historians stated that Canaan was not used at the time of the Bible, but this discovery verified that it indeed was considering the tablets were dated to around 2300 BC. This discovery also verifies many Patriarchal names and ancient customs).

- Historians scoffed the idea that Hittites were real, and believed them only to be a "Biblical legend". There capital and records of their existence were discovered in Bogazkoy, Turkey.

- Historians claimed that there was no known Assyrian king by the name of Sargon (from Isaiah 20:1). Furthermore, the entire story relating to him was believed to be a "made up story". Some time later, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. Guess what was recorded on the palace walls? The story of his capture of Ashdod--the biblical story.

- Historians doubted the existence of King Belshazzar of Babylon (from Daniel 5). For a while, according to "your accurate historical textbooks", Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king. It was discovered on tablets that Belshazzar was actually Nabonidus' son with the authority that the Bible stated him to have.

Oh, and about historians/archaeologists not referencing the bible as accurate or true? Well here's some interesting quotes to end my post with:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries."

- Dr. Nelson Glueck

Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong."

- Dr. Joseph P. Free

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

- Dr. William F. Albright

And this last quote pretty much sums up WHY most people discount the Bible as being "historically inaccurate"...they are biased from the beginning (partly due to the secular nature of our schools).

"The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

- Professor Millar Burrows, Archaeologist-Yale University

Edited April 1, 2010 by Watchers

[Paramys]

the discription of this leviathan describes my mother in law she is female so god didnt kill the female mores the pity.