Comments
What is Behemoth??
Is it a dinosaur, or is it as some commentaries suggest and Elephant or a hippo etc....
Just like to hear peoples thoughts.
Personally I believe that it is a dinosaur like a Diplodocus, or something similar
I believe it is dinosaur meant, because of the large tail and his strength is in his belly muscles. You can find an interesting explanation here.
Bohuslav
John,
I just shot coffee out of my nose...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
What is Behemoth??
Is it a dinosaur, or is it as some commentaries suggest and Elephant or a hippo etc....
Just like to hear peoples thoughts.
Personally I believe that it is a dinosaur like a Diplodocus, or something similar
While it has been supposed by some that "behemoth" might represent some creature such as the crocodile or hippopotamos, it seems rather to be used for the ancient chaos monster in some of the ancient Near Eastern creation myths. It is also described as a serpent (as in the Garden). It would not be possible for it to be some extinct creature such as the dinosaur since the dinosaur was long extinct before man ever appeared on earth.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
It would not be possible for it to be some extinct creature such as the dinosaur since the dinosaur was long extinct before man ever appeared on earth.
Many would disagree. Extinction and contemporaneous existence with man are not mutually exclusive.
Just ask the Dodo bird. (Oh yeah, he's recently extinct.)
Some of us take a literal road more often than others. Behemoth, unicorns, dragons and even harps in heaven can possibly be literal descriptions.[A] [8] [*]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Many would disagree. Extinction and contemporaneous existence with man are not mutually exclusive.
Just ask the Dodo bird. (Oh yeah, he's recently extinct.)
Dinosaurs weren't merely extinct; they had been extinct for a long period. The Dodo is an extinction which occurred in historical times.
Some of us take a literal road more often than others. Behemoth, unicorns, dragons and even harps in heaven can possibly be literal descriptions.
And perhaps von Daniken was correct that ancient astronauts really did construct the pyramids. All you need to do is believe it to be so and POOF ! , it's real.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
According to drdino.com, it's possible that Dinosaurs and and man co-existed before the Great Flood, since God didn't allow any of His creations to be carnivores until Genesis 9:3.
Many would disagree. Extinction and contemporaneous existence with man are not mutually exclusive.
Just ask the Dodo bird. (Oh yeah, he's recently extinct.)Dinosaurs weren't merely extinct; they had been extinct for a long period. The Dodo is an extinction which occurred in historical times.
Some of us take a literal road more often than others. Behemoth, unicorns, dragons and even harps in heaven can possibly be literal descriptions.And perhaps von Daniken was correct that ancient astronauts really did construct the pyramids. All you need to do is believe it to be so and POOF ! , it's real.
So George does that mean you do not believe in a literal 6 days creation???
It would not be possible for it to be some extinct creature such as the dinosaur since the dinosaur was long extinct before man ever appeared on earth.
I won't be agreeing with you on this one George. But that's to be expected.
I'm firmly in the, "Probably some kind of dinosaur" camp here. Whatever it is, I do want to shoot down Elephants and hippos in any case. They most certainly do not have tails that swing like cedars. Whatever it is, it had a massive tail. Croc? I don't think so, their tails are used for swimming or "whipping" but they don't generally sway in a stately manner.
Moreover I find it difficult for God to say, "Hey look at this mythic creature that people give my glory to!" Nope - for that reason I'll jettison Tiamat or whatever as an explanation. I believe Behemoth to be a real beast. IMHO Probably Saurian.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you.
What is Behemoth??
Is it a dinosaur, or is it as some commentaries suggest and Elephant or a hippo etc....
Just like to hear peoples thoughts.
Personally I believe that it is a dinosaur like a Diplodocus, or something similar
While it has been supposed by some that "behemoth" might represent some creature such as the crocodile or hippopotamos, it seems rather to be used for the ancient chaos monster in some of the ancient Near Eastern creation myths. It is also described as a serpent (as in the Garden). It would not be possible for it to be some extinct creature such as the dinosaur since the dinosaur was long extinct before man ever appeared on earth.
It is possible for it to be an extinct animal, Because in Genesis chapter 1 is when God created everything, God created all the land animals and Man on day 6, now is a dinosaur a land animal?? Of course it is, so both man and dinosaurs co-existed. It would not be some Mythical creature either because God was describing it to Job as if Job himself knew what the animal looked like. and Behemoth could be described as a hippo or elephant. Have a look at its tail, it does not sway like a cedar tree!! The only option is some sort of dinosaur like a brachiosaurus, or similar.
in Genesis chapter 1 is when God created everything, God created all the land animals and Man on day 6, now is a dinosaur a land animal?? Of course it is, so both man and dinosaurs co-existed
I totally agree with you Aaron.
But not everybody takes the six day creation as 6 literal 24 hour periods. Some cling to the "Gap theory" believing there were possibly millions of years between a failed original creation/evolution and the Garden of Eden narrative. Who knows, they may even believe God created Adam as a newborn baby and he had to grow up through all stages of child development. (Evolving into a mature man.....[;)])
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Some cling to the "Gap theory"
"Cling" isn't a very fair word, is it?
Besides, that's not the only view -- cf. John Walton's new book: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
in Genesis chapter 1 is when God created everything, God created all the land animals and Man on day 6, now is a dinosaur a land animal?? Of course it is, so both man and dinosaurs co-existed
I totally agree with you Aaron.
But not everybody takes the six day creation as 6 literal 24 hour periods. Some cling to the "Gap theory" believing there were possibly millions of years between a failed original creation/evolution and the Garden of Eden narrative. Who knows, they may even believe God created Adam as a newborn baby and he had to grow up through all stages of child development. (Evolving into a mature man.....
)
The "gap theory" actually makes more sense than thinking that the earth is literally 6,000 years old. For those that are unfamiliar with the gap theory, wikipedia has a little write-up regarding it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory
The Hebrew completely supports there being a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1:2 we see that the earth BECAME tohu wa bohu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu yet nobody ever seems to get around to reading Isaiah 45:18 in the Hebrew to find that God did not create the earth that way. They further do not read Jeremiah 4:23 where the casting down of the last age is narrated nor do they bother to read 2 Peter chapter 3 starting with about verse 5 where Peter speaks about the previous age. Take into account that Satan was once good and held high estate but fell from grace and is sentenced by name to die yet in the book of Genesis in the garden he is already evil. So, when was he good if there was not an age on this earth before this present one?
Just about any scientist/geologist that has to deal with reality knows that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible is reality AND the age of this earth is really much more than 6,000 years. Having faith in God doesn't mean that you have to believe dumb things like the earth being only 6,000 years old. This current age may only be a few thousand years old, but the earth was created by God a long, long time ago and the Bible supports it. And it's not "clinging" to any theory - God Himself says that He did not make it as it is in Genesis 1:2 (read the Isaiah reference). Why would God create something tohu wa bohu? The gap "theory" is not a theory, it happens to be truth.
Since you chose to use the word CLING, I felt it A-OK to offer a rebuttal in truth. I fully realize that these forums are not for theological debate, but I WILL stick up for truth when I see someone make light of it.
Oh, and the behemoth happens to be a dinosaur. God made those and they lived here on earth millions of years ago. That happens to be a scientific fact. The description of the behemoth will ONLY fit a dinosaur. Having faith in the Word doesn't mean that you have to believe stupid things.
Mike
What is Behemoth??
Is it a dinosaur, or is it as some commentaries suggest and Elephant or a hippo etc....
Just like to hear peoples thoughts.
Personally I believe that it is a dinosaur like a Diplodocus, or something similar
Job 40:15 Behemoth's tail like a cedar -- seen an elephant or hippo tail lately?
It had to be a different creature. After all God said only it's Maker could subdue it and we have zoos full of crocodiles, hippos and elephants.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
What is Behemoth??
Is it a dinosaur, or is it as some commentaries suggest and Elephant or a hippo etc....
Just like to hear peoples thoughts.
Personally I believe that it is a dinosaur like a Diplodocus, or something similar
Job 40:15 Behemoth's tail like a cedar -- seen an elephant or hippo tail lately?
It had to be a different creature. After all God said only it's Maker could subdue it and we have zoos full of crocodiles, hippos and elephants.
Definitely. I whole heartedly agree
For another possibility, how about similar to the Brachiosauraus? The New Answers Book states: "Not long after the Flood, God was showing a man called Job how great He was as Creator, by reminding Job of the largest land animal He had made: 'Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; only He who made him can bring near His sword' (Job 40:15–19). The phrase 'first of the ways of God' suggests this was the largest land animal God had made. So what kind of animal was 'behemoth'? Bible translators, not being sure what this beast was, often transliterated the Hebrew, and thus the word behemoth (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV). However, in many Bible commentaries and Bible footnotes, 'behemoth' is said to be 'possibly the hippopotamus or elephant.' Some Bible versions actually translate 'behemoth' this way. Besides the fact that the elephant and hippo were not the largest land animals God made (some of the dinosaurs far eclipsed these), this description does not make sense, since the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree (verse 17). Now an elephant’s tiny tail (or a hippo’s tail that looks like a flap of skin) is quite unlike a cedar tree. Clearly, the elephant and the hippo could not possibly be 'behemoth.' No living creature comes close to this description. However, behemoth is very much like Brachiosaurus, one of the large dinosaurs."
For another possibility, how about similar to the Brachiosauraus? The New Answers Book states: "Not long after the Flood, God was showing a man called Job how great He was as Creator, by reminding Job of the largest land animal He had made: 'Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; only He who made him can bring near His sword' (Job 40:15–19). The phrase 'first of the ways of God' suggests this was the largest land animal God had made. So what kind of animal was 'behemoth'? Bible translators, not being sure what this beast was, often transliterated the Hebrew, and thus the word behemoth (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV). However, in many Bible commentaries and Bible footnotes, 'behemoth' is said to be 'possibly the hippopotamus or elephant.' Some Bible versions actually translate 'behemoth' this way. Besides the fact that the elephant and hippo were not the largest land animals God made (some of the dinosaurs far eclipsed these), this description does not make sense, since the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree (verse 17). Now an elephant’s tiny tail (or a hippo’s tail that looks like a flap of skin) is quite unlike a cedar tree. Clearly, the elephant and the hippo could not possibly be 'behemoth.' No living creature comes close to this description. However, behemoth is very much like Brachiosaurus, one of the large dinosaurs."
Excellent! I also suspect that a lot of the earlier bibles (pre 1800's) probably did try to compare it to what they saw in the world around them, since then there have been a lot more discovery of dinosaur bones, especially in the last 100 or so years. The word dinosaur itself is a created word, and was made up by a man Sir Richard Owen in 1842. so before that time they weren't referred to as dinosaurs, a lot of them were referred to as dragons.
See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles.
Well, THAT could also be Rosie O'Donnell. Except the "his" part, but then.....
For another possibility, how about similar to the Brachiosauraus?
Everybody knows, that the last dinosaur standing, was the Benedicamus.
What is Behemoth??
I'd suggest reading Religion and Its Monsters by Timothy K. Beal for an analysis of behemoth and Leviathan - especially the playful aspects. But recognize that I think the philological evidence for "dinosaur" is non-existent.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
What is Behemoth??I'd suggest reading Religion and Its Monsters by Timothy K. Beal for an analysis of behemoth and Leviathan - especially the playful aspects. But recognize that I think the philological evidence for "dinosaur" is non-existent.
I think Beal reads more into the Bible than is actually stated. His characterization of monsters as not being created by God but somehow preceding and opposing creation are just NOT listed in Psalm 74, as he asserts. As in the account of Lucifer, we have a narrative of God the Creator bringing his creation into subjection. Someday "every knee shall bow" and the raging heathen will be made a footstool. Never did the Bible say something exists without God creating it. Beal is not a very good Bible student. IMHO.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
What is Behemoth??I'd suggest reading Religion and Its Monsters by Timothy K. Beal for an analysis of behemoth and Leviathan - especially the playful aspects. But recognize that I think the philological evidence for "dinosaur" is non-existent.
I think Beal reads more into the Bible than is actually stated. His characterization of monsters as not being created by God but somehow preceding and opposing creation are just NOT listed in Psalm 74, as he asserts. As in the account of Lucifer, we have a narrative of God the Creator bringing his creation into subjection. Someday "every knee shall bow" and the raging heathen will be made a footstool. Never did the Bible say something exists without God creating it. Beal is not a very good Bible student. IMHO.
I agree in genesis it says that God created everything. and it was all
good. now after the Fall in Chap 3, everything was cursed. So that
means there are no "monster under the bed" or 'In the closet'.
Beal is not a very good Bible student. IMHO.
I certainly would not argue in favor of Beal's interpretation but I certainly would rather read him than most of the websites associating behemoth with dinosaurus. Beal is at least entertaining and informative even if he's not erudite and a Biblical scholar. For a Biblical (extreme) literalist to convince me of the dinosaur theory, he'd have to start by addressing two issues:
1) Assuming that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, what is the evidence of terms for dinosaurs in any Semitic language? or any language for that matter? If there are no terms for dinosaurs, can you give me other examples of animals bigger than a breadbox that co-existed with a tribal group circa the time of Job that the group did not name?
2) Much of the book of Job is poetry, using language in an evocative and figurative manner. What criteria did you use to determine that this passage is literal not figurative?
Then again, I'd give my usual response - what difference does it make? I agree with http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99844.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/iiim when it says:
"In the context of the book of Job, the passage is intended to show Job
his own limits and weaknesses. Whereas God can do as he wills even with
the behemoth, Job cannot, nor can any other man. Job is nowhere near
being God's equal, and thus should not presume to question God's
actions or motives.
Answer by Ra McLaughlin"
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
I certainly would not argue in favor of Beal's interpretation but I certainly would rather read him than most of the websites associating behemoth with dinosaurus. Beal is at least entertaining and informative even if he's not erudite and a Biblical scholar
Oh, I grant you Beal is entertaining. I find him very much so and enjoy his wide ranging perspectives. His other works are way off the map too. At least he does not hide his bias. The bottom line is I don't give equal weight to the external documents or Jewish commentary as I do to the Bible. To me it is first a matter of faith. Logic is secondary.
If one handles the whole book of Job as poetic expressions we can easily dismiss the reality of Satan. Once we have dispensed with Satan we can call into question everything Christ said about Hell being prepared for Satan's judgement.. If we have been lied to in one respect what else has been misrepresented? Where is faith to rest?
Beal is a fantastical adventure in literary metaphors but not what I base my theology on.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
I certainly would not argue in favor of Beal's interpretation but I certainly would rather read him than most of the websites associating behemoth with dinosaurus. Beal is at least entertaining and informative even if he's not erudite and a Biblical scholarOh, I grant you Beal is entertaining. I find him very much so and enjoy his wide ranging perspectives. His other works are way off the map too. At least he does not hide his bias. The bottom line is I don't give equal weight to the external documents or Jewish commentary as I do to the Bible. To me it is first a matter of faith. Logic is secondary.
If one handles the whole book of Job as poetic expressions we can easily dismiss the reality of Satan. Once we have dispensed with Satan we can call into question everything Christ said about Hell being prepared for Satan's judgement.. If we have been lied to in one respect what else has been misrepresented? Where is faith to rest?
Beal is a fantastical adventure in literary metaphors but not what I base my theology on.
And also in line with those comments. if you don't believe that God made the world in 6 literal days, that Dinosaurs lived with man, etc. Then that undermines the entire gospel. In the book Revelation it says that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. the Beginning and the End. There is a reason that Genesis is at the beginning of the bible and Revelation is at the end,
The reason is if you read Genesis, and do not believe what it says from the very first verse, than how can you rely and believe what the rest of the bible says.
The Book of Genesis, Mainly the 1st 11 chaps, is the entire foundation of the rest of Scripture. We have our 7 day week based from Creation, If those 6 days of creation (the 7th day God rested) were figurative of thousands of years as one day than we would have an interesting working week wouldn't we. But God's word contradicts that by saying that 'a thousand years is as one day, and one day is as a thousand years'.
Why do we believe in marriage?
Why do we promote the wearing of clothes?
Why are there rules—right and wrong?
Why are we sinners—what does that mean?
Why is there death and suffering in the world?
Why is there to be a new heaven and a new earth?
If you look at anything in the Christian life it all in one way or another leads back to Genesis.
The whole Reason that Jesus Died to take the punishment and pay the penalty for our SIN goes back to Genesis.
The reason is if you read Genesis, and do not believe what it says from the very first verse, than how can you rely and believe what the rest of the bible says
This Sunday's Gospel reading was from the Bread of Life Discourse in the Gospel of John. Do you apply the same sense of literal meaning to this passage?
John 6:51-58
51I am the living bread that came down from
heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread
that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you.
54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.
58This is the bread that came down from heaven,
not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who
eats this bread will live forever.”
I ask because I suspect I take this passage more literally than you. If you don't take it literally, what criteria do you use to determine that it is not lo be taken literally? I am genuinely interested in your answer - not spoiling for a fight.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
I ask because I suspect I take this passage more literally than you. If you don't take it literally, what criteria do you use to determine that it is not lo be taken literally? I am genuinely interested in your answer - not spoiling for a fight.
The flip-side of that argument is , "Why do you take transubstantiation literally if you reject other written scriptures? What criteria do you use to determmine when it is literal or not?" See? It works both ways. [;)]
It is a whole lot easier for me to believe God is intelligent & honest enough to say what he means and mean what he says than be sneaky and self-deprecating. I have no problem believing God is capable of creating, ex nihilo, a universe that appears "billions and billions" of years old (as Carl Sagan said) when it is in fact only 6 days old. Jesus replicated the loaves and fishes on the spot when he fed the crowds. There was no need to bake the loaves or roast the fishes.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
The flip-side of that argument is , "Why do you take transubstantiation literally if you reject other written scriptures? What criteria do you use to determmine when it is literal or not?" See? It works both ways.
I genuinely am not seeking an argument - and transubstantiation is only one of at least 3 theological descriptions (Orthodox and Lutheran use different but compatible descriptions). And I am (slightly) offend by your suggestion that I reject scripture. Yes, I could give you my criteria - logical, semantic, literary and historical. But what I am interested in is your criteria - it is a part of a mind-set that I truly do not understand.
To put it in perspective, I've recently been reading Hicks (Church of Christ) and have come to respect much of what he has to say. I feel I could carry on a conversation with him with real understanding. I can't say that I understand your understanding of literal vs. figurative - and I'd really like to.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
I genuinely am not seeking an argument - and transubstantiation is only one of at least 3 theological descriptions (Orthodox and Lutheran use different but compatible descriptions). And I am (slightly) offend by your suggestion that I reject scripture.
I'm sorry for offending you, even slightly.
When I ask why you "reject scripture" it is following your example of accepting some literally. Some you take literally, some figuritively. Same formula for me and probably Aaron. (I better let him speak for himself.)
I guess what really surprises me is how I seem to agree with Erasmus more than most orthodox people on the forums. Now Erasmus and Luther both knew they were in the right. At least one of them had to be wrong. Then there is Behemoth, 6 day creation, Wikipedia's "List of logicians" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logicians .......not everbody can be right. My bets are on God.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
I guess what really surprises me is how I seem to agree with Erasmus more than most orthodox people on the forums. Now Erasmus and Luther both knew they were in the right. At least one of them had to be wrong. Then there is Behemoth, 6 day creation, Wikipedia's "List of logicians" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logicians .......not everbody can be right. My bets are on God.
Well that's good but I was kind of hoping that you would answer the question. Are Jesus' remarks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6 supposed to be taken literally or not and if not why not? There certainly isn't any mention of a parable anywhere in that discourse. Wasn't that the criteria you said was the deciding factor in making decisions like that?
Yours in Christ
John
Well that's good but I was kind of hoping that you would answer the question. Are Jesus' remarks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6 supposed to be taken literally or not and if not why not? There certainly isn't any mention of a parable anywhere in that discourse. Wasn't that the criteria you said was the deciding factor in making decisions like that?
Nope, we are not to be caniballistic of our Lord.
I said - "If we can dismiss scriptural content as allegorical, metaphorical or parabolic when in fact the writ itself does not categorize it as such"
This passage catagorizes itself as metaphorical. In context, Christ likens himself to bread, specifically refering to manna. He draws contrast and comparison with the manna.
He also says the bread is flesh, another metaphor. He then commands blood drinking which if taken literally would be direct disobedience to the command not to drink blood. (A command given in the Law and reiterated by the Apostles.) We are left with one way to apply this scripture without God contradicting Himself. I agree with St Augustine who taught the sacrament is a symbolic, physical representation of a spiritual event.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
This passage catagorizes itself as metaphorical. In context, Christ likens himself to bread, specifically refering to manna. He draws contrast and comparison with the manna.
Just where does it do that? Personally, I don't hold to transubstantiation or consubstantiation either but to the Reformed position that Christ is spiritually present by faith, but nevertheless it doesn't give any indication that this is metaphorical (other than common sense). Jesus says "I AM the bread of life." You can't simply pick and choose when you wish something to be literal and when you wish it to be figurative willy-nilly. You must have some principle. I think M. J. has the better of you here.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
Just where does it do that?
v51a "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." As opposed to dead (real) bread.
v52 The Jews obviously have a problem with a literal interpretation of eating Jesus.
V53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Here Jesus speaks to living, breathing, logical humans telling them they are not alive unless they partake of him. Either Jesus definition of "life" is different than the Jews or the unbelieving zombies forgot to fall down when they died.
V54 "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life," Now we know he is talking of the spiritual., since physical life comes to an end.
V55 "for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." As opposed to false food and false drink. (Matthew 4:4)
V57 "Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me." Man became spiritually dead on the day he ate of the fruit in the Garden. (otherwise God lied to Adam and Satan told the truth.) Here Jesus offers a quickening to fallen man. Jesus is the living bread. The living Father sent him. Jesus will make us alive. This is obviously spriritual language.
V58 Here Jesus contrasts manna to the living bread. In the spiritual realm manna is insufficient even though God provided it to Israel. God met the temporal needs with manna. He meets the spiritual needs with Jesus.
My guiding principle here is - If a literal interpretation confllicts with other scripture we need to look deeper. I do know of instances where the literal is true as well as a deeper message. Isaiah's prophecy "a young woman shall concieve" is an example of this. It's not willy-nilly. Jesus being the living bread, you might say, metaphorically speaking Mary had a bun in the oven. [:S] (For those who may not be familiar with American idioms, that means Mary was pregnant.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
contrasts manna to the living bread
Isn't this a standard type/antitype construction?
This is obviously spriritual language.
"Obviously" is a marker for an underlying assumption that one considers to be self-evident. It is that underlying assumption I am trying to grasp.
Since I do not understand where "spiritual language" falls on the "literal language - figurative language" spectrum, I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say. To guess at its meaning, I would have to fall back on the Jewish-Catholic-(marginally Orthodox) tradition of the four senses of scripture which clearly you don't mean. Why do I say "marginally Orthodox" - because typology flourished in Antioch and, hence, was a primary influence in the East. "Four senses" flourished in Alexandria and , hence, was a primary influence in the West. See The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church by John Breck.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
"Obviously" is a marker for an underlying assumption that one considers to be self-evident. It is that underlying assumption I am trying to grasp.
Since I do not understand where "spiritual language" falls on the "literal language - figurative language" spectrum, I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say. To guess at its meaning, I would have to fall back on the Jewish-Catholic-(marginally Orthodox) tradition of the four senses of scripture which clearly you don't mean. Why do I say "marginally Orthodox" - because typology flourished in Antioch and, hence, was a primary influence in the East. "Four senses" flourished in Alexandria and , hence, was a primary influence in the West. See The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church by John Breck.
Ha! M.J. you are such a generous soul.
Yours in Christ
John
I'd suggest reading Religion and Its Monsters by Timothy K. Beal for an analysis of behemoth and Leviathan - especially the playful aspects.
Okay, for those not wanting Frankenstein with their morning Scripture, may I suggest the more Hebrew oriented Ross G. Murison - The Mythical Serpents of Hebrew Literature at http://www.scribd.com/doc/12706046/Murison-The-Mythical-Serpents-of-Hebrew-Literature-No-Date-Complete. Sorry about that "mythical" in the title - it is not intended to be derogatory.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Have a read of a great technical breakdown of the origional language
What is Behemoth??
Apparently, a behemoth is a long, off-topic discussion, that takes on a life of it's own, and seeks to take the discussion as far off-topic as it can. They are all over this forum.
Does anyone know a really good exterminator?
[sigh]
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
What is Behemoth??Apparently, a behemoth is a long, off-topic discussion, that takes on a life of it's own, and seeks to take the discussion as far off-topic as it can. They are all over this forum.
Does anyone know a really good exterminator?
[sigh]
Ummm...... Uh Huh [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
a behemoth is a long, off-topic discussion
Definitely a possibility - but at least none of us pointed out that it may not be terrestial - God did create a whole universe you know, perhaps even all possible universes depending on your choice of physicists.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
It has to be really big beast if it doesn't fit into just one post and you had to start 2 forums for it... [:)]
Bohuslav
haha yeah. i don't know why but i clicked the post button and it made 2.