Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Underwater Fire Breathing Dragons

22 replies

TheFogHorn · 30/07/2012 02:36

To ancient people, underwater volcanic eruptions must have been a frightening sight and one that must have stayed in the minds for a lifetime, the stories being carried on through generations.....being embelished along the way. Given the ancient people didn't know what volcanoes were (the world has only known for a relatively short time what they are) and given everything out of the ordinary and inexplicable was given supernatural qualities, it's not stretching the imagination too much to see how such things could easily have ended up becoming anthropomorphised.

Job 41

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.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
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.

Could it be that the Leviathans mentioned in the Bible are not fire breathing underwater dragons but underwater volcanoes instead? Is there anyone here who is prepared to say that, yes, it certainly does look like a distinct possibility?

OP posts:
alexpolismum · 30/07/2012 13:32

I have to say your thread title this time is a vast improvement on the previous one! Not sure why you want to restart the volcano thread, though.

HolofernesesHead · 30/07/2012 21:12

Hello, Foghorn! :)

Most scholars of the Ancient Near East regard the Leviathan to be based, loosely of course, on the Egyptian crocodile (and the behemoth, also in those wonderful speeches in Job, on the hippopotamus.

TheFogHorn · 31/07/2012 05:04

Alex

Thanks for you comment. If it contained any substance I would gladly respond.

Holo

So crocodiles have smoke coming out of their nostrils and they breath out fire do they then? Crocodiles make the sea boil?

Oh deary me. Is there no-one on Mumsnet able or willing to speak out against this terrible mental drag?

OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 31/07/2012 09:48

"Will you play with it as with a bird, or will you put it on a leash for your girls?
Will traders bargain over it? Will they divide it up among the merchants?"

"I will not keep silence concerning its limbs, or its mighty strength, or its splendid frame.
Who can strip off its outer garment? Who can penetrate its double coat of mail?"

"It leaves a shining wake behind it; one would think the deep to be white-haired.
On earth it has no equal, a creature without fear."

I think, in context, the writers clearly believed they were describing a an animal, something with limbs and skin and underparts, something which could theoretically be captured though it was too strong for that to be a realistic prospect.

So the possibilities include -

  1. they attributed the effects of underwater volcanoes to a mythical sea-creature
  1. they attributed supernatural qualities (breathing fire) to a real or exaggerated animal, a crocodile being a reasonable assumption from the rest of the description. Many known creatures were given such abilities in the absence of accurate knowledge - eg salamanders being born from fire.

So yes, the effects of an underwater volcano, which no-one could see, could have been assumed to be the effects of an animal. Or a real animal could have been given supernatural powers. Either is possible.

HolofernesesHead · 31/07/2012 10:58

No Foghorn, of course crocodiles don't literally do all the stuff that Leviathan does! That's the basic problem I have with your volcano idea - it is way too literal. There's been some great academic work done on Hebrew poetry, which would be worth your while to read if you're interested enough to spend time posting on the internet. Gillingham's 'Poems and Psalms of the Old Testament' is a very good starting point.

Have you read about the Chaoskampf tradition? Really, I wouldn't be even slightly tempted to say 'd'you know what, I think that Foghorn's onto something here' unless I know that you are aware of ANE scholarship, which has made a huge contribution to scholarship of the Bible. There's a little Penguin book called 'Myths from Mesopotamia' which should be absolutely required reading for you before you post any more about underwater fire-breathing sea creatures. This thread might not last as long as the last one, so if I say one thing to you, it's this: try, try, try to understand not only the 'facts' in the biblical literature but the nature / genre of the literature itself. If you can't do that, you'll never be able to distinguish fact from literary device.

TheFogHorn · 01/08/2012 01:18

amuminscotland

As there is no such thing as a fire breathing animal, surely one of the two possibilities is invalid. What is the most sensible and likely possibility? The Red Sea, for example, contains more underwater volcanoes than does the adjacent land. What is the most logical explanation? That a creature that spewed out fire and smoke and made the sea boil did actually exist of that underwater volcanoes were anthropomorphised and stories of them carried down through the generations?

Holofernesehead

Psalms? A dreary diatribe of self pity and wallowing....with hundreds of volcanic activity references.

p.s. 'literal'? A just think I've worked out what's metaphor, what's human ignorance, what's exageration, what's outright lies and what's indicator of the truth.

'A fire and smoke breathing animal that makes the sea boil' can be debunked like this...

A fire and smoke breathing (fact) animal (human ignorance) that makes the sea boil (Fact). So, eliminating the parts born of human ignorance (are you suggesting the ancient Hebrews were aware underwater volcanoes were organic and not animal?) leaves something that emits fire and smoke in the sea and that also makes the sea boil. Not hard really is it?

OP posts:
TheFogHorn · 01/08/2012 01:32

p.s. try try try ever so ever so ever so hard to consider, if at all possible during your time online spent discussing religion....which is highly doubtful.....the possiblity many 'experts' have merely dug the hole deeper and written books that although read very interestingly and inspire huge spurts of spiritual wonderment (magical thinking) but that are in fact complete and utter nonesense and that will very soon be exposed as such, much to the many publishers' dismay.

'Chaos waters'........now den......der......what could that be.....derrrrr?

I would not so much as bat an eye lid in response to another person who refuses point blank to consider this possibility, albeit an unpublished and not yet glossy one. It just simply wouldn't do wouldn't do wouldn't do!!!

OP posts:
TheFogHorn · 01/08/2012 01:46

p.s. the above message was for Holo.

OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 01/08/2012 12:29

^A fire and smoke breathing (fact) animal (human ignorance) that makes the sea boil (Fact).^

Could just as easily be -

A fire and smoke breathing (superstition) animal (Fact) that makes the sea boil (superstition).

You have no specific reason to believe that the leviathan was an anthropomorphosised volcano, you just prefer that explanation because it fits your theory.

I am prepared to accept that there are two theories which fit the available facts - the person here who is quite convinced that only one of them is "sensible" is you.

If you read the rest of the description of the leviathan, it is a quite accurate description of an animal which describes it as if it has been seen - therefore the idea that it was an actual animal (probably crocodile) which was given a supernatural attribute (fire) is just as likely as your own preferred theory.

EllieorOllie · 01/08/2012 22:00

Here we go again...

faeriefruitcake · 01/08/2012 22:44

Oral tradition probably did change things to spice up the story, so what? Why the bee in the bonnet about it all?

TheFogHorn · 02/08/2012 00:02

Muminscotland

YOU SAID If you read the rest of the description of the leviathan, it is a quite accurate description of an animal which describes it as if it has been seen - therefore the idea that it was an actual animal (probably crocodile) which was given a supernatural attribute (fire) is just as likely as your own preferred theory. END

Do you think the ancient Hebrews did anthropomorphise anything or do you think they did not? The reason I am highlighting the Leviathan is because it demonstrates very simply how wildly the ancient Hebrews (and other civilisations) exagerated into having animal or human characteristics very ordinary and inanimate things. It shows you how their minds worked.

Do you believe the people of the time of the Exodus and earlier knew what underwater volcanoes were or do you believe they thought they were something supernatural, and therefore told mythical stories about them and feared them?

The option of a crocodile if not feasible as crocodiles as many of the verses do not match.....they can be caught, they do not make the sea 'like and ointment', the do not spew smoke or fire from their mouths, etc. There is not one verse that contradicts the anthropomorphised underwater volcano theory.

OP posts:
TheFogHorn · 02/08/2012 00:28

Job 41

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.

24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

I've never known an animal that can sustain an attack of weapons.

30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

Shooting out balls of brimstone....fiery darts.

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. (hoary means 'white haired'....Yahweh is also described as 'white haired')

Please watch this video and then decide whether or not such an event could have had the ancient Hebrews quaking in their boots and imagining all sorts of weird and wonderful things.

May I remind you that the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aqaba, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea near Egypt will all contain marine volcanoes. The land is being split apart by rifting continents and where you have rifts you have volcanic activity.

OP posts:
TheFogHorn · 02/08/2012 12:50

Some more info...

Job:
1 Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?
7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?

The point of the above three verses is that NO...you cannot do these things to the Leviathan. You could, however, do it to a crocodile, whale, serpent, etc.

12 I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form.
14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
15 His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.

Anthropomorphism. Unknown natural events were anthropomorphised then. Everything they did not understand was worshipped or feared and given animal, human or divine (or all) characteristics. Animals they did know about and did fear were used to describe things they didn't know about and did fear. That is why the leviathan is described using descriptors of crocodiles and also called a serpent. They didn't have the terminology needed as they didn't know what land or marine volcanoes were so they used the terminology they did have. Scary things were called serpents because snakes were scary. It's a bit like swearing.

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.

Pretty blatant descriptors of an underwater volcano.

23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

The scales/flakes of his flesh....the dark rough surface of the underwater volcano, which may at times have risen above the surface (creation of land). They thought it was a monster. They thought the dark rough stuff they saw was the monster's scaly skin. They noted that it didn't move and decided that must have been because the scales were so tightly compacted. It never entered their heads that it didn't move because it was a volcano. They didn't know about land volcanoes let alone submarine ones.

25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

Crocodiles do not raise themselves up but crawl along. Underwater volcanoes raise themselves up as they erupt and create plumes of water and ash, and create new land.

26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

Crocodiles are not impervious to spears. Volcanic rock is.

27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

This Leviathan can destroy anything. Have you ever known a crocodile to chew up an iron bar as though it was straw?

28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

This Leviathan cannot be moved by hook or by crook.

30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

How many crocodiles spew out 'sharp pointed things'...or brimstone?

31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

The crocodiles were so hot they could brew up a tea? They relieved themselves in the water so it became murky?

32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

A path to shine after him? The crocs laid a flourescent path after they crawled along or an underwater volcano produced rivers of glowing lava and plumes of ash clouds? Hoary means 'white hair'. Yahweh was also described as white haired and also had smoke coming out of his nostrils.

OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 02/08/2012 16:23

I am prepared to accept the possibility that the verses might refer to an underwater volcano.

Are you prepared to accept that they also might not?

Because if you cannot consider any possibility which does not agree with your chosen view of the world, then this will never be a debate which has any hopes of getting anywhere.

And if you can't see the irony of someone with a religious faith pointing that out to an atheist, then this conversation is defintely doomed.

HolofernesesHead · 02/08/2012 19:48

I concur with AMIS, and for that reason, I bid this thread adieu! :)

TheFogHorn · 02/08/2012 21:39

AMIS

There is nothing that disproves my theory, none of the verses contradict it, the geology offers the right setting and the human condition of the day fits it perfectly. Even fire breathing dragons of other civilisations help to confirm my suspicions as they often originate from volcanic rift zones. There is one from Ethiopia, which also happens to be home to many Jews.

You seem to think I am incapable of thinking outside of the box. The very reason I came to these ideas was due to a desire to understand the truth. I too was a Christian attending church every Sunday before this revelation struck me.

You appear to think you are due some sort of pat on the back for your ability to change your mind and are accusing me of being a block head to highlight your new found open mindedness. That is a little like projection.

If you find anything that disproves this theory then I will happily look into it.

OP posts:
OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 03/08/2012 09:48

OK, I'm out. This is not about me trying to disprove your theory, and if you think that's what I'm trying to do then we are both wasting our efforts here. You don't want to debate possibilities, you want to convert everyone to your beliefs.

TheFogHorn · 03/08/2012 20:52

I've said that if you have any objections to the idea then I would be happy to hear it but you've not offered anything. I find it a bit odd that not one person has said, 'Hey, now you point it out, it sounds like a plausible option.' Even when you said you were 'prepared to consider the possibility' you say it in a begrudging way as though the last thing you'd want would be to agree with something I've put to you and you had to add the clause.....but you need to be open to other ideas. The reason I thought of the Leviathan idea is precisely because I am open to new ideas. I spend a large part of my spare time looking for new ideas. It seems to me that it is you who is extremely reluctant to consider new and challenging ideas and people like you encourage the group mentality that prevents new ideas getting the audience they need to be researched enough to be judged fairly. I dare say many people have come up with the volcano god theory but have found the reception too intimidating to persue it. Such is human nature.

OP posts:
TheFogHorn · 04/08/2012 01:51

It seems there are several other volcano monsters described as mythical creatures when in fact they should be described as fabled creatures due to there being some truth in them. They include the Greek Hydra and Chimera, Typhon. There are others to be researched later.

OP posts:
faeriefruitcake · 04/08/2012 18:10

'Hey why does it matter?' You want an argument about the OT and how invalid it is go bother Westbro Baptist Church, most sane people understand anthropomorphism.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread