What was the Leviathan?

[fallingblood]

May I suggest you go through my blog 'Oh My Volcano' properly because then you will see exactly how much research I have done on the subject.

I looked through your blog. I was not impressed.

I see you were unable to find a word used in the Bible to describe volcanoes, which is odd considering the 'Holy' Land was volcanic.

You stated that Mount Sinai was a volcano. I then posted what the Bible states about Mount Sinai, that it was a mount. More so, if there is no talk about volcanoes in the Bible, then you really have no actual argument.

You say Mount Sinai was a volcano. That is very likely correct, which begs the question, 'Did Moses meet God on the top of an erupting volcano and, if so, why did god choose such a site for his meeting and why did he choose such a site for his 'dwelling place'? You also say that it 'isn't described in a godly way'. I take it you mean the volcano was not attributed to Yahweh. Well, that is an area in which you should have researched prior to making your claim because you are very wrong.

No, you stated that Mount Sinai was a volcano. I repeated that and showed what the Bible stated about Mount Sinai. So if Mount Sinai really is a volcano (which I doubt, and you haven't shown), then the Hebrews clearly could describe a volcano, and knew that it was a mountain.

Also, the Bible never states that Moses met God on top of an erupting volcano. There is no mention of an erupting volcano at all. You are only seeing what you wish to see here. Furthermore, Mount Sinai was not the dwelling place of God. Ignoring that the Exodus story is most likely mythical, they didn't stay long at Mount Sinai. Instead, when we see a dwelling place for God, it is in the Tabernacle, and later the Temple. Neither one was a volcano. Even right after the event of Moses meeting with God, it is a tent that God dwells in. Again, not a volcano.

Really, the mountain is not described in a godly way. Sure, there are certain passages that call the mountain the mountain of Yahweh (which is then transferred to Mount Zion in Jerusalem, which is not a volcano), or by similar names, but the mountain itself is not described in a godly way.

The reason there is no word for volcanoes in the Bible is due to them being seen as a god....they were Yahweh, the imaginery volcano god. The same happened to Mount Sinai that happened to the underwater volcanoes.

You haven't shown that Mount Sinai was a volcano though. You haven't even shown that there were underwater volcanos in the area. Sure, there may have been some on the very edge of the region, but that is not where most Jews settled anyway.

More so, when they describe Mount Sinai, they describe it as a mountain, not as a god. Instead, God supposedly descended onto the mountain, and then was able to leave the mountain and descend into a tent. And then even later, completely leave the area.

In fact, most verses in the Bible that obviously describe volcanoes are also describing Yahweh. Here are some examples. ..........

You only see what you wish to see though. Many gods are described in similar ways, even though they are associated with volcanoes in no actual way. Just because the Bible uses the term fire and God in the same sentence, that is not a signal that God was a volcano. That hardly even makes sense, yet that really is the brunt of your argument.

And I think it is quite telling that you didn't deal with the fact that ancient people did not always associate volcanoes with gods. I gave you some very good examples.

The ancient Hebrews did not start out in Israel. They started out in Egypt where the biggest volcanic eruption of recorded history caused total destruction...Santorini

Santorini is not in Egypt. So your argument here is a failure. Also, the Hebrews did not start in Egypt. Even ignoring the historical debates on where the Hebrews originated from, even the Bible states that the Hebrews were not from Egypt. The Bible suggests that they first started from Mesopotamia (where Abraham was from) and migrated south westward. So your argument again really doesn't stand.

and when he came out of the Holy of Holies after viewing the glory of Yahweh, which I believe was a lava vent.

Based on what evidence? One can still travel to the area in which the Temple stood, and thus where the Holy of Holies would have been. There is no lava vent there.

Also, elsewhere you said locating the volcano (Mount Sinai) is not important. It actually is. You claim it is a volcano. Yet, you have no actual evidence for such. Without a volcano, you have no real argument. Not to mention that most of your argument relies on misinterpreting ancient symbology.

 

[outhouse]

1. The Jewish people existed before enslavement in Egypt.

2. The Jews being slaves in Egypt is nothing but myth. Not only was "slavery" then and there nothing like we make it out to be, but there is no record of the Jews being there or the events that happened.

how do you explain #1

I agree its all myth as far as a enslaved race in egypt, while some tribes may have escaped enslavement, the culture as a whole never did.

but they never existed at all before that

 

[outhouse]

The ancient Hebrews did not start out in Israel. They started out in Egypt

false

this shows your severe ignorance on the subject as well as a stubborn notion of not wanting to know what really happened 1200 BC.


Israelites were displaced Canaanites for the most part. exodus was written very late, almost 500-600 years after the formation of Israel and is for the most part mythical. Israelites were never a enslaved race in egypt. and Moses has ZERO historicity as written.

 

[Curious George]

Psalm 74:14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

God was also said to have made the Egyptian Pharoah take so long to give the Hebrews their freedom. He is also said to have made the Hebrews wander around the desert for forty years. He was said to have been the designer of all sorts of horrible things and caused lots of human suffering.

What a load of rubbish. Please read Oh My Volcano' blog for some home truths and then you will start to live in peace.

Well I was going to bring up Psalm 74 but you beat me to it. In order for your suggestion to hold then we should be able to find a metaphoric explanation for the smashing of a volcanoes head and feeding it to the creatures of the desert. I am not sure I understand how smashing a volcano's head could act as food for the creatures of the desert.

But I certainly like your theory. You should continue to research. See if you can find evidence of old submarine volcanic eruptions that fit your time reference. I imagine that the hard evidence is covered with sand and hard to date. However, there might be a reference to some sort of realized submarine volcanic activity in that time period also. Though if everyone thought that the underwater giant was alive then there should be corresponding myths in the other surrounding ancient cultures. Put enough evidence from different sources and publish my friend.

I was once told a story: there is a Hindu drug so powerful that it was revered as a lesser deity, soma. Many people debated the origin of the drug. then some young loadie comes along and writes a paper suggesting it was a mushroom or Fungus of some sort. At which point people for not thinking of it themselves and said "that is a good idea!" While this is not necessarily the prevailing opinion still, nor can I testify to the veracity of this story, the Vedas speak of soma, tell how to make it in detail, but no one has(to my knowledge) in modern times ever made it; and, most importantly, explanations so simple and obvious to one can sometimes baffle even the most intelligent for centuries. I can't say I will be checking out your blog, but I hope to see some more posts.

Cheers.

 

[The Fog Horn]

Well I was going to bring up Psalm 74 but you beat me to it. In order for your suggestion to hold then we should be able to find a metaphoric explanation for the smashing of a volcanoes head and feeding it to the creatures of the desert. I am not sure I understand how smashing a volcano's head could act as food for the creatures of the desert.

But I certainly like your theory. You should continue to research. See if you can find evidence of old submarine volcanic eruptions that fit your time reference. I imagine that the hard evidence is covered with sand and hard to date. However, there might be a reference to some sort of realized submarine volcanic activity in that time period also. Though if everyone thought that the underwater giant was alive then there should be corresponding myths in the other surrounding ancient cultures. Put enough evidence from different sources and publish my friend.

I was once told a story: there is a Hindu drug so powerful that it was revered as a lesser deity, soma. Many people debated the origin of the drug. then some young loadie comes along and writes a paper suggesting it was a mushroom or Fungus of some sort. At which point people for not thinking of it themselves and said "that is a good idea!" While this is not necessarily the prevailing opinion still, nor can I testify to the veracity of this story, the Vedas speak of soma, tell how to make it in detail, but no one has(to my knowledge) in modern times ever made it; and, most importantly, explanations so simple and obvious to one can sometimes baffle even the most intelligent for centuries. I can't say I will be checking out your blog, but I hope to see some more posts.

Cheers.

The Hebrews talked about smashing the leviathan's head and using it as food because they believed it was a monster....they didn't know it was an inanimate object.

The River Jordan, the Dead Sea, etc will contain volcanoes. I have posted things to my blog about it. I seem to remember the Dead Sea contains three massive volcanoes. I also discovered last night that there is a submarine volcano called Kolumbo right next to Santorini and that is not far from the surface and sometimes 'rises up' above the surface causing destruction in Santorini. You can find my initial research on my blog but it's just a thought for now. I suspect many civilisations feared underwater volcanoes but didn't worship them or offer sacrifices to them, making their attitude to them different to their attitude towards their land volcanoes.

The solutions to the Bible puzzles lie behind blind spots. I have no doubt that the volcano god theory will become common knowledge but it will be hard for a lot of people to re-tune. Such is the power of conditioning. I also believe a child with no religious conditioning would be able to see it. It's incredible to me that people can read the descriptions of Mount Sinai and Yahweh's fiery wrath and not realise. That is one serious blackout.

 

[Riverwolf]

I was once told a story: there is a Hindu drug so powerful that it was revered as a lesser deity, soma. Many people debated the origin of the drug. then some young loadie comes along and writes a paper suggesting it was a mushroom or Fungus of some sort. At which point people for not thinking of it themselves and said "that is a good idea!" While this is not necessarily the prevailing opinion still, nor can I testify to the veracity of this story, the Vedas speak of soma, tell how to make it in detail, but no one has(to my knowledge) in modern times ever made it; and, most importantly, explanations so simple and obvious to one can sometimes baffle even the most intelligent for centuries.

You are almost correct. We're not currently sure what the Soma (which is also the Zoroastrian Haoma) plant was, but actually the current prevailing theory is not that it was an hallucinogen(as is the popular conception), but a stimulant, more potent than caffeine. After all, it was consumed before going into battle by Warrior God King Indra, and when going into battle, the last thing you want to have in your system is something that causes you to see things that aren't there.

 

[Riverwolf]

I also believe a child with no religious conditioning would be able to see it.

*raises hand*

I had no religious upbringing whatsoever as a child.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Weren't the Psalms written before Job?

Didn't David refer to the Leviathan as a beast of flesh that could be eaten?

 

[jasonwill2]

I'm not sure of the origins of Leviathan as a mythological creature, but I've heard that it was the only thing that Yahweh feared and was there when the "waters of the deep" were present during the creation myth, and hence was here before Yahweh. I like to interpret that as meaning that Yahweh was a new-comer approaching on Leviathan's territory and it creates a good connotation for me as Yahweh being a lesser god of thousands and Leviathan being the physical manifestation of THE TRUE GOD. In my system at least, I can't say that people will take my revelations and divination as fact, and I know I can't prove it... but I believe it fully.

In my current system (been going through some revisions as always), Leviathan is one of the "seven and two, hidden in nine" manifestations/Greater Gods of That Which Extends Within and Without:

Leviathan to me is that inanimate and dead/non-living physical Universe around us. Stars, dirt, and yes, underwater volcanoes. The connotations are very important as a mysterious, massive being that is in (and part of) the "sea" of outer space as well as just generally... well basically he is like my only anthropomorphizing and personification in my entire system.

However I find it more like that he was originally an exaggeration of some sea being that grew with telling, as for the reasons that many already stated in this topic. I don't think that his origins are particularly important for any real application. But I think that the consensus is that it is more likely a living thing than a volcano. I kind of doubt that they would of been able to see most of the eruption from the shore (I guess if fishing they might see it). Perhaps it was a collection of many stories and beings that people, with their pattern seeking, thought might be the same being. Now day's it's a word, an idea, and like all mythologies and ideas it changes from time to time and culture to culture.

Once it was just some sea creature, then for many Christians it's a personification of Satan, but for me it is just a useful symbol and name to give to nature as forming the duality to compliment and oppose life. When you die, your body and hence your soul (in most cases) go to Leviathan, and the information and archetype/personality just rots away with your physical body.

 

[The Fog Horn]

*raises hand*

I had no religious upbringing whatsoever as a child.

Are you also a child? :sarcastic

I dare say you have since been exposed to a lot of religious gunk and that means you are far less likely to spot glaringly obvious truths. That is scientifically proven.....the longer you've been in it the less likely you are to spot the obvious solutions to puzzles. Religious experts, mullahs or Heredi Jews have a slim chance in hell of having a reality revelation.

Fresh eyes taking a new approach not feeling pressurised to conform to pre-conceived theories and with the goal being to establish the truth no matter what it is......children or intuitive and honest people with very limited exposure to religion and a new lust for knowledge.

Of course, my time is running out fast as soon I will become an old stick-in-the-mud too

 

[The Fog Horn]

Weren't the Psalms written before Job?

Didn't David refer to the Leviathan as a beast of flesh that could be eaten?

conservative scholars cite Eusebius (AD 263-399), who placed Job "two ages before Moses" or 2,000-1,500 BC.[14

Just because it was described as a beast of flesh that could be eaten does not mean it was a beast. It means they believed it was. They zoomophised (if that is the correct word) a submarine volcano.

 

[jasonwill2]

Just because it was described as a beast of flesh that could be eaten does not mean it was a beast. It means they believed it was. They zoomophised (if that is the correct word) a submarine volcano.

Name a specific underground volcano and tell us it's distance from the surface, and maybe I will consider it.

But it's eruption has to reach the surface. I don't think most people are aware of when underwater eruptions go off, at least from the surface of the water.

 

[fallingblood]

Are you also a child? :sarcastic

I dare say you have since been exposed to a lot of religious gunk and that means you are far less likely to spot glaringly obvious truths. That is scientifically proven.....the longer you've been in it the less likely you are to spot the obvious solutions to puzzles. Religious experts, mullahs or Heredi Jews have a slim chance in hell of having a reality revelation.

Fresh eyes taking a new approach not feeling pressurised to conform to pre-conceived theories and with the goal being to establish the truth no matter what it is......children or intuitive and honest people with very limited exposure to religion and a new lust for knowledge.

Of course, my time is running out fast as soon I will become an old stick-in-the-mud too

I took a fresh approach to the Hebrew Bible quite recently. I did have many new discoveries, some of which made me have to change what I believed about the Bible. However, the idea you're peddling, and the reason you are giving that many don't accept it, simply is bull.

I don't feel pressured to conform to preconceived theories. I have a "new lust" for knowledge. Sure, I don't have a limited exposure to religion, but that is because I actually have taken the time to study it in depth. Without doing so, to make claims about the Hebrew Bible, and religion in general simply is ridiculous. You can't know something that you haven't studied, and thus been exposed to.

In the end, I think this thread speaks for itself. You have consistently ignored evidence contrary to what you believe. For instance, I have pointed out that ancients did have natural means of explaining volcanoes, which you claimed they didn't. But you simply haven't dealt with the problems to your idea, besides just ignoring them.

Unless you can show that Mount Sinai was a volcano (meaning you have to find the actual location), or that there are visible underwater volcanoes, which have erupted in the time of the Ancient Hebrews, and are in their area, you really have no argument. If you can't provide the basic backing for your idea, then there is no reason to accept it.

 

[The Fog Horn]

I've just made a new post on Oh My Volcano. There is far too much on it to re-post here but, in short, there are many volcano monsters.

 

[jasonwill2]

I've just made a new post on Oh My Volcano. There is far too much on it to re-post here but, in short, there are many volcano monsters.

So all of this was for publicity?

 

[The Fog Horn]

So all of this was for publicity?

Publicing my ideas. I'm not looking for fame or fortune, the former a serious turn-off as I once had a brush with it and couldn't handle the fans from America taking my photo. I have a nice life....I don't need a get rich quick scheme. Do you expect me to post all my ideas in full on all the forums I post on? My blog is and always will be a not-for-profit enterprise. Believe me, it costs me dearly in time, energy, loss of social life, painful hand and lost earnings. I've been on four hours sleep a night for a year and a half. People looking at my blog thanks to forums allowing me to reference it, due to it being the only source of information on many of the subjects covered, would be a small token of appreciation for my efforts.

What problem do you have with that? In the grand scheme of things, is there any benefit in being 100% perfect? Is there a way around this dilema that does not result in the stifling of free speech?

 

[fallingblood]

So all of this was for publicity?

It pretty much looks that way.

 

[The Fog Horn]

It pretty much looks that way.

Don't judge me by your own standards pal.

 

[1137]

You're sacrificing positives of life to run a blog on volcano Gods?

 

[jasonwill2]

I find it weird that anyone would liken Lord Leviathan to a volcano, then again ironically he is my personification of the non-living universe in whole. I am still not convinced that the origins came from anything other than misunderstandings of sea creatures though.

Publicing my ideas. I'm not looking for fame or fortune, the former a serious turn-off as I once had a brush with it and couldn't handle the fans from America taking my photo. I have a nice life....I don't need a get rich quick scheme. Do you expect me to post all my ideas in full on all the forums I post on? My blog is and always will be a not-for-profit enterprise. Believe me, it costs me dearly in time, energy, loss of social life, painful hand and lost earnings. I've been on four hours sleep a night for a year and a half. People looking at my blog thanks to forums allowing me to reference it, due to it being the only source of information on many of the subjects covered, would be a small token of appreciation for my efforts.

What problem do you have with that? In the grand scheme of things, is there any benefit in being 100% perfect? Is there a way around this dilema that does not result in the stifling of free speech?

Wow... this is just... well maybe if you went right off and just said it, I've made topics about projects of mine off site before, but it was explicit in the title what it was about and I let people right away know what it was all about. So maybe I shouldn't be too harsh. But at the same time your ONLY intent was to booster your hits, not actually discuss it, so that's a point against you in my book on the ethics of this. If you came to realistically discuss this or get a critique, then I wouldn't see anything wrong with it really, but you just came here to give a link, ignore our arguments (you didn't even address them), all so that you could make your blog more popular.

But guess what? I didn't read it, and didn't need to. I gathered all I needed to know from your posts.

Don't judge me by your own standards pal.

LOL, I think that is what anyone does. I'm judging you by a set of standards as well. Not necessarily for good or bad though.