>
>>Trying to assert
>>that the ancient authors were doing more than this and were actually
>>trying to describe a specific animal ascribes more education than was
>>possible. We are talking about a barely literate society that had only
>>just begun any type of seafaring.
>
>Pardon me, but seafaring and seafarers had been around for millennia by
>the time of the Torah. The word Leviathan is not Hebrew. Further, who the
>heck was asserting anything about the authors intentions?
>
>>It has only been in very modern
>>times that we have been able to discern and distinguish between the
>>various scary animals that sailors have been reporting since man took
>>to the sea.
>
>And, how does that change things?
>
>>What's more than this is I think it does an injustice to these ancient
>>writers. There is no need to explain their writing in modern
>>scientific terms. They were not claiming to be skilled in taxonomy.
>>They were using imagry and allusion to teach important spiritual
>>truths. The idea that they have to use acurate details about a real
>>animal to do this bars them from using the important tools of
>>imagination and emotion that have been employed by all great writers.
>
>According to you
>it denigrates the ancients to note that the sea monster they were so
>afraid of is a known creature that is indeed scary. To indicate that they
>did have reasons to fear the creature mocks the authors?
More precisely it's your take on my take :) Only I have authority toThat's your take>Joel, not mine.
What I see is evidence of the truthfulness of yet another>little detail in the Tanahk. It is rather sad that you missed the point.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.