/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>541383

It's from the KJV. Y'know, the one the Burpists revere.

>>541401

Oh yeah, and the creationists said it was neither of those, but instead a creature that didn't evem live at the time this was written: Elasmotherium.

>>541410

When these exist I think it's a fair guess.

>>541519

>they're not referring to pink horses with sparkly horns

The only reason Europeans in the Middle Ages drew them that way is because they had never seen a real unicorn, so they based its appearance on something they were familiar with. You see similarly ridiculous interpretations of elephants.

Most Europeans had never seen a unicorn so they become associated with something mythological and rare. Much like a dragon (possibly some kind of large reptile).

A dragon for example…

1.) Is poisonous (note: NOT venomous)

>Deuteronomy 32:33

Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

2.) Probably exhibits some nocturnal activity (if it is a reptile we can assume it lives in a hot climate).

>Job 30:28 I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation. 29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

3.) Probably is able to swim or spends some portion of its live in the sea.

>Psalm 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

4.) Probably spends time on land as well, since its young be stepped on.

>Psalm 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

5.) It makes some sort of loud vocalization.

>Micah 1:8 Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

Based on all of this, my best guess for a dragon is a crocodile or a large monitor lizard (ie Komodo dragon).

Monitor lizard:

1.) Can be poisonous but is not venomous (Komodo dragon has a poisonous bite). (1)

2.) Komodo dragons are mostly diurnal but according to Wikipedia they do exhibit some nocturnal activity. (1/2)

3.) Komodo dragons are excellent swimmers (1)

4.) Spends most of its time on land. (1)

5.) Does in fact make a wailing vocalization. (1)

Crocodiles also fit the bill, except for that they don't have poisonous bites. Its also possible that the ancients interpreted both of these creatures as different types of dragons (sort of like how we colloquially call both crocodiles and monitor lizards as "reptiles", even though crocodiles aren't reptiles).

Its also possible that dragon = monitor lizard and crocodile = leviathan. Both really interesting, I'll post more later. Hashing out these Biblical animals is fun.

>>541741

While true, it does raise the question of why exclusively that animal, when others like it still exist, like OP's Indian rhino? Creationists have a tendency to use larger, more charismatic animals in their narratives. St. George is the best example I can think of, replacing a modern monitor lizard with the prehistoric baryonyx. Others include brachiosaurus as behemoth, and a (fire-snorting) mososaur as the leviathan.

>>541808

>>541716

>St. George is the best example I can think of, replacing a modern monitor lizard with the prehistoric baryonyx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalania

Megalania was a giant monitor lizard related to Komodo dragons. It reached 7m (23 ft) long and the largest specimens weighed as much as 1,940 kg (4,280 lb). According to scientists it lived at least 50,000 years ago and for a while cohabited Australia with humans.

Think about it. This is a 20 foot long, 4,000lb carniverous lizard. If we use komodo dragons, their closest extant relative, as an example, then this is a highly aggressive animal with a poisonous bite. Surely this is a dragon, if anything is.

>>541855

Its a perfect description of brachiosaurus actually.

>>541870

>15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Brachiosaurs are browsers, not grazers. Depending on the elephant, you have either a browser or a grazer

>16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Brachiosaurs are egg-layers, they cannot have a navel.

>17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Moveth is the key word here.

>18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Elephants are like this, too.

>19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

>20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

Last I checked, people tend to keep their distance from an elephant, and would get anywhere near a brachy.

>21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

>22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

They describe a large animal. Both are rather large in their own respects.

>23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Sounds like someone's observed an elephant's habit of actually sucking in water through its trunk.

>24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Sauropods have regular snouts like every other dinosaur, so why it be noted? Elephants, by contrast, have massive trunks.

I also notice this description lacks any mention of their most tell-tale trait: their long necks.

>>541869

Behold the great beast, a formidable monster, verily a dragon, killed by St. George

>>541876

>>541877

A little embellishment goes a long way. These are earlier illustrations, before their romanticization in modern culture.

>And what does that keyword imply then?

Watch from around 19:00 to 21:10 on the video in >541869 to find out.

>You can't really tell whether or not it laid eggs from some shitty skeletons

PDF related.