HOME | DD
Art-Minion-Andrew0 — Behemoth and Leviathan colored
Published: 2009-10-09 21:28:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 24941; Favourites: 379; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Final Behemoth / Leviathan comp. for my senior show.Related content
Comments: 75
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice illustration of these big creatures from the bible, however my only nit pick is that I think behemoth should've been more of a sauropod, but hey the hybrid of a triceratops, ankylosaurus and whatever is pretty cool, same for leviathan.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The book of job doesn't meantion a neck which
Would be a thing to point out if behemoth was a sauropod.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good concept but Behemoth is more descriptive and closer to the sauropods the Re'em is much closer in description to the ceratopsian dinosaurs though i do believe the Mosasaurs are a good fit for leviathan. God bless Rev.Scott Fultz
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Agreed, a sauropod and a mosasaur are no doubt the best representations of the mighty ancient saurians of Behemoth and Leviathan.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Tho the bible were actually talking about an Elephant and Crocodile
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Except these explanations do not fit the descriptions as well as sauropods and mosasaurs do. You can't say they were actually talking about elephants and crocodiles without evidence for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Leviathan: Jaws that are like closing gates, scales that are like shields, nothing that can pierce them, he churns the waters and makes it boil
A big scaly thing with jaws that are closing gates
sounds like a crocodile to me
Mosasaurs weren't scaly for one, their skin was smooth and streamlined, like a snake
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or the simple explanation
The writers of the bible never saw a Crocodile before and when they didfor the 1st time, they exaggerated and made it out to be this unholy sea monster
There's a video by Aaron Ra that explains this
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How is that nonsense?
The people that wrote the bible lived in the Middle Eastern deserts, a place where rivers and lakes aren't that common
So imagine if they visited a place like Egypt where they could get a glimpse of a Nile Crocodile
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Trust me, friend, that is decidedly untrue. If Behemoth truly were a sauropod, why is there no mention of its long neck, or how it feeds upon the tops of trees (Sauropods weren't grass-eaters)? Truth be told, I don't think that Leviathan and Behemoth are even meant to be physical beings; if they were flesh-and-blood animals, then it would defeat the entire purpose of the passage - that is, that these monsters are massive and untouchable, but God and God alone is able to defeat them.
Furthermore, the theme of a gigantic sea monster that a god battles is a common theme across mythology, including ones even older than Christianity that existed in the same region. It's a theory called chaoskampf, and I highly recommend researching it - it's a fascinating read.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't trust you, and I would not lend credence to your claims, for you are clearly speaking deceitful nonsense. First off, all characteristics (even more major characteristics) aren't always described, and besides, the neck lengths of sauropods varied greatly and might not have been as significant of a trait as that of its tail (and the whole description and mention of Behemoth as the animal who ranks first among the created creatures would probably have Job understand that it was a certain mighty sauropod being referred to and an animal which he would know about), evidently (I guess it would largely depend on which kind of sauropod the text would be describing, which we cannot know since we only have this historical description of the animal). However the entire context of the text seems to describe one of the most massive and impressive terrestrial creatures God ever made, thus sauropods are the most likely candidates. Second, not all sauropods fed upon tree tops, especially considering sauropods also differ in size and build, and we've already discovered that sauropods indeed did feed upon grass as indicated by the remains of grass in coprolites assigned to sauropods, though more specifically titanosaurs.
Further, God is evidently not describing them as Godzilla-like movie monsters that are seemingly invincible, but he's using poetic language to explain their might and ferocity and how unlikely it is that a mere man would stand a chance against them, and let's face it, that's likely how we would experience an encounter with beasts such as sauropods and mosasaurs, especially in the time of Job. Don't be absurd, Behemoth and Leviathan are clearly intended to be understood as real animals, especially considering they are coupled together with real animals and are described as real animals and clearly not presented as anything beyond the physical realm. As for your note on the common theme of "a god battling a sea monster" I'm not sure what your point would be with this or what it would supposedly have to do with the subject in question. Are you perhaps suggesting that the biblical description of Leviathan as a real creature is based upon a mere mythological creature from other cultures? Because, first, that can only be assumed and cannot be demonstrated to actually be true, and second, if the Bible can be trusted as being God's Word (which it surely can) then there's no question that this text is authentic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I don't trust you, and I would not lend credence to your claims, for you are clearly speaking deceitful nonsense."
Awfully rude for an opener.
"The neck lengths of sauropods varied greatly and might not have been as significant of a trait as that of its tail."
Incorrect. While the neck length did vary, there's only one species that had a neck anywhere comparable to a modern-day animal that's not a giraffe, Brachytrachelopan. You are taking one case and applying it to the entire group.
"We've already discovered that sauropods indeed did feed upon grass as indicated by the remains of grass in coprolites assigned to sauropods, though more specifically titanosaurs."
Once again, incorrect. We've found exactly onecoprolite with remains of grass in it, and in that coprolite there was also remains from leaves, implying that this wasn't a regular part of the diet. Even Brachytrachelopan grazed upon ferns instead of grass. Once again, you are looking at one instance and saying that that means it must be true for the entire group - that's dishonest.
"and let's face it, that's likely how we would experience an encounter with beasts such as sauropods and mosasaurs, especially in the time of Job."
Again, untrue - People had been hunting whales for thousands of years before the Bible was written, animals that were much bigger than any mosasaur in the fossil record and outweighed most sauropods. And then even earlier, you've got everything from giant ground sloths with armor underneath their skin to Palaeoloxodon namadicus, a beast bigger than many sauropods, to huge Megalania and massive terrestrial crocodiles.... all of which humans wiped out. Hunting big animals is kind of a human specialty.
"Don't be absurd, Behemoth and Leviathan are clearly intended to be understood as real animals"
I do not think that you have actually read that verse. It doesn't really seem to describe Behemoth and Leviathan as animals - it describes them as massive, singular beasts, veritable living gods.
"...especially considering they are coupled together with real animals and are described as real animals and clearly not presented as anything beyond the physical realm."
So? Greek philosophers described dragons and griffins as real animals, too. Does that mean that they are real, too? And before you say that the Bible is God's word, well... it's not. We've traced back the authors of the Bible. God didn't write the Bible - human beings did. Hell, many of the various books of the Bible are separated by several centuries.
"As for your note on the common theme of "a god battling a sea monster" I'm not sure what your point would be with this or what it would supposedly have to do with the subject in question. Are you perhaps suggesting that the biblical description of Leviathan as a real creature is based upon a mere mythological creature from other cultures?"
Yes. Yes, I am. Most of Christianity contains elements based upon other cultures' mythology, not just Leviathan. The global flood, the story of the Garden of Eden; even Jesus seems to have been based upon Egyptian mythology, specifically upon Osiris' resurrection.
I assumed that you might want to delve deeper into the origins and studies of Christianity - it's a fascinating subject, one that's much deeper than 'everything in the Bible happened exactly as described.'
"Because, first, that can only be assumed and cannot be demonstrated to actually be true"
Er, the same thing can be said about Christianity. There's no real evidence for one religion over any other - that's kinda the point of faith. You don't have concrete evidence, but you still choose to believe it.
"...And second, if the Bible can be trusted as being God's Word (which it surely can) then there's no question that this text is authentic."
See earlier arguments. The Bible was written by people - we have known this for a long time now. Did you not know this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///Awfully rude for an opener.///
I'm merely being honest and calling it as it is, responding according to how you act towards me, not intending to be rude.
///Incorrect. While the neck length did vary, there's only one species that had a neck anywhere comparable to a modern-day animal that's not a giraffe, Brachytrachelopan. You are taking one case and applying it to the entire group.///
No, it's certainly not incorrect, I'm certainly not taking merely one case and applying it to the entire group, stop lying, I never even mentioned Brachytrachelopan, but thank you for bringing it up, and Dicraeosaurus and Amargasaurus would be yet two other examples, and I have no idea why you were suddenly talking about these sauropods being "comparable to modern day animals that are not giraffes". The following image would further help illustrate how the necks vary greatly in both appearance and length, but it doesn't really matter, we aren't given any details on the appearance of Behemoth's neck or head and God evidently didn't consider it worth or necessary noting; svpow.files.wordpress.com/2011…
///Once again, incorrect. We've found exactly onecoprolite with remains of grass in it, and in that coprolite there was also remains from leaves, implying that this wasn't a regular part of the diet. Even Brachytrachelopan grazed upon ferns instead of grass.///
Why do you keep insisting upon calling it "incorrect" and then go on to describe how it's not incorrect? I don't know where you got the idea that there was only "one" coprolite found to be containing grass, it sounds to me like they've found several by repeatedly referring to the discovery in plural terms, but regardless, it clearly demonstrates your initial claim that sauropods didn't eat grass to actually be incorrect (at least I know when to actually use that word).
///Once again, you are looking at one instance and saying that that means it must be true for the entire group - that's dishonest.///
Again, I never did any such thing. You're being a deceitful hypocrite.
///Again, untrue - People had been hunting whales for thousands of years before the Bible was written, animals that were much bigger than any mosasaur in the fossil record and outweighed most sauropods. And then even earlier, you've got everything from giant ground sloths with armor underneath their skin to Palaeoloxodon namadicus, a beast bigger than many sauropods, to huge Megalania and massive terrestrial crocodiles.... all of which humans wiped out. Hunting big animals is kind of a human specialty.///
How is it untrue? People have been hunting whales (as harmless and vulnerable as they can be) for a long time, so what? Mosasaurs are hardly comparable to whales and would probably be considerably more vicious, and just because someone, sometime, somewhere could have hunted or fought creatures such as these doesn't mean that God's descriptions of them are suddenly not accurate (unless you take the texts far too literally of course). It's not like God is saying that it's absolutely impossible for mankind to hunt and kill these animals, but He's merely presenting them as dangerous and mighty as they actually are, and again, it would very likely be how we would experience beasts like sauropods and mosasaurs, and even many of the megafauna you listed would deliver similar experiences. Surely, hunting big game is a specialty, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all big game is easy to hunt or will even result in a successful hunt, and merely being big isn't the issue here, but it is the larger picture of their danger and might that God stresses repeatedly in referring to Behemoth and Leviathan. Further notes, Palaeoloxodon wasn't really "bigger than many sauropods" (it was just a very large elephant) and I wonder what gave you that idea, and we do not know what caused the extinction of many of our megafauna, though undoubtedly mankind played a big part in it, and I still don't see what this has got to do with the current subject being discussed. It seems to me you're either misreading or intentionally misrepresenting my words.
///I do not think that you have actually read that verse. It doesn't really seem to describe Behemoth and Leviathan as animals - it describes them as massive, singular beasts, veritable living gods.///
I do think you're continuing your practice of dishonesty in conversations. I've read the entire book of Job, the chapters referring to Behemoth and Leviathan of course having been of a particular interest, and I believe your reckless comment on my familiarity with these verses* in question actually reflect your own insecurity in talking about a piece of literature you're not actually very familiar with other than in a superficial sense. Anyway, the text clearly describes Behemoth and Leviathan as very real and indeed massive and powerful animals able to instill great fear and respect in mere men, which again would seem perfectly in line with beasts such as sauropods and mosasaurs. It doesn't at all refer to them as some sort of "singular veritable gods", which wouldn't even make sense considering (1) that these animals are coupled together with known real animals and (2) God repeatedly expresses how much He absolutely abhors applying god-like characteristics and appearances to something that's not actually God (i.e. false gods that are but the works of mere men's hands and imagination).
///So? Greek philosophers described dragons and griffins as real animals, too. Does that mean that they are real, too?///
I have no doubt in my mind that the described "dragons" and "griffins" were based upon real creatures, most probably pterosaurs and dinosaurs, or similar creatures. I don't see how you thought this example would work in your favor.
///And before you say that the Bible is God's word, well... it's not. We've traced back the authors of the Bible. God didn't write the Bible - human beings did. Hell, many of the various books of the Bible are separated by several centuries.///
I've already stated that the Bible is God's Word, because it undoubtedly is. Of course human beings wrote the Bible, but (as the Scriptures reveal) they were moved by God to write down the things we now have the privilege to read. Indeed, the Bible consists of 66 books, written by 40 different authors, from three different continents, in three different languages, over a timespan of approximately 1,500 years, and yet remains consistent and without contradiction, containing accurate historical information and a large number of fulfilled and yet-to-be fulfilled prophecies, having over 24,000+ corroborating documents and manuscripts to further validate its contents (whereas most other historical documents and information has merely around a few hundred to none), also noting it as being even more remarkable in being the number one best selling book in history and having greatly affected and moved countless people throughout history to a new life through faith in Christ. The odds of all these things happening by the power of mere men are so incredibly low that you have seemingly no other choice but to seriously consider it as nothing but the inspired Word of God.
///Yes. Yes, I am. Most of Christianity contains elements based upon other cultures' mythology, not just Leviathan. The global flood, the story of the Garden of Eden; even Jesus seems to have been based upon Egyptian mythology, specifically upon Osiris' resurrection.///
I figured. But I would rather argue that it's just the opposite, namely that other cultures' mythologies contain elements of Christianity and real historical events accurately described in the Bible which would shape our current world and its cultures. Indeed, there are countless stories from all over the world bearing very interesting similarities to the biblical accounts of for instance (as you noted) the Garden of Eden and the Global Flood. However, the whole idea that Jesus was supposedly based upon Osiris or any other pagan characters is absolute nonsense that's been addressed and debunked time and time again, and it's nothing but pop-culture myths that encourages a rebellious attitude towards God. Worth noting are coldcasechristianity.com/2014/… and www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myt… for instance.
///I assumed that you might want to delve deeper into the origins and studies of Christianity - it's a fascinating subject, one that's much deeper than 'everything in the Bible happened exactly as described.'///
You disrespectfully and arrogantly act as though (1) you know more about Christianity than I do and (2) that I know very little about my own faith. What you're clearly expressing in these sentences are a declaration that you are in rebellion against God and would do anything to remove God from your life and thus remove any accountability you would have to Him, and I promise you, if you continue on this road, then your wish will be granted you, and you will (1) get to experience eternity apart from the presence of God and you will also (2) experience the just punishment for all the sins you've ever committed in your entire life. I beg you, be wiser than this.
///Er, the same thing can be said about Christianity. There's no real evidence for one religion over any other - that's kinda the point of faith. You don't have concrete evidence, but you still choose to believe it.///
This is another instance where using the word "incorrect" can actually be applied. Christianity, being based upon reality, has more evidence and reason behind it than any other religion, even Atheism. I have the entire creation as a witness that Christianity is true, and we all know this deep inside, as it's built into our very being, but we keep suppressing it due to our unrighteousness and wickedness. You should seriously seek to gain a considerably more humble attitude towards God and reject your foolish ways, for surely, Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.
///See earlier arguments. The Bible was written by people - we have known this for a long time now. Did you not know this?///
See earlier responses. The Bible was written by men under God's guidance, and we have indeed understood this for a long time. Cease your juvenile attitude and seek out Christ before it's too late!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"No, it's certainly not incorrect, I'm certainly not taking merely one case and applying it to the entire group, stop lying...."
Likewise, you little shit.
"...but it doesn't really matter, we aren't given any details on the appearance of Behemoth's neck or head and God evidently didn't consider it worth or necessary noting."
Then God's a fucking idiot, because those long necks are one of the biggest distinguishing traits of sauropods.
"I don't know where you got the idea that there was only "one" coprolite found to be containing grass, it sounds to me like they've found several by repeatedly referring to the discovery in plural terms, but regardless, it clearly demonstrates your initial claim that sauropods didn't eat grass to actually be incorrect (at least I know when to actually use that word)."
Because there's only been one case that I'm aware of, and again, that's in one specimen from the Late Cretaceous, right when we know that grass evolved. In all other coprolites that we have of sauropods, we find ferns, leaves, branches - not grass. That is what I mean by your dishonesty - you only give one example, knowing for a fact that it isn't the rule, then act like it is. And you call me dishonest? Do you not know the meaning of the word hypocrite?
"How is it untrue? People have been hunting whales (as harmless and vulnerable as they can be) for a long time, so what?"
You have never read about whales, have you? If you would bother to read a book beyond the Bible, you would see that there are many, many cases where whales have not only survived against whaling ships, but won - Moby Dick was based upon a real whale, Mocha Dick, and there are multiple cases of whales attacking ships, like the ship Essex, dashed to pieces by a sperm whale, the largest carnivore ever to live.
"It's not like God is saying that it's absolutely impossible for mankind to hunt and kill these animals, but He's merely presenting them as dangerous and mighty as they actually are, and again, it would very likely be how we would experience beasts like sauropods and mosasaurs, and even many of the megafauna you listed would deliver similar experiences"
C'mon, man, this isn't even fun anymore. I can literally google the verses - I can easily disprove you.
First, we have Behemoth, from Job 40:18
"His bones are tubes of bronze; his limbs are rods of iron. He is the foremost of God's works; only his Maker can draw the sword against him."
Now for Leviathan, Job 40:25 - 40:34
"When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride."
These aren't depictions of megafauna - they are depictions that are more like those of angels or, well, gods. The fact that you don't realize this is honestly kinda surprising - I thought that you were supposed to be some kind of master of religion. But no, you're just another false prophet.
"I have no doubt in my mind that the described "dragons" and "griffins" were based upon real creatures, most probably pterosaurs and dinosaurs, or similar creatures. I don't see how you thought this example would work in your favor."
Because they clearly do not exist. While dragons were likely at least partially inspired by fossilized remains of animals, we have found nothing even remotely close to griffins. They are purely creatures of imagination - nothing more, nothing less.
"I've already stated that the Bible is God's Word, because it undoubtedly is. Of course human beings wrote the Bible, but (as the Scriptures reveal) they were moved by God to write down the things we now have the privilege to read. Indeed, the Bible consists of 66 books, written by 40 different authors, from three different continents, in three different languages, over a timespan of approximately 1,500 years, and yet remains consistent and without contradiction."
...No, it doesn't. You are moving well past ignorance and into willful stupidity. The Bible as we know it was patched together from thousands of writings by the church, modified and debated over whether each would be 'canon', and even then it's wildly inconsistent. One moment, God is benevolent, the next he's a blood-hungry monster who demands animal and human sacrifice. Jesus switches from benevolent to a war hawk on the flip of a coin, and even the descriptions of angels change constantly. The rest of your argument is born from the divine fallacy (Therefore, God!) and the bandwagon fallacy (Everybody likes it, so it must be right!) - utterly worthless.
"But I would rather argue that it's just the opposite, namely that other cultures' mythologies contain elements of Christianity and real historical events accurately described in the Bible which would shape our current world and its cultures."
Except those culture are older, you utter fuckwit. Do you not know how time works?!
"You disrespectfully and arrogantly act as though (1) you know more about Christianity than I do and (2) that I know very little about my own faith."
You have done literally nothing to make me think otherwise. You can't even read your own holy book, much less debate it accurately!
"What you're clearly expressing in these sentences are a declaration that you are in rebellion against God and would do anything to remove God from your life and thus remove any accountability you would have to Him"
Yes, Heaven forbid that I ever use my God-given curiosity. You claim to love God, and yet you refuse to use the gifts he gave you. What kind of hypocrite are you?
"Christianity, being based upon reality, has more evidence and reason behind it than any other religion, even Atheism. I have the entire creation as a witness that Christianity is true, and we all know this deep inside, as it's built into our very being, but we keep suppressing it due to our unrighteousness and wickedness. You should seriously seek to gain a considerably more humble attitude towards God and reject your foolish ways, for surely, Christ is the way, the truth, and the life."
Once again, you are basing this upon your own personal bias. To a devout Muslim, Pagan, Hindu, or any other practitioner, their religion is the true one, and they would use the same arguments. This entire thing is an appeal to emotion and a divine fallacy - you have no valid arguments here, you're just trying to filibuster to put up the illusion that you have some modicum of intelligence behind those beady little eyes.
So, in conclusion, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is somebody's own version of two fictional creatures that never existed in the first place. Quit trying to shove creationism down our throats. Evolution happened. Get used to it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Indeed, and I consider evolution God's greatest miracle.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
To both Lediblock2 and DinoLover09; Incorrect, this is an individual's personal representation of two very real ancient animals which God describes in the Book of Job to display His mighty power and instill humility into an arrogant human mind. These were animals that were clearly alive in Job's time and had lived with mankind ever since the beginning. Evolution is nothing more than a modern creation myth, and has become but yet another of mankind's many hopeless idols. Creation happened, regardless how we feel about that. I would rather suggest you get used to acknowledging God and His sovereignty as well as giving Him due credit for having created this entire universe (primarily by giving yourself over to Jesus Christ who paid the ultimate price for your many wretched sins so that you didn't have to) before you end up in a God-forsaken place of everlasting fire. Further, evolution is no miracle, but a deceitful, cruel, amoral, and arational concept that directly contradicts God's Word.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So the idea of animals gradually evolving over millions upon millions of years to fit into their natural environment is ludicrous but an old man in a cloud magically poofing the entire universe and all its inhabitants into existence over the course of a week is logically sound?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
///So the idea of animals gradually evolving over millions upon millions of years to fit into their natural environment is ludicrous///
The idea that animals change over time to better adapt to their environments is not ludicrous at all but rather scientifically demonstrable and perfectly sound. However, the idea that all various groups of organisms have descended through common ancestry across aeons of time (as opposed to having been created separately at about the same point in time by a supernatural intelligence) is absolutely ludicrous simply because the real life data doesn't support any such concept and there's really no reason to buy into it, especially when it simply appears to be yet another of the Devil's clever deceptive tricks.
///but an old man in a cloud magically poofing the entire universe and all its inhabitants into existence over the course of a week is logically sound?///
God is NOT "an old man in a cloud", but an almighty supernatural (which I suppose is meant by "magical") spirit and superintellectual person who brought this incredible Universe into existence by His very infinitely powerful word, something which our limited mind can hardly comprehend. The Universe could never reasonably produce itself without an intelligence deciding to bring it into existence, and life could never reasonably arise on its own by pure natural processes without the intervention of an intelligence. The biblical creation account is perfectly sound and in accordance with the real world data. If God is God, then surely He's fully able to bring everything into existence over ANY period of time, whether that be 6 seconds, 6 minutes, 6 hours, 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, 60 years, 600 years, 6,000 years, 60,000 years, 600,000 years, 6 million years, 60 million years, 600 million years, or 6 billion years, and none of these periods of time are more logically sound than the other, because God is fully able to succeed regardless, and we are told in the inspired Word of God that the Earth and the Universe was created in merely 6 days by the will and power of God, thus also establishing a model for our work week which we are designed to function within.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I mean no offense, friend, but any god who creates so much evidence suggesting that he does not exist and punishes eternally those who listen to reason is one that I would rather not worship.
Furthermore, I would like some sources on what makes evolution a "deceitful, cruel, amoral, and arational concept". (I assume that you meant 'irrational' on the last part there.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God hasn't created anything that supposedly "suggest that He doesn't exist", that doesn't even make sense, and I believe what you may be referring to are your own flawed understanding and interpretation of certain things. Indeed, as we are repeatedly taught throughout the Scriptures, and especially in Romans 1, the evidence for God's existence is abundant throughout the entire creation and we are ultimately without a single excuse, we are naturally born with the knowledge of God's existence and can easily recognize His existence by merely observing, exploring, and experiencing the incredible world around us as well as inside us, but then we suppress the truth because of our unrighteousness and desire to do things our own way and remove any accountability to our Creator, who is so much greater and wiser than we are. Don't be a fool, considering yourself wiser than God, but humble yourself before the Lord while there is still time.
God never "punishes eternally those who listen to reason", for those who properly use their God-given ability to reason are children of God saved by the blood of Christ and destined for restoration and eternal life, and those who ultimately ends up in Hell are only there because they chose Hell over Heaven, they chose absence from God over the presence of God, they chose to remain in rebellion and put their trust in their own deceitful and broken minds and hearts over trusting alone in Christ as their Savior and turning themselves over in submission to their Creator who knows best. God is good, but the decision between becoming a child of God (who'll tell you how things really are and offers you eternal peace, love, and joy in the Kingdom of Heaven on a New Earth), or remaining a child of Satan (the deceiver who desires to keep you away from God and tells you everything you want to hear), is ultimately up to you! Just be aware that God who gave you life will hold you accountable for how you treated Him and for everything you ever did in your life. Don't be among those who profess to be wise but are mere fools who destines themselves for damnation.
Further, evolutionism is deceitful, cruel, amoral, and arational (no, I didn't mean "irrational", as arational is a real word) quite simply because it does away with objective morality, truth, reason, and logic, and essentially anything goes and there's no telling what's actually true and right. It has no foundation for any of it, but it is a philosophy of sheer cruelty, subjectivity, and meaninglessness.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"God hasn't created anything that supposedly "suggest that He doesn't exist", that doesn't even make sense"
How does it not make sense? It means exactly what it means - if God exists, he's very dedicated to creating the illusion that he doesn't. If he created everything individually, why does DNA exist? Why does every organism on the planet share so much common genetic material, implying that they have a common ancestor? Why do birds still have the genes for tails and teeth within their genetic code, lying dormant? What is the purpose of it all? Some sort of test of faith?
"we are naturally born with the knowledge of God's existence"
....No we aren't. We learn about religion from our parents and from the culture we grow up in. That's just common sense.
I'm skipping the second paragraph you typed up, because it's not really an argument so much as you preaching. I am aware of what Christianity teaches; please do not shove your beliefs down my throat
"Just be aware that God who gave you life will hold you accountable for how you treated Him and for everything you ever did in your life."
But he already knows what I'm going to do - he's all-knowing, and therefore knows that I'm going to end up in Hell before I'm even born. Why even allow me to be born, then? Just letting somebody be born knowing that they'll burn forever... that isn't really a benevolent thing to do.
And in turn, that raises the question; why have the tree of knowledge in the first place? By virtue of his omniscience, God would know that Adam and Eve would eat from the fruit (And for that matter, they wouldn't know that it was wrong to eat from it in the first place, given that they explicitly only got the ability to do that after eating from the tree), so why have it at all?
"Further, evolutionism is deceitful, cruel, amoral, and arational (no, I didn't mean "irrational", as arational is a real word) quite simply because it does away with objective morality, truth, reason, and logic, and essentially anything goes and there's no telling what's actually true and right."
...What are you talking about? Evolution just says that organisms adapt to their environment. That's it. Nothing else. You're just using it as a scapegoat for every bad thing that you can think of without giving any evidence.
If anything, evolution actually advocates for being kind to others - being able to work together and care for each other is what brought human beings out of the woods and drove us to build villages and towns, cities and civilizations. Hell, evolution's the cornerstone for pretty much all of biology and modern medicine; hardly 'doing away with reason and logic' as you claim.
I don't mean to be rude, but your accusation is honestly more applicable to religion. There is no constant for right and wrong, only what the god wants (Or rather, the priests who speak for the god). Christianity teaches that you shall not kill, and yet it also says to stone adulterers and homosexuals, to commit genocide against people who don't worship the same god. These genocides are clearly listed in the Bible, and exist in recent history like the Conquistadores slaughtering the Aztecs and Incas, the Crusades, the massacres of Native Americans and Australian aborigines.
You really aren't making your case here - you're just preaching to me like I'm an idiot who doesn't understand Christianity. I really don't appreciate being looked down upon like this, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you stopped it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///How does it not make sense? It means exactly what it means - if God exists, he's very dedicated to creating the illusion that he doesn't.///
The question would rather be along the lines of "How does it even make sense?" because God hasn't at all created any such supposed "illusion that He doesn't exist", that's an illusion entirely of your own making.
///If he created everything individually, why does DNA exist?///
I fail to see your point, why would DNA not exist if God is real? DNA is but one among an abundance of reasons that lead us to the conclusion that God exists.
///Why does every organism on the planet share so much common genetic material, implying that they have a common ancestor?///
You're falsely assuming that common ancestry is the proper explanation for this as opposed to common design from a common Designer using similar blueprints for different or similar purposes.
///Why do birds still have the genes for tails and teeth within their genetic code, lying dormant?///
Have you considered (in the context of common design) that the original ancestors from which the current varieties descended actually had tails and teeth and were originally designed this way (though including the ability to adapt, along with the reality of us living in a fallen world where things also degrade and degenerate)?
///What is the purpose of it all? Some sort of test of faith?///
God always tests our faith, though with the intention to strengthen us and build us up and become more and more like Christ. However, in these particular cases, I believe you've simply believed the lies of Satan and your own wretched heart rather than simply submitting to and trusting in God alone.
///....No we aren't. We learn about religion from our parents and from the culture we grow up in. That's just common sense.///
Yes, we are indeed naturally born with the knowledge of God, as we learn from the Bible, can deduce simply ourselves, and which can be easily demonstrated as was the case for example in "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs" (2012) by Dr. Justin L. Barrett. Of course, the religion we eventually end up adopting depends a great deal upon what we are taught, but the basic reality that we are all aware of God's existence remains the same, and we either end up embracing this reality or suppressing it.
///I'm skipping the second paragraph you typed up, because it's not really an argument so much as you preaching. I am aware of what Christianity teaches; please do not shove your beliefs down my throat///
Preaching the Gospel to other lost souls is the most important thing we can and ought to do in this present life, and I'm only doing it because I care about your soul, otherwise I wouldn't even bother typing a single word and I'd just move along with my own business.
"Just be aware that God who gave you life will hold you accountable for how you treated Him and for everything you ever did in your life."
///But he already knows what I'm going to do - he's all-knowing, and therefore knows that I'm going to end up in Hell before I'm even born. Why even allow me to be born, then? Just letting somebody be born knowing that they'll burn forever... that isn't really a benevolent thing to do. And in turn, that raises the question; why have the tree of knowledge in the first place? By virtue of his omniscience, God would know that Adam and Eve would eat from the fruit (And for that matter, they wouldn't know that it was wrong to eat from it in the first place, given that they explicitly only got the ability to do that after eating from the tree), so why have it at all?///
Indeed, God does know all things, and if God is God, then you probably ought to really ask yourself why you are questioning someone so infinitely greater and wiser than you, or are you on the same level as God? Surely, these thoughts can be exceedingly difficult to wrap our heads around, and that's probably an indication that we shouldn't try, and simply make the decision to trust God. Surely, God knows whether you'll end up in Heaven or Hell, but that's merely because He exists in a different dimension from us and is thus on a whole other level which we will never reach, which can be both frightening and comforting. Rather than complaining and criticizing God, is it not wiser to actually make sure that you don't end up in Hell? After all, it is our own decisions that decide where we will end up, and just because God isn't bound by time as we are, that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to choose between Heaven or Hell. Frankly, it's all up to you, and if you decide on becoming a citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven and a child of God, consider that you'll get to spend eternity together with God discussing questions such as these and unraveling them and getting answers, understanding also that the knowledge of God is limitless, just as our joy in Heaven will be totally limitless. Consider seriously, whether you'd rather spend this life in rebellion against God and end up in eternal torment because of some mere unanswered questions (which would remain unanswered for eternity onwards), or spend this one precious life turning yourself over to Christ and trusting Him and ending up in an eternal paradise where all your questions could be answered and all your needs forever be met. It's your call.
///...What are you talking about? Evolution just says that organisms adapt to their environment. That's it. Nothing else.///
First off, please realize that words often have various definitions and usages, and I'm NEVER using the word "evolution" as in referring to the definition of the word that simply means mere adaptation, this particular definition is unquestionably true, and that's never what people refer to when criticizing "evolution", but they're rather referring to "general evolution" or "macroevolution" as in (generally unguided, and rather simplied) descent through common ancestry across aeons of unrecorded history eventually turning dead matter to organic life, microbes to worms, worms to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and primates to humans (with an expanded focus on such things as chemical evolution, stellar evolution, and cosmic evolution for instance). The word evolutionism referring to this entire view of natural history, which ultimately affects every other aspect of our existence.
///You're just using it as a scapegoat for every bad thing that you can think of without giving any evidence.///
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.
///If anything, evolution actually advocates for being kind to others - being able to work together and care for each other is what brought human beings out of the woods and drove us to build villages and towns, cities and civilizations. Hell, evolution's the cornerstone for pretty much all of biology and modern medicine; hardly 'doing away with reason and logic' as you claim.///
Evolutionism doesn't advocate anything. This is nothing but you sharing your own preference, even though that also begs the question what you actually mean by "being kind to others" if God doesn't exist and evolutionism is true. If God doesn't exist, then you have no objective standard to determine what is right and wrong, good or bad, and all you really have is personal preference, and nobody's personal preference is objectively better than anybody else's, and "being kind" could literally mean anything, which would ultimately mean the entire phrase is objectively meaningless. Evolutionism is also most certainly NOT the cornerstone for all of biology and modern medicine, it brings absolutely nothing of value to these disciplines or any other field, and the basic reason for that is that it cannot be demonstrated to even be true to begin with, it's merely a worldview which modern society has embraced as an alternative to God and the biblical account of creation. Evolutionism absolutely does away with reason and logic if consistent, but it's precisely due to it being treated in an inconsistent manner that reason and logic are even spoken of within its circles. It's top notch deceit, mix it with a little logic and reason, and you've got a product to sell and potentially build an empire.
///I don't mean to be rude, but your accusation is honestly more applicable to religion. There is no constant for right and wrong, only what the god wants (Or rather, the priests who speak for the god). Christianity teaches that you shall not kill, and yet it also says to stone adulterers and homosexuals, to commit genocide against people who don't worship the same god. These genocides are clearly listed in the Bible, and exist in recent history like the Conquistadores slaughtering the Aztecs and Incas, the Crusades, the massacres of Native Americans and Australian aborigines.///
Please define what you mean by "religion" first, because again, words have various meanings and usages. By the basic understanding of the word, we all hold to a religion of some sort. Not all religions are like Christianity though, that's the only religion that remains consistent (excluding anti-Christian offshoots that merely take on a "Christian" label, such as mormonism and catholicism). That commandment is better translated as "You shall not murder!" (as in the unlawful taking of a life) as opposed to merely "kill" with it's more broader meaning. Indeed, God is the only one who can always lawfully decide when to kill and when not to kill, simply because He's God and knows best. The reason God gave the order to stone sinners was to keep His people Israel clean and demonstrate how truly wretched our sins are that they deserve such harsh punishments, leading us to think twice about doing that which is wrong (or doing that which is right in our own eyes) rather than listening to God who knows best. There is also a limit to how much a nation can indulge in sins before God orders or causes their destruction, and worshipping false gods forged by the hands and minds of mere men is a most griveous sin that merely leads to more and more sins, and God surely does abhor anyone worshipping a created thing rather than the Creator who rightly and justly deserves all our worship and praise. Realize that we are all justly deserving of death and destruction, but it is God's love and grace that keeps us alive, and we better not take that lightly and realize that God knows best and wants the best for us, but if we keep rejecting Him and doing things our own way (as wretched as our own ways are) then He will eventually grant our wishes. God is very patient with us, certainly more patient than we deserve of Him to be, but in the very end we will get what's coming to us if we reject Him and choose to do the wrong thing.
///You really aren't making your case here - you're just preaching to me like I'm an idiot who doesn't understand Christianity. I really don't appreciate being looked down upon like this, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you stopped it.///
You treat Christ like He's nothing to you, that gives me great reason to preach the Gospel of Christ to you and make you increasingly aware of the severity of sin, the opportunity of salvation, and the value of this one life that may end at any moment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I fail to see your point, why would DNA not exist if God is real? DNA is but one among an abundance of reasons that lead us to the conclusion that God exists."
I am going to disagree with you there - DNA is one of the biggest pieces of evidence for creatures being shaped by their environments, rather than an intelligent designer. There are mountains of evidence for this.
"You're falsely assuming that common ancestry is the proper explanation for this as opposed to common design from a common Designer using similar blueprints for different or similar purposes."
And yet you give zero evidence, zero arguments. Why would an all-powerful god even need to stick to the same blueprints? If life forms were all individually created, they wouldn't have any shared genetics, but scientists have actually begun to start figuring out just how recently animals diverged from one another. It's incredible stuff, already turning Linnaean taxonomy upon its head. Instead of blindly sticking to your conclusion, why not learn more about the world? Theistic evolution is a thing, you know - honestly, new discoveries like how organisms evolved and the universe formed is a far more impressive example of God's power than the Bible. Rather than just reading off a celestial checklist, we are the product of over 4 billion years of evolutionary success. Out of trillions of possible outcomes, we are the result. You can't seriously think that that isn't amazing.
"Have you considered (in the context of common design) that the original ancestors from which the current varieties descended actually had tails and teeth and were originally designed this way (though including the ability to adapt, along with the reality of us living in a fallen world where things also degrade and degenerate)?"
One moment you're decrying evolution, the next you are. Inconsistencies like this aren't helping your case.
"God always tests our faith, though with the intention to strengthen us and build us up and become more and more like Christ. However, in these particular cases, I believe you've simply believed the lies of Satan and your own wretched heart rather than simply submitting to and trusting in God alone."
I am not the sort of person to blindly believe you or the words of your god or of your Satan. I would rather put stock in the discoveries of thousands of people working together for centuries, rather than the beliefs of a group of Bronze-Age nomads from a time when it was considered acceptable to stone women who had premarital sex. Put yourself in my shoes - for a good Christian, you are startlingly lacking in empathy.
"Yes, we are indeed naturally born with the knowledge of God, as we learn from the Bible, can deduce simply ourselves..."
Then we learn about God through what we're exposed to. You do not seem to understand what 'being born with' actually means.
"Indeed, God does know all things, and if God is God, then you probably ought to really ask yourself why you are questioning someone so infinitely greater and wiser than you, or are you on the same level as God?"
Because I simply do not believe that he exists, and that asking questions and being curious is a basic part of humanity. Your devotion is honestly kinda worrying - it says in the Bible that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death, so would you do that if you got the chance? This is the same devotion that drives people to strap bombs to their chests and run screaming into public spaces to blow themselves up.
"...and that's never what people refer to when criticizing "evolution", but they're rather referring to "general evolution" or "macroevolution" as in (generally unguided, and rather simplied) descent through common ancestry across aeons of unrecorded history eventually turning dead matter to organic life, microbes to worms, worms to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and primates to humans (with an expanded focus on such things as chemical evolution, stellar evolution, and cosmic evolution for instance)."
...That isn't how it works. Evolution is just adaptation of organisms. There's nothing involving chemical evolution or stellar evolution or cosmic evolution - I really don't see why you creationists keep wrongly lumping them all together.
"I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean."
Somehow, I'm not surprised. It means that you are just loudly claiming that evolution is the root of everything bad in the world, only giving really stupid reasonings for it.
"If God doesn't exist, then you have no objective standard to determine what is right and wrong, good or bad, and all you really have is personal preference, and nobody's personal preference is objectively better than anybody else's, and "being kind" could literally mean anything, which would ultimately mean the entire phrase is objectively meaningless."
...Are you a sociopath? Because that's the only explanation that I have for this. Do you just not get the idea of 'not being a dick to people'? It's not objectively meaningless, it's just common sense, if not just following the law. You have officially lost any semblance of respect towards you that I might have held. I know that this must come as a shock to you, but if you need the threat of eternal damnation to be a good person, you are not a good person.
"Evolutionism is also most certainly NOT the cornerstone for all of biology and modern medicine, it brings absolutely nothing of value to these disciplines or any other field, and the basic reason for that is that it cannot be demonstrated to even be true to begin with, it's merely a worldview which modern society has embraced as an alternative to God and the biblical account of creation."
Yeah, no. Both of my parents are doctors - I grew up with talk of modern medicine, I know this stuff. Evolution is most definitely the cornerstone of modern medicine, and it certainly wasn't made as 'an alternative to God' or whatever the hell kind of picture you're trying to paint. Hell, Charles Darwin himself struggled immensely with his faith and what he was finding out about the world. Good fucking grief, get your head out of your ass. The only person here trying to peddle deceit and lies is you - I wonder, how much money is your pastor getting from the generous donations that you and your ilk spoonfeed him? How much has he spent on luxuries for himself? And for that matter, how many children have you sacrificed to your new god to sate him? How many lives have you dedicated to blindly worshipping a god who you're too cowardly to even worship properly?
"Please define what you mean by "religion" first, because again, words have various meanings and usages. By the basic understanding of the word, we all hold to a religion of some sort. Not all religions are like Christianity though, that's the only religion that remains consistent (excluding anti-Christian offshoots that merely take on a "Christian" label, such as mormonism and catholicism)."
No True Scotsman argument - you are as creatively bankrupt as you are morally bankrupt.
I am ending this. Consider yourself blocked. Perhaps someday, you'll realize you're wrong - but until them, wallow in your own self-imposed ignorance. Because as the world moves on, and you're left in the past, you're going to try and claw your way up, praying for your God to strike down all those dirty gays and colored folks. And I'm going to laugh as I kick you back into the dirt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Given the fact that dinosaurs and mosasaurs had been extinct for 65 million years by the time the Bible was written, I would call that coincidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'd say it's a realistic version of William Blake's. Awsome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm fascinated by that Behemoth: half Triceratops, half rhinozeros, half hippothamus, half Ankylosaurus - it just looks awesome.
I also like this woodcarving style - it makes the creatures looking even more archaic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome!
I love how you did the Behemoth!
Check out my Leviathan please.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yes it is referred to as Ziz and it is supposed to live in the atmosphere however the bible does not reference it as much as these two so it is often forgotten about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your behemoth reminds me of a Triceratops with a weird mouth and without the middle horn (and also an Ankylosaurus' Tail club), and your leviathan reminds me of Gyarados
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow, I never pictured Behemoth of being a triceratopian-like creature or the Leviathan with a sharks head. Very interesting concept.
The line art is fantastic and the colouring makes it look like a traditional engraving.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wow this is so cool how long did it take you to finish it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice. I do wonder why Leviathan has the body of a serpent and the head of a shark though
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
great work, reminds me of those classic engravings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
just curious
ive been trying to do this type of art work for a long while now and its a pain for me to do
how dod you do it?! id really appreciate the help =/ ive been wanting to learn for a long time now and no one knows how to do it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More than anything else it takes time and patience.
Otherwise you'd have to be more specific.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
like the old sea monster drawings ive been trying to figure out how to draw that and it seems so simple but i just cant do it =/ idk hard to word out
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>