From Final Fantasy Wiki
[edit] Fixed Etymology
I don't know who wrote it, but the etymology of the Leviathan was way off. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests it represented the sea as a whole; it is commonly believed that the leviathan was a tyrannosaurus rex. Further more, the behemoth did not represent land. The description of the behemoth in the book of Job clearly describes a brachiosaurus. Please read the Bible before you make inferences from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ser Blue says at 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yep, it's an inaccurate info. There's nothing in the Bible to say they represented a natural element.
Christian scholars think it's an actual animal, like a Nile crocodile or an exaggerated description of a whale; though the Bible describing it having fire-breathing properties is quite puzzling too. Young Earth creationist and other Bible scholars contend that Behemoth was a sauropod, usually a brontosaurus. In any case, I'd like to see where you come up with Leviathan being a T-Rex, since leviathan is usually described as a sea serpent.
And also because what you wrote there is just one of the many views about this creature; it wouldn't be fair to omit the other opinions and let your edit stay. That's why we tend to generalize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- I don't mind having those views, but they did not originate from the Bible. If someone could show an alternative source for those views, then I'd have no problem with them being in there. Also, I realize that most people think that a serpent usually means a snake like creature, but let me remind you that it is implied that serpents actually had legs; only the incarnation of Satan is noted as having lost them. Furthermore, most other dinosaurs lack the nasal cavities that would have been required to store the gases necessary to produce an organic fire (there are several others, but none of them seem to fit the description). Being a sea serpent is often a misconception developed from the fact that it is a water-dwelling beast. Allow me to bring your attention to the hippopotamus; it has no means of breathing underwater, yet few would dispute calling it a "water dwelling creature". Whether or not a tyrannosaurus could swim, I do not know; its tail and feet may have propelled it, or it may have simply stuck to the shallows. However, from Job 41:15-17 "His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, tha no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered." we can determine it cannot breathe underwater; if it had gills, its scales would not be "shut up together" and certainly not "so near to another, that no air can come between them".--MarioFanaticXV 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
