A lot of talk has been happening here in regards to if the resurrection is factual or not. Among the discussion, is talk of 'witnesses' and the writing (or verbal) passing down of information regarding said resurrection; how what witnesses wrote what they saw (or said that they saw) is proof enough that the resurrection is factual.
A lot more recent (a few centuries ago) is tales of sea creatures and whales. Much was said about these creatures. There was also art depicting what these sea fairing people 'saw'.
Below is one such example
Now, while it's possible there is a creature that looks exactly like this in the depths of the ocean, the [/]likelihood[/i] isn't great. This artwork is what some of themsaid they saw.
For discussion:
If these eyewitnesses of a few centuries ago, can't describe what they saw without bias and the inability to adlib, how can we use the eyewitnesses of the times of jesus (or what those witnesses told others that told others) to represent an accurate description of the resurrection? Or if it even happened at all?
So is the resurrection simply a 'whale of a tale'?
A whale of a tale
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
A whale of a tale
Post #1
Last edited by nobspeople on Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #21I agree that the Hebrew words for "giant fish" were used by the author of the story. However, I'm not sure if the ancient Hebrew people would have known to distinguish a whale from a giant fish. It seems reasonable to infer that they would probably classify a whale as a giant fish since it more closely resembles a fish than any mammal they would recognize. Therefore, it is unclear to me if the creature the author had envisioned was a giant fish or a whale. Nevertheless, I don't think it makes much difference if the author was envisioning a giant fish or a whale.JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:48 pm
Yes I do believe whales exist, although in the context of a discussion about the biblical Jonah it seems it was unlikely to have been a whale that is reported to have swallowed him.
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #22WAS JONAH IN A FISH OR A WHALE?
The Greek scriptures have Jesus using the word ketos which basically means large fish or a sea Monster. Strongs allows for the English "whale" but which should properly be chosen to represent what Jesus is reported to have said? Jesus was clearly referencing the Hebrew bible which at Jonah 1 verse 17 uses The Hebrew Word dag which systematically refers to a fish. So logically the Hebrew source, which reports Jonah was swallowed by a "large /huge fish" should rightly influence the choice when it comes to the English translation.
CONCLUSION : While a whale would rightly be classified as a biblical huge "sea monster/creature" and might be seen as a legimate english translation at Matthew 12:40, the original Hebrew referred to a Jonah being swallowed by a huge fish.
The Greek scriptures have Jesus using the word ketos which basically means large fish or a sea Monster. Strongs allows for the English "whale" but which should properly be chosen to represent what Jesus is reported to have said? Jesus was clearly referencing the Hebrew bible which at Jonah 1 verse 17 uses The Hebrew Word dag which systematically refers to a fish. So logically the Hebrew source, which reports Jonah was swallowed by a "large /huge fish" should rightly influence the choice when it comes to the English translation.
CONCLUSION : While a whale would rightly be classified as a biblical huge "sea monster/creature" and might be seen as a legimate english translation at Matthew 12:40, the original Hebrew referred to a Jonah being swallowed by a huge fish.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #23JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:52 pm WAS JONAH IN A FISH OR A WHALE?
The Greek scriptures have Jesus using the word ketos which basically means large fish or a sea Monster. Strongs allows for the English "whale" but which should properly be chosen to represent what Jesus is reported to have said? Jesus was clearly referencing the Hebrew bible which at Jonah 1 verse 17 uses The Hebrew Word dag which systematically refers to a fish. So logically the Hebrew source, which reports Jonah was swallowed by a "large /huge fish" should rightly influence the choice when it comes to the English translation.
CONCLUSION : While a whale would rightly be classified as a biblical huge "sea monster/creature" and might be seen as a legimate english translation at Matthew 12:40, the original Hebrew referred to a Jonah being swallowed by a huge fish.
See my prophetic post #21 just above your post.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #24This is the same argument as bats being birds. The Hebrew dag refers to fish no more "systematically" than 'oph refers to birds. Aside from their actual existence, there's no specific reason to think that "great dagah" did or did not mean a whale.JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:52 pmJesus was clearly referencing the Hebrew bible which at Jonah 1 verse 17 uses The Hebrew Word dag which systematically refers to a fish. So logically the Hebrew source, which reports Jonah was swallowed by a "large /huge fish" should rightly influence the choice when it comes to the English translation.
As far as Greek goes, κῆτος variously refers to sea monsters in general, any whales, any huge fish, or tuna specifically. While Aristotle did use κῆτος exclusively to mean "whale" in the fourth century B.C. (that's where we get the word "cetacean"), there's no way Jesus or a New Testament author could be expected to know that without supernatural access to all of human language and history through the Holy Spirit or something.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #25.
Interestingly, in the KJV Jonah 2:1 describes the creature as a fish "Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,"
whereas in Matthew 12:40 it's described as a whale. "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
One would think the guy who created the thing would remember what it was, mammal or fish, but obviously not. Onset of Alzheimer's perhaps?
.
Interestingly, in the KJV Jonah 2:1 describes the creature as a fish "Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,"
whereas in Matthew 12:40 it's described as a whale. "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
One would think the guy who created the thing would remember what it was, mammal or fish, but obviously not. Onset of Alzheimer's perhaps?
.
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #26Difflugia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:56 pmThe Hebrew dag refers to fish no more "systematically" than 'oph refers to birds.JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:52 pmJesus was clearly referencing the Hebrew bible which at Jonah 1 verse 17 uses The Hebrew Word dag which systematically refers to a fish. So logically the Hebrew source, which reports Jonah was swallowed by a "large /huge fish" should rightly influence the choice when it comes to the English translation.
There are no instances in the Hebrew scriptures of dag referring to anything but a fish.
Since physiologically it is unlikely a whale could have swallowed a man, it is inaccurate to say "there's no specific reason to think" it was a fish rather than a whale. In any case you cannot say for sure; what we do know for sure is the source texts refers to a "big fish" ; that is not open for debate .
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #27Veteran lobster diver Michael Packard would strongly disagree with your unsupported assertion:JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:06 am
Since physiologically it is unlikely a whale could have swallowed a man, it is inaccurate to say "there's no specific reason to think" it was a fish rather than a whale.
JW
Of course the fact that humans can't survive much longer than 10 minutes without air, the identification of the specific creature that supposedly swallowed Jonah doesn't matter all that much. Jonah would be dead long before his arrival at Nineveh.
'I was completely inside': Lobster diver swallowed by humpback whale off Provincetown
In something truly biblical, Packard was swallowed whole by a humpback whale.
“All of a sudden, I felt this huge shove and the next thing I knew it was completely black,” Packard recalled Friday afternoon following his release from Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis.
https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news ... 653838002/
Tcg
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #28I stand corrected regarding the physicality of a whale, **if ** the above story is true. This (If true) would perhaps represent an additional reason to believe the bible story is true. PS : I am not saying the above story has been fact checked or that it is true (I have not checked its sources but I presume the poster Tcg has verified this is not "fake news" or he would not have posted it).Tcg wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:24 amVeteran lobster diver Michael Packard would strongly disagree with your unsupported assertion:JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:06 am
Since physiologically it is unlikely a whale could have swallowed a man, it is inaccurate to say "there's no specific reason to think" it was a fish rather than a whale.
JW
...
'I was completely inside': Lobster diver swallowed by humpback whale off Provincetown
In something truly biblical, Packard was swallowed whole by a humpback whale.
“All of a sudden, I felt this huge shove and the next thing I knew it was completely black,” Packard recalled Friday afternoon following his release from Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis.
https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news ... 653838002/
Tcg
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #29Not at all. Michael Packard was in the mouth of this whale for about 30 - 40 seconds and he had scuba gear. According to the Jonah mythology he survived a three day journey inside the belly of some ocean going creature. This is a physiological impossibility. Humans can't survive days without air. They can't survive hours without air. Permanent brain damage can occur in as less as three minutes without air.JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:40 amI stand corrected regarding the physicality of a whale. We have reason to believe the bible story is true -see above.Tcg wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:24 amVeteran lobster diver Michael Packard would strongly disagree with your unsupported assertion:JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:06 am
Since physiologically it is unlikely a whale could have swallowed a man, it is inaccurate to say "there's no specific reason to think" it was a fish rather than a whale.
JW
Of course the fact that humans can't survive much longer than 10 minutes without air, the identification of the specific creature that supposedly swallowed Jonah doesn't matter all that much. Jonah would be dead long before his arrival at Nineveh.
'I was completely inside': Lobster diver swallowed by humpback whale off Provincetown
In something truly biblical, Packard was swallowed whole by a humpback whale.
“All of a sudden, I felt this huge shove and the next thing I knew it was completely black,” Packard recalled Friday afternoon following his release from Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis.
https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news ... 653838002/
Tcg
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: A whale of a tale
Post #30How would a diver wearing scuba gear being in the mouth of a whale for 30 - 40 seconds support the mythological tale of a human surviving in the belly of a fish or a whale or whatever for three days?JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:40 am
I stand corrected regarding the physicality of a whale, **if ** the above story is true. This (If true) would perhaps represent an additional reason to believe the bible story is true.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom