A whale of a tale

[nobspeople]

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'?

[JehovahsWitness]

How 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?


Tcg

Are you suggesting then that this story is therefore irrelevant and proves nothing? If so why did you post it?

'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]

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.

How 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?


Tcg

Okay. As I originally said the the Hebrew Word used in scripture speaks of a bit fish which probably was not a whales. This story is therefore irrelevant and privés nothing.

JW

As I've explained numerous times, the type of creature described in this mythological tale is irrelevant. Humans can't survive without air for much more than three minutes. A claim of surviving three days without air is pure absurdity.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

As I've explained numerous times, the type of creature described in this mythological tale is irrelevant.

So who did you post about a man survivant being in the mouth of a whale? What has that got to do with anything ? Were you trying to prove something? if so WHAT?

[Tcg]

As I've explained numerous times, the type of creature described in this mythological tale is irrelevant.

So who did you post about a man survivant being in the mouth of a whale? What has that got to do with anything ? Were you trying to prove something? if so WHAT?

Simply to show the fallacy in this claim:

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

[brunumb]

[Replying to Tcg in post #34]

The story of Jonah and the whale/fish is clearly an example of fake news of its day.

[JehovahsWitness]

Simply to show the fallacy in this claim:

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 the 90 known whale species on Earth, sperm whales are the only species with throats large enough to technically swallow a human.

Though a humpback could easily fit a human inside its huge mouth—which can reach around 10 feet—it's scientifically impossible for the whale to swallow a human once inside, according to Nicola Hodgins of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation, a U.K. nonprofit.

The above is illustrated by our lobster farmer....

On Friday, a lobster diver made headlines when he described miraculously surviving being “swallowed” by a humpback whale off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Michael Packard told the Cape Cod Times that he felt a shove, and “the next thing I knew it was completely black.” He recalled struggling inside the whale’s mouth for about 30 seconds before it surfaced and spat him out.

source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... -heres-why

My statement that it was physiologically unlikely (ie 1 in 90 ) to have been a whale is perfectly accurate.






JW

[JoeyKnothead]

In other news...

https://brobible.com/culture/article/fi ... ale-lying/

I make no comment on the accuracy of the referenced data.

[Difflugia]

The Hebrew dag refers to fish no more "systematically" than 'oph refers to birds.

There are no instances in the Hebrew scriptures of dag referring to anything but a fish.

Except for possibly in Jonah where it might mean a whale, which is the usage in question.

There are no instances of 'oph meaning anything other than bird except for the usage in question.

Your "fish" claim is exactly as valid or flawed as the "bird" claim that you, yourself argued against in the old post I linked and for the same reasons. They stand or fall together.

[Miles]

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.

The Hebrew dag refers to fish no more "systematically" than 'oph refers to birds.

There are no instances in the Hebrew scriptures of dag referring to anything but a fish.

Presuming you mean translations of the Hebrew scriptures, the International Standard Version doesn't refer to it as a fish at all.

Jonah 1:17, 2:1
17 Now the Lord had prepared a large sea creature to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the sea creature for three days and three nights.

2:1
1Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from inside the sea creature.

.

[brunumb]

17 Now the Lord had prepared a large sea creature to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the sea creature for three days and three nights.

Is there any reason given for this marine internment of Jonah, or is it just another case of a miraculous event for the sake of a miracle? It all sounds rather fishy to me. Jehovah works in the absurdist of ways.