Its gets funny when atheist books start with quote like "the thinking person" implying that religious people lack the capacity to think; but then in the same book you complains that boiled down to "if you see another translation other than the one I use to make my case then disregard it".
5:00 to get even more specific the “wild ox” being referred to here has a name, it’s called the Aurochs, a large bovine that is the ancestor to all domestic cattle alive today (sort of like how wolves are the ancestors of dogs). The last of them went extinct in the 1600s and they once inhabited a wide range spreading from Europe, India, North Africa and the Middle East (or Mesopotamia from a biblical standpoint).
Prior to the mid 1800's, the word dragon was used for large reptiles. This means the KJV using the word dragon did not have our modern idea of the term in mind. Dinosaurs would have been called dragons until the mid 1800's.
Wrong, sister. Dragons, Dinosaurs or any thing resembling them didn't exist AND therefore not mentioned in Bible. I am fluent in the Hebrew, and I can tell you that the so-caled "Dinosaurs" found are nothing but bones of big birds - the Phoenix which is mentioned in Bible. The Bible makes it clear that Tanin (Crocadile) is a species of a Snake & whales, dolphins & hippopotamuses are species of Crocadile
The "Ahh! Real Monsters" reference gives my inner Nickelodeon child glee. I forget we're similar age until you mention something that takes me back. Haha
One thing to be pointed out is that the word dragon is also that in ancient Greek where it comes from Dragon means large serpent so the use of dragon in ancient texts should be interpreted as large serpent not as the modern idea.
Hello, Trent. I love your content a lot, it is really educational. I'd love to see your response to any of Professor Plink's videos, which I think is a really smart atheist and presents good arguments to not believe in God. With your abilities, I believe it's possible to debunk him. Thank you in advance!
(I say this as a Protestant, so don’t lump us all together!) Atheists and Evangelicals really do make for strange bedfellows when it comes to a simplistic and misguided reading of Scripture.
When you listen to the atheists many of them were raised as a Christian with a very simplistic and fundamentalist understanding of scripture. That's where they got it from.
Using current venacular to figure out old venacular over 2000 years ago is not a good argument. When we see large or disgusting animals we call them monsters. This is the basis of how the meaning of monster transformed over the years.
Hey Trent, your reminders to subscribe keep getting better and better. Sometimes I even feel sorry for myself for not being genuinely convinced by them, since I subscribed long before you started this haha
This is interesting. And helpful. I never even heard of a cockatrice except from Rhett and Link. Had no idea it was supposedly in the Bible. Haha. Never been a KJV girl, though.
I came to Catholicism through Mormonism so I only read the KJV its what I am most comfortable with, which most of my friends are the same. Although every translations are inevitably going to have issues we must as good followers be diligent and attentive to his word. We must always seek a deeper understanding of his word.
@@lordofthered1257 that is amazing. I hear most ex-Mormons don’t keep any faith in their life, so great for you! Glad you were able to do that. Been looking into the LDS church and their beliefs lately 😬
It was helpful up until Trent said there WERE some mythological creatures in the text. He left out all evidence for the tannin referring to dinosaurs. Job's description of behemoth is 100% consistent with sauropods 🦕 and there is plenty of physical evidence from around the world that suggests humans and extinct dinosaurs lived together in the past. The word "dragon" is the archaic reference to these great serpents. "Dinosaur" wasn't a word until a couple hundred years ago; around the same time people started adopting the myth of evolution theory and its deep-time "millions of years" claim. There is also zero reason to assume that God would describe real animals he created then suddenly switch to mythological creatures invented by mankind's imagination. It is theologically unsound.
Ancient Hebrew beliefs on monsters can be summed up like this: When I'm lying in my bed, and the furniture starts creeping, I'll just laugh and say "Hey cut that out!" and get back to my sleeping cause I know that God's the biggest and He's watching all the while. So when I get scared, I'll think of Him and close my eyes and smile!
My copy of the Vulgate uses 'rinocerotis' literally rhinoceros. My copy of the Clementine Vulgate also uses "rhinocerotis' as well. As the Douay is a direct translation I think that indicates the Vulgate didn't use 'unicerotis' unless mine have stealth modern updates in them, as I obviously don't own original copies of the Vulgate haha.
Leviathan mentioned, but Behemoth fell off the list. It was probably some kind of a mythical primordial giant resembling a wild bovine with a tail as thick as a cypress log and thighs as strong as copper (in ancient Mesopotamian mythology, the Bull of Heaven).
Another interpretation is to connect these to demonic entities rather than common animals. Unicorn: the wild ox could also be seen as a reference to Behemoth, the Bull of Heaven, an image of virility, power, even tyranny, which God is mightier than. Compare 1 Enoch 60:7-9 briefly describes Behemoth, the great monster (demon) that inhabited the wasteland. Cockatrice/Leviathan: this serpent may be a reference to Leviathan, Lotan, Litanu, the servant of the sea god Yam who Baal defeated in Ugaritic mythology. For example, see Isaiah 27:1, which describes the serpent Leviathan. This creature too could have been seen as a demonic entity. Again, 1 Enoch 60:7-9 briefly describes Leviathan, and Job 41 famously gives a long description of Yahweh's superiority to it. Note that, unlike Baal who struggled mightely to defeat Lotan, Yahweh needs no struggle in bringing the beast of chaos to heel. Dragons: again, demonic entities. You noted the dragon of Revelation for example. You mention Psalm 74:13 describing the heads of dragons being broken on the waters. This understanding is also reflected in the Byzantine hymns of Theophany, which say "God the Word has gone searching for us in the lairs of dragons. Destroying the terrible snares the enemy has laid for men, He makes prisoner him who bruised all mankind at the heel." This is drawing a clear connection between the dragons and the serpent of Eden, which is also reflected in Scripture (e.g. the dragon of Revelation).
@@youtubeKathy Depends on what archetype of Bigfoot you're talking about. The cryptid archetype is more of a hominid animal, depicted similar to an orangutan or gorilla. The Chinook _skookum_ archetype is closer to demonically possessed humans seen in the Bible.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Wrong, Bible makes it clear that those animals are a species of snake, and Enoch makes it clear that they are a species of crocodile (tanin), it follows, that tanin itself is a type of snake. This is the correct answer: I am fluent in Hebrew so here are the misunderstood "mysterious" animals in the Bible, and on that opportunity I urge Christians you learn the Hebrew alongside Latin & Greek - it is crucial for the understanding of our holy Scriptures: Tanin = the Crocadile kind, which is a species of a Snake, including related deadly lizards Leviathan latch-snake = whale Leviathan serpentine-snake = dolphin Behemoth snake = hippopotamus (ancestors of all cattle) Reem = rhino And you forgot to mention Ziz Shadai = the Phoenix bird (yes, that bird was real but its nature was misunderstood & became a subject of fantasy) King James was a Protestant pagan lol But Trent was wrong. The fire mentioned refers to the gas & smoke coming out of him, which is a type of fire. Nothing allegorical or mythological about it.
@@moth_farmer to point out one single origin for every mythic animal or vice versa is too generalistic. There were many factors other than dinosaur bones and fear of reptiles that the concept of dragons came from. Despite their differences for example. The similarities of western and eastern dragons(particularly their heads. Are too similar to be coincidence. There were also fossils of tiny theropods in China that glided on membraned wings. Any of those species that got larger or other larger theropods that developed it via convergent evolution would've looked oh too similar to what we know as dragons.
@JustUsCrazyBoyz sorry, but I don't believe in Darwinian evolution, lol.😅 I was merely saying that pterosaurs are pretty much dragons. Also, I would like to state that the most likely reason there are dragon myths and legends is the fact that 'dinosaurs' lived alongside man, at least for awhile. Think about it... almost every dragon legend ends the dragon being slain, that's why they went extinct. Just a thought.
This video is going to look pretty silly when we discover Leviathan lurking in the Marianas Trench one day! On a serious note, have you done a video about the manner of receiving the sacrament? I mean both the debates about receiving in one or both kinds, as well as receiving by hand or mouth? As a Protestant that is something I’m curious about.
As a cradle Catholic I’ve learned through the Catechism (which I invite you to read) that in both accidents, bread and wine, we have all of Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity. So either if one takes just the consecrated host or just the consecrated wine, one is receiving Christ whole. But if you have gone or seen a Catholic Mass, the Priest, in accordance to Christ’s commandment to the Apostles at the Last Supper, does take both accidents. And your other question, take the Eucharist either on the hand or the mouth, here in Mexico tradition has always been on the mouth but in the US I was surprised to learn the tradition to be in the hand. Believing Christ is really present on the consecrated bread, any small piece that would detach itself from it HAS ALL OF CHRIST. As we believe he can’t be “divided”, any small piece that falls to the ground or stays in your hand and not taken absolute care of it is committing sacrilege. It is sad for me when I stand to receive Him and the priest doesn’t have someone holding a “patena” so any particle that falls rests on it and then the priest cleans them over the chalice and pours a little water to consume any small piece. During “c0v1d” we took on the hand but I definitely always looked at my hand and if I even saw what I would think is a little fragment, I would put my tongue on it. I know it may sound as an exaggeration but this is our Lord we are talking about. God bless!!
@@atgredwell in the US the traditional way of receiving was also on the tongue but after Vatican II a great many parishes ignored the original guidelines and kept doing communion in the hand. So they ultimately made an adjustment to allow it's more widespread practice (where before you specifically had to seek an indult for permission - which sadly was taken as carte blanche to change the practice instead of being obedient and continuing the practice of receiving on the tongue or asking for explicit permission).
In all seriousness, if you want to know anything about the sacrament, holy communion, the "Lord's supper," eucharist, etc... don't ask a Catholic or a Protestant. Find a Messianic Jewish Synagogue and ask their rabbi how you can attend their next Passover sedar. Christian denominations have utterly deconstructed the origins and meaning of Jesus taking the bread and wine. Jesus and his disciples were Jewish and were observing the Passover (the "last supper") immediately prior to the crucifixion. The crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of the Passover. This is why he is called a "sacrifice" and the "Lamb of God." Edit for clarification: Messianic Jews are Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah and the New Testament as scripture. Paul and all the disciples were in this category. Often their congregations include many non-Jews.
2:19 i speak Arabic Hey it isn't Hebrew but it's close And we use the same word we use for rhino to refer to unicorns wahid alqarn (Literally translated one who has one horn) Why do we call a creature with two horns one horned I don't know
I think it depends on translation. Plenty of good Protestant translations. Some still have problems like KJV being outdated, or NIV being biased and editorial. But Catholic Bibles aren’t free from these problems either.
11:40 I now have the image of God sitting on His throne with a GIGANTIC dragon on His lap like a cat and when someone approaches Him, He slowly swivels the throne around and calmly looks at the approacher. All the time, this dragon on His lap is just enjoying the greatest belly rubs of all time and sprawled out like a cat. Likely? Not at all. But the mental image was too brilliant to keep to myself. Hope whoever reads this enjoys it too!
I do find Bible translations kind of a funny pastime, long as they aren’t heretical or anything. I remember a Bible study of Daniel where we read out the long canticle after Dan’s companions almost got roasted and started praising nature. My translation had “All you sea monsters, bless the lord” while one person had “whales” and one had “dolphins” 😂 Having been a very long day, we joked the line must be in reference to battle dolphins or something in the original translation. I still think “battle dolphin” when I read that verse 😁 The unicorn thing makes sense to me, though maybe because I already heard of the “rhinos are just fat unicorns” meme so didn’t see it too much as a leap. Jimmy Akin did a Mysterious World episode on the flaming snakes in the OT, so those types of descriptions and references make sense. I’m still hovering on the dragons thing. I definitely doubt the ‘dragons’ mentioned would be like the Western ones we imagine (bulky, large wings, flame breathing, etc), though I don’t see them completely as Eastern style either (long body with no wings, whiskers, etc). Probably a mix with an emphasis towards desert snakes and lizards since it is the Middle East and that area the writers lived in. There’s a few species from the franchise How to Train Your Dragon (both books and movies/shows) that I picture being possible, such as Fireworms, Terrible Terrors/Commons, Sidewinders, Glow Worms, Venomous Vorpents, Whispering Deaths, and Breathquenchers. I would love if a bunch of the other species could exist (like Deadly Nadders, Razorwings, and Changelings), but not sure if they would really fit the general laws of nature. Personally would totally love if there are dragons they are at least large enough to ride and fly 😁 scary, yes, but also sounds really fun!
Hey, Trent. Wondering if you could do a rebuttal on any of Prophet of Zod’s videos. He’s recently done a few “rebuttal” videos of his own against the Thomistic Institute and Fr. Casey Cole. Thanks!
So, I do agree that the unicorn is almost certainly a rhino. However, it’s not entirely clear what leviathan is. I’m interested in your take on Behemoth though, as it almost certainly describes a sauropod dinosaur. Remember, dinosaur wasn’t a word back then, so they likely would’ve defaulted to the word dragon, which likely would’ve referred to any massive beast, probably reptilian in form, that was dangerous and ferocious to humans. There are ancient pottery arts that display sauropods, paintings of triceratops and T Rexes and velociraptors. Even today, natives in the Congo describe creatures that resemble pterodactyls, titanoboa, and even possibly smaller sauropods. I don’t care how old the Earth itself is, but there’s just too much evidence that indicates to me that life has only been around for a few thousand years, maybe 10-20,000 at most. Not millions.
I agree! Ancient people saw creatures that have gone extinct. And evolutionists sometimes find supposed extinct animals still alive and then call them living fossils🤦🏻♀️
Hey, Trent since today's video is about mythical creatures, what is the Christian view of the Golem? A creation of clay mostly associated with the Hebrews.
I love how we use the term metaphor as if its to cloak or disconnect ourselves from its meaning. Of course dragons are real. We need to stop being such materialist its not talking about a flying biological lizard and that goes for all "monsters" in the Bible including Angels and Demons.
Some supposed mythical creatures mentioned in Job are extinct dinosaurs (dragons)and plesiosaurs (leviathan). Evolution insists that people weren’t around, but if you believe in the 6 days of creation, it makes sense that people saw dinosaurs until they were t extinct. I choose to believe God over man.
Yes Leviathan could well refer to what you said but they could also refer to actual dragons, right? I mean ok, i understand it could be allegorical or metaphorical but what's stopping us from taking the text and their descriptions as literal? 🤔 Maybe fire-breathing dragons did exist at one point of time but not anymore. There r so many legends of dragons in many cultures around the world. Could they all be referring to mythical creatures? Likely. But could they also be referring to real creatures? Also likely. And Behemoth in the book of Job could very well hv referred to a real dinosaur. I mean which animal would have a tail that could swing like a cedar tree? In the book, God was taking Job on a tour and describing to him about all the creatures he had made. And with the assumption that Job had actually seen these creatures. Right? At least the language God was using seems to suggest so. I mean why would God describe to Job about mythical creatures? Just sharing my thoughts.
What's stopping us from taking the text and their descriptions as literal? Nothing, I suppose. But keep in mind that Job is a poem, laden with formal literary qualities (whose names I do not know); it would be rather silly to take the elegant (and probably hyperbolic) descriptions of creatures and their incredible might, which were meant to prove the point that God is stronger than all of them, as literal, precise descriptions of creatures living at the time of its writing. It's a poem that, literally, begins with "there once was a man named Job...;" it contains the timeless allegorical intro! Indeed, you are well within your rights to interpret this how you please, so long as you remember that the point of those passages is to say that God is in control and is stronger than anything in all of Creation.
@@jonahstephens2904 I understand. The point of the book is to say that God is in control and stronger than all the creatures. I get it. Just like the point of Genesis is to show that God created everything....the ultimate source of all creation. I get that too. This is how most Catholics and many Christians go about skipping all the verses that they simply don't want to accept as literal, or even as a possibility of being literal. Just broadbrush entire chapters as allegorical and move on. Great! Tell me, IF Leviathan and Behemoth (dinosaur) were real creatures who Job must have witnessed, why would that disturb you? Give me one good reason. I'll say it again. These passages and the creatures mentioned 'could' be allegorical. I have no problem with that. But they could also be literal. I have no problem with that too.
Dragons. In some places the dragon is used as a metaphor for the devil, as you say, [Daniel and Revelation]. In other places it appears to mean crocodile [example 'he will trample the young lion and the dragon, Psalm 90/91:12]. Crocodiles occur in the Nile in Egypt, so they would have been known about in the time of King David.
@@jeffreycole2816 oh stop this crap already. this is a catholic account that doesn't believe that hyper-evangelical young earth creationism nonsense. catholic faith is perfectly compatible with dinosaurs that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.
The whole dinosaur family (which encompasses the birds) is believed to be much more closely related to crocodilians than lizards/snakes. So if you are defining dragons specifically as a giant lizard or serpent, mosasaurs would arguably fit that description better, since they are believed to fall squarely within the lizard family (being particularly related to snakes and monitor lizards).
I also found the word "dragons" in the KJV translation of Psalm 148: "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:", but other translations instead post it as "sea creatures".
A good summary, though personally I prefer the explanation given by certain Traditionalist metaphysicians, that such creatures as dragons (widely attested to have existed across unconnected cultural groups) did in fact exist, and may exist today, but were not creatures as we understand them. They were instead 'subtle beings', on a different plane of existence which was pressed into our own, but since this time, we no longer intersect with this 'subtle world', and thus, they are not encountered, nor is there a physical trace of them. On this understanding, they're something between an animal and an angelic being, knowing as we do that angels can also be manifest physically in our world, we can touch them, they aren't just projections. So too with dragons. They existed on a borderland.
6:40 funny comment coming from a Roman Catholic, acting as though Protestant sects are insane meanwhile Catholics have sects like sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, or conclavists. Some great points here early on, totally off base when it comes to dragons/leviathan/ignoring behemoth.
Does anyone know what the most accepted view of the firmament is? I have a family member who believes the moon landing couldn’t have happened because of the wall of water
Dragons are a generic term for lizards, reptiles and other animals that are cold-blooded. We call the Komodo Dragons, Dragons, when they are nothing more than large cold-blooded animals that were capable of killing humans. We called dinosaurs Dragons prior to the 18th century.
Really I thought they didn’t find dinosaur bones until sometime in the 1800s. I’ve never heard of them being called dragons before that unless you’re talking about Saint George and the dragon?
@femaleKCRoyalsFan They found dinosaurs boons have been found from ancient times, but they called them Dragons. It wasn't until the 1800s that they created the classification we now call dinosaurs. With the explosion of scientific methods and enquiring minds. The first person's calling it dinosaurs were unaware of the history of dragons. Just like they imagined (made up) the modern understanding of the Unicorn (a horse with the horn of a narwhal) no such animal existed, but the name has.
Trent, you did a good job on this video : the Dragon of the Chaos waters of Genesis 1:21 is not the dinosaur of ken Ham & Hovind: sad fundamentalists that have been debunked by Evangelicals such as Dr.Michael S.Heiser O.T. Biblical scholar and Dr. Hugh Ross astrophysicist, but is a reference to a chaos monster/ Teamat a mythical supernatural water beast of Chaos as God is bringing order out of Chaos and His power is above all these other supernatural beings of the Gentile cultures around the Hebrews. Genesis is a polemic against these earlier creation myths. That's why Genesis doesn't line up with modern Science because it wasn't giving a scientific analysis of Creation.
Where can I learn more about the doctors and scholars that debunked Ken Ham, and more about Genesis being a polemic against the gentile myths of the time?
A more accurate tile to you're Book is when SOME Protestants argue like Atheists! You're next Book should be when Mormons argue like Catholics for their Only True church. Love U Trent from an Evangelical Protestant that has similar views as Dr.Gavin Ortlund.
That's kinda sad with regards to the unicorn symbolism if they're translating it as a wild ox these days. Horns are usually attached at the head, pointing up to the Heavens. To have two horns can either mean the Left and the Right(both weakness and strength), or of two minds since they're attached to the head. To have one horn on the Head means a uniting will. However depending on context, unicorn can also mean primitive since God split things into two. There's a reason why the dietary laws of Israel has to do with number 2. E.g. split hooves, ruminant animals(4 is divisible by 2), etc. Not those with a single hoof, single chamber stomach, etc. They represent in some sense Adam and Eve, Male and Female. To have no split parts means it cannot be "tamed", for typically what tames a man is the woman. Rhinoceros would actually be a good translation. :/ Likewise, dragons and monsters actually make sense. They're meant to represent chimeric hybridization. An incomplete unity between Masculine and Feminine, an evil bridesgroom and a pitiable bride. You see it in our world now. We just call this chimeric being "Transgender"---an attempt to unite Masculinity and Femininity together without the aid of God. It's meant to contrast proper unity which is represented in Christ, the bridegroom, and His Church, us, the bride. Gosh, how much symbolism are we losing because we do not have a counterpart in English, and likewise not having any understanding of symbolism!
Unicorn comes from the Greek and Latin, not the original Hebrew, as Trent mentioned. That's why modern translations don't use the word or its symbolism, because it's likely translation error.
@@renjithjoseph7135 I just spent some time researching the original Hebrew, and even the modern Hebraic tradition is in disagreement what animal a Re'em is even. Some Rabbinic sources do think it's a one-horned creature which is pretty much in line with Septuagint translations since the Septuagint came from Greek speaking Jews originally. I don't think they would've translated it in error as "one-horned" if they're well-educated in Hebrew. St. Jerome also seems pretty clear that it's a one-horned creature, or at least a creature with one prominent horn (he translates it either as rhinoceros from Hebrew or unicornis from Greek). I'd rather trust the instincts of ancient Greek-Jews and Saints who studied closer to 1st century Jews (St. Jerome was 4th century, but close enough than us here in the 21st century) over "modern" translations, mate. Modernists seems lacking very much in ancient symbolism. Hence why rhinoceros seems to be the apt translation if we were to be "scientific" about the translation. "Archaelogy-wise", while we haven't found "bones" of rhinoceros in the Middle East area, it's the same for Europe, but we have paintings in Europe that have rhinos with them for some reason (see cave paintings in France), which means rhinos may perhaps have roamed also the Middle East at some point in time, but most likely has become extinct.
I don't understand how the reference to mythical creatures could be used as 'evidence' against the bible, when it already postulates other miracles, such as the resurrection of the Son of God. These references can then be taken as a matter of faith, if one already believes in the one true God.
Reference to mythical creatures isn't used as "evidence" against the Bible but as evidence against the theory of a literal inerrancy of the Bible. Even Paul argued against the "Jewish fables" (Titus 1:14) and "old wive's tales" (1 Timothy 4:7) but some people cannot understand the difference between the term "God inspired" and "God dictated".
So... We believe in an all-powerful being that can create the universe with nothing more than a couple of words . We believe in angels and devils , but a lizard that can breathe fire ( mind you , scientists have admitted that a creature that can breathe fire is possible ) is incomprehensible .
I feel like the unicorn one is kind of obvious if you think about it for more than two seconds. Like, Jesus is said in revelations to be riding a horse, why wouldnt he ride a unicorn if they where purported to be real? And also just yeah... Rhinos exist. Obviously its that.
Hard disagree on this one. I mean, when it comes to dragons at least. I personally find a view that Bible mentions dinosaurs far more convincing. There is no reason to assume God can't acknowledge dinosaurs as his creations. Even if we disagree with Young Earth theory. It's very possible some dinosaurs survived for a long time and died off recently, like Latimeria (which scientists were convinced was long gone too until recently), and other creatures from the Jurassic period did - we simply didn't discover this fact yet. So jews actually could've known about them. It would perfectly explain all other stories involving dragons from the ancient times too. Even st. Augustin talks about "dragons" as if he saw them, in great detail. And yes, I do even suggest some of these dinosaurs could've used venom or other substances that would've caused burns and would be considered fire by ancient standards. We do know many reptiles that use many different kinds of venoms even today. Trent's theory may be a lot more in line with modern scientific view on dinosaurs, but that shouldn't be a primary concern to us. For me, Trent's take only causes more problems. If we agree that God in the Bible is talking about non-existing creatures as if he was proud of them and was responsible for creating them, and try to sell it as ancient authors simply being ignorant of nature, this obviously looks like we're compromising the nature of the Bible to a great extent.
I’ve also heard the word used in hebrew for single horn is an akkadian cognate and is actually plural, two horns, so probably a bull/ox. But even a rhino would definitely make sense
@@Yipper64 Did you translate the scripture in the original text in context? Investigate it yourself. I only take God's word as gospel, not anyone else's. A fool blindly listen and follows man
@@Advisory_Vessel I dont need because he did? Look, what makes more sense in context, they randomly bring up dragons, or that they where talking about jackals? Its like, pretty simple logic here.
@@Yipper64 Job 41:18-21 God is describing one of his creations and telling Job to know his place throughout the end of the book. Why would God explain a lackluster creature he made to put things into perspective for Job? When Job ask further God ask Job if he was around since the beginning to again explain to Job to know his place. When God says, trust his word and stop with the foolish ways
You seem to not want to accept this possibility, but what if the creatures actually did exist? In exactly or more or less the same way that we think they are. They just simply were killed. What about Saint George and the dragon? I have no qualms with your reasoning. But it’s completely understandable to think that fantastical sounding creatures once did exist.
It's a rhino, that's the simplest and most logical explanation. Marco Polo also identified rhinos as unicorns pointing out that these creatures were fatter than he expected.
As someone who believes in a young earth I do believe some of the references are to dinosaurs. And who knows, some of the angelic beings are described as looking crazy so that could also be some of this. And for the stuff like unicorns its clearly referencing a specific dialects where its a real animal and the word just took a odd path through translation.
Why should I believe in so many different dinosaurs and yet say dragons could never have existed? Many different cultures from all around the globe have dragon stories, not Dino stories. Also, Daniel killed a dragon in the Bible. 🐉
Unicorns exist and are known as rhinoceros. Considering that hippo means horse, and that rhinos resemble hippos, it could be that they are referring to hippo-like creatures with one central horn: the rhino
Great episode, Trent! Two quick comments: 4:40 - If someone wants something pre-KJV to point to as a Catholic, here's the Job verses from the 1609 Douay (vol. 1), though translated back ca. 1580: "Will the Rhinoceros serve thee, and will he tarry at thy stall? Shalt thou tie the Rhinoceros with thy collar to plough, or will he break the clods of the valleys after thee?" 6:07 - English scholars are increasingly of the opinion that Wycliffe had nothing to do with the translation attributed to him. In fact, they believe it was possibly an unauthorized Catholic gloss on the Vulgate used for training priests that didn't know enough Latin yet. See Henry A. Kelly's book "The Middle English Bible: A Reassessment" for more on this.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Dear brother Trent, I am very happy about this video since I am fluent in Hebrew AND an expert on the subject. Here are the misunderstood "mysterious" animals in the Bible, and on that opportunity I urge Christians you learn the Hebrew alongside Latin & Greek - it is crucial for the understanding of our holy Scriptures: Tanin = the Crocadile kind, of which a Snake is a subspecies, and in turn, whales & dolphins are 2 subspecies of snake. Leviathan latch-snake = whale Leviathan serpentine-snake = dolphin Behemoth tanin = hippopotamus (ancestors of all cattle) Reem = rhino And you forgot to mention Ziz Shadai = the Phoenix bird (yes, that bird was real but its nature was misunderstood & became a subject of fantasy) King James was a Protestant pagan lol But brother, no, you're wrong. The fire mentioned refers to the gas & smoke coming out of him, which is a type of fire. Nothing allegorical or mythological about it.
Whenever people try to debunk unicorns (uni-corn=one horn(ed animal)) in the Bible they typically claim it's actually a unicorn (uni-corn=one horn(ed animal)) but a real one horned animal that actually exists because the Bible actually talks about real things. Wow what a concept! P.S. we derived a word specially for the Hebrew word in question. The word is reem (from reyim). Still, no translators use it because they're a bunch of idiots. There are plenty of loan words and derivatives from Hebrew found in the Bible but reem couldn't make it because everyone wants to argue on how to actually translate it, meanwhile Selah (occurs way more times than reyim) is left alone. Also if I'm not mistaken reyim appears to be plural yet of course is simply a plural-only noun which is something a lot of languages have yet those same "Bible scholars" you trust so much don't know that shamayim (in the first verse of the Bible) is the same way. Accurately translated Heaven (KJV) not heavens (else). Plural-only words in English include clothes, pants, & undies/nickers. No idea why most are clothes related but it makes it easier to get examples once you know that.
Funny you should mention YHWH and shortly thereafter Superman as I started writing a book on YHWH that began with the story of Superman. You will find in the Superman myths correspondences with Judai religious beliefs. Superman was originally invented by two Jewish boys in Toronto in 1936. I only got to chapter fiur of my book when Covid hit and haven’t been back to it since.
trent i love your content but im sure youd agree that every word in the bible is there for a reason, which means none are reason-less. Fire out of the mouth means fire out of the mouth, it was physically descriptive for a reason. aka, the catholic view is that there were definitely creatures during the times of the prophets that arent here now. @The Councel of Trent
I can’t believe that the centuries old books can’t be debunked by Reddit memes!!! they are the greatest source of knowledge!!!
That's because Biblical memes are wittier. :-)
*Millenias old Books
Liars like him will get you into hell.
@@SonsoftheEagleHope you're not referring to Trent right?
I just had an argument in a comment section on reddit because I said that Christ was real and them lost like 50 reddit karma💀
Your intro comments about subscribing always bring a chuckle out of me. Thank you for all your hard work!
It's always good cheese. :-)
I can’t help but think Laura is the inspiration
The first time I saw him do that I was confused at first because I thought he was being serious lol.?😂
Its gets funny when atheist books start with quote like "the thinking person" implying that religious people lack the capacity to think; but then in the same book you complains that boiled down to "if you see another translation other than the one I use to make my case then disregard it".
5:00 to get even more specific the “wild ox” being referred to here has a name, it’s called the Aurochs, a large bovine that is the ancestor to all domestic cattle alive today (sort of like how wolves are the ancestors of dogs). The last of them went extinct in the 1600s and they once inhabited a wide range spreading from Europe, India, North Africa and the Middle East (or Mesopotamia from a biblical standpoint).
Great! Please bring more rebuttals on end times prophecy. That one with the adventist guy (hope through prophecy) was fire
What's the title of the rebuttal video?
@@BasilTU th-cam.com/video/yx4-3XEntNs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_zJvsAs5xzcr4Bs-
Prior to the mid 1800's, the word dragon was used for large reptiles. This means the KJV using the word dragon did not have our modern idea of the term in mind. Dinosaurs would have been called dragons until the mid 1800's.
Wrong, sister. Dragons, Dinosaurs or any thing resembling them didn't exist AND therefore not mentioned in Bible. I am fluent in the Hebrew, and I can tell you that the so-caled "Dinosaurs" found are nothing but bones of big birds - the Phoenix which is mentioned in Bible. The Bible makes it clear that Tanin (Crocadile) is a species of a Snake & whales, dolphins & hippopotamuses are species of Crocadile
"Dissident Catholic John Wycliffe"
I don't know if it's intentional, but that's such a great little shot at Trail of Blood Baptist successionists.
The "Ahh! Real Monsters" reference gives my inner Nickelodeon child glee. I forget we're similar age until you mention something that takes me back. Haha
I had a feeling he was making that reference, glad I'm not the only one.
One thing to be pointed out is that the word dragon is also that in ancient Greek where it comes from Dragon means large serpent so the use of dragon in ancient texts should be interpreted as large serpent not as the modern idea.
no, they knew what dragons were than, hydra was a large serpent and mythical
dragons are real
@@snokehusk223 bruh
@@acc3085 what
@@snokehusk223 wdym "what" bro you're literally saying dragons exist
@@acc3085 existed*, not anymore
Hello, Trent. I love your content a lot, it is really educational. I'd love to see your response to any of Professor Plink's videos, which I think is a really smart atheist and presents good arguments to not believe in God. With your abilities, I believe it's possible to debunk him. Thank you in advance!
(I say this as a Protestant, so don’t lump us all together!)
Atheists and Evangelicals really do make for strange bedfellows when it comes to a simplistic and misguided reading of Scripture.
When you listen to the atheists many of them were raised as a Christian with a very simplistic and fundamentalist understanding of scripture. That's where they got it from.
Don't make all Evangelicals into Smplistic Fundamentalists!
There is a vast difference!
Dayman? Is that you?
@@davidjanbaz7728 That’s fair. I should have said Fundamentalists.
@@Forester- Sadly true. Spot on the money
To this day, we say that someone really bad is a "monster" and something horrible is a "monstrosity." This does not mean that we believe in monsters.
Using current venacular to figure out old venacular over 2000 years ago is not a good argument. When we see large or disgusting animals we call them monsters. This is the basis of how the meaning of monster transformed over the years.
Not really the same thing.
I never would have thought I'd hear Trent mention Omni Man or Homelander lol
Hey Trent, your reminders to subscribe keep getting better and better.
Sometimes I even feel sorry for myself for not being genuinely convinced by them, since I subscribed long before you started this haha
This is interesting. And helpful.
I never even heard of a cockatrice except from Rhett and Link. Had no idea it was supposedly in the Bible. Haha.
Never been a KJV girl, though.
I came to Catholicism through Mormonism so I only read the KJV its what I am most comfortable with, which most of my friends are the same. Although every translations are inevitably going to have issues we must as good followers be diligent and attentive to his word. We must always seek a deeper understanding of his word.
@@lordofthered1257 that is amazing. I hear most ex-Mormons don’t keep any faith in their life, so great for you! Glad you were able to do that. Been looking into the LDS church and their beliefs lately 😬
It was helpful up until Trent said there WERE some mythological creatures in the text. He left out all evidence for the tannin referring to dinosaurs. Job's description of behemoth is 100% consistent with sauropods 🦕 and there is plenty of physical evidence from around the world that suggests humans and extinct dinosaurs lived together in the past. The word "dragon" is the archaic reference to these great serpents. "Dinosaur" wasn't a word until a couple hundred years ago; around the same time people started adopting the myth of evolution theory and its deep-time "millions of years" claim.
There is also zero reason to assume that God would describe real animals he created then suddenly switch to mythological creatures invented by mankind's imagination. It is theologically unsound.
Counterpoint, dragons are often representative of the devil, or demons. I see no reason why the mention of dragons in the bible is problematic.
because demons don't have bodies. The way dragons are referenced they seem to just be large reptilian animals that are being talked about.
Only because the 1st Snake was used as a tool, an agent of the Satan to deceive Adam & Eve, that is the only reason they are linked
Ancient Hebrew beliefs on monsters can be summed up like this: When I'm lying in my bed, and the furniture starts creeping, I'll just laugh and say "Hey cut that out!" and get back to my sleeping cause I know that God's the biggest and He's watching all the while. So when I get scared, I'll think of Him and close my eyes and smile!
My copy of the Vulgate uses 'rinocerotis' literally rhinoceros. My copy of the Clementine Vulgate also uses "rhinocerotis' as well.
As the Douay is a direct translation I think that indicates the Vulgate didn't use 'unicerotis' unless mine have stealth modern updates in them, as I obviously don't own original copies of the Vulgate haha.
The Latin name for the one-horned variety of rhino is "rhinoceros unicornis"
Leviathan mentioned, but Behemoth fell off the list. It was probably some kind of a mythical primordial giant resembling a wild bovine with a tail as thick as a cypress log and thighs as strong as copper (in ancient Mesopotamian mythology, the Bull of Heaven).
Another interpretation is to connect these to demonic entities rather than common animals.
Unicorn: the wild ox could also be seen as a reference to Behemoth, the Bull of Heaven, an image of virility, power, even tyranny, which God is mightier than. Compare 1 Enoch 60:7-9 briefly describes Behemoth, the great monster (demon) that inhabited the wasteland.
Cockatrice/Leviathan: this serpent may be a reference to Leviathan, Lotan, Litanu, the servant of the sea god Yam who Baal defeated in Ugaritic mythology. For example, see Isaiah 27:1, which describes the serpent Leviathan. This creature too could have been seen as a demonic entity. Again, 1 Enoch 60:7-9 briefly describes Leviathan, and Job 41 famously gives a long description of Yahweh's superiority to it. Note that, unlike Baal who struggled mightely to defeat Lotan, Yahweh needs no struggle in bringing the beast of chaos to heel.
Dragons: again, demonic entities. You noted the dragon of Revelation for example. You mention Psalm 74:13 describing the heads of dragons being broken on the waters. This understanding is also reflected in the Byzantine hymns of Theophany, which say "God the Word has gone searching for us in the lairs of dragons. Destroying the terrible snares the enemy has laid for men, He makes prisoner him who bruised all mankind at the heel." This is drawing a clear connection between the dragons and the serpent of Eden, which is also reflected in Scripture (e.g. the dragon of Revelation).
@@youtubeKathy Depends on what archetype of Bigfoot you're talking about. The cryptid archetype is more of a hominid animal, depicted similar to an orangutan or gorilla. The Chinook _skookum_ archetype is closer to demonically possessed humans seen in the Bible.
Nice
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Wrong, Bible makes it clear that those animals are a species of snake, and Enoch makes it clear that they are a species of crocodile (tanin), it follows, that tanin itself is a type of snake. This is the correct answer: I am fluent in Hebrew so here are the misunderstood "mysterious" animals in the Bible, and on that opportunity I urge Christians you learn the Hebrew alongside Latin & Greek - it is crucial for the understanding of our holy Scriptures:
Tanin = the Crocadile kind, which is a species of a Snake, including related deadly lizards
Leviathan latch-snake = whale
Leviathan serpentine-snake = dolphin
Behemoth snake = hippopotamus (ancestors of all cattle)
Reem = rhino
And you forgot to mention Ziz Shadai = the Phoenix bird (yes, that bird was real but its nature was misunderstood & became a subject of fantasy)
King James was a Protestant pagan lol
But Trent was wrong. The fire mentioned refers to the gas & smoke coming out of him, which is a type of fire. Nothing allegorical or mythological about it.
I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to mythical animals. All myths have some truth tied to them.
What else do you call a flying reptile ? ( pterosaur or the first term used, dragon)
@@moth_farmer to point out one single origin for every mythic animal or vice versa is too generalistic. There were many factors other than dinosaur bones and fear of reptiles that the concept of dragons came from.
Despite their differences for example. The similarities of western and eastern dragons(particularly their heads. Are too similar to be coincidence.
There were also fossils of tiny theropods in China that glided on membraned wings. Any of those species that got larger or other larger theropods that developed it via convergent evolution would've looked oh too similar to what we know as dragons.
@JustUsCrazyBoyz sorry, but I don't believe in Darwinian evolution, lol.😅 I was merely saying that pterosaurs are pretty much dragons.
Also, I would like to state that the most likely reason there are dragon myths and legends is the fact that 'dinosaurs' lived alongside man, at least for awhile.
Think about it... almost every dragon legend ends the dragon being slain, that's why they went extinct. Just a thought.
@@moth_farmer I don't believe Darwinian Evolution myself. Just the observable evolution we know of.
@@JustUsCrazyBoyz like variation within a kind?
This video is going to look pretty silly when we discover Leviathan lurking in the Marianas Trench one day!
On a serious note, have you done a video about the manner of receiving the sacrament? I mean both the debates about receiving in one or both kinds, as well as receiving by hand or mouth? As a Protestant that is something I’m curious about.
As a cradle Catholic I’ve learned through the Catechism (which I invite you to read) that in both accidents, bread and wine, we have all of Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity. So either if one takes just the consecrated host or just the consecrated wine, one is receiving Christ whole. But if you have gone or seen a Catholic Mass, the Priest, in accordance to Christ’s commandment to the Apostles at the Last Supper, does take both accidents. And your other question, take the Eucharist either on the hand or the mouth, here in Mexico tradition has always been on the mouth but in the US I was surprised to learn the tradition to be in the hand. Believing Christ is really present on the consecrated bread, any small piece that would detach itself from it HAS ALL OF CHRIST. As we believe he can’t be “divided”, any small piece that falls to the ground or stays in your hand and not taken absolute care of it is committing sacrilege. It is sad for me when I stand to receive Him and the priest doesn’t have someone holding a “patena” so any particle that falls rests on it and then the priest cleans them over the chalice and pours a little water to consume any small piece. During “c0v1d” we took on the hand but I definitely always looked at my hand and if I even saw what I would think is a little fragment, I would put my tongue on it. I know it may sound as an exaggeration but this is our Lord we are talking about. God bless!!
That would be a great Trent Horn video!
@@atgredwell in the US the traditional way of receiving was also on the tongue but after Vatican II a great many parishes ignored the original guidelines and kept doing communion in the hand. So they ultimately made an adjustment to allow it's more widespread practice (where before you specifically had to seek an indult for permission - which sadly was taken as carte blanche to change the practice instead of being obedient and continuing the practice of receiving on the tongue or asking for explicit permission).
In all seriousness, if you want to know anything about the sacrament, holy communion, the "Lord's supper," eucharist, etc... don't ask a Catholic or a Protestant. Find a Messianic Jewish Synagogue and ask their rabbi how you can attend their next Passover sedar. Christian denominations have utterly deconstructed the origins and meaning of Jesus taking the bread and wine. Jesus and his disciples were Jewish and were observing the Passover (the "last supper") immediately prior to the crucifixion. The crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of the Passover. This is why he is called a "sacrifice" and the "Lamb of God."
Edit for clarification:
Messianic Jews are Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah and the New Testament as scripture. Paul and all the disciples were in this category. Often their congregations include many non-Jews.
@@atgred Beware the traditions of man.
Of all the things I was expecting Trent to reference today, Omni Man and Homelander were not in that list.
I think y’all don’t realize how big of a nerd Trent is. -Kyle
2:19 i speak Arabic
Hey it isn't Hebrew but it's close
And we use the same word we use for rhino to refer to unicorns wahid alqarn (Literally translated one who has one horn)
Why do we call a creature with two horns one horned
I don't know
Maybe they only considered one horn to be a “true” horn?
@@EpoRose1 🤔 maybe
The closer species of Rhino that lives in India only has one horn. So that would explain it.
Protestants: I only believe in the scripture
Protestant scripture: is badly mistranslated
Catholics seem to say the exact same thing.
I think it depends on translation. Plenty of good Protestant translations. Some still have problems like KJV being outdated, or NIV being biased and editorial. But Catholic Bibles aren’t free from these problems either.
What is Protestant scripture?
@@brutus896 I assume he means translations, like KJV.
@@ShiniGuraiJokerwhere did the canon of the Bible come from though? It wasn’t from Protestants 🤷🏽♀️
11:40 I now have the image of God sitting on His throne with a GIGANTIC dragon on His lap like a cat and when someone approaches Him, He slowly swivels the throne around and calmly looks at the approacher. All the time, this dragon on His lap is just enjoying the greatest belly rubs of all time and sprawled out like a cat. Likely? Not at all. But the mental image was too brilliant to keep to myself. Hope whoever reads this enjoys it too!
I do find Bible translations kind of a funny pastime, long as they aren’t heretical or anything.
I remember a Bible study of Daniel where we read out the long canticle after Dan’s companions almost got roasted and started praising nature. My translation had “All you sea monsters, bless the lord” while one person had “whales” and one had “dolphins” 😂 Having been a very long day, we joked the line must be in reference to battle dolphins or something in the original translation. I still think “battle dolphin” when I read that verse 😁
The unicorn thing makes sense to me, though maybe because I already heard of the “rhinos are just fat unicorns” meme so didn’t see it too much as a leap. Jimmy Akin did a Mysterious World episode on the flaming snakes in the OT, so those types of descriptions and references make sense.
I’m still hovering on the dragons thing. I definitely doubt the ‘dragons’ mentioned would be like the Western ones we imagine (bulky, large wings, flame breathing, etc), though I don’t see them completely as Eastern style either (long body with no wings, whiskers, etc). Probably a mix with an emphasis towards desert snakes and lizards since it is the Middle East and that area the writers lived in. There’s a few species from the franchise How to Train Your Dragon (both books and movies/shows) that I picture being possible, such as Fireworms, Terrible Terrors/Commons, Sidewinders, Glow Worms, Venomous Vorpents, Whispering Deaths, and Breathquenchers. I would love if a bunch of the other species could exist (like Deadly Nadders, Razorwings, and Changelings), but not sure if they would really fit the general laws of nature. Personally would totally love if there are dragons they are at least large enough to ride and fly 😁 scary, yes, but also sounds really fun!
Hey, Trent. Wondering if you could do a rebuttal on any of Prophet of Zod’s videos. He’s recently done a few “rebuttal” videos of his own against the Thomistic Institute and Fr. Casey Cole. Thanks!
I loved this topic!
So, I do agree that the unicorn is almost certainly a rhino.
However, it’s not entirely clear what leviathan is. I’m interested in your take on Behemoth though, as it almost certainly describes a sauropod dinosaur. Remember, dinosaur wasn’t a word back then, so they likely would’ve defaulted to the word dragon, which likely would’ve referred to any massive beast, probably reptilian in form, that was dangerous and ferocious to humans.
There are ancient pottery arts that display sauropods, paintings of triceratops and T Rexes and velociraptors. Even today, natives in the Congo describe creatures that resemble pterodactyls, titanoboa, and even possibly smaller sauropods.
I don’t care how old the Earth itself is, but there’s just too much evidence that indicates to me that life has only been around for a few thousand years, maybe 10-20,000 at most. Not millions.
Whenever I read passages about leviathan or behemoth I always imagine them as the Final Fantasy 15 versions of them
I agree! Ancient people saw creatures that have gone extinct. And evolutionists sometimes find supposed extinct animals still alive and then call them living fossils🤦🏻♀️
Very helpful!
Thanks much for this video.
Hey, Trent since today's video is about mythical creatures, what is the Christian view of the Golem? A creation of clay mostly associated with the Hebrews.
I love how we use the term metaphor as if its to cloak or disconnect ourselves from its meaning. Of course dragons are real. We need to stop being such materialist its not talking about a flying biological lizard and that goes for all "monsters" in the Bible including Angels and Demons.
But cats are mentioned in the Bible! [Baruch 6:21]
How can anyone in a sane mind not be subscribed to Trent Horn?
Imagine being a dragon or giant denier… couldn’t be me
Trent we need a dialogue between you and Taylor Marshall
Some supposed mythical creatures mentioned in Job are extinct dinosaurs (dragons)and plesiosaurs (leviathan). Evolution insists that people weren’t around, but if you believe in the 6 days of creation, it makes sense that people saw dinosaurs until they were t extinct. I choose to believe God over man.
Last video with the classic intro
Disappointed that he didn't bring up that Behemoth was a hippo.
At last. Some back-up for me next time I repeat to my granddaughter that a unicorn is really just a skinny rhinoceros!
I remember seeing a cute comic with a rhinoceros running on a treadmill, next to which is a picture of a unicorn and the text "Remember Your Goals!"
Yes Leviathan could well refer to what you said but they could also refer to actual dragons, right? I mean ok, i understand it could be allegorical or metaphorical but what's stopping us from taking the text and their descriptions as literal? 🤔
Maybe fire-breathing dragons did exist at one point of time but not anymore. There r so many legends of dragons in many cultures around the world. Could they all be referring to mythical creatures? Likely. But could they also be referring to real creatures? Also likely.
And Behemoth in the book of Job could very well hv referred to a real dinosaur. I mean which animal would have a tail that could swing like a cedar tree?
In the book, God was taking Job on a tour and describing to him about all the creatures he had made. And with the assumption that Job had actually seen these creatures. Right? At least the language God was using seems to suggest so.
I mean why would God describe to Job about mythical creatures?
Just sharing my thoughts.
What's stopping us from taking the text and their descriptions as literal? Nothing, I suppose. But keep in mind that Job is a poem, laden with formal literary qualities (whose names I do not know); it would be rather silly to take the elegant (and probably hyperbolic) descriptions of creatures and their incredible might, which were meant to prove the point that God is stronger than all of them, as literal, precise descriptions of creatures living at the time of its writing. It's a poem that, literally, begins with "there once was a man named Job...;" it contains the timeless allegorical intro! Indeed, you are well within your rights to interpret this how you please, so long as you remember that the point of those passages is to say that God is in control and is stronger than anything in all of Creation.
@@jonahstephens2904 I understand. The point of the book is to say that God is in control and stronger than all the creatures. I get it. Just like the point of Genesis is to show that God created everything....the ultimate source of all creation. I get that too.
This is how most Catholics and many Christians go about skipping all the verses that they simply don't want to accept as literal, or even as a possibility of being literal. Just broadbrush entire chapters as allegorical and move on. Great!
Tell me, IF Leviathan and Behemoth (dinosaur) were real creatures who Job must have witnessed, why would that disturb you? Give me one good reason.
I'll say it again. These passages and the creatures mentioned 'could' be allegorical. I have no problem with that. But they could also be literal. I have no problem with that too.
I believe dragons and unicorns were real, and there's absolutely no harm in that belief.
Dragons. In some places the dragon is used as a metaphor for the devil, as you say, [Daniel and Revelation]. In other places it appears to mean crocodile [example 'he will trample the young lion and the dragon, Psalm 90/91:12]. Crocodiles occur in the Nile in Egypt, so they would have been known about in the time of King David.
Dragons did really exist. If you think about what a dragon is, it’s just a giant lizard, and that’s what dinosaurs are too.
Dinosaurs never existed. (at least not what we currently think of as dinosaurs. T-Rex etc...)
@@jeffreycole2816 oh stop this crap already. this is a catholic account that doesn't believe that hyper-evangelical young earth creationism nonsense. catholic faith is perfectly compatible with dinosaurs that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.
The whole dinosaur family (which encompasses the birds) is believed to be much more closely related to crocodilians than lizards/snakes. So if you are defining dragons specifically as a giant lizard or serpent, mosasaurs would arguably fit that description better, since they are believed to fall squarely within the lizard family (being particularly related to snakes and monitor lizards).
@@markcobuzzi826 nerd alert!
@@killingweston1
Guilty as charged.
Now why didn’t you mention Behemoth? Seems to me it’s referring to a sauropod, but outside of YEC it would be hard to reconcile that. Thoughts?
if its an elephant there is nothing to reconcile
@@nils7286 An elephant has a tail like a cedar?
Maybe you could say the author would have seen sauropod fossils
@@truthovertea my bible says the tail moves like a cedar and not looks like a cedar
@@nils7286 still not like an elephant tail
I also found the word "dragons" in the KJV translation of Psalm 148: "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:", but other translations instead post it as "sea creatures".
in my bible the wild ox verse is in Job 39:12-13, I'm just curious is it just my version of the bible or do other translations also have this?
A good summary, though personally I prefer the explanation given by certain Traditionalist metaphysicians, that such creatures as dragons (widely attested to have existed across unconnected cultural groups) did in fact exist, and may exist today, but were not creatures as we understand them. They were instead 'subtle beings', on a different plane of existence which was pressed into our own, but since this time, we no longer intersect with this 'subtle world', and thus, they are not encountered, nor is there a physical trace of them. On this understanding, they're something between an animal and an angelic being, knowing as we do that angels can also be manifest physically in our world, we can touch them, they aren't just projections. So too with dragons. They existed on a borderland.
In Germanic folklore unicorns are seen as strong and untamable, so it would still work.
6:40 funny comment coming from a Roman Catholic, acting as though Protestant sects are insane meanwhile Catholics have sects like sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, or conclavists.
Some great points here early on, totally off base when it comes to dragons/leviathan/ignoring behemoth.
There are no sects in Catholicism. You listed dissenters. They can claim all they like to be the true Catholics, but that doesn’t make it true.
Does anyone know what the most accepted view of the firmament is? I have a family member who believes the moon landing couldn’t have happened because of the wall of water
6:46 "Need a KJB, I'm only KJV." 🤣
Yoo i always thought about if these verses implied the existence of these creatures. Thats for this video it answered a long time question of mine
Dragons are a generic term for lizards, reptiles and other animals that are cold-blooded. We call the Komodo Dragons, Dragons, when they are nothing more than large cold-blooded animals that were capable of killing humans. We called dinosaurs Dragons prior to the 18th century.
Really I thought they didn’t find dinosaur bones until sometime in the 1800s. I’ve never heard of them being called dragons before that unless you’re talking about Saint George and the dragon?
@femaleKCRoyalsFan They found dinosaurs boons have been found from ancient times, but they called them Dragons. It wasn't until the 1800s that they created the classification we now call dinosaurs. With the explosion of scientific methods and enquiring minds. The first person's calling it dinosaurs were unaware of the history of dragons. Just like they imagined (made up) the modern understanding of the Unicorn (a horse with the horn of a narwhal) no such animal existed, but the name has.
"If you're thinking about buying solar panels...don't! The US government will literally buy them for you!"
An ad I had, probably a scam.
Trent, you did a good job on this video : the Dragon of the Chaos waters of Genesis 1:21 is not the dinosaur of ken Ham & Hovind: sad fundamentalists that have been debunked by Evangelicals such as Dr.Michael S.Heiser O.T. Biblical scholar and Dr. Hugh Ross astrophysicist, but is a reference to a chaos monster/ Teamat a mythical supernatural water beast of Chaos as God is bringing order out of Chaos and His power is above all these other supernatural beings of the Gentile cultures around the Hebrews.
Genesis is a polemic against these earlier creation myths.
That's why Genesis doesn't line up with modern Science because it wasn't giving a scientific analysis of Creation.
Where can I learn more about the doctors and scholars that debunked Ken Ham, and more about Genesis being a polemic against the gentile myths of the time?
Scriptures never attribute magical powers to the cockatrice, just that they are baby snakes with powerful venom.
Excellent!!!!
A more accurate tile to you're Book is when SOME Protestants argue like Atheists!
You're next Book should be when Mormons argue like Catholics for their Only True church.
Love U Trent from an Evangelical Protestant that has similar views as Dr.Gavin Ortlund.
That's kinda sad with regards to the unicorn symbolism if they're translating it as a wild ox these days.
Horns are usually attached at the head, pointing up to the Heavens. To have two horns can either mean the Left and the Right(both weakness and strength), or of two minds since they're attached to the head. To have one horn on the Head means a uniting will.
However depending on context, unicorn can also mean primitive since God split things into two. There's a reason why the dietary laws of Israel has to do with number 2. E.g. split hooves, ruminant animals(4 is divisible by 2), etc. Not those with a single hoof, single chamber stomach, etc. They represent in some sense Adam and Eve, Male and Female. To have no split parts means it cannot be "tamed", for typically what tames a man is the woman.
Rhinoceros would actually be a good translation. :/
Likewise, dragons and monsters actually make sense. They're meant to represent chimeric hybridization. An incomplete unity between Masculine and Feminine, an evil bridesgroom and a pitiable bride. You see it in our world now. We just call this chimeric being "Transgender"---an attempt to unite Masculinity and Femininity together without the aid of God.
It's meant to contrast proper unity which is represented in Christ, the bridegroom, and His Church, us, the bride.
Gosh, how much symbolism are we losing because we do not have a counterpart in English, and likewise not having any understanding of symbolism!
Unicorn comes from the Greek and Latin, not the original Hebrew, as Trent mentioned. That's why modern translations don't use the word or its symbolism, because it's likely translation error.
@@renjithjoseph7135 I just spent some time researching the original Hebrew, and even the modern Hebraic tradition is in disagreement what animal a Re'em is even.
Some Rabbinic sources do think it's a one-horned creature which is pretty much in line with Septuagint translations since the Septuagint came from Greek speaking Jews originally.
I don't think they would've translated it in error as "one-horned" if they're well-educated in Hebrew.
St. Jerome also seems pretty clear that it's a one-horned creature, or at least a creature with one prominent horn (he translates it either as rhinoceros from Hebrew or unicornis from Greek). I'd rather trust the instincts of ancient Greek-Jews and Saints who studied closer to 1st century Jews (St. Jerome was 4th century, but close enough than us here in the 21st century) over "modern" translations, mate. Modernists seems lacking very much in ancient symbolism.
Hence why rhinoceros seems to be the apt translation if we were to be "scientific" about the translation.
"Archaelogy-wise", while we haven't found "bones" of rhinoceros in the Middle East area, it's the same for Europe, but we have paintings in Europe that have rhinos with them for some reason (see cave paintings in France), which means rhinos may perhaps have roamed also the Middle East at some point in time, but most likely has become extinct.
I don't believe Bruce Lee existed because they say he was the Dragon. Way of the Dragon. Enter the Dragon.
Cats are mentioned zero times? I remember lots of mentions of lions.
Dinosaur bones can account for some dragon legends, Komodo dragons exist and tales could have traveled from indonesia over hundreds of years.
Num. 23:22 and Job 39:9, in my spanish Bible, says “buffalo”. So there goes the “unicorn” myth!
Non-subscriberous best pun ever I love it!
I expected you to mention Daniel chapter 14.
I don't understand how the reference to mythical creatures could be used as 'evidence' against the bible, when it already postulates other miracles, such as the resurrection of the Son of God. These references can then be taken as a matter of faith, if one already believes in the one true God.
Reference to mythical creatures isn't used as "evidence" against the Bible but as evidence against the theory of a literal inerrancy of the Bible.
Even Paul argued against the "Jewish fables" (Titus 1:14) and "old wive's tales" (1 Timothy 4:7) but some people cannot understand the difference between the term "God inspired" and "God dictated".
So... We believe in an all-powerful being that can create the universe with nothing more than a couple of words . We believe in angels and devils , but a lizard that can breathe fire ( mind you , scientists have admitted that a creature that can breathe fire is possible ) is incomprehensible .
I've slain dozens of cockatrices in The Witcher 3, checkmate atheists
I feel like the unicorn one is kind of obvious if you think about it for more than two seconds.
Like, Jesus is said in revelations to be riding a horse, why wouldnt he ride a unicorn if they where purported to be real? And also just yeah... Rhinos exist. Obviously its that.
Would Old Testament writers have ever seen a rhino? I suppose they might have heard about one.
@@stephengalanis I mean the old tesament writers did live sort of near africa, if im not mistaken. Its not impossible.
Hard disagree on this one. I mean, when it comes to dragons at least. I personally find a view that Bible mentions dinosaurs far more convincing. There is no reason to assume God can't acknowledge dinosaurs as his creations. Even if we disagree with Young Earth theory. It's very possible some dinosaurs survived for a long time and died off recently, like Latimeria (which scientists were convinced was long gone too until recently), and other creatures from the Jurassic period did - we simply didn't discover this fact yet. So jews actually could've known about them. It would perfectly explain all other stories involving dragons from the ancient times too. Even st. Augustin talks about "dragons" as if he saw them, in great detail. And yes, I do even suggest some of these dinosaurs could've used venom or other substances that would've caused burns and would be considered fire by ancient standards. We do know many reptiles that use many different kinds of venoms even today. Trent's theory may be a lot more in line with modern scientific view on dinosaurs, but that shouldn't be a primary concern to us. For me, Trent's take only causes more problems. If we agree that God in the Bible is talking about non-existing creatures as if he was proud of them and was responsible for creating them, and try to sell it as ancient authors simply being ignorant of nature, this obviously looks like we're compromising the nature of the Bible to a great extent.
Since when is KJV accepted as the original translation of the Bible?
The unicorn described is likely a rhino.
A rhino can be considered a unicorn, mostly due to one predominant horn. 😊😮 Lol
Thank you
What about Behemoth? 👀
I’ve also heard the word used in hebrew for single horn is an akkadian cognate and is actually plural, two horns, so probably a bull/ox. But even a rhino would definitely make sense
Solomon put 1 in a Jar and placed it in The Sanctuary.
This Seahorse Demon , Said many words , you should listen to .
Why didn't you mention Daniel 14?
I like how the same word can translate to dragon or jackal. That's extremely interesting to me. But, I dont see why that wouldnt be possible.
when have you ever seen a jackal that look serpent-like or breathe fire/ allude that a canine can do these things?
@@Advisory_Vessel ... did the bible?
Did you even watch the video?
@@Yipper64 Did you translate the scripture in the original text in context? Investigate it yourself. I only take God's word as gospel, not anyone else's. A fool blindly listen and follows man
@@Advisory_Vessel I dont need because he did?
Look, what makes more sense in context, they randomly bring up dragons, or that they where talking about jackals?
Its like, pretty simple logic here.
@@Yipper64 Job 41:18-21 God is describing one of his creations and telling Job to know his place throughout the end of the book. Why would God explain a lackluster creature he made to put things into perspective for Job? When Job ask further God ask Job if he was around since the beginning to again explain to Job to know his place. When God says, trust his word and stop with the foolish ways
You seem to not want to accept this possibility, but what if the creatures actually did exist? In exactly or more or less the same way that we think they are. They just simply were killed. What about Saint George and the dragon? I have no qualms with your reasoning. But it’s completely understandable to think that fantastical sounding creatures once did exist.
Hello! Can someone explain to me what is being said at minute 13:05 and onward? He kinda lost me there and I want to understand.
Thanks!
The Bible tells the truth without error. The passages about leviathan are telling the truth that God is stronger than any creature.
It's a rhino, that's the simplest and most logical explanation. Marco Polo also identified rhinos as unicorns pointing out that these creatures were fatter than he expected.
Cool video.
As someone who believes in a young earth I do believe some of the references are to dinosaurs.
And who knows, some of the angelic beings are described as looking crazy so that could also be some of this.
And for the stuff like unicorns its clearly referencing a specific dialects where its a real animal and the word just took a odd path through translation.
Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?
I love the idea that Atheists argue like protestsnts, because they really do.
The Jerusalem Bible identifies Leviathan as the crocodile.
Why should I believe in so many different dinosaurs and yet say dragons could never have existed? Many different cultures from all around the globe have dragon stories, not Dino stories. Also, Daniel killed a dragon in the Bible. 🐉
Unicorns exist and are known as rhinoceros. Considering that hippo means horse, and that rhinos resemble hippos, it could be that they are referring to hippo-like creatures with one central horn: the rhino
Asian rhinoceros, the two African species both have two horns.
Great episode, Trent! Two quick comments:
4:40 - If someone wants something pre-KJV to point to as a Catholic, here's the Job verses from the 1609 Douay (vol. 1), though translated back ca. 1580: "Will the Rhinoceros serve thee, and will he tarry at thy stall? Shalt thou tie the Rhinoceros with thy collar to plough, or will he break the clods of the valleys after thee?"
6:07 - English scholars are increasingly of the opinion that Wycliffe had nothing to do with the translation attributed to him. In fact, they believe it was possibly an unauthorized Catholic gloss on the Vulgate used for training priests that didn't know enough Latin yet. See Henry A. Kelly's book "The Middle English Bible: A Reassessment" for more on this.
It definitely does! Gods are a category of supernatural creature. There's millions of them invented by humans.
Well, according to a Shel Silverstein poem, unicorns did NOT get on the Ark.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Dear brother Trent, I am very happy about this video since I am fluent in Hebrew AND an expert on the subject. Here are the misunderstood "mysterious" animals in the Bible, and on that opportunity I urge Christians you learn the Hebrew alongside Latin & Greek - it is crucial for the understanding of our holy Scriptures:
Tanin = the Crocadile kind, of which a Snake is a subspecies, and in turn, whales & dolphins are 2 subspecies of snake.
Leviathan latch-snake = whale
Leviathan serpentine-snake = dolphin
Behemoth tanin = hippopotamus (ancestors of all cattle)
Reem = rhino
And you forgot to mention Ziz Shadai = the Phoenix bird (yes, that bird was real but its nature was misunderstood & became a subject of fantasy)
King James was a Protestant pagan lol
But brother, no, you're wrong. The fire mentioned refers to the gas & smoke coming out of him, which is a type of fire. Nothing allegorical or mythological about it.
Whenever people try to debunk unicorns (uni-corn=one horn(ed animal)) in the Bible they typically claim it's actually a unicorn (uni-corn=one horn(ed animal)) but a real one horned animal that actually exists because the Bible actually talks about real things. Wow what a concept!
P.S. we derived a word specially for the Hebrew word in question. The word is reem (from reyim). Still, no translators use it because they're a bunch of idiots. There are plenty of loan words and derivatives from Hebrew found in the Bible but reem couldn't make it because everyone wants to argue on how to actually translate it, meanwhile Selah (occurs way more times than reyim) is left alone. Also if I'm not mistaken reyim appears to be plural yet of course is simply a plural-only noun which is something a lot of languages have yet those same "Bible scholars" you trust so much don't know that shamayim (in the first verse of the Bible) is the same way. Accurately translated Heaven (KJV) not heavens (else). Plural-only words in English include clothes, pants, & undies/nickers. No idea why most are clothes related but it makes it easier to get examples once you know that.
Surprise surprise! There are issues with the KJV. A HERETICAL BIBLE Catholics shouldn't be reading. Frankly, no one should be reading it.
Funny you should mention YHWH and shortly thereafter Superman as I started writing a book on YHWH that began with the story of Superman. You will find in the Superman myths correspondences with Judai religious beliefs. Superman was originally invented by two Jewish boys in Toronto in 1936. I only got to chapter fiur of my book when Covid hit and haven’t been back to it since.
It's not a rhino. A unicorn according to the biblical description is Elasmotherium Sibiricum.
Demons, Angels, Nephalim, Giants. Need I say more?
trent i love your content but im sure youd agree that every word in the bible is there for a reason, which means none are reason-less. Fire out of the mouth means fire out of the mouth, it was physically descriptive for a reason. aka, the catholic view is that there were definitely creatures during the times of the prophets that arent here now. @The Councel of Trent