Biblical monsters

Here is an interesting top 10 list I found on monsters in the Bible:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-monsters-in-the-bible.php

I don't believe the person who made this is a Christian, but I found it interesting and thought maybe we could use it as a jumping off point if we wanted to talk about monsters in the Bible.

Oh and #3 should be #1 IMO.

Interesting article. Behemoth and Leviathan are possibly dinosaurs according to Answers in Genesis, which I tend to agree with.

Before I even clicked on the link, when I read "monsters in the Bible" I thought of the Nephilim. These are interesting creatures who seem to me to be the offspring of demons and humans. I don't know Hebrew and haven't studied the topic much at all, but I think that's an interesting concept. I don't know why angels would be able to reproduce, and there's no other passage that I know of that suggests that they can. So there is likely another explanation.

I admit Revelation is full of very fantastical creatures. Wouldn't it be cool to see a big budget film with a great CG team put together an accurate movie of Revelation?

This was a kinda cool list . . . although, yeah, the tone wasn't terribly Christian. (I wish they had included the big black thing from Daniel 7:7 - "After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.")

I tend to think that both the Behemoth and the Leviathan are creatures which we are zoologically unfamiliar with. Their descriptions really don't coincide with the known animals they are often associated with (hippo/whale/croc/etc). In a poetic sense they represent uncontrollable forces of the world, that only God has mastery over. The Leviathan in particular is, in Jewish literature, a terrifying, chaotic, near-demonic creature from the sea. In Old Testament texts, the sea is indeed seen as a place of choas and evil, as well as the abode of the dead (sheol). Again, poetically, Leviathan represents those things. As for what known animal I would be comfortable associating with them, I don't think there is any that fits the biblical description.

With the Nephilim, and this is my opinion which I have the utmost humility with, it seems to me that we are seeing a sort of sexual reproduction between fallen angels and man. I tend towards this viewpoint for the following reasons:
1. Nephilim literally means "fallen ones".
2. The coupling of the "sons of God" and the daughters of men result in these nephilim, who are described as men of renowned. A coupling of a non-godly and godly person does not result in a hero . . . just a normal baby.
3. The narrative links these couplings directly to the great flood. They are seen as terribly evil and are at least a part of the reason God flooded the earth. But ungodly people have married and will continue to marry godly people until the end of the age. It seems like destroying almost all of humanity because of such relationships would be a bit of an extreme measure.

Anyhow, those are some of my thoughts as I've pondered them over the years. I don't think anyone should chose to die on these doctrinal hills. They're really minor issues . . . although really fun to think about.

That was pretty cool, although they left out the Satyrs (Isaiah 34:14 KJV)

I also remember reading something about griffins in the Bible, I'll have to find that book...

As to the Nephilim, My thought has always been that they were the decedents of Fallen Angles and mortal women. And as to why, God's Prophecy following the Fall was that there would arise a "Seed" from the woman, who would bruise the Serpents head. With that in mind it make sense (To me at least) that Satan's first move would be to pollute the seed of mankind in an attempt to keep the "Promised Seed" from coming, thus spawning the Niphilim.

WhiteBoy wrote:Interesting article. Behemoth and Leviathan are possibly dinosaurs according to Answers in Genesis, which I tend to agree with.

Before I even clicked on the link, when I read "monsters in the Bible" I thought of the Nephilim. These are interesting creatures who seem to me to be the offspring of demons and humans. I don't know Hebrew and haven't studied the topic much at all, but I think that's an interesting concept. I don't know why angels would be able to reproduce, and there's no other passage that I know of that suggests that they can. So there is likely another explanation.

I admit Revelation is full of very fantastical creatures. Wouldn't it be cool to see a big budget film with a great CG team put together an accurate movie of Revelation?

I pretty much agree with everything you said though I tend to think the the Nephilim are actual demons and mortal women's children. The Behemoth, I think, is a type of dinosaur that is either now extinct or very rare. (That's right, I believe there are still living dinosaurs on earth!) As for the Leviathan I believe that it is an actual animal of the sea, though there is no records that I know of of some one encountering a Leviathan, which makes me think it might also be extinct, but how could a race of creatures like that go extinct?


Oh and as for a huge CG film on Revalation, that whole be awesome, however, it would probably cause a lot of contraversy in Christian circles. But still, I would be down for seeing it!

I pretty much agree with everything you said though I tend to think the the Nephilim are actual demons and mortal women's children.

Actually we're agreeing on that. Maybe I wasn't clear, but that's what I was intending to say is my interpretation as well. I was just saying that I'm definitely open to some other interpretation, if someone has a convincing reason.

WhiteBoy wrote:

I pretty much agree with everything you said though I tend to think the the Nephilim are actual demons and mortal women's children.

Actually we're agreeing on that. Maybe I wasn't clear, but that's what I was intending to say is my interpretation as well. I was just saying that I'm definitely open to some other interpretation, if someone has a convincing reason.

Oh, ok. I see what you are saying.