Talk:Leviathan

Demonology info

I am still looking for actual references for the claims that "In medieval demonology, a leviathan is an aquatic demon that tries to possess people, being very difficult to exorcise. Leviathan is generally considered to be the demon of envy and the who is first in punishing the corresponding sinners. She is also said to have been of the order of Seraphim. Many medieval authors considered Leviathan to be Grand Admiral of the maritime regions of Hell."

An editor wrote:

"Check the article here "Fallen angels' angelic ranks", as for her being a she is something that is of varied opinion in demonology. You have obviously not been a demonologist long enough."

But I cannot find an article by that name. The article Hierarchy of devils says Leviathan is a he, not a she, and does not support any of those except for being a member of the Seraphim, but I also note that that article cites no sources at all for any of its claims either.

Please provide an actual verifiable reference. Thanks. DreamGuy 00:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

There, I know this, I've checked this a million times.

In one of the most important Hebrew scriptures, the Book of Enoch, is written;

And that day will two monsters be parted, one monster, a female named Leviathan in order to dwell in the abyss of the ocean over the fountains of water; and (the other), a male called Behemoth, which holds his chest in an invisible desert whose name is Dundayin, east of the garden of Eden. - 1 Enoch 60:7-8

Even though she is sometimes seen as androgynous, there is more evidence that points to her being female.

Leviathan is a seraphim, which is a common view assigned by most demonologists;

The article says "The Leviathan is frequently associated with Satan or the Devil." Satan and the Devil are both exactly the same thing!/?

• Satan
• Abaddon
• Asmodeus
• Astaroth
• Leviathan
• Samael
• Semyazza

• From article: fallen angel
• From part: Fallen angels by rank.

sources!

Leviathan - In the Enoch parables, Leviathan is the primitive female sea-dragon and monster of evil; in rabbinic writings, she is identified with Rahab, angel of the primordial deep, and associated with Behemoth (q.v).

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=cabc&c=whs&id=8609

In common modern Christian usage, the word demon refers to an evil spirit. In 1612 CE Father Sebastien Michaelis claimed to have communicated with a demon named Balberith during an exorcism of a nun in Aix En Provence. Balberith listed a number of demons which Michaelis published in his book Admirable History. Michaelis listed three hierarchies of demons. Since it was believed that these were fallen angels the categories within these hierarchies bore the same names as those of the angelic hosts:

Heirarchy Order Prince(s) 1st Seraphim Beelzebub, Leviathan, Asmodeus

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/demons/bookdevilsanddemons/fallenangels.htm

Leviathan (once partly of the order of seraphim).

http://www.sacred-magick.com/Evocations/High%20Ranking%20Demons.html

Leviathan was a Prince of the order of Seraphim.

Other fallen angels are Lucifer, once a Light Bearer; also Beelzebub, Leviathan, Azazel, Rehab.

Of the choir of Seraphim there fell at first Lucifer, Beelzebub and Leviathan

It's common knowledge that Leviathan was a seraph, you obviously know nothing, you washup mainstream excuse for a mythologist.

There's your sources, as well as additional phrases where people know Leviathan to have been a seraph.

(above comments by User:Satanael)

Please see wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and also No original research. Please provide reputable sources to support your claims. Also, please read up on Wikipedia:Civility. DreamGuy 23:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

What the [word censored] is verifiable then!

http://www.whiterosesgarden.com/Nature_of_Evil/Demons/DM_Occult_Hierarchy/DM_hells_hierarchy_Father-Michaelis_1612.htm

Hell's Hierarchy as described by Father Sebastien Michaelis in 1612

<<Excerpt and explanation taken from The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft & Demonology (see below).>>

One of the most complete lists of devils and their functions was reported by the celebrated exorcist Father Sebastien Michaelis, in his Admirable History (1612). Balberith, a demon possessing Sister Madeleine, at Aix-en-Provence, obligingly told the priest not only the other devils possessing the nun, but added the special saints whose function was to oppose them. Since the devils were angels who had rebelled and fallen, they maintained their rank as ex-angels. The angelic court had been invented in the fourth century, out of the writings of Paul (Col. i. 16; Eph. i. 21), by the Pseudo-Dionysius, and consisted of nine orders of angels (three hierarchies each of three orders):

First Hierarchy:

Seraphim

Cherubim

Thrones

Second Hierarchy:

Dominions

Principalities

Powers

Third Hierarchy:

Virtues

Archangels

Angels

Balberith gave many lesser devils occupying Sister Madeleine, but the most important listed by Michaelis were as follows:

First Hierarchy

1. Beelzebub was Prince of the Seraphim, and next unto Lucifer. For all the princes, that is to say all the chief of the nine choirs of angels, are fallen; and of the choir of Seraphim there fell the three first, to wit, Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Leviathan, who did all revolt. But the fourth, who was Michael, was the first that resisted Lucifer, and all the rest of the good angels followed him, so that now he is the chiefest amongst them all. Lucifer, when Christ descended into hell, was there chained up, where he commands all . . . . Beelzebub tempts men with pride. And as John the Baptist holds Lucifer's place in Paradise . . . by his singular humility, so Beelzebub has Francis for his adversary in heaven.

2. Leviathan is the Prince of the same order, and is the ringleader of the heretics, tempting men with sins that are directly repugnant unto faith. [Adversary: Peter the Apostle]

Directly quoted from a demonology book by an expert, which means that since the info has an origin, it's valid.

Read, The Book of Enoch, see, have you heard of the book of Enoch, hmm, no, well, it's a set of texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the Bible

The Apocryphal Book of Enoch gives the following description of this monster's origins:

"And that day will two monsters be parted, one monster, a female named Leviathan in order to dwell in the abyss of the ocean over the fountains of water; and (the other), a male called Behemoth, which holds his chest in an invisible desert whose name is Dundayin, east of the garden of Eden." - 1 Enoch 60:7-8

Here's a link that proves that it's in the Book of Enoch

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/leviathan.asp

And besides, if people use Leviathan as a former seraph in demonology, that must mean she WAs a seraph, so it's supposed to stand here no matter what you say, and this, being an online encyclopedia, is supposed to have info from all directions, no matter what your precious rules say :P

(above unsigned, but by User:Satanael)

OK, first and foremost, "if people use Leviathan as a former seraph in demonology, that must mean she WAS a seraph," is complete nonsense. The fact that some dodgy sources claim she was a she and she was a seraph in no way shows that she was. Lots of people out there have really messed up ideas about lots of things, that doesn;t mean they are right.

Secondly, "being an online encyclopedia, is supposed to have info from all directions" is simply wrong. You need to go read Wikipedia:Verifiability and also Wikipedia:NPOV. Only reliable sources are used, and for controversial claims it is absolutely vital that the text in question be labeled as the claim stated by so-and-so (with link or other info to let people have an idea of how reliable they are).

You seem to have completely misunderstood how the policies work here. If multiple reputable sources say something without any dispute, then we can list it unsourced. If multiple reputable sources say different things, then we report each and reference who says what. If some dodgy but fairly well known or numerous people claim something that goes against what other more reputable sources say, we can cite it but point out who said it and that it's not the accepted belief. If some totally unreliable person with no background or fame makes some claim that flies totally in the face of all known facts, then it isn't listed at all.

What you have above is a mixture of the last two scenarios. Some just are complete nonsense and shouldn;t be listed, others are at least cited by some sources some people have heard of and can be listed provided the source is clearly identified and the credential are listed.

Please take the time to read those policies I mentioned above, as they are spelled out there and would have cleared up your confusion. Also, again, please also read about the Wikipedia:Civility policy, as your actions here and ways of phrasing things are completely unacceptable. Also please sign your talk comments. DreamGuy 20:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Leviathan as a Serpent

I am interested in what people know about Leviathan being a serpent and how that plays into serpent mythology. It seems in Judaism that there is a connection to the Leviathan at the "end of the days". Therefore according to Jewish mythology history begins and ends with a serpent. Any comments on the meaning behind this?

It is Xian mythology that history starts with a snake. Judaism does not give much values to the "fall" of man. Perhaps, if you want some meaning, Judaism holds that Adam had no internal inclination to do otherwise from G-d. A test was devised and somehow or another he failed (what part was the failure is a matter of debate) and then he now had an internal inclination to make bad choices (besides the already internal one to make good choices, which means internally he always had to make a choice of which to follow). This all ends when G-d slaughters the satan (capital S is Xian mythology, not Jewish) at which point noone will have any inclination other than to do what G-d wants. This makes life a test. The snake was merely the metholody for the delivery of the first test, with little significance given to it otherwise. -- Chacham 1:29, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Also any comments on the Talmudic piece that says that God spends three hours of his day playing with the Leviathan? Bram

Here's the source in 'Avoda Zara Vonfraginoff 07:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Meh, I'm sure it's a mosasaur. That's -like- a snake, unhinging jaw and all.

It's simmilar to the Kundalini. Kundalini, like Leviathan, means "coiled".--N33 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Revelations

Leviathan was also mentioned in the last book of the New Testament.

EDIT - It is "REVELATION", not "REVELATIONS". You also misspelled "Leviathan". I fixed it.

Other references apparently deemed unworthy of the article page

{{spoiler}} In the 1975 science fiction story The Illuminatus! Trilogy, the Leviathan is a massive single-celled creature that lives in the ocean and has survived–without offspring– from time immemorial. In this account, the Leviathan is one of the two original life forms on Earth, the other being that from which all other life evolved. Instead of evolving multiple cells, reproduction and–in some sense–mortality, the Leviathan continued to grow it's single cell over billions of years, and developed an almost god-like intellect, including telepathy. One of the most striking variations from more traditional accounts of the Leviathan is that Shea and Wilson describe it as pyramid shaped, explaining that the shape is neccessary to withstand the pressure exerted by the sea and gravity on the enormous body. This, however, was most likely to accommodate other aspects of the story, for instance the Eye in the Pyramid which was a symbol of the Illuminati in the story as well as in a number of real-word conspiracy theories (see Eye of Providence#Illuminati). {{endspoilers}} B.Mearns^*, KSC 00:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Leviathan in Literature" to "Leviathan in Other Media". There are three entries in that section which weren't based in literature. Levid37 07:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Levid37

These lists have a tendency to get cluttered with borderline notable references; for the sake of readability I think it's preferable to keep the references on this page to a minimum, and shift the more wide-ranging media references to the disambiguation page. Feel free to revert if you disagree. --Muchness 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

the prophet Jonah

Is it possible to discuss the Leviathan in Judaism without mentioning the prophet Jonah? I find that very strange. The only mention seems to be a passing reference when referring to Pinocchio.

212.143.147.214 10:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited the title to say "Jonah" and not "Noah" as the two are not the same. Also, take note that Jonah was in the belly of a whale, there is NO mention of him being within Leviathan. -- Dan N.

leviathan, the water demon can turn into anything it so pleases. it often turns into a beautiful if young woman to lure young men into the sea. once the man wanders into the sea in search for his false love. the beast shows it's true colors.

Pulled that one out of your butt did ya? Likening sirens from greek mythology to the biblical leviathan, never thought I'd see it. -- Dan N.

Actually Dan, you'll need to check a few translations. Most say Jonah was swallowed by a great fish. Many people presume it was a whale. --Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.114.192 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Alligator

A foot note in my copy of the NIV says that "Leviathan" may be an ancient name for Alligators. Has anyone else read this anywhere?Seizurebot1011 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Alligators? Why alligators? The ancient Hebrews never encountered alligators. I've only heard about biblical scholars thinking that the image of Leviathan was influenced by the Nile Crocodile.--Mr Fink 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In my footnote it states that the leviathan is thought to be a crocodile. I greatly agree with this thought, all except for the fire-breathing portion. That is the only part that does not fit in with the alligator/crocodile explanation.

Footnotes say all kinds of things. I recommend that you cross-check your versions - the KJV is still the best to use. -- Ins-dragonclaw 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

why is the imaginary monster the first Wiki article?

Why is the imaginary monster the first Wiki reference instead of the book by Thomas Hobbes, which is obviously what most people come looking for? 196.218.80.75jackbrown

Maybe because Hobbes named his book AFTER the Biblical monster in the first place?--Mr Fink 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Which Bible version is used in this article?

I didn't see the version listed with the Bible passages. Is it NIV? Agatehawk 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a mixture of versions to me. Some KJV/AV, and some modernizations. It could do with some checking, and perhaps standardization into one version throughout the article. I'd rather tread carefully here, as the question of choice of Bible translation tends to get very heated sometimes... Emil

DMC3

I added the appearence of Leviathan in Devil May Cry 3 a while ago, but it got removed with an edit summary saying it was un-related. I'm just wondering why it was removed, cuz in the game, he fit the description pretty well. The game also has many other characters that get their names/nature from Mythology. I don't know if whoever removed it has never played the game, or if there's some other factor?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because this article refers strictly to the Leviathan, as mentioned in the Bible, and that modern day references and or uses of Leviathan go in the disambiguation page.--Mr Fink 19:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article says "The Leviathan is freqently associated with Satan or the Devil." Satan and the Devil are both exactly the same thing!/?

Anon

I added the final fantasy Leviathan thing,let's see what's gonna happen...--Aqmaster 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing I'll catch a bit of hell for this because the editor who removed it most recently and I have a history with this particular page. None the less, I maintain that a list of all widely available references to an article's subject, such as the one for the video game here, is perfectly appropriate, and the practice is, in fact, ubiquitous here on wikipedia.

Someone above pointed out, correctly, that this article is designated as being about the biblical creature, and that might be the reason for objection. I think that would be a reasonable objection to the content if this article were titled Leviathan (biblical), or something along those lines, with another articles titled simply Leviathan, which was about the creature in general and it's various manifestations. The disambig page was pointed to, but if you look on it, you'll notice that's it really just for different uses of the term "Leviathan", where as the proposed content is actually about a creature which is supposed to be a leviathan (or The Leviathan, or whatever).

So I think the content should be added, and I would encourage any further dispute over the contents and purpose of this page to be settled with an RfC or some similar mediation.

B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim "I maintain that a list of all widely available references to an article's subject, such as the one for the video game here, is perfectly appropriate, and the practice is, in fact, ubiquitous here on wikipedia" -- On that point you are 100% incorrect. See WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA and the ever popular WP:ENC. You couldn't be more wrong about something if you tried. DreamGuy 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs by Design

This is a children's book. Isn't there a better reference for this? IPSOS (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove it. Better source or not, a children;s book shouldn't be here. DreamGuy 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is, that book was actually recommended to me by a dvd (for adults and kids) by Kent Hovind I can't remember which dvd but (it might be in dinosaurs of the bible) watch them anyway they are really interesting. DreamGuy ... have you even read the book? That book happens to be more grown up then some adults it's just put into simple words. btw you made a mistake, recheck your grammer I didn't fix it since I'm only kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.80.163 (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent Hovind has a well-earned reputation for being a science-hating Liar for Jesus who opposes everything and anyone who contradicts his personal interpretations of the Bible, and his books are considered to be unreliable and untrustworthy sources. That, and you should not warn people about "mistakes" if you aren't going to specify what the mistake exactly is, nor if you can not be bothered to spell "grammar" correctly.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Leviathan in rabbinic literature

Leviathan in rabbinic literature is just another way of saying "the most notable parts of Leviathan. Absolutley no justification for another article, and there was no discussion of splitting anything off. As it is right now it's just a WP:FORK file. DreamGuy 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it is a fork i will move the contents of the judaism section (a good part of it isn't a fork) to the article Leviathan in rabbinic literature i didn't notice i reproduced similar material --69.153.48.144 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, no, no... the merge notice was NOT to move the info OFF this article, but to move the info ONTO this article, as the Jewish part is the most important part of the topic, it's a Jewish figure. DreamGuy 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good explanation i agree we should merge the articles--Java7837 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the GOOD info from the other article should be moved HERE... though that other article has some pretty poor writing and info, so a mere copy and paste is not good. Plus it's strange that you agreed to a merge TO HERE and then just copied and pasted the content from here over there.DreamGuy 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What should not be merged over here --Java7837 17:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Leviathan in popular culture

What about add Leviathan in popular culture? Some samples: Final Fantasy series, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, The Pirates of Dark Water,... --201.10.146.158 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See Leviathan (disambiguation) and keep in mind WP:TRIVIA rules. That means most of those kind of minor references absolutely should not be mentioned in this article. DreamGuy 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Leviathan should go to the book by Thomas Hobbes with a disambig to mythology... - Abscissa 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. IPSOS (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes. I'd argue than Hobbes book is far more famous.

Uh, no, because Sea Monster, and not Hobbes is what everyone first thinks of when they hear "Leviathan."--Mr Fink 04:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

demon in judaism

this is a lie the leviathan is not a demon in judaism so whoever keeps putting this on the leviathan article needs to stop--Java7837 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus?

The leviathan as an animal section, the paragraph of Parasaurolophus seems to come out of nowhere. Can anyone fix it? I do not understand what it is saying, it seems like that paragraph is talking about Parasaurolophus as a possible candidate of leviathan since it uses a heat attack as a defensive measure, but started with some kind of heat injured stuff in the very begining of the paragraph. MythSearcher^talk 17:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AgreedCrljenak 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

References Concerning Leviathan as Hellmouth

Do we have any references about whether or not the beast of the Hellmouth is Leviathan?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added two (thus increasing the number of refs in the article by 50%). Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy

Deserves a mention in the Literature section perhaps with the title being changed. It is based off the biblical sea creature and not an entirely seperate thing. It is also more well known as being portrayed in the final fantasy 'universe' than some of the literature listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.78.171 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy version is mentioned in the Disambiguation.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Hobbes' Leviathan?

There are a lot of topics here discussing the Leviathan without any respect to Hobbes.

The pictures used for this article in several languages are nice, but not taken from the two editions published by Hobbes himself. I want to advice to use reproductions of these and to refer to them in the article. It will be very useful to understand his political theory...

--Platonykiss (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Hobbes' Leviathan is not discussed here is because it is discussed in its own article, "Leviathan (book)"--Mr Fink (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I was somehow lost between both articles... --Platonykiss (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Still I bet Hobbes is the reason a lot of people get to this article; in my opinion it's relevant and should be dedicated a separate paragraph, even if it's an article. Hillbilly Pilgrim (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

More English speakers are aware of the Bible than they are of Hobbes. If Hobbes's book was more than just titled Leviathan, we could discuss "Leviathan in Hobbes's Leviathan," but other than that Wikipedia is not a random collection of indiscriminate information. The Leviathan section of the "Christian demons in popular culture" article does mention Hobbes's book, which is where passing references go to die. The due weight given to the subject would be one line, not a paragraph, unless Hobbes actually developed the myth of the Leviathan further. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to put Hobbes at the end of the Meaning in Christian Middle Ages section.66.64.72.10 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that Hobbes is didn't actually write about the mythological character of the Leviathan, but was merely referencing it as a symbol of something really big. It makes no more sense than including Moby Dick. Please actually read the article and the Hobbes's Leviathan before suggesting including it.

I repeat: this is the page about the character Leviathan, not just any random use of the word. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What Ian said. That, and if you actually bothered to read this thread, you'd notice that Hobbes' Leviathan is DISCUSSED IN ITS OWN ARTICLE HERE--Mr Fink (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

If the article includes an etymology of the name, please move it somewhere where it can be more easily found. If not, please add to the intro either the etymology or an explanation of various etymological speculations. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not the Torah, it is the Tanakh

The Torah are the first five books of the "Old Testament", and only the first five books alone! For some reason Christians incessantly and incorrectly call the "Old Testament" by the wrong name. The Jewish bible is not called the Torah! The proper name is "TANAKH"! It would be nice if they would start getting the names of the books and the names of the characters right too. Your translations are horrible and the lack of true context gained from proper translation has established incorrect doctrine for millinnia. For a real straight from Hebrew and Aramaic to English translation for Christians and from Greek to English for the B'rit Hadashah (aka New Testament), get "The Complete Jewish Bible" by Dr. Rabbi David Stern. Back on topic, though - how am I going to believe this guy's article if it starts with a glaring indication that he has not bothered to do any research into the religion in which this figure had it's birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.38.228 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom. Welcome to Wikipedia, where YOU are the editor. If you see that an article says "Torah" when it should say "Tanakh," edit the article and fix it. The article currently isn't locked down, so you should be able to do that. As for "Your translations," because you have visited this site, they're your's as well. That's how wikipedia works. Fix the translations (bring in sources, please) instead of complaining. That's the strength of wikipedia: if you see something wrong with this encyclopedia, YOU can fix it. As for "how am I going to believe this guy's article," who are you refering to? No one person wrote the Leviathan article. And again, YOU fix it (be sure to bring in sources). That's how Wikipedia works. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Job 41"

What wich is wrotten in the article that the quite is from Job 41 is probably a mistake wich was caused because that its source (a web) was wrong; According to my Hebrew version of the bible, is from Job unit number 40 in the 25th sentense (Pasuk); but perhaps an "un-jew" version of the bible isn't exactly like the jewish version)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by עברית (talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Source or Remove it.

In the Judaism text version of this article there is a claim that Leviathan is referred to in the first book of Genesis, along with an elaborate story of God being afraid of them reproducing. I Can't find a bible that states this, and the comment has nor source. Am I missing something? If not, it seems that is should be removed. Brutalrepublic (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I finally worked out what you probably mean. You're talking about the post-Biblical rabbinic riffs on Leviathan - the article directs you to "B.B.74", which means the Bhava Batra, chapter 74. PiCo (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Canaanite Myth

According to "Myth : Myth and Legends of the World Explored by Kenneth McLeish", Liviathan in Canaanite myth, was the personification of the chaos at the beginning of the universe, a seven-Headed, fire-breathing, crocodile-dragon, the power of the primordial ocean given form. She lurked in the depths of the sea which was herself, waiting for her momment to surge up and snatch her victims. ANAT fought her nd chained her, bringing order to the universe, - but, the myth ends, Liviathan is not dead but mearly sleeping, and one day will return to destroy us all. Note: Hebrew and Christian teachers fell joyfully on this myth using Laviathan as a metaphor for everything which threatened the stability of Yahweh and his worshipers, from the Babylonian and Egyptian nations which enslaved them to the Power of Satan which God's Angels will destroy on the Day of Judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.233.174 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We can summarize the entry in Kenneth McLeish's Myth book, but adding on to it or commenting on it is original research, which we do not take. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Leviathon a SUBMARINE VOLCANO?

The following verses from Job 41 not only discredit any real animal origins of the Leviathan but also give credence to the theory it was a submarine volcanic eruption.

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. 21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.

I've tried to add this to the Leviathan page but my edits keep getting reverted. Is there no option to add suggested origins for the Leviathan on the page?

(Oh My Volcano (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

This is your interpretation, right? Read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY - we can't use our own interpretations, you will need a source making this suggestion and the source must meet our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems I am alone in this interpretation. Drat! It's a lonely place and may stay lonely given how much people, especially the experts, hate new ideas. I have just put my theory to about sixty experts so maybe I will hear something positive soon. Watch this space. p.s. if it helps my case then Lernaean Hydra, Chimera and Typhon....all sea monsters....were of volcanic origin.(Oh My Volcano (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

It does not help. Please read WP:No original research. Conversations you have with others do not count as reliable sources. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hydra, Chimera and their father Typhon were not sea monsters. Go read your mythology again.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian. I didn't say I was expecting private email chats to be used as 'evidence'! Oh dear me. Maybe something will come of the chats. You never know. 'Watch this space' but not too avidly as it may take some time. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)) Apokryltaros. Sorry, typo....I meant to say 'monsters of volcanic origin'. One word edited out but my point remains intact. Are we in agreement that Hydra, Chimera and Typhon are of volcanic origin? 'Go read your mythology again'? A bit rude isn't it? I thought Wiki had a 'be polite' rule. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

Why would anyone agree to that theory either? I haven't seen anything... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh My Volcano,

• Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, talk pages are only for discussing things relating to improving or maintaining the encyclopedia - see WP:NOTFORUM.
• We do not engage in any original research - see WP:No original research, which is the third time this has been linked. We only summarize reliable sources, as defined in this link. If you do not have any published works to cite, you do not have material to add as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
• Refusal to get the point is considered disruptive - see WP:IDHT.

At no point did I mention emails, please do not put words in my mouth. You said "I have just put my theory to about sixty experts so maybe I will hear something positive soon", which I pointed out does not count as a reliable source. If you did not mean to apply is as a source, what relevance was there to this encyclopedia?

Also, there is a difference between blunt correction and rudeness, Apokryltaros's remarks belong in the former category. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationists

Sub heading: "Christianity" Last line: "The Young Earth creationist opinion is that Leviathan and Behemoth are names given to dinosaurs which they wrongly believe existed in Biblical times." The above sentence is overly biased. you could just say that the Young Earth Creationists 'believe' such and such, but to state blatantly that they are wrong, without substantial proof, is not a "neutral" point of view. As you presented the beliefs of 'The Ancient Middle East', Jew tradition, and Satanism without pronouncing any of them wrong or opinionated; I recommend that you just simply state the beliefs of the Young Earth Creationists and leave it at that. FiggityWiggit (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word "wrongly" which is blatant "pushing" against someone else's beliefs which we can't do, but note that the word "wrongly" was added by an anon IP only two days ago and thus is more like provacatuering than part of the stable article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

bad citation

You have the wrong verse in your "Rashi" citation. I have a copy. It's not in there. Go back to your source. Also see the citation needed mark. If the Chabad website doesn't give its source (it probably does, you didn't see it if it's at the bottom of the page) then don't use this info. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone appears to have altered the quote into their own commentary on the quote (which is why a citation needed mark got in there), so I replaced it with the original quote. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing section Needs to be Added

There should be a section that talks about the theories as to the Leviathan's identity from notable scholars.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Weaselwording

From this:
Young Earth Creationist's argue that both the scale clad fire breathing Leviathan and the Behemoth depicted in the Bible can only have been dinosaurs that still existed when the Book of Job was written.[13][14]

To this:
Young Earth Creationists argue that both the scale-clad, fire-breathing Leviathan, and the Behemoth depicted in the Bible could only have been dinosaurs that they allege still existed when the Book of Job was written.[13][14]

The text of Job makes clear that the animal in question is something Job is familiar with. I realise the YEC position isn't universally held ;-) but the purpose of this section is to define their view, not challenge it. If Leviathan was a dinosaur and Job was familiar with Leviathan then Job was familiar dinosaurs. Adding that YECers allege dinosaurs still existed is a semantic cop-out intended on discrediting the claim as valid, and a treatment given to no other view. Rather than start an edit war though I'm posting this comment and will check back in the future. Hopefully a minor tweak that can quickly be resolved.

As an aside, a question for the Grammar Police - can only have been or could only have been? And what's the difference? :-)

118.208.52.166 (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How about this: Young Earth Creationists argue that both the scale-clad, fire-breathing Leviathan, and the Behemoth depicted in the Bible, can only have been dinosaurs. Based partly on on this, they conclude that dinosaurs still existed when the Book of Job was written. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Slight tweak for the second sentence => Based both on the text and other evidence they conclude that dinosaurs still existed when the Book of Job was written. Is this stronger? The partly on this section just seemed weak to me. 118.208.39.87 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Basic logic says a text cannot be taken as evidence for itself, though it's true that's their position, but it should be worded more neutrally. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Per this edit, the usage of this page was established as BCE/CE. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Lotan

Ltn isn't similar to Leviathan. It is exactly the same beast and we (like Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible) should merge it back to Leviathan to provide that article with its appropriate Canaanite context. — LlywelynII 13:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Leviathan has a lot of other stuff in it. Expand Lotan. DreamGuy (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless the two entities really are the same creature, and not merely identical, or that there is documentation and study that one is a derivation of the other, we should not merge the two articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ogden says Leviathan evidently corresponds to Ugaritic Ltn (Lotan/Litan) and a bit later that Leviathan "is believed to have been derived" from Ltn (with a footnote pointing to six works that discuss the connection). I'm not so much in favor of merging, though, as there are interesting other points to make about Ltn, in particular its connection to Greek Typhon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)