Mythological creatures and scriptural prophecy

[elrondaragorn]

How should I respond to claims that scripture is wrong because mythological creatures Like Satyrs are mentioned. e.g. Isaiah 34 is a pronouncement of judgement against Edom, that it will be destroyed. A lot of the language like smoke rising for ever and ever, and it being called no kingdom don’t seem to have been fulfilled, the night hag (a reference to sumerian Lilith mythology by some people’s reckoning), etc Edom is part of Modern Jordan, which is by no means deserted, or an eternally burning no-man’s land. It is a kindom, and there are no Satyrs. Dragons and unicorns are also mentioned in scripture. How are we to interpret these references in the light of fait, especially prophecies that don’t come true?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Well, have you been using the KJV only? Critics like to use the King James Bible because it uses translations such as “unicorns” and “sea serpents” and what not. The NRSV and other selections are going to have actual animals in place of these words. I don’t even think the unicorn was familiar in the Ancient Near East. As for the unfulfilled prophecy, that’s going to take some high level apologetics. But, the prophecy could be provisional(?) or fulfilled in some way. Perhaps it has been read entirely wrong. Just a thought.
Who want suma debo?

 

[Della]

elrondaragorn:

How should I respond to claims that scripture is wrong because mythological creatures Like Satyrs are mentioned. e.g. Isaiah 34 is a pronouncement of judgement against Edom, that it will be destroyed. A lot of the language like smoke rising for ever and ever, and it being called no kingdom don’t seem to have been fulfilled, the night hag (a reference to sumerian Lilith mythology by some people’s reckoning), etc Edom is part of Modern Jordan, which is by no means deserted, or an eternally burning no-man’s land. It is a kindom, and there are no Satyrs. Dragons and unicorns are also mentioned in scripture. How are we to interpret these references in the light of fait, especially prophecies that don’t come true?

Isaiah, like John in Revelation, was using symbolic language that spoke to the people of his time. We moderns don’t understand what Isaiah meant to be literal and what was meant to be taken symbolically, but what we do know is that Isaiah was imparting God’s truth to the people. In this case warnings about destruction to come if the peoples mentioned did not turn away from their sin. Even today, in apparitions, warnings are taken as provisional not as absolute. The Ignatius Revised Standard Version uses the words satyr and night hag. It seems to me that they are names for real animals that were given names we think of as strictly mythological. A satyr may be a type of bird, also the night hag something like vultures or hawks. But, that is just a guess on my part.

 

[metal1633]

elrondaragorn:

How should I respond to claims that scripture is wrong because mythological creatures Like Satyrs are mentioned. e.g. Isaiah 34 is a pronouncement of judgement against Edom, that it will be destroyed. A lot of the language like smoke rising for ever and ever, and it being called no kingdom don’t seem to have been fulfilled, the night hag (a reference to sumerian Lilith mythology by some people’s reckoning), etc Edom is part of Modern Jordan, which is by no means deserted, or an eternally burning no-man’s land. It is a kindom, and there are no Satyrs. Dragons and unicorns are also mentioned in scripture. How are we to interpret these references in the light of fait, especially prophecies that don’t come true?

I wouldnt worr about it too much. Most translation use “Wild Goat” instead of Satyr. Blame it on old english. As for Edom. That prophsy HAS been fullfiled. Edom was a great kindom. But no more. It was destroyed. The ruins of its capital city are still there. An abode of wild creatures and nomads. Just because there is another country there now is irrelevant.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

elrondaragorn:

How should I respond to claims that scripture is wrong because mythological creatures Like Satyrs are mentioned. e.g. Isaiah 34 is a pronouncement of judgement against Edom, that it will be destroyed. A lot of the language like smoke rising for ever and ever, and it being called no kingdom don’t seem to have been fulfilled, the night hag (a reference to sumerian Lilith mythology by some people’s reckoning), etc Edom is part of Modern Jordan, which is by no means deserted, or an eternally burning no-man’s land. It is a kindom, and there are no Satyrs. Dragons and unicorns are also mentioned in scripture. How are we to interpret these references in the light of fait, especially prophecies that don’t come true?

A passage can perfectly well be true, even if it uses mythological imagery. The imagery is the means for the message - not necessarily its content ​

Expressions such “for ever” in Hebrew, often mean only “for a long while”.

There is a good deal of mythological imagery in the Bible - especially in Job, Psalms, the Prophets. But it does not affect the value of the Bible - if anything, it probably increases it. It shows that the Bible was fully of its own times.

“Shaggy ones” - less misleading than “satyrs”, perhaps - and the child-stealing demoness Lilitu (Lilith), are there because they make the point that Edom will be desolate, uncanny, not a place one would want to live in.

Isaiah often uses “mythological” language - there seems to be a background of this sort in chapters 7, 9, 13, 14, for example. 13, is rather like 34 - it’s about the desolation of Babylon.

Your handle is mythological - but you’re not a myth ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A passage can perfectly well be true, even if it uses mythological imagery. The imagery is the means for the message - not necessarily its content ​

Expressions such “for ever” in Hebrew, often mean only “for a long while”.

Your handle is mythological - but you’re not a myth ##

 

[walt2000]

Well, have you been using the KJV only? Critics like to use the King James Bible because it uses translations such as “unicorns” and “sea serpents” and what not. The NRSV and other selections are going to have actual animals in place of these words. I don’t even think the unicorn was familiar in the Ancient Near East. As for the unfulfilled prophecy, that’s going to take some high level apologetics. But, the prophecy could be provisional(?) or fulfilled in some way. Perhaps it has been read entirely wrong. Just a thought.
Who want suma debo?

Re: Are there any Catholic theologions that fully understand the last book of the bible ?

---

Ask any body,(that Say’s he is a prophet of Rev.) if they can inter pet Rev .10, and tell you what the seven thunders said to the church’s, if they can then they are worth listening to, if they can not then leave them alone they are false prophets.They all commit the same sin ,of Revelation 22/18 and are condemned.To the plagues of Rev.Walt

 

[dylanschrader]

There are various theories about the mythological creatures.

For example, Psalm 22 has “from the mouth of the lion and from the horns of unicorns.”

The American Breviary (Grail psalter) renders “unicorns” as “wild ox” or something like that.

The issue is that there is a Hebrew word for some kind of animal, and the translators of the Septuagint translated it as monoceros, literally “one-horned.” The Latin equivalent is unicornis, which is what is used in the Vulgate and even in the Revised New Vulgate used in the Latin Breviary. “Unicorn” is an English rendering of the Latin word.

More modern English translations try to figure out what animals the Hebrew words are really referring to.

So, for example:

Vulgate: gryps == Older English translation (from Vulgate): gryphon == Newer English translation (from Hebrew): osprey

 

[walt2000]

move over to------------------Re: Are there any Catholic theologians that fully understand the last book of the bible ? --------------------------
that thread explains all this mystical stuff.walt2000.