Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Russian fisherman who survived being swallowed by a fish? You actually believe that? I guess some folks will believe almost anything.
Yeah...some folks will even force themselves to believe our personal highly fine tuned Cosmos 'just happened' willy nilly without a shred of intelligent (willful) intervention.
Heres some info i found on people being swallowed whole by big fish ; source info provided :
REGARDING ACCOUNTS OF MEN BEING SWALLOWED BY A SPERM WHALES AND SURVIVING THAT EXIST OUTSIDE THE BIBLE
I will discuss the specific historical information that I believe makes the Jonah account credible in depth later. For now, I will discuss the accounts of men surviving inside a whale that occur outside of a Biblical context briefly.
1. Marshall Jenkins in 1771:
A website says the following:
Another individual, Marshall Jenkins, was swallowed by a Sperm Whale in the South Seas. The Boston Post Boy, October 14, 1771, reported that an Edgartown (U.S.A.) whaling vessel struck a whale, and that after the whale had bitten one of the boats in two, it took Jenkins in its mouth and went under the water with him. After returning to the surface, the whale vomited him on to the wreckage of the broken boat, "much bruised but not seriously injured...."
[my commentary: The Marshall Jenkins account occurred over 200 years ago. I do not see any witnesses cited. I do not see a lot of details given. I think further investigation is warranted if this account is going to be offered as good evidence but it is somewhat plausible given that Marshall Jenkins was not cited as being in the whale for an extended period (I am getting conflicting information regarding the possibilty of a man being in a whale for an extended time without the benefit of supernatural intervention and this will be discussed later].
The Marshall Jenkins information was taken from the following website http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences/8jonah.html and the website gives the following footnote: Ambrose John Wilson, "The Sign of the Prophet Jonah and Its Modern Confirmations," The Princeton Theological Review 25 (1927): 636-37.
2) Another account of a man being swallowed by a whale and survivng
Australasian Post, December 3, 1988:
Modern Jonah?
The biblica1 story of Jonah and the whale was repeated in Australian waters in 1820 when a crewman from the American whaler Essex was lost overboard from a harpoon boat.
Two hours later, as the whale was being stripped of its blubber, the crew noticed movement and slit open the mammal’s stomach.
The man said he remembered passing down a narrow passage and then he fainted inside a "large, noisome space."
[my commentary: So far I found no internet sites confirmed the Essex account cited by the author at the Investigator Magazine site says he/she read in the Australasian Post, December 3, 1988. Several internet sites, including the BBC, cited the Essex being attacked by a sperm whale but gave no reference to a man being swallowed by a whale and being recovered 48 hours later. I see no witnesses cited and a lack of details. I do not believe this can be offered as good evidence].
taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJonahDebate.htm
3) James Bartley - The James Bartley account of a man being swallowed by a sperm whale and living in all likelihood is a hoax.
See the following websites: www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist_prog6d.shtml www.ship-of-fools.com/Myths/04Myth.html www.straightdope.com/columns/010914.html
It is obviously unfortunate that people play are deceptive and do hoaxes. It is a fact of life in many fields, however, that hoaxes occur. This does not mean, however, and this is important, that we should throw out all knowledge in a particular area of study because of hoaxes. To do so, we would throw out the whole field of archaeology for example. In short, we have to be judicious. I do think however that currently there is no real solid evidence for the men in whale accounts that are outside the Bible. Perhaps, further investigation will turn up more details and/or witnesses. I am going to do some more research but not extensive research into this matter.
4. I am getting conflicting science opinions on whether or not a man could survive in a sperm whale in terms of oxygen availibility and the acidity of the digestive system. I will adress these issues later. I do not believe, however and this is an important point that this would pose a problem for Jonah because the Book of Jonah has supernatural intervention in many cases in regards to the Jonah/fish account and in regards to the rest of the accounts in the Bookof Jonah. [see my previous commentary]
[SIZE=4]EVIDENCE FOR THE GREAT WHITE SHARK BEING THE SEA CREATURE THAT SWALLOWED JONAH[/SIZE]
A website article declares the following:
"Another creature large enough to swallow a man is the voracious White Shark Carcharius vulgaris which grows to ten metres. This shark often swallows its meal without chewing and it occurs in the Mediterranean Sea—where Jonah allegedly was swallowed. The Sperm Whale occurs there too and anciently there was a Phoenician whaling industry based at the port of Joppa where Jonah embarked on the ship.
Nineteenth century scholar E B Pusey (1886) cited examples of people found, dead in the stomachs of White Sharks. In one instance a stomach contained a reindeer without horns. In another was a horse.
In 1939 a White Shark was caught which contained two smaller sharks - two metres long each - in its stomach. (Whitley 1940; Backus & Lineaweaver 1970)"
taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJonahDebate.htm
Another website says that according to the science writer Parham that following is true:
"Parham added that "in the cold water, with the metabolism of a shark, a
man's body could last three days without deterioration..."
taken from: http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/usa/calif...13-02jonah.html
Lastly, another website declares the folllowing:
"From: E B Pusey (1886) The Minor Prophets
A natural historian of repute relates, "In 1758 in stormy weather a sailor fell overboard from a frigate in the Mediterranean. A shark was close by, which, as he was swimming and crying for help took him in his wide throat, so that he forthwith disappeared. Other sailors had leapt into the sloop, to help their comrade, while yet swimming; the captain had a gun which stood on the deck discharged at the fish, which struck it so, that it cast out the sailor which it had in its throat, who was taken up, alive and little injured, by the sloop which had now come up. The fish was harpooned, taken up on the frigate, and dried. The captain made a present of the fish to the sailor who, by God’s Providence, had been so wonderfully preserved. The sailor went round Europe exhibiting it. He came to Franconia, and it was publicly exhibited here in Erlangen, as also at Nurnberg and other places. The dried fish was delineated. It was 20 feet long and, with expanded fins, nine feet wide and weighed 3924 pounds. From all this, it is probable that this was the fish of Jonah." "
taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJonahDebate.htm A tiger shark was found near India with a man's skeleton and clothes in it:
Here is the website: http://www.probe.org/docs/jonah.html Also, consider this information taken from a website:
"Robinson told of seeing a photograph "of a great white shark opening its
mouth, and it had within its gullet a whole blue shark. You could see the
head of a six-foot blue shark, so it could easily swallow a man."
taken from: http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/usa/calif...13-02jonah.html
I do not see how a person could maintain that God chose the great white shark to swallow Jonah and not recognize the fact that it would require God to provide oxygen to Jonah or to resurrect Jonah after he died.Some people suspect the Rhinodon shark could be a suspect as far as a fish that swallowed Jonah but the websites that had the most knowledgable people did not cite this shark and it may not inhabit the Mediterranean Sea. Plus the Bible says it was a "great fish" and the great white shark seems to fit this "great" criteria better.
Yeah...some folks will even force themselves to believe our personal highly fine tuned Cosmos 'just happened' willy nilly without a shred of intelligent (willful) intervention.
What fine tuned cosmos? The reason the bible often causes people to leave Christianity is simply that many of us are not able to believe the ridiculous and impossible stories told in that book...
The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder? --M. Lamar Keene
You may find the Story of Jonah a whale of a taie, but, Jesus himself referenced the story as historical fact and a tale of a Whale . Plus, there was a Russian fisherman who actually got swallowed by a big fish for quite a few hours before escaping ; while in the fish he found pockets of air for survival . Unless youre truly willing to diligently look into the credibility of the Bible, you will forever make the mistake of terming it myth based on personal apriori bias.
You really should be careful when asserting the historicity of the Book of Jonah, especially if you're going to use an analogy that a Russian fisherman survived in a big fish for a few hours; therefore Jonah was able to survive for a few days. The two don't match.
If you read any good introduction to the Book, you'll find that the scholary consensus is that the Book of Jonah was a lovely historical fiction story told to amuse people and teach a moral lesson. It's historicity has never been seriously accepted, since it's riddled with historical problems (this is without even touching on the matter of the whale) and it's so obviously fictional. Jesus may have referenced it, but he wasn't in the business of determining whether it was an actual historical account or not - he was more interested in it as a story. The New Testament writers, of course, would have used this story and it's 3-days-and-nights in the "pit" imagery for their account of Jesus and his 3-days-and-nights in the "pit".
Asimov, in his Guide to the Bible, quickly sums up the nature of the work by stating
The Book of Jonah is unlike any of the other prophetic books in that it is not primarily a record of the utterances of the prophet. Rather it is a short story, clearly fictional. The hallmarks of fiction rest in its anachronisms and its elements of fantasy. (p 643, New York, 1969)
Ehud Ben Zvi, writing in the Jewish Study Bible, also points this out, when he notes that it was included in "the Twelve" Prophets,
Yet it is unlike all the other prophetic books in many and diverse ways. For one thing, the book of Jonah is a narrative, whereas the others are not, though they may include narrative sections....Further, none of the other eleven prophets rebels against God and takes practical steps to preempt the fulfillment of the explicit divine will as communicated to the prophet....Despite the typically negative view of Assyria in the Bible, the book characterizes the entire population of Ninevah (the capital of Assyria), including its elite, the sailors, and even all creation, as clearly responsive to the LORD. Finally, according to this book, this extremely atypical prophet is the most successful in the Bible... ("Jonah", p. 1198, Oxford, New York)
So we have a narrative work, a rebellious prophet, a pious Assyria (which we know never happened - just ask the Northern Kingdom of Israel when they were destroyed by them), and a prophet who is actually listened to: not by Israelites, but by the very people who would destroy the Israelites. Imagine reading this work after the desctruction by Assyria - wouldn't you feel a little jilted that God didn't destroy Assyria when he had the chance, but instead sent a prophet to save them?
Luckily for them, they didn't have the book to make them think this way for quite some time - it's a very late book. Ben Zvi mentions that "the usual date for the composition of Jonah is the Persian period. No critical scholar today advocates the historicity of the prophet and his fantastic misadventures". (ibid, p. 1199) 1) The actual Jonah (if he existed) is mentioned in 2nd Kings 14:25, where it says:
It was he [King Jeroboam II] who restored the territory of Israel from Lebohamath to the sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the promise that the LORD, the God of Israel, had made through His servant, the prophet Jonah son of Amittai from Gath-hepher. (NJPS)
This would place him around 780 BC, but 2) the language used in the book of Jonah is quite late and "shows similarities to that used in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah" (Asimov, Asimov's Guide to the Bible, p. 643), 3) is exilic in nature, and it is frankly impossible that it was written during, or even near, the lifetime of the Jonah son of Amittai mentioned in the slightly more historical book of Kings. Further historical problems abound when 4) one looks at the actual capital of Assyria during Jonah's lifetime: Calah. Assyria had not yet risen to it's great power, so the great and fierce Ninevah, "that great city", was not even a player yet. 5) The book refers to Ninevah in the past tense in Jonah 3:3, giving us a hint that the book was composed after the destruction of Ninevah (after 600 BC)
In the end - it's historicity is plagued with many problems: and the above are just a few. More could be cited, and have been by eminent scholars working closely with the text. As an interesting side-note, J.R.R. Tolkien was responsible for translating this book for the English version of The Jerusalem Bible (TJB); so if you have that Bible and are a fan of Tolkien's masterful use of English - check it out! It's said that it was partly from his literary influence that The Jerusalem Bible ended up being such a beautiful translation of the Bible. I liked it especially because it used Yahweh for LORD when appropriate, which was and still is a rarity in popular translations of the Bible.
The book of Jonah could be said to be anti-Nationalistic, and belongs with the book of Ruth (which also preached against Nationalism and Racism) when assessing literary and theological content. God specifically trashes the expectations of the readers, who expect that their national God will defend and glorify them, and instead he shows that he is a Universal God - one who cares and protects the entire world, not just the Israelites. And if that isn't enough, he also cares for animals!
Yahweh replied, 'You are only upset about a castor-oil plant which cost you no labour, which you did not make grow, which sprouted in a night and has perished in a night. And am I not to feel sorry for Ninevah, the great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, to say nothing of the animals?' (Jonah 4:10-11, TJB)
This is how the book ends, with Jonah the whiner being chastised by God for having the wrong priorities. By extension, it's also a chastisement of all those people who feel that God should vindicate their Nation and punish the enemies of Israel. It's a potent message, especially if one considers what the Israelites and Judeans had experienced in their defeats and exiles to foreign lands. One wonders how this book, and the book of Ruth, ever made it into the Bible. But that's the beauty of the Bible - you can have inter-textual arguments, different points of view, widely diverse theologies: all clamoring for approval, or at the very least, consideration. What makes this book even better is that Jonah is probably the only prophet who was listened to - the only successful prophet heh heh!
007.5 - this book is one of the marvels of scripture, but it's historicity should not beseriously posited - for it's not needed: the message is great enough. Quite an evolution of a tribal God of a "stiff-necked people" who had no problem ordering the extermination of non-Israelites in order to favor that people, to a Universal God whose power and sovereignity is acknowledged throughout the world and is no longer limited to the land of Israel and Judah. The monolatrous nature of this God has now made a large shift in the direction of monotheism. The Israelites are not the only ones who recognize this God, but the Assyrians as well (and their animals, when the Assyrians dress them up in clothing of repentance - hilariously).
This is probably why this book has been a favorite of many readers and translators - not to mention the part about the whale, or fish.
For those who are only familiar with the "fish" part - read the book if you have time. It's only 4 chapters, and well worth your time. The "fish" is not the main focus of the book - merely one element in the story. And for all you animal-rights people: it's the book for you!
I dont have a link for it, however, if you contact this Christian Apologist (Dr. Norman Geisler) , he will provide information on the specific event of the man being swallowed whole and being regurgitated some time later. The man survived .
Norman Geisler is the LAST person I would approach for objective information, seeing as his stated goal is to be an apologist. Besides that, I'm wary of anyone who proudly displays the title "Doctor" before their name. Trying too much, maybe?
In the end - he's a doctor of philosophy - not religion. He's a sensationalist who has no scholarly credentials whatsoever in his chosen field of starting debates with actual professionals.
007.5...Most of your links don't work, but I found this on one that did..
What do we make of all this? Davis speculates that the story was cooked up by some pale fellow to take advantage of publicity surrounding the Gorleston whale exhibition and that it's been passed along by the gullible ever since. He's probably right — how could anyone survive overnight in a whale's stomach without suffocating?
Do you know what is inside a fishes stomach, or a whales for that matter? It is called acid, a very strong acid, and there is no air...A human would suffocate within minutes, and the digestive process begins immediately...
I dont have a link for it, however, if you contact this Christian Apologist (Dr. Norman Geisler) , he will provide information on the specific event of the man being swallowed whole and being regurgitated some time later. The man survived .
I can not find any reference to the fisherman story in any of Dr. Geisler's writings not any similar story elsewhere except for the Bartly Story of the 1800s which appears to be a fabrication. A similar story appeared in Readers digest in the 1950s or so but it was just a rewrite of the Bartly story.
Preachers have been using variations of the Bartly story since the late 1800s and some actually believe it is true.
Reading it should...but many overlook the contradictions that it contains and continue to follow the flock blindly.
Now, if anyone actually takes the time to study the origins of it and all religious belief...it definitely should for there is a HUGE difference between spirituality and religiousity.
Well, despite the claims of various apologists as to whether a human can surive in a whale's stomach or not, the book itself has severe historical problems that already point to it's role as a historical novel, not as a historical account. Looking for scientific facts to corroborate the story is as futile as looking for Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat - if any "Ark" were to be found, it would be better to look for the locations listed in earlier flood stories (the Biblical story is quite late by comparison), if one is brave enough to even get past the initial historical difficulties.
There is someone (can't remember the name) who has looked for the location where the Israelites crossed the "Red" Sea to escape the Egyptians - this person is unable to read Hebrew or Greek, and is using an older English translation of the Exodus acount to find the location. Scholarship has found that the "Red Sea" mentioned in the book is actually the "Sea of Reeds" - and most reliable translations render it accordingly. The problem here is that this investigator is setting off on a quest using limited and incorrect information, so any "results" he "finds" will be automatically discounted (if the account is even slightly historical, he's looking in the wrong place to begin with). This is why most so-called "scientific" arguments made by people like Geisler hold no water with professionals - they only mean something to those people with a similar level of education in the subject, and are opposed to an objective assessment of whether the story is historical or not. Their only wish is to show that the Bible is a reliable, inerrant historical account of actual events - and this has been shown to be patently false, and a dangerous way to approach Archaeology and History. While there is some historicity contained in the Bible, it must be approached like any historical account: it's best to have several independent sources backing up the claim, and the fact that the Biblical account is, in many areas, biased must be kept in mind. And if there's contrary evidence or internal evidence against it's historicity, it's pointless to even continue searching.
Ah, the good ol' days when archaeologists went digging with a shovel in one hand, and a Bible in the other. Now, it's common to start from the Archaeological record, rather than the Textual record.
Ha...you didnt really expect evidence of someone being alive before his life did you ?!
The major player eye witnesses for Jesus were all those who wrote down their eye witness accounts making up the entire New Testament such as : Matthew , Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, and the others who spent 3 solid years travelling with him. Now...youre not about to say that 'apart from these eye witnesses listed, I have no case' are you ?! ONE eyewitness is enough for our Courts today to send someone to death row.
If you are truly interested, which by your perpetual demeanor you are not... do a google for 'Historical credibility for the New Testament' which is the document which compiles all of these eye witness accounts..
You'll probably assume you've bested me in this charade of a conversation when I do not carry on with it.
Be assured it's only because I am finding that getting you to understand what an actual eye witness account is a hopeless venture.
Or maybe you really think the gospel writers were eye witnesses....in that case you need to learn a lot more before it's worth wasting any time discussing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
