Talk:Leviathan

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's the source in 'Avoda Zara  Vonfraginoff 07:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leviathan as a Serpent 

message: 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).
B.Mearns*, KSC 00:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other references apparently deemed unworthy of the article page 

message: 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)
thread_title: the prophet Jonah

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Leviathan is the Crocodile, Behemoth is the Hippo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.55.242 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Alligator

message: 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)
thread_title:  why is the imaginary monster the first Wiki article? 

message: I didn't see the version listed with the Bible passages. Is it NIV? Agatehawk 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Bible version is used in this article? 

message: This is a children's book. Isn't there a better reference for this? IPSOS (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it. Better source or not, a children;s book shouldn't be here. DreamGuy 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''Dinosaurs by Design'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from Leviathan in rabbinic literature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Leviathan in popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title: demon in judaism

message: 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. MythSearchertalk 17:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasaurolophus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have added two (thus increasing the number of refs in the article by 50%). Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Concerning Leviathan as Hellmouth 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  It is not the Torah, it is the Tanakh 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Job '''41'''" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source or Remove it. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Canaanite Myth 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Young Earth Creationists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bad citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Weaselwording 

message: Per this edit, the usage of this page was established as . Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ERA]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Nope. Leviathan has a lot of other stuff in it. Expand Lotan. DreamGuy (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge from [[Lotan]]

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Leviathan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ency-islam-kaf":
From Kujata: 
From Bahamut: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Leviathan]] 

message: The redirect Leviathan(myhtology) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Leviathan(myhtology)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Keegancroteau12 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis