Not janoh and the whale, but jonah and a fish
Jonah 2:10
10 And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.
How did the fish get close enough to dry land to accomplish this?
2006-10-20 05:17:24 · 24 answers · asked by ? 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Projectile vomiting.
2006-10-20 05:18:36 · answer #1 · answered by XYZ 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Vomiting Jonah onto dry land does not preclude Jonah having to swim through some water. The account does not really go into much detail, and I don't think the idea is for us to analyze the details as if there was nothing missing! In a very short form the Bible account gives us the general outline of what happened - what is useful for us to get what the writer is trying to teach us.
Whether it was a fish or a whale doesn't make much difference to me. The writer of Jonas could be including whales among the classification of fish because it swims in the sea. (The classifications we have defined today are fairly recent, those of a few thousand years ago are under no obligation to follow 19th century classifications) On the other hand, as some have mentioned it is impossible to go down the throat of a whale (not being a biologist, I have no idea if it is true) the fact that it just says "fish" leaves the possibilities wide open.
2006-10-20 12:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shall we laugh at modern astrologers for actually believing there were 9 planets last year? How do modern astrologers get 9 out of 8? I agree with you that 9 =/= 8. Did one suddenly disappear?
Are they stupid, or unlearned fools? No. The general concensus at the time was "a planet is anything that goes around a star". Now, the general concensus is that "a planet is anything with a core that goes around a star, and a dwarf planet is anything like a meteorite that goes around a star in a planet-like manner".
Back then, the general concensus was "if it had fins of some sort and lived 100% of the time in the water, it was a fish". Now, the general concensus is "if it breaths water, has bones (as opposed to cartilage), and has a certain physiology, it is a fish".
It does not necessarily mean something we define as a fish nowadays. It could have been a whale, a whale shark, a Charcaradon megalodon, or any other water-dwelling animal with a fish-like morphology that's big enough to swallow a person whole.
'Sides it is not impossible for a large sea creature to beach itself. It seems to happen quite often nowadays. I'm always hearing stuff about dolphins or large whales (or a multitude of other sealife) beaching themselves.
2006-10-20 12:41:56 · answer #3 · answered by seraphim_pwns_u 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Jonah was in the sea, not on land:
Jonah 1:15 So they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. 16 Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice to the LORD and took vows. 17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
By this, we understand that this was no ordinary "fish," and that the "fish" was in deep waters.
You are correct, the Bible does not imply this was a whale.
Peace.
p.s. -- here's a puzzle for you that answers your question: what does the Hebrew word "gadowl" (great) imply about the TRUE identity of the "fish"?
2006-10-20 12:22:26 · answer #4 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A Great White Shark is a fish, and sharks can get very close to land. Haven't you seen those documentary shows that show Killer Whales actually swimming themselves onto the beaches to grab seals, amazing. Haven't you ever seen land that is rocky shore where the water is feet deep at the edge of the rocks, many possibilities.
2006-10-20 12:21:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fish? Whale? What's the difference--can you imagine how freaked out Jonah must have been? The Lord works in mysterious ways.
2006-10-20 12:22:48 · answer #6 · answered by heavnbound 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
So what! If you saw a HUGE whale back then you'd call it a fish too if you didn't know any better. Also, I don't see the bible mentioning a computer, but the doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Be sensitive to the times of when things were written.
2006-10-20 12:24:44 · answer #7 · answered by Light 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Think like an ancient person. Did they know the difference between a fish and an aquatic mammal? Did the people writing the letters know that a whale would one day be classified so vastly different, that future beings may laugh at their ignorance?
They saw a giant aquatic, swimming thing. They said "big fish!"
2006-10-20 12:21:33 · answer #8 · answered by Jay 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Stupid thing beached itself.....
The Bible also calls bats BIRDS!!! LOL!!! Yup, that is one omnisicent God alright... Cant even properly classify His own creations....
With regards to the ridiculous excuse that animals were not classified then....the Ancient Greeks were alreay classifying animals into 500 different subspecies. Its pretty easy to tell the diff between a fish and a whale...only one of them comes to the surface to breathe air. No fish do that....
2006-10-20 12:24:31 · answer #9 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wasn't there, were you? I think mammal wasn't a word back then and who knows maybe whale wasn't a word either.
And hey, killer whales come onto land in the edge of the surf to catch seals.
Why do people ask such trivial questions, trying to prove the Bible wrong.
I sometimes feel I'm sinning by answering such questions.
2006-10-20 12:27:03 · answer #10 · answered by Cal 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Keep in mind people calling it a whale is just our best educated guess.
And keep in mind the book of Jonah was written before the whale was ever classified as a mammal.
2006-10-20 12:24:00 · answer #11 · answered by daisyk 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋