You will be interested to know, this is the story. For a lot more in whale swallowings, go here… www.salon.com/2012/01/15/swallowed_by_a … true_tale/
Swallowed by a Whale-- A True Tale? by Ben Shattuck

 "In 1947, Natural History magazine published a newly discovered letter from 1891 penned by a man aboard the ship Star of the East that told of a fellow crew member surviving 24 hours in a whale’s stomach. Here is the story in brief:

The Star of the East was sailing around the Falkland Islands. The crew spotted a bull sperm whale and lowered the boats to give chase. As they approached, the whale turned on the boats and attacked. It stove the boat, scattering the crew in the water. All were accounted for except for one, a young whaleman by the name of James Bartley. All assumed Bartley drowned.
The next day the crew spotted the same whale, gave chase again, and this time killed it. They dragged it back to the ship and began flensing it of its blubber. As they peeled the blubber away, someone noticed something moving under the stomach lining. They cut the stomach open, and out rolled Bartley, unconscious but breathing, his face and arms bleached entirely white by the stomach acids. After waking days later, he said he remembered nothing but sliding through the whale’s throat, and that the throat quivered when he touched it on his way down.
It didn’t take much research – follow-up articles appeared in the years following 1947 – to find that Bartley’s story was fiction, a letter written by mischievous sailors to excite landlubbers. But the letter was enough to pique my interest. Was there ever an actual swallowing, some evidence embedded deep in an antiquated logbook or diary that I might uncover?
Sperm whales would rather eat squid, which require little chewing, and not the hairy, bony things we are. That’s not to say sperm whales haven’t swallowed more than squid. In the 1960s, biologist Malcolm Clarke and his colleagues examined the remains from 2,403 stomachs of sperm whales caught by whalers off the South American coast. Aside from the hundreds of squid remains, he found seabirds, lobsters, seals, driftwood, coconuts, stones, rays, swordfish and sharks. While finding a tiny coconut in a whale’s stomach is enchanting, there’s nothing so striking as the image of a sperm whale eating a shark. It disturbs me the way turducken does, like as a close cousin to cannibalism. More terrifying, with sharks in the diet, Americans who might have been swallowed by sperm whales would have had another thing to worry about: sharing the stomach of your predator with yet another predator. To be eaten after being eaten. To be the –en of the turducken.
In my initial foray into books about the dangers of the Yankee Whale Fishery, I found a pretty standard account of whalemen entering a whale’s mouth and then quickly being spit out. The whalemen either fell in the mouth from their perches in the whaleboats, or the whale, after smashing the boat with its flukes and snapping randomly at the debris floating in the water, chomped down on an unlucky swimmer. In 1771, for instance, a female sperm whale dragged Marshal Jenkins underwater when he fell from his boat, but she quickly resurfaced to spit him out. Job Sherman fell into a sperm whale’s mouth in 1860, Peleg Nye in 1863, Albert Wood in 1847. A November 1880 issue of New Bedford’s Shipping News tells of Wood, at the bow of a whaleboat floating over an angry whale, losing his balance and tumbling headfirst into the mouth. He landed straddling the lower jaw. The whale clamped down, dragged him underwater while smashing the boat with his fluke — immediately killing the boat steerer — then freed Wood, who bled heavily from his groin into the frothy water.
The famous Quaker captain Edmund Gardner’s entanglement with a whale paints the clearest picture of what might happen — he was photographed post-attack, his left hand, fingerless and gnarled, centered in the shot. Gardner and his crew were off the coast of Peru in 1839. They lowered for a sperm whale. Gardner, as captain, was the boat header. After the whale was harpooned, he switched places with the boat steerer to kill the whale with a lance. The whale turned on the boat, and bit the bow. An article in Our Flag – a mid-19th-century publication out of New Bedford — lightly describes the whale biting the bow as it might “the best part of an apple-tart in the munch of a hungry school-boy.” His crew retrieved him, put him in the bottom of the boat, and thought he was dead. But he croaked out that he wanted to go to a doctor in Peru, where he convalesced."

Thought I might er, um…resurrect this thread, in light of a passage I found in Job.

14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

17 That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

18** He keepeth back his soul from the pit**, and his life from perishing by the sword.

19 He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:

20 So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.

21 His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.

22 Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers.

23 If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness:

24 Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

25** His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his youth:**

26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.

27 He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;

28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

29 Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man,

30 To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.

Now I realize these are the words of Elihu, one of Job’s three friends who gave ill counsel to Job in his misery. But for the most part it was a misapplication of the words they spoke concerning Job’s situation that got them in trouble, not the words themselves. I have the impression that what they spoke to job about God was for the most part, true. Even the Apostle Paul quotes Eliphaz from 5:13 in I Corinthians 3:19, saying, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

In Job 33, where this passage is extracted, Elihu speaks of God bringing one’s soul from the pit (or the grave). If true, then deliverance is post-mortem.

I thought I would add this Wiki How article on How to Tell if Someone Is Dead. These are some tests the layman can conduct. And a medical doctor writes on this topic at What is Brain Death?. And there’s a book article on [Excerpt]. My most fascinating book read on the topic is Erasing Death: The Science That Is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death by Sam Parnia and Josh Young. The last book is the best I have read, regarding this topic!

In Don Stewart :: What’s the Difference between Resurrection and Resuscitation?, it says:

But I do recall 2 gentlemen arguing about whether a parrot is dead or not.

Elihu was not rebuked, nor did he give bad counsel. He also was not one of the three who God was angry with.

I stand pleasantly corrected then. I didn’t realize that there were more than Job’s three friends involved. Elihu seems to pop up suddenly in the text.

All the more to examine what Elihu has to say.

When God is presented as rebuking Job’s ‘friends,’ is Elihu differiented from the other three friends? I wan’t aware any distinction was indicated by the Biblical text.

Well, Job 42:7 says, " And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."

Eliphaz’ two friends were Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite (see Job 42:9).

So that pretty much eliminates Elihu from God’s wrath, since it was directed only to Eliphaz and his two friends. So Gabe is right.

Thanks Dondi, very helpful, and I should take a good look at this!

So the interesting thing about Elihu is that he is considerably younger than Job and his three friends, and he hadn’t spoken until now because he didn’t want to usurp their discussions, as a matter of respect, yet he feels that something is very wrong with Job’s friends advice. He respectfully waits until they are finished.

I suspect that Elihu joined them sometime during the latter part of the dialogue. But he accuses Job’s friends of condemning Job for reasons that aren’t sufficient to give, saying "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment (Job 42:9). Job is, of course, blameless, as God declares in chapter 42.

What a blessing to know that God judges rightly!

I am not so sure of this. Job is a very deep book and I don’t believe Job was ever ‘perfect’ but merely ‘upright’. He was still imperfect in regards to his to the inner man and declared himself vile towards the end. He was not wicked, not even in the slightest, but not blameless as most understand it to mean. What I mean is that his trials were not the result of his sin. So he was blameless in that regard. If Job was perfect or even sinless we could find no comfort in the book of Job as every time we failed to hit the mark, we would be reminded that God would not consider us blameless, because we didn’t even measure up to Job!

When I read the Old Testament without the lens of our westernized concept of Christianity, I am see something that Christian’s told me was a fallacy and that is “there are no good people” and I suppose one could take that straight from Jesus “There is none good but God” but, then we would have to say Job was not good and thus, wasn’t blameless. I’d rather say that Jesus meant something else with that statement. Rather, I believe the OT teaches that there are good and bad people base on their life overall. A wicked person and a righteous person are defined not arbitrarily as we would define them, but as God defines them. If Job is blameless in the general sense of God not dealing harshly with us in regards to the small sins of the mind, we have reason to believe that good men exist and we can be those good men (and women).

The fallacy I am coming to reject is this.

100 truths, 1 white lie = evil
1 truth, 100 treacherous lies = evil

Whats the point in trying if you are declared vile by God no matter what? Perhaps, the top line isn’t evil at all, but a good man. That is what I believe. “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.” - It seems to me that some Christian’s are creating a God that provokes his children and the result is discouraged children. Amazing how much of the wisdom in the Bible isn’t applied to God, but only us imperfect humans. Like, we are missing the big picture of who God really is.

I didn’t say Job was sinless, I said he was blameless (some translations: perfect), as said back in Job 1:1 and 2:10.

When Jesus said “Be ye therefore perfect and even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), He wasn’t saying that they had to be sinless, although we should avoid sin as we can (He knows we are clay in this life), but that their overall behavior should reflect their status as “children of the Father”. That involves loving your enemies as you do your friends. That takes a conscious effort on our part to go the "extra mile’ that we would probably naturally not be inclined to do. You rise above your circumstances. That’s the perfection He is talking about.

Job went above and beyond by offering sacrifices ion behalf of his sons.

I perceive Job is subverting the traditional orthodox explanation of suffering as simply a system of rewards and punishment (a view with which Elihu sympathizes). For it still validates Job as righteous, with God even allowing his exercise of moral judgment when it’s directed at challenging God Himself!

Thus, despite 42:7’s focus on rebuffing the three friends (who appear most egregious), I doubt it exonerates Elihu. He is “angry” at Job’s claim that his suffering is unjustified and that Job is righteous (32:2). For he brings the cocksureness of youth that he has “perfect knowledge” (36:4), which belongs alone to God (37:16; 1Sam 2:3). Thus he falsely accuses Job of claiming to be sinless (33:9), and displays deep ignorance of Job’s righteousness relationship with God (as verified to us in chs. 1-2 and the conclusion). Therefore, God’s closing rebuke strongly fits Elihu as well.

I do not agree. If he was rebuked, surely God would have mentioned it specifically. You are reading into the text something that isn’t there.

As much as I don’t like pipers theology in general, it lines up with my opinions on Job.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=IcSUVZ2vOJfYoASRnK7wCA&url=http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/job-rebuked-in-suffering&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEu6qJbbzib74ZoJGXcuu3q18BLgg&sig2=u2DCyNYjq_iNyUbF4zcm1

Also, read Job 36:4 again and in a few different translations and see if you still think Elihu is claiming that of himself… He is saying that God is the one with perfect knowledge not himself!

Do we immediately get a resurrected body? Not sure! There’s the experiences of Tiffany Snow, who had a near death experience. She became a contemporary Christian healer and stigmatist (i.e. in the Old Catholic Church tradition). Here is her perspective on what happens three weeks after death at After Death, according to her visions. In addition, I have read contemporary and ancient cases of saints of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and other faith traditions, appearing in apparent physical form before people, after the saints have died - if only for a brief time.

Elihu’s chapters are so weird I tend to ignore them anyway. He shows up out of plot-nowhere, and is promptly ignored by everyone including God. In effect he summarizes everyone’s arguments by taking everyone’s side including everyone’s side against each other.

I’ve read arguments pro and con, including some based on differences in the language (Lewis used to say that the difference in Hebrew is as if some chapters in Chaucer were written in Shakespearean English, though I’ve also read some rebuttals of that supposed difference), that Elihu’s chapters were added much, much later.

At any rate, I decided not to include (in my scriptural notes collection) Elihu’s statements on saving souls from sheol, since he seems contextually to be talking about God saving penitent sinners from being killed by their chastisement, and restoring them to health. Elihu is pretty blatantly sure later (36:18-21) that once a sinner dies they’re hopelessly punished and that there is no possible ransom for them. So since he regards Job (by now if not earlier) as a thoroughly evil man deserving the harshest punishment, he warns that Job had better not pray for death because if God grants it Job will be permadamned. (Though Elihu also pretty blatantly has no idea of the hope Job has in his Redeemer, since Elihu is thinking in terms of ransoms a king or other wealthy man might make to get someone out of prison, which he rightly says are of no value to God; on the other hand, as noted in chapter 33, even Elihu acknowledges that the ransom-payment God is looking for in chastising sinners is repentance from sin.)

In passing, it’s kind of amusing how often I’ll see non-universalists cite Job’s three friends, of all people, as solid Biblical testimony against post-mortem salvation specifically and universal salvation more generally. At least when Elihu backs them up on this he goes unrebuked, but then everyone ignores him including God. On the other hand, Job has some pretty permadamned things to say about his three friends eventually (e.g. Job 28:8-10), although I think it’s worth noting that Job calls this down on them because they refuse to have mercy on him. (Much like David against his little satan-accusers, though David’s situation is more obviously self-refuting since he hopes and expects God to have mercy on him eventually for his sins while hoping and expecting God to have no mercy on those other people for being themselves unmerciful to sinners like David!)

Jason, we seem to agree that Elihu shares the three friends’ folly of seeing Job as “a thoroughly evil man deserving the harshest punishment” and “blatantly has no idea of Job’s hope in his Redeemer.”

So Gabe, since I at least read it this way, I don’t see how your argument from silence (God doesn’t “specifically” rebuke Elihu’s views) can bear the great weight required of overturning what already seems clearly developed as the main lesson of the whole overarching narrative. (and while 36:4 is ambiguous and unessential to my case for the purpose of the book, I’m not seeing how any translation convincingly overturns the logical impression that Elihu argues (fallaciously) that the reason Job can know his words are not false is that Job is in the presence of a man who possesses superior knowledge)

Without wasting my time, did you read what Piper wrote about it? If so, then I guess the conversation has run it’s course. If not, read and refute that, as I would not want to re-invent the wheel.

When 3 out of 4 are “scolded”, I hardly consider that an argument of silence. Let’s not pretend that the burden of proof is required for my position. Rather, the burden of proof is needed for your position because you are reading into the text.

As I re-read, I think I am coming off as too abrasive and not my intent. Let me clarify something here…

If A,B,C, & D are ignorant and someone knows this to be true, person R (the rebuker) would naturally say “All 4 of you are wrong” rather than “You 3 are wrong”. The only way I think one can get around this is to suggest that Elihu was inserted into the text at a later time… BUT, if that is the case, it doesn’t bode well for anyone that holds to the idea that the scriptures do not contain errors… Clearly, if the text was added after, it is a man made book worst and at best a tinkering of God’s word. Now, from my background, I don’t necessarily ascribe to innerancy. Therefore, this issue has little impact on me, but it does for anyone who does hold to it.

When both of my kids are acting bad, I don’t just rebuke one of them. I rebuke both. To rebuke only 1 would give a 3rd party the idea that I approved the behavior of the child I did not rebuke. Hence, the burden of proof is on your position to explain why someone would rebuke 3 instead of 4 when rebuking 4 wouldn’t take anymore time or effort on the part of the writer. The mere omission is evidence that nothing Elihu said was wrong. Again, assuming you believe the book was not tampered with and God inspired.

And my mention of 36:4 wasn’t made for any other reason than to poke an easy hole into your assumption that Elihu was arrogant. It was nothing more than that. A lot of assumptions are made in scripture and that was a good example of one.

Take for example Jesus. If we didn’t believe He was the messiah, we could seem to find things he said that were harsh and arrogant… I mean, here this guy claims to be God! he claims to sit at the right hand of God! Now, if you do believe he is the messiah, all those scriptures now don’t seem quite like we thought. So, I am merely saying that you are judging Elihu because you are taking up offense for Job, assuming that Job is above rebuke. Once you let go of the idea that Job was perfect in every way and still had some issues to work on, you can accept that Elihu’s charge was not arrogant at all and was truthful. It is a matter of perspective.

I find this inconsistent… Was I wrong in thinking you believe in innerancy? It seems a bit strange to ignore scripture. Isn’t that an argument that is deployed against us who don’t believe in Biblical innerancy? That we can pick and chose? How is that any different than your “ignore this section of scripture”?

Actually, to add what Gabe says, there is a comprehensive theological alternative to inerrancy called infallibility, which is adopted by different Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians, as well as some mainline Protestant denominations. It’s not “pick and choose”.

One need only peruse through the Wiki article Internal consistency of the Bible, for various approaches to this topic.
It’s interesting to look at the topic heading modern:

Also see Don Stewart :: What the Difference between the Inerrancy of Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture?

For my rendering, as an Anglo-Catholic with a love for elements (i.e. Eastern Orthodox position on sin, Theosis and the Eucharist, as well as the Roman Catholic position on other religions and inclusivism) of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology (although grounded in a conservative Anglican framework), I’ll run with the infallibility approach.

Gabe,

Thanks for the reply. I don’t see Job as “perfect in every way,” nor in need of no rebuke! God himself actually gives some rebuke to him. Indeed, I sat with John Piper in 28 Bible & theology classes, and like much of what he says here about suffering, and perhaps Job really is more about perverse reactions to our suffering than I or most commentators have been able to recognize. But as even Piper observes, his points have not convinced most commentators to discard their understanding of Job’s theme, and thus not their conclusion that Elihu is little better than Eliphaz. Further, you agree that your (& my) view of inerrancy means insisting that Elihu’s views must be specifically rebuked “has little impact!”

That leaves my response to your claim that “Elihu did not give bad counsel:” that I doubted Job endorses (or exonerates) all that Elihu says. My basis was pointing to the contrary overarching theme, and citing with most commentaries (& even our JP) that Elihu is presented as embracing some of the same errors as the three friends, falsely accuses Job of claiming to be sinless, and displays ignorance of Job’s righteous position before God.

So what seems pivotal is that your only counter was to assert that I’m “reading into the text.” Folk often differ on who bears the most burden, but when I cite the reading of most commentators, what seems needed to defeat it, is to engage the citations, show how their interpretation is incorrect, and explain how Elihu is consistent with what’s highlighted to the reader, that Job is essentially ‘righteous,’ and not worthy of the “anger” that all four vent upon him.

All the best to you,
Bob