Lil gremlin - nice post, puts the point across very well indeed.

That is wonderful lil gremlin. i love it, mind if i use that on one of my lectures? now a days students need a little more than an ice breaker just to keep them awake/.

If i were allowed, id hire little pretty sexy women clad only in swimsuits and handsome men to dance for a minute or two just to get their attention.

lol, thx lil gremlin, that just made my day

Indeed lil gremlin!

But, remember DC's rebuttal will be that you have no idea what you are talking about, even though
that little story makes perfect logical sense.

Calm down, DC. You never specified in what manner you were using Dr. Jones theories in respect to your own work but did seem to infer you were using them to support it. It was a natural assumption to make that this should only be done with his agreement as your work is for commercial purposes.

For the record, are the 'earliest human cultures who did not fear these dragons' including the early Hebrews and Sumerians you are fond of citing and of whom you have stated many times had 'dragon gods' whose diets included human children and female virgins yet these dragon gods were not human predators?

Not wanting to upset you again, just wanting some clarification.

*Badge-wearing member of the DC Nutty Hecklers Club*

DC you dont seem to see what i see in the modern day fantasies

maybe its because i actually bothered to LOOK and actually see what they are

D&D Lore

A dragon is a beast that a DM much carefully put in the Campaign because it can compete destroy a party

A dragon is no mans slave

there are good and evil dragons (chromatic and metallic)


Other Fantasy's i know of

Final Fantasy

The dragon Bahamut thought to be the "god of summoned creatures" and only is a summon by defeating him or a dragon of equal power

Fantasy Novels

Dragon Lance
As far as i know they are a feared and powerful creature (i have yet to fully read the seris)

Crown of Stars book #1 Kings Dragon

the Giruvine is refered as the dragon, wipes out half of the kings army last chapter

The Wheel of Time

The Dragon Reborn is the person ment to defeat the Dark One


those are the modern day fantasy's i was reffering to

and they do go in accordance with some ancient legands mainly in all of them

they represent a simble of power

Why am I not surprised that you think Yahweh is a mere man?

Not only is he described as a fire spewing winged creature with wings, in the Bible, but he is 'alive' throughout the thousands of years of history it records, and accomplished amazing feats. That's ALL in the Bible. It is not a 'man' behind the name Yahweh, it is a Canaanite dragon god. Now whether that creature is real or not, is a matter of faith, until such creatures reveal themselves again.

The seemingly popular reception of that witless piece of doggerel really only confirms the fact that the concepts are way over the head of this certain handful.

Nor is the fable a very accurate representation of the actual state of affairs, for in the discussions this nonsense is based on, Sloth proves time and time again that John is "no jeweler" in spite of his inflated ego, and self-belief that he is a very good jeweler.
Sometimes, as we have seen, John didn't know a jewel from an egg (or a cat) himself.

Demanding the first born child of every household seems to be more of a symbolic way of showing fealty to certain ancient 'dragon' deities than anything else, and was by no means universal, though it seem prevalent in western asia. In the case of Yahweh, we see that he was willing to accept their 'equivalent value' in treasure, as we see explained in Deuteronomy with a sliding payscale based on the relative age/nutritional worth of the owed offering. Other than the Midianite account, where the 32 offered virgins were captured enemies, we see not further references to offering virgins, or women in general to Yahweh. His preferred diet appears to be lambs and calves, but did not want pigs, asses, or horses contrary to the requests of other dragons.

While they were rightly feared, (for some could be easily angered), they were not cnsidered predators, but often were praised in their Hymn as "good shepherds" to their flocks as we see in a Sumerian hymn to the "Great Dragon of Heaven", Enlil. By bringing civilization, and all its trapping to early man, the dragon gods eliminated the feared predators.

Jones was very selective in the 'dragon legends' he recounted, because the beneficient dragon gods who brought civilization contradicts his thesis that dragons were no more than composites of man's most feared predators.

I am familiar with the modern fantasy genre, it is necessary to be so to understand man's current perceptions of them.

So called "Evil" dragons are killed to enhance the prestige of the hero, and most "good" dragons are little more than sidekicks and transport to the human heroes who the stories are actually about. Of course, there are a few books specifically written for dragon fans, though even in these, the dragons are often killing each other in mindless wars instigated by humans, which for some reason are usually in control.

In most cases, the stories are poorly written and no explanation can be given how there could be a 'world' of knights slaying evil, but highly intelligent dragons, when, if humans could be a threat to them, they would have enslaved or exterminated them when the humans had nothing more than clubs as weapons.

And yes, the dragons are technically slaves in one of the most popular series of 'pro-dragon' stories though most readers may not even realize it. The Pern dragons were bio-engineered creatures, while though intelligent, were programmed to commit suicide if the human their human 'controller' died, thereby preventing their colonised world to have any dragons that were not obedient, giant scaly puppy dogs of man.

Dragons are still very real in our subconscious, and as the majority of the literature. films and games even today demand that we are only comfortable if we kill, enslave, or subdue them. This is human nature.

Im sorry DC did you get the impression that that piece was about me and you?

as i said, it was found in an ancient manuscript


there are some reactions to the piece that i value highly, and i thank those people....it was not expected.

Still no sources... interesting...

Oh, and are you to say that the Compte De Saint Germain was/is also a dragon?

Source for what, that Yahweh is a dragon? There is a huge thead with many sources in the Spirituality and Religion section.

Thank you, my sister just asked why I burst out laughing hysterically. I had to tell you that that is the best thing I've read all day, maybe even all month or all year, on these forums, at least.

DC, you might care for the dragons in the books of Dennis R McKiernan (Dragondoom, etc). While the dragons are not the main characters or focus of the stories, they are neither pets not simply beasts to be killed. While most are not evil, they are generally contemptous of man and his struggles, and are second in power only to the creator gods. They have a saying "no man has killed a dragon" and in the cases where a man has it is through either an artifact of or the actions of one of the creator gods.

In "The DragonBone Chair" the mythical dragonslayer turns out to have actually have only come across a carcass, and created a myth and kingship with it. The dragons there are almost like intellegent, alien, forces of nature than creatures, and even with a mighty artifact sword, the main hero only wounds one. Though, again, the dragons are not the subject of the series.

As for the nice and fluffy dragon books: Pern, DragonHeart, Eregon, and Her Majesty's Dragon series, I see them as attempts of the authors to make dragons more likable and warm (by having them deeply care about people) than degrading them as pets. Also, the dragons are presented as intelligent beings, often with phenominal abilities, rather than dumb beasts. I remember reading Ann McCaffery writing that she was sick of stories where the dragons were always portrayed as evil creatures to be slain, that she had often rooted for them, and wanted to portray them in a different light. I don't think that the authors meant any offense.

PS: DC, DS, or whomever, please put up some of your favorite books on the subject too...

The His Majesty's Dragon series is interesting, as I have always liked the Napoleonic Wars, but the premise is quite rididulous. Many of the dragons are at least the equals in intelligence to most humans, and incredibly powerful beasts, yet for at least 2000 year (earliest references to domestic dragons in the series), the dragons are essentially the often mistreated slaves of humans, fighting other dragons to the death, for purely human political goals like unintelligent horses.. Only in China are the dragons treated equally, and not as draft animals, and are even free to kill humans who wrong them... a death penalty for the dragons of England. So this is really no different than the silly Dragonlance stuff where even more intelligent, centuries old dragons kill each other for humans.

McCaffery's supposedly 'pro-dragon' 'idea is really quite sick, dragons that have selflessly saved the human race programed to kill themselves because their idiot human master gets stabbed to death in a drunken brawl? (a common plot in Pern). It is amazing that these so-called, air head, 'cutesy dragon lovers' don't see how dispicable the human race really is in this fantasy world. These readers are just happy imagining they are a dragonrider, with an intelligent, mighty dragon companion who they will take to the grave with them, like the sacrificed wives of some pagan king.

After the current historical dragon project, I thought it would be fun to write a thinly disguised 'Pern type world' parody where the dragons finally get fed up with being mankind's doormat when they actually have all the power, and decide to do somethng about it.

But back to topic, you can see that even people who think they like dragons like Anne M still insist on man 'controlling the dragon'. Perhaps it is all a subconscious reaction to the ancestral memories of the 'dragon gods' once controlling us.

hes not a dragon!!! why do you never look at my posts with evedince why do you keep posting he is a dragon based on D&D threads. lmao

The Bible says he spews fire out of his mouth, has big wings, has a canaanite dragon goddess for a girl friend, ordered moses to make his winged serpent (dragon) idol, ans winged serpents (dragon) assistants (offspring?), demands calves, lambs, and children as food, and HALF the ancient Christians and the Persian Zorostrians say he is a dragon. Your "evidence" is nothing compared to this.

Have you ever stepped back and actually thought that you may actually care too much about this?

What verses specifically say this. I'm pretty well versed in Biblical scripture and no where have I encountered a description of the Judeo-Christian God that states that he "spews fire from his mouth, has a Canaanite dragon goddess for a girlfriend", or any of the other things you have just described. Clearly, DC, these things are the products of flights of fancy.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Yahweh has wings.
If I am wrong, show me the verse.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Yahweh spew fire from his mouth.
If I am wrong, show me the verse.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Yahweh has a Canaanite goddess as a female consort.
If I am wrong, show me the verse.

Nowhere in the Bible does anyone sacrifice animals as "food" to Yahweh, let alone children.
The sacrifice of animals can be traced back to the story of Cain and Abel, where Abel offered up one of his best sheep as thanks to God.
If I am wrong, show me the verse.

The winged serpent is not what you claim it is. It was neither winged, nor a dragon. In Hebrew it was known as the Nehushtan.
The "fiery" part of the serpent is often attributed to the parasite Dracunculus, which gives its host a condition known as Dracunculiasis. Dracunculaisis causes the host organism to develop painful blisters where the parasite will eventually emerge. These blisters are well known for their extreme burning sensations. Of course, this information is all irrelevant when cast into the light that most of the early Bible is of dubious historical origins. I have yet to see a reasonable historical argument for any of the events that supposedly transpired in the Bible. Then again, of course, the inadequacy of the Biblical evidence doesn't hold a candle to your ludicrous claims about dragons.
Symbolically, a serpent (snake, not dragon) was representative of poison, medicine, and renewal.

The only source that I have ever heard attribute the Semitic God dragon-like characteristics is you, D.C.
So lets see your "evidence", or hold your peace.

slight resemblance should not be taken to consideration, because if we do take it into consideration just to prove that the Dragon is a Universal Historical Entity then we should not dismiss the slight differences as well that would disprove it....

OMG!!! DARGONS DO EXIST!!! WOW D.C. DOES THIS MEAN YOUR RIGHT????? A student of mine just submitted a paper about dragons! Its 10 pages neatly written! He states that there is a "modern manuscript" about dragons! There is a dragon named "NATAKU"-two headed dragon! It is stated that the Japanese reconstructed this beast and its powers and capabilities surpassed contemporary weaponry! It is noted that out of 5 this "dragon" was most feared. It would even rival another chaotic dragon named "Epiyon". And this ingenious student of mine also supplied me a source on the net for this terrible dragon! In my students own word "look and weep".
Pls click this link
http://www.gundamofficial.com/www_ac/ew/me.../wufei/144.html

I’m going to have a talk with this student this weekend, to contemplate what I should do with this term paper and his academic standing. Very Ingenious….

Why am I not surprised by the 'level' of children assigned to your mentorship? Kindergarten, right?

SLIGHT resemblance? Are you kidding me?. I'll take the esteemed Carl Sagan's acknowledgement of the "universal dragon" over your musings.

whats the matter DC??? this dragon is not to your liking??? but it is a dragon! a real dragon too! it has fangs! it has...lots of stuff!! ITS A DRAGON!!! wait till i get the site for the Epyon. i heard that is a real scarry dragon...

Wow, D.C., you clearly do not comprehend Sagan's argument about the "universal dragon". Its an argument about skeptical thinking, not about the actual existence of dragons.

Maybe you should actually understand things before you talk about them - LINK


Sagan's paper is about skeptical thinking. NOT ABOUT DRAGONS.

P.s. This one is almost as good as your quote about how people who disappear are actually eaten by dragons. How the hell could you mistake a philosophical argument for evidence of dragons? This is mind boggling D.C.

ooohhh you got a new source again huh??? what hapend to your prev source, David E. Jones. and his book An Instinct for Dragons??? this new source and reference is more supportive to your ideas??? or are you taking things out of context again???? Im so sure that this new reference of yours is so very very supportive of your ideas! im so sure! so sure indeed that id bet a penny!

D.C. brings shame to the good name of Carl Sagan. He thought that Carl Sagan actually supported the existence of dragons through his paper, when in actuality Sagan's "dragon" argument is an argument against skepticism. D.C. needs to update his literary and research skills.

hey DC! here is another dragon for you! it is very "classical". it is so like the dragons of old! i found this one on my independent search for dargons, an idea i got from a very reliable source! they are real DC!!

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/g/gf13-011nc.htm

IT IS GREAT EVIDENCE ABOUT "DRAGONS"! THEY DO EXIST! so sure they do! you see! its a dragon! you see the dragons head? very very real! the picture is real too! and that link is a very informative source for you DC! it tells you about the history of this "DRAGON"!! it is very very usefull! read it!!! it is a very supportive peice of information! it is very detailed!

id have a bunch of them! atleast it would be a great excuse as to why they so strongly beleive in dragons...whats your excuse?

Ignorance is never an excuse.

Well, C&D, you are right that Carl Sagen is a skeptic: he does not believe in dragons, or for that matter, the supernatural, extra-terrestrial visitations, or God. He does have a faith in the power of reason, however.

In his book, "The Dragons of Eden" he does muse of the apparently universal legends of dragons. His conclusion, is that the dragons lurking in the imaginations and subconscious minds of people all over the world have their origins in biology. He postulates that the small, rodent-like ancestors of humanity, hiding in terror from the thunder lizards of the Cretacious, have passes down a instinctive threat-response to gigantic reptilian predators. I think he has a strong point in this, for such dinosaurs would have been as dragons to such small mammals: huge, fast, invulnerable, and more intelligent.

On that note, however, D.C. do you care to address the issue that I brought up? That somehow, and I'll never figure out how, you mistook a philosophical argument about skepticism for evidence of dragons. How did you possibly do this? Jeez, and you're sitting here taking jabs at kidchaos and you can't even properly interpret a short and simple philosophical argument. You really need to thoroughly evaluate what you post.

Edit: why can't I write?

OMG DC!! real these dragons are real!!! they even have exclusive rights and pattents! just ask BANDAI!!! here they are again! and they have realiable peices of "HISTORY" that can be used as "supporting history/information"... so very reliable! so very reliable!!

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/g/gf13-011nc.htm

and then

http://www.gundamofficial.com/www_ac/ew/me.../wufei/144.html

Ultimately the point I was trying to make was the D.C. blatantly misinterpreted Carl Sagan's work The Dragon In My Garage as actual evidence of dragons. I merely was pointing out the humor in his inadequate examination of Sagan's work.

I do agree that it is possible that our fear of reptiles could have stemmed from early mammalian creature's fear of dinosaurs.

WRONG on all counts. If you bothered to read the earlier posts you would find the exact references but rather that waste an hour posting them all AGAIN for your benefit, here is enough info for you to eaisily google the sources.

No less than four times just in the book of Psalms does it describe Yahweh's great wings.
here's one:
Psalm 91:4 >>

He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark

No less that two times does it described fire coming from Yahweh's mouth and smoke from his nostrils (Psalms and II Samual) Google smoke, fire, nostrils, Psalms, and the same for II Samual and you will find the verses.
2 Samuel 22:9 >>

"Smoke went up out of His nostrils, Fire from His mouth devoured; Coals were kindled by it.
................................................................................


Is is common knowledge to real Biblical scholars that Asherah is the consort of Yahweh, just as she was consort to the Canaanite dragon god Yaw. One of the pillars of Solomon's temple was dedicated to her. She is associated with serpents and dragons, and thought by some to be a recasting of Ishtar who in the original hymns is described as a terrible dragon with a taste of beer. (Though she supposedly could assume the form of a beautiful woman as well.) Google Yahweh Consort Asherah and you will find the proof. From Wiki:
In Israel and Judah
The goddess Asherah, whose worship Jeremiah so vehemently opposed, was worshipped in ancient Israel and Judah as the consort of Yahweh and Queen of Heaven (the Hebrews baked small cakes for her festival):[1]

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."
—Jeremiah 7:17–18
"... to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem ..."
—Jeremiah 44:17
Figurines of Asherah are strikingly common in the archaeological record, indicating the popularity of her cult from the earliest times to the Babylonian exile. More rarely, inscriptions linking Yahweh and Asherah have been discovered: an 8th century BCE ostracon inscribed "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" was discovered by Israeli archeologists at Quntilat 'Ajrud (Hebrew "Horvat Teman") in the couse of excavations in the Sinai desert in 1975, prior to the Israeli withdrawal from this area. This translates as: "I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah", or "...by our guardian and his Asherah", if "Shomron" is to be read "shomrenu". Another inscription, from Khirbet el-Kom near Hebron, reads: "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!".[2]




The Hebrews claimed Yahweh physically consumed his meat offerings, and they were even salted per His request. The bible specifically states how these animals were carefully roasted, and smelled delicious, they were NOT burnt to ashes. In levieticus 6 the Levite priest are told that "with all of your offerings you must offer salt". Even dragons require it, though if these were simply burnt symbolic offerings it wouldn't be required.

And as for eating children:

Exodus 34-19: "Every first male offspring is mine, even the firstborn males of all your livestock, whether cattle, sheep, or goats This is in Exodus, long after the time of Issac.

Ahortly after this though, Yahweh accepted treasure in place of the children, dragons like silver and gold too, after all, and a baby is hardly a mouthful compared to calves, goats and midianite virgins.

As you know, whether he believed "our dragons" were dinosaurs or much later, intelligent dragons, the fact remains that he acknowledged a universal human fear/belief in monstrous reptiles long before modern man discovered dinosaurs. The question is, could we have such ancient memories from our primitive mammalian ancestors, or are these beliefs base on the DRAGONS or ancestors actually said they worshipped?

Do not presume to put words in my mouth. I was referring to Dragons of Eden as Arch correctly surmised, not "the dragon in my garage".

wow, i found another dragon DC!! it has a again a "good source of reference"! another real dragon with a pattent! it has juicy "peices of inforamation and again a greeeeaaat historical background that would be a great source of dragon information"!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushu

be carefull not to contest DC, remember, its patented by a very big realiable company!

Maybe you should read all of Psalm 91 instead of just picking and choosing what imagery to use.
Psalm 91 is as follows:
He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence. He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

Clearly, DC, you missed your 8th grade English class where they discussed figurative language.
You also may want to consider this website, that discusses the nature of the Jewish God.
Specifically notice the part where G-d is described as incorporeal. Since you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic functions of language, such as the comprehension of metaphors and other figurative languages, I don't think I can trust you to know what incorporeal means. When something is incorporeal it has no body.

This part is directly from the website:
G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world.
Do you get it yet?


Wow, you pulled the same shenanigans as you did with Psalm 91:4.
Again, the references to G-d are purely metaphorical. They are figures of speech. But again, you clearly demonstrate that you probably shouldn't have skipped all those English classes. If you hadn't you would probably understand the purpose of figurative language.

But why stop there? I know that this information will be insufficient for you, so I'm going to keep going with this and explain to you exactly why you're wrong on this.
If you bothered to read 2 Samuel 21:15-22 you would understand the context of the passage you quoted. In 2 Samuel 21:15-22 David goes down with his men to do battle with the Philistines. David is almost killed by the Philistine Ishbi-Benob. However, Abishai, son of Zeruiah, comes to David's rescue and slays the Philistine. Upon his victory over the Philistines, David composes a song of praise unto G-d. The song chronicles what David views are the positive aspects of his god. Notice, for example 2 Samuel 22:15, which states: He shot arrows and scattered the enemies, bolts of lightning and routed them. If we again refer to 2 Samuel 21:15-22 you will notice that no where in that passage does any divine being come down from the clouds shooting arrows and scattering the enemies. Even the most ardent Biblical literalists would admit that David's song of praise is full of metaphorical imagery. Your stance is again shown to be illogical.


Biblically speaking, and I do not adhere to any of the Judeo-Christian religions, this is true. The Jews did indeed worship Asherah, also known as Ashteroth. However, as noted in the next passages from Jeremiah, you completely ignore the fact that G-d was actually rather angry with the Jews idol worship. Allow me to explain further:

The bold part says it all. Jeremiah Ch. 7 falls under the heading of False Religion Worthless, and rightfully so. In verse 3, it is written that "This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place." It goes on, and we note in verse 8 that the Jews are practicing a false religion. It says "But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless." G-d clearly does not condone the actions of the Israelites, nor does he support the worship of pagan gods. Again, you demonstrate the inability to comprehend basic vocabulary, sentence structure, and linguistic comprehension.

This passage is a moot point, and the prophet Jeremiah again points out that G-d is, in fact, angry with the Israelites for worshiping false idols. Maybe you should actually read the Bible before you make these assumptions. I'm not even Christian and I can properly understand what it is the Bible says. You need a crash course in Linguistic Comprehension, and fast.

Indeed this is true. What does that prove? Nothing. All this shows is that, again, the Israelites had reverted to idol worship, and, according to the Bible, such actions did not bode well for them, as they were ultimately exiled as a ruined and enslaved people. So where was the dragon G-d when the Jews were mercilessly slaughtered and sold into slavery?

::sigh:: Again, DC, you obviously don't know how to read. If you read all of Leviticus 6, specifically verse 10 you would understand that the offerings were, indeed, burnt. Verse 10 states "The priest shall then put on his linen clothes, with linen undergarments next to his body, and shall remove the ashes of the burnt offering that the fire has consumed on the altar and place them beside the altar."
Wow, that bold part sure sounds a lot like the offerings were sacrificially burnt in a fire. No mentions of dragons there. Lets keep going there then, shall we? That was just the Burnt Offering. Next we have the Grain Offering, described in verses 14-23. In the Grain Offering, Aaron's sons are to bring forth the offering and burn part of it, along with a handful of flour and oil, and burn it. Then the priests are to eat the rest of the offering without yeast in a holy place. Hey, would you look at that? No dragons there either!
We have one last offering described in Leviticus 6: The sin offering. The sin offering is described in verses 24-30. The sin offering follows as such: The sin offering is slaughtered in a holy place, same as the burnt offering. However, instead of burning the offering the priests are to consume the offering.

Well, there you go on that one D.C. No offering is consumed by God, but rather the offerings are either burnt or consumed by Levite Priests. Last I checked the Levites were humans, unless you want to challenge that too. Perhaps Levi was secretly a dragon? I'm sure you'll find plenty of evidence for that for me to shoot down too.

And again you fail to actually read the passage. Exodus 34:19 does not refer to children, it refers to livestock. Good lord you really need to learn how to read.

YES!! now thats how you make a point! very well said! bravo! excellent would be an understatement to this peice of work! beautifull...

not like some i know who just gets peices of information and rag tag it along.

Please avoid making disparaging remarks suggesting the person you are responding to is illiterate, it is unnecessarily inflammatory and non-constructive to the discussion.

Thank you.

Re: last few pages, WOW!....just WOW.



to Saru....



I agree such remarks are possibly just as non-constructive as the sort of thing we hear from the other side of the argument, and should firmly be discouraged.....that said, it is difficult to understand how someone who can read, and did take that english class can make such an elementary mistake....unless it was done willfully.

This can understandably lead to some frustration on the parts of others.


to DC,
One argument against the identification of YHWH with the cannanite god Yaw, is that Yaw is a chaos God of the Sea (which is what Yaw means), and of the River.
This does not fit snugly with early conceptions of YHWH. who is more than that.

He made no point. A website that claims God is incorporeal? Which God? There are two in the Bible, El the creator, and Yahweh the carnivorous "tribal" God of the Hebrews. I agree if we are talking about El, but the problem is that the Hebrews later melded the Incoporeal Creator El, with the ire breathing, calve and virgin eating Yaw-dragon.

The problem is that most people here no far too little about this subject to make a valid comment. And their supporters (you in this case) seem to know even less.

Yaw is considered Chaotic to the followers of Ba'al, NOT by the followers of Yaw/Yahweh. But we see a direct connection between Yaw and Enki as water deities, and Enki clearly accomplishes everything Yahweh does in Genesis (deprives Adam of eternal life, builds Eden, tower of babel, warns the original Noah, etc) so I am afraid all of the evidence supports the Enki-Yaw ID. Nor is Enki restricted to the Waters for he is called a Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven, and Lord of the Earth.

So are you saying that Yaw was subject to negative propoganda on behalf of the Baalites?
Might his representation as a 'dragon' (and i use the term loosely) be part of this negative propoganda.....since Baal is humanoid.

Enki does not flood the world however, Enlil does this....suggesting that Yahweh is the amalgamation of the attributes, achievements and dominions of a number of gods, not just one.

The epithet of Ushumgal (great serpent) is given to enki in hymns and poems, it is figurative and titular....not literal....at the times that the hymns were writen, Enki is represented as a human with the 2 rivers comming from his shoulders, and as a fish-man. In the Stories of the sumerians he is humanoid, and behaves as a human.

You cannot rely on one much later Assyrian poem which describes Sassu Wannu (a wrathful 'aspect' of Ea) to define the Sumerian Enki's 'true form'.

It is you who cannot understand what is being said. It states human as well as livestock. That's why it ads the word "even". To prove this, if you cannot understand a simple sentence, there are several versions all confirming what I said. And to remove any doubt, we see that Yahweh later allows the human prey to be ransomed with a monetary payment. Numerous scholars have pointed out this passage confirms the continuation of human sacrifice.

The offerings are actually called in Hebrew, "Yahweh's bread" indicating they were a physical sustenance. There is also the famous contests betwen the priests of Baal and the Priests of Yahweh, in which only Yahweh consumes the offerings, while those of Ba'al remain on the altar.

It is unlikely the Hebrews would describe an incorporeal God spewing physical fire out of a physical mouth, and snorting smoke out of physical nostrils. Or shielding his flock with phyisical wings. Or for that matter, 'feed' an incorporeal god with physical food as the Hebrews clearly do. Do incorporeal beings require incorporeal consorts too? They also believe Yahweh required a female cosorts for sexual purposes.

Of cousre Yahweh's attendants were allowed to eat a portion of the food (probably not the children and virgins though). Like Yahweh, they too were physical creatures that required food. When Yahweh physicall left the company of the hebrew people, the sacrifices were still made in honor of them, but there is no later references from the second temple period of Yahweh physically eating the cows and sheep. By this time the incorporeal El and physical Yahweh were melded into one God.


What you do not understand is that there are clearly TWO Hebrew Gods in the Bible as many serious scholars attest to, and parallels the original canaanite beliefs. There is the creator El, and then there are the 70 Bene Elohim, sons of god, that are physical creatures that were given food offerings. According to the orignal Deuteronomy, Yahweh was the 'one' allocated to the Hebrews, just as Ba'al was the favorite of the Canaanites. If we give the scripturs credence, then we can imagin Kukulcan of the Maya, Rainbow serpents of Australia, Chinese dragons, etc, as all being the 70 Bene Elohim (of course the ancient hebrews had no idea how big the earth was, although if this information is correct, 70 dragons could still be responsible for all the worlds early dragon legends and religions. earsleassign .

You have not refuted a single thing I said, all you can do is hurl your childish insults in frustration. But it is amusing to see the support given by others who have revealed they know even less than you about this subject than you.

As can personal criticism of other's literary skills, as I always say - attack the point being presented, not the poster who is making that point. Personal attacks should be avoided wherever possible in the interests of maintaining a civil discussion and that applies to everyone on both sides of the argument.

On that note:

This is just as bad, derrogatory comments suggesting another member knows too little about the subject for their points to be considered or taken seriously.

Similarly:

is not even remotely helpful or constructive.

This topic is difficult enough to maintain as it is without these type of comments being thrown back and forth, this is clearly a subject that certain members are very passionate and feel strongly about so lets try to stick to civil contributions which tackle the points being presented instead of attacking those who have presented them.

Draconic Chronicler, a lot of very good posts pertaining to this subject have been posted here and most of them you have either ignored or dismissed out of hand without consideration; it might be beneficial if you went about the discussion from a slightly different perspective, instead of trying to educate others about what you believe to be fact why not keep an open mind and consider your arguments from the opposing viewpoint ? If nothing else it would help you to see where others are coming from, identify flaws in the logic of your arguments and might even serve to fill in some gaps in your own knowledge on the subject. Something to consider at least.

No Grem. Even though the Canaanites believed Yaw was a dragon, they also believed he was the FAVORITE of El.

We have already seen 'Enki' not only called a dragon, but carefully described in intricate detail as one, with serpentine head, sharp teeth, scaly body, and even heel-less feet as though they were accurately describing the way theropod dinosaurs walk on their toes! And then other Sumeridan Gods like Ningishzida is clearly depicted in his dragon form. Many mid-eastern scholars believe this, as you know, so your argument is useless.


you should know by now that ancient peoples believed the gods could change their forms, but when in the midst of humans they would assume human form. This shapeshifting believ persists as late as the Hellenistic period with Zeus tranforming into Dracons to impregante human women.

Do I believe the dragons can change into humans? No. These beliefs may have had their origins in the original dragon gods appointing human surogates to act in their stead while they were away, and these became the origin of Kings. Marduk was probably a man used by Enki, who later a fantastic story was built around to enhance his prestige as a God.

Be assured no "good point" made by anyone has been deliberately dismissed out of hand. If it has been miss