You are assuming dragons exist, that they are intelligent, that the offering stories are true, that they actually relate to dragons, that dragons would be capable or interested in performing fire breathing circus acts and that they would require or use alcohol to do it in the first place. These are all assumptions and none of them have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of anyone here, this is purely speculative theory and wild speculation at that.


The key word here I think is "theologies", again this is something you might expect to find in an old spiritual text, it is a version of events extrapolated from stories written thouands of years ago by people who didn't fully understand the world around them. It is a piece of theological lore akin to accounts of the Greek Gods on Mount Olympus, the Gods of Rome, Egypt or any number of other theologies of the ancient world. There is absolutely no scientific basis on which to even begin to take this as a factual or historically accurate account.

This would be fine if you were submitting this purely under the "myths and legends" heading of this section however in order to convince anyone that this relates to something that actually happened then it needs to be backed up with hard, solid evidence and verifiable facts. Simply stating that something is true does not make it so, you aren't going to change anyone's minds by simply stating these type of stories as fact on your say-so.

The creature is obviously a chimera, so who knows maybe there is some bat in there

But I think the method flight employed by the bat has been put forward as an alternative explanation for how a dragon may fly, but again there's the problem of the wings needing to be strong enough to generate enough lift for all that mass...

a -Unexplainable thing.
b- Given explanation based on knowledge at the time.
c- Time progresses.
d- Human beings learn more things.
e- Human beings use new knowledge to explain the world again.

Repeat process from c.

The key question is why would all of our ancestors, all over the world, believe in virutally the same creatures, and nearly all acknowledge them not as mere monsters as we should suppose, but as intelligent 'gods'. Many scientists believe there must be 'something' behind this, and surely it must be more than just seeing 'some bones'. Only a scientists would know they are the bones of reptiles.

And there is proof, of sorts. In the SAME places where there our ancient 'dragon' legends, such as the river/loch Ness, a large 'dragon-like creature has been seen by thousands of people. And we see the same trend everywhere else. There are sighting of a lake monster in Russia, and 1000 years earlier legends speak of a dragon from the ame lake that destroyed an army. And in north America people see lake monsters, and have even recordded their sounds, and agian, in these same lakes there are monsters the native americans gave offerings to, to ensure their save passage through their terrority.

The alcohol fire theory is actually quite sound. Since every dragon is not recorded with this attribute, it suggests it is not a biological feature, but more of a 'trick'. And while you may simply dismiss all ancient accounts as spurious , it may not be a coincidence that one great winged flame spewing creature specifically requested that his worshippers give him 'liquor', and this, in the world's most famous book.

I don't know that they do, and neither does anyone else here. I can't find any evidence anywhere that they do, either. You say you can, so you can point me in the right direction!


Which passage, please...?

The "Great Dragon of the Earth" Enlil, was given the title of "the Good Shepherd" well over 1000 years before Jesus, but many scholars do see a connection between the Sumerian gods and Judaic theology.

The four face thing you are describing is not a description of Yahweh, but supposedly a Cherub, but actually Hayyot.

We have only these clues as to Yahweh's physical appearance:

He has nostrils, in which smoke spews out.

He has wings, in which he can shelter his flock.

He has a mouth, in which he spews fire.

He ordered only one idol ever to be made, and it was a fiery flying 'serpent' of bronze.

Add those features, and then recall that much of the early Christian world, as well as the Perisan empire, BOTH said Yahweh was a "dragon".

Many dragons are associated with the water, even if they are also said to fly. For example, the oriental drgaons are primarily water dwellers, but also fly. Enki, the great dragon of eridu, is primarily a water dwelling deity, and some scholars believe he is also Yahweh, who controlled the waters and caused floods, exactly like the oriental dragons.

So it is not surprising that deep lakes all over the world have their share of sighting of large 'dragon-like' creatures. I have just posted yesterday, I believe, some accounts in the U.S. of large flying pterosaur-type creatures, and such creatures are seen in many remote tropical areas. Fundamentalist explorers are particularly interested in proving their existence.

Now if any of these sightings are authetic but were mere 'dumb' animals, we surely would have captured them by now. But one other important attribute of dragons is their intelligence. An intelligent creature could elude mankind if it had a refuge like a huge deep lake or the oceans. I suspect they probably eat marine creatures mostly these days. Preying on humans would probably bring unwanted attention, though many ships vanish inexplicitly, even in calm seas.

Here's a few picks to illustrate what i mean about the mushushu of mesopotamia becoming the feline bixie of china.

Mushushu







Bixie

Now note how the mushushu is clearly a composite creature, made from the bodyparts of various animals (a chimera).
Notice how the bixie had lost its raptor hind legs of mesopotamian depiction, and now sports feline legs, in keeping with its largly feline lines.



notice how this later bixie is even more feline, losing its long neck, and a chunkier body with a rounder face.
we see an evolution of a concept. not a depiction of a real creature.






Im welsh, our national emblem is Y Ddraig Goch, and we love him, we have stories, songs, poems about him....in which he is often animated or personified.
we do not believe he is real. Although from focusing on one poem or song you might come to the wrong conclusion.

I decided to search google for evidence of Yahweh being a dragon. The only person, in the world, who thinks so seems to be DC - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=100097

Its funny how people ask for your sources there, also.

The earlier pictures were of short bodied reptilian dragons without any feline features, such as the one I provided. And this kind of dragon becomes the imperial lung in Han-era art. Now if people wanted to protect tombs with images of fierce monsters, some might pick dragons, (such as the original sculptures we have shown here), and some may have likeed the idea of a furry, feline guarding their tombs instead.

To imagine all shorter bodied dragons in Chinese art are actually sculptures of felines is absolutely ridiculous, and cannot be supported by the evidence.

The short bodied, imperial dragon of the Han emperors is not a cat. Sorry.

The picture you posted DC looks like an earlier Bixie than the one i posted.

Where is this bixie called the Han imperial dragon?

edit: they often also sport 2 pairs of feathered wings....how does this fit in?

also, where ever i find information on these, they are described as bixies; they are associated with the Han dynasty, with no evidence for them in art before. I have not found any earlier than c.200 BC.



Whereas i have found evidence for the lung going back approximately 3000 years earlier.

Their introduction is due to the Han's fondness for trade with barbarians, and they have been traced to Luristan; and from there back to mesopotamia.

Rather than my own opinion of these, im presenting what seems to be the most 'accepted' view. Is everyone who supports this wrong?

Repeat::: where does it call that bixie the "han imperial dragon"?

A connection perhaps, maybe travellers of the ancient world brought with them their own tales and legends and from there spread the word to different civilizations about the existence of large monsters; a far more likely explanation.


Again 'legends', these are all stories and myths, they 'prove' nothing whatsoever; the implied connection between dragons and modern day cryptozoological creatures such as the Loch Ness monster is pure speculation and guesswork.


This theory is not sound at all, not even remotely, it relies on assumptions which cannot be verified; it is an ad hoc theory to explain one thing but which ignores the fundamentals of the matter such as the existence of dragons, whether they are sentient and whether there is any direct evidence of an actual dragon performing this feat using alcohol, or even at all, which there isn't.

You use the bible as a specific factual reference to state that a 'great winged flame spewing creature' requested he be given liquor, the bible is highly open to interpretation depending on your personal beliefs; this doesn't constitute any sort of verifiable evidence for the existence of dragons or that a specific dragon performed a fire breathing magic trick any more than Genesis constitutes verifiable evidence that the Earth was created in seven days.

bravo

Obviously you are not a very good internet fact finder.

The Zoroastrian scripture the Denkard states Yahweh is a dragon.

Gnostic Christians thought he was a dragon.

Scholars of near eastern theology state he is an earlier Mesopotamian dragon god.

Even Yahweh himself ordered an idol in the form of a fiery flying serpent to remove all doubt.

wrong agin this has nothing to do on dragons
YAHWEH is the Creator's name in the original hebrew language of the Old Testament
he is a sacred part of jewish hebrew religon.

The denkard is not an 'early' text, and influenced by contact with many cultures: It deals with how zoostrianism and its followers should 'relate' to these 'others', Its influences are various.

The hellenistic culture acted as a catalyst for mythology and theology blending and producing new avenues...the gnostics was one that was facilitated by the cultural soup.

Scholars of near eastern theology state that he is a blend of more than one mesopotamian god, including the traits, powers and feats of other levantine gods. It is not as simplistic as you present.

The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the brazen serpent as a snake-on-a-pole....which became a cult totem, and later was given wings.


edit: you also seem to have missed this...

DC do you even know about any scriputre?

I would like to add something to this.

Why did all early cultures believe in dragons? Well yes people travelled, but the answer is much simpler than that i think. The answer is they didnt. We have given the name dragon to large flying reptiles. Other than that the dragons from different parts of the world dont always bear any resemblance each other at all.

yes its possible the European dragons all stemmed from the same place and the Asian lungs and dragons all came from another place but i expect the creatures which evolved from the early legends are so far apart its almost impossible to use the argument "because all cultures had dragons they must have existed" because the dragons were so radically different from each other, had they not been labelled with the name dragon, they would not be the same species.

It would be like saying, the Cerastes ( a horned snake ) exists because else where in the world Indrik ( a horned bull ) was believed in.

Hey Haji.....save your breath.....I had extensive PM's when DC joined here trying to teach/explain the same thing.



The "key question' should be.....if all of our ancestors all over the world seen the same creature.....then why are the descriptions so different?
If all seen the same thing should they not be similar?


Reliable source please......oh wait.....you don't know how to provide them.....never mind my bad.

like i said dc really cant prove anything

Unless its scientifically proven they exist, it remains a belief and a bunch of stories.

Please share, Grem. I would like to know more about this particular legend ( i know the Authurian basics already, but am curious about the rest of the folklore).

I agree that a funerary statue called a bixie was popular in the Han dynasty. These are much like the gargoyles that were to frighten away evil spirits in Christianity. Like gargoyles, many different styles were imcorporated. Some looked like birds, humands, dragons, lions, etc.

As for the bixies, some were simply the popoular conception of a dragon of the time, such as the example I provided. Others were winged cats. But to the ancient chinese who made/bought these, they would know the bixie statue they chose was a dragon, a cat monter or whatever.

The sirrush is not a composite. Have you ever seen a theropd dinossaur's hind feet. They look like a birds. Have you ever seen their forearms? They look much like a felines with offensive claws.

Give it up Grem. You are grasping at straws.

And look up any imperial dragon reliefs of the Han dynasty, they are all short bodied Lung. Just as the dragonlike bixies are short bodied lungs.

you still never answerd the thing about the pope

DC would you be kind enough to clarify something for me. How many different kinds of dragon are you proposing exist? Clearly from the evidence there cannot be simply one kind as there is variationin hte depictions. Have you categorised the differeing sorts in any way. FOr example you have citeed both long and short bodied, long and short neck. Do they all have wings? Are they slender and serpent bodied or rounded and large? Also...

What are the factors that you would combine to classify all these as one single living species. Which set of traits are the ones you look for before stating yep they are describing a dragon?

When did I once say anything about it being cool? When did I once say that?

What a blatantly untruthful thing to say. Millions of people acknowledge the the dragons all over the world DO seem the same. That is part of the mystery. Even scientists remark on this and you must know that . You are contradicted just by some of the images posted in this very thread.
Perhaps someone will want to cut in paste them all in one post so all can see these clearly all seem to be the same creature : Horned reptilian head, wings, four clawed feet.


1. The Mushushu dragon on the Guedea Vase in the louvre Third Millennia BC

2 The short bodied dragons of the Han Dynasty (and actually before and since as well). circa 200 BC.

3. The Welsh Dragon at on Henry Tudor's standard and later the Welsh flag (Circa 1484)

4. The so-called Piasa of illinois (Before European intrusion into the New World.

5. The classical 'fantasy' dragon of today, universally recognized as a 'dragon'.

There you go, 5000 years of virtually the same dragon, and from evidence scattered over the whole world. And do understand that diferent cultures had distinctly different art styles. Do you not realize that even an elephant looks considerably different when drawn by the different cultures that depicted them, yet we know they are the same elephant.

The key trait that makes a dragon a dragon are the accounts that acknowledge its intelligence. It is likely there may be two distinct species, an elongated wingless type associatiated with mesoamerican deities, world sea serpents and the elongated 'lung' ov China, and a more compact 'traditional' type that flew. Both type are arecorded in China and this may be why the wingless serpenting dragon was also thought to fly.

The likelihood that this a natural occurance is unlikely, but adds weight to the theory that the intelligent dragons are the modification of a creator entity to insure there would be an intelligent entity on this planet for the millions of years it would take until a naturally intelligent lifeform would emerge. Despite unforeseen natural catastrophe, two types of dragons occupying different habitats would help guarantee the survival of at least one. As we have seen, both types survived to be recorded by ancient man, and appaently still seen by modern man.

Nice to see you've yet again ignored me.

Fire spewing need not be 'natural' though some scientists have demonstrated with sophisiticated explanations that it could be. But since a human can produce this effect with flammable liquid, then so could an intelligent dragon. This does not contradict the scientists with far more knowledge about organic chemistry than you or I that suggest it may be possible. And the scalding liquid spewed by the Bombardier beetle is a good natural precedent for something similar coccuring in nature with flammable liquid. Even if only a magicians trick, spewing fire would make the dragon appear more godlike. This would also explain why some dragons, though so much like others, are not credited with this ability. logical for is

If the point of the dragons in the first place was to protect and educate early man, then posing as gods is to be expected, and would better insure their guidance would be obeyed.

Ad for the accounts in the bible, it is all a matter of interpretation and perspective. You can look at the creation style as a 7 day fairy tale, but there are scientists who can marvel that it is actually an account of a scientific creation that describes life beginning in the sea, an epoch of giant reptiles, then one of mammals, and man appearing only in the last period. Just becasue a fundamentalist thinks it meant seven normal days only 6000 years ago does not mean this was the intention.

Cooler, better, whatever. You stated that the idea that dragons as natural creatures rather than something connnected with a creator deity appealed to you more, and I believe the evidence suggests otherwise. But I realise this hinges on how much of the ancient accounts you are willing to accept. If they were intelligent as world wide legends attest, then the most likely are connected to some manner of deity.

I said it seemed more likely. I never said anything about it being more appealign or 'cooler', I said it seemed more likely.

And to be perfectly honest I believe the ancients were primitive idiots who worshipped make-believe monsters.

You just said it again!

But then we must ask where do they get a dragon from. Someone dreamt it?

nice wriggling, but the bixie was not as variable as a gargoyle. A Bixie was a Bixie, It did evolve in style, but its form was fixed...it was not called a lung.
The Sirrush is certainly a composite creature, as is the Mushussu it evolved from.
They are not based on sightings of theropods.

..... Didn't we already address this point earlier in the thread?

1)There were large reptiles, that weren't dinosaurs, living as early as 13,000 years ago, and ancestral memory/instinct has told us to be afraid of large reptiles. Therefore, when we needed a scary monster in myths, we used reptilian creatures

2) The result of cultures swapping myths, legends, and stories

3) Ancient peoples finding dinosaur bones and creating stories about what they could have come from. This can be seen with the legend of the cyclops. The early people most likely found elephant skulls ( http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythiccrea...nt-skull_lg.jpg )( http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/elephant_skull.jpg ), which look somewhat human and have a gap in the center which could have been mistaken as an "eye". The bones are also much larger than human bones, so the ancients assumed they came from large, one eyed humans. The same could have easily happened with dragons and dinosaur skeletons.

4) People simply being superstitious because they didn't know any better.

5) Ancient people seeing recognized animals that they morphed into "mythical" creatures (i.e. crocodiles, large turtles, lizards, bats, etc.). This can be seen with Leviathan and Behemoth. Those two Biblical creatures were most likely the crocodile and the hippopotamus respectively.

The fact that the same short bodied dragon appears on official monuments, military equipmetn etc, proves it is not simply a funerary monument like the feline bixies.. If we concede that the bixie is a feline monster, then the statues of short bodied dragons, are exaclty that, short bodied dragons and not "Bixies". But being dragons, they too probably served as tomb guards. This is a 'dragon thing' all over the world.

And the birds feet of the sirrush strongly suggest it was based on seeing a living archosaur to give it bird like feet. Nothing else aobut the creature is birdlike so it is unlikely this is a composite.

Hmm... the first few points i agree with but the last 2 im not so shure on..

seeing as the Leviathan is either seen as a monster wale or sea serpent (well in most of the myths and legands i no about him) and i don't know very much about the Behemoth, other than hes in allot of games and most of them depict him as the following pic



and of course i dout this be a real depiction of the Behemoth, seeing as it is from a game

and the game changes and adapts him in later versions such as in this pic



now i dout either of these is what it is actually supposed to look like but is it even close?

Yes, most mythical creatures if not all were created from fossils, bones, and live animals that people in that time have never seen before. Then they get superstitious about it and create legends, or myths, about the creature they saw. Your right about the cyclops that's exactly how the greeks came up with that story, which leads me to believe that that's how people came up with dragons; they saw an unknown reptile, bird, or unknown bones and that's how it started.

The Greek theory for cyclops doesn't work for dragons. Here's why: the Greeks KNEW the cyclops were extinct because no one in their time ever saw a live one, and mistook Mastadon bones for the cyclops. BUT the most reliable greeks freely admitted flying dragons existed in their times, and some claimed seeing them, as well as great sea dragons that preyed on shipping. Plus, dragons were servants and assistants to their gods, and Zeus at least was believed to turn into a dragon when he came to earth to rape women, like the mother of Alexander the great The latter of course, is only a legend, but the observation of dragons may have helped promote such myths.

And why would people say dragons were benificient gods from seeing bonese of what should be terrifying monsters. It makes no sense unless contact with the dragons actually occureed to base the stories of benificient dragons.

Dragons appear as real animals in scholalry/scientific books up until the 1800's, and sightings of large reptiles that may be dragons continue to this day.

I guess today's scientific books require real evidence. Not just silly sightings.

Ignorant Bible commentators remark that the Leviathan is a crocodile becasue they do not understand that the verses in Job actually ridicule the methods ancient people caught crocodiles becasue the Leviathan was a much mightier creature. The verses also say it is impossible for any weapon to harm the leviathan, yet we cannot say this about the crocodile. The verses also remark that the leviathan spews fire from its mouth and smoke from its nostrils. All the ancient writers knew crocodiles could not do this. Crocodiles cannot be mistaken for dragons because they were seen close up in Egyptian temples where they were fed and cared for. Seeing the crocodiles was a popular pastime for most foreign visitors to Egypt.

The poem in Job also states the Leviathan has a "powerful neck", yet the crocodile almost appears neckless. This actually seems to describe a creature with a large neck, like a dragon. God in the poem guages his greatness because he formed/commanded the mighty leviathan. Would God appear his might with just a normal crocodile? Unlikely.

Sorry, but there were no cameras back then, and if they couldn't kill a dragon they were not going to have its remains.

Dragons were put in the backgrounds of paintings like any bird becasue they were seen so often, and everyone naturally expected to see them.

Several scientists were on board ships that witnessed some of the most spectacular sea serpent accounts, and they knew it was a reptile and not some fish or eel. (Daedelus).

That is very true. Scientific method has been far more rigorous since the 1800's at least and knowledge of biology has dramatically increased especially with greater international communication.

Oh, no, no, dear. The video games don't portray Behemoth correctly AT ALL.

"15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."
( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index....&version=9; )

This is what most people think Behemoth looks like :



Again, Final Fantasy is not a good source for mythological creature info.

Yeah.... and that would explain Odysseus battling a CYCLOPS in the Odessy...right? If you're going to use that kind of logic you just killed all of your own claims as well. And yeah, dragons flying down to rape women is REALLY beneficial, DC. Plus, we don't have half-dragon half-humans running about, so I doubt that's true, either.

You again reveal how little you know. The Odessy took place over 1000 years before the time the story was written down by Homer, and the greeks actually thought it was even older. They also thought the Heroes like Ajax and Achileles were giants as well, and also believed mastadon bones were those of these ancient heroes.

And I am not saying dragons actually raped women. Alexander was though to be divine because his mother was raped by Zeus in the form of a Drakon. I NEVER said every dragon myth was true.

What was that? You've only been throwing information at us for over 60 pages only to say that your theories are mere speculation? Nice way to use fallacies to make your side of the argument seem more believable. And dragons have been recorded from over 1000 years ago LIKE YAWEH. <---- Hello? OT written over 4000 years ago mean anything?

Not sure of what point you are trying to make. My point was the Ancient Greeks did believe living dragons lived in thier times and were a danger to travelers, whereas they believed Cyclops were extinct creatures of thier ancient past.

As for my dragon theories, they are far more than speculation.

My point is you can't say cyclops don't exist if they're in ancient European mythology when dragons are in there too. Scylla is depicted as a hydra, which is a type of dragon, so therefore dragons mustn't exist either if you're saying that the ancients didn't know what they were talking about. You can't just pick and choose which myths they considered true and which were based off of skeletons, because dragons could very well have been based off of skeletons as well. But I'm getting tired of arguing in circles with you, DC....