Why do we assume the ancients were so intelligent? It seems to me that they were fools, of course this is somewhat generalised because they didn't have the means to be considered at the level of modern intelligence. I mean, they thought people could give birth to rabbits if they ate rabbit hair. I doubt such a thesis would make it past todays scientific scrutiny.

Obviously you aren't either.

Where exactly is this information lurking?

A good Question DC do you have an answer?

Undoubtedly he must, for surely he would store his sources somewhere for his books bibliography yet feels safer to force us to search through his over 3000 posts to find the three that actually contain sources, and those are unrelated to dragons entirely but more to dragon-like cryptids such as caddy, which is not very dragon-like anyway. So I wouldn't hold my breath were I you.

Did you and DC have a falling out DS?? Just asking.

Ii have stated the sources for all of these facts long ago on the Crypto forum.

The fact that the Denkard states Yahweh is a dragon is confirmed in the Jewsish Encyclopedia. Gremlin did not question this, but he believes this is a later text, only 1500 years old or so, and not necessarily what the persians of the classical world believed. This must be speculative though becasue we have few zoroastrian texts going back to classical times.

Any study of Gnostism will reveal Yahweh being regarded as a dragon and demiurge, and for that matter, even JESUS as a wise serpent-dragon in his original form before returning to earth as a man.rue scholars on this forum like Archosaur can confirm these sources, but they will all be cited AGAIN in the book.

The Bible Origins website quoted here before is a great, one stop spot to find the anicent hymns and quotes from many scholars in the field that prove the stories of the old testament were later renditions of the stories of the "Great Dragon who Stand in Eridu", Enki of Eden.

Anyone familiar with the Bible should be aware of the story in the book of Numbers where the angry Yahweh sends fiery winged serpents (Seraphim) to punish the complaining Israelites in the Wilderness. To survive, Yahweh orders an idol in his presumed form, which is a winged serpent dragon just as in Sumeria, that the people must worship from that point on. Hundreds of years later the 'dragon' idol is still being worshipped until the time of Hezekiah. This king destroys the idol and shortly afterwards calamity ensues and within 100 years Jerusalem is destroyed and the people sent to Babylon.

You seem unable to comprehend what I am saying, maybe someone else can help you.

We KNOW from the original accounts of classical era Greeks that they believed winged dragons were still alive in thier times. Some actually say they saw them in their travels, and ship sinking were often attributed to them.

On the other hand, NOBODY in classical Greek times believed cyclops still lived on the earth because NOBODY ever recorded seeing on alive in thier times.

HOWEVER, in more ancient times, 1000 years earlier they did believe CYCLOPS were alive becasue they were mentioned in thier mythhology and bonese were found tought to belong to cyclops. The Trojan War was ANCIENT HISTORY to the classical Greeks, and a time when giant cyclops and heroes walked the earth, just as the classical world of the greeks and romans is anceint history to us. And those same greeks who believed the cyclops were long since all dead STILL believed in living dragons, becasue they claim THEY saw them themselves and still attacked people and sunk ships.

Are you able to see the difference now? Yes, the greeks believed there were dragons in their ANCIENT History, they are even part of the Trojan War story, BUT unlike Cyclops, they never said the dragons died out and still mention seeing them alive in their own times.

You obviously did not understand this the first time because you don't realize the trojan war was ANCIENT history to the classical greeks.

The ancient people did some amazing thing that still befuddle us today. Yes they had superstitions yet all of the great religions still believed in by the majority of the world's populations today came from those times and are filled with those same superstitions and beliefs. And intelligent people today still read the works of the intelligent people of the ancient world.

Yes, all Christians please attend the lamb offering at your town's square, today at noon local. Since DC claims you are still "filled with early Christianity's superstitions and beliefs."


As for myself, I'm signing off any further postings on these ridiculous dragon threads. I shall not give DC the attention he needs and wants.

Yes, no more lambs slaughtered to 'feed' Yahweh, but every Sunday, wine and bread magically turns into Christ's blood and body. I am surprised this belief was retained, yet they have changed the old testament seraphim dragons into swan winged Christmas tree angels.

Actually, when Yahweh dwelt among the Israelites as a fearsome dragon, the literal offerings of lambs, liquor, calves and virgins made a lot of sense. But continuing the practice after he left them centuries later was just the superstitious slaughter of animals (though they didn't go to waste since the priests still ate them).

You have contributed almost nothing to these discussions but derision and insult, so I doubt you will be missed.

Perhaps it would be beneficial if we returned to the original question posed in this thread i.e.

Do dragons exist ?

It is the fundamental question on which this discussion is based.

Lets keep the responses as relevant and to the point as possible, include any and all sources where apropriate and avoid making any disparaging personal remarks about others whose opinions you disagree with.

Your kidding us, right?? That is ALL you have been saying since day one!!! Why are you changing your story now??

Nonsense. I changed nothing. I made it very clear that EVERY dragon-slaying legend was made up (though some may be based on exaggerated stories after dragon simply leaving an area). I also do not believe dragons can chnge thier forms to humans (like the Zeus event), but dragons may have recruited human surrogates to give that impression, which would explain the Sumerian dragon gods that are also depiected in human form.

This what I think. The reasons he is so tight lipped with his sources is that he believes he is getting this STUFF directly from a living dragon that he THINKS he has some type of relationship with. I am almost sure of it.

You're the one who isn't able to comprehend what I'M saying. You never stated any reliable sources on these forums. If you think otherwise, then go prove me wrong by digging up those posts. Site all of the sources for all of the information proving other, reliable people have the same views as you, and we might have an actual debate there, but otherwise it's just your interpretation, which isn't going to go over well with people.
And apparently even Christopher Columbus saw cyclops in his travels to the new world :

"they said . . . there were people on it who had one eye in their foreheads, and others whom they called cannibals, of whom they showed great fear. (167)

"all the people . . . have extreme fear of the men of Caniba, or Canima, and they say that they live on this island of Bohio . . . fearing that they would have them to eat . . . And they say they have but one eye and the face of a dog. (177)"

These are quotes from the transcription of Columbus' "Diario" by las Casas.

Historians agree that these are probably just dramatizations of Native Americans, so how do we know the Romans didn't dramatize actual animals to make their stories more appealing? They very well could have.

What exactly do you need a quote on? That the Trojan War was ancient history to the classical greeks? I had thought everyone knew that, but i see I was wrong. And Columbus never said he saw a cyclops. He was just quoting what superstitious natives told him. On the other hand, the greatest historians and scientists of the Greco Roman world acknowledged that dragons were living creatures, and people continued to believe this for the next 1000 years, including all the scientists.

How about quotes proving the Greeks and Romans ACTUALLY saw dragons? Come on, DC, you're smarter than that. And CC wasn't quoting the Natives, considering he couldn't SPEAK directly with them because they had DIFFERENT languages. He was describing the Natives themselves, not their legends.

Wrong, some indians learned spanish and he is describing what they told him. It should be obvious just reading the passage. Columbas never claimed to see a cyclops. It is probable the Indian said such things just to keep Columbus from entering those lands. Of course in his time people did believe in dragons. The spanish often drew dragons in their maps in those places where they were seen.


Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) was the scientist, scholar and Admiral of the Roman Navy that wrote the huge Natural History [Tnh]. Here is one excerpt.

The dragon of Ethiopia
Æthiopia produces dragons, not so large as those of India, but still, twenty cubits in length . . . We are told that on those coasts four or five [dragons] are found twisted and interlaced together like so many osiers in a hurdle, and thus setting sail, with their heads erect, they are borne along upon the waves, to find better sources of nourishment in Arabia. [Book 8, ch 13]

His contemporary Lucan described them flying in Africa, golden in color and capable of hunting elephants.

Herodatus, the Greek scientist claims he actually had seen flying serpents.

Yes and Pliny and Lucans reports are more akin to constricting snakes rather than dragons.
Dragons - Middlebury University.
Herodotus was not a scientist and his work he was known to out right lie. There is a reason he known as the father of history and the father of lies.

Ummmmmm, Lucan describes the elephant hunting Dracon flying through the sky on great wings. Since when do 'constricting snakes' fly?

And Pliny's description of the drakons grouping together and "sailing in the wind" strongly suggests they must have wings as well. Otherwise the account makes no sense. It was probably not neccesary to describe their wings, just as i is not necessary to explain that birds have wings. His audience would have known this.

This sounds lke soething intelligent but lazy dragons might do, after observing humans with ship sails. Perhaps they even taught this concept to the humans along with everything else they are credited with telling humans about.

None of these accounts (lucan,pliny,herodotus) are reliable for the actual existance of dragons, nor that they were commonly and frequently sighted in the Greek world....quite the reverse, the reason that the stories were told and popular was because they were exotic and unusual.

herodotus can not be relied on, he never even visited half the places he said he did, and most of his tales are incredible.

lucan, you cant put an epic poet in here....besides which he never saw dragons or met anyone who had....his work was derivative of a classical tradition....with a few other 'common' sources thrown in.

Pliny, one of the first Natural Historians....but dont let this or his rank fool you, he spins a few yarns too. His stories are the stuff of campfires and often old wives tales...he never saw a dragon. He relates some stories of dragons from africa, arabia and india....all are mis identifications and exaggerations of constrictor snakes, crocodiles, and the serpent eagle and its prey.

And to cap it all off, much of what Pliny says is 'borrowed' from elsewhere, and not even his own research.


So to conclude there is No evidence that 'witnessing dragons' was a common occurrence in the classical world, we have no reliable evidence for Anyone seeing one.

besides which, it wasnt until the mid 4thCentury BC that anyone (greek) thought that dragons were anything other than big mythical snakes.

Since they are supposed to be able to fly and we already affirmed that membranous wings are not good when wet. It is likely not, especially since they are almost certainly from second hand reports. And you are jumping into serious conjecture there. I would have thought exaggerated sea snakes are infinitely more likely.
That is not good supporting evidence. This would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

In the time before cameras, and without a specimen, all we have are descriptions of dragons. Obviously a sceptic can have a field day given the lack of physical evidence. But we DO have people all over the world from the dawn of mankind up until the industrial revolution all seeing flying dragons, and even today we have continuous reports of large creatures hiding in deep bodies of water that could be the same dragons.

As Behemouth is described as having a cedar-like tail, the elephant and hippo seem to be unlikely candidates. The Isrealites were the neighbors, and originally came from, Egypt, and likely would have some understanding of these animals.

But now that we do have cameras and video and perhaps even the means of capturing one they have all gone into hiding!

Ah and now you explain this by stating it proves they are intelligent.

To most though it proves that the stories were exaggeration and superstition and dragons in fact do not exist.

And none of this is reliable.

Well "cedar-like" doesn't necessarily mean "big". They could have been referring to the appearance or movement of the tail of an animal in reference to a cedar tree. Sure, size would seem like the likely analogy, but there are other qualities that could be described as "cedar-like". The Bible clearly says that Behemoth's tail "moveth like a cedar" not that it's the SIZE of a cedar. Therefore, referring to the cedar could mean the tail swings like a cedar in the wind, or when a cedar is felled. Hippos swish their tail back and forth to spread their dung to mark their territory. This could have been seen as "moving like a cedar". Elephant and hippo tails both look like cedars as well.

Tree:
http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/trees_of...cense_cedar.png

Tails:
http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_...100-0015_SM.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-16482384.j...8E7106DF1C4D%7D

The tails are thick with tufts of hair at the ends, and the cedar tree is long and thick with branches at the end. Most sauropod tails neither looked like a cedar, were as big as a cedar, nor moved like a cedar.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/829/25139983.JPG

I have read once that the appendange described "like a cedar", is actually not the tail, but something more intimate, but this was changed for prudish reasons.

I'd like to mention that we don't know whether sauropod tails had tufts on the end or not. Also, there were stegosaurids with spikes at the end of their tails, most notably Stegosaurus. Not that this matters.

Also, elephant and hippopotamus tails don't move like cedar trees. They flick like willow branches.

The cedar tree probably referred to in Job was the Cedar of Lebanon, since it was native to the area. That's the kind of tree that moves rather slowly in the wind, when it moves at all. Of course, it could be argued the passage is referring to a little cedar sapling, but that's unlikely given the context.

Well reptiles have INTERNAL sexual organs, so that can't pertain if we're referring to dinosaurs or reptiles. Or dragons for that matter. Mammals are the only organisms (aside from plants, but those parts are not what we're debating about) that have external sexual organs, and even then some mammals have internal sexual organs, such as whales. Therefore, this only makes it more likely that Behemoth was a hippo or elephant.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Otter. I could see the Nile Crocodile being a candidate, but the elephant and hippo just don't seem to match up.

Oh God, not Behemoth...

For anyone missing the point, that passage also states the animal has a navel. So if you're taking "like a cedar" literally, you must take it all literally, reptile is out. Oh, and testicles, doesn't it mention those too? And DC does have a point. Since that and cedar is in the same line.
Aside that - why's it in this topic? DC continually says that dragons are carnivourous... and he is right *shock* that they are always depicted as being carnivourous, behemoth was not.

I think it's an elephant, rhino or hipoo. Because of the way it describes the strength and suggests size of it's stomach, limbs, etc.

I thought it was common knowledge that reptiles genetallia were not visible outside the animal. Another interesting fact is that the rare Tuatara animal is the only reptile with a penis.

I agree, and I never said the Behmoth was a dinosaur. The creature being described has several mammalian characteristics, and his a herbivore. It may well be an elephant, and interestingly, there are many accounts of dragons being the enemy of elephants but never crocodiles, for even the largest would avoid an elephant. But the Leviathan is clearly 'more' than a mere crocodile from the lengthly description, and the poems mocking of the methods to catch a crocodile being used to catch the Leviathan.

But you are completely wrong about the Penis. All male reptiles have them and use the exactly as a mammal would in copulation with the female. Snakes and Lizards have a hemipenis with two heads, whereas crocodilians have a surprisingly human like penis. As dragons are probably Archosaurs like birds, dinos and crocs, I suspect they would have this type of penis.

Some reptiles, when they get angry or excited sometimes 'extrude" thier penis, and is quite prominent.

If they existed, what if they were just giant dinosaurs with wings? they had a thing about t-rex's and flying birds recently.

Not that it's really all that relevant, but unless it's used for peeing and mating, it's not technically a penis.

And reptiles definately do not pee from their willies. They don't pee at all, do they?

Sorry, I should rephrase my earlier statment: The Tuatara is the only reptile with a true penis.

True penis or not, it's still a sexual appendage... and the average person would consider it one.

So it's all irrelevant. All it proves is that we know too much about animals privates.

Besides, Wiki says you're wrong undeadskeptic...


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

Well I never! The source I am refering to (New Zealand Reptiles) must be out of date. Then again, it is wikipedia, anyone can just write bullcrap on it.

Agreed, Wiki is unreliable... But one has to question why a randomer would lie about the sexual organs of a lizard.

No, Wiki is reasonably reliable.

All the while it links to sources, it is. Otherwise, It's as reliable as DC's rambling.

True, but wiki does show when there is no source for its information.

But there often isn't.

I trust wiki myself, almost entirely. I use it as first port of call to look something up.

Reading the original work one can interpret what they will from it.
When it all comes down to it, one is only reading an interpretation of the original work.

Well that is why links to the source are important. Wiki is a good starting point (along with google scholar) from Wiki you can then delve deeper.

This is what I am saying Matt! I am talking about the original source. (A cylinder Seal or Clay Tablet for instance!)
The person only wrote what they interpreted out of it. Personally, I feel the information could be metaphorical,
having many different meanings.

Well yes, I was more thinking about scientific sources. But I see what you mean. History is a difficult subject.

You're opinion is great as well. People should definitely supply reliable sources.

sources? did someone say sources? *looks shifty* Ive got sources, lots of sources...*opens trench-coat to reveal glittering shiney sources pinned to the inside*
Waddaya after?