Ummm, do volcanoes have mouths? Yahweh spews fire out of his mouth in the Bible.

Do volcanoes have nostrils? Yahweh spews smoke from his nostrils in the Bible.

Do volcanoes have wings? Yahweh has wings in the Bible.

Do volcanoes eat? Yahweh asks for calves, lambs, first born children, and wants them salted in the Bible. He is also given captured enemy virgins.

Do volcanoes crave gold? Yahweh will take gold instead of eating your children, as it says in the Bible.

The Canaanites believed in a dragon named Yaw, who was the son of Elohim, had a consort named Asheroth, and hated Ba'al Hadad, the favorite Cannanite God.

The Hebrews believed in a winged, fire breathing, virgin eating, gold hoarding creature call Yahweh, who was the son of Elohim, had a consort named Asheroth, and hated Ba'al Hadad, the favorite Canannite God.... so he had the Hebrews kill all the Canaanites.

And Yahweh was angry about the Golden Calf, becasue HIS idol was a FIERY FLYING SERPENT (dragon), and he ordered Moses to make the idol, and anyone who didn't worship it was killed by Yahweh's dragon buddies.

Everything I said is in the Bible. Why don't YOU believe in the Bible?

Like it or not there is provable evidence that the Bible has been changed, apparently to hide the fact Yahweh is an "assistant tribal god" (Bene Elohim) and not the Creator God. Many scholars state this. If you read my posts more carefully you will see that the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy proves this. Since those were buried, newer editions have eliminated this troublesome text. . And it is also true that Later Christianity ignored the original Hebrew, and Greek text, and turned the Reptilian seraphim into winged humanoid angels that they felt more comfortable with. We also know this thorugh archaeological discoveries, though even the pre-1900 vintage Jewish Encyclopedia states the seraphim are fiery flying serpents and not "Christian cartoon angels". But of course, just because the bible says the tribal God of the Hebrews, and his closest associates are "dragons" does not mean dragons are real. The whole point of the study, is the premise that there is truth behind the Biblical scritures, as we see the only reasonably scientific creation story of all ancient myths, that is roughly compatible with modern concepts of evolution, and an earth millions of years old, dived by distinct epochs. And when accepting the evidence that Yahweh is a dragon, we see a compatibility with world wide myths that also credit dragon like creatures as mankinds earliest Gods.

as i dont have enough language knowledge to translate or argur translations i'll take your word for now on your interpretations. Though always be wary of dismissing out of hand other possibilities. Refrences to dragon legends does not then give credit to the idea they were real dragons. I would also dispite that dragon like creatures are mankinds earliest gods. The evidence seems to show a myriad of creatures and objects that were worshipped, many in more than one culture. totemism and sun worship are the first to spring to mind as common themes. Serpents were far from the only creature to be widely revered, in ancient history creatures like the bear are also common. Ok so now you will argue but the sun and bears are real.. so why not dragons? most images interpreted as dragons from very ancient civilisation to me seem either snakes, reptiles or are composites of many creatures as was common. indeed why worship a simple bear if there is this grand mystical immortal flying fire breathing creature there?
Not sure if this makes sense at present just working through my train of thought. Will need to have a quick brush up on my facts to make my point clear but you get the gist.
It seems a wild leap where a more simple explanation could exist.

Due to the massive nature of most of your posts i am going to condense parts. This in no way detracts from the original.



Bene Elohim most certainly does NOT translate to "Assistant Tribal God" as you very well know. Bene Elohim translates into Sons of God which in this case is referring to the angels. There is no where in the bible as i have already shown you where the Sons of God is referring to actual god figures.



You still have yet to actually link any writings from the original Deuteronomy, Likewise you have not linked the section where the Virgins were eaten alive, and you have not linked the part where the Hebrews boast that their god actually eats the sacrifices. Now im not doubting these things, in fact i remember reading them, but as i recall the events were completely dragon free and did not imply what you say they do. I would like links to these sections so i can look them up for myself and lay the matter to rest.



This is completely false.

Even if Dragons at one point did exist i find it absurd to think that they were capable of conversation. Now most animals do have intelligence of a sort, and i swear my dog can talk to me sometimes but at no point do i ever stop thinking of him as an animal. You have watched Dragonheart far too many times my friend. There is plenty of evidence of dinosaurs and humans having existed together as i have already linked a few posts back.

The Jewish priests never referred to the angels as God's side as Drakons. As you yourself have said, Drakon is a greek translation of the Hebrew word tannîyn which can mean one of the following. dragon, sea-monster, jackal, serpent

The Greek word Drakon means fabulous serpent. It does not mean dragon as so many people seem to believe. Now while this can be taken to mean a dragon, the literal translation is most certainly not dragon.

As far as Angels being swan winged creatures, i completely agree with you. They are completely unlike what is seen in popular literature. This however does NOT make them dragons. In the passages you are referring to do not describe dragons as i have already shown you on more than one occasion.



If Abraham came from a place in Sumeria, how could you possibly know that he got the story from the 5000 year old tablets or if he was the one who told the story to the Sumerians and they then wrote the tablets. There is absolutely no way to prove your claim here. Period.



I do not believe that the Torah was not inspired by Abraham or Moses. I suspect that Enoch wrote the first part of it and the books that deal with the exodus were simply part of the Jewish history. There is no need for it to be inspired by any single person but by the events that occurred as it was being written.



Good for the Disciples. It does not mean they were right no matter what they thought. Though if you continue reading you will find that Jesus himself lays the matter to rest by telling them who he truly is. The bold section is complete speculation and completely unprovable as you well know.

You are going to have to show me where the Old Testament ever states that God's name is El, and i have already pointed out multiple times why the Canaanite writings have nothing to do with Judaism. There is no way to prove which came first and you very well know that. You also know as i have shown you multiple times that Bene Elohim is referring to the Angels and not actual sons of god. As far as the changing of the documents, thats more conspirisy theory than anything else. You can not prove any of it aside from a few vague mistranslations and referrences that you have misinterpreted.

'kanji' Due to the massive nature of most of your posts i am going to condense parts. This in no way detracts from the original.


Bene Elohim most certainly does NOT translate to "Assistant Tribal God" as you very well know. Bene Elohim translates into Sons of God which in this case is referring to the angels. There is no where in the bible as i have already shown you where the Sons of God is referring to actual god figures.



DC Wrong. The Henoism article completely demolishes this idea. Angels and Bene Elohim are completely different. The Bene Elohim meet in the court of El, and Yahweh is claimed to be the best one in Psalms, and he berates the others for not being just to their humans.


You still have yet to actually link any writings from the original Deuteronomy, Likewise you have not linked the section where the Virgins were eaten alive, and you have not linked the part where the Hebrews boast that their god actually eats the sacrifices. Now im not doubting these things, in fact i remember reading them, but as i recall the events were completely dragon free and did not imply what you say they do. I would like links to these
sections so i can look them up for myself and lay the matter to rest.


DC It is in my original thread, but essentially, the original talks aobut God apportioning the human tribes amond the Sons of God, and you Bible has this changed to Sons of Israel.

No, it does not say they were eaten, simply that they were "given" to Yahweh. But considering he takes calves , lambs and first born children, and the long traidition of virgin sacrifices to dragons, this is their probable fate

Surely you recall the contest. I think it was Jerimiah who challenged the priests of Baal that Yahweh would actually consume the sacrifices, while nothing happened to the sacrifices to Baal.

l
This is completely false.

Even if Dragons at one point did exist i find it absurd to think that they were capable of conversation. Now most animals do have intelligence of a sort, and i swear my dog can talk to me sometimes but at no point do i ever stop thinking of him as an animal. You have watched Dragonheart far too many times my friend. There is plenty of evidence of dinosaurs and humans having existed together as i have already linked a few posts back.


DC Apparenlty you ignore what the Bible says. In Psalms the dragons sing praises to God, and in Isaiah the Serpahim do, and the Hebrew scholars of the Jewish Enclyclopedia say the seraphim are fiery flying serpents, and when this word was translated into Greek the SERAPHIM ARE CALLED DRAKONS. Satan is a dragon who speaks to Adam, although this is a recast of Enki the dragon of Eridu who speaks to Adam.

The Jewish priests never referred to the angels as God's side as Drakons. As you yourself have said, Drakon is a greek translation of the Hebrew word tannîyn which can mean one of the following. dragon, sea-monster, jackal, serpent


Wrong, we know the Seraphim were translated to Drakons on acnient papyrus. And the Apocolypses of Baruch, used by both Christians and Jews stated there were dragons in Heaven. Drakon is used to translate both Seraphim and Tannin, just as both Seraphim and Tannin sing praises to God in the Bible. It is only modern Christians who claim Tannin can be a jackal or serpent, which is false, for they have their own words. Jackal sounds similar. it is Tan. The ancient Chritians depicted the seraphim around God as dragons on frescoes, mosaics, and bible covers as my book will show..



The Greek word Drakon means fabulous serpent. It does not mean dragon as so many people seem to believe. Now while this can be taken to mean a dragon, the literal translation is most certainly not dragon.


Wrong again, many Greek Drakons are true dragons that have wings. If you were more familar with the Greek myths you would know this. Medea's winged drakons pulled her chariot across the sky. And this is evident in Jewish writings as well, for the Drakon that helps build Solomons temple is described with wings, arms and legs.



As far as Angels being swan winged creatures, i completely agree with you. They are completely unlike what is seen in popular literature. This however does NOT make them dragons. In the passages you are referring to do not describe dragons as i have already shown you on more than one occasion.


Like it or not, the ancient Rabbis translated the word Seraphim to Drakons and the Jewish Encylcopleda agrees they are fiery flying serpents, another way of saying dragon.



If Abraham came from a place in Sumeria, how could you possibly know that he got the story from the 5000 year old tablets or if he was the one who told the story to the Sumerians and they then wrote the tablets. There is absolutely no way to prove your claim here. Period.


All of the serious scholars would say the Sumerian stories are older version thatn the Biblical ones.


I do not believe that the Torah was not inspired by Abraham or Moses. I suspect that Enoch wrote the first part of it and the books that deal with the exodus were simply part of the Jewish history. There is no need for it to be inspired by any single person but by the events that occurred as it was being written.

Good for the Disciples. It does not mean they were right no matter what they thought. Though if you continue reading you will find that Jesus himself lays the matter to rest by telling them who he truly is. The bold section is complete speculation and completely unprovable as you well know.

You are going to have to show me where the Old Testament ever states that God's name is El, and i have already pointed out multiple times why the Canaanite writings have nothing to do with Judaism. There is no way to prove which came first and you very well know that. You also know as i have shown you multiple times that Bene Elohim is referring to the Angels and not actual sons of god. As far as the changing of the documents, thats more conspirisy theory than anything else. You can not prove any of it aside from a few vague mistranslations and referrences that you have misinterpreted.

The Creator God at the beginning of the Bible is Elohim, not Yahweh. But Yahweh's less scientific creation is added later on. So we see two completely different creations in Genesis, the Elohim creation mirror evolution, the Yahweh creation is mythic, with Adam bing the first thing created. DC

The Henoism article is just as much wishful thinking as this topic. At no where in the bible is Yahweh ever inferred to be one of the Bene Elohim. I have already looked this up and responded to it in this thread demolishing it quite nicely. Simply repeating the idea does not change this fact. The God's referred to in Psalms are nothing more than Kings who fancy themselves God. You would be able to realize this if you took the entire verse in context of the passage. The problem here is you have a bad habit of pulling a passage out of context and then twisting it to mean whatever you want. Context is extremely important to the Bible, and you are taking things out of context here whether you believe you are or not.

So you don't actually know what happened to the Virgins. Without a book of the bible to look in, i could search for days without finding the exact passage you are referring to, so let me make this simple. Simply because you think historically that virgins are given to dragons does not make it even plausible that a dragon god actually ate them. It is COMPLETE speculation, and if you are actually writing a book on this, i would suggest confining yourself to the facts.

Oh i recall the contest, however the book of Jeremiah has 52 chapters and is one of the longest books if not the longest book in the old testament. Context is very important to the bible, so if you could narrow it down a bit it would help.



You continually make the claim that current modern translations of the bible are wrong, but you accept without question the greek translations? That certainly does not make sense no matter how you cut it. I am quite familiar with the greek myths and yes they do have dragons associated with the word Drakon, but the part that you continually leave out is that Seraph has more than one possible translation associated with it. Fiery Flying Serpent is only one of the translations. Phonetically the word Seraph is very close to the word Saraph and has several possible root words. The Jewish Rabbis don't know any more than you or i do what the words original translation was. The Jewish language has changed since it was first spoken much in the same way that english today is almost indistinguishable from old english and quite honestly, speaking to someone in england can be a chore because often times i have no idea what they are saying. Just a simple mispronunciation of a word can completely change the meaning. The most likely translation is the word serpent, or snake. As far as the Seraphim translation, dragon is never implied. Simply declaring that all the angels mentioned in the bible are dragons is wishful thinking and complete speculation.

"... I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the Hekhal (sanctuary). Above Him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."

This is the only place in the bible where the word Seraphim is expressly mentioned. The description is not that of a dragon as you can see.



Oh thank God, im so glad all serious scholars agree. After all we know that consensus equals proof. The point here is that it is still speculation despite what your evolutionist scholars, who do not consider anything beyond the evolutionary timetable, might have to say on the subject. The only reason a consensus is ever needed to validate a theory is for the purposes of peer pressure. After all the more people that believe a certain thing to be true, the more right it becomes. Again, there is no direct proof of what you or your serious scholars say. It is complete and total speculation being passed off as fact.



Again simply repeating yourself does not make you right. Elohim is not God's true name.
Elohim is a word which expresses concepts of divinity. In other words God or Gods as in "though shalt not have any other Gods before me" is the translation of the word.
Now here is the fun part of this entire thing. Yahweh is not actually translated. Yahweh is a guess, speculation, nothing more. We do not know what the original Hebrew vowels were for the world so we guess. You can infer anything you want, but the point is that Yahweh is the closest translation that we know of to the original Hebrew word.
Likewise the word El is a word for God. Simply because other cultures used the word to refer to various gods means absolutely nothing. If you believe that the original Hebrew religion was based off of other religions, then sure you have a case, but if the bible is right then this theory goes out the window. You are picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe and you can not do that if you expect to be able to put together a religious theory. Ether you accept the entire bible as truth, or you only believe the parts you want to believe and only the parts that with enough twisting make your theory sound half way plausible.

'kanji'
The Henoism article is just as much wishful thinking as this topic. At no where in the bible is Yahweh ever inferred to be one of the Bene Elohim. I have already looked this up and responded to it in this thread demolishing it quite nicely. Simply repeating the idea does not change this fact. The God's referred to in Psalms are nothing more than Kings who fancy themselves God. You would be able to realize this if you took the entire verse in context of the passage. The problem here is you have a bad habit of pulling a passage out of context and then twisting it to mean whatever you want. Context is extremely important to the Bible, and you are taking things out of context here whether you believe you are or not.


DC The Henoism article was written by Hebrew Scholars, and Uses the bible as its source material. I have yet to see a scholarly acount to dispute it. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits the were numerous other Gods in the original Hebrew beliefs. Its right in the bilbe as the article has shown.


So you don't actually know what happened to the Virgins. Without a book of the bible to look in, i could search for days without finding the exact passage you are referring to, so let me make this simple. Simply because you think historically that virgins are given to dragons does not make it even plausible that a dragon god actually ate them. It is COMPLETE speculation, and if you are actually writing a book on this, i would suggest confining yourself to the facts.



Hmmmm. Lets see. Yahweh is apparently a large flesh eating reptile, and half the ancient world that knew who he was knew he was a dragon and said so. This was probably known to the Jews as well who decorated the most sacred temple object, the menorah, with images of a dragon that was probably intended to be Yahweh. To further confirm this, he is described with wings, has fiery breath, and made the Israelites worship his dragon idol or be killed by his dragon buddies as clearly explianed in the book of Numbers.

And this "dragon" demands a daily rations of sheep and calves (salted), and the "firstborn" animals and children of every Israelite family seven days after they are "issued from the womb". And then we read in the same Bible that this same Yahweh is "given" 32 virgins. It doesn't take much imagination to speculate their probable fate given the evidence...... and I don't think he married them, for nothing more is EVER said of them after they were "given" to Him.



Oh i recall the contest, however the book of Jeremiah has 52 chapters and is one of the longest books if not the longest book in the old testament. Context is very important to the bible, so if you could narrow it down a bit it would help.



Since we both agree it is there, and Jeremiah won becasue Yahweh actually cosumed the offered animals, I am not sure of the point to spend a lot of time dredging this up. You could probably google it pretty fast.

You continually make the claim that current modern translations of the bible are wrong, but you accept without question the greek translations? That certainly does not make sense no matter how you cut it. I am quite familiar with the greek myths and yes they do have dragons associated with the word Drakon, but the part that you continually leave out is that Seraph has more than one possible translation associated with it. Fiery Flying Serpent is only one of the translations. Phonetically the word Seraph is very close to the word Saraph and has several possible root words. The Jewish Rabbis don't know any more than you or i do what the words original translation was. The Jewish language has changed since it was first spoken much in the same way that english today is almost indistinguishable from old english and quite honestly, speaking to someone in england can be a chore because often times i have no idea what they are saying. Just a simple mispronunciation of a word can completely change the meaning. The most likely translation is the word serpent, or snake. As far as the Seraphim translation, dragon is never implied. Simply declaring that all the angels mentioned in the bible are dragons is wishful thinking and complete speculation.


DC: You still don't get it. The translations I refer to were made into greek from Hebrew by learned, ancient Rabbis before Jesus was even born! They are using the original source mater. So BOTH the ancient Jews and modern Jews who understand Hebrew fluently knew the seraphim were winged reptilian creatures. And to remove any doubt, the anicent Egyptians also acknowledged a fiery flying serpent Named the Seraph.

But I NEVER said all angels were dragons. For the record, I say "no angels are dragons". Dragons (seraphim) and the Humanoid angels are two distinctly different heavenly creatures. The Seraph dragons are "destroyers" as they are also sometimes called. Angels are messengers. They were an afterthought that became necessary once humans came on the scene because giant flame spewing dragons are a bit conspicuous while trying to deliver a message to a human in a populated area, and probably a bit frightening too. If a terrifying Seraph Dragon came to Mary to tell her she was going to have God's baby, she might have had a miscarriage.


"... I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the Hekhal (sanctuary). Above Him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."

This is the only place in the bible where the word Seraphim is expressly mentioned. The description is not that of a dragon as you can see.

It doesn't have to be, becasue the word Seraphim already gives this information to the reader who understands Hebrew, and this is confirmed by the ANCIENT translations of the word Seraphim to Drakon by the ancient Jewish rabbis themselves. But nothing in the passage contradicts this. Dragons have wings, arms , legs and faces. And you ignore the fact that dragons sing praises to God in Psalms and Seraphim sing praises to God in Isaiah. Don't you see the connection. These are the only creatues who sing praises to God in the bible, and in one book they are literally called dragons, and in another book they are creatures whose name means a kind of dragon in both Hebrew and Egyptian.


Oh thank God, im so glad all serious scholars agree. After all we know that consensus equals proof. The point here is that it is still speculation despite what your evolutionist scholars, who do not consider anything beyond the evolutionary timetable, might have to say on the subject. The only reason a consensus is ever needed to validate a theory is for the purposes of peer pressure. After all the more people that believe a certain thing to be true, the more right it becomes. Again, there is no direct proof of what you or your serious scholars say. It is complete and total speculation being passed off as fact.


I would say most of the world, and the largest body of scientists would agree that the earth is hundreds of millions, even billions of years old, and evolution is real. You should be ecstatic that the Elohim creation is somewhat compatible with evolution as also suggested by the ancient dragon servants of God that suggest a connection with dinosaurs.


Again simply repeating yourself does not make you right. Elohim is not God's true name.
Elohim is a word which expresses concepts of divinity. In other words God or Gods as in "though shalt not have any other Gods before me" is the translation of the word.
Now here is the fun part of this entire thing. Yahweh is not actually translated. Yahweh is a guess, speculation, nothing more. We do not know what the original Hebrew vowels were for the world so we guess. You can infer anything you want, but the point is that Yahweh is the closest translation that we know of to the original Hebrew word.
Likewise the word El is a word for God. Simply because other cultures used the word to refer to various gods means absolutely nothing. If you believe that the original Hebrew religion was based off of other religions, then sure you have a case, but if the bible is right then this theory goes out the window. You are picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe and you can not do that if you expect to be able to put together a religious theory. Ether you accept the entire bible as truth, or you only believe the parts you want to believe and only the parts that with enough twisting make your theory sound half way plausible.


Originally El/Elohim is indeed the proper name of the Creator God as proven in Canaanite scriptures far older than the bilble. And like the early hebrews they acknowledged El as the highest God, and his favorite "son" was the dragon Yaw, who had a Consort called Asheroth, and was the enemy of Ba'al. And all of this is the same with Yahweh. The Hebrews just added the "weh" to his name! I am not picking out parts of the Bible. You are. The Bible describes Yahweh as a dragon. Gnostic Christians said he is a dragon. The Persian Empire's zoroastrian religion says he is a dragon. Yahweh orders his idol to be in a dragon form, and his highest assistants are identificed as "dragons" by both ancient rabbis and modern ones alike.

I am not making ANY of this up. I am merely putting the pieces back together. And like I said before, it really helps the Christian cause if Yahweh is a dragon, becasue of all the terrible things he does in the Bible. We can excuse an inhumane creature for acting inhumanely, but not an all wise, creator Gon and the Father of Jesus. And Jesus is on my side too. He actually tells the Pharisees they are NOT worshipping His Father, but there can be no doubt that they are worshipping Yahweh. You may argue with me, but how can you argue with Jesus?

Hi dc.....

I thought I'd skip through the whole thread and just read this last paragraph, to get the gist of this topic.......

I got it alright.......

This is kind of off topic, and kind of on topic, but I think if someone answers it it could open up the topic a little more..

Someone mentioned '70 tribes' and each having a God, with Yahweh being the strongest according to the Israelites, this before the others were pronounced as false Gods (stop me if I'm not remembering this right, I should really have gone back and quoted). Where can I find more information on the deities these '70 tribes' worshipped? I'm presuming given that there were 70, we are talking more than just Baal here.

After reading through this thread I have a burning desire to correlate the stories deities like Quetzalcoatl in South America with their tales of white teachers of civilisation.

O.k. so Um I just read this and the Arc of the Covernant and I ,m ConLol FUSED LOL! I got that joke the ARC LOL, and this Is The Electrical GOD Right? Right?

The concept of Seraphem being "fiery serpents" is not a new one. I had run across this translation many times in the years before I ever heard of DC. That makes sens, since there have been scholars who have translated it as such for thousands of years. This does not necessarily prove what actually happened, but it makes a compelling case as to what people thought at the time.

P.S.: I'm going to steer clear of the Yaweh and Satan argument...

This was originally a Canaanite belief that the Hebrews seemed to have copied, but the basic concept was accepted throughout the near east. For example, Enki's city was Eridu, Enlil's was Nippur, etc. These cities began as regional "tribes". Abraham lived only seven miles from Enki's city, and we see surprising similarities in the stories of both Enki and Yahweh, not the least being they are both credited with building the garden of eden and known as dragons, particularly so in the Canannite version of Yahweh, "Yaw or Yam". But you will see that Quetzalcoatl and other "dragons" around the world share many similarities with the Mesopotamian ones.

The number of seventy probably stems from these were all the known city states/tribes at the time. But later this same idea is retained by even early Christianity, in which each city would have a patron "angel".

All this about Dragons...so where does this fit in with the stories of Beowulf and St George?

Slayers of heavenly beings?

It takes a hell of a lot of wing power to lift such a creature that is capable of using its belly to stop the flow of a river.

Some of what has been commented on here I have read about on similar lines such as the author, 'Laurence Gardner', but you have to be very trusting of the research that goes into these theories....Where's a good Hebrew scholar when you need one these days?

Also the assumption of multiple deities from some that advocate a singular one and yet I seem to recall from the gospel of Judas that when Christ entered a room where his disciples were giving grace at the table before their meal Christ mocked them to their annoyance saying that they were praying to the wrong god, interesting that Christ wasn't at the table?

I've always been confused sometimes to the difference between God and the works of the devil according to the bible

Dragon slayer stories are total nonsense, but the stories have fascinated mankind for centuries because dragons were believed to be real until just recently. Saint George is a good example. There was othing at all about dragons in his biography until the dragon fight was simply "invented" by a writer over 1000 years after he lived! But the story became very popular because people were so afraid of dragons at the time. The irony is that when the real St. George lived in Roman times, the Chruch still knew that the seraphim were dragons.

Beowulf is simply a boastful story of the type drunken germanics told in their meadhalles. It should me mentioned as well, that in medieval times, the dragons fighting saints, are seldom bigger than a small pony, becasuse nobody in those times was so stupid to think a person could kill an enormous dragon like in the r******ed books, video games and movies of today, written by people completely ingnorant of medieval weapons and their capabilities, or for that matter, the awesome power a giant intelligent creature like a dragon would posses. I doubt any person could even penetrate such a creatures scale covered skin. The Bible tells how impossible it ws to kill the "Leivathan" dragon, with scales no weapon of bronze or iron could penetrate.

There is not "devil" in the old testament. atan is not even a proper name, and a satan in one chapter, might not be the satan in another. It just means an "adversary" sent by God to test someone. The ignorant early Christians did not understand this, and essentially "invented" a bogeyman named Satan. Yahweh claims he is responible for both good and evil, and this seems to be confirmed in the Bible.

On a parallel to this: There is also a topic "Order of the Defeated Dragon" within the Conspiracies section. This order combines dragon symbols and old Christian symbols. Oddly, I have noticed some points indicating that the Ordo Draco exists to "slay the dragon of heresy", and other researches indicate that they are trying to preserve a "dragon bloodline".

the fact that the bible is basically plagerized from the sumerians makes all this moot.

Sumerian stories were written out at least 1000 years before the bible was a thought. the 'hebrews' were worshipping multiple gods as well. the creation story is directly from the Sumerians as is others.

http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm

That has been said here many times, and actually gives the Biblical yahweh more credence. The Sumerian Gods are also referred to as "dragons" in their hymns. The Sumerian origins do not necesarily make the Biblical account of the dragon Yahweh less real. Enki-Yahweh may have simply "kept in touch" with the group of shepherds that left Ur and headed west. Perhaps the only reason Yahweh was allowed to still "shepherd" a tribe of humans at such a late date was because these were the descendents of his original group in the Ur - Eridu region. It all fits the proper chronology.

Two very interesting links.

But for some, looking for these interpretations of Sumerian texts may become an obsession when logically its simply a case of fairy tales.

A good case for the Atheists?

yes !! fairy tales !!!! the same ones used to write the bible !! the creation story , the flood story , the garden of eden , ect ................ ( actually they think they know where the 'garden of eden' is located via Sumerian text . the fact is the original story came from the Sumerians.

In the past hundred years. since the discovery of ancient civilizations in modern Iraq, scholars have leaned toward the Tigris-Euphrates valley in general, and to the sites of southern Sumer, about 150 miles north of the present head of the Persian Gulf, in particular (map, above).

To this southern Sumerian theory Dr. Juris Zarins, of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, would murmur: "You're getting warmer. For Dr. Zarins, who has spent seven years working out his own hypothesis, believes that the Garden of Eden lies presently under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and he further believes that the story of Adam and Eve in-and especially out-of the Garden is a highly condensed and evocative account of perhaps the greatest revolution that ever shook mankind: the shift from hunting-gathering to agriculture.

It is a tale of rich complexity, beginning 30 millennia before the birth of Christ. Of climatic shifts from moist to arid to moist, with consequent migrations eddying back and forth across, and up and down the Middle East. And of myriad peoples. There were hunter-gatherers whom agriculturists displaced. There were prehistoric Ubaidians who built cities, Sumerians who invented writing and the Assyrians who absorbed Sumer's writing as well as its legend of a luxuriantly lovely land, an Eden called Dilmun. Finally there were Kashsh**es in Mesopotamia, contemporaries of the Israelites then forming the state of Israel.

An endless search for food

There are two crucial if approximate dates in reconstruction. The first is about 30,000 B.C., with the transition from Neanderthal to modern Man. This, some anthropologists believe, took place along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas and in Iraq. At that time the Great Ice Age still held most of Eurasia in its grip, and it caused the sea levels to fall by 400 feet so that what is now the Persian Gulf was dry land, all the way to the Strait of Hormuz. It was irrigated not only by the still-existing Tigris and Euphrates but also by the Gihon, the Pison and their tributaries from the Arabian peninsula and from Iran. It seems reasonable that technologically primitive but modern Mm, in his endless search for food, would have located the considerable natural paradise that presented itself in the area where the Gulf now lies.

But Eden wasn't born then. That came, Zarins believes, about 6000 B.C. In between 30,000 and 6000 B.C., the climate varied. From 15,000 B.C., rainfall diminished drastically. Faced with increasing aridity, the Paleolithic population retreated, some as far as the area known to us as the "Fertile Crescent" (north along the Tigris and Euphrates, westward toward the moist Mediterranean coast, south to the Nile), and also eastward to the Indus River valley. Others, perhaps wearied by the long trek, made do with the more austere conditions of central Arabia and continued foraging as best they could.

Then, at about 6000 to 5000 B.C., following a long arid stretch, came a period called the Neolithic Wet Phase when rains returned to the Gulf region. The reaches of eastern and northeastern Saudi Arabia and southwestern Iran became green and fertile again. Foraging populations came back to where the four rivers now ran full, and there was rainfall on the intervening plains. Animal bones indicate that in this period Arabia had abundant game. Thousands of stone tools suggest intensive, if seasonal, human occupation around now dry lakes and rivers. These tools are found even in the Rub al-Khali or Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia. And so about 6000 to 5000 B.C. the land was again a paradise on Earth, provided by a bountiful nature-God---and admirably suited to the foraging life.

http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/

Click to view attachment

The area thought to be the Garden of Eden, which was flooded when Gulf waters arose, is shown in green.
Yellow areas of Bahrain and Arabian coast represent Dilmun, paradise land of Ubaidians and Sumerians

A hymn to Enki, "The Great Dragon that stands in Eridu" also mentions his building the Garden of Eden there. This is quite close to where the satellites noted the garden should be by the ancient river courses. Why would our ancestors claim a "dragon" taught them agriculure in the garden of eden? Why would the Chinese say essentially the same thing about their dragons thousands of miles away?

I read these depth the comments with interest.

What is the source the research I wonder?

Books or the Sumerian texts themselves?

I have to take one step back and instead of getting too involved and the need to go into research mode which will inevitably confuse me more, its best to look at the whole picture and the personalities involved here.



How much of this is really made for amusement?

Or is it really taken more seriously?

***********************************?

I thought it best to delete the real question I was interested in.

Surely the real mystery is..the Sumerian's themselves and how did they accelerate mans evolution in such a short period of time, what kick started it?

The Dragon theory is of the least importance surely?

It does of course dismiss the old testament I'll grant you.

The Chuppie post was tongue in cheek simply becasue the whole chuppie thing is ridiculous.

But the dragons are very important to the Sumerians because THEY said that thir e knowledge came from the Heavenly dragons. So here we have these brilliant builders, mathematicians and astronomers, and they blelive they were taught by dragons. It does demand an explanation.

And once we establish Yahweh is the sumerian dragon Enki, it all make a lot more sense, as you will see if you read my book.

good question.

The lunar cycle of about 28-29 days, and the solar cycle of 365 ¼ days, have no natural relationship, and the selection of how many days there should be in a "week" is purely arbitrary. The 7 day week of the Hebrews was based on a preference for that number and probably originated with the earlier Sumerians, who based it on the 7 heavenly bodies then known, and who are also credited with originating history. ("History begins at Sumer") The Incas had an 8 day week as did the Romans, who only modified it to 7 when the Roman world became Christianized with Constantine. The earlier Greeks had no week at all, just a 30 day month. At its origin in 1917, the Soviet Union adopted a 5 day week.



<a href="http://www.naciente.com/essay70.htm" target="_blank">http://www.naciente.com/essay70.htm</a>


this may help also explain thier creation myth --

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc03.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc03.htm</a>

Heavenly Father, and our Mother , The Holy spirit (God), are spirit, of which all Mater is created.

Father can manifest any form He wishes (Perks of being a creator), This is why we are told not to atribute any shape to The one who created us. Father may look lik a Moses figure to one, and A dragon to another. I have seen God as many things including but not limited to human shapes.
God slows Spirits vibration down, in order to manifest on this plane of existance.

Love Omnaka

You misunderstand the early Hebrew and Cannanite theologies. Neither believed that God the Creator was a dragon, they believed the lesser, "assistant gods"/ Sons of God appeared as dragons. These are the Seraphim of the Bible. In a way these ancient peoples were more logical than people today. In the original Bible, Yahweh is subordinate to the creator El, but later the Hebrews melded the two Gods together. Originally they believed the creator of the universe could no micro manage every individual human, pariticularly when they are many more inhabitable planets too. So the bible says that these "Sons of Gods" were apportioned one each to watch over each human tribe. This is the role of Yahweh with the Hebrews.

Why dragons? Possibly these were the most intelligent animals available to the Creator 100 million years ago, when he visited this planet last. And this is why we read of cruel gods, Yahweh included. He does terrible things in the Bible, and Jesus seems to claim he is not his father. Perhaps the dragons that were assistant/tribal gods, were not delibartely cruel, but simply had brains that lacked human-type compassion as we see in many of the Bibles terrible atrocities, and inexplicable human and animal sacrifices.

actually that's a wise point to concider. 'father' may look like 'mother' and vice versa - It would be foolish for a spirit of have a gender. limiting. it's energy.

I have seen Father and Mother as one. They together make one God. when you do see a dragon, look at the eyes , this will tell you if it is a good or bad dragon.
Father and mother can manifest as anything they wish and or what we wish, so yes , you are correct it tries to limit spirit, which is infinate and unlimitable.

There is a Game we play in Heaven, called hush the Dragon, A party favorite.

Mother just says get out of here you pesky dragon. and it scampers away.

Love Omnaka

Well, I have to admit that is an novel and interesting concept. Ancient Jewish and Christians scriptures DO speak of the heavenly dragons who consume the souls "Of those who spend their lives wickedly", but this is the first time I heard of them being addressed like "pesky" pets to be "shooed" when getting in the way at heavenly garden parties!

Nothing is "lock-tight provable," _all_ is _speculation_ for scholars. I understand that Yahweh is an almagam of MANY gods and goddesses, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Syrian, Phoenician, Egyptian, and Canaanite. I feel it is a useless methodology to "nit-pick" and stress "the differences" and IGNORE the similarities shared by the various dieties. For me the Hebrews are _not_ attempting to preserve ALL the characteristics of any given god or goddess, they omit what they have no interest in to build their case for there being only one God. So I accept in essence many gods and goddesses as being amalgamated into Yahweh and I DO NOT WORRY about "the inconsistencies" which some scholars view as "cancelling-out" identifications. Gods fused into Yahweh's persona are the Sumerian Enki (Akkadian/Babylonian Ea), Enlil (Ellil), An (Anu), Utu (Shamash), _and_ the Egyptian Hyksos' god Baal Saphon (Baal Hadad) as well as Seth (Seth/Set being assimilated to Baal Saphon) and Sopdu of Egypt, said Egyptian gods surfacing in altered form in the Exodus traditions.

This new myth making process is a conscious, reflected application of older myths and mythic elements to new situations...In so far as one admits the presence of myth in ancient Babylonian and Canaanite culture, then one must also admit the presence of myth in the Bible...This book, then, is a series of case studies of myth making in ancient Israel, or to be more exact, in the biblical tradition.

yes.. and as time goes on it will fall the way as other myths to be replaced by others.

ive made the point that dc is mythmaking a number of times; intrestingly he has brought the myth spark upto date with his dragons having the ability of interdimensional travel. According to him the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who 'disappear' each year world-wide can account for their continued presence (ofcourse there is a big 'hush-up' over that one) they also are said to have been instrumental in the defeat of the Armarda that attacked Elizabethan Britain (although possibly limited to weather forcasting), and again they helped the brits against the german U boats in the last century...we clearly owe them a debt of gratitude. They seem to hate germans, (though this may reflect DC's own prejudice) and used to wing their way from the more civilised middle east for a snack on virgin, cattle, or nuckleheaded would be dragon slayer.

staying with the dragon-slayer theme, Enki (who DC identifies as the dragon origin of both satan and jehovah) was the hero of the earliest dragon slaying story.....where he killed Kur and later inherited his kingdom and some of his significance. no doubt DC will find some way to dismiss this tale as bogus, mistaken or somehow inadmissable to the argument. perhaps by suggesting that kur was not a dragon but a (ushumgal) Great Serpent.

Surly if anyone could have enraged a whole different intellignet species, it would have been the Nazies. They had a talent for it...

It seems not to be their politics but their ethnicity and 'character' thats the problem...though i grant you the Nazis of the 1930's and 40's were a little tiresome.

If you knew more about this Grem, you wouldn't even have to make your speculations. Enki is described in his Hymns as a "great dragon of heaven", and even in the Babylonian times his physcial descripton is a sharp toothed, scaly reptile. I have provided proof in the ancient hymns. Ancient humans apparently believed the dragons could assume less fearsome human forms as well as we see these Gods in human forms too, though common sense would dictate they would be dragons while fighiting other dragons, though tiamat eems to be more of a serpent. Marduk was the son of Enki, so logically a dragon as well. The dragon seen at his side in most of his depiction may be there to indicate his other form. Zeus could change to a Drakon at will as well, and apparently enjoyed raping human women in this form.

As far as dragons hating Germans, or vice versa, this is based on their surviving legends. They are definately far less "dragon friendly" than the beliefs of the more civilized nations of the time. It is a fact. For all we know, dragons could have ravaged them for centuries and we would never know becasue the people were illiterate for most of this time.

Like it or not, the German barbarians were wanton destroyers of civilization. And contrary to Tolkien, and the latest Beowulf cartoon, they lived in hovels of twigs and cowdung, not huge stone buildings. They were far too lazy and perpetually drunk to make such edifices. I think the most stones in barbarian German arhitecture that archaeology has ever detected is a fire hearth of stacked stones. That's it.

Actually amongst many many other things, in that hymn he is called Ushumgal (something you seemed determined to misspell for 14or so pages of another thread.) which means Great Serpent.
you cant go by a babylonian physical description of a sumerian deity...its more inapropriate than using islam to describe the christian jesus.
hehe thought you would cop out with the Tiamat and kur were just big snakes thing. I dont think you understand the connections between kur, enki, marduk and tiamat at all....besides which in each of the two dragon-slaying stories, both marduk and enki are humanoid in form for the showdown Marduk has a handheld weapon and if all of the motifs are consistent, so did Enki. (no doubt you would presume that they chose that form for that encounter lol surely a dragon one would have been more appropriate for the occasion given your appreciation of the physical imbalance of the match).
zeus enjoyed ravishing women in a number of forms, bull, swan, serpent. only in the late alexander romances (which are fantastical), and early medieval depictions of the romantic scene, does he apear as a winged dragon...but then your preconceptions demand you eclipse everything about zeus to try to suggest that a dragon was his 'true' form or 'preferred' form.




your prejudice against germans is well known...and well demonstrated.

its a shame that dragons like enki and the germans didnt get along, being almost perpetually drunk enki might have found them more fun...but then the sumerians were also known to like their beer...lots.
finally, you say that the dragons preferred the more civilized middle eastern peoples and the chinese to the uncouth westerners...or is it just germans? but you also say that the dragons brought civilisation...why would they be biased against people they had not yet civilised? did they behave as abominably to the sumerians and chinese before said peoples were taught to use a plow? or did the germans drink all of their beer?....it would tick me off.

Every one of God's sons has a dragon which needs to be tamed, Mine has blue eyes.

Love Omnaka

dude if is point is right does that mean the horrors of the dark ages may have been caused by slaying dragons therefore GOD SUPREME angered that we killed our "caratakers" left us to devour ourselfs with war and greed

man thats like fighting the baby sitter and then being tossed on the streets to SMARTEN US UP

hey come to think

KING ARTHUR brought unification to his people and upon his standard the pen dragon flew

Yes Aurthur did use the dragon as his symbol. The Red Dragon (representing the Britons) and the White dragon (representing the Saxons) appeared in a vision to merlin. Weather Arthur took the standard of the Pendragon from that, from the Roman Drakon standard, or some other reason is unknown. Much of the tales and legends of Arthur and Merlin are also replete with references to dragons. Even today, some of these symbols remain in Britain.

If you want to dig into this, why not open up an Arthurian dragon thread?

i am reading "the secret teachings of all ages"

in it they explain dragon symbolism is in almost every culture [its almost as bad as the pre jesus sacrifices]

hey fire=dragons fire used to represent god [the sun] but then flipped in europe like dragons

guess whixh culture had the most influence in europe

germanics.

whose influence hitler revealed to fire up his aryan brothers for war

what if they were deceived [by Enki] a long time ago triggering a harsh conflict

There is no evidence anyone killed a dragon in the dark ages, save for the tall tales of drunken germans. The notion is totally absurd. But ther may indeeed be a reaon they concocted such stories. Perhaps the dragons were allowed to hunt the ancient Germans since they were of no use to anybody, and accomplished nothing at all for thousands of years save for drinking, and brawling (and dreaming up ridiculous tall tales to piss off the dragons even more.)

Only the advanced, CIVILIZED nations had dragon gods to teach them to be civilized. They went to Germany to devour mead halles full of helplessly drunk . virtual "cavemen" that mattered to no one, and let the superstitious survivors believe a deformed human they called a "troll" was responsible.

I was under the impression the dragon battle was not a vision, but an event witnessed by many people. This is an important event in my book, concerning two important dragons involved in a non-lethal contest to decided whether the Romano British or Germanics should control Britain, something that would have important reprecussions much later on.

So, are you trying to tell us that myths from sumerian tablets and cylinder seals, are better than tall tales from drunken germans?

In combing the surviving Sumerian literature for a starting point, we
examined the "Hymn to Ninkasi." This document, which dates to about
1800 B.C., sings the praises of the Sumerian goddess of brewing. The
text, known from tablets found at Nippur, Suppar, and Larsa, had been
translated by Miguel Civil of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago in 1964. Coded within the Hymn is an ancient recipe for
beer. We would return to the Hymn time and again before attempting to
brew the Ancient recipe. On several occasions we met with Civil to
discuss parts of the text that were vague or ambiguous. In responding
to our questions Civil was led to refine his translation of certain
Sumerian words such as honey and wine. His revised translation of the
hymn, presented here for the first time, allowed us to successsfully
re-create the Sumerian beer.
Link- Sumerian Beer

So, how is you're example that no dragons were killed in the dark ages any better than any other ancient cuneiform stating as such?


Regards,
Tom

dragons or dragon gods
must exist[ed] in some form because any developed [stone age] culture beleived in dragons

whether history has changed the form from whatever to super predators

besides lookat santa he was once cronos and ate babies so[its true]

to assume we have no dragons because there are no bones just stories
is well closed minded
instead ask what do they mean when they said dragon

"And there was strife in the heaven; [one] who is like El and his messengers fought against the serpent beast and the serpent beast and his messengers fought and were not strong enough, neither was a place found of them any longer in the heaven. And the great serpent beast was cast - the old snake, (the one being called accuser and adversary), the one deceiving the habitable whole, was cast into the earth, and his messengers, were cast with him."


1). The book of Revelation, from which the idea is developed, does not support the theory that any celestial messengers were cast out of heaven, that is, the abode or dwelling place of the Supreme Creator Yahweh. John was told when he was given the Revelation, that all of it was a Revelation of "things which must shortly come to pass," Rev.1: 1; beginning at about AD 67, which is the approximate time the book was written. To use this passage to prove an imaginary event, or a proof for a prophecy of something that was supposed to have happened sometime before creation, cannot be supported, must fail.

The identity of this "dragon" which is reference to a mystical, allegorical, snake like beast, (or a reference to a corrupted religious system that was "looked upon") as is suggested by the etymology of the Greek word "dragon," is revealed in Rev. 12:10. The dragon or "serpent beast" is defined as the "accuser of our Brethren." The "accuser" of "our brethren" during the time which John was writing Revelation, was non other the Edomite Priesthood, together with the Scribes and Pharisees, called snakes by Yahshua, (Matt. 23: 33). This corrupted Religious System, supported by the Roman occupation, had infiltrated, corrupted, and usurped the Lawful Yahudi Religious authority, and was using the pagan Roman occupation of Jerusalem, to condemned thousands of believers in Yahshua Messiah to death. Verses 7-9 simply reveal to us, that the "power" of this evil paganism, using the diabolical ferocity of the Roman system to kill True Believers, was eventually replaced by Religion of Christianity, which took full root after 70 AD, though imperfect as it has become. The terrestrial messengers following the "michael" overcame the "Dragon" not by arrows, bullets, or military might, but "...by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." Rev. 12: 11. This struggle was one for power and for control of the Religious authority, the high or upper (heavenly) realm. The old Yahudim sacrificial system was in the process of becoming replaced by the new covenant through Messiah, Heb. 8: 13. The false leaders of the passing system were struggling for their very survival. The ultimate result - TRUTH in Yahshua, will eventually always prevail! The early followers of Messiah, the first fruits, overcame the "Dragon" (the snake beast) which was the corrupted Religious system. This victory came at great personal loss, the lives, of many of the early believers in Yahshua. However, because of their faithfulness, the corrupted "high authority" (heaven), that which was "looked on" came crashing down to earth..."was cast down to earth," (stripped from their high place of authority "...neither was a place found of them any longer in the heaven. " Rev. 12: 8.

It seems obvious to me that these passages were nothing more than a metaphor! People could only write in a way that best fit how they seen things in those times.

Not true. I am largely of German ancestry myself, but being a historian I am not going to "sugar-coat" them. Nothing I have ever said here regarding German barbarism was untrue, though the relationship between dragons and Germans must remain speculative.

As for marduk and enki, they were clearly "humanized" after they left the company of their humans, just as Yahweh. Marduk may have simply been the first Human King after the dragons left, and claimed he was a dragons offspring, just as the legedary "first emperor of China". Tiamat then, never existed, and this story is merely a human plagiarism of the old territorial battle between Kur/Abzu and Enki.

Zeus may have originally been a real dragon, becasue of the dragon connections as well, but as humans became for confident, they wished to "forget" their original gods were dragons, and the dragons become servants of enemies to the new humans gods.

What impressed the humans to write of these battles was probably first hand observation of territorial battles of the dragons, which were undoubtedly bloodless affairs, but then any dragon slaying legend involving an actual dragon was probably based on a dragon simply leaving an area and a clever human announcing he had "driven it off in a battle". Over the years, these stories would evolve into the claim the dragon was actually killed, since enough time has passed that people had "forgotten" where the dragon remains would be found as proof.

We know that the Germans were no more ignorant than other cultures, they simply had no dragons to help them so they remained "virtual cavemen" for thousands of years contributing nothing to mankind save for their eventual destruction of western civilization, which can mostly be attributed to the stupidity of the Romans, and possibly because the dragons were no longer to prey on the Germans once they became Christians, for history shows that in the past, they bred like rabbits, and then launched Lemming-like expeditions such as the Cimbri and Teutonic invasions of Southern Europe. The reason why the great early cultures originated in warm climates may have been becasue their dragon "gods" preferred warm places better, logcial, considering they are reptiles. But with the barbarian legends of "evil" dragons, we may suppose they traveled to barbarian lands to hunt, where their predations would have little noticeable effect.

The legends do speak of dragons craving alcoholic beverages. Perhaps this is due to there being only water before the coming of humans. We have Chinese accounts of dragons "working for wine", and Enki continues to demand "liquor" in the Bible under His name of Yahweh. So how could dragons resist Germans, probably the biggest and fattest humans in the ancient world due to their rich dairy based diets. And probably so helpless as well (despite their ridulous brags as dragonslayers), as we see from primary sources such as Beowulf, where dragons can claw through the Germans' flimsy wattle and dung meadehalls to prey on dozens of helplessly drunk men, who dragons might have been regarded as a delicacy like expensive, much like similarly alcohol-filled chocolate candies would be to us.

But in the final analysis whether you attribute it to dragon assistance (as the legends clearly state), or not, the alcoholic Sumerians built great cities, libraries full of literature and beutiful objects , etc, whereas the alcoholic Germans built dung hovels instead of great cities, and their crude, barbaric art (aside from slave made objects) look like things made in a kindergarten. Archaeology supports all of this, save for the actual existence of the dragons, though BOTH cultures (in fact all cultures), acknowledged their existence.