Thanks, that was fun! I am reminded of Starchy's dragon art.

You might want to pop this up in a Welsh or British Isles dragon forum in the crypto section, though...

Acombination of Enki and Enlil's actions does not make Yahweh a construct. It just means the illiterate hebrew shepherds mixed things up a bit during hunreds of years of retelling these as an oral tradtition.

And as for the Asheroth, Yaw and Ba'al love triangle, history shows us that Yaw win! Ba'al must leave his lands becasue the israelites have killd is people, and Ash becomes Yaw's consort and is worshpped aongside Yaw in Solomon's temple.

so where was the dragon god while his people were getting things wrong?

The truth is that YHWH is a construct of the attributes, powers and deeds of many gods. And yet he is none of them.

re: the love triangle, ....israel was punished by God for Solomon's indiscretion by worshipping Asheroth.

Face it DC there is more than Yam to YHVH....You cannot prove otherwise.
you cannot prove that the canaanite Yam is Enki.
You cannot prove that Enki was a mushussu....
You cannot prove that a mushussu actually ever existed, and is anything more than a composite beastie and mythological construct.

So, you cannot prove that YHVH was a dragon.
all you can do is speculate...and twist things to fit your picture.

This is fine, but to present it as 'fact' is misleading, and untrue.

Alright, so we are gonna keep going down this path... There is no mention of any "El" or "Elohim" in Genesis... you can check that at This Link This is a side by side translation from hebrew to english. I have read Genesis over and over again and no where have I seen 2 versions of the creation...

(edited for mis click on quote)

hi dredimus....from your link

Elohim = אֱלֹהִים
it is mentioned in almost every numbered line, translated as God.

this is different to יהוה= YHVH
also translated to God.

im not sure of its frequency in Genesis, but i think it first occurs in 4.26 ...translated in your version to "the name of the LORD"


כו וּלְשֵׁת גַּם-הוּא יֻלַּד-בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ; אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה. {ס}
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. {S}

hope this helps

Ok, let me try putting my opinion and research into a better format of wording, I realize that my last post was a little rushed and I should go into more detail on what im saying... Lets Start


According to the gentleman, who is of a very strong jewish family, and reads Hebrew quite well... and is sitting in the office with me..

אֱלֹהִים = Translates into "God"

אֱלוֹהִים = Translates into "Elohim"
(The difference is subtle, but it is there)

Also according to him, and Hebrew scholars around the world "Elohim" is a plural noun and it refers to the heavenly entities (IE. Angels)

Now, no matter how you cut it or what name you use for GOD, he is still GOD. Lets get back on topic... no where do I see two stories of the creation in Genesis. Nor do I see how one can gather from the story of Creation that GOD is a dragon... and that is the topic of this thread, not the debate of the hebrew language.

DC

And I keep asking... where specifically in genesis do you find your claim? There are 50 books.....

Even what I do find states that this is a MYTH .....



Cannanite time... and "Lotan or Lawtan is the seven-headed sea serpent or dragon of Ugaritic MYTHS...."

So far Lotan is only recognized as a myth....

Being that this above IS QUOTED and recognized as myths... what proof is there if this is so?

The two creation stories are in the first chapter of Genesis.

I agree that seven headed sea serpents are a myth. This is probably a metaphor for the untamed forces of nature to be conquered by a god. It is simply a rip off of the Tiamat story.

But Yam/Yaw is one of the sevenly 'watchers' recognized by both the canannites and hebrews, and appears to be the same dragon Enki of Sumeria. The "good' dragons are depicted as mushushus, which look surprisingly like the quadrepedal, winged, long necked , horned dragons of modern fantasy, an a good deal like the Welsh dragon, and short bodied Han dynasty winged dragons.

I supporse you can say any religious entity is a myth. But if there is any truth behind the Biblical God, one of the major ones is that Yahweh is a fire spewing dragon and an assistant to the Creator, El.

This is the correct translation of an important verse in its original form as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most Bibles today ignore it.

“When the Most High (EL) divided to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
He set the bounds [borders] of the people [peoples, plural],
according to the number of the sons of Elohim
For the Lord’s [YHWH’s] portion is his people,
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”
Deuteronomy 32:8–9

This indicates that each human tribe has a "Son of Eloim" which I believe are the dragon gods recognized in myths all over the world. Yahweh is merely one more of El's "sons" but the one allocated to the people of Jacob (Hebrews).

As I previously mentioned, El's creation story is older and more realistic than Yahweh's which was added later.

This does not mean El is a dragon too. He is the Creator God and probably formless. But most human cultures that recognized the Creator, also recognized dragon assistants to the creator.

Centureis later, when the Hebrews became monotheistic, they morphed the shapeless creator El, with the fire spewing, winged dragon Yahweh to create the modern concept of God, supposedly an all wise creator of the universe, that for some odd reason is infatuatuated with a single tribe of human who he often behaved like a cruel 'dragon' agains, even demanding thier children for offerings and slaughtering them in their hundreds of thousands for disobedience. When you are able to discern Yahweh and El are two different entities, the Bible makes a lot more sense.

Thanks DC
I'll start chapter one for Genesis and see what I find.....at least I know where to look....50 are alot of books....

ok.... I read it..I dont see anything that says there were 2 creations... Can you elaborate with the verbage as to where in chapter/book one you specifically mean?????


Now,
Which Canannites or Hebrew scripts have what you mentioned about Yam/Yaw and His being a dragon....

Blessings

Of course there are two stories. Elohim has the six epoch creation that begins with life in the sea, then a period of birds and 'dragons' (dinosaurs), then the mammals and finally man on the last day. And then ther is Yahweh's creation with Adam being the first thing created, after which the animals are created becasue Adam is lonely, and still adam is lonely so eve is created. Elohim = man created last Yahweh = man created first. The Elohim creation is so remarable that some scientists believe the Bible is inspired. So why is there the corny story about Adam being the first thing created? Evidentally to flatter the priest scorching dragon Yahweh. I don't blame them, after all, he fried Aaron's two sons for getting the sacrifices wrong.

Im sorry, but I didnt see anything about this in there..... What verson of the Bible are you reading for this first chapter of Genises? I didnt even see the name Elohim.....

Zoom me in please....

Please go to the link below that explains everything I am talking about. Modern Bibles no longer use the terms Elohim and Yahweh, but usually replace thise with God and Lord. But this article shows these were orginally different Gods. Understand that I do not believe the Yahweh dragon is the creator, but El, just as the canannites believed, who acknowledged Yaw was a lesser diety than the creator. The ancient Hebrews believe these were originally seperate dieties as well, as I have shown in the original version of Deuteronomy.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...opes/gen1st.htm

DC, it does not logically follow that just because the Judeo-Christian religions are based on much earlier religions that they actually believe what those early religions believe. There are a couple of other things that are fundamentally wrong with your theories.
1. Nowhere, besides from you, have I heard of the ancient pagan Gods that the Judeo-Christian God is based off of be referred to as a 'dragon'.
2. Nowhere, besides from you, have I heard the various angelic beings that supposedly reside with God (seraphim) be referred to as 'dragon-like'. Yes, Seraphim either have their etymological origins in the adj Saraph - to burn - or in the noun Saraph - which refers to the firey serpents that bit the Israelites in the wilderness. But it does not follow, logically, that just because the word Saraph is the etymological origin of Seraphim, it does not mean that they were known as 'dragons'. Saraph probably had a double meaning, like many words in the English language.
3. Aside from all that, you are also forgetting the fact that none of these Gods ever existed.
4. Finally, your biggest problem is that, like a Creationist, you try to work the problem out backwords: starting with a conclusion (Dragons) and forcing the evidence to conform to your unnaturally intense obsession with dragons. You need to start with the evidence and then come to a conclusion.

From the earliest beliefs...

Tiamat is the sea, personified as a goddess, and a monstrous embodiment of primordial chaos. In the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian epic of creation, she gives birth to the first generation of gods; she later makes war upon them and is split in two by the storm-god Marduk, who uses her body to form the heavens and the earth. Tiamat is not referenced as anything but a goddess.

It is refferenced that Tiamat did create these monsters. But, in all do respect they are nothing more than the essence
of the prime creator, that forewhich is the sea.

Tiamat is not even an original Sumerian belief, but was a later invention after an already established theology that had no Tiamat. Tiamat was invented to be a monster that the later, humanoid diety Marduk could defeat, in a repetition of the older story of Marduk's 'father' Enki defeating Abzu.

Why was it necessary to add marduk to the Sumerian theology? Possibly because the older gods, like Enki and Enlil were regarded as "Great Serpent Dragons of Heaven, whereas Marduk appears to be a wholly humanoid diety, though often showed with a Muashushu dragon at his side, likely to remind everyone of his lineage to Enki/Ea.

We know that they shared the same belief that El was the high god, and that Yawheh was the tribabl diety becasue the Bible states this. Later it was editied to camoulfage the fact this was once a polytheistic theology. In a nutshell, they essentially had the same beliefs as the cannanties, but became completely monotheistic after the Babylonian captivity.

In his hymns enki is called a Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven, and even 1000 years later when called EA, he is physically described as a dragon. This is EXACTLY WHY there is a talking serpent in the Genesis story. Enki built the garden of Eden, and tricked Adam out of immortality.

As for seraphim being dragon like, Isaiah describes them with wings, arms and legs, and to be flying serpents, would require wings. And this is why there are other accounts of Drakons in heaven , such as Enoch and the Apocolypse of Baruch, both books used by Jews and Christians alike. Here they are called Drakons instead of Seraphim because these books were written in Greek, then the lingua franca of the Eastern mediterranean. Later christianity attempted to distance itself from acknowledging the heavenly dragons, but they are depicted on virtually every medieval chruch, and in every medieval bible. It is not surprsising you know so little about this, most Christians are not familiar with these facts either, as in the last few hundred years it has been covered up.

It is not my "obsession with dragons" that is driving this. It is mankind's obsession with dragons in every human culture. I am merely explaining why just why there has been this belief/nobsession with dragons all over the world, and since the dawn of mankind.

Okay, then what belief was this, and exactly how did they describe these creatures you so suredly call dragons?
Because, I am sure these creatures are nothing more than an amalgamation of two or more creatures these people
revered and respected.

I have read this link...

It refers to a "unknown -perhaps -Jewish preist" that intertwined 2 stories..One of which he made up.... That as we know in the Bible and "His own vesion, with his own ideas to fit his political goals"...He "changed" his to fit in, and created what this phantom writer wanted..... The difference in them being the order of creation...And the name by which God is called (the most ancient being Jehovah)..... Even still it doesnt refer to them as "different Gods" just called as different names, as I have said before.... (God, Jehova... still same person,just called differently ) Still no where metioning dragons....We are to take the word of an "unknown" writer???? And all you have above about El etc is not in this writing either... So where do you get this "made up" story?

Hi Moro...

I read Isiah... There still are no Dragons here either......
in book 14 and 30 it refers to flying fliery serpent but it is refering to Lucifer......

Seraphim are angels with 6 wings...Not Serpents that fly and spew fire.... although I suppose if pissed off enough perhaps they can...

So I think we can all stop looking for this "story" ...iTS ALL MADE UP OF mYTH AND BASED ON A "UNKNOWN WRITER".....

Since each story has the name of a different god, as well as a different order of creation, the logical conclusion is that these are two different Gods with two different creations that were placed in the same book. And further proof of this is the fact Canaanite and Early Hebrew, polytheistic theology acknowledged the Chief God El, and lesser, tribal gods of the different peoples, such as Yaw (who would become Yahweh), and his enemy Ba'al Hadad, mentioned in both the Bible and canaanite literature. And to remove all doubt, there is a female goddess consort to both Ba'al and Yaw/Yahweh in both the Bible and Canannite literature.

Yahweh's consortship with a famale diety (dragon?) is well established. This provides more evidence that Yahweh is a biological creature with sexual needs, and that El is the actual creator, just as the more realistitic of the two Biblical creation stories state.

Indeed Warrior! In that context the word Seraphim, (Which is only mentioned once in the canonic hebrew bible),
is shown to be a fiery flying serpent when the lord sent them to bite the israelites in the wilderness.

In that instance they obviously do not have six wings, as serpents do not have six wings. It seems they are being
used in a metaphorical sense.

Are you kidding? What part of the word FLYING don't you understand, as in Fiery Flying SerpentsI? Winged animals fly. Comman snakes do not. This is Precisely why serious Biblical scholars understand the Seraph is a winged reptilian creature that goes by the SAME NAME around the throne of God in Isaiah, AND when sent from that heaven to punish the Israelites in Numbers..

Snakes do not have wings. But Isaiah states the Seraphim do. And it is Seraphim that God sends to punish the Israelites, THE SAME CREATURE AS DESCRIBED IN ISAIAH!

Chritians understood this for centuries, becsue there are nuerous pieces of religious art depicting the throre of God surrounded by Seraph dragons as described in Isaiah. And other scripture used by both Jews and Christians such as Encoh I and the Apocolypse of Baruch speak of these creatures in heaven, but now call them Drakons becasue these later texts were written in Greek.

Modern Christians turned the reptilian 'seraphim" into swan-winged, humanoid Christmas card angels becasue of the confusion over the evil dragon Satan. But if that were true, and the Seraphim were humanoid, then these Christma card angels would be flutering about the desert biting Hebrews.

And to remove all doubt, the Egyptians also acknowledged a winged serpent monster called the exact same name, a Seraph!

There is no need to get so bent out of shape DC! I know exactly what those texts say.

In isaiah's vision he proceeds to describe the seraph with six wings, he does NOT say serpent in any form.
(Keep in mind this was a vision).
It is not until we read about the israelites being attacked in the wilderness that we see the word seraph in
conjuction with a fiery flying SERPENT. Some texts only say FIERY SERPENT, and there lies the crux as it
does not say flying. Therefore it could mean that these creatures were nothing more than venomous snakes.

DC, in Genesis the Judeo-Christian God creates man out of dust, and does it in his image. If the Judeo-Christian God really were a dragon, then why don't we look like dragons? We are, after all, made it his image.

Actually, does not the description mention that the Serephim cover themselves with their wings, so they may not be seen?
The Egyptian seriph does, indeed, show a linkage of cultural influence (at the least) in the eraly Hebrew concept of the serephim.

It is possible the the serpents inf the wilderness may have been the Israeli vipers. Also, remember, that many early cultures used the same language to describe magical serpents and dragons in a similar manner as mundane serpents.

Obviously you have not read enough of this to understand my points. I NEVER said the Creator God was a dragon. Both the Canannite and Hebrews acnowledged a Chief "Creator" God called El, or Elohim, plus lesser gods called "sons", some or all being 'dragons' like Yahweh and other Seraphim. In Deuteronomy, these lesser 'gods' were each allocated to a specific tribe, with yahweh being assigned to the Hebrews, and we see this with dragon legends around the world. The early Hebrew scriptures clearly acknowledges these other gods, the Yaheh was the greatest in the eyes of his worshippers.

Although the word Serpah can mean both a heavenly and mundane serpent in MODERN Hebrew, in the bible itself, this word is not used for mundane vipers, but specific punishers or throne guards. The same word is used to describe BOTH the creatures that surround the throne, AND the creatures sent to punish the Hebrews. There is no doubt early Christians understood the Seraphim were reptilian monsters becasue of the several depictions of them around the throne of God (their tails sometimes forming the throne itself!) In other Jewish literature thaey are obviously the heavenly beasts called Drakons, and similarly punish the wicked by consuming them.

It seems to be generally understood that is was these creatures that were sent to destroy the Egyptian first born, led by the dragon Satan, in some accounts. The blood painted on the lintels clearly was intended to be a scent marker for the beasts. The bible says nothing of a plague, but instead a physical "destroyer" that smelled the blood and 'passed over' the houses marked by the blood..

But the same word is used to describe the throne guards in Isaiah as well as the creatures that punish the israelites in Numbers. Therefore if they are "only vipers" in Numbers, they would be "only Vipers" in Isaiah. If the seraphim have wings in Isaiah, they also logically have wings in Numbers. Of course, it is more appealing to modern Christian to pretend the creatures in Numbers are natural snakes instead of fantastic mythical creatures.

But the Jews worshiped the one God as the Creator God. Where in Deuteronomy are lesser 'gods' allocated to the 12 tribes?

I am turning a little purple... I love you, you love me,.....we're a happy family.....

Blessings
Barney

Really,
Im done... no proof....we have stories written by "unknown" "maybe" preists....
Which he created his own version...this unknown person.....
No where does it mention a flying dragon other than Isiah where Lucifer is sent out....
Nothing more to say. There is nothing more.....

Im not taking the word of some unknown writter over the texts of our current Bible that have been accepted thousands of years and of which are the oldest.....Im sticking with our current Bible!

Because there isnt any... Our God said worship me and me alone....

I dont see anything that supports DC's claim to 2 Gods..... ((((1 God called by a couple names -yes ....but only 1 God))) I tried to be open minded and find something that might be worth looking at...but not there....

I think DC is going by Zacharia Sitchins translation of cylinder seals from ancient sumeria. It's interesting
how Sitchin is the only person out of all these scientists who translates these seals like he did. All the other
archeologists have similar translations different of Sitchins.

Okay, here is a scholarly article by a university professor that explains what I have been saying:

Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho (ngier@uidaho.edu) http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

For the most update resources on this question, see Mark Smith's The Early History of God (Harper & Row, 1990) and The Triumph of Elohim, ed. Diana V. Edelman (Eerdmans, 1995). Even more recent is David Penchansky's Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible (Westminster John Knox, 2005).

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

– Ps. 82:1

It seems clear enough...that Moses was not a monotheist. Yet, to call him a polytheist seems inaccurate too. We can conclude that Moses stood somewhere between totemism and monotheism. A term to describe this position is henotheism. – H. Keith Beebe1

The Israelite tribes were heirs to a religious tradition which can only have been polytheistic.

– Yehezkel Kaufmann2

The Principle of Theistic Evolution is derived from the fact that some of the world's religions have developed through stages from polytheism to a monotheism. We can see this most clearly in the Vedic tradition were the many gods of the Vedas eventually reduce to the triune deity of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva with sectarian trinities found in the worship of Krishna, Shiva, and the Hindu Goddess. (Click here for more.) It is clear, however, that our principle is not a law, for scholars have now noted a theistic devolution in the return to polytheism in the originally monotheistic Zoroastrianism. One of the transitional stages from polytheism to monotheism has been called "henotheism, a situation in which there are many gods but one God prevails as the king of gods or the God of gods. The Vedas contain a form in henotheism with Varuna standing out as the ultimate ruler and judge – the one who infuses grace, forgives and punishes sin.

As a descriptive study in the history of religion, this article makes no judgment about whether monotheism is better than polytheism. Observers of the practice of Hindu polytheism could say that the recognition of many gods leads to greater religious tolerance. Monotheistic gods also tend to be more remote and less accessible to the life of faith. One might also argue that the exclusive worship of one God leads to intolerance of other religions. Just as biological evolution has not necessarily led to the best species, theistic evolution has not necessarily led to the best theology.


The final editors of the Hebrew canon were fervent monotheists, but a remnant of the polytheistic basis of the pre-Mosaic religion can still be detected. Albrecht Alt has shown that divine titles such as 'El Bet' el (Gen. 31:13; 35:7); 'El 'Olam (Gen. 21:33); and 'El Ro'i (Gen. 16:13); 'El 'Elyon (Gen. 14:18); and 'El Saddai (Gen. 17:1); all later taken to be one God (Yahweh) after Moses, were all originally separate gods worshipped by the early Hebrews.3 The Catholic scholar Bruce Vawter concurs with Alt. According to Vawter, none of the available English translations does justice to the original Hebrew of Genesis 31:13, which quite simply reads "I am the god Bethel" ('El Bet'el), who was a member of the Canaanite pantheon along with the rest of the above.4 The original meaning is therefore quite different from the traditional understanding: this god at Bethel is not the universal Lord who appeared at Bethel but just one god among many – a local deity of a specific place.

In the mutual swearing of Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:51f) it is clear that two distinct gods are referred to.5 The work of later editors is clearly evident in this passage. As Alt states: "Was it not plain paganism for the ancestor of Israel and one of his relations to swear by two different gods? This dangerous sentence had to be rendered harmless by an addition or alternation."6 In Judges 11:24 Jepthah recognizes the authority of the god Chemosh, at least for the Ammonites in their own land.

The popular notion that Moses was the original monotheist is a thesis that has very little support. As we shall soon see, Moses probably was not even a monotheist, but even if he was, there was monotheism in Egypt a generation before Moses, most likely under the heretic king Akhenaten of the 14th century B.C.E. In his insistence on the worship of Yahweh alone, Moses was a henotheist, i.e., he believed that Yahweh was the greatest among the gods, the king of gods.

The traditional belief that Yahweh revealed himself solely to Moses, and that no people except the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh, is also becoming more tenuous. Several scholars have pointed out evidence of Yahweh worship among several pre-Mosaic eastern cultures.7 For example, the controversial tablets at Ebla, dating back into the 3rd millennium B.C.E., speak of a god by the name of "Ya," who is linked to the Yahweh of Moses by some Ebla scholars.8

Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," does not deny the existence of other deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains that "there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from having anything to do with them."9 The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran.

The ninth century Masoretic text replaces "sons of God" with "sons of Israel," which some modern English versions follow. It does look like the Masoretes changed the text so as to avoid dangerous polytheistic implications. Furthermore, "Son of Israel" makes absolutely no sense in Deut. 32:8. The people of Israel were Yahweh's "portion" while the sons of God "were divine beings or angels to whom God had delegated authority over the nations. Their existence is not denied but rather accommodated to the overall authority of Yahweh to whom they are subservient."10 As Anthony Phillips states: "The poet, drawing on Canaanite mythology, identifies Yahweh with the pre-Davidic god 'Elyon."11 As Deut. 32:8 has been taken by some to be a very old passage, Gerald Cooke and others speculate that in the earliest times Yahweh was not the head of the gods, but simply one of the "sons of God" in the sense of b‘n‘ 'Elyon. In Deut. 32:8 Yahweh appears to be different from 'Elyon, because of the definite third person reference, which "easily gives the impression that Yahweh like the sons of God received his portion, allotment from 'Elyon."12

Theodore C. Vriezen explains the advantage of henotheism: "This idea of beings surrounding God by no means detracts from the uniqueness of God; on the contrary, these divine beings rather emphasize his uniqueness; he is the God of gods, their God, too; and they praise his holiness. Far from clashing with monotheism, this conception lays the greatest stress on the majesty of Yahweh. Yahweh is a unique God, but he is not alone."13 Complementing Vriezen's point is the fact that the other deities are never named, except for perhaps the case of Satan in Job.


A divine pluralism can also be seen in the Hebrew word for deity, 'elohîm, which is a plural form of 'Eloah, which is a form of 'El, the general word for God in the Semitic world. There are some scholars who argue that 'elohîm in reference to Yahweh must be a grammatical plurality only. For them 'elohîm is an abstract plural with a singular meaning. Such a grammatical form would emphasize the majesty of the Almighty. In his study of the "Great Isaiah Scroll" at Qumran, William Brownlee of Claremont has shown the radical extent of the use of this "plural of majesty": even Yahweh's quiver (Is. 49:2) and a single hand are in the plural.14

There is, however, a significant exception, noted long ago by the Hebrew grammarian Gensenius. When 'elohim is referred to pronominally, as in "let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26), then the majestic plural is not applicable.15 Furthermore, the priestly writers use singular verbs for the deity in adjacent passages; hence the use of the plural at 1:26 must be for good reason.16 Canaanite parallels show that the head god uses the first person plural in addressing his divine assembly. It is obvious that this passage reveals a henotheistic situation in which Yahweh is consulting with lesser deities around him.

The use of 'elohîm as divine beings definitely separate from Yahweh (e.g., Gen. 6, Ps. 82) proves conclusively that this divine pluralism is not just a grammatical one. Henotheism is seen in the fact that Yahweh is referred to as 'El 'elim (God of gods, Dan. 11:36) or in the use of the definite article ha 'elohîm (the God) for Yahweh, or b‘n‘ 'elohîm (the sons of God) for the other gods (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7).With regard to these divine "sons," Cooke states: "These are not 'sons' of Yahweh in a filial sense...the 'sons of (the) God(s)' are those who are of the realm of the gods, who partake of divinity."17 Gensenius agrees that b‘n‘ 'elohîm "properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of 'elohîm of 'elim...."18


Some Christian commentators have taken the ontological pluralism of 'elohîm as definite proof of the Trinity. Genesis 18, where three mysterious visitors come to Abraham, has been used to support this view.19 But rather than imposing a Christian view developed two millennia later on the Hebrews, the proper hermeneutic strategy would be to place it in the context of the religions of the ancient Near East.

Theodore Gaster has done just this and discovered that the story has basic similarities with the polytheistic folklore motif of "hospitality rewarded." Gaster explains: "The classic parallel is the tale, told by Ovid and Hyginus of how Jupiter, Neptune, and Mercury (i.e., three visitors, as in the biblical narrative), while traveling through Boeotia, came in disguise to Hyrieus, a childless peasant of Tanagra, and in return for his hospitality, granted him the boon of a son.20 This story goes back at least as far as Pindar (518-438 B.C.E.)

Max Weber also contends that the theological basis for Gen. 18 is probably polytheistic: "The grammatical forms in Abraham's address to the divine epiphany of the three men would seem to make it probable that the singular of the address did not preclude the possibility of polytheistic conceptions."21 The trinitarian hypothesis is vitiated by at least four considerations: (1) the triunity of Yahweh is definitely weakened when two of the divine beings depart for Sodom (18:22), and Yahweh and Abraham are left behind negotiating the fate of the Sodomites; (2) it is clear that the divine plurality is more than three, if the other 'elohîm are the deities of the other nations; (3) even if there were only three gods, this is clearly tritheism and not one divine being with three persons; and (4) the persons of the Trinity are definitely not conceived as a divine council with God the Father as the supreme executive.

The 'Elohîm as Angels

The fact that the two divine beings that go to Sodom are called "angels" have led traditional commentators to mitigate the implied polytheism by the qualification that these beings were not true gods, but created angels. This interpretation is discounted by Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others.22 The Bible makes a clear distinction between an angel (Heb. malakh; Gk., aggelos) and a god or God ('elohîm; theos). Revelation 19:10 and 22:8,9 are explicit in their injunction that angels are "fellow servants" and not gods that are to be worshipped. The 'elohîm are not created beings because they are with Yahweh from the beginning and are involved in creation itself (Gen. 1:26; Job 38:7). In a letter to me, Brownlee concedes that there is no mention of the creation of angels, but does point out that yahweh saba'ot does mean "Creator of [heavenly] armies." But it is clear, especially in Job, that the Lord's host (=army) is made up of astral deities not angels.23 But the word "creator" here does imply that the beings are created, eliminating an essential divine attribute (at least for philosophical theology). In Vedic hedonism the lesser gods are also many times referred to as created beings. In Job, Satan is one of the subordinate gods, a son of God, and is referred to elsewhere (Is. 14:12) as the "Day Star" (helal) and "son of Dawn" (shahar), both members of the Canaanite pantheon. Scholar Marvin H. Pope states that "these are lesser members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later monotheistic theology as angels."24

The interchange of God and angels in the Hebrew Scriptures reflect an early conception of the nature of angels before the influx of Persian angelology during and after the Babylonian captivity. For the early Hebrews, an angelic figure was a temporary disguise for Yahweh. "Angels" functioned as mediators across the great difference between Yahweh and mortals.25 Therefore, the "angel" that appears to Hagar (Gen. 16:7); the "angels" at the Oaks of Mamre and Sodom; the "angel" that wrestled with Jacob; and the "angel" that was "commander of the army of the Lord" (Jos. 5:14) are all divine manifestations of either Yahweh or one of the subordinate deities.

This theory of early Hebrew angelology would also preclude a claim that these "men" that appear as Yahweh foreshadow in any way the Incarnation. Outside of Is. 9:6, which has been taken by many as "divinity in might" only, there is no explicit concept of a man-God or a sustained doctrine of the Incarnation in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of the man-God most likely inspired by the Greco-Roman state cults and the Hellenistic mystery religions. The idea is not only alien but blasphemous to the Hebrew mind.


The remnants of the original polytheistic base of ancient Judaism are found more often in the nonprophetic works like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Job. Psalm 82 is an important text as evidence for Hebraic henotheism. (The following is the RSV translation with Julian Morgenstern's alternative reading for vv. 6-7):

1. (a) God ('elohîm has taken his place in the divine council ('adat'el). ( In the midst of the gods ('elohîm) he holds judgment:

2. "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

3. Give justice to the weak and fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

4. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

5. They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness;

6. I say, "You are gods ('elohîm), sons of the Most High (b‘n‘ 'Elyon), all of you;

7. Nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince."

8. "I thought you were gods, Sons of Elyon, all of you;

9. You shall become mortal (temutun) like men, And as one of the sarim shall you fall.]

10. Arise, O God ('elohîm), judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations!

Traditional interpretations of this psalm have insisted that the 'elohîm are really judges and not divine beings. But if the 'adat'el is an assembly of rulers, then 'elohîm in 1( would have no meaning. The great Ugaritic scholar Mitchell Dahood has shown that the phrase 'adat'el undoubtedly comes from the Ugaritic 'dt il, which is the "council of El" of Canaanite mythology.26 Ziony Zevit maintains that Ps. 82 is yet another Canaanite hymn that has been Yahwinized and because of that the text, as other Psalms borrowed from Ugarit, manifests corruption and confusion (26a).

Setting the stage in 1939 for the most careful scholarship on this psalm, Julian Morgenstern states that it cannot Abe denied that the fundamental meaning of 'elohîm is "gods," and that only by a long stretch of the imagination and rather devious and uncertain hermeneutics can the meaning "rulers," "kings," or "judges" be ascribed to it".27 The major problem with these latter meanings is that 'elohîm is never used in this way in any other passage. In 1 Sam. 28:13 the "spirit" of the deceased Samuel is called an 'elohîm, but as commentators comment: "The word god here means a being from another [spiritual] world."28 Some take the 'elohîm of Ex. 21:6 and 22:8 as "judges," but reputable Catholic scholars maintain that these messages too reveal an ancient polytheistic residue.29

The most troublesome aspect of Ps. 82 is Yahweh's judgment on the other gods. Following the implications of Deut. 32:8, these 'elohîm must be seen as the gods of the other nations, which obviously in the eyes of Yahweh have not been ruling very well. The Hebrews knew Yahweh as occasionally temperamental, suspicious, and erratic. As Dahood says in regard to Job 4:18, 15:15, "Even his holy ones he distrusts, the heavens are not pure in his sight."30 Yahweh's judgment for the other gods' misadministration is a harsh one: they must die like men. The traditionalists have taken this verse as proof that the 'elohîm cannot possibly be gods. But Morgenstern has shown that the Hebrew verb temutun compares favorably with other passages (e.g., Gen. 2:17; 3:3,4; 2 Sam. 14:14) where the meaning is most clearly "to become mortal." Cooke concurs: "The statement that those who are gods shall nevertheless die like men appears to us to be an undeniable indication of the divine status of those who are so addressed; their (former) immortality is clearly presupposed."31

Other psalms refer to Yahweh's divine council and provide further support for our thesis. The "sons of god" (b‘n‘ 'elim) of Ps. 29:1 are again taken by conservatives as referring to judges or rulers. But Cooke counters that "the reference to divine beings here would seem to be beyond question" and that "it seems highly probable that we are dealing in Ps. 29 with an Israelite adaptation of a Canaanite hymn which has its setting in a polytheistic conception of a divine pantheon."32 Lesser divine beings who are praising the king of gods, are also found in Pss. 68 and 89: "O Kings of the earth, sing, O gods, sing praises to the Lord" (32); and "for who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Whom among the heavenly beings (b‘n‘ 'elim) is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him?" Cooke cites an Ugaritic inscription which has the linguistic prototype of b‘n‘ 'elim as comprising the "assembly of the sons of El."33

On our theory, pure monotheism did not come to the Hebrew scriptures until the writings of Deutero-Isaiah, i.e., during and after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century B.C.E. Indications of monotheism before Deutero-Isaiah must then be the work of later monotheistic editors. We have seen how later scribes did not hesitate to change passages (Deut. 32:8; Gen. 31:53) which had explicit polytheistic implications. It is significant to note that the monotheistic passages in Isaiah (like 45:21, 22; 46:90) come after Cyrus the Great has been named the Lord's Messiah, "anointed one," in 45:1. Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, one who worshipped the single, supreme God Ahura Mazda. Many scholars believe that Zoroastrianism was the world's first truly monotheistic religion and that Hebrew religion was influenced profoundly by the fact that the new state of Israel was a small province in a great Persian empire.

Let us conclude this chapter on Hebrew henotheism with a quotation from Oesterly: "The final compilation of the Psalter undoubtedly comes from an age when the religion of Israel was fundamentally, and even aggressively, monotheistic. But there survive phrases which imply a polytheistic outlook. While Yahweh is the supreme God, and the only God to receive the highest honors, others are admitted as valid deities, though of lower rank and inferior quality. The position recalls the kathenotheism which appears in many of the hymns of the Rig-Veda."34

No, I don't agree with Stitchen. The actual translations call the high Sumerian Gods, "Great Serpent Dragons of Heaven". Stitchin says the dragons are just the "spaceships" of the ancient astronauts.

I use the mainstream translations, and from them we find that it was the Great serpent dragon Enki, who tricked Adam out of eternal life, and warned the original Noah of the Flood. The Canaanites would call this dragon "Yam" or "Yaw", and the Hebrews would call him Yahweh. And his psalms would speak of the fire he spews from his mouth, the smoke from his nostrils, his great wings, and his daily 'feedings" of calves and lambs, captured enemy virgins, and for a time, even first born male children of every household, though later he just took gold in their place. It's all in the Bible.

No, just one 'lesser god" for the hebrews (Yahweh), just as Ba'al Haddad was the tribal god of the cannanites, and they didn't like each other, but both like the same Asheroth. See the article iI jsut posted above.

Hadad's origination was from the Akkadian god Adad, Hadad was also equated with many other god's such as,
Anatolian storm-god Teshub, the Egyptian god Set, the Greek god Zeus, and the Roman god Jupiter.

With all these other belief systems accociated with Ba'al, it really is hard to take it seriously.

I have only read the first 5 pages and the last 2 so if what i say is irrelevant then im sorry.

One thing that confuses me a little about this theory, which im sure can be answered easily is if, universally, The creator was infact a dragon, at what point did the dragon become a thing of evil?

An excert from the book of revalations

There was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not. Neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him"

This clearly describes the devil as a dragon. I dont think it was intended to mean the devil was an actual dragon, but more he was the mightiest and foulest of beasts to be destroyed. Of course one explanation is of course the obvious. The Celts worshipped draconic deities .... or spiritual leaders, which were often chaotic and female. Now of course this went against christianities, more structured beliefs and so the dragon being a description of the devil, along with all of the saints killing dragons stories were very probably a way of subjugating the celtic beliefs. Perhaps not.

To explain the dragon being described all over the world, there are as many theories as there are people on this forum. My favorite being that people travelled and with them so did legends. The legend of the dragon being therefore connected by sea farers and wanderers from a very early age.

Now my knowledge on the bible and its relative facts is very limited so i am at a disadvantage to proove or disproove anything there. But as far as i can see, the theory is indeed credible with many a swaying argument to back it up. But the premise of a dragon being so badly misinterpreted as time goes on by its people seems a little far fetched to me.

Don't feel bad, most Christians in fact know VERY LITTLE about the original Christianity and its dragon lore. To HALF the Christian world, of those tiems, the serpent/dragon in the Garden was GOOD, and in fact it was JESUS wanting to bring knowledge to mankind. These were the Gnostics. And they lost, and it wa the other half of the cult who had the evil Satan. (NOr did the Jes ahave an evil satan)

On the other hand, early Christian scriptures speak of Dragons in heaven, that consume the wikced who do not pass judgement. Medieval Bibles depict God riding on dragn's backs, and dragns sent to punish ehe disobedient Hebrews in the desert. In the 5th century AD, on o the greatest Chirstian of all time, St. Auguestine, wrote of huge flying dragons as very real creatures, and had to warn his congregation NOT to admire the dragons so much because of their beauty and greatness, but rather, to admire and prasie the God who created such incredible beasts.

Gargoyle dragons decorated meieval Churches to frighten Evil Spirits, for this was what the dragons fed upon, the souls of the wicked.

And I'll say it for the hundreth time. I never say the Hebrew CREATOR God El was a dragon. I said one of the so-called sons, or bene Elohim, the assistant God of the Hebrews, was a dragon, as were all of these similar sub gods.

All of the the 'storm gods' like Zeus, Ba'al, Odin , etc, were probably dragons in their earliest conception, as dragons were universally associatied with bringing rain, spewing lightning, etc. Certainly the storm God Enlil who supposedly flloods the world in the oldest 'Noah' story, is called a 'Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven" in his hymns.

draconic chronicler, this post is directly for you. While I simply cannot agree with any of this stuff on Yahweh, etc., I do know of one thing depicted in the bible, that to me, if we are even going to count what could be symbolic literature, than the repeated mentioning of 'leviathan' is, in my mind, the most solid evidence FOR dragons in the Bible.

Book of Job 3:8 "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan "; NIV
Book of Job 41:1-34: "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?...He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride." KJV (quoted 1 and 34 only)
Psalms 74:14: "Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness." KJV
Psalms 104:24-26: "O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein." KJV;
Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." KJV

Job chapter 41:

Who can open the doors of his face?
His teeth are terrible round about.


15 His scales are his pride,
shut up together as with a close seal.


16 One is so near to another,
that no air can come between them.


17 They are joined one to another,
they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.


18 By his sneezings a light doth shine,
and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.


19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps,
and sparks of fire leap out.


20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke,
as out of a seething pot or caldron.


21 His breath kindleth coals,
and a flame goeth out of his mouth.


22 In his neck remaineth strength,
and sorrow is turned into joy before him.


23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together:
they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved


.......Just curious what you make of all that?

Yes, the leviathan is a fire spewing dragon. Some people claim this is the description of a crocodile, but crocodiles do not spew fire, nor do they have much of a neck as described here. Plus, this creature is completely impervious to all weapons of ancient man, also unlike the crocodile. Some of the confusion in the bible is that some writers confused the leviathan with the crocodile. In the the places mentioning God punishing Leviathan, it refers to his defeating pharaoh, symbolized by the crocodile. But this is merely a crcodile, and not the indestructable, fire breathing creature of Job, that God's own power is measured by. And this is because HE is the Leviathan, for he is the only other entity described in all the Bible that spews fire from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils, (and also eats lambs, calves, children and virgins).

The Chruch recognized these 'dragons' as heavenly creatures, and for many centuries depicted them in scenes of heaven and of the final judgement, where they would be sent to devour the wicked of the earth. Sculpted dragons as gargoyles decorated churches to frighten away evil spirits. The ancient Christian church was divided in half, with Gnostic Christians regarding both Jesus and Yahweh as dragons, and the zoroastrians of the enormous Persian empire also stated Yahweh was a dragon. Considering ever human culture believed in dragons, Christians should embrace these original Christian beliefs, as it provides more validation for the authenticity of the faith. No one claims to see a giant bearded guy on a golden throne, but every human culture as claimed to see dragons, and from the time man first wrote down words, all the way up until today, with sightins of Nessie, Champ, and Mokele Mkembe.

Alot of Christians nowadays are saying that the description of the leviathan matches perfectly with a sauropod, and thus a young earth...

I have to agree with this section of your post.... The devil could be described as a dragon...a vile abnoxious beast ....

But to nothing else can I place it....

I think at this point the word has been used to describe anything that is ungodly, evil,vile and repulsive....Period.

But you see, to the civilized Greco-Roman people Revelations was written for, dragons WERE NOT vile and repulsive. They were wondrous, and beautiful. Saint Augustine himself spoke of dragons as real creatures, huge in size, living in caves and soaring thorugh the skies, and he had to caution his congregation not to admire the amazing dragons too much, but rather, to praise and admire the creator of the dragons (God). In early depictions of heaven, the dragons stood around Gods throne. The only reason early Christianity made Satan a dragon, is because unlike ignorant Christians of today, the early Christians fully understood that the highest heavenly creatures were Dragon, so obviously Satan must have been one too.

To virtually EVERY civilized culture dragons were benificient dieties or assistants to dieties. The idea of vile and repulsive dragons in modern western culture comes directly from Northern Europe's Pagan Barbarian belefs that portrayed dragons as evil. Of course, they quickly grasped the notion of a Devil Dragon, for the Persian Aryans also believed this.

If you look at any illuminated medieval Bible, you will probably see God riding on a 'good dragon', dragons guarding the heavenly throne, crucifixes, censores, candlesticks, etc, ALL decorated with dragons. Of course, this is all pre-protestant era, the Germanic protestants did not decorate their churches with dragons becasue of their emnity agaist them going back to their barbarian pagan ancestry. And this is why modern Protestants know so little about the original Christianity with all of its dragon lore.

No, you are thinking of the behemoth. Leviathan's description is more like a carnivorous beast that also spews fire from its mouth.

Atleast you did not call Leviathan a Dragon this time.

Ah, my mistake, how did I possibly mix that up.

DC, on a slightly related note, I've heard from some old Jewish traditions that the Leviathan, the Behemoth, and the Ziz are the archetype creatures of Sea, Land, and Sky, respectively. Here's an interesting picture which depicts the Behemoth as some sort of bovine, the leviathan as a great fish, and the Ziz as some sort Griffin.



What do you make of this? Do you think that the Behemoth and Ziz had real life counterparts to the mythology?

Psalms 74:14: "Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness." KJV

this line suggests multiple heads, other lines are remeniscant of cannanite Lotan that was a 7 headed serpent....also often called the 'crooked serpent', as the leviathan is here....

Isaiah 27:1......even leviathan that crooked serpent;......


Id go with that, we see the sea serpent/dragon as an archetype in other places too....The Ara Pacis is a good example....it is not a depiction of a real creature, but an archetype invested with symbolism.

That artwork is clearly medieval. On the base of the Temple Menorah on the Arch of Titus there is a winged creature I have seen described as both a bird and a winged human. This is the only other creature than the 'dragons' which all comply to Jewsish religious laws of the time.

Perhaps the winged creature is the Ziz. Even today, there is the occasional sighting of 'giant birds' even by such reputable people as airline pilots.

The Behemoth may have even been an elephant. Job is a very early book, and at this time the elephant was probably largely unkown to the hebrews.

That is what I mean abut 'different' Leviathans. Nothing in Job suggests more than one head.

As to the Psalm 74:14, I have read this is interpreted as the victory over Pharoah, and the bodies of the washed up Egyptians from drowning in the red/reed sea. I though it read "creatures inhabiting the wilderness". If this is people, then it would mean this Leviathan at least cannot be a serpent or reptile, for its meat would be 'unclean'. This means it must be a true fish. However, the Leviathan in Job does not seem like a fish. Unlikely a fish would spew fire from its mouth.

As for the Ketos on the Acis pacis, the ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were very real, and there are accounts describing how to keep them away from your ship!