Hieroglyphs are quite stylized, but it is not an eagle because it has four legs and wings. and it would not by a gryphin or lion becasue we have an original Egyptian hymn in which the Seraph is called a fiery serpent, NOT a lion or a Gryphon. This has all been posted here before. If you do not want to scroll down the dragon threads. google "bible and pterosaurs" and you will find the article with the hieroglyph and egyptian hymns.

"Class of heavenly beings, mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in a vision of the prophet Isaiah (vi. 2 et seq.). Isaiah saw several seraphim, their exact number not being given, standing before the throne of Yhwh. They were winged beings, each having six wings—two covering their faces, two covering their feet, and two for flying. The seraphim cry continually to each other, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory" (vi. 3). The "foundations of the thresholds" (R. V.) of the Temple were moved by the sound of their voices. One of the seraphim flew to Isaiah with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar, and with which he touched the lips of the prophet to purge him from sin. Isaiah gives no further description of the form and appearance of the seraphim; he apparently assumes that his readers are acquainted with them. Nevertheless, it may be concluded from the description that the seraphim were conceived as having human faces, human hands, and human voices. However, one should not too hastily conclude that the seraphim were winged human forms. At least this was not the original conception, although later Judaism pictured them so. The seraphim are frequently mentioned in the Book of Enoch (xx. 7, lxi. 10, lxxi. 7), where they are designated as δράκονες ("serpents"), and are always mentioned, in conjunction with the cherubim, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to God. In Rev. iv. 6-8 four animals are pictured as standing near the throne of God; each has six wings, and, as in Isaiah, they sing the "Trisagion.""

And where does it say that the seraphim look like dragons? It says they're HUMAN. Also, do you have any sources for the writings that claim to have this information?

Isaiah says nothing about human features. It merely says they have hands arms legs wings. In the piece you have copied it does confirm tht the ancient Jews regarded them as serpents as written in the Book of enoch. The reason serpent is used in the surviving Enoch is because it originally was Drakon, which could be a serepent OR a more traditional dragon. Serpents and dragons are often interchanged in literature as well, though as I have shown, Hebrew Drakons looked like a traditional dragon with wings, arms and legs.

If you read the REST of the article, it plainly states that the seraphim are reptilian in nature, as Dr. Heisser, a Christian expert on ancient Hebrew, also states.

Um, yeah, I did read the article, and decided the person didn't know what they were talking about and were putting pieces that didn't fit together as if they did. That article is NOT edited, so that information could be entirely wrong. The quote ALSO doesn't say the seraphim look like dragons either. And they have 6 wings and four limbs, which is even more anatomically incorrect than just having 2 wings and four limbs.

Isaiah was having a vision, and gave little description of what he saw. That's not eyewitness testimony of a living animal. How people translate words across a linguistic and cultural divide is not eyewitness testimony of a living animal. Furniture decoration is not eyewitness testimony of a living animal.

Your quarry is so smart there is no physical evidence, either.

You got zip, DC. Well, at least you are polite in debate.

It was written by a preimminent Hebrew scholar and rabbi in the field, the modern Christian scholar Dr. Heisser confirms the same, the book of enoch says they are reptilian, the egyptians acknowledge the SAME creature, Christian art confirms they knew it too, ALL THE EVIDENCE supports this. Just becasue modern Christians are uncomfortable with the idea of the highest heavenly creatures being reptiles, and turned them into cartoon angels, really holds no weight at all.

That's total nonsense.

ALL of the ANCIENT evidence supports exactly what I am saying.

The only thing that supports the seraphim as humanoid, winged, cartoon angels are Sunday School coloring books and Christmas Card designers.

And this is why these same dragons were known everywhere in the world - they were more than mere animals. But then, most ancient cultures always knew that. That's why they were worshipped as Gods.

Eight meant that there's no physical proof that dragons or anything in the Bible for that matter, is true. There are NO bones, fossils, or any other form of remains from dragons. All we have are stories and art. That's not a lot of convincing evidence. As for the Bible, it's completely unprovable, so if you're going to use it as your deciding factor in telling us dragons exist, we're not going to believe you. Just because there are "fiery beasts" described in a lot of religions doesn't mean they really existed. They could just be mere fabrications of the human mind, which is my thought on religion. If there's no physical proof other than stories, people aren't going to accept it as fact or even remotely true.

To be fair, Ms. Otterwynd, the discussion is about the way in which dragons figure in religion, not science. DC has made the claim that dragons were a prominent part of many early religions, and backed it up. While many religions today don't necessarily deal with dragons, they are prominent in many of the older texts. Making this statement assert that this is proof of physical existence, nor have I seen an indication that that was his attempt.

But in all honesty and sincere frankness Archosaur, Otterwyds statment was an excellent and logical argument which summed up so many members feelings on the subject in a way no one jhas ever quite been able to manage until this moment, so I appluade her.

Furthermore lets point out that in countless other posts DC IS trying to prove the physical existence of dragons

With respect, DC's claim is that living dragons were a prominent part of many early religions. And since dragon is, for DC, a remarkably elastic category, the presence of fanciful dragons-by-DC's-lights in religion would hardly need to be discussed. The Bible puts a snake in the Garden of Eden, Q.E.D.

And no, he has not "backed it up." Erecting a wall of words is not the same as presenting evidence and argument on behalf of a hypothesis.

The "evidence" does not withstand scrutiny. At every turn, it has all the earmarks of bogosity. Exaggerated claims for the authority of whatever may be twisted into support for the theory alternate with smug dismissal of contrary evidence. The same evidentiary source is reliable eyewitness testimony when he imagines it to support him, and self-serving propaganda when it turns out that it does not and never did support his construction of it.

There is no mention of a drakon in the garden of eden. What we do have a is a serpent,
Nachash: (naw‑ khash'); a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate.


Turning Rods into Serpents
Exodus 4:1-5

The lord told moses to cast his rod on the ground it became a serpent/nachash. Then the lord asked
Moses to grab it by the tail and it became a rod again.

There is no mention of a drakon. A ROD is a stick, wand, staff, or the like, of wood, metal, or other material.
What else in nature that could become something to fear other than a serpent/snake. A serpent is long and
straight like a rod.


Jesaja (6:1-3) records the prophet's vision of the Seraphim:

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 sole occurrence of the word "seraphim" in the canonic Hebrew Bible as heavenly beings.

Seraph is translated "fiery flying serpent" from the Hebrew (it adheres with to burn to burn out) and is the word used for the serpents that bit the Israelites in the wilderness. Num. 21:6 "So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

The word seraph is used as a metaphor in the above mentioned as a, (Fiery flying serpent.)

Numbers 21:3-9
"And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died.

Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." What I see here is the word Seraph being
used as a metaphor to describe a, (Fiery flying serpent.) Nothing about a drakon.


Sometimes serpents and dragons are used interchangeably, having similar symbolic functions. The venom of the serpent is thought to have a fiery quality similar to a fire spitting dragon. The Greek Ladon and the Norse Níðhöggr are sometimes described as serpents and sometimes as dragons. In Germanic mythology, serpent (Old English: wyrm, Old High German: wurm, Old Norse: ormr) is used interchangeable with the Greek borrowing dragon (OE: draca, OHG: trahho, ON: dreki). In China, the Indian serpent nāga was equated with the lóng or Chinese dragon. The Aztec and Toltec serpent god Quetzalcoatl also has dragon like wings, like its equivalent in Mayan mythology Gukumatz ("feathered serpent").

I could go on and on about this; but I think alot of you get the point.




Regards,
Tom

Thank you DC for doing what i could not and that is to convince a few people that dragons either do exsist or that they did exsist at one point in time, also i've been doin a bit of reasearch on them, and i have to say i still have allot to learn about dragons, however one thig has not changed and that is that i am facinated by the creature.

Well, Tom, as your post itself explains, there was a certain ambiguity between serpents and dragons in early theological and mythological writings. So, if an ancient text, myth or poem is speaking of serpents, one could reasonably wonder weather the author meant an ordinary, natural serpent, or a drakon. one might wonder further when the creature in question is attributed intelligence and supernatural powers. It becomes more likely that the original writers may have meant drakon or dragon when the description is used interchangeably in the original text, or that it was later translated as such by early scholars of the time.

Obviously, we cannot be certain what the originators of these texts meant, as they are not here to speak to us. Still, we can make some inferences, as above.

I can tell you a few things about dragons DS!

The various figures now called dragons most likely have no single origin, but spontaneously came to be in several different cultures around the world, based loosely on the appearance of a snake and possibly fossilized dinosaur remains. Mythology about dragons appear in the traditions of virtually all peoples back to the beginning of time - though dragons appeared in various forms.

Among their earliest forms, dragons were associated with the Great Mother, the water god and the warrior sun god. In these capacities they had the power to be both beneficent and destructive and were all-powerful creatures in the universe. Because of these qualities, dragons assumed the roles taken by Osiris and Set in Egyptian mythology.

By the time of the early Egyptian period a considerable dragon- and serpent-worshipping cult had developed. This cult gradually spread to Babylon, India, the Orient, the Pacific Islands, and finally the North American continent, as more and more cultures began to recognize and appreciate the special powers and intelligence of dragons. The cult reached its peak during the days of the Roman Empire and disappeared with the advent of Christianity.


The actual word "dragon" comes from the Greek language much later than this time so any mundane interpretation of creatures by this name before the Greeks must be by descriptions and attributes and not by name. They were generally considered "monsters" even if they had divine attributes.
The very origins and foundations of the entire Mesopotamian culture comes from the stories, culture, and ethics of these Sumerians. The later civilizations of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and then Grecians all got much of their philosophy, cosmology, and religion from the earlier stories/ myths of the Sumerians so it behooves us to first look at these early very early stories and pay particular attention to them.

The earlier myths often have a god, usually a storm god or a god armed with thunder and lightning bolts, chasing a dragon that has something to do with water. Examples are almost all of the Mesopotamian stories, the Indian god Indra, both Chinese and Japanese myths, the Mayan Rain Gods, the Egyptian sea dragon/serpent Apophis and pursuer Re, and even many early Semitic stories.

From the very start Dragons were seen as guarding treasures, holding back the floods, and dispensing knowledge. They also are battled by gods or heros from the very beginning. In many cases stories from the Sumerians were borrowed and slightly changed by the preceding civilizations. These same stories were very similar in content but with the actual names of the participants changed.
The first written commentary, found on clay tablets, uses the names of Asag, a monster/dragon (sometimes named as Kur) and Ninurta, a god/hero. Later we are introduced to this same god/hero as Marduk by the Babylonians and the dragons name has been changed to Tiamet. There is some confusion here as the preserved evidence is not in good shape or complete.


Upon reading deeply into this subject almost anyone can see that dragons have arisen from myth and nothing more.




Regards,
Tom

No guy, you haven't read into the subject very 'deeply' at all. If you did, you would find eyewitness accounts of people actually seeing the living creatures, not simply some bones.

And why would these same brilliant mathematicians, architects, and astronomers sacrifice children and pamper a priestly caste simply because they may have saw an old bone? Would that be enough for you? Do you really think you are much more sophisticated that an ancient sumerian who could probalbly run circles around you in mathematical knowledge? I think not.

These peoples believed in living dragons because they saw these living creatures. Otherwise there would not be such a world-wide belief in such creatures.

And why even think they were reptiles. Most people today could not tell a reptile bone from a mammal bone. And large dangerous reptiles often lived thousands of miles from people who believed in giant dragons.

If you are comfortable believing it was all 'based on seeing some bones', then good for you! I happen to give our ancient ancestors more credit than you do.

You sir. need to stop making assumptions. I have read deeply into this subject. But, unlike you I do not take
every single word written or said at face value. People see things all the time that they cannot comprehend,
(It's a given.) People tell their stories and it bocomes something amazing. WOW


That is a good question DC! Why did these ancient people sacrifice children for a mythical creature that they
thought they had seen and did indeed exist? Then only to draw on cylinder seals a supposed divine creature that can
be found to be many different creatures depending on the context it is used in. It is not even mentioned as a Drakon
until later. Ningishzida was thought only as a god in sumeria not a Drakon.


This again is your assumption. Quite possibly oneday it may be proved to be true.


I'm sure these people could have seen snakes as divine creatures and could create great god tales from them.


I will not say it was all based on dinosaur bones alone. But, a part of it.



Regards,
Tom

Two main factors: first, they were superstitious, an affliction against which brilliance confers no immunity, and second, that was one mighty beast whose bone that was. A secondary factor is that priests, by definition, convince productive people to pamper them. It is who they are and what they do.


Depends. Do I get to play priest?


Well, in fairness, I cheat and use calculus on a computer. But yes, I know a great deal more about nondemonstrative inference than any ancient, Sumerian or otherwise, of whom we have records. No brag, since I simply cheated again, and arranged to be born in the Twentieth Century of the Common Era.


That explains it.

People also believe in the Christian God in this way, yet has anyone seen him? No. People believed in God because they were told to and were shunned by everyone if they didn't, so couldn't the same principle apply to dragons? Definitely.People back then were superstitious and didn't have much knowledge about how the world worked like we do now, ESPECIALLY in Europe. Some civilizations were advanced IN CERTAIN AREAS such as math, but did they understand everything about the natural world like we do? No. Understanding why nature acts a certain way is an incredibly different concept than mathematics. Also, even I know how to tell a mammal bone from a reptile bone and I have no training in the study of bones. It's incredibly easy to tell which bones come from which animals. You just look at the vessels in the bone marrow and you can tell what kind of animal the creature is. Also, dragons may not necessarily have been created from large reptiles. Ancestral memory of large reptiles could be the reason for dragons, or fish such as the oarfish could explain the Asian dragons. Also, not all of the ancients were brilliant and knowledgeable. They also followed religion, which could explain sacrifices to Gods, not to dragons. Obviously you DON'T give our ancestors very much credit if you think we needed guidance from DRAGONS to be able to learn agriculture, build ancient wonders, and learn how to function as a civilization. I've also studied dragons and dragon mythology and Moro has a very accurate view of dragon folklore and why the creatures exist.

Where has he done that?? He has convinced nobody, and has only succeeded in making himself look like a fool. His arguments are too weak to convince anybody. The only people who agree with his theories either came on here lookin for something along that line to grasp onto, or childish idiots who know nothing of the real world around them. The only other things that he says that intelligent people agree with are quotes from books, proving he gets the quotes right, but the interpretations wrong.
Continue doing your research. You will discover the impossibility of these creatures eventually. Coming on here, claiming that dragons exist, then admitting that you don't know much about them only hurts your cause, and makes you look bad. Have something to back up your claims before you make them.

I vote we ignore him

and Moro Bumbleroot, thanks for your input on this subject

Ignore DC?? Sounds good to me.

Or are you talking about ignoring someone who is showing you the truth?? Seems you are already rehearsed at ignoring the truth.

Some people here (and I won't mention any names), simply lack the intellect to understand these concepts, and how they rather neatly 'explain everything', from universal dragon beliefs, to well known cryptic animal sightings, to the Bible.

*Ignores 667-Neighbor of the Beast* anyways who else has an oppinion on this topic?

How do you know we're the one's who don't understand? I, and the others on this board, have made legitimate arguments towards your theory, and you have yet to cite ANY reliable evidence to support your theory or claims, so of course we're not going to be impressed. Your facts just don't make sense to us. WE are not seeing the pieces of the puzzle clicking together. You might, but we aren't. Does that make us non-intelligent? No. Does that make you right? No. You've given us no proof other than what you think, so why should we believe what you say?

You're right. Ningishzida was not regarded as a 'drakon', he was regarded as a Mushushu, or 'raging serpent', a four footed, clawed, long necked, long tailed, scaly winged creature most people would call a 'dragon' today. Several imminent Assyrialogists believe the deity, called "the lord of the good tree" is the prototype for the 'serpent' in the Garden of Eden. The Sumerians did believe the dragon gods could adopt a human form, which is why we see them depicted as both humanoids and 'dragons'. The Gudea libation vase in the louvre identifies Ningishzida as a Mushushu 'dragon' and heavenly gate guard, the prototype of the Biblical Cherubim.

The reptiles native to Iraq are not very impressive in size. It is hard to believe they would have inspired deities called "Great Serpent Dragons of Heaven" like Enki and Enlil. I would not be so impressed with them that I'f turn them into gods. But I would be very impressed by a giant flying reptile that told me how to plant crops and domesticate animals as dragon gods were credited with doing.

Wow there certainly are allot of cultures that believe in dragons as Deities its really amazing... and kinda cool too

I'd just say reserve you final judgement until after you've read the book, or at least reviews of the book. It will be full of footnotes and illustrations of material I have not mentioned here. I have only said enough here to get feedback for some of the basic concepts. Enough 'smart' people like it, that I am not worried by some of the vocal opposition. Many people object because it challenges their religious beliefs... or their non-belief.

How do you explain these European drawings of dragons then? Not very dragon like at all.
http://www.strangescience.net/stdino2.htm
What I mean by this is the dragons don't look like anything you've been describing to us.

What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? Obviously there's going to be more people who will rip apart the foundations, structure, and materials in this book than there will be people who accept it as truth.

Maybe its because that they arent dragonic, most of them are just lizards or dinosaurs, the only 3 that might come close is the 3 pictures that are gryphons

Exactly. And to me, it is pretty hard to believe it is all because ancient man found some dinosaur bones. And how would they contrue these bones belonged to reptiles (only a paleontologist would know that), and why would these frightening monsters be considered as wise and benificient gods to mankind, and all over the world?

The critics cannnot explain why. It is pretty clear they 'fear' the unknown, and try to hide their fear through ridiculing explantions that they are 'uncomfortable' with.

Their ripping will get them nowhere because the facts are on my side.

Actually, that is a very clear statement, for it is pretty clear the skeptics (not to name anybody but.... *looks at 667-Neighbor of the Beast*) do fear the truth and therefore riddicule others that give explainations about the creature they cannot explain

And just what are 2/3 of DC's draconic evidence? Lizards, serpents, water monsters, dinosaurs, and lord knows whatever else. Geez, kid, use a little logic. What evidence of any dragons exists anywhere in the world, however minuscule?

Few people realize that ancient gryphon are actually quite reptilian in nature and were probably confused with dragons. Some are given belly scutes like a dragon, spines on their backs like a dragon, and even though they are supposedly covered in fur and feathers, were almost always depicted as GREEN in color, and scientific analysis of once painted marble statuary proves.

Since people probably didn't get very close to dragons (and live to tell aobut it), some of these green flying reptiles were mistaken for the mythic gryphons, so in art some were dpeicted as gryphons, but painted an improbable green based on actually sightings of dragons.

Sure. Don't say I didn't warn you. People are going to rip apart your facts and their sources. People don't change their views over one book, you know. If that was true everyone would think Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and no one would say otherwise, but they don't, even though dozens of books have been written on the subject. One book showing some similarities between dragon-like and serpentine beings in religions isn't going to change people's minds in my opinion.

How about "universal human belief"? And if the Universal Human Belief is correct, the dragons are sentient beings who could leave no other evidence of their existence, than "universal human belief" in them.

I don't fear anything about that book or what it insinuates. In my opinion I don't believe that the information is accurate or reliable. Therefore, I'm not going to believe it. Maybe if DC actually showed us some verifiable sources I might be inclined to believe that there is some truth behind this book, but we don't have any of that, so I won't be changing my mind unless I see some physical evidence of a dragon.


Try "ancestral memory of dinosaurs and other large reptiles" and you get the same results.
Perfect example:
http://www.parks.sa.gov.au/naracoorte/wona.../extinct/005780

Yes, but that DaVinci nonsense doesn't have a fraction of the evidence that this theory has. Certainly no one here has been able to disprove anything I have said. They just get mad and resort to childish name-calling when they cannot discredit me.

Actually there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that Jesus was in fact married to Mary Magdalene. It's actually quite a plausible theory if you consider all of the evidence. And I have been able to disprove what you're saying is true, but you just keep telling me I don't understand. I can very much discredit you, but you don't cite ANY of your sources, which leads me to believe that a lot of what you're saying simply isn't true. Maybe if you actually gave people evidence, we could have a mature discussion here.

No, you would NOT get the same results. The ancients did not believe these were killer predators, but intelligent benificeient Gods, that brought them rain and taught them technology. The anthropologists who come up with that nonsense don't seem to understand this.

Those same Anthropologist study various religions along with cults that believe in draconic entities. Anthropologists study people and everything about them, don't bash them just because some have ideas that differ from yours.

I am bashing a flawed theory. If people simply feared dragons as ravenous, devouring predators based on their ancestors being chased by eagles, felines, snakes and crocodiles, then they would be correct. I would agree.

But the problem is that ancient man worshipped the dragons as beneficent gods, prasing them as 'good shepherds' of their human flocks, and crediting them with bringing laws, technologies, life-giving rain, etc.

The evil dragon stories come later, primarily used as propoganda to introduce, or popularize new religions with superior, non-dragon deities.

That's not the point I am questioning. In fact, it is in those same 'suppressed scriptures' the church tried to destroy, that we see how much more of a role 'dragons' played in early Christian theology.

i am referring to the rest of the invented hoakum of that book that has no basis in reality.

I have cited my sources, again and again. If you bothered to read all of my dragon posts you would see that. I am not spending a lot of extra time posting them all again for every 'newbie'. If you are too lazy to read the sources here on UM, wait for the book, it won't be long now.

You seem to be the one who does not understand anything DC. NOTHING explains everything, and the fact that you think a fairy tale does just goes to show that you understand very little in the world.



Yeah, ignoring someone who is proving you wrong at every turn is not going to make your fairy tale beliefs come true.

You've been asked for these many times, by many people, and you still have not provided any sources. YOu only deflect the question somehow with insults, claim that they are too stupid to understand, or quote a fictional story as concrete evidence. You have yet to provide any legitimate sources for any of your info. You simply have no solid ground to stand on.

You keep bringing up this "universal human belief", and you are so wrong. The only universal human belief regarding dragons, is that they are fictional. At one point, SOME people beleived, the rest used them as a symbol. Just because they were in stories, does not mean the authors of those stories believed in them.
People used them as metaphorical symbols, and you seem to think that they beleived in them. Simply not true, just wishing on your part.
If you think that people beleive in dragons, hop over to the other thread under this subject that has to do with which cryptid do people think are least likely to be real. Almost every one of the answers is DRAGONS.

If you think that is a clear statement, then your even more insane than I thought. Which is more plausible? That everyone in the world knows that these things don't exist, but there are a couple of idiots who still believe, or that everyone in the world is wrong, and that a couple of obviously immature people are somehow priveliged to ancient secrets that have been hidden from the world for thousands of years, and are taking that information to this website to try and convince everyone that they are wrong.

I mean, come one kid. Your trying make yourself out to be some story book "chosen one". I think you've been watching too much Harry Potter.

Dragons do not exist. The world knows it, religions know it, science knows it, yet somehow you and DC seem to think that you have some proof that they exist. You have no proof, just fictional stories, and an immmature desire to believe in fairy tales. Your not going to "convert" or convince anyone.