DC... Can you please provide scripture from the text of the Bible that states that dragons are "Dieties" And if they are so high on the totem pole, why are dragons the icon of bad in Revelations?

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9 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.

A quick reminder to those members who are talking about publishing or promoting books, using the forum to advertise or sell books is actually disallowed unless permission has been given to do so.

If you are planning to make any announcements regarding a book you've written or published and you are a regular forum contributer then please let me know beforehand so that we can discuss it.

Thread or posts made asking members to go and buy or download your book without having discussed it with us first will end up being closed or removed.

Thank you.

Most serious scholars knowledgeable in Hebrew, including Christians like Dr. Heisser, agree that the Seraphim of the Old Testament are winged reptilian creatures. When Greek became the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Jews translated their scriptures to greek and the best word they found for Seraphim was the greek work Drakon, and this is confirmed in ancient Papyri. Many ancient Greek and Christian scriptures also confirm dragons residing in heaven and sent by God to punish the wicked. Most of the 'dragon lore' of ancient Judaism and Christianity has been hidden, and even most refernces to dragons in the bible have been changed in later Christian versions. If you read my many posts, you will see references to dragons in Christian art an literature that present them as heavenly creatures an not evil, or associated with satan.

Some people believe the Revelation dragon is merely a symbol of Rome because of its seven heads and ten crowns. However it it is Satan, this makes perfect sense as well, for at one times he was one of the highes heavenly creatures, and therefore possibly one of the Seraphim dragons. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa essentially says this, that dragons were special creations that served God, and that the greatest of these 'dragons' was the one that "fell".

Illuminated Bibles of medieval times depict God riding on dragons based on Psalm, and dragons punishing the Israelites based on numbers. A popular scene in anceint and medieval art was God surrounded by dragons with his throne thier coiled tails, judging sinners, with the dragons swallowing up the unredeemed. This is because the early Christian scholars understood what the seraphim were. It is only later that they are transformed into swan-winged humanoid "christmas tree angel"s.

Most of this art was later destroyed as christianty's values and message changed, but there are some extant examples in museums that will be illustrated in a future work that cannot be discussed here.

Yet, you still quote no scripture as a source and refer to things that have been "Destroyed"

People are free to RE-interpret the evidence any way they wish, but is it a fact that up until very recent times Christianity regarded dragons as heavenly creatures. God rides them in illuminated Bibles, he sends them to punish people in the Bible, the word Tannyn in the Old Testament was translated to dragons, etc. Many scriptures tht were once accepted but later dismissed speak of dragons in heaven and sent to do God's bidding.

It is to be expected that since people no longer seem to see dragons, and since science claims there is no dragons (or angels), then Christians might be embarrassed with their scriptures and change the dragons to "whales", even though this doesn't make a lot of since when the "whale" is in the middle of the desert sometimes. Oh, then they say it is a normal snake.

I think that rather than DENY the Bible's dragons, and sweep them under the rug, believing Christians should ask themselves why virtually all religions, including their own, acknowledged dragons as heavenly creatures.

The seraphim around the throne of God in the Book of Isaiah are winged reptiles. Do you need the exact verse? You can look the word up in the Jewish Encylopedia on line, and the scholars confirm that the word actually meant a reptile, and not a humanoid angel.

Not all the early christian art was not destroyed. Virtually every illuminated Bible shows God riding dragons and sending dragons as heavenly retribution. YOu can see this carved on almost every medieval church - the Heavenly dragon described in the Apocolypse of Baruch swallowing up sinners on Judgement day..

No all of the above is you opinion and interpretation of the information. It is as valid as some other interpretations but it is not fact nor does it make someone elses view a case of them ignoring evidence. You have an intresting threoy but it is rather tainted by your determination to state as fact ideas that are far from universally agreed.

Yes, I need the exact verse. And nothing of the sort is laid out in Isaiah. And as far as the Apocalypse of Baruch, you need to find something other that Baruch all of a sudden changing his story to making himself look like a prophet instead of the scribe of Jeremiah. And which of the Baruchs are you speaking? 2nd? 3rd? 4th?
Syriac or Greek? Either way, It is not part of the canon of either the Jewish or Christian Bibles but is part of the Syriac Pesh**ta for 2nd Baruch (syriac) and Pseudepigrapha Greek or Slavonic for the 3rd Baruch (Greek)

Aquinas considers and rejects that angels have any bodies,

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm#1

except as they may assume (human) bodies when on missions among humans, see #2 that page.

Aquinas' opinion about whether it was the greatest of the incorporeal angels who fell is here

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1063.htm#7

He is equivocal whether it was the greatest of the (incorporeal) angels who fell. While the weight of argument favors this, in his view, it might instead support a specific alternative hypothesis about the leader's overall rank.

The verse is noted below with extracts from the Jewishencylopedia.com extracts on the seraphim. This was written by Jewish Rabbis intimately familiar with Hebrew. A Christian expert on Hebrew, Dr. Heisser also agrees that the seraphim are winged reptiles. The Apocolypse of Baruch was once an important ancient Jewish scripture that was used for many years by Christianity, much like Enoch, which also confirmed the seraphim were reptilian creatures. And this is exactly why Medieval art and bible illuminations portray the Cherubim and Seraphim as winged dragons.

quotation:

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."


Some authorities hold that the seraphim had their origin in the Egyptian "seref," a composite, winged creature, half lion and half eagle, which guarded graves, carried dead kings up to heaven, and transmittedprayers thither. The form and office of the seref, however, suggest rather the Jewish cherubim.


According to a third and more probable theory, the seraphim originally were serpents, as the name implies. Among many peoples of antiquity serpents played an important part in myth and folk-lore. For instance, there were Tiamat in the Babylonian legend of the Creation, and the Uræus serpent in Egypt. Consequently, since the Jews shared the superstitious ideas of surrounding nations in other respects, it should not be a matter of wonder if they adopted this notion as well. That the serpent filled a special rôle among them as a demoniacal being may be seen from the story of Adam's fall (Gen. iii.). In this connection the names "Dragon Spring" and "Serpent Pool" (places in the vicinity of Jerusalem) are worthy of being noted. A brazen serpent brings relief from the effects of the bite of the fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.) which Yhwh sent among his disobedient people in the wilderness. Isaiah (xiv. 29, ***. 6) speaks of fiery, flying serpents and dragons; and a brazen serpent, Nehushtan, stood in the Temple at Jerusalem, and was an object of worship until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it as being idolatrous (II Kings xviii. 4 et seq.). The worship of Nehushtan was plainly a remnant of ancient superstition, and was reconciled with the worship of Yhwh by connecting Nehushtan with the scourge of snakes in the wilderness and the rescue from them (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.). Therefore the theory seems possible, even probable, that the seraphim have their counterpart in the flying serpents of Isaiah (comp. also II Esd. xv. 29). It is only natural that these winged guardians of Yhwh's throne were soon ranked as higher beings and invested with the human form or with some features of the human body; and it was because of the very fact that they were adopted into the Yhwh cult that they were, in process of time, ennobled and spiritualized.E. G. H. I. Be.

I believe Aqunina's exact quote was: "This dragon which Thou hast formed, he who was more excellent than all the rest, became greatest in malice." The Old Testament clearly cites angels as physical beings, that eat food on earth and manna in heaven. They are frenquently mistaken for normal men.

This suggests Satan was never an angel human in form but a dragon, and obviously a seraphim since the church of this time did depict them as dragons around the throne of god.

Bibles of Aquinas time, frenquently depicted God riding on dragons, based on Psalms and II Samual, dragons punishing the Israelites based on Numbers, and wall friezes (based on Baruch) of dragons sent to swallow up sinners on judgement day. This is also suggested in Revelation though the dragons are described "like horses" but with sharp teeth, serpent tails and spewing fire.

(falls over holding his side and laughing...)

It doesnt help when the sources you quote use words like Might, Maybe, In Theory, and Could Have Been. You have more than proven to me that you only take what you want from these different parts of ancient text and apply your own idealogy to them to make things fit what you want. Thus, I am done.

It is not my opinon that Bibles portray god riding on dragons, this is a fact. You can see the bibles and other art yourself. The information in the Jewish Encyclopedia that state the Seraphim ore reptiles is fact as well.

It is my opinion that that dragons in the Bible, and believed in by man for thousands of years, in every corner of the world, are a real creature.

So you see, I am actually supporting what the Bible really says. It is modern, mainstream christianity that chooses to deny its own scripture for fear of ridicule by the sceptics.

What else could they say? These are Hebrew scholars and Rabbis. But they are right, ALL of the ancient evidence confirms the Seraphim were believed to be reptilian creatures. Laugh all you want, but ALL the evidence confirms my view.

Uh, no. Site the DIRECT Bible quote(s) that confirms this and maybe we'll give you some credit, DC. No "Jewish Encyclopedia" or obscure interpretations. Hard. Evidence. Until then, ALL the evidence you provide doesn't count for anything. It's just interpretations and guesswork.

The Bible just says they are winged creatures with arms and legs and were immune to the effects of fire called seraphim. The Hebrew scholars say this word means "fiery flying serpent", and later we see Yahweh orderings an idol of a fiery flying serpent. Oh, and the Egyptians also called a fiery serpent diety a Serref (singular for seraphim, the plural).

The ancient Rabbis translated the word seraphim to Drakons.

Again, DIRECT BIBLE QUOTES would be appriciated. I've never heard of Yaweh wanting a dragon statue erected in his image. Also, could you site the source of the Hebrew scholars that say this?

Exodus 20:4
"You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;"

Seems like Yaweh didn't want any idols at all, let alone of himself.

Also, Egyptian and Hebrew are two different languages, so we cannot assume one word in Egyptian means the same thing in Hebrew.

Actually it said that Satan was one of the more beautiful angels serving under God. It said nothing about him being a dragon at all.

Cool thanks i look forward to reading it

and Invaluble Darkness, if you read what the others have posted the bible does refer to Satan as a Dragon

Yea I know I was just pointing out that before Satan was cast out of heaven he was seen as the most beautiful angel under God, but when he was cast out he was seen as a beast, or dragon. DC made it sound like Satan was always seen as a dragon even before he was cast out of heaven.

By the way your book sounds really cool.

well no, actually it said that the devil was called 'dragon' in psalms.
He is described as a cherub rather than a seraph, since the cherubim were the highest order of angels that were capable of sin.



well that was the way it appeared to me.

I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet Aquinas knew more about the Bible than you do. Satan is not referred to like a dragon, but THIS Dragon. Actually the stuff about lucifer being the covering cherub has NOTHING to do with Satan. This is where you get the stuff abut being a beautiful angel, but thiw is a total Christian misunderastanding of the Hebrew scripture. This is now common knowlege. Just google the words lucifer and mistranslation and you will see what the experts say.

What Aquinas didn't realize was that Yahweh Himself was also a dragon, just as his highest assistants. Satan is not even a proper name, it merely means "an obstacle, or opposer that God sends to thwart human endeavors. There are several satans in the bible, and they may not even be the same character from one book to another.

If you would have read the article it begins by citing the verse by number.

It doesn't matter if he knows more about the Bible than I do, i'm just stating what was said in the Bible.

I thought everyone familiar with the bible knew that Yahweh ordered Moses in the Book of Numbers to make a fiery flying serpent of bronze, which was worshipped by the Isreaelits or they would be killed by Yahweh's dragon assitants. In later bibles they are changed to just snakes but in the original Hebrew they are the seraphim. Yes Yahweh condemned the Goldn calve, but a dragon was not an earthly creature and was his own form, so this was allowed. The Bible says the idol was worshipped for as long as Judah and Israel prospered. When they stopped worshipping it, God abandoned them, and both Assyrians and Babylonians devastated the land.

But it DOESN'T say that in the Bible. This is Chrisitan mistranslation about an invented character called Lucifer who is NOT in the Bible nor has anything to do with 'Satan".

No Where... And I Mean NO WHERE does it say in numbers that they should worship this "idol" The scripture in which you are quoting is dealing with the Standard that the followers of moses would carry. These are the ONLY two verses in which it is even mentioned. No wonder you dont quote your sources, you know that you use them in the wrong context.

Num 21:8 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.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

I still want to petition to have DC removed from these forums, lol.

And Lucifer is mentioned in the bible... I think you may need to read again... Start at Genesis and work your way through Revelations... Slowly... Research before you post...

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

While this is absolutely true, people like Thomas believed that lucifer and satan were the same....mistakenly or not. And that he was a cherub gone bad. They believed Seraphim to be incorporeal and not capable if sins, like pride.

Exactly!

The stricken Israelites had to come before it to be healed, exactly as someone would do if they worshipped idols. In Hebrew it says "make thee a seraph", the exact same word for the creatures that surround god (seraphim plural).

Hundreds of years later King Hezekiah destroys the idol because it was being being worshipped, and disaster befell the hebrews ever since. That's in the Bible too.

As Grem has noted, no that isn't what it says. The passage was condemning the King of Babylon. Latin speaking Christians mistranslated this.

Dont say its in the Bible without giving scripture. Quite a few of us are getting tired of the lack of sources you try to impose. Also, Worshipping something and looking at something are two different things... if not, then by your own reasoning, you are worshipping your computer monitor right now........




Prove It...


Lucifer was created by God, and was once a beautiful cherub or angel (Ezekiel 28:14-15). He was created to serve God, but he was created with the ability to have freedom of choice. Lucifer chose to serve himself instead of God. His heart became filled with pride because of his beauty, (Ezekiel 28:17) and he became rebellious (disobedient) against God. He believed he could be like God the most High (Isaiah 14:13-15). God then cast Lucifer out of heaven because of his sin (Isaiah 14:12; Ezekiel 28:15-19).

from www.israelofgod.org is this very scholarly article that confirms exactly what I am saying. I picked this particular one becasue it was written by a believing christian who STILL realized this is false doctrine.

The Name "Lucifer"

Author: Frank W. Nelte



In the English version of the Bible the name "Lucifer" appears only one time--in Isaiah 14:12. This reads:

1. "How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning..."

2. "Lucifer" is not an English word, but a Latin word. The question is: who gave the world this Latin name?

3. In A.D. 382 Pope Damascus commissioned the scholar Jerome to make an official revision of the Latin versions of the Bible that were floating around in the Catholic Church. Jerome went off to a cave in Bethlehem where he proceeded to make his translation, supposedly based on the Hebrew text, but in practice based very largely on the Septuagint version (i.e. "LXX") that Origen had produced about 140 years earlier while in Caesarea. (The truth about the LXX is another subject that I have discussed in a separate paper.)

Anyway, by A.D. 405 Jerome had completed his work, which we today know as "The Latin Vulgate" Bible. It is far from an infallibly accurate translation of the original texts. Rather, it is an interpretation of thought put into idiomatic, graceful Latin!

For a thousand years this Translation was without a rival--and herein lies the problem!

4. Jerome had understood that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan. There the Hebrew word "heylel" is used and Jerome translated this into Latin as "lucifer"!

This is a mistranslation!!!

5. The word "Lucifer" comes from 2 Latin words:

Lux (=light) + ferous (=to bear or carry). Thus the name "Lucifer" means:Light-bearer or Light-bringer.

But this is not what the Hebrew word "heylel" means! We'll see later exactly what this word does mean.

6. Anyway, as a result of this Latin Vulgate translation, which was almost the only version of the Bible in use throughout Europe for the next 1000 years, Satan popularly became known as Lucifer. It should be self-evident that when the first people who translated the Bible into English came along, one of their paradigms was that the name "Lucifer" applied to Satan. When they came to translate Isaiah 14:12 into English, they decided that rather than actually "translate" the word "Heylel," they would simply substitute it with the already well-known (originally) Latin name "Lucifer." And they could do this because on the surface this seems to be a reasonably accurate translation. But it isn't really!

7. I mentioned earlier that the word "Lucifer" appears only once in the English versions of the Bible. But in the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome it appears twice! That's right, twice! Where else is this word used and who does it refer to? Jerome certainly knew who it refers to. This knowledge also casts a dark cloud over his intentional use in Isaiah 14:12!

8. 2 Peter 1:19 reads : "...until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." this is another mistranslation!!!

The two words "day star" are a translation of the one Greek word "phosphoros." This comes from the two Greek words:

Phos (=light) + phero (=to bear or carry). Thus the Greek word "phosphoros" means Light-bearer or Light-bringer.

Anyone who knows both, Greek and Latin, can verify that the Greek word "Phosphoros" and the Latin word "Lucifer" are absolutely, one hundred percent identical in meaning. "Lucifer" is the perfect translation into Latin of the Greek word "Phosphoros."

9. Now let's note the dishonesty, first of the English translators and then of Jerome--

All of the English translators of the Bible know very well that the word "Phosphoros" in 2 Peter 1:19 can be perfectly accurately translated by the word "Lucifer." Instead they have chosen to deliberately obscure this fact. Why?

They knew very well that 2 Peter 1:19 refers without doubt to Jesus Christ. This verse calls Jesus Christ "Phosphoros" (in Greek) or "Lucifer" (in Latin). Yet the translators have hidden this fact behind the words "day star." The facts are that "Phosphoros" has absolutely nothing to do with either "day" or "star"! The translators simply borrowed a term that is elsewhere used for Christ--namely "morning star" in Revelation 2:28 (Greek = proinos + aster) and in Revelation 22:16 (Greek = orthrinos + aster).

To translate "phosphoros" as "day star" is plain dishonesty!!!

10. Now let's look at Jerome. The phrases quoted under point #8 above are translated by Jerome into Latin as follows:

"...donec dies elucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."

Notice that Jerome correctly translated the Greek "phosphoros" into the Latin word "lucifer." Jerome obviously knew that this verse refers to Jesus Christ--yet he wrote "lucifer" with a small "l" and did not capitalize the word. He also knew that he had translated the word "phosphoros" perfectly into Latin.

With this write-up I am including photo-copies of 2 peter 1:19 and Isaiah 14:12 from the Latin vulgate. (Comment: that is what I sent to Pasadena with the original write-up I sent through to them about 4-5 years ago. I can't really put photo-copies on Internet ).

Jerome knew that in the New Testament "Lucifer" is a title for Jesus Christ; yet he still chose to also translate the less- clearly defined Hebrew word "Heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 as "Lucifer," knowing that this word referred to Satan--and here Jerome started the word with a capital "L," as can be seen from the enclosed photo-copies.

So with Jerome Satan gets a name that refers to Christ with a capital letter--and Christ gets His own name only with a small letter.

11. Now let's look at the Hebrew word "heylel"--

It is used only once in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12. That does not give us any further insight. But "Heylel" is derived from the primitive root word "halal" It is this word that gives us understanding of what "Heylel" really means. I might add here that this is also the only way that Jerome and the English translators could come to an understanding of what "Heylel" means--by clearly understanding the meaning of the word that "Heylel" is derived from, since it is only used one single time.

12. "Halal" is used 165 times in the Old Testament and it is translated as follows in the KJV:

117 times = Praise

14 times = Glory

10 times = Boast

8 times = Mad

3 times = Shine(d)

3 times = Foolish

2 times = Fools

2 times = Commended

2 times = Rage

1 time = Celebrate

1 time = Give

1 time = Marriage

1 time = Renowned

This should make clear that the translators felt they should attach over a dozen different meanings to this word "Halal." The meanings are both, good and bad; both, positive and negative.

There is no question that this word has a good, positive meaning. But neither is there any question that it also has a bad, negative meaning. Jerome, without the slightest proof available to him, decided to give the word "Heylel" a good, positive meaning. All the major translators into English have simply followed Jerome's lead, who was working for Pope Damascus, remember?

Anyone who has studied what God tells us about Satan, should realize immediately that Satan is--"mad, boastful, a fool and foolish and he does rage." These words with which "Halal" is translated in numerous places, fit Satan perfectly.

The very next verses in Isaiah show Satan boasting! Read Isaiah 14:13 - 14! That is why God calls him "heylel"--because he boasted!! What could be plainer?

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high" (Isaiah 14:13-14).

Satan's "boasting" is so very obvious in these verses!

13. Now here are some of the places where "Halal" is translated as:

•"Mad" = 1 Samuel 21:13; Psalms 102:8; Ecclesiastes 2:2; 7:7; Isaiah 44:25; Jeremiah 25:16; 50:38; 51:7;
•"Fools" = Job 12:17; Psalms 75:4;
•"Foolish" = Psalms 5:5; 73:3; 75:4;
•"Rage" = Jer 46:9; Nahum 2:4;
•"Boast" = 1 Kings 20:11; Psalms 10:3; 34:2; 44:8; 49:6; 52:1; 97:7; Proverbs 20:14; 25:14; 27:1.
14. It should be very clear by now that "Heylel" has nothing to do with the words "Star" or "Day" or "Morning" or "Bringing" or "Carrying." Notice also that he is "the son (Hebrew = the product) of the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). Christ is the Morning Star and it is He who created Satan. And Satan has deceived all of mankind into giving him the exalted title, which is what it really is, and which rightfully belongs to Jesus Christ, of "Light-Bringer." One clear fulfilment of Revelation 12:9--.



15. Paul explained this in 2 Corinthians 11:14, where he tells us: "...for Satan himself is transformed (Greek = disguised) into an angel of light." Do you grasp this? He has deceived the world into believing that Isaiah 14:12 tells us that he used to hold Christ's job ( as per 2 Peter 1:19)--that he used to be an angel who was a "Light-bringer."



16. Once you get rid of the old paradigm that "Lucifer is a name that used to refer to Satan" and grasp that the Bible identifies Christ as "Lucifer" (or "Phosphoros" in Greek), the Light-bringer, then you'll be surprised how many scriptures literally flood into your mind in support of this--. e.g.

•John 8:12 = "I am the light of the world..."
•John 3:19 = "...that light is come into the world..."
•John 1:4 - 8 = "...in Him was...the light of men..."
•John 12:36 = "...believe in the light..." etc., etc..
17. We need to understand that God has absolutely no reason to reveal Satan's previous name to us. Why should we have to know it? (Apart from Ezekiel 28:12-15) nowhere in the bible is anything good said about Satan!! Notice that in Ezekiel 28, where God does speak about Satan's existence before the creation of man, God reveals that Satan had been an anointed cherub--but God does not use any name that previously applied to Satan. Why not? If it was a "good" name that we should know about, it would have fitted perfectly into this description of Satan's prior glory. But Ezekiel 28 carefully avoids hinting at any previous name. And so why should Isaiah 14:12 be an exception--by giving us a lofty title that supposedly belonged to Satan at one time, and which Peter in fact tells us is Christ's title?



Whatever name Satan may have had previously is totally blotted out before God--it is as though Satan never ever had that name. That's what sin does--it totally blots out any memory of any good that went before. That's what God tells us in Ezekiel 3:20 and 18:24 and 33:13. If the righteous turns away from God, then--"all his righteousness shall not be remembered." Isn't this plain enough? After Satan sinned, why should God want us to know about Satan's supposed "good name" from a previous time???



Understand this: even if "Lucifer" really had at one stage been Satan's name, God still would not want us to use it in reference to Satan! It is God who reveals Satan to us by the name "Satan"! And it is God who reveals Satan as a braggart in Isaiah 14:12-14.



18. Satan is the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4) who has blinded the minds of people. He has churches and ministers who disguise themselves as "...the ministers of righteousness" (2 Corinthians 11:15), a plain reference to them disguising themselves as "Christians." Satan's universal ("catholic") church gave Satan one of Christ's names by means of a mistranslation from the Hebrew into Latin. Jerome was clearly working for Satan when he converted the Greek word "Phosphoros," used in 2 Peter 1:19 for Jesus Christ, into a personal name for Satan in the Old Testament. Jerome knew that "Phosphoros" refers to Christ. If he really was a Hebrew scholar, as is generally claimed, then he also knew that "Halal" also has negative connotations like "mad, boast, foolish," etc. because he would have had to translate this word into Latin 165 times. Did Jerome really not understand the context of boasting in this passage??



For over 1000 years this name was used for Satan in the western world. It was placed above question as a former name for Satan. So translators and students of the Biblical languages and of Latin have also accepted this as a fact that should not be questioned. Satan clearly does not want his "right" to the name "Lucifer" questioned. Those who use it for Satan show they are "worshipping" Satan--by attributing one of Christ's names to Satan.



I could carry on with some more points, but I feel that the above information should suffice to understand that Satan is never referred to as "lucifer" in the Word of God. So what about you--will you continue to refer to Satan as having once been called "Lucifer"?? You now know the facts!



Frank W. Nelte

Im leaving work in 6 minutes, I dont have time to rebutle that non-sense right now, but you can rest assured, I'll handle it in the morning.

Ty, and DC you did make it seem like Satan was always a dragon

just saying that the way you said it made him appear like what he is not, there may be SOME references that say Satan is a dragon


just saying

Satan is not a name, it is a title of something sent to be a obstacle or prosecutor that works for God. The evil Satan of Christianity is an invention unknown to the the Jews. In the Old Testament, the Satan performs various tasks for his master, and is always loyal. He must ask God's permission to do anything.

As I have demonstrated, there is nothing in the bible that says he is an angel. Since he is called a dragon in the New Testament, and connected with the serpent of the Old Testament though not named it is a better bet that he would be a seraphim-dragon than an angel. Especially because he was sent to destroy humans and animal when testing Job.

The ONLY description of Satan is the red dragon of Revelation....... period.

Every Mention of a "Dragon" In the Old Testament:

Neh 2:13 And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

Psa 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

Isa 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.


Isa 51:9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. [Art] thou not it that hath cut Rahab, [and] wounded the dragon?

Jer 51:34 Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out.

Eze 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river [is] mine own, and I have made [it] for myself.

And EVERY mention from the New Testament (Notice, Every single one is from Revelations)

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:9 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.
Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man [child].
Rev 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


See that last verse? Revelations 20:2. That pretty much sums up who the dragon was.

Don't apologize, this is not a religious section of the website and biology is an important part of this discussion. I do realize what you're saying and am familiar with a lot of it, but has anyone done a comparison of intelligence versus brain:body mass ratio in non-mammals? If we just concentrate on mammals, the larger proportioned brain is not synonymous with the size of a creature. Chimpanzees are not very big, but are more intelligent than mammals with a small brain
:body mass. Bigger animals need bigger brains, but smarter animals need proportionately bigger brains. The proportion of the brain is a factor in intelligence, not movement or size. From what you're saying, the same ratio would not still apply to reptiles and birds, but they would have an equivalent system - the ratio might be bigger, but there would still be a correlation. A 1:35000 reptile would not be as intelligent as a 1:500 one. So the dragon's brain would not have to be human proportion, but it would still need a bigger cranium than any other living reptile by far. Bird heads are already fairly big and round, which follows if we think of them as intelligent reptiles. So if in terms of proportion we took birds as chimps and dragons as humans and increased the size accordingly, might that give us what we're looking for?

I was actually thinking about the Troodon; if we adjusted the reptile/bird ratios to be proportionate to mammal ones taking into considering what was discussed above, what would we arrive at? *ominous music*

And my God I hope I make sense, half of that was thinking aloud. I apologize if I don't, lol.

Just as Christianity mistakenly invented a "Lucifer" character as I have demonstrated with the provided evidence, likewise Christianity turned a term for a generic prosecutor or 'trouble shooter' of God into an evil opponent of God that Judaism simply cannot recognize because there is nothing in the Old Testament about this opponent. To the Jews, simply proposing such a creature could defy God is a terrible blasphemy. Satan does not come from the Bible but from the Persian religion of Zoroaster, who coincidentlly has an evil dragon who opposes the creator god, and who after a great battle, is defeated by an angel, bound up and cast into an abyss. This dragon's name is Ahriman, and he is the prototype for Satan, who is defeated and incarcerated in exactly the same manner. There can be little doubt that John of Patmos was exposed to this old legend and it had a profound influence on his writings......... and has given "dragons" a bad name in western thought ever since.

Perhaps a dragon named Ahriman was a particularly cruel tribal god in the region of Persia. Interestingly, in later Persian scripture, it is claimed that the dragon god of the Jews, Yahweh, it the brother of their Ahriman! But is was these same Perisans who released the Jews from their Babylonian captivity.

It makes it rather clear who that particular dragon was. Clearly, the references also indicate that this is the same serpent of the garden, and that was his form before any rebellion. So: if that was Satan's original form, what did the other Serephim look like?

Good to be back on the forums and I too beleive in draconic deities... I won't go into great detail in my beleifs but I hope more people do beleive like this.

The matter you quote closely resembles material written by another author quoted by Aquinas at

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1063.htm#8

Objection 3.

What he quotes is a gloss on Psalm 104, verse 26 (Modern numbering of the psalms, Aquinas cites it as 103). The Psalm verse reads "There the ships shall go. This sea dragon which thou hast formed to play therein."

Aquinas did not write the gloss (from "he who..." through "...greater in malice"). The gloss is not part of the Psalm, but was added by a later commentator.

Aquinas has already stated that angels have no bodies

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm#1

except temporary human ones for use on some missions (#2).

Aquinas discusses the gloss in in the context of what it says about affixing responsiblity for the action of the fallen angels, not as a description of their forms. Aquinas does not teach that angels are dragons.

Go into detail, that is what this thread is about.

Dragon deities?

Dragonic Religons.

Dragonic is not a real word. I think the oriignal poster meant "draconic" religions. But "dragon deities" essentially means the same thing.

A search for the word "dragon" in the King James Version of the Bible produces 34 separate matches across 10 different books written between approximately 2000 BC and 90 AD. The word "dragon" (Hebrew: tannin) is used throughout the Old Testament, and most directly translates as "sea or land monsters." In the Book of Job, the author describes the great creatures, Behemoth (Job 40) and Leviathan (Job 41). Although the latest Bible translations use the words elephant, hippo or crocodile instead of Behemoth and Leviathan, the original Hebrew and the context of the descriptions do not allow for these interpretations.

In modern Hebrew Tannin (תנין) literally means crocodile or alligator.

Good Post!

Indeed Moro;

Include the word Seraph/im to that search, there'll be a number there too...

DC would argue that these were all also references to dragons.

I would disagree, but there you go.

He would say, "well the Jews themselves translated the word to drakon when rewriting scripture into greek." (his source is one of the obscure dead sea scrolls)

This may be one case, but on the whole, when translated into Greek....the substitute for 'seraphim' in the bible was............wait for it...................seraphim.

other occurrences can variously refer to 'something that burns', or has been burned, or is related to burning....

I think the cruicial point has already been made previously....That Thomas Aquinas, and most folk of his time believed them to be incorporeal....and incapable of sin.

So to them neither Satan nor dragons can be seraphim....in the sense of 'The most high'.
They believed /him/ to be one of the cherubim....able to fall, but still incorporeal......So why the dragon allusion?

Probably because he didnt have the benefit of Archaeology and Historical study to build a reliable picture of the origins of such things.
Even with these, such things are not so clear cut as to say...."YHWH is Yam who became Yaw, and was previously Enki (or Enlil depending on which side of the bed i get out of).....and he is a dragon (meaning a quadrupedal, winged reptile of superlative intelligence and sentience...and technology. Capable of transversing the Dimensions of time and space....and immortal corporeal altered beasties.)"

Its never as easy as drawing a straight line....too many 'but's.....

That aside, I think that passage from Ezekiel was written about a very real prince of Tyre...not satan/lucifer....though it did use that epic imagery.
And the passage referring to Lucifer (besides jesus saying that he was the morning star) is an old one about Nebuchadnezzar....which would have been very familiar to the 'people' of israel and had a significance to them that made it worth preserving, both teach about 'hubris'.

Its a bit like the Croesus story from Greece,....and that old addage 'pride comes before a fall'.

Man sets himself on a par with(or higher than) the gods/God to his own peril.

However, im not a fanatical, people are free to believe what they want.