However. have you noticed that every major post DC does, he provokes frogfish, and frogfish attaks him, tagging a few people like you, and me (a while back) into the major fight.



I cannot imagine how long this topic could go on, but as i see it, we are starting to go in circles with the info. when n ew people come in, and ask "did dragons exist or not" they should just go back, and read. As far as i know, we didnt't get there yet, and we are taking major detours on the way.

hehe, i really agree. It seems we haven't come to a conclusion at all. This tread has more or less evolved around the biblical angels and the lost dragons So i guess we can ruleout the existence of dragons?

I think this is a nice temporary ending.
If anyone would like to present physical evidence, that would really spice the thread up.

Yelekiah,
A lot of posts have gone by but read Mako's post again, if we take every word in the Genesis account as the literal truth, then "yes" the "serpent" is more honest than God, exactly as Mako has pointed out. BUT, as I clearly stated, the Genesis account must remain suspect because it is simply a much-evolved version of the earlier Sumerian account, where the serpent dragon is very honest and acting on behalf of God, and it was man who refused the offer of eternal life.

Here's an example, the original War of the Worlds was written around the turn of the 20th century. There have been several movies since, that update the story to modern times.

Now if this debate was which War of the Worlds is more authetnic? The original story by H.G Wells or the latest movie, we must say the original story. Right?

Over the centuries, the Hebrew story evolved after many retellings so it differed from the same story written down in Sumeria over 1000 years before the Hebrews finally wrote the same story down. This is where the Hebrews came from so the Sumerican story WAS the Hebrew story, they just changed it a bit in the retelling. The same goes for the flood story. It took place thousands of years before the story was written down as well, and became embellished to represent a world flood instead of a local flood.

As far as frogfish, he is just being an irritant to this discussion. He refuses to look at any of the evidence I presented because it challenges his religious view, particularly so when his own Chruch confirms what I am saying by its own literature, much if which, as a child, it is understandable he is blisfully unaware of. He is totally unaware of the great theologians of his church that confirm everything I have said about dragons and early Christian beliefs. Many other people have noted the same thing. I don't have a problem with him if he is discussing secular things like dinosaurs, but he is clearly to emotionally involved with religious subjects and particularly displays his immaturity in these discussions.

UM is all about supernatural phenomena, so discussing this origin of dragons is completely in line and we probably would have gone further so far if it had not been for ignorant hecklers, chief amon them being frogfish. But it is difficult to have an intelligent dsicussion with the interuption of children who have demonstrated time and time again that they are contributing nothing to the discussion. If this one thread were made a "frogfish free zone", I think it could become useful and intereting place for discussion of "dragons" which are clearly the most widely believed in and culturally wise most important to human developement, of all cryptic beasts since the dawn of mankind.

But see, that's the problem, DC. All of the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. That's what a lot of fundamentalists do. And no offense, because you give out a lot of good info (as does frogfish), but you do provoke him and call him names. Therefore, you're just as guilty, not to mention immature. And it's worse because I'm assuming you're so much older.

Another thing...For someone who doesn't believe in dragons, you speak an awful lot about them.

I agree, never seen someone fight for something he doesn't believe in so hard in my life.

I think DC never said that he DON'T believe in them, just that if they exist it's some sort of servants of God...

What he said was that if God exists, then dragons do. But he doesn't believe in God. So he doesn't believe in dragons. If I'm mistaken, sorry, but that's what I got from what he wrote.

Well, it's really not my place say or discuss this, but i think he DO believe in some sort of higher power... But that's not the point.

The point to why he fights for dragons is that they are removed from the bible, and frogfish denies this, although corecctly researched and good proofs have been revieled...

Then how can you blindly dismiss the idea that DRAGONS THEMSELVES might be misinterpertation? If you say the Bible was, why not dragons...
DC, remeber this forum is for all, if you do not like others debating against you, then leave...

Wow! I just read through all the messages posted about this subject. It was some heavy reading

Frogfish - I just wanted to comment that I find it amazing that your are only 15. You are extremely well educated for your age. Please keep up the good work because you are heading in the right direction
For me, age is not a factor in what you have to add in a discussion. Older people can learn from younger people as well.

My opinion regarding dragons is that they may have very well existed. As mentioned before many cultures have depicted dragons. I don't think that is mere coincidence.
I'm not convinced of the fire-breathing thing though. I think this may have been more symbollic then anything.

It is just another thing that will never be known until we come up with some physical evidence. Hopefully, someday we will.

I've removed several recent posts from this forum, specifically those of zoom7500 for flaming. This topic has potential still, there is intelligent discussion here and i'd like to leave this topic open to allow this type of civilized conversation to continue.

However, if there's anymore flaming or simply throwing insults here, the topic will be closed. Sadly it's always the actions of the minority that affect the majority of intelligent posters.

Thank you....

DC, is there any SCIENTIFIC proof that dragons exist, or is your evidence only the bible?

"For the whole age of Dinosaurs,fewer than 1.000 species have been identified(almost half of them known from a single specimen), which is about a quarter of the number of mammal species alive now. Dinosaurs, bear in mind, ruled the earth for roughly three times as long as mammals have, so either dinosaurs were remarkably unproductive of species or we have barely scratched the surface." Bill Bryson

Very good point. Also, what about the species in the ocean we have yet to discover? I know that certain things sounds absurd to some, but like Rogue said we should all keep an open mind and respect other people's opinions

Yelekiah,
You make gross assumptions of my beliefs. I have not concretely stated them because I won't let me personal beliefs or experiences influence the readers of the book. They are menat to judge the information at face value. But what is most certainly reveals with overwhelming evidence, is that if the God of the bible is real, then the dragon servants are as well, which finally answers why virtually every human culture has firmly believed in them.

Do I believe most Christian religions have perverted the word of God. Yes, I have said as much. Not only about the dragons, but many, many other things. Does this mean I don't believe in God? I don't think so.

Frogfish How can you possibly think the biblical dragons can be a "misinterpetation". That would mean every world religion that has dragons would be too becasue manyh of the religions share common roots and judaism and chrisitianity are not exception (though the scriptures have been manipulated to make people think they are unique.) This is why people are so uncomfortable with the biblical dragons. Virtually every culture that has dragons also has a story about a dragon guarding a sacred tree. Obviously the Eden story in the Judao Christian religion is included among them, even mentioning the the serpent originally had legs, like a dragon. There is absolutely no question that Seraphim means a flying fiery serpent. The false Christian version of the translation, shiny ones or fierey ones, is an outright lie, because like you, they have the pagan, dualistic notion that dragons most be evil based on later, nonsensical myths and fairy tales of the middle ages. The exact same word for these creatures is also used in the account of the fiery flying serpents that punished the Isrealites. Therefore is is not possible that the original Hebrew word for seraphim being serpent like creatures is wrong. And obviously your church leaders know that too, based on their writings, although since those times the bible has been changed. These are all facts.

The winged angels of the new testament are the real myth, they are confused with the winged "dragons" of the old testament. No angel in the bible is mentioned having wings. The only entities in the bible with wings are dragons, cherubim, seraphim, or creatures, referring to the hayyot that pull the chariot in ezekiel.

The ancient Christians and Jews knew these were dragonlike creatures becasue archaeology proves this. I have cited dozens of examples, of these dragons adorning ancient christian tombstones, bible covers , church mosaic, etc.

The only misinerptation is that many modern Christians, like you, simply block this out of your mind. You haven't studied your own Catholic literature to understand this, but I have. If God is fake then the dragons are fake too, but the bottom line is, all the people who wrote the Bible, and everyone else in those times for that matter, believed they were real, and usually servant creatures to the Gods, no matter which god they believed in.

Everytime you say the dragons are only a misinterpetation of dino bones, you are blaspheming the holy scriptures that say they are real, as well as popes and great catholic theologians who state they are real in their writings. It is one thing for all the atheists here to say dragons are fake, but for a christian to do so, particularly a catholic, you are saying your religion is fake, or that its greatest leaders were ignorant fools who believe is mythical creatures (even though the bible says they are real. )

It is amazing that you, like so many fundamentalists probably believe in all sorts of other fantastic and imposible othings in the bible, yet the one "fantastic" thing, dragons, which are probably the most universally believed fantastic thing in the whole Bible, (since the whole world believed in them), is apparently the one fantastic thing you absolutely refuse to believe in. All because, no doubt, of the pagan origins of most sects of Christianity. Like all humans except the "chosen people", you must have a dualistic pagan religion with good and evil entities, even though this has nothing to do with "the real Bible". And you have picked "dragons" in your mind to be the symbol of your evil entities, despite your being so naive on this subject to know that several Popes used the dragon as their personal symbol, catholic chrurches are decorated with dragons, and the greatest theologians of your religion acknowledge they are real heavenly creatures. And despite all of this you just keep making the same statements that it is all misinterpretations. Is it any wonder why people (and not just me), think you are actling like a child? You certainly are behaving like one.

Of course not, but the thing is, you said *if* the Christian God is real. Which implies that you don't believe in God. And if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, then you don't believe in dragons. Because that's where all of your *proof* is really coming from-texts that have no scientific evidence that dragons exist. Is this right?

In my opinion dragons are just as real as God, which means they aren't... However, DC has really provided some good evidence in this matter. Being a "fellow-historian" I can appreciate the work he has laid down in his research, gone to the original scripts, looked at other writings from that timeperiod etc. But this does not mean that dragons exists, only that they are in the bible - dispite what others believe; I have not seen any good evidence that can prove DC wrong in this matter (meaning the existence of dragons in the bible).

But now I wonder if other religions also have changed their holy books in the same way christians have... Have the jews done it? have the muslims done it?

Yes to both questions, but that is another topic. I agree with you, yes, DC has shown a wealth of info about dragons in myths, etc. Does that mean they exist? No. But he gets a gold star for trying.

Any UM "veteran" realizes the futility of trying to argue the existence of God on these forums, so there is no point of me doing so here. But in the greater human population there are billions who do. And many of them will have no choice but to believe in dragons if they read the book, for if they acknowledge their sacred scriptures as "authetnic" then they must ascknowledge the authenticity of the dragons as well, or simply childishly block the facts out of their heads that dragons are an inseperable part of their theology.

But why should they want to block this out? If every culture in the world claimed to see winged angels, they would be elated for they are constantly seeking "proofs" for their religions. (In truth only a handful of deluded people claim this). Yet here we have a supernatural phenonema (dragons) firmly believed in, and claimed to be seen all over the world for thousands and thousands of years, yet these Christians attempt to rewrite them out of their scriptures. Any "real" Christian should be very happy there is this one, single universal "proof" to the existence their God, through the universal, widespread belief in the ancient, reptilian servant creatures of their God.

And at the end of the day, belief is just that...belief. This topic isn't about trying to prove God is real. And if we did prove God was real, people still won't necessarily believe in dragons. Because the Bible can be quite poetic and metaphorical at times. It's a conundrum.

Demons are prtrayed through the world...in all cultures, does that mean they are real...you deny their existense...
Angels and heavenly "humanoid beings" are protrayed throughout the world...why do you not acknowledge them?


Or I am using a scientific approach...


Read the first part of Isahiah.


What is your basis? You are the one starying away from my References to the Bible that CLEARLY prove against dragons...


Me? Ha! Just look and see who the one is that squeezes in a few insults every post...

Sorry I came late into the topic...but here are my finds if anyones interested:

http://www.creationapologetics.org/createq...diddragons.html

http://www.biopark.org/dragontribe.html

Heres a forum based on the same question topic:

http://www.thefantasyforum.com/showthread.php?t=189

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/could-dragon...isted_1823.html

I've read Isaiah, Frogfish, the Seraphim are described having wings arms and legs, but nothing to imply that they look like humans, and their name in hebrew means a flying fiery serpent, and they sing in the heavenly choir. In psalms they say the same thing about them singing praises to God, but here they call the the seraphim dragons. Is that too hard for you to understand?

You say you are being "scientific" saying dragons are nothing but dinosaur bones, but then you talk aobut believing in demons and angels with wings. Demons are nothing but mental illness, and no angel in the bible has wings, they are mistaken for regular people. Thats what the ibble really says in many places. Your winged human angels are directly taken from greco roman pagan beliefs, which is why you have the word "Roman" as in Roman Catholic.

If dragons were simply the symbol of satan as you continue to claim, why is it the personal emblem of several Popes. Why are they the gargolyes "protecting" catholic chruches? Why are they even decorating many cruxifices and other sacred catholic religious items? You cannot answer that, but I can. It is because the leaders of the catholic church knew these were heavenly creatures. And not just the one dragon called satan, but a heavenly host of the same creatures.

I hope you realize that even though you pretend to be a Catholic, you ae essentially calling Popes, saints and the greatest theologians of your religion "liars" because they all acknowledge the existence of dragons, not to mention the ACTUAL BIBLE, not the rewritten one used by the catholics. This may be difficult for a 14 year old to understand, but the Bible was written in Hebrew, and in all the hebrew texts they are talking about winged flying reptiles called seraphim, cherubim and tannyn (translated as dragons). In fact the prophets Isaiah and Exekiel both refer to dragons, and the serpent mentioned by Jesus is clearly a dragon as well, if you understood the orignal context, and the fact that the words for dragon and serpent are interchangable in that language.

So lets see, Jesus, Ezekial, Jerimiah, Isaiah, several Popes, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. John all state that dragons are real, but a 14 year old who claims he is a Catholic says all of these people are wrong and he is right. There are dozens more learned theologians of your religion that say the same thing, of course but you wouldn't even know who they were, let alone what they say to acknowledge the existence of dragons. When you ridcule me, you are also ridiculing all of them, but I think you may be too young to understand this.

If you do not want me to continously point out how little you know about your own relgion, and how you insult its greatest leaders, it is very simple. Just stop responding to this thread because you are contributing absolutely nothing to it. You are just showing how little you know about this subject. You have added absolutely nothing to the discussion since your first couple posts but obviously you crave attention even when all it does is point out you immaturity and lack of knowledge.

wow i have missed alot,

as I understand it, DC, dragons are in the original hebrew text, not the version based off of Greco-Roman translaters,
and as far as my knowledge of ancient history goes,
Frog boy, history has it as many creation myths revolve around a dragon or dragon-like creature, this creature is either the creator or the servant of a creator, from what i gather, and from what i have studied, the current Roman Catholic bible was re-written about a century ago, with many changes made since. DC is right, many Popes have used the dragon on their family shields (symbolizes power, being next to the creator for whom both pope and dragon serve) Many kings use it as a Symbol, tis a symbol of nobilty not evil, only to the not so well educated religious masses of christianity have been told since the reformation that dragons, the mightiest of creatures to ever grace our cultures, are evil.
Historically Dragons have been portrayed as being benevolent (China) and Malevolent (Europe), to being a bit of both (Sumer, Babylon, and Ancient Isreal).
Read up on your history beyond your classes in high school, i bet they haven't even told you the truth about Christopher Columbus yet.
Get you facts straighter, then speak, til then let us learn from DC has learned and aquired.

Do I have to post this again for you?

Read Ezekial 1:5-12

and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.

10 Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a man, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out upward; each had two wings, one touching the wing of another creature on either side, and two wings covering its body.

Staright from the NIV, the King James, the Catholic, the Adventist, and the Protestant Bibles...

DemonWatcher, I hope you know that the mods are watching here for name-calling, so you better keep your mouth shut...and age doesn't speak very much about intellgence...as anyone that is not ego-crazed can say that...You know, you might not be a s smart as you think...

yes, DC, that is ISAHIAH...you can stop lyong that you have read Ishiah now....Lets see....Jesus never said anything about dragons, only serpents....Demons are a mental illness? Then what are dragons, a disorder?

I need to go now, I'll continue later.

I have read that verse, Frogger, in the first version taken from Greco-Roman translation the word man, never appears, only in versions from the reformation period on was it even added.
I know the Mods are watching, and i was not calling you names, though i probably should(begging the pardon of the mods, now) age doesn't speak very much about intellgence this i am very well aware of, after all i have been through several different school systems, intelligence however defines whether you have the capacity to learn and understand complex concepts, this comes with age. A word to the wise never tell me to keep my mouth shut again, you understand. And I am as smart as i think I am, smart means one who has learned something, and i have learned much in my 19 years on the god forsaken planet. now if you wish to fight with me or even DC, create a thread for it, til then take the mods advice and DROP IT.

Wouldn't that go for u too Froggie? Just asking...

But plz Frogfish, why can't you see what we're trying to say? I do admire you, in some weird way, that u still can stand up against everyone else. However, u must realize that what proof has given u is far more greater than of those u have provided... DC has gone to the original source and read seweral other scriptures from both that timeperiod and other prominent theologians. And Demonwatcher has also tried to make the point clear about your bible has been altered with:


You must realize that the bible you're reading to day is not the same as 500 years ago, and far from those from 1000 years ago. What you're reading is a 4th generation of translation - at the very least! First there were the hebrew, then (perhaps) latin, after that OLD english which been translated to NEWER english... U see what I mean?

I still think u should go to college and read history, that way you'll understand what it means to go back to the original source and do some digging... I know u want me to go to college too, so that I might learn some english - but as I've said before, I'm from Sweden and at your age I spoke three languages... BTW, I am already at college - reading history...

Well,it certainly wouldn't be the first time you thought that spamming made your claims more credible.

This thread has had a minimum of 3 warnings and since the petty bickering and rudeness has not abated, it is now closed.