Well it is up to us to find out why? We can't just say its a miracle and leave it as that. We can learn a lot by investigating these things such as this, maybe it would make flying safer.

And to be on topic I think Pegasus got snobbed!

Don't worry the pegasus is alive and well in other books of mythology.

Well an even better point then....why would anyone follow a book that has mistakes? how would you know what to believe and what not to believe?

Just use your best judgement, and get the original translation.

Because we can learn from from mistakes.

But how do you know for sure? Isn't it possible that even the original translation was wrong? or that things were done with "mistakes" a word meant something completely different then what we now think of it? It's believeing in something that there truly isn't any proof of accuracy is it not? You'd be just as well to teach fairy tales they have life lessons in them as well...................

That's what faith is for.

but if the books aren't true, or accurate, what do you really have faith in? a lie? a mistake?

Back to the question . . . . dragons in the Bible

The Old Testment
Deuteronomy 32:33
Nehemiah 2:13
Job 30:29
Psalms 44:19
Psalms 74:13
Psalms 91:13
Psalms 148:7
Isiah 13:22
Isiah 27:1
Isiah 34:13
Isiah 35:7
Isiah 43:20
Isiah 51:20
Jeremiah 9:11
Jeremiah 10:22
Jeremiah 14:6
Jeremiah 49:33
Jeremiah 51:34,37
Ezekiel 29:3
Micah 1:8
Malachi 1:3
The New Testment
Revelation 12:3,4,7,9,13,16,17
Revelation 13:2,4,11
Revelation 16:13
Revelation 20:2

How do you know if the original translation isn't accurate? The mistranslations obviously are.

Unicorns . . . .

"the strength of an unicorn." (Numbers 23:22 KJV)

So what do you think? Do you think they were real? or believed to be at least at the time? If you do or don't why?

No, because it's speculated that dinosaur bones inspired mythological creatures in Greece. There is no physical evidence that dragons exist.

IMO that is what these books are. From what we know they had a different way of relaying information and interpreting it as well. They lived in magical and mystical times so it stands to reason that they would translate that as fact. When in reality they were probably not any different from the embellished fish tale we know today.

Not entirely.
The NT was written during the Roman Empire, a time where people questioned and saw things from a scientific perspective.
However, it was written during a time when pious fiction was gaining popularity.

i have to agree with curiousity they are nothing more then fairy tales

The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by “unicorn” is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes.

The Revised Standard Version translates re’em as “wild ox.” The verse in Numbers is translated as “they have as it were the horns of the wild ox,” while the one in Job is translated “Is the wild ox willing to serve you?” The Anchor Bible translates the verse in Job as “Will the buffalo deign to serve you?”

The wild ox was a favorite prey of the hunt-loving Assyrian monarchs (the animal was called rumu in Assyrian, essentially the same word as re’em) and was displayed in their large bas-reliefs. Here the wild ox was invariably shown in profile and only one horn was visible. One can well imagine that the animal represented in this fashion would come to be called “one-horn” as a familiar nickname, much as we might refer to “longhorns” in speaking of a certain breed of cattle.

As the animal itself grew less common under the pressure of increasing human population and the depredations of the hunt, it might come to be forgotten that there was a second horn hidden behind the first in the sculptures and “one-horn” might come to be considered a literal description of the animal.

When the first Greek translation of the Bible was prepared about 250 B.C., the animal was already rare in the long-settled areas of the Near East and the Greeks, who had no direct experience with it, had no word for it. They used a translation of “one-horn” instead and it became monokeros. In Latin and in English it became the Latin word for “one-horn”; that is, “unicorn.”

The Biblical writers could scarcely have had the intention of implying that the wild ox literally had one horn. There is one Biblical quotation, in fact, that clearly contradicts that notion. In the Book of Deuteronomy [33:17—BT], when Moses is giving his final blessing to each tribe, he speaks of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) as follows: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns....”

Here the word is placed in the plural since the thought of a “one-horn’s” single horn seems to make the phrase “horns of a unicorn” self-contradictory. Still, the original Hebrew has the word in the singular so that we must speak of the “horns of a unicorn,” which makes it clear that a unicorn has more than one horn.

There were a few people that were interested in the higher levels of knowledge but for most of the population fables and mythical creatures were the comunication of the day.

Ok, well that makes sense then doesn't it? Would you think that all things in the bible are that easily (I use this word loosely as your post made my brain hurt for a minute or two) explained as something normal?

Well if we wanted to be loose with the term, there is a "unicorn", or goat with a single horn in the book of Daniel.

Also, put down sources


Actually, there were a lot of people interested in literature, science, philosophy, etc. That's why people of the Renaissance tried to mimic them.

A second theory is that missionaries to Africa saw a rhinoceros and equated it with a horse because of limited references. Early missionaries often exaggerated their findings as one, Morandus Titus, reported that he saw natives with eyes on their stomachs.

Back then this way of relating was normal. Today we can see them as fairytales and fables and translate them quite differently. Many of us N/B's and N/C's can look at the same passage from any religious book and translate it quite differently than someone of that faith.

Also, two believers may have two entirely different interpretations.

Absolutely true!

I brought up the question of Adam&Eve once and had the discussion/debate over the 'serpent'. What was managed out of it was what I think answers alot about what a 'serpent' is and it's difference with a 'dragon'.

The whole time I just thougt the serpent was just a very dangerous(poisonous probably) cunning, average ordinary ..... how do I say it without being skeptical?.. SNAKE. And Eve was obviously hallucinating. Dragons do supposedly "speak" don't they?

I thought about this too! It got me thinking though, there could have been a deer with one horn back then too. If you believe evolution that would make perfect sense.

Depends on before or after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, PFlack (according to the Christian Bible that also has the OT )
Before they ate the apple, the serpent had arms and legs, which some may describe as a dragon. Afterward, these limbs were taken away as a punishment from God.

So god punished the serpent? wouldn't the imply that the serpent was working for god as well? if that is true then god set them up? that's not very nice

Of course it was. If you believe that the serpent is Satan (it says this in Revelation), this is even more evident in the Book of Job. Satan is a servant of God, and he has to have God's permission before he can do something wicked to Job.

If you were the only entity floating around in darkness and eternity until recent creations, I think you'd lose your sanity after a while. God perhaps did this as entertainment. (jk, jk)
Actually, God performs tests. However, if he is all-knowing, he knew that they would fail the test. It's almost like, what's the point in telling someone not to do something if you already know they will disobey you.

Me too i stand with the girls ( curiousity and bacca) namaste Sheri

This is what I was thinking. Awww how cute.

Does anybody watch the movie Red Dragon- That movie was sooo good. This is where you see the scripure verse also.

I believe in Dragons- But as dinosaurs in a way to speak. I would think they lived. I hope so anyways.

Exactly, Yele. I have long been a critic of the omnipotent God. He just doesn't make sense. You can hide his nature behind the name of "mysteries" or declare the need to believe the unbelievable in the name of faith but if we have God-given intelligence, it JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

If God made sense- it wouldn't be as fun building a relationship with him. ya know like a boyfriend that you are getting to know and fall in love with. Aww it is like this.

Never had a boyfriend. If I did, I wouldn't understand that, either. I'm a man.

Well duh - I knew you were a guy- but girls are just as complicated. he he.

Substitute gf in the sentence. lol.

Maybe it is hard to understand.

sorry 101 but that doesn't make any sense to me either.......can you try to explain what you mean a bit better

When you first are a Christian you do not know the whole Bible or have a close relationship with God.

When you read and know more and more of him- you get to know him.

Then you ask him why he did what he did- explanations arise as to the why and reasons.

Then you will get to understand him more.

But no one will understand God completely. He is complicated. Growing in God is like learning to ride a bike- with training wheels then you need no training wheels, and eventually you fly like in ET.

God expects us to read about him and pray to him- this is when we understand him. Not reading and going - this cannot possibly be- Of course we may think that- but we then have to really understand why we can't believe. Maybe the reason we don't believe is because are minds are not spiritual enough- the more you become like God- not questioning everything- because you know the answers- You understand him.

To question God's reasons always is to doubt yourself the answer that lies in the question.

And all this reading may make some turn away from the Lord.

i dunno i think this lamb is ready for the slaughter....

if you never question anything you become a slave to the ideas and orders of the people in charge, if no one ever questioned anything there would still be slavery, and a million otehr unjust and bad things
you might be okay with living you life the way someone else wants you to, but i personally don't think that's living very much at all...
i like to keep my eyes and mind free and open

I said you could question- but to question until you deny the marvel of God- to find secular reasoning instead of spiritual this makes the questioning lead to the destroying of your faith? Yes?

Perhaps- but when you read did you ask the Holy spirit to guide you with his understanding of the word- it provides clarification a lot of times.

For some, that destruction is considered a good thing.
edit: This topic has nothing to do with me btw.

oh, i see...
so you can question to an extent but not when it comes to god...
so you can't question the oragins of your religion...
the authority of it, or the history?

Oh okay. I thought that you. Nevermind I will ask you.

Who would want to do this? If you believe yes why question?

If you don't then to question and to make others deny their faith to me is something I do not understand.

People study religion- Pastors go to theologian school. They learn a lot. But they never question God even while they know the stuff some do? Why is this?

I'm fairy certain they do at some point or another. It's pretty natural to question what the truth is. If you didn't, why then would you ask the Holy Spirit to guide you? Shouldn't you have faith that they will do that on their own?

101 reread your post do you get the implications of religion now??? Why would your faith be so important to your religion? namaste sheri

101, most of these pastors never get a real account of history in a religious institution. They get dogmatic veiws that don't allow for things that go against there teachings. Some of the newer religious leaders have gone to a secular university and you can tell by the way they relate to religion. The more you learn outside of the church the more you can be real about life and spirituality.

How do you understand God through such a convoluted and mistranslated text as the Bible?

I wonder if we need the bible at all if the Holy Spirit can provide us with answers in a one-on-one conversation or showing us 'the way' through personal experiences. After all, the Holy Spirit is also God, right?