I agree but it appears that there is more than one person who has been out of line and incredibly rude. Folks have done a lot of study in this area and it may not always lead to the same conclusion as we have seen; that does not mean that you can belittle each other over the diference in opinion. DC and ASC, I hope that you pay attention, the bickering I have seen is far out of line; you have been asked repeatedly in the past to remain civil and you both risk losing your ability to post if you continue the insults, you have had more than enough friendly reminders. Everyone needs to remain civil here and in every other thread.

I see that you use 'angels' as an umbrella term, that's ok. its use has developed into one. the evidence which i quoted does make the distinction however (not necessarily my own view. but its authors - of the article in the encyclopedia)
Secondly i know that 'flaming serpents' doesnt necessarily make them dragons.....but 'dragons' like 'angels' has become an umbrella term, which gives the Draconic bloke something to write about. I personally like clarity and so have a problem with such generic terminology. Just as the flying serpents of asia cannot necessarily be called dragons, but on the other hand its ok to use the term. Actually in my recollection, and i havent read revelations for some time, try not to dwell on something so irrelevent to today (other than being a symbolic formular for cultural flux) there are two dragons mentioned... one is ridden by the whore of babylon, then tries to consume her, he is cast down into a fiery pit (or something- im sure you know it better than me) and the second is the 7 headed 10 horned beastie. which is different because it represents a Second beast beheld (or was it the first?) It is quite possible that it is a reference to Rome, which would make the number of the beast Tiberius Claudius Nero, (or so i have heard).
if my recollection is correct and the two mentioned are different, it still doesnt mean that dragons are angels or visa versa, i know - its not my argument. as i said there are many questions the dragon bloke skims over and hasnt answered. Only that one is mentioned- it is not called seraphim. The version i have read is in english which is translated from latin, from greek, from aramaic.....so the meanings of many words and concepts have undoubtedly changed, this is the nature of translation. so because seraph has in some cases (not naming any particular source) been translated into dragon (or any form of the word) doesnt mean that it held then the connotations that it does now.
i read through the thread quite carefully after my first post because i realised my error, which was to jump into an argument without knowing the points already covered. So im quite aware of the nature of abuse that has continued unrestrained from both ends. i would like to be party to neither but find it difficult and frustrating when you have an argument about a single point that is easily settled.
the point in question related to an article in an encyclopedia i have never seen or heard of until this thread, when i read it i could see exactly what the authors were saying, and reflected that Dragon bloke was correct in his assertion that the authors of the article placed a higher probability, when considering a description of Seraphim, that they match earlier ideas which derive from Babylonian mythology. This article i presume was written by jewish scholars, and if the point was that contentious then a broader picture would have been insisted on by the editors of the encyclopedia. since none is evident they must endorse this view.

I think that when dragon bloke makes points about meaning in the present english bible being slightly changed from its original format is clear. The devil, or satan is mentioned widely in medieval to modern times as the tempter in the garden of eden (just for example) yet he is called the serpent in earlier models, with no such reference to a dark lord of evil; just a spiteful animal. Another example is the notion that lucifer is the devil; many scholars accept that this mistake stems from a mistranslation. Satan too is just what one entity is said to be, it is not a proper noun, ie. not his name. but this has evolved and all three have been rolled into one to solve a theological problem.
what may anger you more than anything previously mentioned is the proposition (again not necessarily my own, but one i find interesting) is that the early jews were not monotheistic, and that elohim refers to a godhead. also that he had a feminine counterpoint. i dont know if that means that at that point they cannot be considered jews or not, i simply dont know enough about it.
What i do know enough about is the development, or evolution of Christianity, not one myself; from a historical and philopsophical perspective. The problems of good and evil, god and the devil, and how they related is something that was never clearly set, accepted by all, for quite some time. The same can be said of the nature of christ, whether he was the son of god, or its emmination. 'God' as defined as the 'Id Quod Est'. Also the identification of jesus as the Word.
None of this is relevent to this argument however so ill stop rambling....by the way none of this was skimmed from any online site...if you would like to discuss any of this more we can open a new thread to do it in.

Because of the nature of words and language it can be entirely correct and spurious to claim that Seraphim are Dragons. Clarity of both those terms are essential in discussing the point. This is something that has been lacking in this thread. it would be better to set out such statements like this.....
if we accept that seraphim are firey serpents, and that all firey serpents are dragons then seraphim are dragons. this way we can see that both terms can be used in other ways. you could counter by saying....even though seraphim are firey serpents, not all fiery serpents are dragons therefore seraphim are not dragons. another way would be ....seraphim (accoriding to isiah) are not fiery serpents, not all fiery serpents are dragons, therefore seraphim are not dragons. you could play with eventuallities.

Someone with a masters in a relevent field should be able to appreciate such a point, and would be familiar with logical reasoning. This is what makes me surprised and disapointed in the way Moondog has engaged that dragon fella. The dragon bloke is writing a book which, in my opinion, can never be adequately proved, and would rank alongside theories about aliens visiting earth and showing them how to build monumental structures. They can amass alot of 'evidence' which on its own can be verified, but in the unity of their argument, rarely stands up to close scrutiny. which is why he evades certain points but jumps at others.

I cant believe that i have spent so much time on this pap, but i wanted to clarify my position. If you made the mistake in thinking that i was either endorsing the argument (the entire argument) of dragon boy, or that i was attacking your fella unecessarily...it must stem from my own lack of clarity....and this is because i rarely can be bothered to explain myself. I believe your bloke should have known better on two counts....firstly to be riled by an argument so easily resolved, and secondly by perpetuating a cycle of abuse and mindlessness...not saying he started it, only that he, didnt rise above it.

what was the question?

Wrong Ashely, in the ancient period Cherubim and Seraphim are NEVER cllasified as angels. They are ONLY referred to as creatures, if not specifically called Cherubim, Seraphim, destroyers, or Tannin, the Hebrew word translated to dragon in the KJV and others. This is why dragons sing praises to God in Psalms and Seraphim sing praises to God in Isaiah. They are clearly referring to the same creatures for the reasons cited in the Jewish Encyclopedia article, including the acknowledgement that Jewish scholars before the birth of Christ tranlated the Hebrew word Seraphim (acknowledged as a noun meaning fiery flying serpents to the Greek Drakones. But are these only fiery serpents? No. Isaiah states they have wings, arms and legs. Enoch states they have sharp teeth, glowing eyes, and heads like serpents. The Tesatment of Solomon, antoher pre Christian jewish work describes a Drakone with wings, arms and legs, that saws huge stone blocks to build the temple of Solomon. The long necked reptilian dragons that that decorate the sacred Menorah on the arch of Titus are unequestionably seraphim or cherubim for some mere "creeping beaste" of the natural world would defile this sacred object. These dragons are even executed without spines, which according to Rabbical law made them acceptable, proving these are not a Roman addition, but a faithful rendition of the Temple menorah acknowledged by the Jewish scholars.

QUOTE lil Gremlin: "In response to your post. I believe that you see the issue from the now looking back....in retrospect if you like. when people do this it becomes easy to draw parallels and comparisons which simply do/or did not exist. Generally artistic conventions reflect how a culture views its subject, where they differ in image and symbolism, they differ in meaning and character. your dragon as i see it appears to be like the watch, from the watchmaker theory...(too generalised for a reference since there is much commentary and debate) i use the analogy to show that you seem to view the end result and not the differences between its constituent parts, which have been brought together to form the unit. I am well aware of your appreciation of the various 'sources' of dragon myths as they appear across the world, and that dinosaur bones etc. might form their ultimate source; but that doesnt mean that the Aryan idea of a dragon is entirely compatible with the chinese, or the mayan, or the egyptian. Some may be 'representations' of entities which are entirely spiritual (having no physical form) where as others might reflect a genuine belief in flying reptiles. How these people saw the entities they represent differ, so then must the entities-since they are constructs.
Undoubtedly you have done more research into the subject than i (i wouldnt write a book on it) but i fail to see how you could get passed this initial point; there is no evidence to show that dragons exist. even the word, for which you supply an accurate etymology, conjurs diverse images. Your 'dragon' requires precise definition.
please dont repeat previous postings, i have read all that you have stated previously, and my posting considers it.
what do YOU mean by 'dragon'?"

DC: All of the dragons I refer to, from the far corners of the earth are scale covered reptilian quadrapeds, with undersized wings. Limbs end in sharp talons, serpentine or crcodilian like heads usually display batteries of sharp teeth. Many have fiery attributes including the ability to spew fire. They are almost universally wise, capable of human speech, and often credited with teaching humans technology. In many cases, they also eat humans, and/or their souls particularly those consdiered "wicked". They are unsleeping guardians of sacred groves, treasures, gates to heaven, and thrones of higher dieties.

It is remarkable that these creatures can be so similar to cultures often seperated by vast oceans. And how could so many characteristics be even conceived based on only the discovery of a few bones? Why would such widely dispersed human populations with vertually no cultural similarities credit reptiles with great wisdom? What reptile of the natural world would give this notion, and why would cultures in northern regions where there are virtually no reptiles at all have so many legends aobut reptilians dragons. Dinosaur bones were not even determined to belong to reptiles until the mid 19th century, yet virtually every ancient human culture acknowledged giant reptiles.

If one were only to accept the premise that there may be certain truths behind Biblical scripture, a premise believed by respectable scientists who even write of a compatibility between evolution, a an earth billions of years old, with scriptures that somehow seem to acknowledge recently learned scientific discoveries.

If we accept an "intelligence" behind the universe, a kind of mesozoic reptile may have been the first suitable creature that could serve as useful assistants to the creator entity. This may be no more extraordinary than why chimpanzees and humans are so genetically similar, yet with mankind being so superior in intellect. Mankind, like the intelligent dragons of human legengs have been modified. Perhaps these creatures were "engineered" in that they do not age or die, to explain why no bones of them have ever beeen found, and nowadays are relegated to the oceans or wherever or whatever "heaven" is. The various sightings of Lake monsters, sea serpents and the like may be these creatures, who always manage to elude their researchers for they are highly intelligent creatures not bound to a watery environment as most people falsely believe. Therefore a complete sonor scan of Loch Ness is pointless if the creature has crawled off into the woods. In the original St. Columba account, the creatures was identified as a dragon.

This is only the very tip of the iceberg of all the book contains. World dragon legends are exaimined from this new perspective, as well as this fresh look at the Bible and related scriptures. Some very intelligent people who have read much of the manuscript have stated everything fits together extraordinarily well.

ok, again off the topic of the thread, but there are a couple of points that i have difficulty with. the first is your use of the Testement of Solomon, which clearly dates between the 1st to the 3rd century ad, and so is not necessarily pre christian....but then when did christianity begin? Since the text has been dated to this time it cannot be seen as authentic....it cannot be proved otherwise. Sounds fishy to me when i read it. heres an online link http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/testamen.htm
dragons are indeed frequently mentioned in it. though these are not mentioned in connection with the sea, other demons in other forms are however.

also, chinese dragons do not fit your description. or would this be a mistake on the part of the observer to describe the being he/she witnessed in animal terms?
as i said in my previous post, your arguments, point for point are good; but your theory doesnt consider the diferences in the way different cultures saw, and gave significance to 'dragons'.
It would be quite reasonable for you to theorise that dinosaur skulls found by men throughout the centuries, in different parts of the world gave rise to speculation on the nature of such creatures, but each reached slightly different conclusions. Your theory that they are equally at home in the air (with undersised wings!!!) in the water and on land just doesnt work unless there are subspecies. That implies evolution. If they were a natural animal 'altered' by a divine agency, like you say men were 'altered' then there is no reason to think they would be immortal. This part of the theory is flawed because it assumes a 'missing link' in human evolution. It is more likely that we evolved, as many more scientists think than support your claims; and that the dinosaurs died out, at least those that didnt become birds, crocodiles, lizards etc.
and another thing, most fossils are just bones, the archaeoptrix may prove a link to birds and dinosaurs...many scientists (i wont name any because you wont either--told you to watch that) believe that many dinosaurs evolved to have feathers as a means of temprature regulation.......

so feathery dragons.....if we accept that dragons had feathers, and dragons are angels, does this mean that angels are infact feathery??? not so sunday school eh?

sorry maybe im being rude.

no physical proof....no argument.....and please stopit with the nessie nonsense. no proof exists....and monks are known to have had strange visions after periods of self starvation and sleep depravation, and eating the wrong kinds of mushrooms....

This is my last post on the subject. its just too silly to continue humouring you. and i dont care enough about it to write a book. I have shown where i think your arguments are quite perceptive, and where they dont stand up to reason. i rest my case. you undoubtedly will persist in your endevour, and i applaud your tenacity in the face of overwhelming skeptisism. Id read your book, only once tho, and id keep it on the shelf next to my book about the Welsh ufo Triangle, and the one about the ancient gods really being aliens.

Yes they were classified as angels and that's just what they are. And Enoch states them to be angels of punishment.

As for the question of Monotheism in Judasim I've already covered that in a thread called 'Was early Christianity and Judaism Monotheistic.'

No! I posted the quote from the jewish encyclopedia in the thread earlier. I am just repeating myself. The quote was from Benzinger in the on line version. I will one more time find it and post it, but if you are so interested, simply look it up yourself. Other than relying on DC and what he is posting.

Here is the quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia verbatim. If you are all too lazy to check it out for yourselves, then you you are relying on second hand info. I think Hirsch and Benzinger, differ from the Babylonian origin record by Delitzch that Dragon boy is quoting.

You should not escape the Jewish Encyclopedia as to what it says in the Angelology section as well. It bears light on the Seraphim also. But for you who are wondering how one comes up with a dragon from the Hebrew Word Saraph look at the 118 usages of it in the Old testament and you will get a clue as to what the word meant according to biblical usage. That is how we understand these words, by examining their usages. The noun is always simply translated "fiery or Burning" with no reference to dragons at all.

You guys know(Moondoggy, ASC, Draconic, etc.) that you will never change each other's minds right?

Agree to disagree?

Since it seems that it is the same group of people who debate the "dragon" topic back and forth.

You know what Cadey ? You make a lot of sense..There's a position vacant in the Mod team (you've heard about Aquatus1?), why don't you put your hand up?
I'll be your reference/sponsor/campaign manager....if you like !!

What happened to Aquatus1? (I have an alibi)

Ha, ha cute....He's leaving his UM duties due to studies and various things....There's a thread on him if you wanna say goodbye and farewell !!

As both Gremlin and I have pointed out, the writers of the Jewish Encyclopedia article plainly state that the word Seraphim is most probably derived from the Hebrew noun, Saraph, meaning a kind of serpent sent by God to punish his enemies. That is why there is a serpent dragon painted on the Sarpah attack helicopter. Every Hebrew speaker in Israel acknowledges this. But you do not because you are NOT a Hebrew Scholar. The real Hebrew scholars have their articles in the Jewish encyclopedia and their words confirm what I am saying.

Of course, they leave the dragons out of the angelology section. This is because this is the section that explains that in Medieval times both Christians and Jews wrote these fanciful texts about human figures with wings sprouting from their backs, in imitation of the pagan greco roman statuary they saw. BUT when these scholars write of the TRUE ORIGIN of the BIBLICAL seraphim, they state they are MOST PROBABLY serpents or dragons for all of the reasons that have been stated by both them, in the Jewish Encyclcpedia, and what my book reveals in far greater details. The only reason these scholars probably didn't say serpent-dragons were the DEFINATE origin of the seraphim, as all of the ANCIENT evidence proves, is that they do not want to be assailed by Christian whackos who are very content with their sunday school coloring book, swan winged cartoon seraphim, and angels like this in general, though these notions clearly contradict the Bible.

You are a student and adherent of "Christian Mythology". And no slight is intended here on the real Christian religion derived from cannonical texts, but unlike these, your beliefs are more based on medieval Christian and Jewish Angelology and beliefs, than anything in the actual Bible or other ancient scriptures. These are the sources I am using, the orginal ancient sources. What utter gall and conceit you must have to presume you know more about this than the esteemed scholars who wrote the Jewish Encyclopedia, or for that matter, the ancient Rabbis who believed the BEST WORD POSSIBLE to translate the word Seraphim into Greek was the word DRAKONE. These are absolute facts that your beliefs based on later medieval legends cannot change.

I have pointed out other reliable sources that acknowledge the Hebrew noun Saraph as an avenging heavenly serpent as well. I have posted them here. No one in Isreal wonders what a Saraph is. This is such common iconography that their helicopter is nicknamed a heavenly Saraph serpent dragon.

Your faulty Christian Biblical concordances were written by charlatans who left out the true definition of the Hebrew Noun Saraph, becasue like you, they refuse to believe the highest heavenly servants in the Bible are flying serpents, which the ancient Rabbis themsellves translated to dragons. Do you see how phoney your beliefs really are? You rewrite the Bible to satisfy your own human ego and arrogance. You may think your are insulting me, but I am only the messenger of what the Bible really says. I am just lifting the veil that arrogant Christians like yourself, very happy with the non biblical mythology you have invented through mistranslations and outright lies, very apparently does not want to see lifted.

But people will now have an opportunity to read and underrstand the role of these enigmatic creatures that appear in virtually every human theology, not only from the Bible, but in many other ancient Christian scriptures, that the Catholic Church attempted to destroy. I am sure if you lived in those times Moondog, you would be among the Popes chief book burners and scribes, changing and destroying scripture to glorify man instead of God.

You are upset becasue I am bringing up the salient fact that creatures that you regard as "silly fairy tale dragons" are most certainly in the Bible, and not only that, but that they are the creatures closest to God. Well, sorry guy, they are really, really there, and that is exactly why there are dragons in the fairytales and religions of virtually all of mankind, and most certainly includind the Bible. And therfore they are just as real, or just as fake as everything else in the theology. A real Christian who really believed the Bible is inspired would not play the fool and deny these things are not there, when all the sources prove they are. Instead, they should be acknowledging what the Bible really says, and then decide not if, but WHY flying serpents/dragons are the highest heavenly servants, and what Christians today could learn from that fact, whether it be the reality of evolution, a single universal creator connected with the dragons that appear in virtually every human theology, or even a little humility that man, and man-like angels, may not be the greatest creatures created by God.

moondoggy , refer you to posts 199, 202 and 204.

this shows that i did look it up before your suggestion, and that the jewish scholars in said article affirm dc's point in this matter.(which is 'what the authors of the encyclopedia think')
however the article is only rated 3.12 (or something) out of 5 so may not be entirely endorsed by readership, even though the editors seem fine with it.

dc. your continual jibes and tone do nothing to support your argument. perhaps a polite word from the moderators isnt enough.

Draconics point is that we argued over the Seraphim and what they look liked, it is why I originally posted the JE, which describes them precisely as they are in Isaiah Chpt 6, as having wings, faces, hands etc... The depiction of Dragons comes from the babylonian section PERIOD but funny how you are not willing to see this either, but The JE has no bearing on the Orthodox Jewish Theology. Scriptures do and I am posting another thread to put this fallacy to rest and base it on the real meaning of Saraph. I will list over 100 records of scripture that use the word Saraph and not a reference is made to dragons. I do not need a moderator to make a case for me as you and DC apparantly do.

again refer you to posts 199, 202 and 204

please particularly note:

Because of the nature of words and language it can be entirely correct and spurious to claim that Seraphim are Dragons. Clarity of both those terms are essential in discussing the point. This is something that has been lacking in this thread. it would be better to set out such statements like this.....
if we accept that seraphim are firey serpents, and that all firey serpents are dragons then seraphim are dragons. this way we can see that both terms can be used in other ways. you could counter by saying....even though seraphim are firey serpents, not all fiery serpents are dragons therefore seraphim are not dragons. another way would be ....seraphim (accoriding to isiah) are not fiery serpents, not all fiery serpents are dragons, therefore seraphim are not dragons. you could play with eventuallities.

although the JE does describe seraphim as you picture them, it also notes the origins of the term - and that the authors favour one view over another.

also...your lady ashley quite rightly states that the passage in question refers to them as fiery serpents....not dragons....
i dont need a moderator to make my case, and none has attempted to do so. They 'moderate'.

best wishes

As you have seen yourself, when the Alexandrian Jewish scholars attempted to bring their scriptures to the Hellenistic world, in the lingua franca of the Eastern Meditarranean World, these learned and religious men selected the Greek word Drakones, which they believed was the closest literal translation to Seraphim in the greek language. Believe it or not, this is Not the word for a normal snake. A Drakone can be a large serpent or winged dragon, but both heavenly creatures that did the will of the Gods. No wonder the Rabbis used this word, for these heavenly creatures were not simply a pea-brained reptile in their minds. I never said this meant these creatures must look like the modern fantasy dragons. But archaeology shows depiections of dragons uncanniuly similar to modern fantasy dragons on one of the holiest of all Jewish artifacts, the temple menorah, that meet all of the rabbinical qualifications to be acceptable to religious law. Common sense dictates these dragons must be connected to either the Seraphim or Cherubim to be depicted on holy temple furniture. So maybe the Alexandrian Rabbis came up with a translation for the real seraphim, as valid today as it was 2200 years ago.

Who is the dragon?

Her lang was too foul for someone that says she's been to heaven and back...your problem is...what?