I begin this thread because it has been suggested and argued over that the Hebrew word "saraph" means "dragons". Young's analytical concordance lists over 100 usages of this word in the canonical old testament to mean "burn", or "burnt", "to be burned" etc... Confirmation of the accuracy of these scripture is verified in the Englishman's Hebrew concordance. I list these for those who want to read them and see for themselves, not only what the word means, but also to view the context as well.

Gen 11:3, Gen 38:24, Ex 12:10, 29:14, 29:34, Lev 4:12, 6:30, 7:17; 7:19, 8:17, 8:32, 9:11, 13:52, 13:55, 19:6, 16:27,28, 21:9, Num 19:5,8, 31:10, Deut 7:5,25, 9:21, 12:3, 12:31, 13:16, Josh 6:24, 7:15,25, 8:28, 11:6,9,11,13 Judges 9:52, 12:1, 14:15. 15:6, 18:27, 2 Sam. 30:1, 23:7, 30:14, 31:12, 1Kings 9:16, 15:13, 16:18, 2Kings 10:26, 17:31, 23:4,6, 23:11,15,16,20, 25:9, 1Chron. 14:12, 2Chron. 15:16, 34:5, 36:19, Neh. 4:2, Psalm 46:9, 74:8, 80:16, Prov. 6:27, Isaiah 1:7, 44:16,19, 47:14, Jer. 7:31, 19:5 21:10, 32:29, 34:2, 34:5,22, 36:25,27,28,29,32, 37:8,10, 38:17,18,23, 39:8, 43:12,13, 51:32, 52:13. Ezek. 5:4, 16:41, 23:47, 43:21, Amos 2:1, Micah 1:7.

So, any who are interested please study these references and feel free to post what you think the word "Saraph" means set in context.

Well Ive just read thru a few of those youve listed and Saraph does appear in copntext to have meanings like fire , burning, fiery etc, but also to be used to describe assocciated trades like cook, potter, and torturer, also though it seems to have something to do with chariots, maybe speed and heat are lumped together as similar? These, well impressions I suppose, were picked up reading the new international version of the bible. Is that what you were after?

moondoggy dog, i refer you to my post 216 in the 'was satan right?' thread for a continuation of the existing argument, which seems to have found a new home.

id like to concur with the above post, the references show that the term was used in a myriad of ways....such are the complexities of language.

so do you, my canine friend, agree that some references to seraphim relate to fiery serpents?

Im not saying that they should be viewed as jrr tolken presented 'dragons', as dc would have us believe by the way.

...on consideration of the argument id like to postulate the view that the word seraph was indeed used in hebrew as evidenced in the above references posted by you, also that the fiery serpents mentioned (also termed seraphim) were adopted by jewish culture and mythology because of their experience with babylonian, and thus Sumerian culture.
if the source of the word Dragon lies with jewish translators, who translated hebrew texts in Alexandria 3rd Century BC. Then the term Seraphim when used to describe fiery serpents, means Dragon. In this context.
No doubt the word when used in other contexts were translated more apropriately, which is why blacksmiths, torturers etc are not called dragons.

This is not in any way an attempt to support anybody else's argument. it is a point i make, and it stands alone.

please respond sensibly.

is there any relationship in with the word "Serif"? like those little flairs on letters that can sometimes look flame or serpentine-like...

Possibly, Serif is the word for the Egyptian fiery flying serpent used by people reluctant to say it exactly the same way as the hebrew firery serpent the Saraph. Common sense dictates that these two words for the identical type creatures, must have a common origin. I suppose the little flourishes of serrif script look like little fiery serpents.

And Moondog, please tell us why all of these other reliable sources recognize the word Saraph as a fiery flying serpent from the Bible? And why does the Israelie armed forces acknowledge it, Jewish Encylcopedia, etc. The only sources that do not recognize it seem to be your Christian Bible concordances that seem to have a problem with the idea of God's highest servants being Fiery flying serpents.

From the Encyclopedia Mythica: The root of Seraphim comes either from the Hebrew verb saraph ('to burn') or the Hebrew noun saraph (a fiery, flying serpent). Because the term appears several times with reference to the serpents encountered in the wilderness (Num. 21.8, Deut. 8.15; Isa. 14.29; 30.6), it has often been understood to refer to "fiery serpents." From this it has also often been proposed that the seraphim were serpentine in form and in some sense "fiery" creatures or associated with fire.

From Wikipedia:Saraph (שרף) , is the Israeli name for the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter, in its Israeli Air Force configuration.
It is named after the biblical snake, Saraph, called "fiery serpent" in popular English translations: "And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole". Numbers Chapter 21

There are three records I believe that do. And they are mistranslation altogether and I will be posting proof of this with reference in short order.

Very Good, the genative will give you the reference in the context as to who or what the word applies. Bravo!

My references are geared for Hebrew studies, not greek. The reason I referenced these is because language is important and these are an abundant usage of the word saraph to mgain an understanding of the word in context rather than just relying on commentary.

Yes, language is very important in these studies, far more important that making a tally of how many times in the Bible Saraph is a verb (to burn) and how many times it is a noun (fiery flying serpent). So this is why we use the very important LANGUAGE aspect, and what do we find?

We find that the Egyptian LANGUAGE there is also a serrif or seraph, same pronounciation. And this word means "fiery flying serpent" in Egyptian as contained in the Pyramid texts which would evolve into the book of the dead.

And we also find that the Jewish Rabbis of Alexandria translated these Saraph (plural seraphim) to the Greek word Dracones, which can be either a flying serpent or a more traditional dragon as seen on the HOLIEST Jewish temple furniture after the Ark of the Covenant. These dragons decorate the base of the temple Menorah, and they are carefully sculpted to be in accordance with rabbinical laws, so are not pagan Roman additions.

Any serious scholar would put these facts together, as did the lettered scholars of the Jewish Encyclopedia article and conclude that the Seraphim were originally fiery flying serpents or drakones as they appear in the only surviiving ancient Jewish imagery. Scholars would also recognize the Sumerian origin of the earliest Bible stories that actually list Sumerian placenames, and facts like Abraham was Sumerian. And in this religion there is Adam, a Garden of Eden, Mushushu dragons that guard the gates of heaven, thhrone of God, sacred trees of wisdom, and are ridden by the high God of both Sumeria and Judasim.

And you dismiss all of this, and remain obstinate that the word Saraph has nothing to do with flying serpents, and from the earliest times, Jewish Seraphim looked like Greco Roman winged dieties? Do you think you are convincing anyone here? You are certainly not "defending Christianity" because the fiery flying serpents are a long held Christian belief as many scriptures document. Jesus himself makes them his personal symbol. So you do no service to Christianity by denying facts fully documented in the ancient Christian scriptures. Your ideas of cartoon angels as Seraphim stems from medieval times. All ancient references to seraphim indicate they are fiery flying serpents/drakones. The facts speak for themselves.

in ref to the temple of the menorah....check this out

Now to return to the Arch of Titus. In truth, it is far from clear that
the Menorah depicted on the Arch is actually that which was in the
Temple. The most basic problem is the base. The base as depicted is
hexagonal, while according to Rambam and Rashi, the base rested upon
three legs. Additionally, the base contains depictions of a sea dragon
which would more or less run afoul of the commandment not to have
idols. Although for this last issue, the Tosefta in Avodah Zara does
allow for smooth (no scales?) sea dragons, it still seems a bit strange
to have this in the Temple, in the Holy section.

To answer the first problem R. Herzog, the former Chief Rabbi of
Israel, offered that the legs broke during transport and the Romans
replaced it with this base. (This is somewhat questionable as this type
of base does not seem to be common even among Roman vessels of the
time). Or, some claim this was a Hellenstic change done to the Menorah
or the legs are really there and the "base" merely surrounds the legs.
Be it as it may, what results is that this is less than conclusive and
perhaps not even a Jewish invention.

This leads us to another issue, the State of Israel. The State of
Israel adopted as its emblem the Menorah as it appears on the Arch of
Titus. This very Menorah with the sea dragons and the "wrong" base.
Rabbi Herzog aside from his comments above, questioned the use by the
State for this very reason. He said, that they should use a three
legged Menorah instead. What is curious is that the State actually
slightly altered the original version. Originally, it was as it more or
less appeared on the Arch. Subsequently, the dragons or animals on the
base were changed from facing each other to their current position
which makes them look more like jumping gazelles than sea dragons.
Perhaps, this was to accommodate the religous sensiblities of those
like R. Herzog.

Sources: Hans Lewy, Olmot Nifgashim, 255-58; A. Berliner, Divrei Yemi
HaYehudim B'Rome, vol. 1 107-110; Josephus, Wars of the Jews 6,8,3
(357); id. 7,5 (148-152); id. (158-161); the best work on the Arch is
Yarden, "Spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus" Yarden attempts to
reconstruct the Arch to its original state and discusses all the
various issues with it, including the change in the State of Israel
emblem. What is surprising is that Prof. D. Sperber's article on this
fails to use Yarden which leads to a few errors in Sperber's article.
Sperber's article can be found in Minhagi Yisrael vol. 5 171-212. See
also, the fairly recent work on the history of the entire temple
destruction Elef Dor by Y. Horowitz vol. 1 380-397 where he discusses
some more stories of others who assumed the vatican still houses the
temple vessels. See Sefer haYovel l'Kovod Shmuel Mirsky 220-21 for R.
Herzog's position.

so more likely to represent hellenistic imagery than jewish?

dont like geting info like this online, prefer to do my own research but since i dont know as much as this guy here's the link
http://www-gatago.com/alt/messianic/24517248.html

point to the doggy dog i think.....
the base of the temple of menorah as seen on the arch of titus + elsewhere has been changed.
the originals would not match your dragon description dc.


oh and this
Some clues to this mystery are suggested by the ornamental designs that appear in Titus' Menorah. Though the images have been eroded over time, it is possible to discern vestiges of such figures as eagles and fish-tailed sea serpents or dragons. A similar base has been excavated from a Roman temple at Didymus, now in southern Turkey.

The eagles were, of course, the best-know symbol of Roman sovereignty. The dragons were a popular decorative motif in Roman art, and the whole candelabrum seems to testify to the strong Roman influence.

from
http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=48
so hellenistic/roman influence?

wonder what the original really looked like


My own studies in the Hellenistic period show Israel as we know it changing hands between the Selucid, Greek and Egyptian cultures many times. The bible as a source relates the influences israel took culturally from many areas. Herod is well known to have been philhellenic, so it maybe that he reconstructed his temple with greek stylistics in mind. (he incorporated a gymnasium into the complex, something attributed by Josephus as a contributing factor in the rebellions under judas in 80's BC.)

The greeks ran alexandria during the time of the translations, and the hebrew texts were translated into greek, it may be that the jewish scholars were looking for an 'approximate' translation of the word....the nearest recognisable word.....doesnt mean that the greek and jewish ideas of the creatures (if they can be called that) are the same.
Some words in one language have no direct translation in another...my language is welsh (see the bottom left ditty) there are a number of words in welsh that have no direct english counterpart, 'heraith' is one 'hwyl' is another, there are many more.
with this in mind we can see that seraphim, although it aproximates to 'dragon' and may have a source in babylonian mythology...can mean something slightly removed from its source. also just look how 1 word in the same language can change in meaning in just a few years. DC's assertion on the origins of the word may be correct, but at the same time how that word was used by jews may differ. Jewish mythology , religious metaphysics may share the same root as the Sumerian - which had its own root elsewhere, but it changed.


the word seraphim has been used to describe firey serpents. but not all firey serpents fit DC's physical description of dragons,
The evidence he puts forward (temple of menorah) may be considered serpents, possibly aquatic, does not match his physical description of dragons (since not quadrapeds) . The Slavic, Norse, Chinese depictions and ideas about dragons are highly symbolic, their appearance has meaning often relating to ideas of masculine/feminine, seasons, geological and meteorological phenomenon, they do not match DC's physical description of dragons - or his explaination that dragons were 'altered' from their original dinosaur form by a divine agent- as humans were from apes. his claim that they are immortal has no basis, if they were natural dinosaurs evolving along until 'altered' in the same way as us, which amounts to an evolutionary leg-up, this still does not support the immortality theory. EVOLUTION is a FACT, this implies MORTALITY; there is no proof to the contrary.
People found bones and speculated, THIS may be the common root of the dragon myth...and it is a myth.
other reptiles may have walked the earth which do not survive now, but that is like calling a crocodile a dragon. In a vague sense it is also true, BUT what DC proposes is preposterous. His book will ruffle no feathers amongst the educated, but will find many X-files believers and crop circle nuts taking him seriously.....and this is his motive, to be taken seriously, to be admired and seen as an authority.
there are many here that share his desire.
I joined this group out of amusement and interest at first, delighted at the arguments that ranged over the various topics; i like a good constructive debate and see clarity as essential.
I can see that both sides of this argument cannot find common ground or even agree to disagree and so resort to cheap jibes and insults aimed at each-other. maybe they both get their kicks that way.

enuf said.

Somebody actually made a "angel/dragon" thread and didn't derail every other angel thread...good job

Grem,
I am quite aware of the Menorah information you gleaned from the internet and it fully supports what I have been saying, though like moondog, some Jews are upset with the notion that the highest heavenly servants are unquestionably reptilian in form.

I have been to Rome many times and have seen the monument. These dragons have taloned feet and wings, but as I have said before every culture adds their own conventions, but most, have the same common characteristics that we see here, and quite consistent with the Sumerian prototype of the Jews.

The fact that the dragons are compilant with Rabbinical law proves they are not a pagan Roman invention. The unusual form of the base is not like any known Roman design. Eagles are also mentioned in the Bible in connection with heavenly creatures. The Bible repeatedly states that the furniture of the tabernacle and temple were decorated with Cherubim, and the original Sumerian Cherubs were Mushushu dragons. Just becasue the former Israel was ruled by Hellenistic leaders does not mean they could influence the decoration of the holiest temple furniture WHICH NO PAGAN WAS EVER ALLOWED TO SEE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Like Moondog, you really lack suffiecient knowledge on this subject to discuss it intelligently. And also like Moondog, you make very obvious attempts to ridicule that have no foundation, for example, claiming that I insist the Hebrew Seraphim-Drakones must look like something out of Harry Potter or the Welsh flag. Although in truth, and whether you like it or not, the Welsh archtype is incredibly like the earliest Sumerian ones that undeniably had an impact on Hebrew theology.

This book is based on a very specific premise which I mistakenly thought you comprehended. And that is, the acknowledgement of an intelligent creator entity behind the universe that revealed himself and how mankind arrived here, to one nomadic group that came from one of the oldest human civilizations, that of Sumeria. If you believe this entity to be nonsense, and we are nothing but the result of a opportune mixture of chemicals at the right temperature, than fine. There are many esteemed scientists far more intelligent and knowledgable than you who believe the Genesis story is an attempt to describe evolution by ancient man, and that this wisdom was revealed by this intelligent creator entity. And most humans believe we are more than an accident and that there is a foundation to their religious beliefs.

But you actually do not know what I really believe. And that is not important. What is important is that I can prove, as I have here, that the ancient Jews and Christians, as well as most other ancient human cultures believed in intelligent reptilian creatures that served a higher creator entity. I NEVER said I could prove they were real, or if God is real, but I can make the arguement they are an almost universal aspect of every religion. And just seeing some bones, and somehow believing they belonged to reptiles, (something Science did not do until the mid 1800's) merits inquiry. Yes there are Christians and Jews who do not like these ideas because of their human arrogance, but their feeble and amateurish attempts to hide the fact that their holiest scriptures state that giant singing reptiles are their God's highest servants, cannot stand in the light of the overwhelming evidence. This of course, does not make any of it true, but if there is any truth behind it at all, intelligent flying reptiles must be a part of that truth, or they can just as well throw out all of the anceint scriptures.

You have no idea of my motives either. And I do not need the "fame". I am already a known authority in subjects that have nothing to do with this. I have been on television many times involved with history channel type programs, one of which was even filmed in the Snowden? region of Wales. One of my books is available in four different languages, still in print after 15 years, and sold in the British Museum book store. Only two weeks ago I was paid to lecture at a traveling exhibition of famous archaeological treasures. But as for the dragon book, there will be no fame, for it will not even be published under my real name. Maybe later, but not while I'm still the director of a museum deep in the Bible belt of fundamental Christians that shoot people for far less than what they are going to read in my next book. Being from Wales, you may not even know what I am talking about.

As for these forum discussions, I have gleaned much additional material that will go into the sequal, and it will help cover all the bases when amateur Biblical scholars attempt to discount the facts I have presented. I agree that it is unfortunate there is so much animosity among some people here, who lie and insult when they feel their religious beliefs challenged. Mederators usually do nothing, and indeed, Moondog has gotten away with some of the foulest and perverted things I have ever seen posted on these forums. So when the attacked person has no recourse but to give these hecklers a "taste of their own medicene" they become branded as the "bad guy", seemingly because their responses are uncomfortably too true.

All the art and so forth is based on the artist view. Yes it is obvious in the text that over 100 usages of the word have nothing to do with serpents or dragons. Again I gave description of these Angels as put forth from th book of Isaiah, not your childish remarks which you have once again brought to this thread which imply cartoons. This thread is about a definition of a Hebrew word. People can at least read many many other records that employ this particular word and make up their own minds. This thread has nothing to do with christianity a well. So please quit accusing me with your false reasonings.

Well, you made some rather good points. But the description given of these seraphim in Isaiah is accurate. Yet no one wants to utilize it for record. But will utilize other sources such as artwork etc... They are mention once in the OT, so not much is known. But, understanding the 'root' word in any word is key to defining it, that is the purpose of this thread.

No and no an no and no. You refuse to reference the angelology side of the JE and the JE does speak of them as angels with faces and hands etc... You pick and chose what fits your theory. Also the JE is not the authority for the Jewish faith no more than the Britannica would be for a christian. Neither are the Apochrypha that many use in mystical forms of the religion, but they are not authorized. So, I do not utilize them as well. My replies will be with canonical texts and not the rejected books. So, yes I do dismiss some things as a matter of choice, because the source has been in question for 2000 years on those particular books. This is the only source you have to tie the word drakones to a Hebrew word. Serpent in Hebrew is "Nachash" and it means "snake". You see this makes sense too. Because snakes are still here as they were then. But Dragons, I do not think so, no more than Bigfoot.

on the egyptian creature seref.

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.

From the 'esteemed' JE

about moses' staff, with a fiery serpent on the top....

An image set up by Moses which is said to have healed those who looked upon it. When the people of Israel, near the close of the desert wanderings, were marching southward to go around Edom to the east of Palestine, they murmured against God and against Moses. As a punishment "fiery serpents" (compare Isa. xiv. 29; ***. 6) of the region were sent against them, and very many died of their poisonous bites. On their showing repentance Moses was bidden to put upon a lofty pole an image in bronze of such a serpent, which, according to II Kings xviii. 4, was known as "neḥushtan." The sufferers, when they looked upon the image from any part of the camp, were healed of their sickness (Num. xxi. 4-9). This "brazen serpent" became an object of adoration to Israel, and so remained until Hezekiah destroyed it by breaking it into fragments (II Kings xviii. 4).

sounds like cobras or mambas to me.

Please reflect on the description of what YOU think dragons looked like, and the criteria for their classification that you posted elsewhere.
SEA DRAGONS adorn the arch of titus - they do not match your earlier criteria....not quadrapeds....also clearly symbolic, and not depictive of seraphim.

ill stop there to let you digest this before continuing.....

http://www.dia.org/collections/ancient/mes...amia/31.25.html

please see for depiction and description of babylonian dragon.....no 'undersised' wings....does not match your criteria

please see
http://kia-maat.chaosmagic.com/tiamat2.gif
for representation of sumerian dragon.

in all these cases........ a, dont look like welsh dragons
b, look more like 'composite' creatures like griffins, or egyptian seref.


NOT REPTILIAN

challenging these representations as not authentic is valid, only no authentic variant exists....if so please support claim by providing image with refs.

I never connected Hebrew dragons with Babylon. Nor did the Jewish Encyclopedia. It seems both you and moondog did not understand that the 3rd theory in the article had NOTHING to do with Babylon. You see, just as you correctly noted, the Most Probable theory was listed last, so we had no choice but read of the Babylonian theory beforehand. But this does not connect the two. They were referring to a non dragon fire god. The Hebrews had left Sumeria long before the Babylonian empire was established.>

The picture you are showing is not Sumerian and it is not Tiamat. The person who posted that possibly knows less than you about this subject. That is a deipiction of Ahriman fighting Ahuramazda, with the winged human-like pagan god cropped out. This is the very legend that John of Patmos based revelations on. This is a much later Perisan frieze from Persipolis. You will see the ancient Sumerian dragons ca. 4000 BC in my book. As I said before, you are a smart guy but you no nothing aobut this subject. I doubt there is anyone who has studied this more than I have. Though it will be a couple of more months, remember "I wrote the book on the dragons of the Bible".

The Egyptian Serref is NOT a griffin. the pyramid texts specifically state it is a fiery serpent, exactly like the Hebrew Seraph. The hieroglyph of the serref is to small and stylized to get much out of it. It may look like a griffin , or even the Welsh dragon. You should be familar with the shape.

The fiery flying serpents (seraphim) of the book of numbers cannot be cobras or mambas becasue they have wings and can fly. There is an excavated Hebrew libation bowl that depiects the staff of moses. The serpent has wings and apparently legs or arms.

Dragons do not always have four legs, sometimes they are more naturalistic with only two. The sea dragons almost always have two front clawed arms, but not always back feet. This does not change the fact they are depicted on the HOLIEST piece of Jewish temple regalia after the ark of the coveant. Though the ark had dragons too.

It proves nothing that the dragons vary somewhat. Cartoon angels vary somewhat also, depending on the artist. Even in China they vary based on the artist and the time period. Though as I mentioned before, the earlier dragons look just like Sumeian ones complete with wings. The thing you should be asking yourself is why there ARE dragons on the holiest of Jewish objects, dragons of the "approved" Jewish type, no less.

The description in Isaiah NEVER gives them a human form.

It is said they have a face. A dragon has a face.

It is said they have wings. Dragons have wings, especially ones in which their name in Hebrew means fiery FLYING SERPENTS as the word Seraphim means accoding to many scholarly sources including the JE.

It is said they have arms/hands. Dragons also do, ending in sharp talons but talons nontheless that can pick up coals from the altar.

It is said they have feet. Dragons have feet also.

The word serpent is often used in literature even with the creature is a more traditional dragon with wings and arms. The serpent in the eden story had feet, and probably wings before they were taken away as a heavenly punishment.

As far as the Root, Nobody knows if the origin of the word is the creatires themselves, which is very possible considering fiery serpents have the same name in the pyramid texts far older than the Bible, or the fact that they are "fiery". I believe this refers to the ability to spew fire, such as the sea dragon leviathan, or the "dragon-horses" in Revelations. Or God himself is described spewing fire when he rides the Cherubim, though this may be a confusion with the "dragon" and not the God.

It does not matter that an Apocrpyhal source was used. The point is that Ancient Jewish Rabbis were translating the word Seraphim. It would not have mattered if it had been an ancient cook book. At the time Enoch was widely accepted. That is why Christianity wa so popoular, it is largely based on Enoch. The point is that Enoch was among the fragments translated into Greek at Qumram. And therefore we found Seraphim translated to Drakones. If Isaiah had been found translated into Greek, the word would also have been Drakones. You should be intelligent enough to understand this.

And please answere these questions:

If drakones were not heavenly creatures, WHY is there a HOLY way to depict them that satisfied Rabbinical laws?

Why are there drakones depicted on the holiest of Jewish religious articles? The menorah, and as my book will reveal, also the ark of the covenant.

Why are there dragons residing in heaven in the Apocolypse of Baruch? A popular early Christian scripture.

Why did the chruch continue to depict dragons guarding the throne of heaven, just as the Seraphim are described, in chruch art that was made by monks and approved by priests?

Why did Jesus tell his disciples to be as wise as serpents, if he only meant mindless snakes of the natural world?

Why did Jesus say the fiery flyijng serpent was his symbol?

the image of God riding dragons that you mentioned puzzled me. is it permissible or possible to depict god in hebrew law and culture?
if the image does exist it can be interpreted in a number of ways, one valid possibility is this
since dragons represent evil and chaos, god is seen triumphant, or in control of said beasties - and so brings order.
could this be possible?

also found some more interesting links when i got back from work- they demonstrate that babylonian and Sumerian ideas of dragons did not limit their representation to Reptilian attributes, though they are undoubtedly present. Intangible fears prompt man today and yesterday to try to give form to them. if you live near the sea, they might take on marine attributes, if you live in the mountains they may resemble birds of prey (not because you fear them - but imagine giant eagles and what they could do to a man.) if you live in an area where snakes are prevelent they would take more serpentine features, etc. lions
bulls, crocodiles, all have been included for obvious reasons, look at the composite chinese dragons....
the greeks had many myths, many composite creatures, as did the egyptians, the babylonians, sumerians, assyrians, hittites, EVERYBODY, and not just those that have been later classified as dragons. this is what i mean by you approaching the subject retrospectively.
as you know zoroaster was parsi and not sumerian. his metaphysics of dualism was not shared by the sumerians. you quite correctly link christian ideas of dragons with angramianyu, but do not persue the theory further in time to their migration from the east. this negative spirit is not always depicted as dragon-like as reliefs show.

many depictions of dragons vary too widely worldwide, like their applications, to stem from a single source, it is more likely that the term has been used time and time again as a lazy approximation applied to complex, and often very different entities.
many are decidedly birdlike or griffin like:

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pob/pob_images/pob_fig055.jpg

also see this....many respected authorities have approached the subject rationally, do you discount all research that has gon before you?

www.richeast.org/htwm/dragons/dragons.html

hogarth and clery on babylonian dragons
Hogarth and Clery (1979) expanded on this myth, saying:

The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat is paralleled throughout history in legends of other lands. The dragon, while often attributed other names and other qualities, usually symbolizes evil or primeval chaos, which might explain a frequent association also with the sea and with storms--such unpredictable and violent forces of nature stir human dread even today. Similarly, the monstrous size attributed to Tiamat, -indeed to most dragons, seems to confirm that human psychology has altered little through the centuries we all tend to exaggerate what we find mysterious and -threatening, yet seem to feel the need to visualize what we dread in some familiar form or another. (p. 17)

One of the unusual things about the Epic of Creation is that the outcome [Marduk's success] is "a foregone conclusion... [everything happens] in an orderly fashion" (Dalley, 1991, p. 228), according to preordained rules.

Most of the forms in which Tiamat was originally depicted can be related to ordinary animals feared by local people. The scales of reptiles, the fangs of venomous snakes, horns, legs of the lizards of the region, and claws and wings of a bat or bird of prey added together to form a very dangerous, mobile creature


Ninurta was one of the most successful of Sumerian heros--in the hymn of Gudea, he is attributed with the subjugation of not only a dragon, but a six- headed wild sheep and a seven-headed lion. (Ringgren, 1973)

six headed sheep, seven headed lions did they really exist too?

In all cultures, humans use their imaginations to devise ways of explaining the things and events they do not understand. In ancient attempts to explain the creation of man, the world, and solar eclipses, dragons have been seen as almost the ultimate evil; and as such, their physical aspects were commonly portrayed as a combination of body parts of animals feared by those ancient cultures. Some animals commonly featured in these combinations were snakes, birds of prey such as hawks or eagles, and lions. It was these fear-inspiring meins of the ancient dragons, combined with the evil deeds attributed to them, that led ancient cultures to fear and hate dragons.

REFERENCES

* Dalley, Stephanie. (1991). Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Grimal, Pierre. (1964). Stories from Babylon and Persia. New York: World Publishing Company.
* Hogarth and Clery. (1979). Dragons. New York: Viking Press.
* Ions, Veronica. (1968). Egyptian mythology. New York: Hamlin Publishing Group.
* McCall, Henrietta. (1992). Mesopotamian myths.
* Kramer, Samuel Noah. (1956). From the tablets of Sumer. New York:Falcon's Wing.
* Kramer, Samuel Noah. (1972). Sumerian mythology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
* Ringgren, Helmer. (1973). Religions of the ancient Near East. Philadelphia: Westminster.

returning to the Brazen serpent point check this out for a realistic representation of what happened.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17162/17162...es/illus-16.jpg

It is more likely that the story shows moses educating people about the things to avoid, which cause burning pain. We are dealing with a people in migration passing through unfamiliar territories, camping rough... exposed to local serpents.
such staffs are commonplace in areas where snakes may have to be wrangled...many wise men are depicted with them, even saints. They are very practical.

if you prefer to see the story as a fantastical fabulous tale of serpents with wings, thats ok too.
ps...from the 'esteemed' JE about serpents in this case with wings....

It is not necessary to discuss here the nature of the serpents (See Seraphim) that attacked the pilgrims in the desert; for it is not specifically said that one of these, but merely a "serpent," not further defined, was represented in bronze.

The question of the form of representation is, however, of importance as a matter of religious history. In this narrative ascribed to J and E modern criticism sees an account of the way in which the serpent-worship, surviving till the days of Hezekiah, took its rise. What was its motive? Evidently the serpent in this special cult was regarded as beneficent, as was frequently the case among the Semites generally (compare Animal Worship). But at the same time the serpent was becoming odious, as a type of subtlety and seductiveness (Gen. iii.), and the two conceptions were felt to be inconsistent. The wilderness narrative does justice historically to both of these aspects of serpent nature and the corresponding beliefs. Add to this, that all sorts of image-worship were being discouraged by prophetic influence. In this special instance it was particularly obnoxious to the reforming party in Judah; because Isaiah, who was its main inspiration, had already spiritualized the idea of the "flying serpent" (Isa. vi.), seeing in the "seraphim," or swiftly changing lightning and cloud-shapes of the sky, a mode of the divine self-manifestation similar to that of the Cherubs. The name "neḥushtan" suggests some interesting questions. To judge from the form, the name belongs to an old period of the language, but the explanation of it as a "brazen" object appears to be due to a species of popular etymology, "naḥash" signifying in Hebrew "brass" as well as "serpent." It is likely that neḥushtan as an object used in the ancient Semitic cult was a species of totem-pole, surmounted by the reproduction-perhaps in woodâ€â€�of a serpent, and was placed before tents or rude dwellings as a means of driving off evil spirits, who were supposed to be lurking everywhere.


i know i have researched the subject less than you, and have to rely on other authorities to prove my points, but my instincts in this case, i believe, are correct. Do you know precisely where in this story your libation bowl fits in? ive got a guess.
also i try to support my argument in a way that presents where im getting my info from, so that it can be verified.

please deal with these points before moving on.

it is often thought by historians that the babylonians adopted much from Sumerian culture. Also jews spent a long time in Babylon, which also had a 'recognised' impact on their own beliefs and culture. you have alluded to this yourself many times.

One should take some Hebrew language courses before one opens one yapper on what one thinks "saraph" means. "saraph" in plural means "burning ones". There is no linguistic tie to this word at all to a serpent. It can be applied to anyone or anything that burns or makes fire. I am tired of dealing with ingorance.

About Baruch. You seem to think no one has read these books whose names you throw aroudn. Let me warn you I HAVE.

Yes there is a reference to a dragon in Baruch BUT IT IS NOT A SERAPHIM. It is and I quote First of all it is located on the 2nd Heaven which is an angel prisonhouse for those who fell with satan, and it is also said to be HADES. Nowhere NEAR the throne of God. God's throne is on the 10TH LEVEL OF HEAVEN, we're talking about the 2nd level turned angel hell here. And since you're quoting from Enoch and Baruch you had completely IGNORED the many refernences to FALLEN ANGELS and SATAN BEING FALLEN. You can't pick and choose what you feel like in texts. Satan is an angel, a fallen angel, deal with it. The dragon is an animal of punishment, and STILL not the firey serpents with eyes of fire and sharp teeth found in Enoch which are ALSO angels of PUNISHMENT in a prisonhouse for the accused. Not near God's throne, and NOT a Seraphim.

In fact there IS a refernce to a dragon. In the Apocalypse of Abraham Azazel (Azael, Asiel, Aziel whatever name you choose) shows himself first as a black bird, then as a dragon with 7 heads and 14 faces. He is considered by Abraham as an angel of HELL, but in reality he is the FALLEN ANGEL as said BY THE ANGEL whose chose Earth as his dwelling place over Heaven and it is said at one time worked with satan as an ACCUSING ANGEL because he and a portion of the others were handed over to satan by God because satan asked for them. I think you need to remember also that angels can take on ANY form. Is Azazel's true form a dragon? No. He's also been referred to as half goat half man. Is that his true form? NO. He is a WATCHER/IRIN QADDISM/GRIGORI. One of the HIGHEST angels in Heaven 'who is equal to ALL of the angels in Heaven' is how they are described, the 4 left God consults before doing anything and they make the the twin angels of judgement in the supreme law courts of God, and their form is LIKE THAT OF A MAN, AND THEY ARE ALL THE SAME IN APPEARANCE IN CLOTHES AND IN FACE, AND THEY ARE OF EXTREME HEIGHT.

Not to side track too much, but it is interesting to see the impact Daniel had on the King of Babylon. Babylon was the cultural learning center of the region. It is believed that the astronomical knowledge of the Zodaic and its associated Messianic prophecies were brought to Babylon by the Jews. It is speculated that the Persian Magi gleaned this knowledge in the courts of Babylon. This explains why the Magi knew what celestial event to look for in the night sky that would announce the birth of the Messiah.

I agree that The Babylonians, like the hebrews adopted religious ideas from Sumeria, but the Hebrews departed Sumeria before the Babylonian empire. Both Jehovah and Marduk (both based on the original Sumerian) had winged serpent dragons that gurded the tree of life, heaven, the throne of God, and rode on their backs across the heavens. They are Mushushu in Babylon and Cherubs and Seraphs in Judaism.

Although when conquered by Babylon Marduk, who was essentially Jehovah was worshipped. But for many years with the Persian conquest, they were exposed to Zoroastrian beliefs, distinctly different than the Sumerian religions. Here, the dragon is evil, and the Christian Satan is based on the Persian Ahriman dragon. This is what I alluded to: the great post exile change of beliefs after the return from Babylon. These beliefs so opposed traditional judaism that most of these scriptures were dismissed as Apochrypal, though they are embraced by Christianity becasause Christianity is so closely based on this religion, to the point of plagiarizing some of its mythologies verbatim.

Do not forget that the Holy Torah condemns astrology as an abomination and curses all "Magi".
daniel is not considered a prophet to the Jews, and much of the legends about Daniel are not accepted by Judaism today.

The Magi are an important part of Christianity because the Hellenistic pagans that flocked to the religion BELIEVED in Astrology. The Star, lowly birth, kings bearing gifts, and most important, a human son of a God just like Alexander the great all made Christianity "acceptable" with the pagan Hellenistic world.

good points made by both sides here so far, but you have replied to my shortest post, and have not dealt with the points i raised above it.

interesting sidetrack moondog, would also like to know where this info comes from. does this imply though that neither sumeria or babylon - with their cultures based on agriculture had no knowledge of astrology, or their own version of the zodiac before influenced by the jews? The messianic role in the zodiac is interesting in this case, and in considering christianity as you point out. also central to mithraism-which was on the rise before and at the time of christ and the early christian church.....
seems to me to be a chicken and the egg scenario (but i am not as familiar with this as either of you- it seems)....without verifyable dated proof either way.
if you know different please give evidence...dates are important in this case.

The Libation bowl is believed to have been captured booty from Solomon's temple. This cannot be proven as there are no hebrew characters on it, but it shows in winged serpent on a pole, which may have legs.

Isaiah's Seraphim are described in too much detail to suggest they are merely lightning, and their roles of guarding the throne of God are IDENTICAL to the winged throne guarding Mushushu dragons of Sumeria. It is these same dragons that guard the trees of eden and escort Adape that are the basis of the Cherubim as well. The fact that there were Rabbinical instructions on how flying serpents/drakons could be depicted strongly suggests these are the Cherubs and Seraphs that we know decorated the temple appurtenances.

It is agreed that common, venomous snakes were odious to the Hebrew shepherd culture. It is for this reason that the beneficent serpent-dragon of the original Sumerian Eden story becomes evil by the time the Hebrews finally recorded it. And this adds more weight that the Brazen Serpent was certainly the image of a winged, heavenly serpent dragon, as supported by the libation bowl.

It is for the very reason natural snakes were so disliked, that the idea of the Hebrews venerating the image of one is highly unlikely. On the other hand, the the Sumerian and Babylonian Mushushu were venerated because Marduk was believed to assume their form. It is probable the Hebrews believed Jehovah also assumed the form of the Mushushu/Seraph dragon, based on several accounts of fire spewing from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils, exactly as described of the Leviathan. Jehovah is essentially the Hebrew version of Marduk. Both slay a symbolic Chaos serpent, and have Mushushu dragons as their closest associates. Is this contradictory? No. There is much confusion because Tiamat is NOT a dragon, nor is Rahab. The piece of art you has shown is NOT Tiamat, but Ahriman, and is frome an entirely different culture that took a very different view of dragons. Depictions of Timat show simply large multi headed sea serpents, very different from the quadrapedal winged Mushushu, still given a name connected with "serpents" by the hebrews because of the serpent-like neck and head.

All of this just confirms that the seraphim were probably based on the respected winged and quadrapedal Mushushu, attendants of the high God in the land they originated, then the natural snakes they despised as shepherds.

Actually there are only a very few cultures that "fear and hate" dragons. The nordic europeans and the persians are the only cultures that come immediately to mind. For centuries Christianity was not Anti dragon either save for one particular one. St. Augustine spoke admirably of them but warned all of those who admired the dragons to rather, praise the God that created such magnificent creatures.

Most of the Christian anti dragon material comes from the Golden Legend. Saint George is not connected with dragons at all until this was written. Dragons also help saints in some legends. It is also incorrect to believe dragons were always dispised in Medieval Europe. On the contrary, the fighting prowness of such creatures inspired them to become the charges of coats of arms. Dragons frenquently decorated virtually every sort of object in medieval life, and I have a large collection of such objects. This would hardly be the case if they were so "hated and despised" as you imagine. And this is from a time when virtually every European was a practicing Christian.

There has been a gross generalization among most authors of dragon books that all the Eastern dragons were good and the western dragons bad, but this is not true at all.

You are correct that the Jews did not depict God. The images of the Cherubim as dragons come from Christian sources, such as illuminated Bibles. It is remarkable though that this iconography is virtually identical to the Sumerian images of essentially the same God on the same creatures seperated by almost three millennia. In both cases God's throne is attached to the back of the dragon. This cannot be an image of God battling the dragon, for these images illustrate instances where God is simply "riding" the creatures.

i agree that dragons are not always hated and despised, but they inspire fear. They are included on arms for thier prowess this is also true, being welsh i understand this, so are eagles, boars, bears, lions etc....the text I wrote does not make such a claim. The quotes i used generally mention the 'dread' inspired by such beasties, only hogarth and cleary conclude that - and they are in as good a position as us to assume and interpret the images they see and writings they read in relation to how the ancients felt about the dragons....which isnt a very good position at all.

my reference to the depiction of god riding the dragons, when i say triumphant i dont imply that god had to battle with them, only that he is greater than them and they are subject to him. as i say - bringing order. it is not good enough to say that he is simply riding dragons, most art - including illuminations - are highly symbolic and full of allegory and meaning...to dismiss this or see them as simply subservient to god in a hierarchy is to neglect the dialogue which is always present in such imagery.

you didnt deal with my next observation about representations of dragons reflecting the experience or terrain of the peoples.

admitedly dragons are not always negative, though in tales this generally is up to them to decide in each case. And in many cultures they do take on negative attributes, sometimes with a good counterpoint which may also be a dragon - like the bulgarian male and female.

depictions and ideas of dragons do vary from culture to culture, many are griffin-like or bird like. Most are composite animals, incorporating aspects of more than one animal. even views of one entity vary in the same culture, dependant on time, place and experience of other cultures - hence the quote relating to depictions of tiamat.

dont forget the six headed sheep and seven headed lions.....were they real? the point is valid. (i wont mention proximity to radiation...the idea is absurd)

ok......please respond to these points (those in the original post and this which attempts to clarify the earlier points), actually giving references where appropriate.

next, what about the other post.

That's it ignore it because you have no comeback. How typical.

As to dragons generally being based on creatures feared in the environment, this is clearly contradicted by the dragons of Northern Europe. Norse dragons in particular are often very snake like yet the snakes and lizards of these regions are all small and inoffensive. Even the European Viper is hardly very dangerous.

And while there are all sorts of other monsters, like the multi-headed sheep and such, these are generally very localized save for giant humans. On the other hand, the archtypical winged, reptilian dragon is uncannily similar around the world. And while few people then as now probably believed in multi-headed sheep and lions, dragon-like cryptic animals are still among the best known.

An whereas is is a scientific precedent for winged, toothed and tailed pterosaurs that appear remarkably like impressions of dragons, most of these other "fantastic beasts" are completely implausible. A griffin is a good example. It is possible these were inspired by a combination of possibly seeing dragons from a distance, to understand they are large flying creatures, but found only beaked skulls of flightless terror birds or cerotopsians.

Classical griffins often have distinctive reptilian characteristics. They have spines on their backs and bellys scutes as we imagine a dragon would have, and when paint is present are often green in color, unlikely for a mammal but commonly seen in reptiles. On could surmise that the animals in the sky appeared reptilian but the remains they found (never dragons), like the beaked cerotopsian skulls, implied the large flying creatures had beaks, and therefore birdlike wings.

I do agree that art and scripture with God having mastery over dragons enhances that God's prestige and the perception man has of his power. As much is said in the ode of the Leviathan in Job, and St. Augutine's comments as I previously mentioned.

As to tiamat, the huge sea snake, sometimes multi-headed is fairly universal. To remove any doubt that that very popular image which you have shown before frenquently claimed to be Tiamat is a Perisian rendition of Ahriman, you will see that this dragon
s is well endowed with a penis, somethig Tiamat, as a female and mother of marduk, somehow seems out of place.

I ALWAYS have a comeback. You certainly have never stumped me. You claim to be an "expert" on Enoch and believe it was written in Ethiopia, blisfully ignorant of its true origins and that it was present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Moreover, you falsely claim I am wrong, when in fact, i am merely recitings statements of fact documented in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

But as for this discussion with Gremlin, it is hard to keep up with all of is posts, though I never intended to ignore something.

If anyone doesn't have a comeback it is you. Here we go again, If the Seraphim are not similar creatures to what we call "dragons", then why did the learned Alexandrian Rabbis tranlate their name to Drakones. If they looked like angels, why didn't they call them angels? After all, Angelos is a Greek word.

True! However, there is a difference from what was forbidden and what was prophesied about in the stars. In Genesis they were also for "signs". The Sanhedrin canonized the book of Daniel. Note here: Chpt 2:4b-7:28 were in Aramaic. Not sure why.

Each tribe of Israel had an "ensign", which was a depiction of a major constellation. The high priest had 12 stones that each represented a major constellation as well. The first believed reference biblically is in Gen 49:,9,10. The Word "feet" is regel in Hebrew, the reference of the Lion is connected with what we know as Leo today. The Messiah has always been connected with the term Lion of the tribe of Judah. The star regulus is the star in the feet of this constellation. A triple planetary conjuction occured several time in this this constellation with Jupiter being the King planet. This occured in 3 BC several times because Jupiter was in retrograde motion. This event is what is believed to be the celestial sign that announced the birth of the King of the Jews.

Ref. The witness of the stars. E.W. Bullinger, Zoroastrianism and Judaism G.W. Carter, The place of Astronomy in the Ancient world F.R. Hodson Planetary, lunar and solar position 601 BC to 1969 AD Bryant Tuckermann.

You have a point there, I never liked the greek language for much of anything other than, so much material is greared around it. I never like the translation of the greek "Jesus". I prefer the hebrew or aramaic Yeshua. The televangelist ruined me on that word. Far too religous for my blood.

No you ARE stumped because you have no comeback to what I said and you resorted to childish mockery of my knowledge of the Enoch books to which you know you I'm right about.

Moondoggy, Astrology was taught by the fallen angel Barakiel in Enoch's time (before Noah). These angels taught the Egyptians, Babylonians, Summerians, etc and they ALL had astrology. In 2 Enoch it states by God that 'the horoscope is made for every newborn'. It was a secret of Heaven. The 8th level of Heaven is the Zodiac belt and the 9th level is the Houses of the Zodiac something only used in Astrology for the discernment of the Ascendant and the 12 house sphere.

I agree that the star of bethlehem was a planetary conjunction, which occured before the death of Herod, given the gospel account more credibility. But this sign was for the pagan world, not the Jews, because astrology and astrologists were strongly condemned in the Holy Torah.

Incidentally, I recall that a "dragon" is also an ensign of one of the tribes of Israel. I wonder why, since you claim there was no such thing despite the Bible being filled with accounts of them. But unlike you, they knew the heavenly Cherubs and Seraphs were a kind of serpent dragon, and therefore a respectable symbol.
c

You have never stumped me, and I am not even sure what you are referring to now. But as for Enoch, anyone can go to the article about the Book of Enoch in the Jewish Encyclopedia and see that you have no idea what you are talking about. Enoch is a Jewish apochryphal text found in both Greek and Aramaic fragments among the dead sea scrolls. It was NOT WRITTEN IN ETHIOPIA by ETHIOPIANS! The most complete copy was found in Ethiopia in the 19th century becasue the Catholic church outlawed it everywhere they had control. Your Ethiopian origins of Enoch is one of the most ridiculous things ever stated on UM and you must have come up with the idea yourself for no serious scholar would ever say something so absurd.

sorry dude your reply is insufficient for a number of reasons, norse dragons have their origins in giant serpents, most tales are strongly germanic/finnish in origin....and became altered with contact with other similar cross cultural traditions. most texts were written relatively late 12th 13th century, The book of the danes for eg. stemming from a great and ancient oral tradition that can be found accross northern europe, maybe having a similar source to the sarmatian - and others in the area. serpent cults are widespread, globally....often in later stages they develop into what u call dragons, but this is the nature of oral traditions- and the evolution of cults as the je demonstrates in the article about brazen serpents....which you still have not engaged. by the way you only use one culture here because you know that you cannot support your argument universally.
or with proper references.......no refs, no proof, no argument.

that tales of griffins developed from 'seeing dragons from a distance' is as weak as it is absurd, you clearly dont appreciate what they were or signified.......

anyone rea