liked ur posts on babylonian and Sumerian myths CS,
uve supplied good refs for people to go and investigate further.
I think that the view that different settlements in the region had their own versions and descriptions of the entities, again it shows the nature of stories and myth. depictions differ through time as well as geographically...very true.
The terror birds u posted were interesting too, wonder why the largest flying beast was a reptile tho. surely a birds' components, hollow bones and feathers would make larger versions more able to succesfully fly than pterasaurs.....perhaps there were other factors limiting their size, or perhaps we still havent found the biggest yet......?
Ive heard modern stories of sightings before, very intriguing...would be awesome in the true sense of the word if one was found alive.

Has a pterasaur ever been found in conditions that preserve skin and fine details, is it possible they also had feathers, or an early form of them.
The same goes for other dinosaur beasties, do we know conclusively that they didnt have them?
The reason i ask is that a view ive heard is that feathers developed from scales as a means of controlling bodyheat, and fast beasties found that when runnining they added drag, and a little lift, by flapping arms they gained stability, more speed (perhaps) and eventually more lift. when jumping around they found the cushioning effect that such appendages gave (like chickens)....finally developing into short flights, which grew longer as the creatures evolved....

The theory, whilst possibly not true, may explain the feathery archaeoptrix, did they evolve from pterasaurs or independantly.
which came first the feather or flight? did both feathery beasts and leathery winged fellers fly at the same periods?

I dont know very much at all about all this....which is why i ask. I remember the bbc documentaries Walking with Dinosaurs, they had some theory like the one above, and using computer sims, tried to reconstruct species, even postulating T-rexes with feathers as one theory we cannot disprove...
Twas a wicked series...didnt catch em all, but the ones i saw were fascinating.

I am not going to go in to each culture with you but I will say this. I will not believe that people back then will put all those happenings together and pull a dragon out of there minds. A claw jaw or skull looks nothing like a large lizard there are many animals they would know of that would have large claws and jaws. I have herd about those snake worshiping tribes before and what you my think look like wings might be a hood of a lizard and the masks of dragons are more like embellishments. I wouldn't call any of those peoples religions cults just like I would never call Christian's cultist.

any way these people have bin contaminated by history wile others in the past where not. things start some where and a dragon is some thing you cant explain very well when it comes to why when some one made it up. Most explanations are as vague as the idea that there where dragons at one time thats one thing we can agree on.

Some think its are privative ape subconscious that makes these lizards so monstrous. We brought are fears with us when we came down from the trees I remember was some thing some one said on one of these documentary's. we put all are fears in to one animal scales, lizards, wings, fire and sharp claws and teeth. I cant say that dragons in same way didn't exist they may have in some sort of way but I do know the facts which say they most likely didn't.

Not quite sure what u are trying to say here bigdog,
The view i have settled on about the existence of dragons is this, not saying its the only explaination so u must believe me, just posing a possibility.
Dragons are Myth.
They are human inventions.
The word dragon seems to be a bit of an umbrella for a number of different manifestations of beasties. Some we now know are real, and have classified as reptiles of one sort of or another; the rest are make-believe.
Some of these are just monsters to scare folk, some mythological with stories attached to them which are usually highly symbolic.
Some of these mythological ones have crept into theology.

I agree that the idea of dragons that WE have most likely, almost certainly never existed. But our ideas of dragons are a result of an evolution of ideas.
Classification or the act of classification has been one of the problems, when a beastie (a) within the mythology of a tribe (x) is observed by foreigners(y) with their own ideas of monsters- the beastie (a) moves over into the mythology of (y) and enters via its classification system.
in other words, beastie (a) could represent one held in awe, even used as a totem by say an ukranian tribe(x)......
a visiting greek(y) hears stories, and maybe sees pictures....
ah so the creature has 4 legs could be many things
ah so the creature has wings.....could be a manticore, a pegasi, a griffon, a dragon...etc....
ah so the creature is nasty and kills sheep.....that rules out the pegasi.
and the creature has feathers, and a beak.......ah so its a griffon then.....

and so the classification is made.....it may be that version from (x) is the size of a small dog and hunts in packs, or is gigantic and lives in caves, or breathes fire, or has eyes on its butt, doesnt matter, because (y) has made up his mind its a griffon. It could signify something ancient, have no relation to reality, may not even have a story attached to it, an image which (y) recognises something familiar would be enough.
he goes home and tells his mates that griffons also live in the ukraine.
multiply this by hundreds.

think i confused myself abit there....but u may get the picture.
The greeks, like many cultures had creatures which were made up of the bodyparts of other beings.......giving em wings was a particular favourate.

" I have herd about those snake worshiping tribes before and what you my think look like wings might be a hood of a lizard and the masks of dragons are more like embellishments. I wouldn't call any of those peoples religions cults just like I would never call Christian's cultist."

you seem to attach negative connotations to the word cult. sorry bout that, use what ever u like. They may not actually worship the snake tho, just as the yedzees , whilst singing and praying to the lord of the earth, who we equate with satan, they are not satan worshippers, but they believe that it is neccessary to honour him- because he is given his job by god, and to stop him doing bad things to them. They have been persecuted and treated like an oddity by christian missionaries etc because they are believed to be devil worshippers.


"any way these people have bin contaminated by history wile others in the past where not. things start some where and a dragon is some thing you cant explain very well when it comes to why when some one made it up."

which pple have been contaminated by history? may be just me being a bit dippy, not quite sure what u mean. do u mean history with a cappital H as in the study of? why were others in the past not contaminated by history? i dont get it, i need u to clarify what u mean.

when i get a better sense of what ur about and what u mean ill be in a better position to answer ur post. Ur quite entitled to ur opinion about dragons, their origins, and whether u think finding dinosaur bones played any part in prooving their existence to people, or even started the whole thing off. Im not having a go at u. i just dont quite understand ur point.

I don't necessarily say I hold all the info I post as being absolutely true but we can't really ignore too much info as I feel that there are possibly hidden truths are attatched ,many of these tales... I'm just posting interesting bits of info that are relevant... to creating a huge pool of data on the subject from which to choose possible realities... Just like with people who've seen aliens... just because I don't think I've seen one ( but I think I've seen a UFO in the seventies... There were hundreds of people who also were documented to have seen the same one in all the papers the next day....) doesn't mean that other people couldn't have seen them or had something to do with them....

the sheer weight of evidence..history...legends of these dragons.. thru out history very much puts it to the percentage that in all likelihood they must have existed in some form... whether it was some few remaining dinosaurs.. or Phorusrhacids ... or interdimensional.. like ghosts... they must have existed in some form... We are missing huge chunks of history... lots of pertinant history has been destroyed in religious ...political purgings... censorship... so we need to do a lot of
clever research profilers ...to get even a hint of what happened in the old days... maybe mediums may help??? to help recover relevant info..???


Or get into Noetics ... where they seem to insist that we create our realities... and percieve only what is relevant to our spiritual journeys... ... that only now exists!!! they may have a point.. seeing that present psychology therapy works on the premise of going back into your past memories ,... thinkings and reworking your perceptions... experiences.. feelings... to heal your present...

"Bleeding" people continued for centuries after the world was known to be spherical and well into the era of reasonably modern maps.

"Bleeding" people continued for centuries after the world was known to be spherical and well into the era of reasonably modern maps.

Pterosaurs are not even considered dinosaurs. They are an entirely different kind of animal, just as a crocodile is related to dinosuars, but not dinosaurs. Pterosaurs, dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds (and dragons) are all archosaurs, and not lower reptiles like lizards snakes and turtles. Thus, a croc is more closely relatre to a bird than a lizard. Pterosaurs are covered with fibers similar to mammalian hair. Archaopterex is closely related to theropod dinosaurs. Some of these are believed to have feathers, though they are not flyers.

thanx for the info dc, as i said i know little about dinosaurs, thought the term was generally applicable or accepted as such, though i realise they are categorised differently by those who study them. dinosuar, dinosaur....too similar can confuse...

so dragons ar archosaurs eh?????

not heavenly then?

... just came across this... maybe their visions were a little influenced by the weed... there has been some info out there at how Cannabis was part of many ritual of old...
in particular dragon slaying....
http://www.thelostword.dk/index3.htm

"On the picture above, a branch is taken from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and is given to two men dressed like two Amanita muscarias. Notice the many birds. If given the choice, birds will eat the seeds from Cannabis sativa before any other seeds. In other words birds love Cannabis seeds.

When tea is made from the dried Amanita muscaria and ingested on its own, the first results are nausea and vomiting. When ingested together with Cannabis sativa, this sickening part of the experience can be avoided. This is what the myths of St. George is about. The slaying or taming of the dragon, while a virgin and a pot of gold is liberated. The slaying is in fact an act of purification. Cannabis sativa purifying Amanita muscaria, thus the epithet "self-purifier" in relation to Soma in the Rig Veda. "

lol
so the rastas got it half right then........

There is the Kimodo Dragon, scary, very scary! Who would have mistook the Dinosaur for a Dragon anyway? The Cavemen from the Geico commercials? Hmmmm! Maybe the Gecko is really a Seraphim. Quick Draconic write a book on this!

Grem, I'm surpised how little you know about the Old testament. These angels are flesh and blood creatures that eat manna in heaven, and regular food on earth. Look of the word manna, and you will find the scripture that says this. Dragons too, eat manna in heaven, and animals on earth, including people.They produce sperm too and some crave women. Angels are simply men awarded immortality to serve God, just like the dragons. Thats what the original Adam story is about.

Spirit angels came to Judea with Alexander the Great and Hellenism.

Of course dragons are archosaurs. The Tannyn (dinosaurs) of the 5th epoch of creation are called the same word as the Tannyn (seraphim) that sing praises to God in Isaiah.

Ignorant pagans did not understand concepts like mental illness so imagined invisible spirits both good and bad called daemons. The Christians called the good invisible demons "angels"

I think you are finally "losing it" moondog. The Biblical dragons are in the Holy Scripture despite your ridiculous, pagan, Sunday School mythology. Your adolescent attempts to insult me are only insulting the real God and Bible you never knew because your brand of Christianity is nothing but pagan Greek and Persian blasphemies.
You had better hope the Cherubim-dragons of the Bible who judge the wicked and blasphemers are really just those fat baby angels on Christimas cards.

But they really aren't.............

I apparenty know very little compared to your superior understanding of the source......
tell me where is heaven? is it a physical place inside creation, or a physical place outside creation?
Is God Physical or spirit? does he live inside creation?
when angels are in heaven do they change into physical beings?
are dragons angels?
when dragons are in heaven are they spiritual then physical on earth? or always physical?
Im always interested to learn more.

For a modern angle.... I wonder at the Mothman... Thunderbird Dragon connection???




http://www.boudillion.com/Moth/mothman.html
The main difference between the Mothman descriptions and the Thunderbird artifact is that the artifact is crafted with a head, while the Mothman is typically described as having no head. The general body shape - other then the head discrepancy - is identical. The most striking similarity is the "eye" placement. The Thunderbird artifact has two holes placed on the upper chest, same as Mothman descriptions. Presently, these "eyes" on the Thunderbird artifact are being used as string holes to lace the figure to a museum stand. I inquired of the Museum Staff if the holes were meant as "eyes", or were lacing holes. They did not know, but gave their opinion that as "eyes", they were very compelling. I also asked if the holes were part of the original creation or were added later as lacing holes, but the staff was unable to provide information on this.


so the thunderbirds may not have been the dragons of history as the dragon's head ( looking a little like a tyranasaurus with personality) was recognizable...


http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page43.html


http://www.articlecity.com/articles/pets_a...ticle_202.shtml

"Many dragons are said to have guarded treasure. Since only humans use currency, it’s a curious attribute for a dragon to value precious metals and gems.

Modern dragons ..the reptillian shapeshifters ?????

http://educate-yourself.org/zsl/killingannunaki23oct03.shtml


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread28214/pg1
"
Reptilian shapeshifters mentioned in the Emerald Tablets

Far in the past before Atlantis existed,
men there were who delved into darkness,
using dark magic, calling up beings
from the great deep below us.
Forth came they into this cycle.
Formless were they of another vibration,
existing unseen by the children of earth-men.
Only through blood could they have formed being.
Only through man could they live in the world.

In ages past were they conquered by Masters,
driven below to the place whence they came.
But some there were who remained,
hidden in spaces and planes unknown to man.
Lived they in Atlantis as shadows,
but at times they appeared among men.
Aye, when the blood was offered,
for they came they to dwell among men.

In the form of man they amongst us,
but only to sight were they as are men.
Serpent-headed when the glamour was lifted
but appearing to man as men among men.
Crept they into the Councils,
taking forms that were like unto men.
Slaying by their arts
the chiefs of the kingdoms,
taking their form and ruling o'er man.
Only by magic could they be discovered.
Only by sound could their faces be seen.
Sought they from the Kingdom of shadows
to destroy man and rule in his place.

I read this in the internet version of The Emerald Tablets of Thoth which purports to be the writings of Thoth, the builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza. It appears to be a description of reptilian shapeshifters in the manner mentioned by David Icke.

The actual quote is from Tablet VIII, The Key of Mystery


In January of 1909, over 100 witnesses in at least 30 towns in the New Jersey-Pennsylvania area reported seeing the “flying devil.” Various witnesses claimed it had a piercing scream and glowing red eyes.

In the 1950s through the 1970s, a bipedal reptilian creature, nicknamed the Loveland Frog or Lizard Man, was reported in Ohio, New Jersey, Kentucky, and South Carolina. Witnesses say it was over seven feet long and ran at speeds up to 40 miles per hour. At about that time appeared Mothman, a creature resembling a bird, but missing its head, with red eyes where its shoulders should be. This one flew after the fleeing witnesses at up to 100 miles per hour. (Mothman became the inspiration for the 2002 movie The Mothman Prophecies.)

Mexico and Puerto Rico have Chupracabra—“goat sucker.” Mongolia has the Death Worm, which is two to four feet long and kills its victims with venom or electric shock.

And of course, Nessie sightings continue to appear up to the present.

Recent Nessie developments

In the early 1930s, a new road was built around Loch Ness; thereafter the frequency of sightings increased. There have been about 3,000 sightings since 1933. Until that time, stories of the monster had circulated mostly locally.

In 1933, 50 sightings of Nessie were reported. On 22 July, 1933, a London couple was driving down the road when a large, cumbersome animal crossed the road in front of them, perhaps 20 yards from the water. This incident was unusual because it was the first recorded sighting of Nessie on land. The report appeared in the Inverness Courier, and then in the Scottish national newspapers. After this, interest in Nessie grew internationally. Three more important sightings occurred in 1934. One of these produced a photograph taken along the new road by a London surgeon, and a privately funded investigation led by Sir Edward Mountain resulted in five shots of Nessie.

During World War II, the Navy secured the Loch area. In May 1943, a member of the Royal Observer Corps saw a monster raise its head from the water and then submerge again.

A huge underwater cavern has been discovered in the Loch and named “Nessie’s Lair.” George Edwards, a local tour boat operator and member of the Auxiliary Coastguard, has seen many strange shapes on the loch over the years; he believes there must be more than one creature, and that this “new” cavern could lead to a network of caves. Experts call his findings “the most significant in years.”

The number of sightings has decreased recently, despite that the loch has been watched more closely and that increasingly more people carry cameras and video recorders. This does not necessarily suggest that Nessie is less likely to be real. It more likely suggests that the population of creatures is declining.

Conclusion

Whatever their identity, dragons have undeniably secured their place in our cultural history. Are they real or not? Arguably, the truth about dragons is inextricably intertwined with the fate of the dinosaurs. Virtually no reasonable doubt exists that dinosaurs once lived—only whether or not they coexisted with humans.

But the fact that so many tales of human-dragon interactions have endured through the ages is too compelling to ignore. I propose this as a definition of dragons: dinosaurs that have co-existed with humans. As such, either they are real, or they are not. But, since one can never prove a universal negative, we can say with certainty only one of two things—either they are real, or they might not be.

The fact that no dragon has ever lent itself to modern scientific examination means little. Obviously, these relics from antiquity are not well suited to 21st-century life. If we accept that most of the dinosaurs died in a flood, or the Great Flood, it is not surprising that the numbers of those few survivors are dwindling.

And of course people feared and hated them. Antediluvian dinosaurs of the carnivorous persuasion ate each other. Postdiluvian ones, having fewer menu selections, naturally resorted to eating livestock—and, when necessary, humans. Flying dragons? Why not? Arhchaeopteryx and Pterosaurs flew.

Why were dragons of the Far East revered instead of feared and hated? Perhaps, by fluke of geography or some other factor, herbivorous dragons tended to settle there. The fact that dragon tales overlap with fantasy makes them no less likely to be true, just as the certainty that reindeer don’t fly and fat guys can’t go down chimneys doesn’t mean that there was never a real person named St. Nicholas who gave gifts to children.

Why in particular are Medieval and Renaissance times linked with dragon activity? Maybe dragons were enjoying a resurgence in population at that time; maybe, because of the prevailing social-cultural-religious climate, humans in Western civilization needed something big and bad to conquer.

To believe, or not to believe? Given the evidence, we have ample reason to believe in dragons.

I stated from the very beginning that the only way the dragons reported in every human culture can be real is if they have a supernatural origin, and we see this in man's earliest myths about dragon gods, and dragons that are servants to God. And though most Christians do not understand this, the Bible is very clear about the same throne guarding dragons as the sumerian cuniform tablets from 1000 years earlier. They were clearly known as dragons in the time of Jesus as the Qumran scriptures prove, and are depicted as dragons in ancient Christian scripture and art.

There are esteemed scientists that have shown the remarkable parallels between the biblical creation epic and the scientific origins of the univers and evolution of life on earth. These expert scientists are devout Jews, Muslims and Chirstians and know a great deal more about this than year, and billions of people believe in this creator entity. I am merely using both world legend and scripture to prove the Bible acknowledged the same dragons servants believed in by theologies all over the world.

Dragons are not angels. This is why they are called Tannyn (dragons), Cherubim, Seraphim, and Destroyer, and considered "creatures", unlike the angels who are men. And they are physical men that must eat food Men were never intended to be immortal, they are natural creatures that reproduce, age and die. Certain men are offered immortality to become permanent servants. They have no magical powers, they are primarily messengers because this task is unsuitable for the earlier dragons, that became servant creatures millions of years earlier before the KT event. None of these have ever died, which is why people around the world have seen dinosaur like "dragons" though no bones have ever been found.

Spirits are the residual energy of living creatures. Some spirits seem to interact with humans. This are sometimes mistaken for the physical angels of the Bible. Dragons, with their comparitively enormous energy fields consume/absorb undesirable human and superfulous animal spirits. This is where many ancient concepts of heavevnly "judgements" come from. Ancient Christian scriptures document this as well, though largely discarded in the middle ages with the popularity of Dante's best seller first describing the now familiar punishing hell of cartoons and evangelical sermons.

Some more interesting stuff there, and you will see that virtually all of the questions about dragons are answered very neatly in the upcoming book. Chines dragons are the same as Northern European dragons. But as intelligent creatures, dragons found it advantageous to "behave" in civilized socieites such as ancient china where there are stories of them being groomed and fed in temples, and carrying on intellectual conversations with sages.

But what use to a dragon are the ignorant barbarian northmen, whose greatest acheivements were large hovels of timber, twigs and cowdung, where they gathered to become senselessly drunk. These humans were fit only for eating, and due to these people's illiteracy for centuries, dragons did as they pleased in these lands, and we have only a very few tales that have come down to us, thanks to literate Christian misionaries that recorded them. But they tell of intelligent, talking dragons that collected treasures and ravaged their tribes. And of course the wishful human fantasies of heroes finally slaying them. When these barbarian lands became civilized and Christian, there are few dragon attacks on men, and they seem to become only frightening nuisances, stealing cattle and burning down barns. But hundreds of thousands of people still vanish each year witout a trace, even in our modern times. And these are in countries with good records. Who can say how many vanish in third world countries where there are no records?

Mothman is probably a fake, but if a dragon were look upon frontally, the long neck and distinctive head would not be seen, and reflecting eyes would look like they were in the body of the animal. But yeas, man thunderbird depictions look EXACTLY like dragons, and some of the best depictions will be illustrated. Check out the Piasa Bird for example, a classic European dragon that terrorized indians in Illinois and still reported occasionally. Indians that guided French missionaries absolutely refused to enter its territory.

As dragons were intelligent creatures, they used treasure to buy what they could not take by force, but most of these treasure stories are based on the dragons that guarded the most valuable treasure of all, sacred trees with remarkable powers of eternal life and wisdom. The dragons in the garden of Eden were called Cherubim, but we know they were dragons from the earliest Sumerian version of the Genesis story.

But know, while dragons probably share an ancestry with dinosaurs or pterosaurs, they cannot be normal mortal animals, for countless millions would have had to live and die and leave remains between the KT event and modern times. And even if no man could ever kill one, if they were mortal, man would have had to have found their physical remains in all these years.

sorry guys, i know u believe what u r saying, but you have failed to convince me.
i dont believe this is due to a lack of intellegence and understanding on my part; but ofcourse you are entitled to your opinions.

I believe that it is unlikely in the extreme that dragons, as they exist in myth - as supernatural beings- that they ever walked or flew upon this earth.
I am not saying that dinosaurs or dinosuars may not be considered dragons, or that other reptiles have not been seen as dragons in the past.
But i believe that all organisms are born, live and die; they are subject to evolution.

what is your understanding of the word supernatural? I believe that this is crucial to ur argument DC.
you say that withing the judeo/christian paradigm that dragons sit next to god.
do you recognise that god, like dragons, is an entity that has evolved along a mythical and theological path?
I know what the christian and jewish beliefs are....but what do you believe?
do you believe that such supernatural creatures really exist, and independently of a human concept; or that there really is a god whom they serve?

Id like you to answer each question carefully before i continue. you dont have to ofcourse, you could post more interesting buff, or educate me on things i either already know to be true or have discounted as unreliable- its up to you.
I am only trying to understand, and this requires some clarification of your views.

Then your Drakones greek word is equally blasphemous, yuk, yuk, yuk!

Only Blasphemous to you, because of your human arrogance that no other creature could be held higher than man in God's eyes. It was exactly that reason why God forbid the making of any human image, yet he ORDERED Moses to make both the fiery flying serpent and the Cherubim, which were also winged reptiles as we know from the original sumerian version of the Adam story, written on cunieform tablets at least 1000 years before the Hebrews finally wrote down their garbled version. And there is even ancient Rabbinical insturctions that stated EXACTLY how these drakones could be correctly depicted to be consider "holy" and not pagan? And we even see the acceptable, "holy" drackones decorating the temple menorah just as they did the ark of the covenant. The ancient Jewish Rabbis translated the word Seraphim to Drakones, because this was the closest word in Greek they knew to describe these creatures. And the rabbinical laws that describe how they must be depicted are definately describing reptilian dragons, NOT angels with a human form, because depicting anything with a human form is blasphemous. But this is where Christianity has ignored the teachings of Jesus, and in fact, changed the "Law". Pagan beliefs and imagery fill modern Christian theology, blasphemously giving the seraph-dragons a human form is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are brilliant scientists that have carefully documented the compatiblity of evolution, real earth history, and a creator entity revealed to people who wrote scriptures that are collectively called the Bible. And while scientists can marvel at how these ancient writers could have known some of these things, there are simply billions of others who believe without the need of any proof. And it is exactly becasue of evolution that explains why it is dragons, all over the world, and not something like a giant lion or wolf, that has become this universally accepted God or God-servant, or Devil. As I have said before, if life on earth is only an accidental mixture of chemicals at the right temperature, and there was no intelligence behind it, then yes, I agree, it is just an odd coincidence every culture has dragons, and they are all imagination despite countless eyewitness reports through history that persist to even this day. But if you browse through the rest of the UM forums, I think you will find far more than dragons that suggests there are supernatural events that science alone cannot explain.

This does not answer any of my questions. the closest u got was
"f life on earth is only an accidental mixture of chemicals at the right temperature, and there was no intelligence behind it, then yes, I agree, it is just an odd coincidence every culture has dragons, and they are all imagination despite countless eyewitness reports through history that persist to even this day. "

You say that loads of scientists find a creator god to be compatible with theory of evolution. What do you think?

If your just writing about what other people think, i suggest u bow to their perception of the metaphysics.
if YOU believe in these dragons, and their master, then explain them.
you suggest a theory, but then distance yourself from it, as if its just all these superstitious people who dont realise that their religions have been adopted/adapted from earlier traditions, and not yourself.....
please return to my earlier questions and answer them.
i dont need u to give evidence for things, ur choice and use of evidence has been shown to be suspect in this case. it never supports your argument, rather it supports the contrary.
for example.....leaving pliny, lucan, and the testement of solomon, and victorian compendiums aside, i have dealt with them all.
lets return to alexander to see how historical events become modified for use in propoganda, and how a later mythical tradition builds around the event to create a mythical and untrue story in which dragons are present.
Alex was the undisputed son of philip.
at one time, for political reasons it was advantageous for a party in macedonia to proliferate a spurious story about the foreigner queen and her half macedonian son; suggesing that his real father was not philip, but one of his mother's familiars:a serpent.
How this was taken by the son to support his own propoganda about being the son of Zeus/Amon.....(in both these early versions a large snake is the object of attraction, or manifestation of zeus.)
the story changes by the time of the ptolemies, eager to justify their rule by their continuity with nectanebo and Alexander, mention that it is nectanebo who visits alex's mum, and since he IS the son of Ammon (as tradition holds) then so becomes alex via a legitimate pharoah lineage.
This is egyptian hellenistic propoganda, manipulating an old story. The egyptians like to give beings wings to demonstrate their spiritual nature. its possible that the wings became attached here.
The story was revisited in the romance tradition....not reliable, which provides the source for your justin.
I can explain any part of this u wish. but again it shows that the sources u use to support ur theory....which u still havent clarified re: definition of supernatural and God.....support no idea of real dinosuars, or dinosaurs modified by creator god, immortal, spiritual yet physical.
please define god
heaven
supernatural


not asking for proof of god as u assume, just YOUR beliefs. How far do u believe your own theory?

the only way the dragons reported in every human culture can be real is if they have a supernatural origin, and we see this in man's earliest myths about dragon gods, and dragons that are servants to God.

I am merely using both world legend and scripture to prove the Bible acknowledged the same dragons servants believed in by theologies all over the world.


Dragons are not angels

None of these have ever died, which is why people around the world have seen dinosaur like "dragons" though no bones have ever been found.

Spirits are the residual energy of living creatures.

Dragons, with their comparitively enormous energy fields consume/absorb undesirable human and superfulous animal spirits. This is where many ancient concepts of heavevnly "judgements" come from.

************xx

This first statement requires clarification, what do you mean by supernatural? Is this REALLY the only way that they can be real?

second statement...attempts to tie biblical references and ideas of dragons to other world legend only works when you deal with the sources of dragons in the bible.
You have not suceeded in anything else.

third. nor can they be the sons of fallen angels in your theory...nor nephilim, so why use the testement of solomon?????

fourth...no proof; or evidence offered by you can support this. it is your idea, and attempt to explain away a problem....it fails the credibility test.

fifth....so what of god, is he spirit? physical? if spirit- was he physical then died? does he create spirit beings that never had a physical life?

sixth....again your idea, an uncorroberated attempt to explain away a problem in your theory. please explain these enourmous energy fields, is it a part of their supernatural nature???


as an observer you seem to stand outside of the christian paradigm. And attempt to comment on it and other world legends and myths. you fail to clarify any of the terms you use.
when you attempt to clarify such terms you can only do so by pointing out the problems in 'believers' perception of their own myth.

you unravell the christian paradigm, pointing out the 'ingredients' that were taken to construct it. Then you attempt to reconstruct these same 'myths' in such a way as to 'better explain' certain phenomenon in this paradigm.
this creates a number of paradoxes and problems which you fail to answer or offer credible clarity to.

Your explainations seem to come from your own imagination. nothing else.

for this discussion to have an intelligent progression you must clarify a number of terms that u use.What do YOU understand by the terms...
supernatural
god

then please answer this...
do you believe in god?....Where does he exist?
do you have more than just a vague notion of god?

please limit your answer to one concise sentence in each case. be clear, not cryptic.
This is central to your whole theory. even though your argument fails on the evidence you have provided you may be able
to salvage something of your theory here.

All that has been presented is attacks to undermine people, but when presented with simple language that defines the word "Saraph", the issue is avoided. Because "Saraph" simply means "burn" or "fire" with no connection to dragons. Yeah this is repetative but it should have bearing when referencing the OT which was written in Hebrew.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. As the several dictionary sources posted here have stated and the Jewish Encyclopedia confirms, the verb Saraph means to burn, and the noun Saraph means a fiery flying serpent. I'm not making this up, the proof comes from reliable sources. They have ben posted here time and time again. You are behaving like a nut case.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, and all of the other posted sources have far more credence than your personal views that have no support. Everyone in Israel knows the Saraph is a Biblical fiery flying serpent, the most esteemed Jewish Biblical sources say so as well, your continuous denial of the facts make you look foolish indeed. You remind me of Hermann Goring when he said "If the Fuherer says two plus two is five, then it is five. Or in your case "If my sunday school coloring books say the Seraphim are beautiful swan winged angels, then they are" (Even though EVERY authoritive Jewish source states they are fiery flying serpents). Give it up moondog. Your sunday school mythology has no historical backing, just Medievial fairytales.

You you know why there is a verb called Saraph? Because dragons*(Seraphim) burn things. A Saraph "saraphs" things, like a Fly flies. Have you figured it out yet? The rest of the world has.

[quote name='lil gremlin' date='Mar 12 2007, 09:33 AM' post='1578954']
the only way the dragons reported in every human culture can be real is if they have a supernatural origin, and we see this in man's earliest myths about dragon gods, and dragons that are servants to God.

I am merely using both world legend and scripture to prove the Bible acknowledged the same dragons servants believed in by theologies all over the world.
Dragons are not angels

None of these have ever died, which is why people around the world have seen dinosaur like "dragons" though no bones have ever been found.

Spirits are the residual energy of living creatures.

Dragons, with their comparitively enormous energy fields consume/absorb undesirable human and superfulous animal spirits. This is where many ancient concepts of heavevnly "judgements" come from.

************xx

GREM This first statement requires clarification, what do you mean by supernatural?

DRAC Meaning they are physical creatures but with psychic abilities and apparently immortal., manig they do not age.

GREM Is this REALLY the only way that they can be real?

DRAC Yes, otherwise we would have found the bones of dragons by now. There is no talk of Seraphim or angels dying of old age in the Bible.

GREM second statement...attempts to tie biblical references and ideas of dragons to other world legend only works when you deal with the sources of dragons in the bible.
You have not suceeded in anything else.

DRAC, almost no other legends have been discussed, but yes, I can tie all the differenct dragons together. They behave differently depending on the culture. Some they are allowed to hunt, some they are not.

GREMthird. nor can they be the sons of fallen angels in your theory...nor nephilim, so why use the testement of solomon?????

DRAC, Fallen angels are human angels that had sex with humans. Dragons can't. Nephillim are based on stories of the Neandertahal, not offsrping of angels but believed to be. Testament of Solomon was only cited to proved these people believed in classical, quadraped dragons with swings, not just giant serpents.
fourth...no proof; or evidence offered by you can support this. it is your idea, and attempt to explain away a problem....it fails the credibility test.

GREM fifth....so what of god, is he spirit? physical? if spirit- was he physical then died? does he create spirit beings that never had a physical life?

DRAC probably always an intelligent entity of light and energy, never a phsysical creature, so never a spirit.

GREM sixth....again your idea, an uncorroberated attempt to explain away a problem in your theory. please explain these enourmous energy fields, is it a part of their supernatural nature???

DRAC Dragons are to large to fly in the conventional sense, they use their psychic energy to help lift their bodies, just as Jesus during the accension and walking on water. Eastern mystics also understand and probably also taught by dragons. Wings are not large enough for lift, but perfect for propulsion

GREM as an observer you seem to stand outside of the christian paradigm. And attempt to comment on it and other world legends and myths. you fail to clarify any of the terms you use.

DRAC NOt sure what you mean. The bible really says there are heavenly dragon servants, it is not by fault modern christians try to cover up the facts. And other 'religions say there are dragons. I'm drawing the logical conclusion that if dragons are real they are all the same dragons.

GREM when you attempt to clarify such terms you can only do so by pointing out the problems in 'believers' perception of their own myth.

DRAC, but these are not their true myths. In the true myths they are indeed dragons. Later on the church changed the myth and the dragons became cartoon winged angels. It is really very simple.
y

GREM you unravell the christian paradigm, pointing out the 'ingredients' that were taken to construct it. Then you attempt to reconstruct these same 'myths' in such a way as to 'better explain' certain phenomenon in this paradigm.

DRAC Not reconstruct. The original myths are there for everyone to see. The sumerian dragons guard the throne of God, sacred trees, gates of heaven, etc, just as the dragons in the original Bible before Christians changed it.

GREM this creates a number of paradoxes and problems which you fail to answer or offer credible clarity to.

DRAC No it doesn't, several very bright people have read the manuscript, and it all "clicks". It wold to you too, if you knew more about this.

GREM this seems to come from your own imagination. nothing else.

DRAC Wrong, EVERYTHING I say is sourced, nothing is simply made up.

GREM for this discussion to have an intelligent progression you must clarify a number of terms that u use.What do YOU understand by the terms...
supernatural DRAC possesing psychic and other abilities science as of yet does not understand. Like people who can life a pencil , but dragons can lift their whole bodies
GREM god DRAC the intelligence behind the universe.

then please answer this...
GREMdo you believe in god?....Where does he exist? DRAC Yes, Another dimension Perhaps? I attempt to explain it based on what we know.
GREM do you have more than just a vague notion of god? Drac I doubt anyone can have more than a vague notion. There is some speculation here. It cannot be helped.

GREMplease limit your answer to one concise sentence in each case. be clear, not cryptic.
This is central to your whole theory. even though your argument fails on the evidence you have provided you may be able
to salvage something of your theory here.

DRAC, It doesn fail anywhere. You simply do not know enough about it yet to understand.

Manna from heaven...
a couple of ideas...

http://deoxy.org/manna.htm

Although translations have obscured the intent of this passage, it seems to be a description of how to find and identify manna and distinguish it from other non-psychoactive (or possibly lethal) mushrooms. Look for the small round things which are like bread, come with the rain, and seem to have heavenly (bluish) coloring. Psilocybe mushrooms also sprout in tiny pin heads which branch out in all directions and bear a resemblance to hoar frost.

It is also interesting to note that Moses tells the children of Israel that manna comes directly from Heaven to test them on whether or not they will walk in God's law. Here is evidence that manna was endowed with unusual spiritual powers, like those of magic mushrooms. However, manna does not automatically confer spiritual power. Instead, it serves as a test. Magic mushrooms would provide visionary experiences that would certainly test all who ingested them. Moses also said that the manna is literally the "bread of the lord" which is remarkably similar to the literal Aztec name for psilocybe mushrooms, "flesh of the gods."

or the fabled Star Fire... WPG
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopol...rightrule01.htm

http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/0/sup/starfire.shtml





http://www.angelfire.com/home/thefaery/hafgan.html



Ea and His younger Son Ningizidda are represented by the caduceus, which indicates Ea's dual heritage from a geneticist Mother and an astronautical Father. Ea's association with serpents may be due to His knowledge of antivenoms and of the DNA spiral, or due to the apparent shape of His face, though pictures of Him show entirely human features, and descriptions may actually have referred to a suit He wore underwater. It is common knowledge that in ancient Mesopotamia 'serpent' was a euphemism for 'dragon'. A dragon seems to have been one of two ancient factions in Heaven, one scaled and the other feathered. The scales and feathers may have been garments. It is possible that the scaled 'dragons' of old acted as servants to the feathered type. It appears that one group knew the secrets of the genome while the other knew the secrets of the atom and were associated with the sun.

Ea was the Son of An, King of the feathered type in Heaven, and of An's dragon Mistress who had brought the genetic science of Her People to An's court. Jesus said that in Heaven there would be no marriages among resurrected humans (and therefore no rivalry between successive earthly spouses), but Mesopotamian mythology indicates clearly that El's People were male and female. This must have been true, or they would have been called the Elim, not the Elohim.

Being half dragon, Ea could not become King of the Ancient Ones who visited Earth, and His Half-Brother El, son of An and of An's feathered Queen, became King instead. There seems to have been also rivalry over El's intended Queen, who married Ea but who remained officially El's Consort as tradition required. Ea remained in exile on earth, and His angels were called the Adonai. But Jesus prayed to our Father (consistently Ea in Mesopotamian mythology) whose will was done in Heaven. This suggests that Ea had by this time been reinstated in Heaven to His former function as Judiciary Head. Such a conclusion seems to force a reconciliation between conflicting accounts, but is supported by the Yezidi belief that the serpent was forgiven.



....


Starfire was given to our ancestors, the antediluvian descendants of Seth, thereby extending their lifespan. Starfire did not bestow immortality, however. We are all Sethites because Noah was descended from Seth. The antediluvian Sethites seem to have been not very numerous, and their orders from El not to integrate with the descendants of Cain had necessitated incestuous marriages among them. Since they were given starfire, the degenerative effects were counteracted. After the Deluge, starfire was no longer administered and the human lifespan was reduced.

Manna did not seem to effect the same transformation as starfire. Approved by Ea before the sacrifice of Jesus, it was bestowed upon the Israelites in the Sinai desert and was kept in the Temple of Solomon. Yet it was a derivative of the ash tree, the species purported to have been the Tree of Eternal Life in the garden of Eden. And like the Philosopher's Stone, it is forbidden by El and has not been seen since ancient times.

so by supernatural you mean anything that science can not as yet understand?

god is an entity of light, that possibly lives in another dimension?
he is not spirit.

so these dragons do they flit between dimensions?
is heaven in another dimension?
are all dimensions contained within creation?
would this God inhabited dimension be the ultimate dimension? existing outside of our space and time?

im getting a clearer picture of what u think, thankyou for obliging.

GREM as an observer you seem to stand outside of the christian paradigm. And attempt to comment on it and other world legends and myths. you fail to clarify any of the terms you use.

DRAC NOt sure what you mean. The bible really says there are heavenly dragon servants, it is not by fault modern christians try to cover up the facts. And other 'religions say there are dragons. I'm drawing the logical conclusion that if dragons are real they are all the same dragons.

the above....your theories are outside of the traditional christian paradigm.
you see things in the terms of modern concepts. or atleast modern interpretations of old concepts.
you had previously failed to clarify the terms that you now have.

You still havent said how far you BELIEVE this theory.
for example the evolution of God as an entity, itself owes much to theological and philosophical evolution
your theory of an inter-dimensional creator deity epitomises this evolution of human thought.

you have deconstructed christianity, present christian belief and metaphysics; inorder to point out its ingredients.
you then reconstruct the paradigm offering modern interpretations in explaination of phenomenon.

your earlier assertions that pliny, lucan, justin, the testement of solomon,victorian compendia, they are all used to prove that such creatures exist.
none of the evidence you have presented justifies your theory...apart from the biblical ones, and their roots.although i think u r stretching things even there.
this is what ive been saying for a while now.

You tie the existence of these dragons with the existence of God, and a new interpretation of that entity.
cant be bothered to get the quote, but it went along the lines of ....chemical chance + no god = no dragons.
correct me if im wrong.

i still believe that it is a mistake to assume that if dragons are real, then all myths and stories concerning them are about these dragons as u describe them.
i have shown that dragon has been used as an umbrella term to unify classification of different beings and concepts.
many reports of dragons stem from misconceptions. like pliny and the victorian compendia.
many stories of dragons as we recieve them are evolved far from their source, and that the construct dragon evolved along with the story....i used the justin/alexander story to demonstrate this, but it can be applied to almost every story about dragons in myth.

The imagination of cults in explaining the metaphysics within their paradigm is demonstrably creative eg. the testement of solomon.
the creative imagination of the cults is in no smaller degree than that used to formulate mainstream religions...some of which are steerd by or originate with cults.
like a process of evolution, those cults that do not compliment mainstream theology are surpressed, those that do are often tolerated and even incorporated.

The human imagination is a wonderful thing...just look at all the beliefs that circulate here in this UM forum.
It allowed Milton to compose Paradise Lost, Dante to write of the inferno.
it gave many writers the ability to try to explain, within the paradigms of their understanding, the things they do not know.
Sitchens is another more recent example. your attempt is not entirely dissimilar.
You have imagination....not an insult....einstein used his to good effect.
Your theory can be seen as a continuation of the dragon myth....bringing it uptodate somewhat.
You could also claim that their hard scaley protection allows them to move through space, and protects them upon reentry into atmospheres....which may explain their confusion with comets and meteorites.
you could also possibly tie them in with david ike....though im sure you think his ideas silly.
no offence is meant by any of this, though it would be easy to read-in a sarcastic tone.
good luck with the book, it will be an interesting curiosity. I dont believe it will change the world or make people believe in dragons, but it will be read by many.
so cha-ching!!!!! You may even convert some folk here...they may be discussing this more enthusiastically than they do now.
I think im a lost cause for you though, for the reasons cited above. The universiality part, as ive said before negates understanding of how stories,myths, religions work. and how dragons in different cultures are often very different in concept and source.

Thank you for your insights, but there IS a "Universality" in that all over the world, these large, intelligent usually flying reptiles are the PRINCIPLE/DOMINANT mythic creature even in countries where reptiles are rare such as Northern Europe. Of course there are differences, but you fail to see the similarities. And if they are intelligent creatures as most of the legends claim, they could make people believe what they want. It may be more advantageous for dragons to appear friendly and benevolent in civilized countries than in barbarian countries where no one will know of their excesses as people do not read and write in these places. But this does not mean they are different dragons. Also, accounts become more and more distorted as they are retold as oral traditions. Look at the original Sumerian Eden, versus Christian coloring book eden. Orignally the same story, but now very different.

You can see how perceptions change just when examing the Judao Christian Seraphim. Originally they were dragons as the Hebrew to Greek translations, as well as the Sumerian origins of Judasim confirms, but when Christianity embraced the theology of Zoraster, the only dragon here was the terribly evil opponent to God, Ahriman, who became the Christian verison of Satan, and the scriptures describing the dragons in heaven were silently done away with, but due to archaeology we unearth them again.

I have never failed to see the similarities where they are present.
I have always pointed out that perceptions to such stories and creatures change...particularly between cultures...this is really the crux of my own argument.
where such similarities exist it is often due to adoption/adaption of myths from another culture, even so what results cannot be considered the same.
The theory of universiality points to cases which demonstrate a similar or the same source....usually snakes, and cults, and totems. some of them existed quite independently from others.
there is no reason to believe that dragons exist really, as supernatural immortal beings. Such thought reflects rather an evolution of the existing myth.

heres some info, im sure ull contest it.


Chinese dragon


There is no consensus on the origin of the Chinese dragon, but many scholars agree that it came from totems of different tribes in China. Some have suggested that it comes from a stylized depiction of existing animals, such as snakes, fish, or crocodiles. For example, the Banpo site of the Yangshao culture in Shaanxi featured an elongated, snake-like fish motif. Archaeologists believe the "long fish" to have evolved into images of the Chinese dragon. The association with fish is reflected in the legend of a carp that saw the top of a mountain and decided he was going to reach it. He swam upstream, climbing rapids and waterfalls letting nothing get in the way of his determination. When he reached the top there was the mythical "Dragon Gate" and when he jumped over he became a dragon. Several waterfalls and cataracts in China are believed to be the location of the Dragon Gate. This legend is used as an allegory for the drive and effort needed to overcome obstacles and achieve success.

An alternative view, advocated by He Xin, is that the early dragon depicted a species of crocodile. Specifically, Crocodilus porosis, an ancient, giant crocodile. The crocodile is known to be able to accurately sense changes in air pressure, and be able to sense coming rain. This may have been the origin of the dragon's mythical attributes in controlling the weather, especially the rain. In addition, there is evidence of crocodile worship in ancient Babylonian, Indian, and Mayan civilizations. The association with the crocodile is also supported by the view in ancient times that large crocodiles are a variety of dragon. For example, in the Story of Zhou Chu, about the life of a Jin Dynasty warrior, he is said to have killed a "dragon" that infested the waters of his home village, which appears to have been a crocodile.

Others have proposed that its shape is the merger of totems of various tribes as the result of the merger of tribes. The coiled snake or dragon form played an important role in early Chinese culture. Legendary figures like Nüwa (女媧), Fuxi (伏羲) are depicted as having snake bodies. Some scholars report that the first legendary Emperor of China Huang Di (黃帝,Yellow Emperor) used a snake for his coat of arms. Every time he conquered another tribe, he incorporated his defeated enemy's emblem into his own. That explains why the dragon appears to have features of various animals.

There is no apparent connection to the western dragon.

From its origins as totems or the stylized depiction of natural creatures, the Chinese dragon evolved to become a mythical animal. By the Han Dynasty, the dragon's appearance is described as having the trunk of a snake; the scales of a carp ; the tail of a whale; the antlers of a stag; the face of a camel; the talons of eagles; the ears of a bull; the feet of a tiger and the eyes of a (dragon)lobster. It has a flaming pearl under its chin. Chinese dragons are occasionally depicted with bat-like wings growing out of the front limbs, but most do not have wings, though oddly enough, they are still capable of taking flight.

This description accords with the artistic depictions of the dragon down to the present day. The dragon has also acquired an almost unlimited range of supernatural powers. It is said to be able to disguise itself as a silkworm, or become as large as our entire universe. It can fly among the clouds or hide in water (according to the Guanzi). It can form clouds, can turn into water or fire, can become invisible or glow in the dark (according to the Shuowen Jiezi).

Chinese dragons are strongly associated with water in popular belief. They are believed to be the rulers of moving bodies of water, such as waterfalls, rivers, or seas. They can show themselves as water spouts (tornado or twister over water). In this capacity as the rulers of water and weather, the dragon is more anthropomorphic in form, often depicted as a humanoid, dressed in a king's costume, but with a dragon head wearing a king's headdress.

There are four major Dragon Kings, representing each of the four seas: the East Sea (corresponding to the East China Sea), the South Sea (corresponding to the South China Sea), the West Sea (sometimes seen as the Indian Ocean and beyond), and the North Sea (sometimes seen as Lake Baikal).

Because of this association, they are seen as "in charge" of water-related weather phenomenon. In premodern times, many Chinese villages (especially those close to rivers and seas) had temples dedicated to their local "dragon king". In times of drought or flooding, it was customary for the local gentry and government officials to lead the community in offering sacrifices and conducting other religious rites to appease the dragon, either to ask for rain or a cessation thereof.

The King of Wu-Yue in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period was often known as the "Dragon King" or the "Sea Dragon King" because of his extensive hydro-engineering schemes which "tamed" the seas.

At the end of his reign, the first legendary Emperor Huang Di was said to have been immortalized into a dragon that resembled his emblem, and ascended to Heaven. Since the Chinese consider Huang Di as their ancestor, they sometimes refer to themselves as "the descendants of the dragon". This legend also contributed towards the use of the Chinese dragon as a symbol of imperial power.

The dragon, especially yellow or golden dragons with five claws on each foot, was a symbol for the emperor in many Chinese dynasties. The imperial throne was called the Dragon Throne. During the late Qing Dynasty, the dragon was even adopted as the national flag. It was a capital offense for commoners to wear clothes with a dragon symbol. The dragon is featured in the carvings on the steps of imperial palaces and tombs, such as the Forbidden City in Beijing.

In some Chinese legends, an Emperor might be born with a birthmark in the shape of a dragon. For example, one legend tells the tale of a peasant born with a dragon birthmark who eventually overthrows the existing dynasty and founds a new one; another legend might tell of the prince in hiding from his enemies who is identified by his dragon birthmark.

In contrast, the Empress of China was often identified with the Fenghuang.

n modern times, belief in the dragon appears to be sporadic at best. There appear to be very few who would see the dragon as a literally real creature. The worship of the Dragon Kings as rulers of water and weather continues in many areas, and is deeply ingrained in Chinese cultural traditions such as Chinese New Year celebrations.

Dragons or dragon-like depictions have been found extensively in neolithic-period archaeological sites throughout China. The earliest depiction of dragons was found at Xinglongwa culture sites. Yangshao culture sites in Xi'an have produced clay pots with dragon motifs. The Liangzhu culture also produced dragon-like patterns. The Hongshan culture sites in present-day Inner Mongolia produced jade dragon amulets in the form of pig dragons.

One such early form was the pig dragon. It is a coiled, elongated creature with a head resembling a boar[2]. The character for "dragon" in the earliest Chinese writing has a similar coiled form, as do later jade dragon amulets from the Shang period.

There are "Nine Classical Types" of dragons as depicted in Chinese art and literature, nine being an auspicious number in Chinese culture. These are:

* Tianlong (天龍), The Celestial Dragon
* Shenlong (神龍), the Spiritual Dragon
* Fucanglong (伏藏龍), the Dragon of Hidden Treasures
* Dilong (地龍), the Underground Dragon
* Yinglong (應龍), the Winged Dragon
* Jiaolong (虯龍), the Horned Dragon
* Panlong (蟠龍), the Coiling Dragon: inhabits the waters
* Huanglong (黃龍), Yellow Dragon, which emerged from the River Luo to show Fuxi the elements of writing
* Dragon King (龍王)

Besides these, there are Nine Dragon Children, which feature prominently in architectural and monumental decorations:

* The first son is called bixi (贔屭 pinyin: bìxì), which looks like a giant tortoise and is good at carrying weight. It is often found as the carved stone base of monumental tablets.
* The second son is called chiwen (螭吻 pinyin chǐwěn), which looks like a beast and likes to see very far. It is always found on the roof.
* The third son is called pulao (蒲牢 pinyin pǔláo), which looks like a small dragon, and likes to roar. Thus it is always found on bells.
* The fourth son is called bi'an (狴犴 pinyin bì'àn), which looks like a tiger, and is powerful. It is often found on prison doors to frighten the prisoners.
* The fifth son is called taotie (饕餮 pinyin tāotiè), which loves to eat and is found on food-related wares.
* The sixth son is called baxia (蚣蝮 pinyin gōngfù or bāxià), which likes to be in water, and is found on bridges.
* The seventh son is called yazi (睚眥 pinyin yázī), which likes to kill, and is found on swords and knives.
* The eighth son is called suanni (狻猊 pinyin suānní), which looks like a lion and likes smoke as well as having an affinity for fireworks. It is usually found on incense burners.
* The youngest is called jiaotu (椒圖 pinyin jiāotú), which looks like a conch or clam and does not like to be disturbed. It is used on the front door or the doorstep.

There are two other (inferior) dragon species, the jiao and the li, both hornless. The jiao is sometimes said to be female dragons. The word is also used to refer to crocodiles and other large reptiles. The li is said to be a yellow version of the jiao. Whereas the dragon is mostly seen as auscpicious or holy, the jiao and the li are often depicted as evil or malicious.

The Chinese dragons have five toes on each foot, Indonesian or Korean dragons have four, and the Japanese dragons have three. To explain this phenomenon, Chinese legend states that all Imperial dragons originated in China, and the further away from China a dragon went the fewer toes it had. Dragons only exist in China, Korea, Indonesia, and Japan because if they traveled further they would have no toes to continue. The Japanese legend has a story similar to the Chinese one, namely that dragons originated in Japan, and the further they traveled the more toes they grew and as a result, if they went too far they would have too many toes to continue to walk properly.

Official interpretation back in the dynasty period: Five claws dragons are reserved for the emperors (five is the holy number in Five elements (Chinese philosophy), four claws dragon is reserved for kings, princes and certain high rank officials, three claws dragon are used by the general public(which is widely seen on China and other Chinese goods back in Ming dynasty). Since Korea and other nations only held the title of king (with respect to the emperor in china), they are only allowed to use four claw dragon. Inproper use of claw number is considered as a sign of rebellion, and will be punished heavily such as executions of whole clan.

Another interpretation: according to several sources, including historical official documents, ordinary Chinese dragons had four toes - but the Imperial Dragon had five. It was a capital offense for anyone - other than the emperor, his blood relatives, and the very few officials who were granted such an extraordinary privilege by the emperor - to use the five-clawed dragon motif.

Korean sources seem to oppose this theory, as the Imperial dragon in Gyeongbok Palace has seven claws, implying its superiority over the inferior Chinese Dragon; of course, this dragon image is hidden in the rafters of the palace and is not entirely in view, even to those who know it is there, suggesting that while the ancient Koreans viewed it as superior, they also knew that it would be offensive to the Imperial Chinese Court.

The Han style dragon is also 3 clawed, which explains how the 3 clawed dragon went to Japan in the Tang or pre-Tang period.




From wikipedia.



******************xx

Persian dragon

Aži (nominative ažiš) is the Iranian Avestan word for "serpent" or "dragon". It is cognate to the Vedic Sanskrit word ahi, "snake", and without a sinister implication. Azi and Ahi are distantly related to Greek ophis, Latin anguis, both meaning "snake".

The meaning of dahāka is uncertain. Among the meanings suggested are "stinging" (source uncertain), "burning" (cf. Sanskrit dahana), "man" or "manlike" (cf. Khotanese daha), "huge" (cf. Pashto lōy) or "foreign" (cf. the Scythian Dahae and the Vedic dasas). In Persian mythology, Dahāka is treated as a proper name, and is the source of the Ḍaḥḥāk (Zahhāk) of the Shāhnāma.

Aži Dahāka is the source of the modern Persian word azhdahā or ezhdehā اژدها (Middle Persian azdahāg) meaning "dragon", often used of a dragon depicted upon a banner of war.

The Azhdarchid group of pterosaurs are named from an Uzbek word for "dragon" that ultimately comes from Aži Dahāka.


Stories of monstrous serpents who are killed or imprisoned by heroes or divine beings may date back to prehistory, and are found in the myths of many Indo-European peoples, including those of the Indo-Iranians, that is, the common ancestors of both the Iranians and Vedic Indians.

The most obvious point of comparison is that Vedic Sanskrit ahi is a cognate of Avestan aži. However, In Vedic tradition, the only dragon of importance is Vrtra, but "there is no Iranian tradition of a dragon such as Indian Vrtra, who guards the cosmic waters and is defeated by the gods themselves." (Boyce, 1975:91-92) Moreover, while Iranian tradition has numerous dragons, all of which are malevolent, Vedic tradition has only one other dragon besides Vṛtra - ahi budhnya, the benevolent 'dragon of the deep'. In the Vedas, gods battle dragons, but in Iranian tradition, this is a function of mortal heroes.

Thus, although it seems clear that dragon-slaying heroes (and gods in the case of the Vedas) "were a part of Indo-Iranian tradition and folklore, it is also apparent that India and Iran developed distinct myths early." (Skjaervø, 2002:192)


Aži Dahāka is the most significant and long-lasting of the ažis of the Avesta, the earliest religious texts of Zoroastrianism. He is described as a monster with three mouths, six eyes, and three heads (presumably meaning three heads with one mouth and two eyes each), cunning, strong and demonic. But in other respects Aži Dahāka has human qualities, and is never a mere animal.

Aži Dahāka appears in several of the Avestan myths and is mentioned parenthetically in many more places in Zoroastrian literature.

In a post-Avestan Zoroastrian text, the Dēnkard, Aži Dahāka is identified as an Arab, as the source of the writings of Judaism (in this context identified as a religion opposed to Zoroastrianism), and possessed of all possible sins and evil counsels, the opposite of the good king Jam. The name Dahāg (Dahāka) is punningly interpreted as meaning "having ten (dah) s