Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
draconic chronicler

Is the Biblical Yahweh actually a dragon?

458 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Archosaur

Well, I have no idea if this was the original menorah or not. As for hexagons not being a Jewish symbol: they are prevalent in the art and iconography of ancient and modern Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Well, I have no idea if this was the original menorah or not. As for hexagons not being a Jewish symbol: they are prevalent in the art and iconography of ancient and modern Judaism.

Yes, there is nothing like it associatiated with Roman or Greek religion. The fact that there are "dragons" in Greek and Roman art of the period as well, only proves they were apparently seen, or at least believed in by all of these peoples. The leading Jewish scholars all agree that the the menorah from the temple was decorated with dragons. now we must simply ask why, and it would not be to "please the Romans", becasue no gentile was even allowed in the temple to see it, and it was so sacred that no Jew was allowed to depict it in art. And just as Yahweh orders a fiery flying serpent idol made in the time of Moses, which we know was still worshipped 500 years later, it is not surpising we would see such creatures on the most sacred object after the ark of the covenant. And here again, the Cherubim on the arks were undoubtedly winged dragon guardians as well, since this was a throne chair. And if we go west, we see Egyptian throne chairs with two flanking winged serpents, and if we go east, we see mesopotamian thrones flanked by mushrushu dragons. And right between them and influenced by both cultures are the hebrews, who also mention fiery flying serpents/drakons flanking the throne of God. This was a universal belief, and a real God would be universal, not just revealed to one small tribe of humans, and a study of all the other ancient religions prove this. But the Bible and other ancient texts do confirm that each "tribe" had its own watcher "dragon", that over the centuries would often "morph" into a more humanoid God that many cultures are more comfortable with. In the early days Yahweh is a classic dragon, with a prideful demeanor, having wings, spewing fire from his mouth, and smoke from his nostrils, demanding human and animals as tribute, but willing to accept treasure instead of the first born children each family under his protection "owed" him.

We should not be surprised that modern Jews as well as Christians are somewhat reluctant to admit Yahweh is a dragon, so must come up with the nonsensical notion that Herod "did it to please the Romans", which is ridiculous becasue no Roman would have ever seen the menorah if the temple had not been sacked, the Romans did not worship dragons, and the dragon was not even made into a Roman standard until much later.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
I love how you referr to GOD, as a bearded guy on a golden throne, quite stereotypical.

It is but its fact..because MAN made this sterotype up himself when he presents religion and God...he wants us to see God in the form of a male human...and it was man that came up with the white beard LOL look at my signature that is proof that man has been doing this for a long long time

SO can we help it?? NO..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

sorry dc i didnt mean to present those passages as 'proof', just to show that there is still controvesy over issue among jewish scholars. As i said it is clear that the arch of titus depiction is not of the 'original' menorah. dont you get exited?!!

I agree with you i dont think that herod decorated the base thus to make the jews mad, but his philhellenism was well known; and for the previous 50 yrs or so the jews had benifited greatly on the whole from their relationship with the romans...its only later that it turns sour. Admittedly there was a faction which opposed any foreign influence; but thats like a bunny rabbit trying to bite its way out of his cage, so that it can get into the bigger compound which it doesnt realise, is filled with rotweillers.

as for the rest, you know what i think about your theory...intresting, but flawed and naive. bibleorigins.com is not the most reliable of sources, even though it makes for fun reading. there is no evidence to say with certainty that yahweh was Yam/lotan, what you present is your interpretation...which is not 'fact' no matter how badly you wish it to be. until a late bronze age artifact is found depicting a ketos, with yhvh written on it the case will remain so....and even then....

perhaps you should submit your tome to some ancient history, or anthropological professor (a real one) ...or a few of them, see what they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
sorry dc i didnt mean to present those passages as 'proof', just to show that there is still controvesy over issue among jewish scholars. As i said it is clear that the arch of titus depiction is not of the 'original' menorah. dont you get exited?!!

I agree with you i dont think that herod decorated the base thus to make the jews mad, but his philhellenism was well known; and for the previous 50 yrs or so the jews had benifited greatly on the whole from their relationship with the romans...its only later that it turns sour. Admittedly there was a faction which opposed any foreign influence; but thats like a bunny rabbit trying to bite its way out of his cage, so that it can get into the bigger compound which it doesnt realise, is filled with rotweillers.

as for the rest, you know what i think about your theory...intresting, but flawed and naive. bibleorigins.com is not the most reliable of sources, even though it makes for fun reading. there is no evidence to say with certainty that yahweh was Yam/lotan, what you present is your interpretation...which is not 'fact' no matter how badly you wish it to be. until a late bronze age artifact is found depicting a ketos, with yhvh written on it the case will remain so....and even then....

perhaps you should submit your tome to some ancient history, or anthropological professor (a real one) ...or a few of them, see what they think.

There was absolutely no reason Herod would dare infuriate the Jews for something so trivial as putting dragons on the menorah. It is pretty evident he too believed in the God of the Jews. This is simply the only excuse the modern rabbis can make, because they are uncomfortable with the notion of Yahweh being a dragon god. But everything in the Old Testament seems to say this, dragon idol, dragon assistants, breathing fire, virgin sacrifices, hoarding gold, wings, etc.

There are already archaeologists and scholars who believe Yahweh is derived from Yaw, and it is hard to dispute when we see him subservient to the same Creator God El, both having Asheroth as a consort, both enemies of Baal Haddad, and both called a dragon, and Yahweh with so many dragon characteristics.

Once the Nahashatan idol was destroyed, disaster after disaster befell the followers of Yahweh. It would be naive to think the learned priests could not postulate what I am postulating. When they were released from captivity and returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, they attempted to restore Yahweh's good will by putting his image on the menorah for the dragon idol made by Moses had been destroyed, and this was the HOLIEST possible object, short of making a stand alone, dragon idol, which they may have thought Yahweh would have disapproved of. As for the eagle, eagle - headed Cherubim (or Hayyot) appear in Old Testament scrpture, and the Seraphim "dragons" and Seraphim are grouped together.

The base is not particularly hellenistic. This is a sham to deflect the idea this wasn't created by the Jews themselves to honor Yahweh, who was Yaw, the Cannanite sea dragon. The only thing to connect it with hellenism is the fact that nereids ride similar dragons in their art, and an example came from a seleucid-era temple, but it was not on a lamp base. But by now you should know that dragons are quite universal. Every culture had its dragons and some are remarkably similar not only in physical appearances, but even in behavior, strongly implying they really exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67thbook
.. Even worse, the eagle was the symbol of Imperial Rome, and as such was an anathema

to Jews longing to be free of Roman rule.

Nothing proves that screed as a clear apology for disassociation with the Titus menorah better than this excerpt.

The eagle was a particularly auspicious bird in the OT, aside from the fact it was an abomination to eat, and small wonder. The author of that piece seems quite willing to ignore the importance of the eagle to biblical god and the Jewish people simple because the Romans used it as a symbol also. Perhaps he and those who wish to cite him should first become acquainted with the various passages concerning that bird, and before he sticks his perverbial pen any further down his perverbisal throat, he might want to debate with himself why such an abomination to the jews would be one of the four faces in Ezekiel's 'whirlwind'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji

Alright, i have finally read the entire thread (mostly. I skimmed a few parts) and i must say it is fascinating.

I did however run into a couple of problems. On the second page Draconian, you write the following.

"Some people claim The first born sons that are to be offered to Yahweh only mean to be priests or servants, but there is nothing else in the scripture to support this notion. On the contrary, they are mentioned in the same sentence as other "consumables" such as fruit and liquor.

Genesis 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Also the next verse confirms these things are to be offered as Yahweh's food.

22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me.

"

Now i will freely admit that i do not read my bible as much as i should but after reading this i looked it up and Genesis Chapter 22 only goes up to verse 24. In my version of the bible there is no verse 29, and no verse 30. Ether my edition of the bible is wrong or you have the wrong chapter. Could you please look into this for me?

For reference i am using the Quest Study Bible, New International Version. As far as i know this is an accurate version.

Also you quote scripture a lot without actually providing where in scripture you found it. When you do quote it i looked it up, but there is a lot that i was unable to. Now im not going to go back and re read all of that, but it would help if you could point out on one post where exactly you find a lot of these references to Yahweh being the son of El. Also a listing of the Dragon references would be helpful. You also refer to a council of sorts where multiple Gods sit in judgment or something like that. Could you clarify that a bit and post where you found that in the bible?

In the version of the bible that i own, serpents are mentioned frequently, but there is no mention of dragons, drakons, or other flying serpents. Could you let me know what version of the Bible you are working from?

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great</a>

wiki will suffice to show that herod had a particular relationship with the romans, and enjoyed hellenistic culture (which includes stylistics). and perhaps wasnt as sensitive to jewish religious sensibilities as he should have been.

a Roman client king of Judaea.

Herod, backed by the Roman Army, executed his father's murderer.

In 42 BC, he convinced Mark Antony and Octavian that his father had been forced to help Caesar's murderers. Herod was then named tetrarch of Galilee by the Romans. However, many of the Jews were very upset by this since most Jews did not consider Herod to be a true Jew.

While King Herod publicly identified himself as a Jew and was considered as such by some, [4] this religious identification notwithstanding was undermined by the Herodians Hellenistic cultural affinity, which would have earned them the antipathy of observant Jews.

Herod fled to Rome to plead with the Romans to restore him to power. There he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate[6] In 37 BC the Romans fully secured Judea and executed Antigonus. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Judea and took the title of basileus for himself, ushering in the Herodian Dynasty and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty. He ruled for 34 years.

Herod's most famous and ambitious project was the expansion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

In the eighteenth year (20-19 B.C.) of his reign, Herod rebuilt the Temple on "a more magnificent scale".[7] The new Temple was finished in a year and a half, although work on out-buildings and courts continued another eighty years.[7] To comply with religious law, Herod employed 1,000 priests as masons and carpenters in the rebuilding.[7] The finished temple, which was destroyed in 70 AD, is sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple.

[which was known to have been influenced by Hellenistic stylistics- by lil gremlin]

linked-image

Copper coin of Herod, bearing the legend "Basileus Herodon" on the obverse and a Macedonian sun-symbol on the reverse.

linked-image

Coin of Herod the Great, bearing a Roman-style helmet

* 31 BC — Judea suffers a devastating earthquake. Octavian defeats Mark Antony, so Herod switches allegiance to Octavian, later known as Augustus.

* 30 BC — Herod is shown great favour by Octavian, who at Rhodes confirms him as King of Judaea.

27 BC — An assassination attempt on Herod was foiled. To honour Augustus, Herod rebuilt Samaria and renamed it Sebaste.

Circa 18 BC — Herod traveled for the second time to Rome.

* 9 BC — Caesarea Maritima was inaugurated. Owing to the course of the war against the Nabateans, Herod fell into disgrace with Augustus. Herod again suspected Alexander of plotting to kill him.

* 8 BC — Herod accused his sons from Mariamne I of high treason. Herod reconciled with Augustus, which also gave him the permission to proceed legally against his sons.

* 7 BC — The court hearing took place in Berytos (Beirut) before a Roman court. Mariamne I's sons were found guilty and executed. The succession changed so that Antipater was the exclusive successor to the throne. In second place the succession incorporated Herod Philip, the son from Mariamne II.

* 6 BC — Herod proceeded against the Pharisees, who had announced that the birth of the Messiah would mean the end of his rule. (Biblical conjecture)

4 BC — Young Torah students smashed the golden eagle over the main entrance of the Temple of Jerusalem after the Pharisee teachers claimed it is a Roman symbol. Herod arrested them, brought them to court, and sentenced them. Augustus approved the death penalty for Antipater.

it is quite reasonable to suggest that if herod restored, or commissioned a new menorah, that it would reflect roman/hellenistic stylistics. his penchant for western things did cause some social unrest. didnt he include or restore a greek gymnasium inside the temple compound or on the mount? the sight of grown men 'exercising' in the nude was anathema to the jews and caused riots. i vaguely remember something about it, ill have a dig.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Alright, i have finally read the entire thread (mostly. I skimmed a few parts) and i must say it is fascinating.

I did however run into a couple of problems. On the second page Draconian, you write the following.

"Some people claim The first born sons that are to be offered to Yahweh only mean to be priests or servants, but there is nothing else in the scripture to support this notion. On the contrary, they are mentioned in the same sentence as other "consumables" such as fruit and liquor.

Genesis 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Also the next verse confirms these things are to be offered as Yahweh's food.

22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me.

"

Now i will freely admit that i do not read my bible as much as i should but after reading this i looked it up and Genesis Chapter 22 only goes up to verse 24. In my version of the bible there is no verse 29, and no verse 30. Ether my edition of the bible is wrong or you have the wrong chapter. Could you please look into this for me?

For reference i am using the Quest Study Bible, New International Version. As far as i know this is an accurate version.

Also you quote scripture a lot without actually providing where in scripture you found it. When you do quote it i looked it up, but there is a lot that i was unable to. Now im not going to go back and re read all of that, but it would help if you could point out on one post where exactly you find a lot of these references to Yahweh being the son of El. Also a listing of the Dragon references would be helpful. You also refer to a council of sorts where multiple Gods sit in judgment or something like that. Could you clarify that a bit and post where you found that in the bible?

In the version of the bible that i own, serpents are mentioned frequently, but there is no mention of dragons, drakons, or other flying serpents. Could you let me know what version of the Bible you are working from?

Peace.

Sorry, that was exodus, not Genesis, a typo, but thanks for letting me know.

Dragons are mentioned many times in the original king James Bible, translated from the word Tannin. But in modern times Christians thought they would be ridiculed if the Bible was filled with dragons so they simply changed God's word to be more politically correct. It has been changed to snake in some places, jackals in other places, monsters, in other places and whales in others. But the problem with this is that is contradicts the original Hebrew. A tannin cannot be all of these things, and by changing the word to Whales in Genesis, we no longer see the remarkable fact tht the Bible writers knew aobut dinosaurs (dragons) created after fish, and before the age of mammals just as science tells us.

Tannin is the word used for the creature that the staff carried by Moses is turned into. But the word is not snake, becasue there are several other words used for snake. And how can it be a whale? Or a Jackal?

As for fiery flying serpents, this is what the word Seraphim means. But modern Christians changed this too, becasue the same fiery flying serpents that are sent by God to punish the Israelites are the same creatures that stand around God, tend his throne and sing praises to him in Isaiah. Early Christians knew the turth, so in early chruch art we see the dragons around the throne, often swallowing up sinners who do not pass heavenly judgment.

And in the KJV, we also have dragons that sing praises to God in Psalms, and this is becasuse the dragons and Seraphim are the same thing although modern Christians have transformed them into swan winged, humanoid, "cartoon angels" the they feel more comfortable with. This is probably why satan is also refered to as serpent and dragon, he was probably one of the Seraphim.

As for the divine council, the article below explains it very sell. And remembrer as well that the Cannanites believed in this IDENTICAL council of gods, led by El, and his FAVORITE son was YAW! And Yaw, (and probably all of the others based on my reasearch), happens to be a DRAGON!

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

HEBREW HENOTHEISM

For the most update resources on this question, see Mark Smith's The Early History of God (Harper & Row, 1990) and The Triumph of Elohim, ed. Diana V. Edelman (Eerdmans, 1995).

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

– Ps. 82:1

It seems clear enough...that Moses was not a monotheist. Yet, to call him a polytheist seems inaccurate too. We can conclude that Moses stood somewhere between totemism and monotheism. A term to describe this position is henotheism. – H. Keith Beebe1

The Israelite tribes were heirs to a religious tradition which can only have been polytheistic.

– Yehezkel Kaufmann2

The Principle of Theistic Evolution is derived from the fact that some of the world's religions have developed through stages from polytheism to a monotheism. We can see this most clearly in the Vedic tradition were the many gods of the Vedas eventually reduce to the triune deity of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva with sectarian trinities found in the worship of Krishna, Shiva, and the Hindu Goddess. (Click here for more.) It is clear, however, that our principle is not a law, for scholars have now noted a theistic devolution in the return to polytheism in the originally monotheistic Zoroastrianism. One of the transitional stages from polytheism to monotheism has been called "henotheism, a situation in which there are many gods but one God prevails as the king of gods or the God of gods. The Vedas contain a form in henotheism with Varuna standing out as the ultimate ruler and judge – the one who infuses grace, forgives and punishes sin.

As a descriptive study in the history of religion, this article makes no judgment about whether monotheism is better than polytheism. Observers of the practice of Hindu polytheism could say that the recognition of many gods leads to greater religious tolerance. Monotheistic gods also tend to be more remote and less accessible to the life of faith. One might also argue that the exclusive worship of one God leads to intolerance of other religions. Just as biological evolution has not necessarily led to the best species, theistic evolution has not necessarily led to the best theology.

The final editors of the Hebrew canon were fervent monotheists, but a remnant of the polytheistic basis of the pre-Mosaic religion can still be detected. Albrecht Alt has shown that divine titles such as 'El Bet' el (Gen. 31:13; 35:7); 'El 'Olam (Gen. 21:33); and 'El Ro'i (Gen. 16:13); 'El 'Elyon (Gen. 14:18); and 'El Saddai (Gen. 17:1); all later taken to be one God (Yahweh) after Moses, were all originally separate gods worshipped by the early Hebrews.3 The Catholic scholar Bruce Vawter concurs with Alt. According to Vawter, none of the available English translations does justice to the original Hebrew of Genesis 31:13, which quite simply reads "I am the god Bethel" ('El Bet'el), who was a member of the Canaanite pantheon along with the rest of the above.4 The original meaning is therefore quite different from the traditional understanding: this god at Bethel is not the universal Lord who appeared at Bethel but just one god among many – a local deity of a specific place.

In the mutual swearing of Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:51f) it is clear that two distinct gods are referred to.5 The work of later editors is clearly evident in this passage. As Alt states: "Was it not plain paganism for the ancestor of Israel and one of his relations to swear by two different gods? This dangerous sentence had to be rendered harmless by an addition or alternation."6 In Judges 11:24 Jepthah recognizes the authority of the god Chemosh, at least for the Ammonites in their own land.

The popular notion that Moses was the original monotheist is a thesis that has very little support. As we shall soon see, Moses probably was not even a monotheist, but even if he was, there was monotheism in Egypt a generation before Moses, most likely under the heretic king Akhenaten of the 14th century B.C.E. In his insistence on the worship of Yahweh alone, Moses was a henotheist, i.e., he believed that Yahweh was the greatest among the gods, the king of gods.

The traditional belief that Yahweh revealed himself solely to Moses, and that no people except the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh, is also becoming more tenuous. Several scholars have pointed out evidence of Yahweh worship among several pre-Mosaic eastern cultures.7 For example, the controversial tablets at Ebla, dating back into the 3rd millennium B.C.E., speak of a god by the name of "Ya," who is linked to the Yahweh of Moses by some Ebla scholars.8

Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," does not deny the existence of other deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains that "there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from having anything to do with them."9 The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran.

The ninth century Masoretic text replaces "sons of God" with "sons of Israel," which some modern English versions follow. It does look like the Masoretes changed the text so as to avoid dangerous polytheistic implications. Furthermore, "Son of Israel" makes absolutely no sense in Deut. 32:8. The people of Israel were Yahweh's "portion" while the sons of God "were divine beings or angels to whom God had delegated authority over the nations. Their existence is not denied but rather accommodated to the overall authority of Yahweh to whom they are subservient."10 As Anthony Phillips states: "The poet, drawing on Canaanite mythology, identifies Yahweh with the pre-Davidic god 'Elyon."11 As Deut. 32:8 has been taken by some to be a very old passage, Gerald Cooke and others speculate that in the earliest times Yahweh was not the head of the gods, but simply one of the "sons of God" in the sense of b‘n‘ 'Elyon. In Deut. 32:8 Yahweh appears to be different from 'Elyon, because of the definite third person reference, which "easily gives the impression that Yahweh like the sons of God received his portion, allotment from 'Elyon."12

Theodore C. Vriezen explains the advantage of henotheism: "This idea of beings surrounding God by no means detracts from the uniqueness of God; on the contrary, these divine beings rather emphasize his uniqueness; he is the God of gods, their God, too; and they praise his holiness. Far from clashing with monotheism, this conception lays the greatest stress on the majesty of Yahweh. Yahweh is a unique God, but he is not alone."13 Complementing Vriezen's point is the fact that the other deities are never named, except for perhaps the case of Satan in Job.

A divine pluralism can also be seen in the Hebrew word for deity, 'elohîm, which is a plural form of 'Eloah, which is a form of 'El, the general word for God in the Semitic world. There are some scholars who argue that 'elohîm in reference to Yahweh must be a grammatical plurality only. For them 'elohîm is an abstract plural with a singular meaning. Such a grammatical form would emphasize the majesty of the Almighty. In his study of the "Great Isaiah Scroll" at Qumran, William Brownlee of Claremont has shown the radical extent of the use of this "plural of majesty": even Yahweh's quiver (Is. 49:2) and a single hand are in the plural.14

There is, however, a significant exception, noted long ago by the Hebrew grammarian Gensenius. When 'elohim is referred to pronominally, as in "let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26), then the majestic plural is not applicable.15 Furthermore, the priestly writers use singular verbs for the deity in adjacent passages; hence the use of the plural at 1:26 must be for good reason.16 Canaanite parallels show that the head god uses the first person plural in addressing his divine assembly. It is obvious that this passage reveals a henotheistic situation in which Yahweh is consulting with lesser deities around him.

The use of 'elohîm as divine beings definitely separate from Yahweh (e.g., Gen. 6, Ps. 82) proves conclusively that this divine pluralism is not just a grammatical one. Henotheism is seen in the fact that Yahweh is referred to as 'El 'elim (God of gods, Dan. 11:36) or in the use of the definite article ha 'elohîm (the God) for Yahweh, or b‘n‘ 'elohîm (the sons of God) for the other gods (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7).With regard to these divine "sons," Cooke states: "These are not 'sons' of Yahweh in a filial sense...the 'sons of (the) God(s)' are those who are of the realm of the gods, who partake of divinity."17 Gensenius agrees that b‘n‘ 'elohîm "properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of 'elohîm of 'elim...."18

Some Christian commentators have taken the ontological pluralism of 'elohîm as definite proof of the Trinity. Genesis 18, where three mysterious visitors come to Abraham, has been used to support this view.19 But rather than imposing a Christian view developed two millennia later on the Hebrews, the proper hermeneutic strategy would be to place it in the context of the religions of the ancient Near East.

Theodore Gaster has done just this and discovered that the story has basic similarities with the polytheistic folklore motif of "hospitality rewarded." Gaster explains: "The classic parallel is the tale, told by Ovid and Hyginus of how Jupiter, Neptune, and Mercury (i.e., three visitors, as in the biblical narrative), while traveling through Boeotia, came in disguise to Hyrieus, a childless peasant of Tanagra, and in return for his hospitality, granted him the boon of a son.20 This story goes back at least as far as Pindar (518-438 B.C.E.)

Max Weber also contends that the theological basis for Gen. 18 is probably polytheistic: "The grammatical forms in Abraham's address to the divine epiphany of the three men would seem to make it probable that the singular of the address did not preclude the possibility of polytheistic conceptions."21 The trinitarian hypothesis is vitiated by at least four considerations: (1) the triunity of Yahweh is definitely weakened when two of the divine beings depart for Sodom (18:22), and Yahweh and Abraham are left behind negotiating the fate of the Sodomites; (2) it is clear that the divine plurality is more than three, if the other 'elohîm are the deities of the other nations; (3) even if there were only three gods, this is clearly tritheism and not one divine being with three persons; and (4) the persons of the Trinity are definitely not conceived as a divine council with God the Father as the supreme executive.

The 'Elohîm as Angels

The fact that the two divine beings that go to Sodom are called "angels" have led traditional commentators to mitigate the implied polytheism by the qualification that these beings were not true gods, but created angels. This interpretation is discounted by Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others.22 The Bible makes a clear distinction between an angel (Heb. malakh; Gk., aggelos) and a god or God ('elohîm; theos). Revelation 19:10 and 22:8,9 are explicit in their injunction that angels are "fellow servants" and not gods that are to be worshipped. The 'elohîm are not created beings because they are with Yahweh from the beginning and are involved in creation itself (Gen. 1:26; Job 38:7). In a letter to me, Brownlee concedes that there is no mention of the creation of angels, but does point out that yahweh saba'ot does mean "Creator of [heavenly] armies." But it is clear, especially in Job, that the Lord's host (=army) is made up of astral deities not angels.23 But the word "creator" here does imply that the beings are created, eliminating an essential divine attribute (at least for philosophical theology). In Vedic hedonism the lesser gods are also many times referred to as created beings. In Job, Satan is one of the subordinate gods, a son of God, and is referred to elsewhere (Is. 14:12) as the "Day Star" (helal) and "son of Dawn" (shahar), both members of the Canaanite pantheon. Scholar Marvin H. Pope states that "these are lesser members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later monotheistic theology as angels."24

The interchange of God and angels in the Hebrew Scriptures reflect an early conception of the nature of angels before the influx of Persian angelology during and after the Babylonian captivity. For the early Hebrews, an angelic figure was a temporary disguise for Yahweh. "Angels" functioned as mediators across the great difference between Yahweh and mortals.25 Therefore, the "angel" that appears to Hagar (Gen. 16:7); the "angels" at the Oaks of Mamre and Sodom; the "angel" that wrestled with Jacob; and the "angel" that was "commander of the army of the Lord" (Jos. 5:14) are all divine manifestations of either Yahweh or one of the subordinate deities.

This theory of early Hebrew angelology would also preclude a claim that these "men" that appear as Yahweh foreshadow in any way the Incarnation. Outside of Is. 9:6, which has been taken by many as "divinity in might" only, there is no explicit concept of a man-God or a sustained doctrine of the Incarnation in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of the man-God most likely inspired by the Greco-Roman state cults and the Hellenistic mystery religions. The idea is not only alien but blasphemous to the Hebrew mind.

The remnants of the original polytheistic base of ancient Judaism are found more often in the nonprophetic works like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Job. Psalm 82 is an important text as evidence for Hebraic henotheism. (The following is the RSV translation with Julian Morgenstern's alternative reading for vv. 6-7):

1. (a) God ('elohîm has taken his place in the divine council ('adat'el). (B) In the midst of the gods ('elohîm) he holds judgment:

2. "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

3. Give justice to the weak and fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

4. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

5. They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness;

6. I say, "You are gods ('elohîm), sons of the Most High (b‘n‘ 'Elyon), all of you;

7. Nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince."

8. "I thought you were gods, Sons of Elyon, all of you;

9. You shall become mortal (temutun) like men, And as one of the sarim shall you fall.]

10. Arise, O God ('elohîm), judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations!

Traditional interpretations of this psalm have insisted that the 'elohîm are really judges and not divine beings. But if the 'adat'el is an assembly of rulers, then 'elohîm in 1(B) would have no meaning. The great Ugaritic scholar Mitchell Dahood has shown that the phrase 'adat'el undoubtedly comes from the Ugaritic 'dt il, which is the "council of El" of Canaanite mythology.26 Ziony Zevit maintains that Ps. 82 is yet another Canaanite hymn that has been Yahwinized and because of that the text, as other Psalms borrowed from Ugarit, manifests corruption and confusion (26a).

Setting the stage in 1939 for the most careful scholarship on this psalm, Julian Morgenstern states that it cannot Abe denied that the fundamental meaning of 'elohîm is "gods," and that only by a long stretch of the imagination and rather devious and uncertain hermeneutics can the meaning "rulers," "kings," or "judges" be ascribed to it".27 The major problem with these latter meanings is that 'elohîm is never used in this way in any other passage. In 1 Sam. 28:13 the "spirit" of the deceased Samuel is called an 'elohîm, but as commentators comment: "The word god here means a being from another [spiritual] world."28 Some take the 'elohîm of Ex. 21:6 and 22:8 as "judges," but reputable Catholic scholars maintain that these messages too reveal an ancient polytheistic residue.29

The most troublesome aspect of Ps. 82 is Yahweh's judgment on the other gods. Following the implications of Deut. 32:8, these 'elohîm must be seen as the gods of the other nations, which obviously in the eyes of Yahweh have not been ruling very well. The Hebrews knew Yahweh as occasionally temperamental, suspicious, and erratic. As Dahood says in regard to Job 4:18, 15:15, "Even his holy ones he distrusts, the heavens are not pure in his sight."30 Yahweh's judgment for the other gods' misadministration is a harsh one: they must die like men. The traditionalists have taken this verse as proof that the 'elohîm cannot possibly be gods. But Morgenstern has shown that the Hebrew verb temutun compares favorably with other passages (e.g., Gen. 2:17; 3:3,4; 2 Sam. 14:14) where the meaning is most clearly "to become mortal." Cooke concurs: "The statement that those who are gods shall nevertheless die like men appears to us to be an undeniable indication of the divine status of those who are so addressed; their (former) immortality is clearly presupposed."31

Other psalms refer to Yahweh's divine council and provide further support for our thesis. The "sons of god" (b‘n‘ 'elim) of Ps. 29:1 are again taken by conservatives as referring to judges or rulers. But Cooke counters that "the reference to divine beings here would seem to be beyond question" and that "it seems highly probable that we are dealing in Ps. 29 with an Israelite adaptation of a Canaanite hymn which has its setting in a polytheistic conception of a divine pantheon."32 Lesser divine beings who are praising the king of gods, are also found in Pss. 68 and 89: "O Kings of the earth, sing, O gods, sing praises to the Lord" (32); and "for who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Whom among the heavenly beings (b‘n‘ 'elim) is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him?" Cooke cites an Ugaritic inscription which has the linguistic prototype of b‘n‘ 'elim as comprising the "assembly of the sons of El."33

On our theory, pure monotheism did not come to the Hebrew scriptures until the writings of Deutero-Isaiah, i.e., during and after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century B.C.E. Indications of monotheism before Deutero-Isaiah must then be the work of later monotheistic editors. We have seen how later scribes did not hesitate to change passages (Deut. 32:8; Gen. 31:53) which had explicit polytheistic implications. It is significant to note that the monotheistic passages in Isaiah (like 45:21, 22; 46:90) come after Cyrus the Great has been named the Lord's Messiah, "anointed one," in 45:1. Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, one who worshipped the single, supreme God Ahura Mazda. Many scholars believe that Zoroastrianism was the world's first truly monotheistic religion and that Hebrew religion was influenced profoundly by the fact that the new state of Israel was a small province in a great Persian empire.

Let us conclude this chapter on Hebrew henotheism with a quotation from Oesterly: "The final compilation of the Psalter undoubtedly comes from an age when the religion of Israel was fundamentally, and even aggressively, monotheistic. But there survive phrases which imply a polytheistic outlook. While Yahweh is the supreme God, and the only God to receive the highest honors, others are admitted as valid deities, though of lower rank and inferior quality. The position recalls the kathenotheism which appears in many of the hymns of the Rig-Veda."34

END ARTICLE

As for the use of DRAKONS, this is the word used by ancient Hebrew priests when they were translating Hebrew into to Greek and had to find a suitable equivalent to Seraphim. So you see, there is no question this is what the Bible writers meant. Not swan winged angels, which were a pagan invention of the early Christians based on greco roman demi gods. The real angels in the Bible are identical to normal men. No wings, no halos. The wings were stolen from the description of the Seraphim/Drakons in Isaiah.

All of this is explained in greater detail, as well has rare depictions of dragons as heavenly creatures in Christian art, in my upcoming book, which is now nearly ready.

All the best,

DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
wiki will suffice to show that herod had a particular relationship with the romans, and enjoyed hellenistic culture (which includes stylistics). and perhaps wasnt as sensitive to jewish religious sensibilities as he should have been.

it is quite reasonable to suggest that if herod restored, or commissioned a new menorah, that it would reflect roman/hellenistic stylistics. his penchant for western things did cause some social unrest. didnt he include or restore a greek gymnasium inside the temple compound or on the mount? the sight of grown men 'exercising' in the nude was anathema to the jews and caused riots. i vaguely remember something about it, ill have a dig.

I fully agree with everything in that article. But there is also good evidence that Herod tried to be a pious Jew. He would never dream of profaning the holiest place in Judaism with a pagan object, and as you have seen, the AZ laws CONFIRMED the drakons did not violate them. And again, NO ROMAN would ever have seen the menorah if Jerusalem had not been sacked. And please show us ANY similar decorative object in a Greek or Roman contexts. Just becasue it has an eagle and many dragons on it does not make it greek or roman, because EVERYBODY in the ancient world acknowledge BOTH dragons and eagles, and BOTH play an imortant role in Judaism.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji
Sorry, that was exodus, not Genesis, a typo, but thanks for letting me know.

Ahh thanks that makes a lot more sense.

I do see where you make the claim that they were sacrificed to Yahweh now. However i have a different sort of take on it. In the verse he is referencing the sacrificing of the first born which is explained earlier in the book.

Exodus 22:29 "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

22:30 "Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me."

Here is where these two verses are explained.

Exodus 12:1-2 "The lord said to Moses. Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal."

Here to be consecrated meant to be given to God. Consecrated animals were ether killed as sacrifices or given to the priests in later years. Instead of the firstborn sons being killed, however, a substitute died in their place. In this way, the lives of the firstborn sons were "redeemed". This command was a direct relation to the Israelites deliverance from Egypt. Since they were delivered and the first born son of every Egyptian family killed, this became symbolic. The death of the Egyptians so that the Israelites might live. You will find a theme of redemption common throughout the bible. It is interesting to note that the sacrifice of animals to redeem the first born sons became no longer necessary after Jesus died on the cross. This sacrifice negated the need for animals to be killed to redeem man.

Dragons are mentioned many times in the original king James Bible, translated from the word Tannin. But in modern times Christians thought they would be ridiculed if the Bible was filled with dragons so they simply changed God's word to be more politically correct. It has been changed to snake in some places, jackals in other places, monsters, in other places and whales in others. But the problem with this is that is contradicts the original Hebrew. A tannin cannot be all of these things, and by changing the word to Whales in Genesis, we no longer see the remarkable fact tht the Bible writers knew aobut dinosaurs (dragons) created after fish, and before the age of mammals just as science tells us.

Tannin is the word used for the creature that the staff carried by Moses is turned into. But the word is not snake, becasue there are several other words used for snake. And how can it be a whale? Or a Jackal?

I will have to pick up a King James bible in the near future, but for the moment i must go off of the bible i do have which does only mention snakes.

It is interesting to note that the translation of the word Tannin means all of the creatures you mentioned, dragon being only one possible interpretation with the more common interpretation being monster rather than dragon specifically.

As for fiery flying serpents, this is what the word Seraphim means. But modern Christians changed this too, becasue the same fiery flying serpents that are sent by God to punish the Israelites are the same creatures that stand around God, tend his throne and sing praises to him in Isaiah. Early Christians knew the turth, so in early chruch art we see the dragons around the throne, often swallowing up sinners who do not pass heavenly judgment.

And in the KJV, we also have dragons that sing praises to God in Psalms, and this is becasuse the dragons and Seraphim are the same thing although modern Christians have transformed them into swan winged, humanoid, "cartoon angels" the they feel more comfortable with. This is probably why satan is also refered to as serpent and dragon, he was probably one of the Seraphim.

Correction: The Hebrew noun saraph means (fiery flying serpents). The Hebrew verb Saraph means (to consume with fire, or to burn). Although it is possible tha the term Seraphim is a derivation of the Noun Saraph, i think it is more likely that the word is derived from the Verb. Seraphim are angels and are quite clearly described in (Isaiah 6:2). Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. Note that the word Seraphim and Saraph appear in different translations of the bible, so the matter is by no means solved. However if we believe that the word Seraphim is derived from the Noun, then the word means fiery flying serpents, if we believe it to be a derivation of the Verb, then the word takes on a new meaning. Those who burn or are consumed by fire.

It is said that whoever lays eyes on a Seraph, he would instantly be incinerated due to the immense brightness of the Seraph. They are described as very tall, with six wings and four heads, one for of the cardinal directions. One pair of wings are for flying, one for covering their eyes (for even they may not look directly at God), and one for covering their feet (which is almost certainly a euphemism for genitalia). They are in the direct presence of God.

This means that those who burn would refer more to the brilliant light nature of the creature and not to an actual Dragon. Im sorry but if we are accepting the possible existence of dragons, then how more far fetched is an angel?

As for the divine council, the article below explains it very sell. And remembrer as well that the Cannanites believed in this IDENTICAL council of gods, led by El, and his FAVORITE son was YAW! And Yaw, (and probably all of the others based on my reasearch), happens to be a DRAGON!

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

HEBREW HENOTHEISM

For the most update resources on this question, see Mark Smith's The Early History of God (Harper & Row, 1990) and The Triumph of Elohim, ed. Diana V. Edelman (Eerdmans, 1995).

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

– Ps. 82:1

Alright, while you can interpret that verse the way you do, you can also interpret it another way.

The entire psalm reads...

"God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the "gods":

How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

They know nothing, they understand nothing.

they walk about in darkness

All the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, You are "gods"

you are all sons of the Most High.

But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler.

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

for all nations are your inheritance.

"

If you read the first part it does indeed appear that God is part of a pantheon, however reading the entire verse it is quite clear to me that he is not referring to them as literal Gods, he is in fact calling them out as charlatans, and men who think they are gods. He deliberately points out that they will die like mere men and will fall like any other ruler. This to me says that they were humans who thought themselves to be gods. Not actual divine beings or in your case, dragons.

It seems clear enough...that Moses was not a monotheist. Yet, to call him a polytheist seems inaccurate too. We can conclude that Moses stood somewhere between totemism and monotheism. A term to describe this position is henotheism. – H. Keith Beebe1

The Israelite tribes were heirs to a religious tradition which can only have been polytheistic.

– Yehezkel Kaufmann2

The Principle of Theistic Evolution is derived from the fact that some of the world's religions have developed through stages from polytheism to a monotheism. We can see this most clearly in the Vedic tradition were the many gods of the Vedas eventually reduce to the triune deity of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva with sectarian trinities found in the worship of Krishna, Shiva, and the Hindu Goddess. (Click here for more.) It is clear, however, that our principle is not a law, for scholars have now noted a theistic devolution in the return to polytheism in the originally monotheistic Zoroastrianism. One of the transitional stages from polytheism to monotheism has been called "henotheism, a situation in which there are many gods but one God prevails as the king of gods or the God of gods. The Vedas contain a form in henotheism with Varuna standing out as the ultimate ruler and judge – the one who infuses grace, forgives and punishes sin.

As a descriptive study in the history of religion, this article makes no judgment about whether monotheism is better than polytheism. Observers of the practice of Hindu polytheism could say that the recognition of many gods leads to greater religious tolerance. Monotheistic gods also tend to be more remote and less accessible to the life of faith. One might also argue that the exclusive worship of one God leads to intolerance of other religions. Just as biological evolution has not necessarily led to the best species, theistic evolution has not necessarily led to the best theology.

The condensing of some of the hindu gods has nothing to do with whether the hebrew belief system started out as a polytheism. It is an example of one culture that condensed a few of their Gods. It must be pointed out that the hindu are not monotheistic and never were. Their pantheon was more likely at one point a real ruling family that made their people worship them.

The final editors of the Hebrew canon were fervent monotheists, but a remnant of the polytheistic basis of the pre-Mosaic religion can still be detected. Albrecht Alt has shown that divine titles such as 'El Bet' el (Gen. 31:13; 35:7); 'El 'Olam (Gen. 21:33); and 'El Ro'i (Gen. 16:13); 'El 'Elyon (Gen. 14:18); and 'El Saddai (Gen. 17:1); all later taken to be one God (Yahweh) after Moses, were all originally separate gods worshipped by the early Hebrews.3 The Catholic scholar Bruce Vawter concurs with Alt. According to Vawter, none of the available English translations does justice to the original Hebrew of Genesis 31:13, which quite simply reads "I am the god Bethel" ('El Bet'el), who was a member of the Canaanite pantheon along with the rest of the above.4 The original meaning is therefore quite different from the traditional understanding: this god at Bethel is not the universal Lord who appeared at Bethel but just one god among many – a local deity of a specific place.

El Echad.

The One God (Mal. 2:10).

Echad means one in Hebrew and hearkens to the Shema.

El Hanne’eman.

The Faithful God (Deut. 7:9).

From aman, to support, nourish.

El Emet.

The God of Truth (Ps. 31:5).

Emet means firmness, faithfulness, reliableness.

El Tsaddik.

The Righteous God (Isa. 45:21).

Tsaddik means just, righteous.

El Shaddai.

The All Sufficient God.

Shad means “breast” in Hebrew (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Exod. 6:3; Num. 24:6; Ruth 1:20; Job (various references); Psa. 22:10; 68:15; 91:1; Ezek. 1:24; 10:5; 23:21 etc.). Occurs 48 times in the Tanakh.

El Elyon.

The Most High God.

This title stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:20; Ps. 9:2).

Sometimes referred to in Scripture simply as Elyon (e.g., Num. 24:16).

El Olam.

God Everlasting; The Everlasting God; (Gen. 21:33, Ps. 90:1-3, 93:2; Isa. 26:4).

Olam means world, universe, everlasting time or space.

El Roi.

God Who Sees me; Hagar’s name for God when He saw her affliction (Gen. 16:13).

Notice the Chateph Qamets under the Resh.

El Yeshurun.

The God of Jeshurun

Yeshurun means “the righteous (yashar) people”: Israel's ideal character and high calling (Deut. 32:15; 33:5,26; Isa. 44:2).

El Gibbor.

The Mighty God. Picture of God as a Warrior and Champion (Isa. 9:6).

Gibbor means strong or mighty

El De’ot.

The God of Knowledge (1 Sam. 2:3).

God has perfect knowledge of all things, from beginning to end (omniscient).

El Haggadol.

The Great God (Deut. 10:17).

When used about God, gadol means great, grand, awesome.

El Hakkavod.

The God of Glory (Ps. 29:3).

Kavod means glory, weight, and honor.

Note the use of the Maqqef (binder) in this construct name.

El Hakkadosh. (Sometimes transliterated Hakadosh).

The Holy God (Isa. 5:16). Kaddosh means sacred, holy, set apart, utterly unique

and one of a kind.

El Hashamayim.

The God of the Heavens (Ps. 136:26).

Shamayim refers to the abode of God.

El Chaiyai.

The God of my life (Ps. 42:8).

The first person personal pronoun ending is used with the word Chayim.

El-Channun.

The Gracious God (Jonah 4:2).

Chen means grace.

El Yisrael.

The God of Israel (Ps. 68:36 [H]).

Israel comes from the verb sara, contend, and associates El with YHVH (Gen. 32).

El Sali.

God of my Strength; God my Rock (Ps. 42:9).

Sala means cliff or crag in Hebrew, used poetically like Tzur (Rock).

El Rachum.

The God of Compassion; Compassionate God (Deut. 4:31).

From racham (Qal). Rechem means womb.

El Yeshuati.

The God of my Salvation (Isa. 12:2).

From yeshuah, meaning salvation, deliverance, and victory.

El Yeshuatenu.

The God of our Salvation (Psalm 68:19).

From yeshuah, meaning salvation, deliverance, and victory.

El-Kanno.

The Jealous God (Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Jos. 24:19; 1 Ki. 19:10, 14; Ezek. 39:25; Joel 2:18; Nah. 1:2; Zech. 1:14; 8:2).

Suggests that God watches us lovingly and closely, like a faithful and passionate bridegroom watches over his betrothed.

Immanuel.

God is with us (Isa. 7:14).

Immanu is a preposition with plural ending.

El Hannora.

The Awesome God (Neh. 9:32).

None of these were ever intended to be interpreted as different Gods, and only because it is in Hebrew is this meaning taken. If the bible were originally written in english, we would not be having this conversation.

The traditional belief that Yahweh revealed himself solely to Moses, and that no people except the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh, is also becoming more tenuous. Several scholars have pointed out evidence of Yahweh worship among several pre-Mosaic eastern cultures.7 For example, the controversial tablets at Ebla, dating back into the 3rd millennium B.C.E., speak of a god by the name of "Ya," who is linked to the Yahweh of Moses by some Ebla scholars.8

The Hebrew God has been worshiped by many cultures and if the Bible is accurate, which seems to be your implication here, then the Hebrew God was the original belief of the world. The Chinese until recently worshiped a God known as Shang-Ti (heavenly emperor), the indians worshiped the great spirit even though they were a shamanistic culture, This seems to me more like memory of a belief their ancestors held than an idea they came up with on their own.

Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," does not deny the existence of other deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains that "there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from having anything to do with them."9 The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran.

The ninth century Masoretic text replaces "sons of God" with "sons of Israel," which some modern English versions follow. It does look like the Masoretes changed the text so as to avoid dangerous polytheistic implications. Furthermore, "Son of Israel" makes absolutely no sense in Deut. 32:8. The people of Israel were Yahweh's "portion" while the sons of God "were divine beings or angels to whom God had delegated authority over the nations. Their existence is not denied but rather accommodated to the overall authority of Yahweh to whom they are subservient."10 As Anthony Phillips states: "The poet, drawing on Canaanite mythology, identifies Yahweh with the pre-Davidic god 'Elyon."11 As Deut. 32:8 has been taken by some to be a very old passage, Gerald Cooke and others speculate that in the earliest times Yahweh was not the head of the gods, but simply one of the "sons of God" in the sense of b‘n‘ 'Elyon. In Deut. 32:8 Yahweh appears to be different from 'Elyon, because of the definite third person reference, which "easily gives the impression that Yahweh like the sons of God received his portion, allotment from 'Elyon."12

ok, here is the thing. Simply because the first commandment does not repudiate the existence of other gods does not mean that there are any. It is quite clear that throughout the bible man was continually trying to make himself into a god. There are even times as demonstrated above when God refers to these upstart kings as gods who will die like any other man. This does not refer to them as gods, this refers to them as men whom God is exercising his authority over.

The term sons of God is replaced with Sons of Israel as pointed out by the article, however it does make sense when put into context with the exodus from egypt. This does not mean that God has multiple sons or Dragons under him.

Again, terms like Elyon, are simply different names for one God. It is the same as calling a strong man a mighty man. It is simply a different word for the same being.

Ok there is just way too much of this article to go through piece by piece but the point is that simply by looking at it from a different point of view, i can completely take Yahweh being a dragon out of the bible as even a reference. The major thing to remember here is that again this view of Hebrew belief as a religion that developed from other older cultures is only possible if you completely invalidate the bible as a source which you have not done. If you believe only bits and pieces of the bible then you are only picking it apart and it becomes completely unreliable as a source. If the bible is accurate then the Hebrew God was the first and only god and all other gods after were only idols or men pretending to be god.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Nothing proves that screed as a clear apology for disassociation with the Titus menorah better than this excerpt.

The eagle was a particularly auspicious bird in the OT, aside from the fact it was an abomination to eat, and small wonder. The author of that piece seems quite willing to ignore the importance of the eagle to biblical god and the Jewish people simple because the Romans used it as a symbol also. Perhaps he and those who wish to cite him should first become acquainted with the various passages concerning that bird, and before he sticks his perverbial pen any further down his perverbisal throat, he might want to debate with himself why such an abomination to the jews would be one of the four faces in Ezekiel's 'whirlwind'

quite an antagonistic post mr 67...may i recommend a hammer for that sore head of yours...

the eagle is indeed and always has been significant for just about every culture, i have never denied this.

I think what the author of that piece was getting at was the mode of presentation...for example, we can all recognise a roman imperial eagle when we see an image of one, or a german one, or an american one, or an albanian one..etc.

the eagles on the titus menorah hold a laurel crown...(it is believed-since the detail is difficult to make out) and appear to be of roman imperial design.

as i recently posted, a riot was caused and an eagle standard destroyed in the temple of jerusalem because it was thought to reflect roman imperial imagery.

shows 2 things, herod's use of roman imagery in reconstruction of the temple and its artefacts, and his lack of sensitivity to jewish sensibilities.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Ahh thanks that makes a lot more sense.

I do see where you make the claim that they were sacrificed to Yahweh now. However i have a different sort of take on it. In the verse he is referencing the sacrificing of the first born which is explained earlier in the book.

Exodus 22:29 "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

22:30 "Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me."

Here is where these two verses are explained.

Exodus 12:1-2 "The lord said to Moses. Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal."

Here to be consecrated meant to be given to God. Consecrated animals were ether killed as sacrifices or given to the priests in later years. Instead of the firstborn sons being killed, however, a substitute died in their place. In this way, the lives of the firstborn sons were "redeemed". This command was a direct relation to the Israelites deliverance from Egypt. Since they were delivered and the first born son of every Egyptian family killed, this became symbolic. The death of the Egyptians so that the Israelites might live. You will find a theme of redemption common throughout the bible. It is interesting to note that the sacrifice of animals to redeem the first born sons became no longer necessary after Jesus died on the cross. This sacrifice negated the need for animals to be killed to redeem man.

To my knowledge it never says anything about other animals being substituted for human prey in the Bible. The only substitute mentioned is a more suitable animal to replace a firstborn Ass. It does say that humans can be redeemed for gold and silver though. Maybe you have forgotten the story of Issac. And all of these sacrifices were actually eaten by the Yaw-dragon. They are carefully roasted and seasoned with salt, viscera is discarded. And the aroma smelled delicious, not like a creamatorium. The Bible specifically says Yahweh really consumed the sacrifices.

I will have to pick up a King James bible in the near future, but for the moment i must go off of the bible i do have which does only mention snakes.

It is interesting to note that the translation of the word Tannin means all of the creatures you mentioned, dragon being only one possible interpretation with the more common interpretation being monster rather than dragon specifically.

Correction: The Hebrew noun saraph means (fiery flying serpents). The Hebrew verb Saraph means (to consume with fire, or to burn). Although it is possible tha the term Seraphim is a derivation of the Noun Saraph, i think it is more likely that the word is derived from the Verb. Seraphim are angels and are quite clearly described in (Isaiah 6:2). Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. Note that the word Seraphim and Saraph appear in different translations of the bible, so the matter is by no means solved. However if we believe that the word Seraphim is derived from the Noun, then the word means fiery flying serpents, if we believe it to be a derivation of the Verb, then the word takes on a new meaning. Those who burn or are consumed by fire.

It is said that whoever lays eyes on a Seraph, he would instantly be incinerated due to the immense brightness of the Seraph. They are described as very tall, with six wings and four heads, one for of the cardinal directions. One pair of wings are for flying, one for covering their eyes (for even they may not look directly at God), and one for covering their feet (which is almost certainly a euphemism for genitalia). They are in the direct presence of God.

This means that those who burn would refer more to the brilliant light nature of the creature and not to an actual Dragon. Im sorry but if we are accepting the possible existence of dragons, then how more far fetched is an angel?

The highly esteemed Jewish Encyclopedia, composed by learned Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis beleieve the Seraphim are reptilian creatures, because of the root seraph, which is ALSO the name of a winged supernatural dragon in ancient Egypt. A creature IS a noun and not a verb. The early Christians completely understood the seraphim were dragons too, as we see in their art, and both ancient Jews and Chritians used the scripture Apocolypse of Baruch that spoke of the heavenly dragons who devoured the wicked. And to remove all doubt as to what the ancient Jews REALLY believed to be true meaning of the Seraphim, was that when this word was translated into greek, they used the word Drakon! You cannot dismiss the authentic archaeologcial evidence.

Actually swan winged angels are far more farfetched than dragons. EVERY human culture acknowledged dragons, and in the earliest eden story complete with Adam, a dragon built the garden of Eden, and a dragon warned Noah of the flood. This "Great Dragon of Heaven" as he is called in his Sumerian hymns, would become known as Yaw to the Cannanites, (who also said he was a dragon) , and ultimately, Yahweh to the Israelites, who clearly was a dragon as well, for Moses was ordered to make his dragon Idol that was worshipped for centuries during the time Judah and Israel flourished.

All of these dragons were subservient to a non-dragon Creator God, Anu in Sumeria, and El to the Cannanites and Israelites. As th article points out, orginally Yahweh and El are seperate entities, just as Yaw and El are in the Cannanite theology. Lets imagine the world is millions of years old as science tells us, and that at one time , like Genesis say, "great dragons" dwelled on the earth. The human form would not evolve for another 100 million years. So maybe it made since to "enhance" some kind of winged reptile with greater intelligence to be servants, 100 million years before there could be angels in human form (which were recruited humans). This might be why nearly EVERY human culture speaks of intelligent dragons --

They are probably the gretest proof of a supernatural realm. The new testament states even Jesus did not look like a human being before he came to earth.

Alright, while you can interpret that verse the way you do, you can also interpret it another way.

The entire psalm reads...

"God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the "gods":

How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

They know nothing, they understand nothing.

they walk about in darkness

All the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, You are "gods"

you are all sons of the Most High.

But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler.

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

for all nations are your inheritance.

"

If you read the first part it does indeed appear that God is part of a pantheon, however reading the entire verse it is quite clear to me that he is not referring to them as literal Gods, he is in fact calling them out as charlatans, and men who think they are gods. He deliberately points out that they will die like mere men and will fall like any other ruler. This to me says that they were humans who thought themselves to be gods. Not actual divine beings or in your case, dragons.

The condensing of some of the hindu gods has nothing to do with whether the hebrew belief system started out as a polytheism. It is an example of one culture that condensed a few of their Gods. It must be pointed out that the hindu are not monotheistic and never were. Their pantheon was more likely at one point a real ruling family that made their people worship them.

None of these were ever intended to be interpreted as different Gods, and only because it is in Hebrew is this meaning taken. If the bible were originally written in english, we would not be having this conversation.

The Hebrew God has been worshiped by many cultures and if the Bible is accurate, which seems to be your implication here, then the Hebrew God was the original belief of the world. The Chinese until recently worshiped a God known as Shang-Ti (heavenly emperor), the indians worshiped the great spirit even though they were a shamanistic culture, This seems to me more like memory of a belief their ancestors held than an idea they came up with on their own.

Nearly all of these cultures believe the Creator God sent dragons to mankind to serve as local Gods to specific tribes. We have the Oriental dragons of course, the Mesoamerican "dragons" like Quetzalcoatl and Kuklakan, and similar creatures in North america, and the Mesopotamian dragons who do the EXACT same things that would later be accredited to the dragon Yahweh.

ok, here is the thing. Simply because the first commandment does not repudiate the existence of other gods does not mean that there are any. It is quite clear that throughout the bible man was continually trying to make himself into a god. There are even times as demonstrated above when God refers to these upstart kings as gods who will die like any other man. This does not refer to them as gods, this refers to them as men whom God is exercising his authority over.

The term sons of God is replaced with Sons of Israel as pointed out by the article, however it does make sense when put into context with the exodus from egypt. This does not mean that God has multiple sons or Dragons under him.

Again, terms like Elyon, are simply different names for one God. It is the same as calling a strong man a mighty man. It is simply a different word for the same being.

Ok there is just way too much of this article to go through piece by piece but the point is that simply by looking at it from a different point of view, i can completely take Yahweh being a dragon out of the bible as even a reference. The major thing to remember here is that again this view of Hebrew belief as a religion that developed from other older cultures is only possible if you completely invalidate the bible as a source which you have not done. If you believe only bits and pieces of the bible then you are only picking it apart and it becomes completely unreliable as a source. If the bible is accurate then the Hebrew God was the first and only god and all other gods after were only idols or men pretending to be god.

Peace

Distinguished experts in their fields say the early hebrews believed in multiple gods as the article and scriptural states. The 10 Commandmants only say there should be no other God before Yahweh, but does not dismiss other gods. But I agree these are not true Gods. They were the ancient watcher dragon that the Creator put on the earth to supervised the development of human culture. This is why EVERY culture, (including Judaism and early Christianity, UNQUESTIONABLY acknowledge dragons as heavenly creatures. Archaeology proves this, it cannot be disputed. The Zoroastrian Persain empire, and gnostic Christian also understood Yahweh is a dragon.

The Bible may have been accurate at one time, but it no longer is. The article shows how the references to other gods has been changed, just as all the references to the heavenly dragons has been changed in only the past hundred years. In fact, the true reference to the Sons of God and NOT the Sons of Israel, can be found in the DEAD SEA SCROLLS!

The ancient book burners never counted on archaeology to reveal the real truth of the Bible as it was originally intended.

Ancient legends all over the world speak of "dragons" sent by the Creator God to watch over the different human tribes and teach them agriculture, animal husbandry, laws, etc. In return, the human tribe fed the dragon sacrifices, sometimes even including humans as the bible states. Yahweh is the dragon of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament is his story. Jesus knew the dragon was not the real God, and told the pharisees that they were not worshipping his father, but a murderous creature. Jesus did not call to the dragon Yahweh from the cross. He called to Eloi, the the true creator.

It shouldn't be such a big deal to Christians that Yahweh is really a dragon. On the contrary, it explains why Yahweh behaves in such a cruel and ungodlike way throughout the Old Testament, and a logical reason behind animal and human sacrifices..... he ate them.

Peace to you too. DC

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
quite an antagonistic post mr 67...

the eagle is indeed and always has been significant for just about every culture, i have never denied this.

I think what the author of that piece was getting at was the mode of presentation...for example, we can all recognise a roman imperial eagle when we see an image of one, or a german one, or an american one, or an albanian one..etc.

the eagles on the titus menorah hold a laurel crown...(it is believed-since the detail is difficult to make out) and appear to be of roman imperial design.

as i recently posted, a riot was caused and an eagle standard destroyed in the temple of jerusalem because it was thought to reflect roman imperial imagery.

shows 2 things, herod's use of roman imagery in reconstruction of the temple and its artefacts, and his lack of sensitivity to jewish sensibilities.

One archaeologist claims it is not an eagle at all but a winged humanoid. I wish I would have looked at it more closely when I was in Rome!

But what you do not seem to understand is that yes, displaying Roman standards in public might be done to please the Romans, but the Menorah would never be seen by a pagan. The images on it were secret knowledge of the Jews, known only to non-Jews today becasue of the violation of the temple. For dragons to be on the holiest of Jewish objects clearly meant they held special significance, and we see this in the clear fact that the heavenly seraphim were acknowledged to be "Drakons (dragons) and apparently, Yahweh himself, exactly as his Cannanite percursor Yaw.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67thbook
quite an antagonistic post mr 67...may i recommend a hammer for that sore head of yours..
I make no apology for making statements of fact, if they are considered antagonistic, then it can only be because they blemish your position.

as i recently posted, a riot was caused and an eagle standard destroyed in the temple of jerusalem because it was thought to reflect roman imperial imagery.

shows 2 things, herod's use of roman imagery in reconstruction of the temple and its artefacts, and his lack of sensitivity to jewish sensibilities.

True, an eagle was destroyed, however, this was an act against the Roman standard, and while you may wish to charge Herod for injecting these images into the Jewish culture, you need to rely less on Wiki and more on the direct sources available. Here is what Josephus had to say about Herod's temple:

Antiquities XV:11 the temple further inward in that gate was not allowed to the women; but still more inward was there a third [court of the] temple, whereinto it was not lawful for any but the priests alone to enter. The temple itself was within this; and before that temple was the altar, upon which we offer our sacrifices and burnt-offerings to God. Into none of these three did king Herod enter, (24) for he was forbidden, because he was not a priest. ..

But the temple itself was built by the priests in a year and six months; upon which all the people were full of joy; and presently they returned thanks, in the first place, to God; and in the next place, for the alacrity the king had showed. They feasted and celebrated this rebuilding of the temple:

Now Josephus is stating that the people were quite pleased with Herod and the temple. And if Herod had no access to the the holy of holies, then he gad no control over what was kept within it. These very Jews that you claim took umbrage to the golden eagle would not have allowed such a thing within the temple.

Moreover, Josephus describes the candlestick built by Moses as such:

Ant. III III Over against this table, near the southern wall, was set a candlestick of cast gold, hollow within, being of the weight of one hundred pounds, which the Hebrews call Chinchares ,.. if it be turned into the Greek language, it denotes a talent. It was' made with its knops, and lilies, and pomegranates, and bowls (which ornaments amounted to seventy in all); by which means the shaft elevated itself on high from a single base, and spread itself into as many branches as there are planets, including the sun among them...

Interesting isn't it that this very candlestick is in fact a testament to astronomical entites. It was in entiret a graven image: "thou shalt not make any graven images, any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above or in the earth beneath.

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji
To my knowledge it never says anything about other animals being substituted for human prey in the Bible. The only substitute mentioned is a more suitable animal to replace a firstborn Ass. It does say that humans can be redeemed for gold and silver though. Maybe you have forgotten the story of Issac. And all of these sacrifices were actually eaten by the Yaw-dragon. They are carefully roasted and seasoned with salt, viscera is discarded. And the aroma smelled delicious, not like a creamatorium. The Bible specifically says Yahweh really consumed the sacrifices.

If you could supply chapters and verses, that would be sweet.

The highly esteemed Jewish Encyclopedia, composed by learned Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis beleieve the Seraphim are reptilian creatures, because of the root seraph, which is ALSO the name of a winged supernatural dragon in ancient Egypt. A creature IS a noun and not a verb. The early Christians completely understood the seraphim were dragons too, as we see in their art, and both ancient Jews and Chritians used the scripture Apocolypse of Baruch that spoke of the heavenly dragons who devoured the wicked. And to remove all doubt as to what the ancient Jews REALLY believed to be true meaning of the Seraphim, was that when this word was translated into greek, they used the word Drakon! You cannot dismiss the authentic archaeologcial evidence.

Actually swan winged angels are far more farfetched than dragons. EVERY human culture acknowledged dragons, and in the earliest eden story complete with Adam, a dragon built the garden of Eden, and a dragon warned Noah of the flood. This "Great Dragon of Heaven" as he is called in his Sumerian hymns, would become known as Yaw to the Cannanites, (who also said he was a dragon) , and ultimately, Yahweh to the Israelites, who clearly was a dragon as well, for Moses was ordered to make his dragon Idol that was worshipped for centuries during the time Judah and Israel flourished.

All of these dragons were subservient to a non-dragon Creator God, Anu in Sumeria, and El to the Cannanites and Israelites. As th article points out, orginally Yahweh and El are seperate entities, just as Yaw and El are in the Cannanite theology. Lets imagine the world is millions of years old as science tells us, and that at one time , like Genesis say, "great dragons" dwelled on the earth. The human form would not evolve for another 100 million years. So maybe it made since to "enhance" some kind of winged reptile with greater intelligence to be servants, 100 million years before there could be angels in human form (which were recruited humans). This might be why nearly EVERY human culture speaks of intelligent dragons --

They are probably the gretest proof of a supernatural realm. The new testament states even Jesus did not look like a human being before he came to earth.

Simply because the Greeks translated the word one way, does not mean that one of the other meanings were not correct. That is an assumption, and if you do write a book on this, you might do well to make that clear. I would also like a link to the earliest eden story. I have never heard of it before and it is certainly not included in the bible. I would also like to know where you got that a dragon warned Noah of the flood. Im not arguing with you here, i am truly fascinated by this theory and would like to see the evidence for myself. That is not to say that i believe any of it, i am simply fascinated.

Nearly all of these cultures believe the Creator God sent dragons to mankind to serve as local Gods to specific tribes. We have the Oriental dragons of course, the Mesoamerican "dragons" like Quetzalcoatl and Kuklakan, and similar creatures in North america, and the Mesopotamian dragons who do the EXACT same things that would later be accredited to the dragon Yahweh.

I am well aware of the Lore, but this only works if the evolutionary timetable and theory is correct.

Distinguished experts in their fields say the early hebrews believed in multiple gods as the article and scriptural states. The 10 Commandmants only say there should be no other God before Yahweh, but does not dismiss other gods. But I agree these are not true Gods. They were the ancient watcher dragon that the Creator put on the earth to supervised the development of human culture. This is why EVERY culture, (including Judaism and early Christianity, UNQUESTIONABLY acknowledge dragons as heavenly creatures. Archaeology proves this, it cannot be disputed. The Zoroastrian Persain empire, and gnostic Christian also understood Yahweh is a dragon.

The Bible may have been accurate at one time, but it no longer is. The article shows how the references to other gods has been changed, just as all the references to the heavenly dragons has been changed in only the past hundred years. In fact, the true reference to the Sons of God and NOT the Sons of Israel, can be found in the DEAD SEA SCROLLS!

The ancient book burners never counted on archaeology to reveal the real truth of the Bible as it was originally intended.

Ancient legends all over the world speak of "dragons" sent by the Creator God to watch over the different human tribes and teach them agriculture, animal husbandry, laws, etc. In return, the human tribe fed the dragon sacrifices, sometimes even including humans as the bible states. Yahweh is the dragon of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament is his story. Jesus knew the dragon was not the real God, and told the pharisees that they were not worshipping his father, but a murderous creature. Jesus did not call to the dragon Yahweh from the cross. He called to Eloi, the the true creator.

It shouldn't be such a big deal to Christians that Yahweh is really a dragon. On the contrary, it explains why Yahweh behaves in such a cruel and ungodlike way throughout the Old Testament, and a logical reason behind animal and human sacrifices..... he ate them.

Peace to you too. DC

Which distinguished experts?

The Gnostic Christians held a lot of beliefs. If dragon worshiping was one of them, then kudos, but the Gnostic Christians were considered heretics and the gospels they used contradicted each other and the true gospels in a major way. Certainly there is a lot more to the story than is in the bible, but the over all message of the bible does not contradict its self.

I would actually like to see the proof that states the Hebrews and the early Christians thought of dragons as heavenly creatures. The translation of the word saraph is not proof.

I love dragon lore i really do, but i have a hard time believing this.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
If you could supply chapters and verses, that would be sweet.

Levitcus is sometimes called "Yahweh's Cookbook" for all the details on exactly how sacrifices must be prepared. This was evidently important becasue Yahweh consumed two priests who were also sons of Aaron for not "getting it right". Leviticus 6 explains Yahweh liked his meat salted

Levitucus 27: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

2Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the equivalent for a human being, 3the following scale shall apply: If it is a male from twenty to sixty years of age, the equivalent is fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary weight; 4if it is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. 5If the age is from five years to twenty years, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. 6If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and the equivalent for a female is three shekels of silver. 7If the age is sixty years or over, the equivalent is fifteen shekels in the case of a male and ten shekels for a female. 8But if one cannot afford the equivalent, he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him; the priest shall assess him according to what the vower can afford.

Simply because the Greeks translated the word one way, does not mean that one of the other meanings were not correct. That is an assumption, and if you do write a book on this, you might do well to make that clear. I would also like a link to the earliest eden story. I have never heard of it before and it is certainly not included in the bible. I would also like to know where you got that a dragon warned Noah of the flood. Im not arguing with you here, i am truly fascinated by this theory and would like to see the evidence for myself. That is not to say that i believe any of it, i am simply fascinated.

I am well aware of the Lore, but this only works if the evolutionary timetable and theory is correct.

No, guy. It was the Jewish Priests who translated the Hebrew into Greek, because Greek was the intellectual language of of near east at the time. Most of the later Jewish Scriptures are only found in Greek. And in these scriptures we see heavenly dragons, in Baruch they dwell in heaven where they consume the souls of sinners. In the Testament of Solomon, a dragon helps saw the huge stone blocks for the temple.

The earliest eden and flood stories come from Mesopotamia. The dragon Enki warns the first "Noah" by speaking thorgh the walls of his reed house so he will not be frightened. In the Adapa (adam) and the southwind story, the dragon Enki builds the garden of eden. The highe God in heaven Anu, whiches to bestow eternal life on Adam, but Adam catches fish for Enki and does not want to lose him becasue this is actually about Adam being recruited to become an angel. So Enki Tricks Adam into NOT taking the proffered food that will give him immortality.

This story is over 1000 years older than the Hebrew version, but after being an oral tradition so long it was mixed up a bit, the Hebrews did not realize that their Tribal God Enki-Yahweh was actually the serpent (dragon), and it was El the Creator God who did not bestow eternal life on Adam. Bibleorigins is a good website to read of all the more ancient stories that inspired Genesis. But this does not mean the rest of the bible is wrong, it only means thse earliest stories from mesopotamia became distorted over centuries of retelling.

Which distinguished experts?

The Gnostic Christians held a lot of beliefs. If dragon worshiping was one of them, then kudos, but the Gnostic Christians were considered heretics and the gospels they used contradicted each other and the true gospels in a major way. Certainly there is a lot more to the story than is in the bible, but the over all message of the bible does not contradict its self.

I would actually like to see the proof that states the Hebrews and the early Christians thought of dragons as heavenly creatures. The translation of the word saraph is not proof.

I love dragon lore i really do, but i have a hard time believing this.

Peace

Of course you have a hard time believing this. Most of the dragon lore has been taken out of Judao Christian theology, but you cannot refute it was not originally there, as you have seen. Go the the article on Sereaphim in the Jewish Encyclopedia and you will see the names of the Jewish rabbis and scholars. Even staunch Christians expert in Hebrew like Dr. Heisser have written papers acknowledging the Seraphim were winged reptilian dieties, and as I said before, early Christian mosaics , frescoes, bible covers etc. all depict dragons around Gods throne. The Apcoolypes of Baruch was used by both Jews and Christians, and it too describes soul consuming dragons in heaven. That book did not end up in the final Roman Catholic selection though.

And you have it completley wrong about the gnostics being "dragon worshippers". They DID NOT worship Yahweh the dragon. It is mainstream Christianity that are the "dragon worshippers" by default, becaue they worship the dragon Yahweh. Now some believe Jesus was the dragon in eden who wanted to bring wisdiom to mankind, but as we have seen, this was actually Yahweh too.

Actually, none of this contradicts the Bible, it IS the Bible as it was originally written. And in truth, it also clears up many things in the New Testament, like the part where Jesus says the Pharisess (who worshipped Yahweh, of course), was not worshipping His Father, but a "murderer from the beginning". Who but Yahweh could he be referring to? Yahweh eats childredn and women and kills or has his humans kill over a million people before we even count the flood. He even admits he is both "Good and Evil". But we cannot judge him by human standards becasuse he is a dragon, who was given an assignment by the Creator God El. He's the God in the first, "scientific" Genesis creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
67thbook--those who wish to cite him should first become acquainted with the various passages concerning that bird, and before he sticks his perverbial pen any further down his perverbisal throat

sorry, it was just this bit of petulance that i objected to. your assumption that i know nothing of the source material and simply regurgitate the views of others is rather ignorant.

perhaps you should read my posts again, paying particular attention to what i say about the material i post.....for example...

wiki will suffice to show that herod had a particular relationship with the romans, and enjoyed hellenistic culture (which includes stylistics). and perhaps wasnt as sensitive to jewish religious sensibilities as he should have been.

Im sure that you appreciate that josephus is not the only source on the matter...and ive neither the time or the inclination to dredge up all relevant material.

besides...if we always believe josephus then we must accept that Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem and prostrated himself before the lord and declared him the only true god etc yadda yadda yadda. ... need i point out that he was telling porkies?

a single, unverified source is never completely reliable.

perhaps (to use a phrase of yours) you 'need' to read Lucian. and i wont mention you sticking your pen down your throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

Interesting posts dc, got the usual gripes about your interpretations ofcourse but we will always differ on those points.

Havent noticed you mention Baruch in a while, which i agree is an interesting work for many different reasons; one of which is its hellenistic influence detectable in certain places.

And indeed it does mention a great dragon in the 4th heaven? or is it the 3rd? (which is called by him...or rather the angel guide...Hades) this dragon does consume the wicked.....one of the numerous gruesome fates that await the impious.

And beneath god's throne are fiery beings....you would interpret as 'dragons' but i would maintain that the text describes elemental beings 'of flame' ... without physical bodies. it is quite possible that these are the seraphim you identify as 'dragons'. if they were dragons...and they are mentioned a number of times in the text, why was the word not used to define them? infact i believe that they were explicitly described as non-corporeal...though i will check this. Anyway, the word seraphim would aptly describe them, while the word 'dragon' would not. kanji is quite correct to point out that the word seraphim was used in a variety of contexts. finally, the word seraphim is almost never translated at all (when talking about these incorporeal beings of light and flame) and remains 'as is' in most versions of the bible...besides the obscura.

ps...do you have any pictures of yaw in serpent/ketos/dragon form to submit?

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mnemeion

It is true that most world civilizations has a dragon who helped shape it. DC, do you have anything about the Chinese and Japanese Dragon Gods? I mean, up to now they still consider the Dragon as their god, and have stated that they were also once ruled by these creatures. Actually, I saw a report that a real dragon corpse was uncovered in China, along with some recent sightings of their dragons. Since they have accepted the Dragon God for centuries, maybe they have a lot to tell us. It is quite interesting that they had invented many advanced instruments. The most brilliant thinkers also came from China.

Another thing. Suppose that everything in this thread is correct, that Dragons enjoyed and abused their position and posed as Gods years ago. Do you think their descendants are still with us today, I mean the half-human half dragon/serpent creatures? If so, could they still be doing what their ancestors had done before?

Not a lunatic, just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji
Levitcus is sometimes called "Yahweh's Cookbook" for all the details on exactly how sacrifices must be prepared. This was evidently important becasue Yahweh consumed two priests who were also sons of Aaron for not "getting it right". Leviticus 6 explains Yahweh liked his meat salted

Levitucus 27: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

2Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the equivalent for a human being, 3the following scale shall apply: If it is a male from twenty to sixty years of age, the equivalent is fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary weight; 4if it is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. 5If the age is from five years to twenty years, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. 6If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and the equivalent for a female is three shekels of silver. 7If the age is sixty years or over, the equivalent is fifteen shekels in the case of a male and ten shekels for a female. 8But if one cannot afford the equivalent, he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him; the priest shall assess him according to what the vower can afford.

Alright i just read Leviticus.

First off, no where in Leviticus does it say that God or Yahweh ever actually consumed any of the sacrifices. Maybe its just a difference of bible editions.

There were various differences in what was done with the cooked meat according to what sort of offering it was. In some cases the priest who made the sacrifice consumed the offering, in some cases it was the man making the sacrifice.

At no point is the meat ever salted. It is the Grain offering that is salted and the salt symbolized the covenant. It is interesting to note that in the ancient world salt was used to seal covenants, treaties, deals, etc etc

Aarons sons were burned, then carried off. It is never said that they were consumed.

The money you see involved in the laws is not for sacrificial purposes. There were two things that went on here. First off a person could sell themselves to the temple as labor to provide any number of functions that the temple would have needed done. While the priests did the things that required a man to be holy, regular labor was no doubt needed. If the person did not want to work for this debt, he could pay the equivalent of his labor. Which is why you see the differences in pay rates. That has no connection to sacrifice.

No, guy. It was the Jewish Priests who translated the Hebrew into Greek, because Greek was the intellectual language of of near east at the time. Most of the later Jewish Scriptures are only found in Greek. And in these scriptures we see heavenly dragons, in Baruch they dwell in heaven where they consume the souls of sinners. In the Testament of Solomon, a dragon helps saw the huge stone blocks for the temple.

The earliest eden and flood stories come from Mesopotamia. The dragon Enki warns the first "Noah" by speaking thorgh the walls of his reed house so he will not be frightened. In the Adapa (adam) and the southwind story, the dragon Enki builds the garden of eden. The highe God in heaven Anu, whiches to bestow eternal life on Adam, but Adam catches fish for Enki and does not want to lose him becasue this is actually about Adam being recruited to become an angel. So Enki Tricks Adam into NOT taking the proffered food that will give him immortality.

This story is over 1000 years older than the Hebrew version, but after being an oral tradition so long it was mixed up a bit, the Hebrews did not realize that their Tribal God Enki-Yahweh was actually the serpent (dragon), and it was El the Creator God who did not bestow eternal life on Adam. Bibleorigins is a good website to read of all the more ancient stories that inspired Genesis. But this does not mean the rest of the bible is wrong, it only means thse earliest stories from mesopotamia became distorted over centuries of retelling.

First of all, if your entire theory here relies on the Bible as a source, but you don't believe all of it, how do you know which parts are true and which are "distorted"? You have Yahweh and other "Gods" as Dragons, but you don't accept the time line of the bible in any way shape or form, so how can you know that the information about the parts involving Yahweh was not similarly "distorted"? If you decide to believe only part of the Bible, then you must accept the possibility that the entire thing is a completely made up fairy tail. If you Believe all of it, then you believe in the time line as well.

Personally i believe the entire Bible from cover to cover. To do anything less would be to imply that God lied which is something that God does not ever do. Any god who lied to his people would not be a god i would want to worship and in fact would make said god a hypocrite. Therefore i accept not only the stories of the bible as fact, with some being parables, but also the time line of the bible which would completely invalidate the theory that the creation story was derived from earlier sources. The dating system used to date the stories that predate the bible is immaterial and a discussion for another time. The point here is that any true creationist does not accept the dating system, and believes that the Biblical account was the first and is in fact true.

Of course you have a hard time believing this. Most of the dragon lore has been taken out of Judao Christian theology, but you cannot refute it was not originally there, as you have seen. Go the the article on Sereaphim in the Jewish Encyclopedia and you will see the names of the Jewish rabbis and scholars. Even staunch Christians expert in Hebrew like Dr. Heisser have written papers acknowledging the Seraphim were winged reptilian dieties, and as I said before, early Christian mosaics , frescoes, bible covers etc. all depict dragons around Gods throne. The Apcoolypes of Baruch was used by both Jews and Christians, and it too describes soul consuming dragons in heaven. That book did not end up in the final Roman Catholic selection though.

And you have it completley wrong about the gnostics being "dragon worshippers". They DID NOT worship Yahweh the dragon. It is mainstream Christianity that are the "dragon worshippers" by default, becaue they worship the dragon Yahweh. Now some believe Jesus was the dragon in eden who wanted to bring wisdiom to mankind, but as we have seen, this was actually Yahweh too.

Actually, none of this contradicts the Bible, it IS the Bible as it was originally written. And in truth, it also clears up many things in the New Testament, like the part where Jesus says the Pharisess (who worshipped Yahweh, of course), was not worshipping His Father, but a "murderer from the beginning". Who but Yahweh could he be referring to? Yahweh eats childredn and women and kills or has his humans kill over a million people before we even count the flood. He even admits he is both "Good and Evil". But we cannot judge him by human standards becasuse he is a dragon, who was given an assignment by the Creator God El. He's the God in the first, "scientific" Genesis creation.

While i am sure you have linked these already, i really don't feel like browsing all eight pages of this monster thread again, so could you provide links to Dr. Heisser's papers, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the verses where Jesus says that the Pharisees were not worshiping his Father but a murderer for the beginning. Also the part where Yahweh admits that he is both Good and Evil. That would help me get a better idea of where exactly you are coming from here. While i am well read on theological material, Bible included, this is a bit on the fringe for me to be familiar with.

Also it is interesting to note that if you include all the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha texts into the Bible, it no longer becomes the Bible. Not all of those were originally in the Bible and many of them were never intended to be in the Bible. They were simply writings and Letters written about the same time. Saying that all of these were originally part of the Bible is like saying that Everything in the library should be in one book simply because it was found in the same place and a lot of it was written at the same time. Also a lot of it is on the same subjects, but it does not mean it should all be in the same book.

EDIT: Oh i found the pictures of modern dragon sightings....Doesn't look like much to me though.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483957/posts

Edited by kanji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Alright i just read Leviticus.

First off, no where in Leviticus does it say that God or Yahweh ever actually consumed any of the sacrifices. Maybe its just a difference of bible editions.

There were various differences in what was done with the cooked meat according to what sort of offering it was. In some cases the priest who made the sacrifice consumed the offering, in some cases it was the man making the sacrifice.

At no point is the meat ever salted. It is the Grain offering that is salted and the salt symbolized the covenant. It is interesting to note that in the ancient world salt was used to seal covenants, treaties, deals, etc etc

Aarons sons were burned, then carried off. It is never said that they were consumed.

Use a parallell Bible and you will find it says meat in many of them, and all sacrifices in others. But to remove all doubt, here we see goats and bullocks beings salted and literally placed before Yahweh:

Ezekiel 43

22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a he-goat without blemish for a sin-offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock.

Also us a parallel bible and you will see Aarons Sons ARE CONSUMED, as it devoured, though roasted first with a bolt of fire, presumeably from the dragon Yahweh's mouth, as he spews fire from is mouth in Psalms.

23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.

24 And thou shalt bring them near before Jehovah, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt-offering unto Jehovah.

The money you see involved in the laws is not for sacrificial purposes. There were two things that went on here. First off a person could sell themselves to the temple as labor to provide any number of functions that the temple would have needed done. While the priests did the things that required a man to be holy, regular labor was no doubt needed. If the person did not want to work for this debt, he could pay the equivalent of his labor. Which is why you see the differences in pay rates. That has no connection to sacrifice.

Wrong, the prices set are based on the weight/nutiritional value of the human sacrifices. A baby cannot work in the temple, and the Bible says both firstborn animals and babies alike are "His" seven days after they are issued from the womb.

First of all, if your entire theory here relies on the Bible as a source, but you don't believe all of it, how do you know which parts are true and which are "distorted"? You have Yahweh and other "Gods" as Dragons, but you don't accept the time line of the bible in any way shape or form, so how can you know that the information about the parts involving Yahweh was not similarly "distorted"? If you decide to believe only part of the Bible, then you must accept the possibility that the entire thing is a completely made up fairy tail. If you Believe all of it, then you believe in the time line as well.

We know the Bible has been changed, so you cannot say it is magically perfect. The Dead Sea Scrolls PROVE, that the original Deuteronomy stated EACH Sons of God was given a tribe to look after and this has since been changed to eliminate the other Gods. This was detailed in the Henoism article I posted here. You also cannot ignore the far older versions of genesis where a dragon builids Eden, tricks Adam out of eternal life, caused the flood, saved the first Noah, caused the languages at the tower of babel, etc. Abraham came from Ur where these stories were part of the religion. Do you thik this is a coincidence?.

Personally i believe the entire Bible from cover to cover. To do anything less would be to imply that God lied which is something that God does not ever do. Any god who lied to his people would not be a god i would want to worship and in fact would make said god a hypocrite. Therefore i accept not only the stories of the bible as fact, with some being parables, but also the time line of the bible which would completely invalidate the theory that the creation story was derived from earlier sources. The dating system used to date the stories that predate the bible is immaterial and a discussion for another time. The point here is that any true creationist does not accept the dating system, and believes that the Biblical account was the first and is in fact true.

No it only means humans are imperfect, not God. The first creation story of El is largely compatible with Evolution, the second one added to make the dragon Yahweh more important, is silly, stating that Adam was the first creation, before everything else. Both contradictory stories are in Genesis. One can't be correct. Actually, the time in the historical part of the Bible is quite accurate. The great flood in Mesopotamia occured about 5,000 years ago just like the Bible says.

While i am sure you have linked these already, i really don't feel like browsing all eight pages of this monster thread again, so could you provide links to Dr. Heisser's papers, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the verses where Jesus says that the Pharisees were not worshiping his Father but a murderer for the beginning. Also the part where Yahweh admits that he is both Good and Evil. That would help me get a better idea of where exactly you are coming from here. While i am well read on theological material, Bible included, this is a bit on the fringe for me to be familiar with.

Yes, many times. If you are that interested you can look up all my posts or just wait for the book. Google works wonders too. But I am surprised you have never heard about Yahweh boasting he created both oood anb evil.

Also it is interesting to note that if you include all the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha texts into the Bible, it no longer becomes the Bible. Not all of those were originally in the Bible and many of them were never intended to be in the Bible. They were simply writings and Letters written about the same time. Saying that all of these were originally part of the Bible is like saying that Everything in the library should be in one book simply because it was found in the same place and a lot of it was written at the same time. Also a lot of it is on the same subjects, but it does not mean it should all be in the same book.

In the early Chrisitan times, some of these books were considered as holy as the ones in the Bible today. But later Popes threw them out. So it is not God you are putting your trust in for the accuracy of scripture, but a human and humans can error. And as we have seen, humans changed the Bible to reflect changing human beliefs. Studying these other books actually gives us more information about the bible. We do not know why Yahweh "sought to kill Moses" in the Bible, or what really happened. But in the accompanying ancient Jewish texts we see that a monstrous reptiles swallows moses head first becasue he forgot to circumcise his Son, and he is only saved when Zipporah circumcises the baby with a shap rock, and the beast spews him out. This was probably in the original bible, becasue it looks like part of the story is missing, but the Bible was changed to cover up the fact there were othe Sons of Gods (dragons) like Yahweh. But they could not change everything, and this is why we see descriptions of Yahweh with wings, spewing fire from his mouth , demandiing children and animals, being given virgins, and having the same name and consort as the cannanite dragon Yaw, and doing all the things in Genesis that were recorded 1000 years credited to the dragon Enki, who many scholars believe became the dragon Yaw, and ultiamtely Yahweh. This does not mean Yahweh is fake, it just means he was known to the Sumerians and Cannanites as a dragon long before he brought the Israelites out of Egypt................ to kill the people of a rival dragon Ba'al, because apparently Yahweh was not allowed to do this himself.

EDIT: Oh i found the pictures of modern dragon sightings....Doesn't look like much to me though.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483957/posts

No I don't think those are dragons. They now seem to have returned to the seas and are now called sea serpents, but sometimes seen by hundreds of people, at a time. One even damaged a German U Boat, and the place where ships commonly disappear in the Pacific is called the dragons triangle, or dragn's sea pereviously becasue it was believed dragons sunk the ships.. Yaw the cannanite dragon who became Yahweh sometimes dwelled in the Sea, just like Enki the dragon who made the Garden of eden and tricked Adam, all long before the Hebrews recorded the same stories with distortions. Archaologists have even found the original Eden story with the dragon Enki tricking Adam in Egypt , in an archive long before Moses was believed to have led the Israelites out of Egypt.

But Just like Yahweh, and Yaw and Enki/Enlil, the Chinese dragons were also responsible for flooding people when they were angry. And don't forget the original thunderbirds and feathered serpents of America, who were also apparently draogons. The Hebrews were no different than anybody else in their belief in dragon "gods". Moderns Jews and Christians just "pretend" that they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

actually i think the first one shows the sun obscured by an interesting cloud formation.

the second one definately shows a glacier from a plane....nice pics tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starscream

so are dragons good or bad>?

and if one found 1 how would you get rid of it>?

is there any part of the bible that talks about eagle owls>?

cause they are huge and their eyes are outer soul mirrors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji
Use a parallell Bible and you will find it says meat in many of them, and all sacrifices in others. But to remove all doubt, here we see goats and bullocks beings salted and literally placed before Yahweh:

Ezekiel 43

22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a he-goat without blemish for a sin-offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock.

Also us a parallel bible and you will see Aarons Sons ARE CONSUMED, as it devoured, though roasted first with a bolt of fire, presumeably from the dragon Yahweh's mouth, as he spews fire from is mouth in Psalms.

23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.

24 And thou shalt bring them near before Jehovah, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt-offering unto Jehovah.

Ahh so thats where you got the salt. Alright then yes at the very least in that instance they did throw salt on it.

Alright using the Parallel bible. http://biblos.com/

Now i looked up the verse where Aarons sons are supposedly consumed and it says specifically that they were consumed by FIRE. not by Yahweh, and in none of the translations is it even implied that they were eaten.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/10-2.htm

In a later verse, it says that they were carried off. Again in all the translations, this is what happened. If they had been eaten, there would presumably be not much left to carry off.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/10-4.htm

http://bible.cc/leviticus/10-5.htm

Wrong, the prices set are based on the weight/nutiritional value of the human sacrifices. A baby cannot work in the temple, and the Bible says both firstborn animals and babies alike are "His" seven days after they are issued from the womb.

The prices have nothing to do with nutritional value.

And the babies most certainly can not work in the temple but that is from a completely different verse much earlier in the chapter linking the sacrifice of the first born to the bondage of egypt and the death of the first born there to let the Hebrews leave. It is a symbolic sacrifice where an animal is sacrificed in the stead of the firstborn. The two verses are in the same chapter but have very little to do with each other.

We know the Bible has been changed, so you cannot say it is magically perfect. The Dead Sea Scrolls PROVE, that the original Deuteronomy stated EACH Sons of God was given a tribe to look after and this has since been changed to eliminate the other Gods. This was detailed in the Henoism article I posted here. You also cannot ignore the far older versions of genesis where a dragon builids Eden, tricks Adam out of eternal life, caused the flood, saved the first Noah, caused the languages at the tower of babel, etc. Abraham came from Ur where these stories were part of the religion. Do you thik this is a coincidence?.

I would still very much like to see a copy of this Original Deuteronomy, The Henoism article references it but no where is there an actual copy of the original text. At least none that i could find. It was late, i might have missed it.

And yes i can completely ignore the "older" versions of genesis, You said yourself that the Bible was not put together as a book until much much later, i completely agree with you, but that does not mean that it is a distorted copy. There is no proof that the Sumerian text is in any way actually older than the biblical text. Dating is no good here because that will only date the material the text was printed on and not the actual text its self. Come now you must realize this. Simply stating that the Sumerian text is older because the material it was printed on is older is a fallacy of logic.

No it only means humans are imperfect, not God. The first creation story of El is largely compatible with Evolution, the second one added to make the dragon Yahweh more important, is silly, stating that Adam was the first creation, before everything else. Both contradictory stories are in Genesis. One can't be correct. Actually, the time in the historical part of the Bible is quite accurate. The great flood in Mesopotamia occured about 5,000 years ago just like the Bible says.

There is much evidence that the great flood was world wide, not just in Mesopotamia. These people were not idiots and they most certainly did not think that their world was in any way that small. The flood accounts from cultures all over the world should be proof enough but you have only too google the great flood evidence and you will find plenty. As far as mankind thinking their world was small, flat, or the center of the universe, that only came about after because of the fall of the once great civilizations. Not to mention the Dark Ages. The great Pyramid was built with principles that would most certainly have had to include a round earth theory, not to mention the alignment with the starts that still works today. They would have had to have had an extremely advanced knowledge of how the universe functioned to build it so exact.

In the early Chrisitan times, some of these books were considered as holy as the ones in the Bible today. But later Popes threw them out. So it is not God you are putting your trust in for the accuracy of scripture, but a human and humans can error. And as we have seen, humans changed the Bible to reflect changing human beliefs. Studying these other books actually gives us more information about the bible. We do not know why Yahweh "sought to kill Moses" in the Bible, or what really happened. But in the accompanying ancient Jewish texts we see that a monstrous reptiles swallows moses head first becasue he forgot to circumcise his Son, and he is only saved when Zipporah circumcises the baby with a shap rock, and the beast spews him out. This was probably in the original bible, becasue it looks like part of the story is missing, but the Bible was changed to cover up the fact there were othe Sons of Gods (dragons) like Yahweh. But they could not change everything, and this is why we see descriptions of Yahweh with wings, spewing fire from his mouth , demandiing children and animals, being given virgins, and having the same name and consort as the cannanite dragon Yaw, and doing all the things in Genesis that were recorded 1000 years credited to the dragon Enki, who many scholars believe became the dragon Yaw, and ultiamtely Yahweh. This does not mean Yahweh is fake, it just means he was known to the Sumerians and Cannanites as a dragon long before he brought the Israelites out of Egypt................ to kill the people of a rival dragon Ba'al, because apparently Yahweh was not allowed to do this himself.

I am well aware of the traditional bible story, and some of the other texts, but it is my understanding that even those texts do not paint such a draconian spin on things as you seem to be doing here. Some of those texts were written and then left out of the bible on purpose, probably because they were not accurate. Were all these stories and accounts with dragons in the Torah? or were they left out of that as well?

But Just like Yahweh, and Yaw and Enki/Enlil, the Chinese dragons were also responsible for flooding people when they were angry. And don't forget the original thunderbirds and feathered serpents of America, who were also apparently draogons. The Hebrews were no different than anybody else in their belief in dragon "gods". Moderns Jews and Christians just "pretend" that they didn't.

Dude, seriously, Jews and Christians don't think that dragons had anything to do with their religions because there really isn't all that much to infer that dragons ever had anything to do with the Hebrews in the first place. All of the parts of the bible that you have pointed out, even using the parallel translation, do not mention, allude, or even hint at draconian involvement. The god Ba'al is portrayed as a man shaped god with a staff in one hand and a funky hat. Thats it, there is nothing draconian about him. There are some later versions to my understanding that show him as a half fish, half man god, but dragons are not involved here. Im sorry but as interesting as your theory is, it just doesn't fly.

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.