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

draconic chronicler
FIERY is the key. Yahweh was a volcano. Jehovah is the God of Israel.

Aaron supervised and supplied the metal for the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped and that made Jehovah mad.

That was adultery. That is why the law, 'Do not commit adultery' was brought in by Jehovah.

Men and women go about their lives every day wearing the golden calf in their watches, rings, earrings, ankle bracelets, etc.

Why don't y'all belive the bible?

Ummm, do volcanoes have mouths? Yahweh spews fire out of his mouth in the Bible.

Do volcanoes have nostrils? Yahweh spews smoke from his nostrils in the Bible.

Do volcanoes have wings? Yahweh has wings in the Bible.

Do volcanoes eat? Yahweh asks for calves, lambs, first born children, and wants them salted in the Bible. He is also given captured enemy virgins.

Do volcanoes crave gold? Yahweh will take gold instead of eating your children, as it says in the Bible.

The Canaanites believed in a dragon named Yaw, who was the son of Elohim, had a consort named Asheroth, and hated Ba'al Hadad, the favorite Cannanite God.

The Hebrews believed in a winged, fire breathing, virgin eating, gold hoarding creature call Yahweh, who was the son of Elohim, had a consort named Asheroth, and hated Ba'al Hadad, the favorite Canannite God.... so he had the Hebrews kill all the Canaanites.

And Yahweh was angry about the Golden Calf, becasue HIS idol was a FIERY FLYING SERPENT (dragon), and he ordered Moses to make the idol, and anyone who didn't worship it was killed by Yahweh's dragon buddies.

Everything I said is in the Bible. Why don't YOU believe in the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
it is an extremely intresting theory though i can't help but feel some of your evidence is seen by you simply because you are looking for it. With the myriad of ways much mythology can be interpreted it is easy to see a pattern if you are actively looking for it. You cannot confront alternative translations and interpretations by simply stating they are a cover up or you are bordering on the conspracy thorist logic. For you a lot hinges on the bible having been altered and parts left out but this in itself proves nothing conclusive. Many of the texts left out are believed by scholars to have been omitted due to the fact that they were known to have been written at a later date than the selected texts. Many gnostic texts were written at the time that this selection was made and were not seen in any was as ancient or significant. My point being that what is most ancient is an area of dispute or that just because something was excluded form the bible that it was therefore a cover up of the facts. You also cannot state conclusively that information has been covered up in order to eliminate this dragon character. I agree that older legends have over time combined and een altered to fit new ideas and cultures. It is entirely possible a serpent god of some description has been incorporated into the legends that formed the ot but that does not make that figure a literal one. You can quote the bible as much as you like but it does not ever make it literal proof, by that logic are we to say unicorns are also real as i believe they are mentioned?

As someone stated earlier you claim these texts are altered yet use quote from them and state they are describing facts. How do you decide which information you take as a literal description?

Having said that the idea is fascinating and shows a very enquiring mind if not perhaps a fertile imagination. It has more grounding than many of the crazy ideas that you hearbut also draws some very dramatic conclusions without sufficent evidence for them.

Like it or not there is provable evidence that the Bible has been changed, apparently to hide the fact Yahweh is an "assistant tribal god" (Bene Elohim) and not the Creator God. Many scholars state this. If you read my posts more carefully you will see that the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy proves this. Since those were buried, newer editions have eliminated this troublesome text. . And it is also true that Later Christianity ignored the original Hebrew, and Greek text, and turned the Reptilian seraphim into winged humanoid angels that they felt more comfortable with. We also know this thorugh archaeological discoveries, though even the pre-1900 vintage Jewish Encyclopedia states the seraphim are fiery flying serpents and not "Christian cartoon angels". But of course, just because the bible says the tribal God of the Hebrews, and his closest associates are "dragons" does not mean dragons are real. The whole point of the study, is the premise that there is truth behind the Biblical scritures, as we see the only reasonably scientific creation story of all ancient myths, that is roughly compatible with modern concepts of evolution, and an earth millions of years old, dived by distinct epochs. And when accepting the evidence that Yahweh is a dragon, we see a compatibility with world wide myths that also credit dragon like creatures as mankinds earliest Gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tipsy_munchkin
Like it or not there is provable evidence that the Bible has been changed, apparently to hide the fact Yahweh is an "assistant tribal god" (Bene Elohim) and not the Creator God. Many scholars state this. If you read my posts more carefully you will see that the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy proves this. Since those were buried, newer editions have eliminated this troublesome text. . And it is also true that Later Christianity ignored the original Hebrew, and Greek text, and turned the Reptilian seraphim into winged humanoid angels that they felt more comfortable with. We also know this thorugh archaeological discoveries, though even the pre-1900 vintage Jewish Encyclopedia states the seraphim are fiery flying serpents and not "Christian cartoon angels". But of course, just because the bible says the tribal God of the Hebrews, and his closest associates are "dragons" does not mean dragons are real. The whole point of the study, is the premise that there is truth behind the Biblical scritures, as we see the only reasonably scientific creation story of all ancient myths, that is roughly compatible with modern concepts of evolution, and an earth millions of years old, dived by distinct epochs. And when accepting the evidence that Yahweh is a dragon, we see a compatibility with world wide myths that also credit dragon like creatures as mankinds earliest Gods.

as i dont have enough language knowledge to translate or argur translations i'll take your word for now on your interpretations. Though always be wary of dismissing out of hand other possibilities. Refrences to dragon legends does not then give credit to the idea they were real dragons. I would also dispite that dragon like creatures are mankinds earliest gods. The evidence seems to show a myriad of creatures and objects that were worshipped, many in more than one culture. totemism and sun worship are the first to spring to mind as common themes. Serpents were far from the only creature to be widely revered, in ancient history creatures like the bear are also common. Ok so now you will argue but the sun and bears are real.. so why not dragons? most images interpreted as dragons from very ancient civilisation to me seem either snakes, reptiles or are composites of many creatures as was common. indeed why worship a simple bear if there is this grand mystical immortal flying fire breathing creature there?

Not sure if this makes sense at present just working through my train of thought. Will need to have a quick brush up on my facts to make my point clear but you get the gist.

It seems a wild leap where a more simple explanation could exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji

Due to the massive nature of most of your posts i am going to condense parts. This in no way detracts from the original.

Like it or not there is provable evidence that the Bible has been changed, apparently to hide the fact Yahweh is an "assistant tribal god" (Bene Elohim) and not the Creator God. Many scholars state this. If you read my posts more carefully you will see that the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy proves this. Since those were buried, newer editions have eliminated this troublesome text. . And it is also true that Later Christianity ignored the original Hebrew, and Greek text, and turned the Reptilian seraphim into winged humanoid angels that they felt more comfortable with. We also know this thorugh archaeological discoveries, though even the pre-1900 vintage Jewish Encyclopedia states the seraphim are fiery flying serpents and not "Christian cartoon angels". But of course, just because the bible says the tribal God of the Hebrews, and his closest associates are "dragons" does not mean dragons are real. The whole point of the study, is the premise that there is truth behind the Biblical scritures, as we see the only reasonably scientific creation story of all ancient myths, that is roughly compatible with modern concepts of evolution, and an earth millions of years old, dived by distinct epochs. And when accepting the evidence that Yahweh is a dragon, we see a compatibility with world wide myths that also credit dragon like creatures as mankinds earliest Gods.

Bene Elohim most certainly does NOT translate to "Assistant Tribal God" as you very well know. Bene Elohim translates into Sons of God which in this case is referring to the angels. There is no where in the bible as i have already shown you where the Sons of God is referring to actual god figures.

But if have shown you undeniable truth that the Bible WAS changed to hide the fact that the Hebrews originally believed there were many "Sons of God" and Yahweh was the Son of God that looked after the Hebrews. Deuteronomy in the Dead Sea Scrolls proves this, your Bible was changed sometimes after the Dead Sea Scrolls were deposited. Just like your great grandfathers bible definately had many dragons in it. But in the past 100 years the Bibles were changed in this instance.

Exactly, the Bible says Yahweh spews fire from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils, my friend. I neither misquoted nor stretched the truth, I simply didn't read on furhter to find that he did not eat the blasphemous priests, as he does lambs, calves, babies and midianite virgins, but simply roasted them alive with his fiery dragon breath. Simple mistake.

You are trying to make the Bible say something it does not. Yahweh says that 7 days after issued from the womb the calves, lambs and babies are to be given to Him. Are you saying the lambs and calves are raised to work in the temple after being taken from their mothers seven days after being born? Of course not, the clear implication is that they are all sacrifices to Yahweh. Now if you want to believe they simply had their throat cut and were tossed on the fire, "for Yahweh" I guess you can. But why were they seasoned with salt if they were just being burnt? And why did the Hebrews boast their "living god" actually consumed the sacrifices? It was the pagans that had to burn the bodies that Yahweh actually consumed.

You still have yet to actually link any writings from the original Deuteronomy, Likewise you have not linked the section where the Virgins were eaten alive, and you have not linked the part where the Hebrews boast that their god actually eats the sacrifices. Now im not doubting these things, in fact i remember reading them, but as i recall the events were completely dragon free and did not imply what you say they do. I would like links to these sections so i can look them up for myself and lay the matter to rest.

These ideas that the historical dragons are dinosaurs is much stranger. Dragons as supernatural creatures is the ONLY plausible explanation for all of the "dragon" sightings in the time of men. YOU are the one taking the stories out of context. Virtually all of these legendary dragons you say are dinosaurs, are clearly supernatural, becasuse they are hgihly intelligent and even talk! People all over the world worshipped them as Gods that taught them agriculture and lawss. And the DRAGONS IN THE BIBLE sing praises to God! So are you saying these a just walnut brained dinosaurs bellowing around the throne of God? No. You know so little about the real bible that you think the creatures which the ancient Jewish rabbis called "drakons" that sang praises to God and kept the altar buring with their fiery breath are nonsensical, swan winged humanoid angels, stolen from Pagan Roman mythology by your guessed it, the ROMAN Catholics.

I have already proven that the Bible in inaccurate, becasue the multiple "Gods" were taken out of Deuteronomy sometimes after the Dead Sea scrolls were hidden. It is just like the Heavenly Dragons. The ancient, excavated texts prove that the ancient rabbis who translated these clled the seraphim Drakons, but this is no surprise, because modern hebrew scholars say this is what the wordreally means as we see in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

This is completely false.

Even if Dragons at one point did exist i find it absurd to think that they were capable of conversation. Now most animals do have intelligence of a sort, and i swear my dog can talk to me sometimes but at no point do i ever stop thinking of him as an animal. You have watched Dragonheart far too many times my friend. There is plenty of evidence of dinosaurs and humans having existed together as i have already linked a few posts back.

The Jewish priests never referred to the angels as God's side as Drakons. As you yourself have said, Drakon is a greek translation of the Hebrew word tannîyn which can mean one of the following. dragon, sea-monster, jackal, serpent

The Greek word Drakon means fabulous serpent. It does not mean dragon as so many people seem to believe. Now while this can be taken to mean a dragon, the literal translation is most certainly not dragon.

As far as Angels being swan winged creatures, i completely agree with you. They are completely unlike what is seen in popular literature. This however does NOT make them dragons. In the passages you are referring to do not describe dragons as i have already shown you on more than one occasion.

No. I am saying what the Bible says, that Abraham came from Ur, which is in Sumeria, where nearly 5,000 year old tablets tell us the original eden story that was wirtten down by moses around 2,000 years later.

All of the the ANCIENT scriptural evidence supports what I am saying. It is not my fault Modern christians have turned the seraphim dragons into swan winged cartoon angels.

If Abraham came from a place in Sumeria, how could you possibly know that he got the story from the 5000 year old tablets or if he was the one who told the story to the Sumerians and they then wrote the tablets. There is absolutely no way to prove your claim here. Period.

Wooaah, Dude. The Torah is not inspired? No wonder you know so little about the real bible untainted by modern Christian changes. The Torah IS the first five books of the Bible!

And you don't even understand that the ancient Hebrews believed there was a Creator in heaven called El, and one of his many "dragon" sons shepherded the tribe of Hebrews, just as other "sons of god" presided over other human tribes. This is the real bible before it was changed by Roman popes. The Dead Sea Scrolls PROVE I am right.

I do not believe that the Torah was not inspired by Abraham or Moses. I suspect that Enoch wrote the first part of it and the books that deal with the exodus were simply part of the Jewish history. There is no need for it to be inspired by any single person but by the events that occurred as it was being written.

Actually it does indicate God's name, because both the Old Testament and Cannanite scriptures state El is the name of the Creator God. This is why Bene Elohim are the Sons of God. Just like the dead sea scrolls document, but was changed. (Just like the Christians who changed the seraphim from dragons to cartoon angels.)

I never said that. But the Disciples and many others thought Jesus was the reincarnated Elijah. But the dragon servants of God probably existed milions of years before humans evolved. Therfore there could not have been humanoid angels for millions of years either. Therfore Jesus may have been this "Good Shepherd" Son of God" in the Sumerian hymns.

Good for the Disciples. It does not mean they were right no matter what they thought. Though if you continue reading you will find that Jesus himself lays the matter to rest by telling them who he truly is. The bold section is complete speculation and completely unprovable as you well know.

You are going to have to show me where the Old Testament ever states that God's name is El, and i have already pointed out multiple times why the Canaanite writings have nothing to do with Judaism. There is no way to prove which came first and you very well know that. You also know as i have shown you multiple times that Bene Elohim is referring to the Angels and not actual sons of god. As far as the changing of the documents, thats more conspirisy theory than anything else. You can not prove any of it aside from a few vague mistranslations and referrences that you have misinterpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

'kanji' Due to the massive nature of most of your posts i am going to condense parts. This in no way detracts from the original.

Bene Elohim most certainly does NOT translate to "Assistant Tribal God" as you very well know. Bene Elohim translates into Sons of God which in this case is referring to the angels. There is no where in the bible as i have already shown you where the Sons of God is referring to actual god figures.

DC Wrong. The Henoism article completely demolishes this idea. Angels and Bene Elohim are completely different. The Bene Elohim meet in the court of El, and Yahweh is claimed to be the best one in Psalms, and he berates the others for not being just to their humans.

You still have yet to actually link any writings from the original Deuteronomy, Likewise you have not linked the section where the Virgins were eaten alive, and you have not linked the part where the Hebrews boast that their god actually eats the sacrifices. Now im not doubting these things, in fact i remember reading them, but as i recall the events were completely dragon free and did not imply what you say they do. I would like links to these

sections so i can look them up for myself and lay the matter to rest.

DC It is in my original thread, but essentially, the original talks aobut God apportioning the human tribes amond the Sons of God, and you Bible has this changed to Sons of Israel.

No, it does not say they were eaten, simply that they were "given" to Yahweh. But considering he takes calves , lambs and first born children, and the long traidition of virgin sacrifices to dragons, this is their probable fate

Surely you recall the contest. I think it was Jerimiah who challenged the priests of Baal that Yahweh would actually consume the sacrifices, while nothing happened to the sacrifices to Baal.

l

This is completely false.

Even if Dragons at one point did exist i find it absurd to think that they were capable of conversation. Now most animals do have intelligence of a sort, and i swear my dog can talk to me sometimes but at no point do i ever stop thinking of him as an animal. You have watched Dragonheart far too many times my friend. There is plenty of evidence of dinosaurs and humans having existed together as i have already linked a few posts back.

DC Apparenlty you ignore what the Bible says. In Psalms the dragons sing praises to God, and in Isaiah the Serpahim do, and the Hebrew scholars of the Jewish Enclyclopedia say the seraphim are fiery flying serpents, and when this word was translated into Greek the SERAPHIM ARE CALLED DRAKONS. Satan is a dragon who speaks to Adam, although this is a recast of Enki the dragon of Eridu who speaks to Adam.

The Jewish priests never referred to the angels as God's side as Drakons. As you yourself have said, Drakon is a greek translation of the Hebrew word tannîyn which can mean one of the following. dragon, sea-monster, jackal, serpent

Wrong, we know the Seraphim were translated to Drakons on acnient papyrus. And the Apocolypses of Baruch, used by both Christians and Jews stated there were dragons in Heaven. Drakon is used to translate both Seraphim and Tannin, just as both Seraphim and Tannin sing praises to God in the Bible. It is only modern Christians who claim Tannin can be a jackal or serpent, which is false, for they have their own words. Jackal sounds similar. it is Tan. The ancient Chritians depicted the seraphim around God as dragons on frescoes, mosaics, and bible covers as my book will show..

The Greek word Drakon means fabulous serpent. It does not mean dragon as so many people seem to believe. Now while this can be taken to mean a dragon, the literal translation is most certainly not dragon.

Wrong again, many Greek Drakons are true dragons that have wings. If you were more familar with the Greek myths you would know this. Medea's winged drakons pulled her chariot across the sky. And this is evident in Jewish writings as well, for the Drakon that helps build Solomons temple is described with wings, arms and legs.

As far as Angels being swan winged creatures, i completely agree with you. They are completely unlike what is seen in popular literature. This however does NOT make them dragons. In the passages you are referring to do not describe dragons as i have already shown you on more than one occasion.

Like it or not, the ancient Rabbis translated the word Seraphim to Drakons and the Jewish Encylcopleda agrees they are fiery flying serpents, another way of saying dragon.

If Abraham came from a place in Sumeria, how could you possibly know that he got the story from the 5000 year old tablets or if he was the one who told the story to the Sumerians and they then wrote the tablets. There is absolutely no way to prove your claim here. Period.

All of the serious scholars would say the Sumerian stories are older version thatn the Biblical ones.

I do not believe that the Torah was not inspired by Abraham or Moses. I suspect that Enoch wrote the first part of it and the books that deal with the exodus were simply part of the Jewish history. There is no need for it to be inspired by any single person but by the events that occurred as it was being written.

Good for the Disciples. It does not mean they were right no matter what they thought. Though if you continue reading you will find that Jesus himself lays the matter to rest by telling them who he truly is. The bold section is complete speculation and completely unprovable as you well know.

You are going to have to show me where the Old Testament ever states that God's name is El, and i have already pointed out multiple times why the Canaanite writings have nothing to do with Judaism. There is no way to prove which came first and you very well know that. You also know as i have shown you multiple times that Bene Elohim is referring to the Angels and not actual sons of god. As far as the changing of the documents, thats more conspirisy theory than anything else. You can not prove any of it aside from a few vague mistranslations and referrences that you have misinterpreted.

The Creator God at the beginning of the Bible is Elohim, not Yahweh. But Yahweh's less scientific creation is added later on. So we see two completely different creations in Genesis, the Elohim creation mirror evolution, the Yahweh creation is mythic, with Adam bing the first thing created. DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kanji
DC Wrong. The Henoism article completely demolishes this idea. Angels and Bene Elohim are completely different. The Bene Elohim meet in the court of El, and Yahweh is claimed to be the best one in Psalms, and he berates the others for not being just to their humans.

DC It is in my original thread, but essentially, the original talks aobut God apportioning the human tribes amond the Sons of God, and you Bible has this changed to Sons of Israel.

No, it does not say they were eaten, simply that they were "given" to Yahweh. But considering he takes calves , lambs and first born children, and the long traidition of virgin sacrifices to dragons, this is their probable fate

Surely you recall the contest. I think it was Jerimiah who challenged the priests of Baal that Yahweh would actually consume the sacrifices, while nothing happened to the sacrifices to Baal.

The Henoism article is just as much wishful thinking as this topic. At no where in the bible is Yahweh ever inferred to be one of the Bene Elohim. I have already looked this up and responded to it in this thread demolishing it quite nicely. Simply repeating the idea does not change this fact. The God's referred to in Psalms are nothing more than Kings who fancy themselves God. You would be able to realize this if you took the entire verse in context of the passage. The problem here is you have a bad habit of pulling a passage out of context and then twisting it to mean whatever you want. Context is extremely important to the Bible, and you are taking things out of context here whether you believe you are or not.

So you don't actually know what happened to the Virgins. Without a book of the bible to look in, i could search for days without finding the exact passage you are referring to, so let me make this simple. Simply because you think historically that virgins are given to dragons does not make it even plausible that a dragon god actually ate them. It is COMPLETE speculation, and if you are actually writing a book on this, i would suggest confining yourself to the facts.

Oh i recall the contest, however the book of Jeremiah has 52 chapters and is one of the longest books if not the longest book in the old testament. Context is very important to the bible, so if you could narrow it down a bit it would help.

DC Apparenlty you ignore what the Bible says. In Psalms the dragons sing praises to God, and in Isaiah the Serpahim do, and the Hebrew scholars of the Jewish Enclyclopedia say the seraphim are fiery flying serpents, and when this word was translated into Greek the SERAPHIM ARE CALLED DRAKONS. Satan is a dragon who speaks to Adam, although this is a recast of Enki the dragon of Eridu who speaks to Adam.

Wrong, we know the Seraphim were translated to Drakons on acnient papyrus. And the Apocolypses of Baruch, used by both Christians and Jews stated there were dragons in Heaven. Drakon is used to translate both Seraphim and Tannin, just as both Seraphim and Tannin sing praises to God in the Bible. It is only modern Christians who claim Tannin can be a jackal or serpent, which is false, for they have their own words. Jackal sounds similar. it is Tan. The ancient Chritians depicted the seraphim around God as dragons on frescoes, mosaics, and bible covers as my book will show..

Wrong again, many Greek Drakons are true dragons that have wings. If you were more familar with the Greek myths you would know this. Medea's winged drakons pulled her chariot across the sky. And this is evident in Jewish writings as well, for the Drakon that helps build Solomons temple is described with wings, arms and legs.

Like it or not, the ancient Rabbis translated the word Seraphim to Drakons and the Jewish Encylcopleda agrees they are fiery flying serpents, another way of saying dragon.

You continually make the claim that current modern translations of the bible are wrong, but you accept without question the greek translations? That certainly does not make sense no matter how you cut it. I am quite familiar with the greek myths and yes they do have dragons associated with the word Drakon, but the part that you continually leave out is that Seraph has more than one possible translation associated with it. Fiery Flying Serpent is only one of the translations. Phonetically the word Seraph is very close to the word Saraph and has several possible root words. The Jewish Rabbis don't know any more than you or i do what the words original translation was. The Jewish language has changed since it was first spoken much in the same way that english today is almost indistinguishable from old english and quite honestly, speaking to someone in england can be a chore because often times i have no idea what they are saying. Just a simple mispronunciation of a word can completely change the meaning. The most likely translation is the word serpent, or snake. As far as the Seraphim translation, dragon is never implied. Simply declaring that all the angels mentioned in the bible are dragons is wishful thinking and complete speculation.

"... I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the Hekhal (sanctuary). Above Him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."

This is the only place in the bible where the word Seraphim is expressly mentioned. The description is not that of a dragon as you can see.

All of the serious scholars would say the Sumerian stories are older version thatn the Biblical ones.

Oh thank God, im so glad all serious scholars agree. After all we know that consensus equals proof. The point here is that it is still speculation despite what your evolutionist scholars, who do not consider anything beyond the evolutionary timetable, might have to say on the subject. The only reason a consensus is ever needed to validate a theory is for the purposes of peer pressure. After all the more people that believe a certain thing to be true, the more right it becomes. Again, there is no direct proof of what you or your serious scholars say. It is complete and total speculation being passed off as fact.

The Creator God at the beginning of the Bible is Elohim, not Yahweh. But Yahweh's less scientific creation is added later on. So we see two completely different creations in Genesis, the Elohim creation mirror evolution, the Yahweh creation is mythic, with Adam bing the first thing created. DC

Again simply repeating yourself does not make you right. Elohim is not God's true name.

Elohim is a word which expresses concepts of divinity. In other words God or Gods as in "though shalt not have any other Gods before me" is the translation of the word.

Now here is the fun part of this entire thing. Yahweh is not actually translated. Yahweh is a guess, speculation, nothing more. We do not know what the original Hebrew vowels were for the world so we guess. You can infer anything you want, but the point is that Yahweh is the closest translation that we know of to the original Hebrew word.

Likewise the word El is a word for God. Simply because other cultures used the word to refer to various gods means absolutely nothing. If you believe that the original Hebrew religion was based off of other religions, then sure you have a case, but if the bible is right then this theory goes out the window. You are picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe and you can not do that if you expect to be able to put together a religious theory. Ether you accept the entire bible as truth, or you only believe the parts you want to believe and only the parts that with enough twisting make your theory sound half way plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

'kanji'

The Henoism article is just as much wishful thinking as this topic. At no where in the bible is Yahweh ever inferred to be one of the Bene Elohim. I have already looked this up and responded to it in this thread demolishing it quite nicely. Simply repeating the idea does not change this fact. The God's referred to in Psalms are nothing more than Kings who fancy themselves God. You would be able to realize this if you took the entire verse in context of the passage. The problem here is you have a bad habit of pulling a passage out of context and then twisting it to mean whatever you want. Context is extremely important to the Bible, and you are taking things out of context here whether you believe you are or not.

DC The Henoism article was written by Hebrew Scholars, and Uses the bible as its source material. I have yet to see a scholarly acount to dispute it. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits the were numerous other Gods in the original Hebrew beliefs. Its right in the bilbe as the article has shown.

So you don't actually know what happened to the Virgins. Without a book of the bible to look in, i could search for days without finding the exact passage you are referring to, so let me make this simple. Simply because you think historically that virgins are given to dragons does not make it even plausible that a dragon god actually ate them. It is COMPLETE speculation, and if you are actually writing a book on this, i would suggest confining yourself to the facts.

Hmmmm. Lets see. Yahweh is apparently a large flesh eating reptile, and half the ancient world that knew who he was knew he was a dragon and said so. This was probably known to the Jews as well who decorated the most sacred temple object, the menorah, with images of a dragon that was probably intended to be Yahweh. To further confirm this, he is described with wings, has fiery breath, and made the Israelites worship his dragon idol or be killed by his dragon buddies as clearly explianed in the book of Numbers.

And this "dragon" demands a daily rations of sheep and calves (salted), and the "firstborn" animals and children of every Israelite family seven days after they are "issued from the womb". And then we read in the same Bible that this same Yahweh is "given" 32 virgins. It doesn't take much imagination to speculate their probable fate given the evidence...... and I don't think he married them, for nothing more is EVER said of them after they were "given" to Him.

Oh i recall the contest, however the book of Jeremiah has 52 chapters and is one of the longest books if not the longest book in the old testament. Context is very important to the bible, so if you could narrow it down a bit it would help.

Since we both agree it is there, and Jeremiah won becasue Yahweh actually cosumed the offered animals, I am not sure of the point to spend a lot of time dredging this up. You could probably google it pretty fast.

You continually make the claim that current modern translations of the bible are wrong, but you accept without question the greek translations? That certainly does not make sense no matter how you cut it. I am quite familiar with the greek myths and yes they do have dragons associated with the word Drakon, but the part that you continually leave out is that Seraph has more than one possible translation associated with it. Fiery Flying Serpent is only one of the translations. Phonetically the word Seraph is very close to the word Saraph and has several possible root words. The Jewish Rabbis don't know any more than you or i do what the words original translation was. The Jewish language has changed since it was first spoken much in the same way that english today is almost indistinguishable from old english and quite honestly, speaking to someone in england can be a chore because often times i have no idea what they are saying. Just a simple mispronunciation of a word can completely change the meaning. The most likely translation is the word serpent, or snake. As far as the Seraphim translation, dragon is never implied. Simply declaring that all the angels mentioned in the bible are dragons is wishful thinking and complete speculation.

DC: You still don't get it. The translations I refer to were made into greek from Hebrew by learned, ancient Rabbis before Jesus was even born! They are using the original source mater. So BOTH the ancient Jews and modern Jews who understand Hebrew fluently knew the seraphim were winged reptilian creatures. And to remove any doubt, the anicent Egyptians also acknowledged a fiery flying serpent Named the Seraph.

But I NEVER said all angels were dragons. For the record, I say "no angels are dragons". Dragons (seraphim) and the Humanoid angels are two distinctly different heavenly creatures. The Seraph dragons are "destroyers" as they are also sometimes called. Angels are messengers. They were an afterthought that became necessary once humans came on the scene because giant flame spewing dragons are a bit conspicuous while trying to deliver a message to a human in a populated area, and probably a bit frightening too. If a terrifying Seraph Dragon came to Mary to tell her she was going to have God's baby, she might have had a miscarriage.

"... I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the Hekhal (sanctuary). Above Him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."

This is the only place in the bible where the word Seraphim is expressly mentioned. The description is not that of a dragon as you can see.

It doesn't have to be, becasue the word Seraphim already gives this information to the reader who understands Hebrew, and this is confirmed by the ANCIENT translations of the word Seraphim to Drakon by the ancient Jewish rabbis themselves. But nothing in the passage contradicts this. Dragons have wings, arms , legs and faces. And you ignore the fact that dragons sing praises to God in Psalms and Seraphim sing praises to God in Isaiah. Don't you see the connection. These are the only creatues who sing praises to God in the bible, and in one book they are literally called dragons, and in another book they are creatures whose name means a kind of dragon in both Hebrew and Egyptian.

Oh thank God, im so glad all serious scholars agree. After all we know that consensus equals proof. The point here is that it is still speculation despite what your evolutionist scholars, who do not consider anything beyond the evolutionary timetable, might have to say on the subject. The only reason a consensus is ever needed to validate a theory is for the purposes of peer pressure. After all the more people that believe a certain thing to be true, the more right it becomes. Again, there is no direct proof of what you or your serious scholars say. It is complete and total speculation being passed off as fact.

I would say most of the world, and the largest body of scientists would agree that the earth is hundreds of millions, even billions of years old, and evolution is real. You should be ecstatic that the Elohim creation is somewhat compatible with evolution as also suggested by the ancient dragon servants of God that suggest a connection with dinosaurs.

Again simply repeating yourself does not make you right. Elohim is not God's true name.

Elohim is a word which expresses concepts of divinity. In other words God or Gods as in "though shalt not have any other Gods before me" is the translation of the word.

Now here is the fun part of this entire thing. Yahweh is not actually translated. Yahweh is a guess, speculation, nothing more. We do not know what the original Hebrew vowels were for the world so we guess. You can infer anything you want, but the point is that Yahweh is the closest translation that we know of to the original Hebrew word.

Likewise the word El is a word for God. Simply because other cultures used the word to refer to various gods means absolutely nothing. If you believe that the original Hebrew religion was based off of other religions, then sure you have a case, but if the bible is right then this theory goes out the window. You are picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe and you can not do that if you expect to be able to put together a religious theory. Ether you accept the entire bible as truth, or you only believe the parts you want to believe and only the parts that with enough twisting make your theory sound half way plausible.

Originally El/Elohim is indeed the proper name of the Creator God as proven in Canaanite scriptures far older than the bilble. And like the early hebrews they acknowledged El as the highest God, and his favorite "son" was the dragon Yaw, who had a Consort called Asheroth, and was the enemy of Ba'al. And all of this is the same with Yahweh. The Hebrews just added the "weh" to his name! I am not picking out parts of the Bible. You are. The Bible describes Yahweh as a dragon. Gnostic Christians said he is a dragon. The Persian Empire's zoroastrian religion says he is a dragon. Yahweh orders his idol to be in a dragon form, and his highest assistants are identificed as "dragons" by both ancient rabbis and modern ones alike.

I am not making ANY of this up. I am merely putting the pieces back together. And like I said before, it really helps the Christian cause if Yahweh is a dragon, becasue of all the terrible things he does in the Bible. We can excuse an inhumane creature for acting inhumanely, but not an all wise, creator Gon and the Father of Jesus. And Jesus is on my side too. He actually tells the Pharisees they are NOT worshipping His Father, but there can be no doubt that they are worshipping Yahweh. You may argue with me, but how can you argue with Jesus?

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MUM24/7
I am not making ANY of this up. I am merely putting the pieces back together. And like I said before, it really helps the Christian cause if Yahweh is a dragon, becasue of all the terrible things he does in the Bible. We can excuse an inhumane creature for acting inhumanely, but not an all wise, creator Gon and the Father of Jesus. And Jesus is on my side too. He actually tells the Pharisees they are NOT worshipping His Father, but there can be no doubt that they are worshipping Yahweh. You may argue with me, but how can you argue with Jesus? [/color]

Hi dc.....

I thought I'd skip through the whole thread and just read this last paragraph, to get the gist of this topic.......

I got it alright....... :D:lol::D:lol::D

Edited by MUM24/7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyaneyed

This is kind of off topic, and kind of on topic, but I think if someone answers it it could open up the topic a little more..

Someone mentioned '70 tribes' and each having a God, with Yahweh being the strongest according to the Israelites, this before the others were pronounced as false Gods (stop me if I'm not remembering this right, I should really have gone back and quoted). Where can I find more information on the deities these '70 tribes' worshipped? I'm presuming given that there were 70, we are talking more than just Baal here.

After reading through this thread I have a burning desire to correlate the stories deities like Quetzalcoatl in South America with their tales of white teachers of civilisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwoTimer

O.k. so Um I just read this and the Arc of the Covernant and I ,m ConLol FUSED LOL! I got that joke the ARC LOL, and this Is The Electrical GOD Right? Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archosaur

The concept of Seraphem being "fiery serpents" is not a new one. I had run across this translation many times in the years before I ever heard of DC. That makes sens, since there have been scholars who have translated it as such for thousands of years. This does not necessarily prove what actually happened, but it makes a compelling case as to what people thought at the time.

P.S.: I'm going to steer clear of the Yaweh and Satan argument...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
This is kind of off topic, and kind of on topic, but I think if someone answers it it could open up the topic a little more..

Someone mentioned '70 tribes' and each having a God, with Yahweh being the strongest according to the Israelites, this before the others were pronounced as false Gods (stop me if I'm not remembering this right, I should really have gone back and quoted). Where can I find more information on the deities these '70 tribes' worshipped? I'm presuming given that there were 70, we are talking more than just Baal here.

After reading through this thread I have a burning desire to correlate the stories deities like Quetzalcoatl in South America with their tales of white teachers of civilisation.

This was originally a Canaanite belief that the Hebrews seemed to have copied, but the basic concept was accepted throughout the near east. For example, Enki's city was Eridu, Enlil's was Nippur, etc. These cities began as regional "tribes". Abraham lived only seven miles from Enki's city, and we see surprising similarities in the stories of both Enki and Yahweh, not the least being they are both credited with building the garden of eden and known as dragons, particularly so in the Canannite version of Yahweh, "Yaw or Yam". But you will see that Quetzalcoatl and other "dragons" around the world share many similarities with the Mesopotamian ones.

The number of seventy probably stems from these were all the known city states/tribes at the time. But later this same idea is retained by even early Christianity, in which each city would have a patron "angel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henrychalder

linked-image

All this about Dragons...so where does this fit in with the stories of Beowulf and St George?

Slayers of heavenly beings?

It takes a hell of a lot of wing power to lift such a creature that is capable of using its belly to stop the flow of a river.

Some of what has been commented on here I have read about on similar lines such as the author, 'Laurence Gardner', but you have to be very trusting of the research that goes into these theories....Where's a good Hebrew scholar when you need one these days?

Also the assumption of multiple deities from some that advocate a singular one and yet I seem to recall from the gospel of Judas that when Christ entered a room where his disciples were giving grace at the table before their meal Christ mocked them to their annoyance saying that they were praying to the wrong god, interesting that Christ wasn't at the table?

I've always been confused sometimes to the difference between God and the works of the devil according to the bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
linked-image

All this about Dragons...so where does this fit in with the stories of Beowulf and St George?

Slayers of heavenly beings?

It takes a hell of a lot of wing power to lift such a creature that is capable of using its belly to stop the flow of a river.

Some of what has been commented on here I have read about on similar lines such as the author, 'Laurence Gardner', but you have to be very trusting of the research that goes into these theories....Where's a good Hebrew scholar when you need one these days?

Also the assumption of multiple deities from some that advocate a singular one and yet I seem to recall from the gospel of Judas that when Christ entered a room where his disciples were giving grace at the table before their meal Christ mocked them to their annoyance saying that they were praying to the wrong god, interesting that Christ wasn't at the table?

I've always been confused sometimes to the difference between God and the works of the devil according to the bible

Dragon slayer stories are total nonsense, but the stories have fascinated mankind for centuries because dragons were believed to be real until just recently. Saint George is a good example. There was othing at all about dragons in his biography until the dragon fight was simply "invented" by a writer over 1000 years after he lived! But the story became very popular because people were so afraid of dragons at the time. The irony is that when the real St. George lived in Roman times, the Chruch still knew that the seraphim were dragons.

Beowulf is simply a boastful story of the type drunken germanics told in their meadhalles. It should me mentioned as well, that in medieval times, the dragons fighting saints, are seldom bigger than a small pony, becasuse nobody in those times was so stupid to think a person could kill an enormous dragon like in the r******ed books, video games and movies of today, written by people completely ingnorant of medieval weapons and their capabilities, or for that matter, the awesome power a giant intelligent creature like a dragon would posses. I doubt any person could even penetrate such a creatures scale covered skin. The Bible tells how impossible it ws to kill the "Leivathan" dragon, with scales no weapon of bronze or iron could penetrate.

There is not "devil" in the old testament. atan is not even a proper name, and a satan in one chapter, might not be the satan in another. It just means an "adversary" sent by God to test someone. The ignorant early Christians did not understand this, and essentially "invented" a bogeyman named Satan. Yahweh claims he is responible for both good and evil, and this seems to be confirmed in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archosaur
Dragon slayer stories are total nonsense, but the stories have fascinated mankind for centuries because dragons were believed to be real until just recently. Saint George is a good example. There was othing at all about dragons in his biography until the dragon fight was simply "invented" by a writer over 1000 years after he lived! But the story became very popular because people were so afraid of dragons at the time. The irony is that when the real St. George lived in Roman times, the Chruch still knew that the seraphim were dragons.

Beowulf is simply a boastful story of the type drunken germanics told in their meadhalles. It should me mentioned as well, that in medieval times, the dragons fighting saints, are seldom bigger than a small pony, becasuse nobody in those times was so stupid to think a person could kill an enormous dragon like in the r******ed books, video games and movies of today, written by people completely ingnorant of medieval weapons and their capabilities, or for that matter, the awesome power a giant intelligent creature like a dragon would posses. I doubt any person could even penetrate such a creatures scale covered skin. The Bible tells how impossible it ws to kill the "Leivathan" dragon, with scales no weapon of bronze or iron could penetrate.

There is not "devil" in the old testament. atan is not even a proper name, and a satan in one chapter, might not be the satan in another. It just means an "adversary" sent by God to test someone. The ignorant early Christians did not understand this, and essentially "invented" a bogeyman named Satan. Yahweh claims he is responible for both good and evil, and this seems to be confirmed in the Bible.

On a parallel to this: There is also a topic "Order of the Defeated Dragon" within the Conspiracies section. This order combines dragon symbols and old Christian symbols. Oddly, I have noticed some points indicating that the Ordo Draco exists to "slay the dragon of heresy", and other researches indicate that they are trying to preserve a "dragon bloodline".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley

the fact that the bible is basically plagerized from the sumerians makes all this moot.

Sumerian stories were written out at least 1000 years before the bible was a thought. the 'hebrews' were worshipping multiple gods as well. the creation story is directly from the Sumerians as is others.

http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
the fact that the bible is basically plagerized from the sumerians makes all this moot.

Sumerian stories were written out at least 1000 years before the bible was a thought. the 'hebrews' were worshipping multiple gods as well. the creation story is directly from the Sumerians as is others.

<a href="http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm</a>

That has been said here many times, and actually gives the Biblical yahweh more credence. The Sumerian Gods are also referred to as "dragons" in their hymns. The Sumerian origins do not necesarily make the Biblical account of the dragon Yahweh less real. Enki-Yahweh may have simply "kept in touch" with the group of shepherds that left Ur and headed west. Perhaps the only reason Yahweh was allowed to still "shepherd" a tribe of humans at such a late date was because these were the descendents of his original group in the Ur - Eridu region. It all fits the proper chronology.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henrychalder

Two very interesting links.

But for some, looking for these interpretations of Sumerian texts may become an obsession when logically its simply a case of fairy tales.

A good case for the Atheists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Two very interesting links.

But for some, looking for these interpretations of Sumerian texts may become an obsession when logically its simply a case of fairy tales.

A good case for the Atheists?

yes !! fairy tales !!!! the same ones used to write the bible !! the creation story , the flood story , the garden of eden , ect ................ ( actually they think they know where the 'garden of eden' is located via Sumerian text . the fact is the original story came from the Sumerians.

In the past hundred years. since the discovery of ancient civilizations in modern Iraq, scholars have leaned toward the Tigris-Euphrates valley in general, and to the sites of southern Sumer, about 150 miles north of the present head of the Persian Gulf, in particular (map, above).

To this southern Sumerian theory Dr. Juris Zarins, of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, would murmur: "You're getting warmer. For Dr. Zarins, who has spent seven years working out his own hypothesis, believes that the Garden of Eden lies presently under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and he further believes that the story of Adam and Eve in-and especially out-of the Garden is a highly condensed and evocative account of perhaps the greatest revolution that ever shook mankind: the shift from hunting-gathering to agriculture.

It is a tale of rich complexity, beginning 30 millennia before the birth of Christ. Of climatic shifts from moist to arid to moist, with consequent migrations eddying back and forth across, and up and down the Middle East. And of myriad peoples. There were hunter-gatherers whom agriculturists displaced. There were prehistoric Ubaidians who built cities, Sumerians who invented writing and the Assyrians who absorbed Sumer's writing as well as its legend of a luxuriantly lovely land, an Eden called Dilmun. Finally there were Kashsh**es in Mesopotamia, contemporaries of the Israelites then forming the state of Israel.

An endless search for food

There are two crucial if approximate dates in reconstruction. The first is about 30,000 B.C., with the transition from Neanderthal to modern Man. This, some anthropologists believe, took place along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas and in Iraq. At that time the Great Ice Age still held most of Eurasia in its grip, and it caused the sea levels to fall by 400 feet so that what is now the Persian Gulf was dry land, all the way to the Strait of Hormuz. It was irrigated not only by the still-existing Tigris and Euphrates but also by the Gihon, the Pison and their tributaries from the Arabian peninsula and from Iran. It seems reasonable that technologically primitive but modern Mm, in his endless search for food, would have located the considerable natural paradise that presented itself in the area where the Gulf now lies.

But Eden wasn't born then. That came, Zarins believes, about 6000 B.C. In between 30,000 and 6000 B.C., the climate varied. From 15,000 B.C., rainfall diminished drastically. Faced with increasing aridity, the Paleolithic population retreated, some as far as the area known to us as the "Fertile Crescent" (north along the Tigris and Euphrates, westward toward the moist Mediterranean coast, south to the Nile), and also eastward to the Indus River valley. Others, perhaps wearied by the long trek, made do with the more austere conditions of central Arabia and continued foraging as best they could.

Then, at about 6000 to 5000 B.C., following a long arid stretch, came a period called the Neolithic Wet Phase when rains returned to the Gulf region. The reaches of eastern and northeastern Saudi Arabia and southwestern Iran became green and fertile again. Foraging populations came back to where the four rivers now ran full, and there was rainfall on the intervening plains. Animal bones indicate that in this period Arabia had abundant game. Thousands of stone tools suggest intensive, if seasonal, human occupation around now dry lakes and rivers. These tools are found even in the Rub al-Khali or Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia. And so about 6000 to 5000 B.C. the land was again a paradise on Earth, provided by a bountiful nature-God---and admirably suited to the foraging life.

http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/

The area thought to be the Garden of Eden, which was flooded when Gulf waters arose, is shown in green.

Yellow areas of Bahrain and Arabian coast represent Dilmun, paradise land of Ubaidians and Sumerians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
yes !! fairy tales !!!! the same ones used to write the bible !! the creation story , the flood story , the garden of eden , ect ................ ( actually they think they know where the 'garden of eden' is located via Sumerian text . the fact is the original story came from the Sumerians.

In the past hundred years. since the discovery of ancient civilizations in modern Iraq, scholars have leaned toward the Tigris-Euphrates valley in general, and to the sites of southern Sumer, about 150 miles north of the present head of the Persian Gulf, in particular (map, above).

To this southern Sumerian theory Dr. Juris Zarins, of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, would murmur: "You're getting warmer. For Dr. Zarins, who has spent seven years working out his own hypothesis, believes that the Garden of Eden lies presently under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and he further believes that the story of Adam and Eve in-and especially out-of the Garden is a highly condensed and evocative account of perhaps the greatest revolution that ever shook mankind: the shift from hunting-gathering to agriculture.

It is a tale of rich complexity, beginning 30 millennia before the birth of Christ. Of climatic shifts from moist to arid to moist, with consequent migrations eddying back and forth across, and up and down the Middle East. And of myriad peoples. There were hunter-gatherers whom agriculturists displaced. There were prehistoric Ubaidians who built cities, Sumerians who invented writing and the Assyrians who absorbed Sumer's writing as well as its legend of a luxuriantly lovely land, an Eden called Dilmun. Finally there were Kashsh**es in Mesopotamia, contemporaries of the Israelites then forming the state of Israel.

An endless search for food

There are two crucial if approximate dates in reconstruction. The first is about 30,000 B.C., with the transition from Neanderthal to modern Man. This, some anthropologists believe, took place along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas and in Iraq. At that time the Great Ice Age still held most of Eurasia in its grip, and it caused the sea levels to fall by 400 feet so that what is now the Persian Gulf was dry land, all the way to the Strait of Hormuz. It was irrigated not only by the still-existing Tigris and Euphrates but also by the Gihon, the Pison and their tributaries from the Arabian peninsula and from Iran. It seems reasonable that technologically primitive but modern Mm, in his endless search for food, would have located the considerable natural paradise that presented itself in the area where the Gulf now lies.

But Eden wasn't born then. That came, Zarins believes, about 6000 B.C. In between 30,000 and 6000 B.C., the climate varied. From 15,000 B.C., rainfall diminished drastically. Faced with increasing aridity, the Paleolithic population retreated, some as far as the area known to us as the "Fertile Crescent" (north along the Tigris and Euphrates, westward toward the moist Mediterranean coast, south to the Nile), and also eastward to the Indus River valley. Others, perhaps wearied by the long trek, made do with the more austere conditions of central Arabia and continued foraging as best they could.

Then, at about 6000 to 5000 B.C., following a long arid stretch, came a period called the Neolithic Wet Phase when rains returned to the Gulf region. The reaches of eastern and northeastern Saudi Arabia and southwestern Iran became green and fertile again. Foraging populations came back to where the four rivers now ran full, and there was rainfall on the intervening plains. Animal bones indicate that in this period Arabia had abundant game. Thousands of stone tools suggest intensive, if seasonal, human occupation around now dry lakes and rivers. These tools are found even in the Rub al-Khali or Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia. And so about 6000 to 5000 B.C. the land was again a paradise on Earth, provided by a bountiful nature-God---and admirably suited to the foraging life.

<a href="http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/" target="_blank">http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/</a>

The area thought to be the Garden of Eden, which was flooded when Gulf waters arose, is shown in green.

Yellow areas of Bahrain and Arabian coast represent Dilmun, paradise land of Ubaidians and Sumerians

A hymn to Enki, "The Great Dragon that stands in Eridu" also mentions his building the Garden of Eden there. This is quite close to where the satellites noted the garden should be by the ancient river courses. Why would our ancestors claim a "dragon" taught them agriculure in the garden of eden? Why would the Chinese say essentially the same thing about their dragons thousands of miles away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henrychalder

I read these depth the comments with interest.

What is the source the research I wonder?

Books or the Sumerian texts themselves?

I have to take one step back and instead of getting too involved and the need to go into research mode which will inevitably confuse me more, its best to look at the whole picture and the personalities involved here.

So it is agreed that the goat sucking baby dragon chuppies are hardly a threat now, but maybe they had to be hatched here on Earth and they are now steadily getting bigger, And being really smart, heavenenly baby dragon chuppies, they leave a mangy dog in the wake of their destruction to cover their tracks, and mislead the few intelligent humans.

Laugh now, but wait until the chuppies are 100 feet long and breath fire..............

Hey, I should write scripts for b-grade sci-fi channel flicks!

How much of this is really made for amusement?

Or is it really taken more seriously?

***********************************?

I thought it best to delete the real question I was interested in.

Surely the real mystery is..the Sumerian's themselves and how did they accelerate mans evolution in such a short period of time, what kick started it?

The Dragon theory is of the least importance surely?

It does of course dismiss the old testament I'll grant you.

Edited by henrychalder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
I read these depth the comments with interest.

What is the source the research I wonder?

Books or the Sumerian texts themselves?

I have to take one step back and instead of getting too involved and the need to go into research mode which will inevitably confuse me more, its best to look at the whole picture and the personalities involved here.

How much of this is really made for amusement?

Or is it really taken more seriously?

***********************************?

I thought it best to delete the real question I was interested in.

Surely the real mystery is..the Sumerian's themselves and how did they accelerate mans evolution in such a short period of time, what kick started it?

The Dragon theory is of the least importance surely?

It does of course dismiss the old testament I'll grant you.

The Chuppie post was tongue in cheek simply becasue the whole chuppie thing is ridiculous.

But the dragons are very important to the Sumerians because THEY said that thir e knowledge came from the Heavenly dragons. So here we have these brilliant builders, mathematicians and astronomers, and they blelive they were taught by dragons. It does demand an explanation.

And once we establish Yahweh is the sumerian dragon Enki, it all make a lot more sense, as you will see if you read my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Surely the real mystery is..the Sumerian's themselves and how did they accelerate mans evolution in such a short period of time, what kick started it?

good question.

The lunar cycle of about 28-29 days, and the solar cycle of 365 ¼ days, have no natural relationship, and the selection of how many days there should be in a "week" is purely arbitrary. The 7 day week of the Hebrews was based on a preference for that number and probably originated with the earlier Sumerians, who based it on the 7 heavenly bodies then known, and who are also credited with originating history. ("History begins at Sumer") The Incas had an 8 day week as did the Romans, who only modified it to 7 when the Roman world became Christianized with Constantine. The earlier Greeks had no week at all, just a 30 day month. At its origin in 1917, the Soviet Union adopted a 5 day week.

<a href="http://www.naciente.com/essay70.htm" target="_blank">http://www.naciente.com/essay70.htm</a>

this may help also explain thier creation myth --

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc03.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc03.htm</a>

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka

Heavenly Father, and our Mother , The Holy spirit (God), are spirit, of which all Mater is created.

Father can manifest any form He wishes (Perks of being a creator), This is why we are told not to atribute any shape to The one who created us. Father may look lik a Moses figure to one, and A dragon to another. I have seen God as many things including but not limited to human shapes.

God slows Spirits vibration down, in order to manifest on this plane of existance.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Heavenly Father, and our Mother , The Holy spirit (God), are spirit, of which all Mater is created.

Father can manifest any form He wishes (Perks of being a creator), This is why we are told not to atribute any shape to The one who created us. Father may look lik a Moses figure to one, and A dragon to another. I have seen God as many things including but not limited to human shapes.

God slows Spirits vibration down, in order to manifest on this plane of existance.

Love Omnaka

You misunderstand the early Hebrew and Cannanite theologies. Neither believed that God the Creator was a dragon, they believed the lesser, "assistant gods"/ Sons of God appeared as dragons. These are the Seraphim of the Bible. In a way these ancient peoples were more logical than people today. In the original Bible, Yahweh is subordinate to the creator El, but later the Hebrews melded the two Gods together. Originally they believed the creator of the universe could no micro manage every individual human, pariticularly when they are many more inhabitable planets too. So the bible says that these "Sons of Gods" were apportioned one each to watch over each human tribe. This is the role of Yahweh with the Hebrews.

Why dragons? Possibly these were the most intelligent animals available to the Creator 100 million years ago, when he visited this planet last. And this is why we read of cruel gods, Yahweh included. He does terrible things in the Bible, and Jesus seems to claim he is not his father. Perhaps the dragons that were assistant/tribal gods, were not delibartely cruel, but simply had brains that lacked human-type compassion as we see in many of the Bibles terrible atrocities, and inexplicable human and animal sacrifices.

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.