Mushrushu

[legionromanes]

If you are not even aware that Tiamat was believed to be the Goddess and Mother of the other Gods, it is useless to discuss this with you.

You're right, I am not aware of that, perhaps you could link to any original mesopotamian text that makes that claim. And then explain why she isn't recognised as a Goddess in any writing. All the ones that I have read state that Anu was the father and Kisar the mother, perhaps you have been reading from a non credible source

And for your information, Enlil, Enki, Ishtar and other mesopotamian gods are given the title, "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven", and Enki, in a later hymn when he is called EA is even described in detail as a dragon, with sharp teeth, claws, scaly body, etc. Virtually every human culture had dragon gods, as any anthropologist knows.

yet you lost a discussion in the formal debate area because you had no evidence that proved it. You want to lose another one thats fine, you want to click on the challenge tab or shall I ?

and again you are just providing conjecture without evidence, perhaps you should link to the "later hymn" so we can read it, but I'll have to tell you in advance that Sassu Wunnu is not an epithet for Ea, but as God of the sea Enki had control of everything in it. including Sassu Wunnu, which is why he is described as a "form of Ea's" in that very old translation, thesedays the phrase "mark of Ea" or "sign of Ea" would be better applied

or do you not know enough about babylonian cuneiform to understand this

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6082.html

This is very basic stuff everbody on these forums should be aware of.

nope its just delusional, I'm sure more members are aware of that than agree with you on anything

Edited February 2, 2009 by legionromanes

[draconic chronicler]

You're right, I am not aware of that, perhaps you could link to any original mesopotamian text that makes that claim. And then explain why she isn't recognised as a Goddess in any writing. All the ones that I have read state that Anu was the father and Kisar the mother, perhaps you have been reading from a non credible source

yet you lost a discussion in the formal debate area because you had no evidence that proved it. You want to lose another one thats fine, you want to click on the challenge tab or shall I ?

and again you are just providing conjecture without evidence, perhaps you should link to the "later hymn" so we can read it, but I'll have to tell you in advance that Sassu Wunnu is not an epithet for Ea, but as God of the sea Enki had control of everything in it. including Sassu Wunnu, which is why he is described as a "form of Ea's" in that very old translation, thesedays the phrase "mark of Ea" or "sign of Ea" would be better applied

or do you not know enough about babylonian cuneiform to understand this

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6082.html

nope its just delusional, I'm sure more members are aware of that than agree with you on anything

It is apparent that you know even less about Sumerian Mythology than you know about the Roman Army, as we have already seen. To quote the Sumerian Enuma Elish, (second tablet) :

"Tiamat made weighty her handiwork,

Evil she wrought against the gods her children".

Now lets see, if the Gods are "her Children" that would make her their mother and therfore also as god/goddess. Every source I have ever read states this.

You can't even understand something this simple and you dare to say I don't know what I am talking about?

And I never lost 'the debate'. I was also able to prove that Ketos was a goddess, the daughter of other gods, and therefore Gremlin had to eat crow.

[legionromanes]

It is apparent that you know even less about Sumerian Mythology than you know about the Roman Army, as we have already seen. To quote the Sumerian Enuma Elish, (second tablet) :

"Tiamat made weighty her handiwork,

Evil she wrought against the gods her children".

Now lets see, if the Gods are "her Children" that would make her their mother and therfore also as god/goddess. Every source I have ever read states this.

nope thats another fabrication on your part, there is no other source that claims that Tiamat is mother to the gods, and this one doesnt either, see if you were using anything more recent than the 1910 translation you would have been aware that when it says her children it is actually saying "her lessers"

or do you not speak sumerian

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e2456.html

as you can see the word "children" can be used interchangeably with "junior" and "social inferior", perhaps you got pwned again

unless you want to tell me why it is that Ninḫursaĝa has the epithet "The mother of the gods," and this is used 43 times in various texts translated recently, you just have the one from a text which is now almost 100 years out of date.

when you add to this that you are ignoring the fact that all the names of gods and goddesses in mesopotamia are preceeded by the dingir symbol,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINGIR

which is never used with Tiamat you got nothing except your own unqualified opinion. Every Sumerologist you can read says you got it wrong. who are we to trust eh, I would certainly question the integrity of someone who has got their understanding of the appearence of Tiamat from the 1970s cartoon "dungeons and dragons"

You can't even understand something this simple and you dare to say I don't know what I am talking about?

well obviously as I just proved it again

And I never lost 'the debate'. I was also able to prove that Ketos was a goddess, the daughter of other gods, and therefore Gremlin had to eat crow.

you totally lost it, the last post was from a moderator telling you so

This is a formal debate. You are advised to take it with the seriousness it merits.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...mp;qpid=2627824

besides which I thought everyone knew that Ketos was a whale, the derivation of cetacean certainly knows it

Ketos - Cetos - Cetacean

really, you should know by now that the credibility of your beliefs about dragons is severely lacking at this website, why do you persist in this obvious fallacy

[draconic chronicler]

nope thats another fabrication on your part, there is no other source that claims that Tiamat is mother to the gods, and this one doesnt either, see if you were using anything more recent than the 1910 translation you would have been aware that when it says her children it is actually saying "her lessers"

or do you not speak sumerian

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e2456.html

as you can see the word "children" can be used interchangeably with "junior" and "social inferior", perhaps you got pwned again

unless you want to tell me why it is that Ninḫursaĝa has the epithet "The mother of the gods," and this is used 43 times in various texts translated recently, you just have the one from a text which is now almost 100 years out of date.

when you add to this that you are ignoring the fact that all the names of gods and goddesses in mesopotamia are preceeded by the dingir symbol,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINGIR

which is never used with Tiamat you got nothing except your own unqualified opinion. Every Sumerologist you can read says you got it wrong. who are we to trust eh, I would certainly question the integrity of someone who has got their understanding of the appearence of Tiamat from the 1970s cartoon "dungeons and dragons"

well obviously as I just proved it again

you totally lost it, the last post was from a moderator telling you so

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...mp;qpid=2627824

besides which I thought everyone knew that Ketos was a whale, the derivation of cetacean certainly knows it

Ketos - Cetos - Cetacean

really, you should know by now that the credibility of your beliefs about dragons is severely lacking at this website, why do you persist in this obvious fallacy

If you knew more about Sumerian Mythology you would know that that whole Tiamat-Marduk mythos was a latter addition to give importance to Babylon's god Marduk, but this does not change the fact Tiamat was considered the 'mother' of the gods in this version.

Most sources agree with what I said about Tiamat. Anyone here can look them up and will agree.

And no, the Greeks themselves had names for various whales. But Ketos was the PROPER NAME of an intelligent deity that was usually portrayed as a sea dragon as I have shown with images here before.

It was MODERN SCIENTISTS who name Cetaceans AFTER this sea dragon of Greek mythology who was a daughter of Gaia.

I didn't even know there was a 1970's cartoon called dungeons and dragons..... but I see you are quite the authority on cartoons at least, but no other subject discussed here.

[legionromanes]

If you knew more about Sumerian Mythology you would know that that whole Tiamat-Marduk mythos was a latter addition to give importance to Babylon's god Marduk, but this does not change the fact Tiamat was considered the 'mother' of the gods in this version.

Most sources agree with what I said about Tiamat. Anyone here can look them up and will agree.

no sources agree with you or you would have posted them, I have supported everything I have said so far with links, youve just offered opinion, youre losing this debate hand over fist, so I'll say it again, I can post 43 references to the embodiment of Kisar, Ninhursag being referred to as "the mother of the gods", all you have is one badly translated reference which is 100 years out of date, if thats all you've got I'm not impressed, mind you neither will anyone else reading this

And no, the Greeks themselves had names for various whales. But Ketos was the PROPER NAME of an intelligent deity that was usually portrayed as a sea dragon

oh then by all means feel free to post a link to an ancient greek text that discusses whales as I have yet to see one

as I have shown with images here before.

lol nope the two most famous images of the ketos are these

what you have been missing is this

which is a whale skull which matches the images in the greeks own pictures, oh did you think it was a dragon

lol

It was MODERN SCIENTISTS who name Cetaceans AFTER this sea dragon of Greek mythology who was a daughter of Gaia.

and you never thought to wonder why, obviously you had already made your mind up, perhaps you should actually read Plinys natural history to see what they thought of whales around that period

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...c:head%3D%23418

I'd pay attention to the parts where he describes whales as "sea monsters" if I were you. might save you having to wipe even more egg off your face

I didn't even know there was a 1970's cartoon called dungeons and dragons..... but I see you are quite the authority on cartoons at least, but no other subject discussed here.

I don't think anyone is going to believe that statement. Its on a par with the rest of the detritus you post as factual

and again

this proves that everything you have said about the Mushussu is wrong

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3849.html

there is no reference to this creature predating 2500bce

so it isn't even sumerian

Its akkadian

and thats where your whole farago falls flat, because you don't know the difference

[The Gremlin]

It is apparent that you know even less about Sumerian Mythology than you know about the Roman Army, as we have already seen. To quote the Sumerian Enuma Elish, (second tablet) :

"Tiamat made weighty her handiwork,

Evil she wrought against the gods her children".

Now lets see, if the Gods are "her Children" that would make her their mother and therfore also as god/goddess. Every source I have ever read states this.

You can't even understand something this simple and you dare to say I don't know what I am talking about?

And I never lost 'the debate'. I was also able to prove that Ketos was a goddess, the daughter of other gods, and therefore Gremlin had to eat crow.

Hi folks (sitcom applause for 'guy who walks into the room'),

dc i aint eatin crow, just couldnt be bothered to continue an argument that was making you look sillier than usual....which is considerably.

ketos was not a goddess, she was a monster....she was never worshiped, she was however commanded by gods.....

this does not make ketos real.

ketos was never worshiped by the greeks, and sacrifices over water for safe passage were always made to Poseidon, as most folk know.

dude if you'd really like me to make a reply in the formal debate i will,

to address the topic.....

i think the problem here lies in the confusion between mushushu and ushumgal.....they are not the same.

while tiamat has been called ushumgal....together with some of the gods occasionally (as an epithet) she was not a mushushu to my recollection.

In religious poetic metaphor one or two gods have been called mushushu....but this does not mean thats what they were believed to actually be.....they are also called things like, 'arrow', sword, flood, storm, bull, lion, eagle's claw etc.....

its not a literal description.

here's another well known pic of the ketos....

here's a pic of a mushush

not particularly similar......

and neither do they get similar in art until after 323bc or so, when eastern artistic forms creep into Greek mainstream culture....then depictions of the ketos do evolve into what we would recognise as a sea dragon.

Edited February 3, 2009 by lil gremlin

[draconic chronicler]

Hi folks (sitcom applause for 'guy who walks into the room'),

dc i aint eatin crow, just couldnt be bothered to continue an argument that was making you look sillier than usual....which is considerably.

ketos was not a goddess, she was a monster....she was never worshiped, she was however commanded by gods.....

this does not make ketos real.

ketos was never worshiped by the greeks, and sacrifices over water for safe passage were always made to Poseidon, as most folk know.

dude if you'd really like me to make a reply in the formal debate i will,

to address the topic.....

i think the problem here lies in the confusion between mushushu and ushumgal.....they are not the same.

while tiamat has been called ushumgal....together with some of the gods occasionally (as an epithet) she was not a mushushu to my recollection.

In religious poetic metaphor one or two gods have been called mushushu....but this does not mean thats what they were believed to actually be.....they are also called things like, 'arrow', sword, flood, storm, bull, lion, eagle's claw etc.....

its not a literal description.

here's another well known pic of the ketos....

here's a pic of a mushush

not particularly similar......

and neither do they get similar in art until after 323bc or so, when eastern artistic forms creep into Greek mainstream culture....then depictions of the ketos do evolve into what we would recognise as a sea dragon.

You cannot make me "look foolish" Grem as the facts are always on my side.

This quote from Wiki is pretty standard stuff your will find in any other encyclopedia. As you can see, the ancient Greeks state "she" was the daughter of other gods, and NOT simply the name for a generic monster, though that would happen later. And you also know that MOST depictions of Ketos clearly depict her as a Sea Dragon, usually ridden by Nereides. In fact, the art you have supplied is probably just a Shark that has been misidentified as a Ketos. The Greeks picked and chose which gods they wanted to please. Ketos was only the daughter of higher gods as you see below.

"In Greek mythology, Cetus (Greek: Κῆτος, Kētos), also called Ceto or Cetea, was a hideous sea monster, a daughter of Gaia and Pontus. The asteroid (65489) Ceto was named after her, and its satellite (65489) Ceto I Phorcys after her husband. She was the personification of the dangers of the sea, unknown terrors and bizarre creatures.

You still don't understand the Sumerian hymns either. Yes, they could be described as "virile as a bull", but they WERE "Great Serpent Dragons of Heaven". And the fact Marduk is always shown with a Mushushu by his side is to remind everyone that he is the son of Enki/Ea, A great serpent dragon of Heaven. Of course, they still believed these dragons could assume a human form, just as the Chinese believed of their dragons.

Or are you going to deny that fact too?

[The Gremlin]

You cannot make me "look foolish" Grem as the facts are always on my side.

This quote from Wiki is pretty standard stuff your will find in any other encyclopedia. As you can see, the ancient Greeks state "she" was the daughter of other gods, and NOT simply the name for a generic monster, though that would happen later. And you also know that MOST depictions of Ketos clearly depict her as a Sea Dragon, usually ridden by Nereides. In fact, the art you have supplied is probably just a Shark that has been misidentified as a Ketos. The Greeks picked and chose which gods they wanted to please. Ketos was only the daughter of higher gods as you see below.

but that did not make /her/ a goddess.....i know your having trouble grasping that.

"In Greek mythology, Cetus (Greek: Κῆτος, Kētos), also called Ceto or Cetea, was a hideous sea monster, a daughter of Gaia and Pontus. The asteroid (65489) Ceto was named after her, and its satellite (65489) Ceto I Phorcys after her husband. She was the personification of the dangers of the sea, unknown terrors and bizarre creatures.

ive highlighted the relevent statement......she was not real, she was a concept.....based on whales.

You still don't understand the Sumerian hymns either. Yes, they could be described as "virile as a bull", but they WERE "Great Serpent Dragons of Heaven". And the fact Marduk is always shown with a Mushushu by his side is to remind everyone that he is the son of Enki/Ea, A great serpent dragon of Heaven. Of course, they still believed these dragons could assume a human form, just as the Chinese believed of their dragons.

Or are you going to deny that fact too?

I know by now you cant identify metonymy, metaphor, or other poetic literary devices.....its all literal to you unless it contradicts what you believe...

you cannot positively identify the mushushu at marduk's side.....some folk think it is enki, others think it is ningishzida.

you are making facts out of speculation.

Edited February 3, 2009 by lil gremlin

[draconic chronicler]

no sources agree with you or you would have posted them, I have supported everything I have said so far with links, youve just offered opinion, youre losing this debate hand over fist, so I'll say it again, I can post 43 references to the embodiment of Kisar, Ninhursag being referred to as "the mother of the gods", all you have is one badly translated reference which is 100 years out of date, if thats all you've got I'm not impressed, mind you neither will anyone else reading this

I'd pay attention to the parts where he describes whales as "sea monsters" if I were you. might save you having to wipe even more egg off your face

I don't think anyone is going to believe that statement. Its on a par with the rest of the detritus you post as factual

and again

this proves that everything you have said about the Mushussu is wrong

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3849.html

there is no reference to this creature predating 2500bce

so it isn't even sumerian

Its akkadian

and thats where your whole farago falls flat, because you don't know the difference

You have not refuted anything I said. Modern scientists named an order of marine mammals after a Greek sea goddess/monster, who was the daughter of more famous gods, and whose most common depiection is a sea dragon, often with wings, and similar to the form acknowledged as dragons today. As Dr. Adrienne Mayor believes, these legends like Perseus were based on the discovery of a fossil (and there was a well known fossil marine monster where the Perseus story took place), and for more confirmation, the image you supplied that looks like Herculess shooting a fossil Rhino skull, was alsmost certainly based on finding this skull near the site of Troy, and the Hercules story would have been made to explain it.

But in most art, and the Ketea Sea Dragons that Pliny decribed living in his time, they are long necked Reptilian 'dragons', much like those seen in many of the famous "sea serpent" sightings witnessed by hundreds of people in more modern times.

Naming Cetaceans after a Greek dragon is no different than scientists recently naming a group of pterosaurs after a Persian dragon. Scientists like to use names from mythology.

And yes, the ancient Greeks DID know the difference between whales and 'sea dragons'. History of Animals (or "Historia Animalium", or "On the History of Animals") is a zoological natural history text by Aristotle.

The work consists of lengthy descriptions (Greek: historiai) of countless species of fish, shellfish, and other animals and their anatomies including various species of whales.

There is little doubt that the Sumerians identified what the Akkadians called the Mushushu with thier name for the highest gods whose true fom were serpent dragons, the Ushumgal, becaue the hymns refer to these as HEAVENLY creatures. Proof of this is the fact that Ningishzida is also a god in the Sumerian myths just like Enki, procaimed the great serpent dragon of heaven. When we first see Ningishzida in Akkadian art, he is a winged, serpent headed "dragon". In fact, this most famous depiection on the Gudea vase in the Louvre shows Ningishzida and Dumuzi holding the gates of heaven, exactly as in the famous story of Enki tricking Adam out of eternal life. And this is why there is a "Serpent" in the Hebrew version of this story who likewise "tricks" Adam.

And of course, you will find other references to mother goddess besides Tiamat. As you should know, this story was created long after the original Sumerian creation mythos for the specific purpose of giving importance to a 'new' god of a 'new' city called Babylon that was replacing the older cities like Eridu ( and therefore their older city state gods like Enki and Enlil). This is common knowledge in any scholarly work on Marduk, do you really need references?

Edited February 3, 2009 by draconic chronicler

[Lilly]

I would gently caution everyone: Without direct evidence much of what we believe has to kept in the realm of personal opinion, until such time as irrefutable evidence comes forth.

[legionromanes]

I would gently caution everyone: Without direct evidence much of what we believe has to kept in the realm of personal opinion, until such time as irrefutable evidence comes forth.

hmmm, irrefutable evidence has come forth, its just that DC is ignoring it, what it basically comes down to is either

dragons really existed

dragons never existed

its not a hard decision as theres no evidence at all for the former and loads of evidence for the latter

DC has somehow managed to convince himself that the former is correct despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary

take for example his belief that Tiamat was the mother of all the sumerian gods which he bases on one mistranslated line from a hundred year old text vs my contention that Ninhursag was the sumerian mother goddess backed by 43 texts translated fairly recently

or D'Cs contention again that the sumerians worshipped the Mushussu when the word didn't even exist until after their civilisation had collapsed and where there is not one text that even mentions any worship of the mushussu in any period of mesopotamian history

its not rocket science,

its sumerology, its a recognised science and the facts of their culture are very well known

DC has never studied sumerology, I have a history degree and my thesis was on mesopotamian religious beliefs, who would you ask a question on Sumer and expect a correct answer from

[Archosaur]

Let's all try and keep civil folks. There is a lot of good info on these threads, let's not ruin it for everyone.

Tiamat was considered the mother of the goda (and monsters), and was typically desctribed as a dragon, serpent, or serpent plus claws (sounds like a dragon). She was not worshiped, however (that we know of). Partly this is because she was opposing Marduk and company (on the other side), and partly, like the Greek Gaia (mother of the Greek Gods) was almost more of a force than a goddess. It's also likely that there was an older Tiamat cult that was literally demonized when conquering forces placed thier conquering gods in place.

What I can gather the Mushu functioned much like the Chinese dragons, intermediaries between Heaven and Earth.

[draconic chronicler]

hmmm, irrefutable evidence has come forth, its just that DC is ignoring it, what it basically comes down to is either

dragons really existed

dragons never existed

its not a hard decision as theres no evidence at all for the former and loads of evidence for the latter

DC has somehow managed to convince himself that the former is correct despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary

take for example his belief that Tiamat was the mother of all the sumerian gods which he bases on one mistranslated line from a hundred year old text vs my contention that Ninhursag was the sumerian mother goddess backed by 43 texts translated fairly recently

or D'Cs contention again that the sumerians worshipped the Mushussu when the word didn't even exist until after their civilisation had collapsed and where there is not one text that even mentions any worship of the mushussu in any period of mesopotamian history

its not rocket science,

its sumerology, its a recognised science and the facts of their culture are very well known

DC has never studied sumerology, I have a history degree and my thesis was on mesopotamian religious beliefs, who would you ask a question on Sumer and expect a correct answer from

For the record, I never stated "Tiamat" was real. This is the last sumerian dragon I would believe is real because the story was created long after the original legends to give prestige to a newly created god. This is no different than adding a dragon to the story of St. George 1000 years later to give him more prestige. So I don't believe he slayed a dragon either, though people in his time commonly wrote of seeing them. St. Augustine went so far as to warn his congregation not to admire the huge flying dragons so much as they did, but rather, to admire and praise the creator of the dragons. Why would anyone say such a thing if they never saw dragons?

But the truth of the matter is that ancient man all over the world acknowledged gods in the form of "serpent dragons" that taught them many things in the earliest times we have recorded records. The question is, why would so many human cultures believe this? And why do we still see "dragons" all over the world (I refer to the lake monsters and sea serpents)?

If I never studied Sumerology, why do I clearly know more about it as these discucssions prove?

[ActaNonVerba]

I havent really been here that long or read much of Dcs posts but it seems like to me. That everytime DC says something you guys come in and flame him to death. You basically bait him into this

As seen here He is simply answering the Ops question.

Mushrushus are some of the earliest 'gods' of Mesopotamia and like the dragons of China, supposedly taught early man the trapping of civilization. Long before the Book of Daniel was written, they had a great impact in the Bible. The reason Yahweh Himself is described with wings, fiery, breth, and had a fiery flying serpent idol stems from the exploits of Enki, proclaimed in his hymns as the "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven", builder of the Garden of Eden, the deity that warned Noah of the Flood, and the thwarter of the humans building the tower of Babel. After centuries of retelling the tales arround their campfires, the serpent dragon who was a god who tricked Adam out of eternal life, and made man from clay, became a mere serpent, and ultimately, turned into "the Devil" by Christianity.

Most Christian denominations and Judaism itself dismisses the Bel and the Dragon story as a fairytale and it is not Canon. At face value it is quite stupid, and written so long after the real event of the Babylonian captivity, that they even got the name of the King wrong!

But one thing these much later storytellers did know was that monuments of Marduk (Bel) often depicted him riding on the back of a Mushrushu dragon, or having one at his side like an obedient pet. (Yahweh is even depicted riding on the back of a similar dragon in early bibles, suggesting that his firery breath and huge wings belong to his 'mount' and not their God). So it was not a stretch to think there was one in his temple since all of the ancient peoples acknowledged dragons as flesh and blood creatures. The reason the Mushrushu is at Marduk's side was probably an allusion to the fact he was supposed to be the son of Enki, the "great serpent dragon of eden", and today, Christianity's devil and red dragon of revelation.

Curiously, Muhrushu are depicted with wings as deities, but those on the Ishtar gate are wingless, possibly meaning they are only 'sacred' animals.

Once Again just answering a question.

Not pets. Chinese Dragons were weather controlling gods that if angered, were believed to cause terrible storms or drought. Yes, there were official civil servants to take care of visiting dragons, and lists of dignitaries allowed to fly on their backs. There is one account of a dragon being given a keg of wine for helping move a junk off of a sand bar.

Here He even AGREES the story is far fetched.

I woudn't even give the story that much credit because the writers did not even know who the king was at that time. It was Cyrus, NOT Darius. Most historians agree it was written hundreds of years after the actual Babylonian captivity.

The story is actually quite ludicrous if you think about it. The King states the dragon is a god, yet risks its wrath by letting a foreign prisoner attempt to poison it? And even as a valuable temple "pet", it would be no feat to poison a trusting animal, and this in a culture of royal tasters and attempted poisionings? It is no wonder most Christian denominations and the Jews themselves dismiss it as a ridiculous fairytale and keep it out of the Bible.

The interesting thing about it though is that there may have memories of those distant times when they were in Babylon and stories of a 'dragon' that did live in a temple sacred to Marduk and his dragon "father'. Perhaps it was merely a crocodile, or perhaps it was a living Mushrushu, as a crocodile does not look like a Mushrushu and any travelers would know that a crocodile is a mere animal and not a god. But I doubt the Hebrews, including Daniel, as 'unbelievers' would have even been allowed into the Babylonian temples, just as their temple was off limits to pagans.

Asked for source thats fine.

It would be helpful if you supplied links to the story so members can see the source of the post?

Answered again nothing wrong there

Bel and the Dragon is easy to find, and Catholic Bibles have it and other Apocryphal works between the old and new testaments.

Now You Start to "FLAME" him The Highlighted Section. If you actually read the post he said there have been accounts Never once stated he thought they were real. i dont know his personal opinion but neither do you. He may think Dragons are real but he never stated where he stood on this issue. As you can see up aboce he even said a couple of those are doubtful.

Id just like to make one think abundantly clear. There are or were no such things as dragons. Kimodo dragons, yes, Or other reptiles that looked like or were mistaken for dragons, but there never was any such animal that could breathe fire, fly or as DC ridiculously suggests[b/], change the weather! its a mythical creature and a thing of folklore and legend like the minotaur, loch ness monster and mothman. There never has or never will be a shred of evidence to suggest that they did exist, no fossils, no teeth, no living relatives, no photographs or video footage. Dragons are nothing more than legend.

Ill be honest he answered which makes him wrong too but. Lets be clear you started it. Im not saying it was right that he resoponded the way you did.

Lets also make it abundantly clear that this is merely your opinion. The thousands of sightings of large reptiian creatures, usually in bodies of water, and many photos of such that have not been determined fakes, could very easily be the creatures our ancestors regarded as "dragons".

There is really nothing impossible about such creatures. Humans can spew fire from their mouths, there is no reason a 'dragon' couldn't do the same if furnished with a suitable, flammable beverage.

The largest skull of any land vertebrate belongs to a pterossaur large enough to swallow an adult human whole.

Even if they could not control the weather, an intelligent flying creature could certainly make it seem that it could control the weather to ancient man.

Parrots can speak human dialects and some seem to actually know what the words mean.

So the only evidence that dragons do not exists is lack of evidence of their remains. But this is very weak because new animals are being discovered all the time, and new dinosaurs as well for which no fossils had been found of them before.

There is really far more evidence for dragons, given their world wide acceptance as living animals for thousands of years, and possible eyewitness accounts all the time, than there is for the Biblical "God", which quite ironically, has many characteristics that suggests this deity is a "dragon" as well. Some of the world's most brilliant scientists and BILLIONS of other people, believe in this God with far less evidence than there has been for dragons.

Intelligent creatures could very easily avoid detection, and hide the remains of their dead. And the legends all over the world all state these are intelligent creatures.

I didnt post all the things too much.

[legionromanes]

If I never studied Sumerology, why do I clearly know more about it as these discucssions prove?

you don't know more about it, you just think you do because you read a few texts, you don't know the most basic things about Sumer, yet profess to know more than sumerologists

this of course I am about to prove to everyone as you accepted the challenge to a formal debate where your total lack of Sumerian knowledge is about to be exposed

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry2728350

[draconic chronicler]

you don't know more about it, you just think you do because you read a few texts, you don't know the most basic things about Sumer, yet profess to know more than sumerologists

this of course I am about to prove to everyone as you accepted the challenge to a formal debate where your total lack of Sumerian knowledge is about to be exposed

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry2728350

Everything I have stated is suported by real Sumerologists with well known, published works, as my sources prove and other members here are able to see. You sir, are not a Sumerologist.

There is far more to this than "who has read the most Sumerian texts", or who did the most book reports about Sumeria in school. And even here you can only make your assumptions.

What this is really about is understanding what the texts MEAN and how they fit into the bigger picture of universal human beliefs.

I bet you have never even 'been there' either, as I have with the U.S. Forces.

Edited February 4, 2009 by draconic chronicler

[draconic chronicler]

I havent really been here that long or read much of Dcs posts but it seems like to me. That everytime DC says something you guys come in and flame him to death. You basically bait him into this

As seen here He is simply answering the Ops question.

Once Again just answering a question.

Here He even AGREES the story is far fetched.

Asked for source thats fine.

Answered again nothing wrong there

Now You Start to "FLAME" him The Highlighted Section. If you actually read the post he said there have been accounts Never once stated he thought they were real. i dont know his personal opinion but neither do you. He may think Dragons are real but he never stated where he stood on this issue. As you can see up aboce he even said a couple of those are doubtful.

Ill be honest he answered which makes him wrong too but. Lets be clear you started it. Im not saying it was right that he resoponded the way you did.

I didnt post all the things too much.

Wow, another rare adult is here who can see things as they really are. Welcome to my laboratory, aka, the cryptid forums.

Isn't it interesting how belligerant people can get when it comes to a rational discussion about the existence of 'dragons'. These same people are not attacking threads purporting truly ridiculous cryptids. They attack the 'dragon' thread because the late, great, Carl Sagan was right. Mankind still fears dragons, and some of the most fearful ones show their emotion through immature attacks against someone who brings up their fears.

Try not to judge my 'subjects' too harshly. They are controlled by their emotions.

Edited February 4, 2009 by draconic chronicler

[legionromanes]

Everything I have stated is suported by real Sumerologists with well known, published works, as my sources prove and other members here are able to see. You sir, are not a Sumerologist.

There is far more to this than "who has read the most Sumerian texts", or who did the most book reports about Sumeria in school. And even here you can only make your assumptions.

What this is really about is understanding what the texts MEAN and how they fit into the bigger picture of universal human beliefs.

I bet you have never even 'been there' either, as I have with the U.S. Forces.

blah blah blah,,

been more than 12 hours and still no response from you in the formal debate

having a little trouble with your sources are you

[Saru]

All right that's enough, all of you.

If this topic cannot be discussed without resorting to patronising insults and flaming then those responsible are going to be finding themselves taking a break from the forum, for some of you that won't be for the first time.

[draconic chronicler]

blah blah blah,,

been more than 12 hours and still no response from you in the formal debate

having a little trouble with your sources are you

Not at all. Yesterday I did notice the challenge, and in fact, posted the first post in the debate which was an acknowledgment of the challenge. Then I attended other business and went to bed. If you had made a post in the meantime, I will check it out now, but may not be able to reply until after work.

[draconic chronicler]

Not at all. Yesterday I did notice the challenge, and in fact, posted the first post in the debate which was an acknowledgment of the challenge. Then I attended other business and went to bed. If you had made a post in the meantime, I will check it out now, but may not be able to reply until after work.

Ah, I see the moderators removed my first comment so you couldn't have known I acknowledged the debate. But I was able to make my first 'formal' reponse to your first statement before I leave so you wouldn't think I'm stalling. I'll check again when I come home this evening.

[legionromanes]

Not at all. Yesterday I did notice the challenge, and in fact, posted the first post in the debate which was an acknowledgment of the challenge. Then I attended other business and went to bed. If you had made a post in the meantime, I will check it out now, but may not be able to reply until after work.

I'm still wondering why you needed to do that, the rules stated quite clearly that I was to post first, your actual first post is again entirely unsupported opinion,

if you don't have the sources to prove what you say then thats probably why no one believes anything you say on the subject. I was looking forward to a formal debate, not another rant

[Orion Williamson]

what it basically comes down to is either

dragons really existed

dragons never existed

its not a hard decision as theres no evidence at all for the former and loads of evidence for the latter

Peace on the Field muh friends! Peace on the Field says unto you yer old farmer!

I have this thought : What if King Cyrus Dragon was something else at all. Something that was not until now thought of here.

I think one can seriously theorize Cyrus could very well have had a very special and spectacular animal as a "Holy pet" in his temple.

And he had a sumerian exta name for that sort of Creature which we today translate into "Dragon" for not knowing better.

But, muh friends, even if we all like Dinosaurs very much - It is more than little far fetched to say that Cyrus had one.

But it is also true that the "not so dumb at all sumerians" sure knew theyr crocodiles and the like very well.

Cyrus and his Priests would not risk to become a laughing stock if they had tried to masquerade a crocodile as a "holy mystical dragon"

I have a new Idea :

What if King Cyrus dragon was really a "Cross-Breed between Species" ? A Hybrid animal! The King sure had the money and resorces to either buy such a hybrid somewhere or secretly to let his animal-specialists do a crossing that would look spectacular so that it could be presented for fame as a "holy temple dragon"

In this case especially the "Liger" comes to my mind. The Crossing between a male lion and a female tiger.

The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger (not to be confused with a tigon). It is the largest of all cats and extant felines.

Size and growth

Imprinted genes may be a factor contributing to liger size.[3] These are genes that may or may not be expressed on the parent they are inherited from, and that occasionally play a role in issues of hybrid growth. For example, in some dog breed crosses, genes that are expressed only when maternally-inherited cause the young to grow larger than is typical for either parent breed. This growth is not seen in the paternal breeds, as such genes are normally "counteracted" by genes inherited from the female of the appropriate breed.[4]

The tiger produces a hormone that sets the fetal liger on a pattern of growth that does not end throughout its life. The hormonal hypothesis is that the cause of the male liger's growth is its sterility — essentially, the male liger remains in the pre-pubertal growth phase. Male ligers also have the same levels of testosterone on average as an adult male lion. In addition, female ligers also attain great size, weighing approximately 700 lb (320 kg) and reaching 10 feet (3.05 m) long on average, and are often fertile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Meaning : Because of a Hibrydical Growth-Gene-Thing the Liger becomes unbeliavably big, as big as a Lion and a tiger together, as voluminous as a horse and never stops to grow.

It could scare a modern day person to death if that person doesnt know about ligers. In old sumeria surely normal citicens did not know facts about the liger for even today it is seldom enough that such a hybrid is born in a zoological garden. And the ligers size and special anatomy could for a perplexed person partly overshadow that it is felinous at all. Perhaps the priests did even go further and painted or masqueraded the hybrid to make him look even more famous.

I think Cyrus theoretically could have gotten his hands on a Tiger for to let it mate with a lion. I know they today only live in asia, but Science knows there was long long ago an african tiger too that later died out. I dont know if there were some around in Cyrus time still, but Cyrus could have gotten his hands somehow on an indian or asian tiger.

My Point is : Cyrus getting a Tiger for breeding a Liger or getting a Liger from somewhere is fo sure more plausible Than King Cyrus petting a LIVING DINOSAUR in his temple, even if so much people find it attractive to have that thought.

Now look . I do find resemblances between Cyrus Dragon and liger :

[legionromanes]

this is only ok if you are ignoring the earlier depictions of dragons which the Neo Babylonian depiction is derived from and everything that is known about reptile genetics

so no not really

I'm leaving out the fact that Cyrus at no time claimed to have a dragon in a temple, that was a claim attributed to Nebuchadrezzar II in an apocryphal bible story, its certainly not something that was ever claimed in his lifetime

Edited February 4, 2009 by legionromanes

[catutie]

...........i see........a......HUGE DIFFERENCE lol sorry but im not seeing any similarities.....well except the body a little bit