What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

[draconic chronicler]

Actually the degree of refusal would be minimal, since it is a well established fact that satan was an archangel who rebelled and was thrown out of heaven. The fact that he was thrown out of heaven doesn't stop him from still being an archangel. It also doesn't alter the fact that he was known as the angel of light also known as the morning star. When he appears to humans, he still uses the guise of the angel of light, a being of supreme beauty. Thus is why as a precaution one should always be wary of angels in general, both sides can "appear to be" from either side.

As for actually accepting the second part of your post, (the part about Adam) I'm sorry but that directly contradicts the bible, which you yourself use to give wheight to your statements. In this we must agree to disagree, also you have to consider that even though Judaism and Christianity stem from the same fount, the basic theology of each faith is very different. As such it is my belief that certain ideas that you may uphold stemming from judaic background will at times directly contrast with basic christian beliefs.

I may study other ancient manuscripts for insight into the culture and background of a given civilization, but only the bible holds the spiritual wheight to make decisions on theology.

The Bible NEVER says Satan was an archangel. The ONLY description of him is a dragon or a serpent, both which can be the same creature given the fact a seraphim is a fiery flying serpent. This beautiful angel stuff is pure modern Christian mythology with no scriptural basis.

You cannot have it both ways.

If archaeologists found a version of the gospels that varied considerably from what we have today, but was reliably dated shortly after the death of Jesus, everyone would herald it as the most reliable because it had less chance of mistranslations. But when the oldest version of the Eden story is found, from the very land Abraham came from, you want to dismiss it out of hand, even though it makes far more sense with the rest of the Bible, and a scientific version of the earth in which Adam was not the first man but one of many men, but the man especially contacted by God (by his dragon servant, that would morph into Satan by Christian times). In fact the Sumerian version is more in line with the REST of Genesis. After all, if Adam was the only man other than his sons, who were these other people that Cain fled to? You see, the truth is in front of your eyes, but you would rather accept an utterly impossible situation instead.

[starlitkate]

I'm not sure how to explain it.

To tell you my view point, the seven days of creation talked about in Genesis, was WAY more than seven days (obviously, there is no other possible scientific way). In fact, it was an abbreviation, for many MORE days. A extended thread of evolution, when he put the smallest cell on the planet to evolve into the mightiest of dinosaurs, and into animals, and thus into man. A long stretch of creation, if I may say so. Genesis is filled with all sorts of hidden secrets .

^ I think you have a point PA. God did make animals first and then man and God says in the bible that to him a day could be a thousand yrs. So we have to all keep that in mind. By time God made man-the animals could have been hit by asteroid that was swirling around the universe still from God's creation of the universe so then he just brought back the modern day animals. That in turn would explain the craters found on earth that had a doing with the killing off of the dinos.

[IamsSon]

I'm not sure how to explain it.

^ I think you have a point PA. God did make animals first and then man and God says in the bible that to him a day could be a thousand yrs. So we have to all keep that in mind. By time God made man-the animals could have been hit by asteroid that was swirling around the universe still from God's creation of the universe so then he just brought back the modern day animals. That in turn would explain the craters found on earth that had a doing with the killing off of the dinos.

Unfortunately, this theory of each "day" of creation being some abbreviation for ages is not supported by the way the account is written. Part of the problem is that each day of creation is followed by "it was evening and morning, the # day" So, unless the "days" are millions of years in length, while the nights are normal nights, the account of Genesis does not support a theory where creation takes place through microevolution. Additionally, the word "yom" translated as day, in the 1st chapter of Genesis is also translated as day, 24 hours, in other parts of Genesis. This by no means requires that the Earth be only 10,000 or 6,000 years old, but it seems to indicate that life on Earth has not been around more than a couple of days longer than man has.

[+joc]

Unfortunately, this theory of each "day" of creation being some abbreviation for ages is not supported by the way the account is written. Part of the problem is that each day of creation is followed by "it was evening and morning, the # day"

...as previously mentioned ....the sun was not created until the fourth day...most likely, the meaning of morning and evening were pointing toward specific events that took place...i.e. different points of creation...

[IamsSon]

...as previously mentioned ....the sun was not created until the fourth day...most likely, the meaning of morning and evening were pointing toward specific events that took place...i.e. different points of creation...

verse 4 says He separated the light and the dark and called the light day and the dark night and then evening and morning 1 day. I am not an expert in theology, but I did get to consult a professor of theology and got not only his opinion but that of several other faculty members. The consensus of these seminary professors is that, although there is nothing in the Bible that limits the age of the Earth and the universe and given that the light from galaxies millions of light years away is reaching Earth, it seems that the Earth is millions (even billions) of years old, but the creation of life, as depicted in Genesis 1, seems to have taken days, and again, although there is no real Biblical limitation as to how long ago that account occurred, man came on the scene the same week the rest of life did.

[Santos]

I find it amazing how so many people can sit here for hours and hours debating wether or not dinosaurs disprove the Bible, the answer is right there in front of your face.

I actually find it quite this debate quite amusing.

[Jodie.Lynne]

I find it amazing how so many people can sit here for hours and hours debating wether or not dinosaurs disprove the Bible, the answer is right there in front of your face.

I actually find it quite this debate quite amusing.

and that answer would be..........?

[IamsSon]

and that answer would be..........?

You had to ask, didn't ya? Couldn't just live with not knowing?

[Jodie.Lynne]

nope

[draconic chronicler]

I find it amazing how so many people can sit here for hours and hours debating wether or not dinosaurs disprove the Bible, the answer is right there in front of your face.

I actually find it quite this debate quite amusing.

That's not what the debate is about at all guy. Read the topic again. Technically there are no dinosaurs in the bible because dinosaurs is a modern word. But the hebrews had a word for "huge monsters", Tannyn that existed before mankind. A detailed desription of one of them, called Leviathan, sounds a good deal like a carnivorous dinosaur except for spewing fire out of its mouth. And the fire spewing ones have a different name, "Seraphim" and still live in the time of men, but are specifically regarded as heavenly creatures and not natural animals..

[Jor-el]

The "great monsters" in Genesis, created before man are referred to as Tannyn in Hebrew. This word is translated to dragons in some verses, since they are not always referred to as sea creatures. Obviously the bible won't say the English word dinosaur, as it was invented until the 1840's I believe.

When I speak about dinosaurs I'm talking about the concept in itself, not the word we use nowadays for that concept. The concept of dinosaurs doesn't appear in the bible.

[draconic chronicler]

When I speak about dinosaurs I'm talking about the concept in itself, not the word we use nowadays for that concept. The concept of dinosaurs doesn't appear in the bible.

What Bible are you reading? Try looking up the word Tannyn or Tannin in your Bible dictionary or Concordance.

. In Hebrew the word means a "great monster" or "dragon". These creatures lived before man in the Creation Epic. They are mentioned living in the time of men as well, but this is probably a confusion with the very similar "intelligent" Seraphim and Cherubim servant "dragons". For example, Fiery Flying Serpents sing praises to God in Isaiah, and Tannyn, (translated to Dragons) in KJV sing praises to God in Psalms. Logic suggests they are the same creatures in both scripture. Some people think the word means sea creature or whale, but this is not true because sometimes they are definately described being on land.

Edited November 10, 2006 by draconic chronicler

[Jor-el]

The Bible NEVER says Satan was an archangel. The ONLY description of him is a dragon or a serpent, both which can be the same creature given the fact a seraphim is a fiery flying serpent. This beautiful angel stuff is pure modern Christian mythology with no scriptural basis.

You cannot have it both ways.

If archaeologists found a version of the gospels that varied considerably from what we have today, but was reliably dated shortly after the death of Jesus, everyone would herald it as the most reliable because it had less chance of mistranslations. But when the oldest version of the Eden story is found, from the very land Abraham came from, you want to dismiss it out of hand, even though it makes far more sense with the rest of the Bible, and a scientific version of the earth in which Adam was not the first man but one of many men, but the man especially contacted by God (by his dragon servant, that would morph into Satan by Christian times). In fact the Sumerian version is more in line with the REST of Genesis. After all, if Adam was the only man other than his sons, who were these other people that Cain fled to? You see, the truth is in front of your eyes, but you would rather accept an utterly impossible situation instead.

Archangel is what the bible referes to as a prince in "princes and principalities". Usually refering to higher order beings such as angels. They could also be interpreted as the highest order of angelic classes which in your interpretation of things would be what the seraphim are. So we can equate archangels with seraphim if you want to do that. It isn't the name that changes what they are.

Lucifer is known as a prince and is also equated by you as being a seraphim or dragon. Which is a traditional way of seeing him. Yet he isn't only a dragon. He can make himself appear to be whatever he wants to be. Are you saying that he can only appear in dragon form and doesn't have the power to make people see him the way he wants them to see him? This applies to any angel, not only Lucifer.

Who are we to say that those people who have actually seen and spoken to lucifer as a human being as I described previously, are not speaking the truth? And yes there have been instances of this type reported many times. So no I wouldn't ascribe what I say purely to mythology. Since these are real creatures we are talking about are they not?

As for the example of the gospel which would be found under these circumstances, we have examples of the dead sea scrolls which were written about 70 AC and they haven't been included in the bible. The reason is that it is not enough for a scroll or gospel to be from that time period. What it says also is taken into account.

It is common knowledge that normally the least valued scrolls are the ones that survive since they are not sought after very much thus have a greater chance of surviving intact for longer periods than a popular scroll would under the same circumstances.

So there is no guarantee that a gospel found under these circumstances would be accepted as genuine, especially if it clearly contradicted what is written in other scrolls of accepted gospels. The chances are that what was found would be heretical in nature and not accepted by the majority of christians of that time. The bible clearly exemplifies that there were many "magicians" passing themselves off as teachers of the word.

There also clear examples of books which are not accepted as part of the old testament for the very same reason. We call them the apochrypha. Books which were written in the same time period as the scriptures but are not accepted as being the word of God. So I would say that your argument is not convincing in that respect.

What Bible are you reading? Try looking up the word Tannyn or Tannin in your Bible dictionary or Concordance.

. In Hebrew the word means a "great monster" or "dragon". These creatures lived before man in the Creation Epic. They are mentioned living in the time of men as well, but this is probably a confusion with the very similar "intelligent" Seraphim and Cherubim servant "dragons". For example, Fiery Flying Serpents sing praises to God in Isaiah, and Tannyn, (translated to Dragons) in KJV sing praises to God in Psalms. Logic suggests they are the same creatures in both scripture. Some people think the word means sea creature or whale, but this is not true because sometimes they are definately described being on land.

But what creation epic? Not the one that is in the bible, thats for sure. What we are talking about in this specific thread relates to dinosaurs like the Tyranasaurus Rex, Brontosaurus, etc. Not the seraphim of the bible. I'm talking specifically about dinosaurs not Seraphim or cherubim. Don't equate dinosaurs with seraphim, these are totally unrelated topics. As such, I say again, dinosaurs of any kind do not appear in the bible.

[Jor-el]

I find it amazing how so many people can sit here for hours and hours debating wether or not dinosaurs disprove the Bible, the answer is right there in front of your face.

I actually find it quite this debate quite amusing.

Yes it is, its an interesting way to pass the time. Just like discussing how many angels fit on the head of a needle.

[Jor-el]

I would also like to add that we should not accept external sources from the bible as genuine unless corroborated by the word itself. Isn't it strange that Moses who is the traditional author of Genesis, didn't add to the account, these tidbits of information that you are reporting about Adam. He was not only closer to the sources in time and culture but also had knowledge of these epics you are talking about. So why didn't the author of Genesis include those items you mention? Instead we have a totally different account that doesn't mention Adam being invited to be an angel by Lucifer.

While there is some truth to your interpretation relating to seraphim because the bible does say what you interpret, you can't then use other ancient creation epics which the bible doesn't mention to add more than what is actually there.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Jor-el

[draconic chronicler]

JOR-EL Archangel is what the bible referes to as a prince in "princes and principalities". Usually refering to higher order beings such as angels. They could also be interpreted as the highest order of angelic classes which in your interpretation of things would be what the seraphim are. So we can equate archangels with seraphim if you want to do that. It isn't the name that changes what they are.

DRAC There are no archangels in the original Hebrew Canon Jesus endorsed, and they are mentioned only twice in the NT, both referring to Michael. Period. Everything else you are spouting is invented, post Bible Christian mythology.

JOR-EL Satan is known as a prince and is also equated by you as being a seraphim or dragon. Which is a traditional way of seeing him. Yet he isn't only a dragon. He can make himself appear to be whatever he wants to be. Are you saying that he can only appear in dragon form and doesn't have the power to make people see him the way he wants them to see him? This applies to any angel, not only Lucifer.

DRAC The real Satan of the OT Canon endorsed by Jesus is a frightening but obedient servant of God. He is a flesh and blood creature exactly as the OT angels are. Neither can transform themselves into other creatures or people. Lucifer was not even invented by Christianity until around the 5th century AD. Jesus does not mention him. Jews never mentioned him because there is no such thing. Those passages about Lucifer refer to the Prince of Tyre and King of Babylon, both human enemies of the state of Israel. Lucifer is a latin word that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. There is also no such thing as "fallen angels in the Holy Torah. This was a false idea brought back after the Babylonian captivity and imitated Zoroastrian mythology. There were disobedient angels that had sex with human women (since angels are essentially normal men), but they did not revolt against God nor did Satan. In Job, long after Eden, he is still an obedient servant, though one that does not mind destroying people and animals in the course of testing Job.

JOR-EL Who are we to say that those people who have actually seen and spoken to lucifer as a human being as I described previously, are not speaking the truth? And yes there have been instances of this type reported many times. So no I wouldn't ascribe what I say purely to mythology. Since these are real creatures we are talking about are they not?

DRAC: Lucifer doesn't exist. He is not in the Bible. He is a mistranslation by people who wanted to believe in an opponent to God, even though this is a Blasphemy. The Jews understood this was a blasphemy, brough about by their acceptance of Zoroastrian theology when captives in Babylon, but now no longer recognize Satan as anything but the servant of God as the Holy Torah states.

JOR-EL As for the example of the gospel which would be found under these circumstances, we have examples of the dead sea scrolls which were written about 70 AC and they haven't been included in the bible. The reason is that it is not enough for a scroll or gospel to be from that time period. What it says also is taken into account.

It is common knowledge that normally the least valued scrolls are the ones that survive since they are not sought after very much thus have a greater chance of surviving intact for longer periods than a popular scroll would under the same circumstances. So there is no guarantee that a gospel found under these circumstances would be accepted as genuine, especially if it clearly contradicted what is written in other scrolls of accepted gospels. The chances are that what was found would be heretical in nature and not accepted by the majority of christians of that time. The bible clearly exemplifies that there were many "magicians" passing themselves off as teachers of the word.

DRAC: The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden so they would not be destroyed by pagan Rome, and later caches of Christian scriptures were carefully preserved by holy men after Christian "Roman" Popes and Emperors ordered thems destroyed. Do we always know those Popes and Emperors were acting under God's authority to destroy those books? .

JOR-EL There also clear examples of books which are not accepted as part of the old testament for the very same reason. We call them the apochrypha. Books which were written in the same time period as the scriptures but are not accepted as being the word of God. So I would say that your argument is not convincing in that respect.

But what creation epic? Not the one that is in the bible, thats for sure. What we are talking about in this specific thread relates to dinosaurs like the Tyranasaurus Rex, Brontosaurus, etc. Not the seraphim of the bible. I'm talking specifically about dinosaurs not Seraphim or cherubim. Don't equate dinosaurs with seraphim, these are totally unrelated topics. As such, I say again, dinosaurs of any kind do not appear in the bible.

DRAC As I said before "Tannin" meaning huge monsters or dragons were created before man in the book of Genesis. These are probably references to dinosaurs. As a Christian you should be marveling that this incredible knowledge of the anciennt writers proves the bible is inspired, to have understood there was a prehistoric age of reptiles before modern animals and men evolveda rather than dismissing it as a six day mythos. Thus, just as man is a God-improved version of the more primitive primates in which we unquestionably share a genetic heritage, so too, the Seraphim dragons mentioned in the Bible long after the dinosaur extinction, may also be a God-improved version of some undiscovered prehistoric flying reptile. Certainly, ancient man believed in very dinosaur like "dragons", thousands of years before people realized there were dinosaurs.

[draconic chronicler]

I would also like to add that we should not accept external sources from the bible as genuine unless corroborated by the word itself. Isn't it strange that Moses who is the traditional author of Genesis, didn't add to the account, these tidbits of information that you are reporting about Adam. He was not only closer to the sources in time and culture but also had knowledge of these epics you are talking about. So why didn't the author of Genesis include those items you mention? Instead we have a totally different account that doesn't mention Adam being invited to be an angel by Lucifer.

While there is some truth to your interpretation relating to seraphim because the bible does say what you interpret, you can't then use other ancient creation epics which the bible doesn't mention to add more than what is actually there.

If we concede Moses wrote down Genesis for the first time, understand that these stories were already being told as an oral tradition for 1500 years after the original story was written down permantly in its more accurate form in the land Abraham left. So after 1500 years of retelling it, it is understandable that the story could change a little. The good dragon became bad, because these nomads hated snakes becasue they were dangerous to them and their flocks.

You keep mentioning Lucifer, yet there is no Lucifer in either the OT or NT. Jesus never even heard that word unless he understood latin. We do not know if the dragon in the original Sumerian Eden story was the Seraph, later said to be Satan in the New Testament. This is not in the Old Testament. Why doesn't Satan ever bother Moses? It is becasue he would not be "turned" into an enemy of God until after the Babylonian captivitiy, when he would be picked to be the opponent of God to make Judaism a dualistic theology after their influence by Zorarstrian mythology when prisoners of Persia. In fact the Jews recognized in their additional scriptures that Satan was the leader of the dragons that smelled the blood on the lintels and "passed over" the Israelites and left them alone when they destroyed the Egyptian first born, and melted and burned their graven images of false gods.

[Jor-el]

If we concede Moses wrote down Genesis for the first time, understand that these stories were already being told as an oral tradition for 1500 years after the original story was written down permantly in its more accurate form in the land Abraham left. So after 1500 years of retelling it, it is understandable that the story could change a little. The good dragon became bad, because these nomads hated snakes becasue they were dangerous to them and their flocks.

You keep mentioning Lucifer, yet there is no Lucifer in either the OT or NT. Jesus never even heard that word unless he understood latin. We do not know if the dragon in the original Sumerian Eden story was the Seraph, later said to be Satan in the New Testament. This is not in the Old Testament. Why doesn't Satan ever bother Moses? It is becasue he would not be "turned" into an enemy of God until after the Babylonian captivitiy, when he would be picked to be the opponent of God to make Judaism a dualistic theology after their influence by Zorarstrian mythology when prisoners of Persia. In fact the Jews recognized in their additional scriptures that Satan was the leader of the dragons that smelled the blood on the lintels and "passed over" the Israelites and left them alone when they destroyed the Egyptian first born, and melted and burned their graven images of false gods.

And that is why christian theology differs so greatly from Judaic interpretation. You are relying on extrnal sources other than the bible to come to your conclusions. Where in the bible does any verse support your interpretation. You yourself claim to be going outside it so I see no reason to change my opinion in this regard unless you present scriptural references to prove your case.

As you know, scriptures like the one concerning the King of Tyre have double meanings. While giving testominy of an earthly king they are also referring to Satan, or whatever you want to call him. The name is not important, the concept behind the word is!

Job 41

1 "Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook

or tie down his tongue with a rope?

2 Can you put a cord through his nose

or pierce his jaw with a hook?

3 Will he keep begging you for mercy?

Will he speak to you with gentle words?

4 Will he make an agreement with you

for you to take him as your slave for life?

5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird

or put him on a leash for your girls?

6 Will traders barter for him?

Will they divide him up among the merchants?

7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons

or his head with fishing spears?

8 If you lay a hand on him,

you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

9 Any hope of subduing him is false;

the mere sight of him is overpowering.

10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him.

Who then is able to stand against me?

11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?

Everything under heaven belongs to me.

12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs,

his strength and his graceful form.

13 Who can strip off his outer coat?

Who would approach him with a bridle?

14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth,

ringed about with his fearsome teeth?

15 His back has rows of shields

tightly sealed together;

16 each is so close to the next

that no air can pass between.

17 They are joined fast to one another;

they cling together and cannot be parted.

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;

his eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from his nostrils

as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

21 His breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from his mouth.

22 Strength resides in his neck;

dismay goes before him.

23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined;

they are firm and immovable.

24 His chest is hard as rock,

hard as a lower millstone.

25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified;

they retreat before his thrashing.

26 The sword that reaches him has no effect,

nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.

27 Iron he treats like straw

and bronze like rotten wood.

28 Arrows do not make him flee;

slingstones are like chaff to him.

29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw;

he laughs at the rattling of the lance.

30 His undersides are jagged potsherds,

leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.

31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron

and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake;

one would think the deep had white hair.

33 Nothing on earth is his equal—

a creature without fear.

34 He looks down on all that are haughty;

he is king over all that are proud."

[a] Leviathan - interpreted as crocodile or Dragon

Job 41 is a perfect example of proof to what you say about seraphim being dragons. Here is a detailed description of the leviathan or dragon.

The following is the accompanying commentary to this chapter:

The usual translation of the Septuagint for , dangerous monster whose bite is poisonous ("dragons' poison") (Deut. xxxii. 33; Ps. xci. 13). Nowhere distinctly described, they must be imagined as of composite form, resembling, according to some passages, the snake. Thus in Ex. vii. 9 (Hebr.) the staff of Moses is turned into a "dragon"; according to Ex. iv. 3 (Hebr.), into a "snake." Their home is in the water; they are mentioned together with the waves of the sea (Ps. cxlviii. 7), and were created by God with the fishes (Gen. i. 21). Originally they are mythological personifications of the floods (). In the vicinity of Jerusalem a "dragon's spring" was located, in which, according to ancient belief, a dragon lived as the spirit of the well (Neh. ii. 13). Especially interesting are the passages that speak of a single dragon: the "dragon that is in the sea" (Isa. xxvii. 1); "the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers" (Ezek. xxix. 3); or simply "dragon" (Job vii. 12 [Hebr.]; Jer. li. 34; Ps. xliv. 19, read ). Such a dragon is also referred to as "Rahab" (Isa. li. 9 et seq.). Leviathan probably also means a dragon of this kind (compare Isa. xxvii. 1).

Especially important is the mystical story of the persecution of the divine child and its heavenly mother by the great red dragon. In its present form the story is explained as referring to the attacks of the devil on the Messiah, but it is based on an old Oriental myth of the enmity of the dragon for the child of the sun.

Taken from the Jewish encyclopedia, the following commentary describes Leviathan as a dragon as well as a metaphor for the devil or satan. As such how can you now be saying that God doesn't have an opponent. Then who is this devil? Even though no harm can come to people unless God himself allows it, he is still to be considered an opponent of God.

Satan - The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael.

So we see this chapter of Job not only applies to the "dragon" but is also analogous to the description of Satan. Especially in the last verse:

34 He looks down on all that are haughty;

he is king over all that are proud.

Now loolk at Isaiah 14:12-14

12 How you have fallen from heaven,

O morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,

you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,

"I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne

above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,

on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High."

A perfect example of arrogance and pride wouldn't you say?

So How can the King of Tyre have fallen from heaven, and who is known as the morning star? Satan. As you can see these verses have a double meaning.

As for fallen angels, this is what the jewish encyclopedia has to say:

Apocalyptic Writings. The conception of fallen angels—angels who, for wilful, rebellious conduct against God, or through weakness under temptation.thereby forfeiting their angelic dignity, were degraded and condemned to a life of mischief or shame on earth or in a place of punishment—is wide-spread. Indications of this belief, behind which probably lies the symbolizing of an astronomical phenomenon, the shooting stars, are met with in Isa. xiv. 12 (comp. Job xxxviii. 31, 32; see Constellations). But it is in apocalyptic writings that this notion assumes crystallized definiteness and is brought into relations with the theological problem of the origin and nature of evil and sin. That Satan fell from heaven with the velocity of lightning is a New Testament conception (Luke x. 18; Rev. xii. 7-10). Originally Satan was one of God's angels, Lucifer, who, lusting for worldly power, was degraded. Samael (Yalk., Gen. 25), originally the chief of the angels around God's throne, becomes the angel of death and the "chieftain of all the Satans" (Deut. R. xi. ; comp. Matt. xxv. 41).

Please note that the name Lucifer appears in the text, Where did they go get that name?

[draconic chronicler]

And that is why christian theology differs so greatly from Judaic interpretation. You are relying on extrnal sources other than the bible to come to your conclusions. Where in the bible does any verse support your interpretation. You yourself claim to be going outside it so I see no reason to change my opinion in this regard unless you present scriptural references to prove your case.

As you know, scriptures like the one concerning the King of Tyre have double meanings. While giving testominy of an earthly king they are also referring to Satan, or whatever you want to call him. The name is not important, the concept behind the word is!

Job 41

1 "Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook

or tie down his tongue with a rope?

2 Can you put a cord through his nose

or pierce his jaw with a hook?

3 Will he keep begging you for mercy?

Will he speak to you with gentle words?

4 Will he make an agreement with you

for you to take him as your slave for life?

5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird

or put him on a leash for your girls?

6 Will traders barter for him?

Will they divide him up among the merchants?

7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons

or his head with fishing spears?

8 If you lay a hand on him,

you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

9 Any hope of subduing him is false;

the mere sight of him is overpowering.

10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him.

Who then is able to stand against me?

11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?

Everything under heaven belongs to me.

12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs,

his strength and his graceful form.

13 Who can strip off his outer coat?

Who would approach him with a bridle?

14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth,

ringed about with his fearsome teeth?

15 His back has rows of shields

tightly sealed together;

16 each is so close to the next

that no air can pass between.

17 They are joined fast to one another;

they cling together and cannot be parted.

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;

his eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from his nostrils

as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

21 His breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from his mouth.

22 Strength resides in his neck;

dismay goes before him.

23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined;

they are firm and immovable.

24 His chest is hard as rock,

hard as a lower millstone.

25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified;

they retreat before his thrashing.

26 The sword that reaches him has no effect,

nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.

27 Iron he treats like straw

and bronze like rotten wood.

28 Arrows do not make him flee;

slingstones are like chaff to him.

29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw;

he laughs at the rattling of the lance.

30 His undersides are jagged potsherds,

leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.

31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron

and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake;

one would think the deep had white hair.

33 Nothing on earth is his equal—

a creature without fear.

34 He looks down on all that are haughty;

he is king over all that are proud."

[a] Leviathan - interpreted as crocodile or Dragon

Job 41 is a perfect example of proof to what you say about seraphim being dragons. Here is a detailed description of the leviathan or dragon.

The following is the accompanying commentary to this chapter:

The usual translation of the Septuagint for , dangerous monster whose bite is poisonous ("dragons' poison") (Deut. xxxii. 33; Ps. xci. 13). Nowhere distinctly described, they must be imagined as of composite form, resembling, according to some passages, the snake. Thus in Ex. vii. 9 (Hebr.) the staff of Moses is turned into a "dragon"; according to Ex. iv. 3 (Hebr.), into a "snake." Their home is in the water; they are mentioned together with the waves of the sea (Ps. cxlviii. 7), and were created by God with the fishes (Gen. i. 21). Originally they are mythological personifications of the floods (). In the vicinity of Jerusalem a "dragon's spring" was located, in which, according to ancient belief, a dragon lived as the spirit of the well (Neh. ii. 13). Especially interesting are the passages that speak of a single dragon: the "dragon that is in the sea" (Isa. xxvii. 1); "the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers" (Ezek. xxix. 3); or simply "dragon" (Job vii. 12 [Hebr.]; Jer. li. 34; Ps. xliv. 19, read ). Such a dragon is also referred to as "Rahab" (Isa. li. 9 et seq.). Leviathan probably also means a dragon of this kind (compare Isa. xxvii. 1).

Especially important is the mystical story of the persecution of the divine child and its heavenly mother by the great red dragon. In its present form the story is explained as referring to the attacks of the devil on the Messiah, but it is based on an old Oriental myth of the enmity of the dragon for the child of the sun.

Taken from the Jewish encyclopedia, the following commentary describes Leviathan as a dragon as well as a metaphor for the devil or satan. As such how can you now be saying that God doesn't have an opponent. Then who is this devil? Even though no harm can come to people unless God himself allows it, he is still to be considered an opponent of God.

Satan - The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael.

So we see this chapter of Job not only applies to the "dragon" but is also analogous to the description of Satan. Especially in the last verse:

34 He looks down on all that are haughty;

he is king over all that are proud.

Now loolk at Isaiah 14:12-14

12 How you have fallen from heaven,

O morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,

you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,

"I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne

above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,

on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High."

A perfect example of arrogance and pride wouldn't you say?

So How can the King of Tyre have fallen from heaven, and who is known as the morning star? Satan. As you can see these verses have a double meaning.

As for fallen angels, this is what the jewish encyclopedia has to say:

Apocalyptic Writings. The conception of fallen angels—angels who, for wilful, rebellious conduct against God, or through weakness under temptation.thereby forfeiting their angelic dignity, were degraded and condemned to a life of mischief or shame on earth or in a place of punishment—is wide-spread. Indications of this belief, behind which probably lies the symbolizing of an astronomical phenomenon, the shooting stars, are met with in Isa. xiv. 12 (comp. Job xxxviii. 31, 32; see Constellations). But it is in apocalyptic writings that this notion assumes crystallized definiteness and is brought into relations with the theological problem of the origin and nature of evil and sin. That Satan fell from heaven with the velocity of lightning is a New Testament conception (Luke x. 18; Rev. xii. 7-10). Originally Satan was one of God's angels, Lucifer, who, lusting for worldly power, was degraded. Samael (Yalk., Gen. 25), originally the chief of the angels around God's throne, becomes the angel of death and the "chieftain of all the Satans" (Deut. R. xi. ; comp. Matt. xxv. 41).

Please note that the name Lucifer appears in the text, Where did they go get that name?

The writer of that article "got it" from the widely accepted post-Bible Christian mythos that claims Satan opposes God, based on the Enochian and othe Apochrypal writings which Jews never upholded as canon, but were generally believed around the time of Jesus becasue of this land being conquered and influenced by the dualistic Perisans and pagan greeks.

Lucifer is not in the Bible because it is a latin word meaning "morning star". It did not enter Christian theology until hundreds of years after Jesus was crucified.

You can find many pages on the internet by learned scholars that support what I am saying that these verses refer to the Prince of Tyre and King of Babylon, not a fallen angel. But these heavenly Seraph dragons like Satan are not saints. They are intelligent, but bloodthirsty, man devouring monsters, but monsters obedient to their Creator. They are prideful, for as the book of Job states, they cannot be harmed by man. The prideful king of Babylon is compared with these heavenly monsters, not only in the chapters you site, but also when he "swallows up Israel like a dragon", in another verse you are no doubt familar with. But they are talking about a human king, not a non-existent fallen angel.

You claim I am using sources not in the Bible, but you certainly are, for the "Lucifer as a fallen angel" mythos was a much later, invented concept. At least my sources are the ancient ones both the Jews of Jesus time, and the earliest Christians were familar with and believed. This is why their chruches and synagogues depict Seraphim as reptilian dragons that attend God and sent to punish the wicked. Later Christains turned them into fluffy cartoon angels, and added an invented Lucifer to the later Christian mythology as well.

The creator of the universe cannot have an opponent. This is why God has no opponents in the OT. This is what the term "monotheism" means. Satan works for God, both in the OT and all of the related ancient scriptures which supports this same idea, but only provides additional information that explains he is a Seraph dragon.

Some Christians are monotheists. Some have gone so far as to deny the existence of Satan altogether, which is a bit of a stretch becasue this contradicts the very OT books which Jesus endorsed as a pious Jew. But this is probably a safer concept than to raise him on a pedestal as the powerful opponent of God as falsely believed by many Christians.

The only "Bible" Jesus actually endorsed portrays Satan as the terrible, but always obedient servant and even called one of the "Sons of God" in the book of Job, long after the Christians claim he seduced Eve. If that later Christian invention were true, why does Satan still have God's trust centuries later, and trusted by God not to kill Job, but only harm him as a test?

It is because Satan only becomes an opponent after the Jews returned from Babylon, polluted by dualistic Persian ideas of an evil dragon named Ahriman who opposes the good God and as a punishment is bound and cast into an abyss and when not repentent, is finally cast in the lake of fire. This was not Johns' Revelation vision, it was Perisan mythology written hundreds of years earlier and it infected Jewish theology, just as pagan beliefs have crept into Christian theology, like pagan Saturnalia and Easter rituals.

When Christian mythology contradicts the Holy Torah Jesus endorsed, it is imprudent to blindly accept it as the Truth. You can blindly take the belief that the New Testament is all "inspired" because a Catholic Pope said so, even though the books contradict one another. Or you can accept Jesus as the Son of God, as these disciples did, but understand they lived in a time when Judaism was contaminated with pagan Perisan and Greek theology, and understand that these good but simple men are a product of that time.

When Jesus cured the physically sick, this they could understand. When Jesus cured the mentally ill, this they couldn't understand. Instead, Schizophrenia became the pagan Greek invisible "daemons", that crept into Jewish theology after Alexander brought Hellenistic culture to the land of Israel. When the obedient Seraph dragon came to Jesus in the Wilderness to fullfill the Old Testament prophecies, and place the Messiah and the Jewish nation over all the powers of the secular world, Jesus refused him, because to accomplish this millions would die in the jaws of Satan and the other Seraphim. Instead, Jesus chose to die instead, so that these otherwise doomed pagans might seek redemption. This truth, the disciples again couldn't understand. So this became the improbable "temptations of Satan", which again makes no sense in a Monotheism where a creator God could have no rivals. When Jesus called Satan the prince of this world, it is because God Hhimself put Satan in that position, just as the book of Job claims, Satan watches the world and reports the inequities of man to God, and God allows his servant Satan to punish mankind.

These concepts of monotheism still cannot be comprehended by the vast majority of Christians of "gentile" origin. These Christians need a dualistic theology because they cannot accept a single monotheistic Creator responsible for good and evil, even though this is plainly stated in the Holy Torah that Jesus believed. They need to invent a "Bogeyman Satan", to explain the evil in the world even when thier God says He Himself is responsible for that evil. Science is now explaining why certain people are "evil". It is a biological reality that has nothing to do with invisible, non-existant demons stolen by early Christians from pagan Greek mythology.

Edited November 12, 2006 by draconic chronicler

[wickedpixie]

i grew up in a christian home and know some things about the bible. i'm not sure on exact scriptures but the bible says that the earth was created a few times before this one: angels, giants, dinosoars/ice age, then us.

you know the story of satan being an angel originally? well, i believe he was originally from the angel period (correct me if i'm wrong), then when he rebelled, he became the devil and that's why he was around when adam and eve were created/tempted.

then after that there were giants i dont remember how they formed, but in the bible it said that a human and a demon or angel (don't remember) that slept together gave birth to giant, which might explain stonehenge and those heads on easter island possibly...

then after that was dinosaurs/ice age, then us. which explains the dinosaur remains we find now.

then god made adam from dirt, which is brown, so i guess that means he was black hey, they say that all life started in africa! hehe anyhoo, the whole tower of babel thing happened where everyone started speaking different languages and moving together.

then the plates in the earth moved, and according to diet, geographic area, and genetics we got different races of people.

so yeah i think that's why we can find dinosaur remains everywhere in the world.

that all may sound kinda whacked but i tried hehe xxxxx

[draconic chronicler]

i grew up in a christian home and know some things about the bible. i'm not sure on exact scriptures but the bible says that the earth was created a few times before this one: angels, giants, dinosoars/ice age, then us.

you know the story of satan being an angel originally? well, i believe he was originally from the angel period (correct me if i'm wrong), then when he rebelled, he became the devil and that's why he was around when adam and eve were created/tempted.

then after that there were giants i dont remember how they formed, but in the bible it said that a human and a demon or angel (don't remember) that slept together gave birth to giant, which might explain stonehenge and those heads on easter island possibly...

then after that was dinosaurs/ice age, then us. which explains the dinosaur remains we find now.

then god made adam from dirt, which is brown, so i guess that means he was black hey, they say that all life started in africa! hehe anyhoo, the whole tower of babel thing happened where everyone started speaking different languages and moving together.

then the plates in the earth moved, and according to diet, geographic area, and genetics we got different races of people.

so yeah i think that's why we can find dinosaur remains everywhere in the world.

that all may sound kinda whacked but i tried hehe xxxxx

No book of the Bible says Satan was ever an angel. This was explained in the previous post. People have actually made replicas of parts of stonehenge to prove stone age man could do the same. Demons are probably a misunderstanding of mental illness, for there is almost no mention of them in the Bible until Greek cultere (and their daemons) came to Israel. Dinosaurs could not have lived with men. Geologists can date the formations they are found in, and you will never find dino remains mixed with mammoths or man, they are seperated by millions of years. If adam, eve and there children were the only people

who were the other people that caine fled to live with? That's in the bible too. Perhaps Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but the first humans God revealed Himself to. Evolution and the Bible can be compatible and many leading scientists believe.

[wickedpixie]

that's very interesting ^^^ all that stuff i posted i remember from childhood so i have no idea how the heck any of this makes sense. i don't really care, as long as dinosaurs aren't alive now

[draconic chronicler]

that's very interesting ^^^ all that stuff i posted i remember from childhood so i have no idea how the heck any of this makes sense. i don't really care, as long as dinosaurs aren't alive now

ummmmm, funny you should say that. I hate to tell you this then, because if you were to take the Book of Revelation seriously, some very dinosaur-like "dragons" are supposed to wipe out a third of the human race. Now they are referred to as fire breathing, lion toothed, snake tailed "horses", but in the original version they are simply called "dragons".

[wickedpixie]

ok, yeah , that would suck lol

[IamsSon]

i grew up in a christian home and know some things about the bible. i'm not sure on exact scriptures but the bible says that the earth was created a few times before this one: angels, giants, dinosoars/ice age, then us.

you know the story of satan being an angel originally? well, i believe he was originally from the angel period (correct me if i'm wrong), then when he rebelled, he became the devil and that's why he was around when adam and eve were created/tempted.

then after that there were giants i dont remember how they formed, but in the bible it said that a human and a demon or angel (don't remember) that slept together gave birth to giant, which might explain stonehenge and those heads on easter island possibly...

then after that was dinosaurs/ice age, then us. which explains the dinosaur remains we find now.

then god made adam from dirt, which is brown, so i guess that means he was black hey, they say that all life started in africa! hehe anyhoo, the whole tower of babel thing happened where everyone started speaking different languages and moving together.

then the plates in the earth moved, and according to diet, geographic area, and genetics we got different races of people.

so yeah i think that's why we can find dinosaur remains everywhere in the world.

that all may sound kinda whacked but i tried hehe xxxxx

Wicked, could you please find the passages that support what you talked about, because I am a Christian, have been for almost 25 years and I do not recall anything in the Bible talking about several creations of the Earth.