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

What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

627 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Apostle E

You won't get a debate with christians or bible historians.

They will avoid this thread like the plague.

*Oh yes you will.

*Oh no we wont. :D:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesspy

im a born again christian also i was going to study palentology Someone has probably already posted it but here is a site i find intresting

linky

Edited by jesspy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

Jesspy, if you are seriously going to study paleontology, prepare to have your beliefs challenged. There are many scientis including a famous paleontologist who believe God, the Bible and real science are compatible, becasue the Genesis story can be compatible with evolution if the days are translated to epochs.

But sites like the one you linked are Young Earth Creationists who take the creation days literal, and think all life on earth lived and died in the past 10,000 years. The is completely absurd and the fossil records proves that animals evolved, and that dinosaurs died out 65 mya.

Thes YECs are very big on cryptozoology becasue if dinosaurs still existed it would add weight to their beliefs, and justify the Bible becasue it plainly states there were "dragons" living in the time of men.

But there is absolutely NO scientific proof dinosaurs lived after the 65 mya KT extinction event.

So why did human cultures report dragons, and draw the giant reptiles they saw. If you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, it tells you what these dragons are that lived beyond the KT extinction. The word Seraphim, for example, means in Hebrew a flying, fiery serpent, but Christians became uncomfortable with this and changed the translation. They are also called dragons in older editions of the Bible. In fact, when the Hebrew scriptures were being translated into Greek, the Seraphim were not translated to "angelos" but "drakones", becasue these ancient Jews and Christians undoubtedly saw these creatures, as so many ancient dragon legends state. These are clearly the "dragons" reported in other culturtes as well, for while their very name includes the fiery adjective, in other verses they are said to actually spew fire.

So as heavenly creatures, they are apparently immortal, which explains why they have been reportedly seen everywhere in the world, yet why not a single bone has been found of giant flying reptiles younger than 65 million years ago. Perhaps people are still seeing these creatures, to explain cryptozoological sightings. The Bible says they normally live in heaven but are sent to earth to destroy the wicked. They are apparently the fire spewing, sharp toothed, snake tailed monsters ridden by angels that will destroy one third of the human race if you take the book of Revelation as the literal truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bigdog112

You know that there is a easier way to explain the existence of dinosaurs and evolution and not disprove god.

I don’t take the bible latterly but I do believe in god. Some things inn the bible are left out or edited by man so any real visions or conversations with god or angels have bin corrupted. God my have created this universe before even thinking about creating man. It maybe that god wanting a place where he and his angels could romp in. I am not going to get in to why he created humans in to detail. So I will just say that he is a little disappointed and one group of angels one in particular witch I call affectionately Lue. He wanted new servants so he made us.

God created the universe in the first place with laws cuss with out law there is no order and as you know god is all about laws. So I’m guessing every thing that makes this world go round was added way before are twinkle in his all seeing eye. Evolution would be one of them with out it any animal he created would die out from other rules he put in place. Whether planet shift ext

This is my theory flam it or love it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Jesspy, if you are seriously going to study paleontology, prepare to have your beliefs challenged. There are many scientis including a famous paleontologist who believe God, the Bible and real science are compatible, becasue the Genesis story can be compatible with evolution if the days are translated to epochs.

The same word translated as "day" to describe the 6 days of Creation is used in other texts to describe the 24 hour period we call day, so there is nothing contextually to support the idea of epochs. Additionally after each day of Creation we see the phrase "and it was evening and it was morning, the # day." So was the daytime millions or billions of years of time, but the night only a regular night or were the nights also epochs? And if the nights were also epochs wouldn't plants and animals die each "night"?

There is, however, contextual evidence to suggest that the 6 days described in Genesis are not the FIRST 6 days of the Creation of the Universe, jus the 6 days which God spent finishing up Creation around the Earth (including sun and moon). So, there is no contextual reason to believe the Earth/Universe is only 6 or 10 thousand years old, it may well be millions of years old. But life on Earth, if you accept the Bible is only a recent arrival on Earth (not completely convinced that it has to be 6,000 or even 10,000 years old. One of my best friends is a professor of Theology and history at one of the best seminaries in the country, and he is not convinced that we can know how long it has been since those 6 days occured, but he is convinced man has been here as long as animal and plant life have been here except for a few days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

The same word translated as "day" to describe the 6 days of Creation is used in other texts to describe the 24 hour period we call day, so there is nothing contextually to support the idea of epochs. Additionally after each day of Creation we see the phrase "and it was evening and it was morning, the # day." So was the daytime millions or billions of years of time, but the night only a regular night or were the nights also epochs? And if the nights were also epochs wouldn't plants and animals die each "night"?

There is, however, contextual evidence to suggest that the 6 days described in Genesis are not the FIRST 6 days of the Creation of the Universe, jus the 6 days which God spent finishing up Creation around the Earth (including sun and moon). So, there is no contextual reason to believe the Earth/Universe is only 6 or 10 thousand years old, it may well be millions of years old. But life on Earth, if you accept the Bible is only a recent arrival on Earth (not completely convinced that it has to be 6,000 or even 10,000 years old. One of my best friends is a professor of Theology and history at one of the best seminaries in the country, and he is not convinced that we can know how long it has been since those 6 days occured, but he is convinced man has been here as long as animal and plant life have been here except for a few days).

I don't know how you "6 day creation people" can take these ideas seriously. All you succeed in doing is driving people away from Christianity by the silliness of it. Don't you realized that these datable geological formations prove that life could not possibly have been created in six days? When paleontologists dig in the morrision formation they find Jurassic period life, no dogs and cats and people, becasue these would not evolve for millions of more years.

It truly IS amazing that the Genesis creation epic is fairly compatible with evolution with life beginning in the sea, a description of great monsters/dragons that are obviously the dinosaurs, and humans being the last created (more naive myths would have humans created first), rather than embrace this extraordinary fact you ignore it and prefer to perpetuate an impossible fairy tale version that drives any thinking person, even 7 year old dinosaur fans, away from Christianity.

And please don't say that the Bible exactly as you know it is inspired and must be taken completely literally. Christians do not take half the things in the bible literally. Anything you don't like you simply ignore or invent false translations. A case in point are the real Seraphim. In hebrew the word means fiery flying serpents, and the early Christians translated them to Drakons in Greek. But later Christians were uncomfortable with the truth so they turned them into fluffy, swan-winged, harp strumming cartoon angels. And then there is the one about Christians "inventing" a ficticious fallen angel named Lucifer in the 5th century in order to make the Old Testament seem compatible with their pagan Zoroastrian dualistic theology.

People today are not stupid Medieval peasants that are going to believe any stupid thing a clergyman says anymore. Even 7 year olds today often have a better understanding of the real prehistoric world than most fundamentalist Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I would suggest that maybe the problems we are facing in this thread are due to the classical interpretation we all learned about but which evidence suggests was not what the ancients actually believed.

Maybe a little biography about Moses the "author" of Genesis will help us to understand the background that puts Genesis in its' proper context.

Moses was an Israelite who was brought up in Egypt, specifically in the egyptian royal household of the Pharaoh. He was brought up as an adopted son of the Pharoah. As such he was brought up with egyptian teachings which include the "Enûma Elish" the Sumerian Babylonian mythology. If one reads this "epic" one will immediately see the connection between it and the Genesis format. The creation account in the Enûma Elish is very similar in content and style to the version we have in Genesis.

It is also a possible reason as to why Genesis was writtn in poetic format (like the Enûma Elish) rather than in a more literal way. It is also important to state that at that time, these writings were not considered fables or myths but an actual and factual account of creation.

From the context of Moses' upbringing we can clearly state that he was trying to produce a document which would be the equivalent of the Enûma Elish for the Israelite people.

One other important aspect is that another commonality is shared between these two books and their respective cultures, and that is that the world was not created perfect but was brought to that condition by the Elohim (Gods) or God in the genesis account because of Divine judgement.

So, 1st there was chaos and then there was order. This is a "motiff" that repeats itself throughout the bible in many ways. Noah and the flood is another example of this continuous "theme".

(It is interesting to note that every single ancient culture from America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia has a flood account followed by a Noah figure who survives in an ark or at the top of a very high mountain with many animals.)

The bible states:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty(a), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

(a) Please note that "formless and empty" here almost seems to have a subtle connection to chaos

The NIV Bible states that "WAS" in this verse could possibly be substituted with"BECAME".

Does that change anything for you?

So in conclusion, we can interpret this to mean that:

1. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. Something happened to this earth, a great destruction due to Divine Judment.

3. Verse 2 states how we find the earth at the time that he stepped in to put order back to the earth.

So what we really have in the Genesis account is what one could call a Reconstruction and not a Creation.

Please notice how the days go by and how God speaks:

Day 1 - And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Did he create it or did he make it reappear since everything was in darkness? Cloud cover or dust dissipates and allows the sun to shine again.

Day 2 - And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky."

It seems this is a continued effect from Thick cloud cover that darkened the sky, with rain falling continuously. The rain stops as dissipation takes place thus now we have the sky visible where before nothing was visible.

Day 3 - And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

As the water runs off after the rains so land now becomes dry and livible again. The waters gather at low points creating lakes and "seas".

Day 4 - "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."

A natural after-effect after the land becomes dry enough to allow vegetation to grow.

Day 5 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

It would seem that as the sky clears one would again be able to see the stars, moon and sun.

"Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

It would seem that the word create here has been used to state specifically that God repopulated the world again with all animals and fish. Does this mean that no animals and fish existed before the "Divine Judgement" of verse 2. So it is highly likely that he didn't invent new species but used existing "molds" to repopulate the world.

Day 6 - Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Same as above.

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Finally we see that man was created on the 6th day after the animals.

Only when God created the marine and terrestial life including man did he actually create. The rest was reconstruction.

Now think of Noah and you have the same essential story repeated in a different context. It is also interesting that God equates Noah with Adam. This seems to be sending us a message that there are and have been great cycles at work in the bible.

Finally, There is absolutely no way that the days are periods of time as has been suggested, they are in fact physical days of 24 hours each. Why complicate things when the simplest interpretation is most likely correct and no errors have been made.

It is also necessary to state that there is also no way to know how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. or even how many cycles there have been but I do know that we didn't "evolve" from the apes as the saying goes :yes:

Enjoy!

I see the same questions come up again and again and again... It seems you guys don't take the time to read through the thread before you even post your comments, as I such I feel justified in quoting myself so that evey body can read at least what I've said before you post another circle of the same comments.

Another thing I wish to add that escaped me in my 1st post. Taking into account the time the Israelite society lived and the Creation accounts of the Enûma Elish and other such accounts passed down by the Sumerians, one can see that the author of the Genesis account used these other accounts as a template. The changes are essentially superficial and cosmetic.

As such one has to take the logical step that the interpretation given to this account was considered to be factual and acual (as stated above). But what we need to consider as the most important factor is how the ancients themselves interpreted Genesis. Well if you actually do some studying on the background of the Enûma Elish and the other Creation accounts of the Civilizations of that era you will find that the interpretation given above is what they actually believed.

They, in complement to this interpretation, believed in the cycles of birth and death. Of creation and recreation. The beginning they refer to in many cases, is the beginning of this cycle. The bible is very strong on this theme and that is something that people usually ignore in their interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

I don't know how you "6 day creation people" can take these ideas seriously. All you succeed in doing is driving people away from Christianity by the silliness of it. Don't you realized that these datable geological formations prove that life could not possibly have been created in six days? When paleontologists dig in the morrision formation they find Jurassic period life, no dogs and cats and people, becasue these would not evolve for millions of more years.

Well, Draconic, you keep accusing people of picking and choosing, but that is exactly what you are doing if you are going to use the 6 days of creation to try to prove that the Bible is compatible with evolution as long as these days are epochs. According to a professor of Theology at the Dallas Theological Institute, there is no reason to change the meaning that "yom" has in Genesis 1, from the meaning it has in the rest of that book. Yom is one 24 hour day. In addition, you have yet to answer what you do with "... there was evening and morning..." Were the day cycles millions of years and the night cycles 12 hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesspy

Jesspy, if you are seriously going to study paleontology, prepare to have your beliefs challenged. There are many scientis including a famous paleontologist who believe God, the Bible and real science are compatible, becasue the Genesis story can be compatible with evolution if the days are translated to epochs.

But sites like the one you linked are Young Earth Creationists who take the creation days literal, and think all life on earth lived and died in the past 10,000 years. The is completely absurd and the fossil records proves that animals evolved, and that dinosaurs died out 65 mya.

Thes YECs are very big on cryptozoology becasue if dinosaurs still existed it would add weight to their beliefs, and justify the Bible becasue it plainly states there were "dragons" living in the time of men.

But there is absolutely NO scientific proof dinosaurs lived after the 65 mya KT extinction event.

I only linked it cause it was the only one i could think of that made reference to the topic disscussion. What that site depicts are not my views on Genisis or whatever.

I believe there were dinosaurs on the planet there is fossil eveidence of that. Are dinosuars mentioned in the bible? some say yes others no I say Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

I only linked it cause it was the only one i could think of that made reference to the topic disscussion. What that site depicts are not my views on Genisis or whatever.

I believe there were dinosaurs on the planet there is fossil eveidence of that. Are dinosuars mentioned in the bible? some say yes others no I say Maybe.

Except for the "great monsters" of Genesis, the rest of the "dragons" of the Bible contemporary with man, are in fact, heavenly creatures. This is why Satan is called a dragon, and why dragons sing praises to God in the book of Psalms. The Biblical titles of these dragons are Cherubim, Seraphim and Destroyers, though most modern Christians unfamiliar with scripture think these are winged humanoid angels whitch Christianity stole from pagan Greco-Roman theology. No Angel in the bible has wings. If you read the Bible you will find they are frenquently mistaken for ordinary men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Shadamaun

People today are not stupid Medieval peasants that are going to believe any stupid thing a clergyman says anymore. Even 7 year olds today often have a better understanding of the real prehistoric world than most fundamentalist Christians.

You mean the same, stupid medieval peasants that believed in dragons? Hear, hear!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, there are people in the bible who lived for 900 something years. There are events that happen for 40 years, 40 days, 7 days, 3 days, the blink of an eye. Who is to say which numbers we trust as "gospel" and which numbers we take with a grain of salt because they are "just gospel"? No argument can be considered valid if it is attained through the selective use of information (i use the term "information" in leu of "facts" because the 2 words are NOT synonymous, and that distinction should be clearly defined); you can dispute facts, but you cant dispute faith. If you are going to use the logic that it is up to the reader to interpret the meaning, and faith trumps all other logic, then you are going to win any debate any time.

That said, there is no logical, definitive timeline in the bible. If you are looking for a real life, non faith-based explaination as to why dinosaurs arent in the bible, its probably as simple as "the authors of the bible didnt know about dinosaurs yet". No shame in that. Hell, WE dont even know everything to know about dinosaurs, and we're LOOKING for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Except for the "great monsters" of Genesis, the rest of the "dragons" of the Bible contemporary with man, are in fact, heavenly creatures. This is why Satan is called a dragon, and why dragons sing praises to God in the book of Psalms. The Biblical titles of these dragons are Cherubim, Seraphim and Destroyers, though most modern Christians unfamiliar with scripture think these are winged humanoid angels whitch Christianity stole from pagan Greco-Roman theology. No Angel in the bible has wings. If you read the Bible you will find they are frenquently mistaken for ordinary men.

Yes you've stated this time and again, but I've asked you for reference materials on the subject and am still waiting for an answer. You didn't arrive at this conclusion by yourself, you had to get your ideas from somwhere, my question is where?

I know that each person has his or her special pet theory but this theory needs proving one way or another. It is no good to throw out statements like you do, if you can't show us at least how you arived at your conclusions.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Look, there are people in the bible who lived for 900 something years. There are events that happen for 40 years, 40 days, 7 days, 3 days, the blink of an eye. Who is to say which numbers we trust as "gospel" and which numbers we take with a grain of salt because they are "just gospel"? No argument can be considered valid if it is attained through the selective use of information (i use the term "information" in leu of "facts" because the 2 words are NOT synonymous, and that distinction should be clearly defined); you can dispute facts, but you cant dispute faith. If you are going to use the logic that it is up to the reader to interpret the meaning, and faith trumps all other logic, then you are going to win any debate any time.

That said, there is no logical, definitive timeline in the bible. If you are looking for a real life, non faith-based explaination as to why dinosaurs arent in the bible, its probably as simple as "the authors of the bible didnt know about dinosaurs yet". No shame in that. Hell, WE dont even know everything to know about dinosaurs, and we're LOOKING for them!

A very good post if I may say so.

I would agree that the bible doesn't speak about dinosaurs at all, even though monsters are mentioned, they should not be equated as one and the same.

No matter how much some people would like to say the opposite, dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and unless people start saying that humans have been around for that long, there is no way these seperate time periods can be joined to explain the clearly unexplainable.

The dinosaur age, came and went. The world has gone through countless cycles since its beginning and that was one of them.

Genesis and the bible have got to do with our present cycle and ONLY our present cycle. Theologians call them dispensations.

Well, this is the dispensation of man!

The genesis account doesn't relate the beginning of creation, except for verse 1.

Everything after that is a reconstruction after global divine judgement (if you will). Others might use a more scientific language and call it a global cataclysm, which we all know without doubt has happened before and will most certainly happen again.

This doesn't invalidate the bible at all since it was written for man in the era of man, how hard is it to understand this. The 6 days of "recreation / reconstruction" were literal and this is how they can be interpretted as literal.

This is also what the ancients believed to a T so why go fishing for, and inventing new explanations? Do we know more than the ancients who actually wrote this stuff?

I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Shadamaun

Yes youv'e stated this time and again, but I've asked you for reference materials on the subject and am still waiting for an answer. You didn't arrive at this conclusion by yourself, you had to get your ideas from somwhere, my question is where?

I know that each person has his or her special pet theory but this theory needs proving one way or another. It is no good to throw out staements like you do if you can't show us at least how you arived at your conclusions.

:tu:

Great point, Jor-el. I've tried shaking the tree to get that answer myself, but I think this particular tree has no fruit to speak of. Pretty blossoms, but no fruit. <_<

The bible, in my opinion, is worded just loosely enough that any meaning can be interpreted from it. "Beasts" can mean anything. "7 days" can mean anything. But there are some parts worded precisely and specifically, and if the message is a little backward or archaic, it is ignored. Its not an acurate source for anything other than (in some cases) moral guidance.

Dinosaurs arent in the bible, NOT because they arent creatures of god, or because the devil created them to throw us off the path of true enlightenment. Dinosaurs arent in the bible for the same reason electricity isnt in the bible, or carbon dating, or CARBON for that matter; the people who wrote the bible didnt understand those concepts, or have the means to examine or discover them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

:tu:

Great point, Jor-el. I've tried shaking the tree to get that answer myself, but I think this particular tree has no fruit to speak of. Pretty blossoms, but no fruit. <_<

The bible, in my opinion, is worded just loosely enough that any meaning can be interpreted from it. "Beasts" can mean anything. "7 days" can mean anything. But there are some parts worded precisely and specifically, and if the message is a little backward or archaic, it is ignored. Its not an acurate source for anything other than (in some cases) moral guidance.

Dinosaurs arent in the bible, NOT because they arent creatures of god, or because the devil created them to throw us off the path of true enlightenment. Dinosaurs arent in the bible for the same reason electricity isnt in the bible, or carbon dating, or CARBON for that matter; the people who wrote the bible didnt understand those concepts, or have the means to examine or discover them.

Save for the mention of "great monsters" in the genesis account, I never said there were "dinosaurs in the bible", this is what the fundies say. I said there are dragons in the bible, and this cannot be denied. You can decide for yourself what the people thought they saw, but in a nutshell, they are described as fire spewing, flying reptiles, remarkably similar to the dragons reported in the middle ages constantly burning down buildings and carrying off children and cattle.

The Bible itself is the proof, The word Seraphim in Hebrew means a fiery flying serpent. When the Bible was translated into Greek, the word used by both ancient Chriistian and Jewish scholars was Drakone. Now what part of that don't you understand?

But this of course, is just the tip of the iceberg as to the wealth of information concerning dragons in Judao Christian theology.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Save for the mention of "great monsters" in the genesis account, I never said there were "dinosaurs in the bible", this is what the fundies say. I said there are dragons in the bible, and this cannot be denied. You can decide for yourself what the people thought they saw, but in a nutshell, they are described as fire spewing, flying reptiles, remarkably similar to the dragons reported in the middle ages constantly burning down buildings and carrying off children and cattle.

The Bible itself is the proof, The word Seraphim in Hebrew means a fiery flying serpent. When the Bible was translated into Greek, the word used by both ancient Chriistian and Jewish scholars was Drakone. Now what part of that don't you understand?

But this of course, is just the tip of the iceberg as to the wealth of information concerning dragons in Judao Christian theology.

Still no response to the "and it was evening and it was morning" issue? Is it easier to ignore me? I'll keep asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Shadamaun

Save for the mention of "great monsters" in the genesis account, I never said there were "dinosaurs in the bible", this is what the fundies say. I said there are dragons in the bible, and this cannot be denied. You can decide for yourself what the people thought they saw, but in a nutshell, they are described as fire spewing, flying reptiles, remarkably similar to the dragons reported in the middle ages constantly burning down buildings and carrying off children and cattle.

You yourself, about 5 posts back said

People today are not stupid Medieval peasants that are going to believe any stupid thing a clergyman says anymore.

So are these the reports of "stupid medieval peasants" under the direction of "stupid things" said by supposed learned men, or are they a respected source of information? You seem to think they are both... :hmm:

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible itself is the proof, The word Seraphim in Hebrew means a fiery flying serpent. When the Bible was translated into Greek, the word used by both ancient Chriistian and Jewish scholars was Drakone. Now what part of that don't you understand?

But this of course, is just the tip of the iceberg as to the wealth of information concerning dragons in Judao Christian theology.

I understand the theological argument you are trying to make, but what you dont seem to understand is

You cant use the bible as proof because you cant prove the bible.

That is what I meant by "conjecture^2". You are making up a theory based on someone elses made up theory, and presenting it as fact. There is no solid footing for the far fetched statements you are posing as "obvious truths". I won't deny that dragons are mentioned in the bible (mainly because I dont care to look through it to prove or disprove THAT fact); but if you are saying that the dragons in the bible ARE NOT dinosaurs, then how is that even a valid point to this conversation? You are very adamant that dragons are something far more advanced than simple dinosaurs, or even native terrestrial creatures. How does a dragon relate to the christian view of the dinosaur if the two are completely unrelated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Save for the mention of "great monsters" in the genesis account, I never said there were "dinosaurs in the bible", this is what the fundies say. I said there are dragons in the bible, and this cannot be denied. You can decide for yourself what the people thought they saw, but in a nutshell, they are described as fire spewing, flying reptiles, remarkably similar to the dragons reported in the middle ages constantly burning down buildings and carrying off children and cattle.

The Bible itself is the proof, The word Seraphim in Hebrew means a fiery flying serpent. When the Bible was translated into Greek, the word used by both ancient Chriistian and Jewish scholars was Drakone. Now what part of that don't you understand?

But this of course, is just the tip of the iceberg as to the wealth of information concerning dragons in Judao Christian theology.

In your case I was talking about your interpretations of Dragons being Seraphim...

This is what I found in Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Seraphim - mentioned in Isa 6:2, 3, 6, 7. This word means fiery ones, in allusion, as is supposed, to their burning love. They are represented as "standing" above the King as he sat upon his throne, ready at once to minister unto him. Their form appears to have been human, with the addition of wings. This word, in the original, is used elsewhere only of the "fiery serpents" ( Num 21:6,8; Deu 8:15; Isa 14:29; 30:6) sent by God as his instruments to inflict on the people the righteous penalty of sin.

Lexicon Results for saraph (Strong's 08314):

Hebrew for 08314

Pronunciation Guide

saraph {saw-rawf'}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) serpent, fiery serpent

a) poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)

2) seraph, seraphim

a) majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 7

AV - fiery serpent 3, fiery 2, seraphim 2; total=7

The word is used on two different occasions in seperate contexts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

JOR-EL said "In your case I was talking about your interpretations of Dragons being Seraphim... This is what I found in Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Seraphim - mentioned in Isa 6:2, 3, 6, 7. This word means fiery ones, in allusion, as is supposed, to their burning love. They are represented as "standing" above the King as he sat upon his throne, ready at once to minister unto him. Their form appears to have been human, with the addition of wings. This word, in the original, is used elsewhere only of the "fiery serpents" ( Num 21:6,8; Deu 8:15; Isa 14:29; 30:6) sent by God as his instruments to inflict on the people the righteous penalty of sin. "

DRAC: Easton was a devout Christian and used his beliefs to guide his explanations and he wanted his Seraphim to be fluffy cartoon angels, so essentially lied about them having a human form. Try to use some common sense here. How can the same creature be fiery flying serpents in one passage of the Bible and "cartoon angels" in another? The answer is that they cannot. Not only is the Seraph a winged reptilian creature in both ancient and modern hebrew, but even in ancient Egyptian, the same winged reptile goes by the exact same name! An egyptian hymm even says it is "fiery", having nothing to do with poison, but probably a fire spewing ability just as the angel riding monsters in Revelation and the Leviathan dragon.

The Bible never describes the Seraphim with a human form. It doesn't have to becasue the Hebrew word means a flying reptile, and guess what? The only description of the Seraphim is that they have wings that can cover their heads, and hands, which many dragons also have, though with sharp claws. On the other hand NO humanoid angel in the Bible has wings. If you ever read it, you would know that angels are constantly being mistaken for normal humans. That would be tough if you had big swans wings sprouting out of your back !

Yes the Seraphim do sing praises to God, but does this make them cartoon angels? No. In fact, to my knowledge the ONLY creatures that sing praises to God in the Bible are the Seraphim, a word that means Fiery flying serpents in the orginal Hebrew, and the DRAGONS that sing praises to God in the Book of Pslams. Do you see the connectin here.

Ancient Christians knew all of this, the proof is in their art and scriptures. The dragons surround the throne of God exactly as the Seraphim in Isaiah.

Modern Christians believe in a Roman-created mythology that differs a great deal from the original Bible. The covering up of the heavenly dragons, is only one aspect of the new Christian mythology of the modern Roman church. Turning the Ahriman dragon of Persian mythology into "Satan" is another example.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Shadamaun

Try to use some common sense here. How can the same creature be fiery flying serpents in one passage of the Bible and "cartoon angels" in another?

If that were the only inconsistency in the bible, you may have a case. Without going off on a whole different tangent, it is safe to assume that there are many people who would agree that the bible is more metaphore than literal. Again, your main source is suspect, and you yourself just pointed it out.

The only description of the Seraphim is that they have wings that can cover their heads, and hands, which many dragons also have, though with sharp claws.

If the only description of the seraphim is that they have wings and hands, that could make them anything, really. You are taking the liberty to extrapolate claws to make the draconic connection. Do you have any source to back up this claw theory? I could just as easily say, using the vague description given, that seraphim are Harpies, or sphynx, or even another form of angel. According to Enoch II, the seraphim have "four faces and six wings", so that is another description, wouldnt you say? Besides, Isaiah 6:6 is the only mention of seraph (in which, Seraph, one of the many angels with dominion over fire, touches Isaiah's lips with a hot coal) UNLESS you also try to link the expression "fiery serpents" in Num 21:6 to these "angels with dominion over fire".

The Seraphim, by the way, are the highest order of angels. Know who one of the Seraphim was? Michael. Know what else he was called? "The Warrior of God, and the slayer of the Dragon". Does that mean he commited suicide? If seraphim=dragons, and Michael=head seraphim...

On the other hand NO humanoid angel in the Bible has wings. If you ever read it, you would know that angels are constantly being mistaken for normal humans. That would be tough if you had big swans wings sprouting out of your back !

If dragons can fly with psychic powers, why cant angels?

Arent angels also refered to as the "children of fire", as opposed to man being the "children of earth"? I wasnt aware that they had a material form while in heaven. If we are making assumptions based on scripture, and angels can take a corporeal, man-like form, why couldnt they also take a form with wings?

Yes the Seraphim do sing praises to God, but does this make them cartoon angels? No. In fact, to my knowledge the ONLY creatures that sing praises to God in the Bible are the Seraphim, a word that means Fiery flying serpents in the orginal Hebrew, and the DRAGONS that sing praises to God in the Book of Pslams. Do you see the connectin here.

Again, seraphim is just the name of the angels with dominion over light, love, and fire. Also, the Isaiah account is the ONLY mention of seraphim in the OT, unless you attempt to connect the "firey serpents" from Num 21:6 to them.

Ancient Christians knew all of this, the proof is in their art and scriptures. The dragons surround the throne of God exactly as the Seraphim in Isaiah.

Ancient christians also depicted angels as humans with wings. Ancient pre-christians depicted angel-like beings as humans with wings. It was the cherubim who were more bestial in form, and who were the protectors and guardians. It was a cherubim hand that weilded the flaming sword in the garden of eden. Note: Hand and sword, not dragon breathing fire.

Please, other than the bible, which you would be hard pressed to find anyone who

a.) believed it was a word for word literal account

b.) knew exactly how to interpret the cryptic and contradictory language

can you site any other sources to back up your claim that dragons are what you say they are, or how they relate to the christian view of dinosaurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

If that were the only inconsistency in the bible, you may have a case. Without going off on a whole different tangent, it is safe to assume that there are many people who would agree that the bible is more metaphore than literal. Again, your main source is suspect, and you yourself just pointed it out.

If the only description of the seraphim is that they have wings and hands, that could make them anything, really. You are taking the liberty to extrapolate claws to make the draconic connection. Do you have any source to back up this claw theory? I could just as easily say, using the vague description given, that seraphim are Harpies, or sphynx, or even another form of angel. According to Enoch II, the seraphim have "four faces and six wings", so that is another description, wouldnt you say? Besides, Isaiah 6:6 is the only mention of seraph (in which, Seraph, one of the many angels with dominion over fire, touches Isaiah's lips with a hot coal) UNLESS you also try to link the expression "fiery serpents" in Num 21:6 to these "angels with dominion over fire".

SHAD: The Seraphim, by the way, are the highest order of angels.

DRAC: NO they aren't. They are never even called angels in ancient time, they are only called Seraphim, creatures, or Drakones in Greek. This comes from Medieval Angelology, not the Bible.

SHAD: Know who one of the Seraphim was? Michael. Know what else he was called? "The Warrior of God, and the slayer of the Dragon".

DRAC: Michael is called a Seraphim in later Medieval Angelology, NEVER in the bible.

SHAD Does that mean he commited suicide?

DRAC I guess you never even read the Bible, if you had you would know that the dragon was never killed, just wrapped in chains and cast into the abyss for 1000 years, copied straight from Zoroastrian mythology only the dragons name is Ahriman instead of Satan.

SHAD: seraphim=dragons, and Michael=head seraphim...

If dragons can fly with psychic powers, why cant angels?

DRAC they can levitate, but not fly like a dragon, becasue no angel in the bible has wings, more later Christian mythology.

SHAD Arent angels also refered to as the "children of fire", as opposed to man being the "children of earth"? I wasnt aware that they had a material form while in heaven. If we are making assumptions based on scripture, and angels can take a corporeal, man-like form, why couldnt they also take a form with wings?

DRAC Old testament angels are flesh and blood and must eat food to survive. Read the Bible. Pagan greek influence converted them into spirit creatures (Daemons) in the new testament, but this is false doctrine. I say again, no angel in the Bible has wings, this is more, later Romano-christian pagan mythology.

SHAD Again, seraphim is just the name of the angels with dominion over light, love, and fire. Also, the Isaiah account is the ONLY mention of seraphim in the OT, unless you attempt to connect the "firey serpents" from Num 21:6 to them.

DRAC Wrong, they are always called creatures in ancient times, NEVER angels, and always depiected as a serpent or dragon in ancient Christian art. And they are obviously the dragons in heaven in other Christian scripture such as the Apocolypse of Baruch. Of course they must be connected with the flying fiery serpents in Numbers. They are called Seraphim in both books, and they are dragons in Egypt as the same time! This is what the word means. Any fluent speaker of Hebrew will tell you this.

SHAD Ancient christians also depicted angels as humans with wings. Ancient pre-christians depicted angel-like beings as humans with wings. It was the cherubim who were more bestial in form, and who were the protectors and guardians. It was a cherubim hand that weilded the flaming sword in the garden of eden. Note: Hand and sword, not dragon breathing fire.

DRAC Wrong again, in the earliest Eden story from sumeria, complete with an identical man named Adape (Adam) the tree guradian Cherub is a classic quadrapedal dragon like the Egyptian Seraph. And this is why dragons guard trees in myths around the world, it stems from this original story. These dragons do carry swords in some Sumerian seals and stele.

SHAD Please, other than the bible, which you would be hard pressed to find anyone who

a.) believed it was a word for word literal account

b.) knew exactly how to interpret the cryptic and contradictory language

can you site any other sources to back up your claim that dragons are what you say they are, or how they relate to the christian view of dinosaurs?

DRAC How many times do I have to repeat this. the ancient Christains knew they were dragons, becaus when the bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek by the Christians Seraphim was tranlated to DraKone. It is beyond dispute. Furthermore, Christian books like the Apocolypse of Baruch also state there are dragons in heaven that devour the wicked. And then there is all the ancient Christian art of dragons surrounding the throne of God, and swallowing up sinners in heavenly judgement. Like I said before, even modern Israelis know the seraphim are serpentine dragons. It is common knowledge to everyone but Christians who are in denial of anything in the Bible they are uncomfortable with.

But Yes, many of the links in this thread go to fundie sites that state the dragons in the bible are dinosaurs, but they are wrong, of course, they are heavenly creatures that may superficially resemble dinosaurs with wings.

You will not find a single piece of true, ancient biblical evidence to contradict me. Every argument you made stems from medieval to modern Christian mythology, not the real Bible. And there is much, much more than this as you will see if you read my book.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Shadamaun
You will not find a single piece of true, ancient biblical evidence to contradict me.

What assurance do I have that I will even find a single piece of true, ancient biblical evidence in the first place?

You are basing your entire argument on the assumption that the bible is a factual document, when in fact, it is at best a collection of anecdotal evidence and hearsay. For a theological debate, where you are only talking about faith-based subject matter, that would be fine. But you are trying to prove something empirically, secularly, and scientifically accurate by using biblical conjecture as the foundation for your thesis. No matter how accurate your quotation or study of the bible, your theory can never be more than another bible story.

What facts, besides the "facts" you glean from the bible, can you provide to support this theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

What assurance do I have that I will even find a single piece of true, ancient biblical evidence in the first place?

You are basing your entire argument on the assumption that the bible is a factual document, when in fact, it is at best a collection of anecdotal evidence and hearsay. For a theological debate, where you are only talking about faith-based subject matter, that would be fine. But you are trying to prove something empirically, secularly, and scientifically accurate by using biblical conjecture as the foundation for your thesis. No matter how accurate your quotation or study of the bible, your theory can never be more than another bible story.

What facts, besides the "facts" you glean from the bible, can you provide to support this theory?

As I stated from the begining, this dragon study is based on the premise there is truth in the bible, something many esteemed scientists of many disciplines also believe, let alone hundreds of millions of the world's most intelligent people.

In the Bible we can see what can be interpreted as the most scientific of all anicent creation epics, and the only one that suggests a compatibility with modern concepts such as an earth of over a billion years old. Furthermore, it also provides the most plausible of all explanations for dragons if we accept the records of these creatures all over the world has any basis in reality.

It is true that most Christians are blissfully ignorant of the significant role heavenly servant dragons have actually played in their theology, but this has only makes it more interesting to many, because there seems to be a clear conspiracy of the Chruch to change many of the things in the Bible, and the dragons are only one of them, though one of great interest to people because of the unprecedented popularity of them in the last few decades, perhaps not coincidentally with the equally growing interest in Angelology.

Do you really consider talking, gravity defying , apparently immortal dragons something from the secular world? I can't. Therefore if there is any truth at all to them, (as billlions of people believe), they must either have a theological or extraterrestrial origin. But this does not mean we can dispense with science, for like I already said, there are many scientists who can find a compatibility with science and the Bible. So the challenge here is to find a compatibility between the Biblical dragons, history and science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

As I stated from the begining, this dragon study is based on the premise there is truth in the bible, something many esteemed scientists of many disciplines also believe, let alone hundreds of millions of the world's most intelligent people.

In the Bible we can see what can be interpreted as the most scientific of all anicent creation epics, and the only one that suggests a compatibility with modern concepts such as an earth of over a billion years old. Furthermore, it also provides the most plausible of all explanations for dragons if we accept the records of these creatures all over the world has any basis in reality.

It is true that most Christians are blissfully ignorant of the significant role heavenly servant dragons have actually played in their theology, but this has only makes it more interesting to many, because there seems to be a clear conspiracy of the Chruch to change many of the things in the Bible, and the dragons are only one of them, though one of great interest to people because of the unprecedented popularity of them in the last few decades, perhaps not coincidentally with the equally growing interest in Angelology.

Do you really consider talking, gravity defying , apparently immortal dragons something from the secular world? I can't. Therefore if there is any truth at all to them, (as billlions of people believe), they must either have a theological or extraterrestrial origin. But this does not mean we can dispense with science, for like I already said, there are many scientists who can find a compatibility with science and the Bible. So the challenge here is to find a compatibility between the Biblical dragons, history and science.

I'm a christian and as such have no difficulties in seeing your point of view but that still leaves us with ananwered questions. There is no conspiracy to erradicate this view from christianity since that would mean an active debate in christian circles to the validity of your arguments.

There is none mainly because this line of reasoning doesn't enter most peoples heads when they consider gods servants (angels). This is the 1st time I have encountered this argument and don't have a problem with it as long as you provide me with the studies that show us where our interpretation went wrong. If any person who speaks hebrew has this interpretation then show me written twexts by hebrew scholars stating their reasoning.

Just don't tell me that you have based all this on the very few occurences in the bible where Seraphim are mentioned. That is not enough to interpret things the way you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashyne

one big problem with christians and their religion is that they try to associate everything with their faith. anything they cant find a solution or answer for, they use their religion as an excuse and this juz screws everything up and makes it all the more ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.