Dragons in the Bible

OpanaPointer

Ad Honoris
Dec 2010
11,643
Near St. Louis.
Actually, given the evangelical nature of the staff here, my days at the forum are inevitably numbered anyway, so I'll just toddle off.
 

Nick

Historum Emeritas
Jul 2006
6,111
UK
Actually, given the evangelical nature of the staff here, my days at the forum are inevitably numbered anyway, so I'll just toddle off.
Evangelical? Personally i'm one of the most nonreligious people you could meet, despite my interest in Buddhism, pagan societies and the historical aspects of the Old Testament. The rules are strict in the religion forum but this is not the case in the history related areas
 

oshron

Ad Honorem
Jun 2009
3,690
western Terranova
There were sea dragons at one time. The Bible talks about them and even describes them as breathing fire. Job 41:19-21 is describing an aquatic beast called Leviathan. It says that "out of his mouth go flaming torches, sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils come forth smoke." Verse 21 says that "his breath kindles coals and a flame comes forth from his mouth." Certain kinds of dragons did exist at one time.
this actually depends on what the text actually means by "dragons". some believe that the use of the term "dragon" actually refers to dinosaurs (in a VERY creationist sense; personally, i think the notion is ridiculous). some think that sea dragons, such as the leviathan, actually referred to whales, while behemoth could refer to very large animals such as elephants or hippos or even dinosaurs. there WAS one theory floating around a while ago that duck-billed dinosaurs used the passages in their skulls in a similar way to the bombardier beetle to shoot extremely painful liquid at other animals, effectively "breathing fire", though this theory was proposed by a creationist and had no evidence or proof of such uses (the most common theory is that those passages were used for communication).

personally, i find it more likely that the stories of dragons were from exaggerated real animals (possibly even cryptids or historical animals that are now extinct) or, perhaps more likely, merely inspired by the fossil remains of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals; there is evidence that the skull of a woolly rhinoceros was mistaken for that of a sea monster of some kind, and a particular island in the mediterranean was said to be home to giants and the like because of the huge bones that were found, which turned out to belong to species of mastodons (a kind of elephant). remember, back in the days of the bible, no one had any concept of how old the earth was, so if they came across the exposed fossil skeleton of a large meat-eating dinosaur, they would assume it was a huge monster--say, a dragon--that had died recently. another example is fossilized trackways (footprints) left by dinosaurs millions of years ago, some of which go right up cliff faces because the rocks they were originally on have turned on their sides over millions of years, so a peasant back in the first century would see that and think, "My goodness! What could be so strong that it would leave footprints going UP a solid rock cliff?!"

or, it could've been aliens ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_perspectives_on_dinosaurs#Paleontology_and_dinosaurs
 
Nov 2010
976
Ηνωμένες &
There are many many ways of interpretting this. In some translations, it may be rendered as dragon, winged serpent, or beast. It could just be that the context was meant to be taken symbolically, as in the case of the Behemoth or the Leviathan, if you read the passages they appear in carefully it is clear that they were mentioned solely to compare to god's might.

They are never described in detail, at least not in good detail, and they are not central to the story being told. Some think that they were dinosaurs, but there is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs were contemporary, actually all evidence shows that we are separated by many tens of millenia.

None of that matters though, because the claims that the Bible makes are just Bible claims, and using the Bible for evidence of the Bible is circular, QED.
 
Jun 2010
1,618
Archuleta Mesa....till I come down.
Dragon's? Sure why not.

There is damn near every thing else. Consequently don't believe..fine... doubters seek ye solace elsewhere.

For if I can believe that others might believe in strange things....my Dine' brothers belief in shape-shifters for example...then I can recognise other's theories about Dragons in the Bible.

I'm not that egotistical or self centered to completely dismiss or ridicule out of hand simply because the ''method'' is in opposition.

Their lies the arrogance of the unwilling, to examine belief systems and cultures, simply because of prejudice.
 

Rasta

Ad Honoris
Aug 2009
21,071
Minnesnowta
Dragon's? Sure why not.

There is damn near every thing else. Consequently don't believe..fine... doubters seek ye solace elsewhere.

For if I can believe that others might believe in strange things....my Dine' brothers belief in shape-shifters for example...then I can recognise other's theories about Dragons in the Bible.

I'm not that egotistical or self centered to completely dismiss or ridicule out of hand simply because the ''method'' is in opposition.

Their lies the arrogance of the unwilling, to examine belief systems and cultures, simply because of prejudice.
It's not prejudice, it's precedent. We have found evidence for all kinds of giant reptillian creatures that have existed. The description of the dragon does not correspond to reality however.




 
Jun 2010
1,618
Archuleta Mesa....till I come down.
Rasta...It's not prejudice, it's precedent. We have found evidence for all kinds of giant reptillian creatures that have existed. The description of the dragon does not correspond to reality however.

That missed my point. Their version doesn't have to be your version or their version of reality or based on your analysis. Hence the conudrum.

You apparently seek to used the method (am not sure entirely here) when the method did not in fact, in it's current form, exsist or was culturally considered or felt necessary to explain the phenom they were attempting to describe or relate.

And when one is unwilling to look in the aforementioned sense be it based on the method or other.....it's not precedence but indeed prejudice.
 

Rasta

Ad Honoris
Aug 2009
21,071
Minnesnowta
You apparently seek to used the method (am not sure entirely here) when the method did not in fact, in it's current form, exsist or was culturally considered or felt necessary to explain the phenom they were attempting to describe or relate.

And when one is unwilling to look in the aforementioned sense be it based on the method or other.....it's not precedence but indeed prejudice.
What method are you talking about? Also please describe the sense that it should be viewed in.
 
Jun 2010
1,618
Archuleta Mesa....till I come down.
Rasta...It's not prejudice, it's precedent. We have found evidence for all kinds of giant reptillian creatures that have existed. The description of the dragon does not correspond to reality however.

That missed my point. Their version doesn't have to be your version or their version of reality or based on your analysis. Hence the conudrum.

You apparently seek to used the method (am not sure entirely here) when the method did not in fact, in it's current form, exsist or was culturally considered or felt necessary to explain the phenom they were attempting to describe or relate.

And when one is unwilling to look in the aforementioned sense be it based on the method or other.....it's not precedence but indeed prejudice.

''What method are you talking about? Also please describe the sense that it should be viewed in.''



1. Scientific method.


2. Looking at the contextual culture of what they were attempting to record..or more appropriately not looking at it while simo attempting to rationalize it when-with the method which was not in exsistence or a primary concern-necessity for their attempts at explanation.

As I said I'm not sure whether your attempting to do this but when you speak of ' reality' that alone is not contextual as yours of today was not theirs of then.