Is satan a Dragon? Are Dragons Dinosaurs?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
if dragons are real, then that must mean tianlong is our true master.

I for one welcome our new dragon overlord

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

I'm confused why you think you can use the words "serpent" and "dragon" interchangeably.
One is a creature that exists and another defies physics. I mean, I know WHY you did it. You did it to try to make your point appear more credible (though relying on an old book to tell you something like this is a flawed information gathering technique to begin with). I'm just curious how you'd think that none of us would notice your trick there.

I did not put those parenthesis in the text, it was a part of the translation. Check the original link: ttp://gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm

originally posted by: Marduk

I for one welcome our new dragon overlord

I can tell.

a reply to: cooperton

Irrelevant. Why do you think those words are interchangeable? You posted that information as a source, so you obviously agree with the author's idea to transpose those two words. So explain yourself. Why does a serpent = a dragon? Otherwise you don't have a point to stand on and that link you posted was translated by an idiot.

intriguing questions. Certainly would answer a lot about giants etc...I'll be back to read more later. Thanks great post!

a reply to: cooperton

gnosis.org is your source? Good grief.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Irrelevant. Why do you think those words are interchangeable? You posted that information as a source, so you obviously agree with the author's idea to transpose those two words. So explain yourself. Why does a serpent = a dragon? Otherwise you don't have a point to stand on and that link you posted was translated by an idiot.

Irrelevant? The translator is an idiot? There are some translations that don't even say serpent, they flat out say dragon:

www.newadvent.org...

A book regarding the Acts of Thomas

So unless you want to translate this text on your own, we are left with the translation of all these "idiots".

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

gnosis.org is your source? Good grief.

Yes, The largest online archive of gnostic texts is one of my sources for gnostic scripture.

a reply to: cooperton

A serpent isn't a dragon. They aren't interchangeable words. If a translator tries to interchange them, then yes he's an idiot. Though, he could also be someone with an agenda and not someone just trying to get to bare facts of the item. Either way, he and his work is untrustworthy. There is a third option, which you likely haven't considered, that the original text said dragon, but the translator realized they were actually talking about a snake since dragons don't exist and interchanged the words for them. Though I find this case to be unlikely since the text in particular you quoted shows the "serpent" talking, which is also impossible (a snake would never be able to use its mouth to create the phonetic sounds we make to speak).

Though, this disregards the fact that ancient books aren't valid accounts of how the past looked and behaved. So, even is that guy was entirely honest about his translations, its irrelevant because they aren't proof of anything except that the ancients were either superstitious, had overly active imaginations, or both.

PS: You still haven't explained why you think dragon and serpent can be interchanged.

a reply to: cooperton

Well, I recently learned that Morgan freeman is the antichrist, so satan could infact be a dinosaur, weirder # has happened.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

There is a third option, which you likely haven't considered, that the original text said dragon, but the translator realized they were actually talking about a snake since dragons don't exist and interchanged the words for them.

As has been said, the greatest feat satan ever performed was to make the people believe he doesn't exist.

PS: You still haven't explained why you think dragon and serpent can be interchanged.

A dragon is a type of serpent. I never said they are interchangeable, but clarification throughout the texts (Rev 12:9, Acts of Thomas, etc) indicates this was a dragon. Genesis even says the serpent was "above" the beasts of the field....

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

There is a third option, which you likely haven't considered, that the original text said dragon, but the translator realized they were actually talking about a snake since dragons don't exist and interchanged the words for them.

As has been said, the greatest feat satan ever performed was to make the people believe he doesn't exist.

I don't care. If Satan exists, he would be far cooler than god anyways. At least Satan doesn't wipe out most of humanity because he is mad at them.

A dragon is a type of serpent. I never said they are interchangeable, but clarification throughout the texts (Rev 12:9, Acts of Thomas, etc) indicates this was a dragon. Genesis even says the serpent was "above" the beasts of the field....

No, a dragon is NOT a type of serpent. Where did you ever read that? A dragon MAY be a type of lizard, but they certainly aren't serpents. Though I'm loath to even call them lizards since they are imaginary creatures. That would be like calling a unicorn a type of horse.

Nothing else to add as it would be like arguing with a four year old or a very drunk person!

a reply to: cooperton

Using scripture to prove dragons? Using one figment of imagination to defend another? You have lost this battle, you are just too proud to admit it. And we can't make you admit it, but don't confuse that for victory.

originally posted by: cooperton

A dragon is a type of serpent. I never said they are interchangeable, but clarification throughout the texts (Rev 12:9, Acts of Thomas, etc) indicates this was a dragon. Genesis even says the serpent was "above" the beasts of the field....

Genesis blah blah, it was written by people who had never seen a dragon or a talking snake,
Do you value the truth of the Koran as much. You should do after all, they are both leaves from the same tree

originally posted by: flammadraco

Grendel, the monster in Beowulf, is believed to be a T-rex

"When Grendel appeared to the Anglo-Saxon listener, he was not viewed as a legend; he was
the embodiment of an all-too-present reality"

Grendel was able to fight against many men:

"So Grendel ruled, fought against the righteous,
One against many, and won"

He had claws:

"No one Waited for reparation from his plundering claws"

and killed with his mouth:

"Grendel snatched at the first Geat
He came to, ripped him apart, cut
His body to bits with powerful jaws,
Drank the blood from his veins and bolted
Him down, hands and feet; death
And Grendel's great teeth came together,
Snapping life shut."

And also hard skin (perhaps scales?):

"the sharpest and hardest iron Could not scratch at his skin"

The next monstrosity that Beowulf kills, after Grendel and his mother, is a dragon.

Beowulf

So Satan is basically just a sparrow? I knew there was something about evil them .........

originally posted by: cooperton

Grendel, the monster in Beowulf, is believed to be a T-rex

Sounds more like an Allosaur to me ....... Or possibly a cave lion ......

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: flammadraco

Grendel, the monster in Beowulf, is believed to be a T-rex

Totally credulous
About the only fact about Grendel that exists to his nature in Beowulf is that he is described as a descendant of Cain
So you're now saying that Cain was a dinosaur
laughable
wrong again
Surely the fact that Grendel is able to use his "terrible claws" is a clue that he's not a T rex, how did you miss that

originally posted by: Marduk

Surely the fact that Grendel is able to use his "terrible claws" is a clue that he's not a T rex, how did you miss that

Whether evolution or creationism be true... why would the T-Rex not be able to use his claws?

originally posted by: AndyMayhew Sounds more like an Allosaur to me .......

Although I sense you are being facetious, you may be right hahah.

Or possibly a cave lion ......

ehhh..... "the sharpest and hardest iron Could not scratch at his skin". Not a lion.

a reply to: cooperton

You're right, how silly of me not to believe the ramblings of illiterate shepherds from 2000 years ago....



Edit - had to add


You guys make it so easy for us

this thread seems like a bit of a cruel trainwreck, but the title reminded me of this theory i read several years ago about the god of the old testament, Yahweh, and his contemporaries, Canaan et al, actually being dragons. Potentially extraterrestrial ones, who knows.
I just thought it was a fun idea, but my art history lecturer overheard me telling the story at lunch one day and made me research it for a presentation. It still seems pretty silly to me but it's really grown on me as a neat way to explain a lot of Weird History and make yourself look unfit for human company at the same time.
If i remember i'll find some sources when i'm sober.
Anyway, on with the crazy.