Dinosaurs and Dragons

You don't have to be a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist to see a connection between Dinosaurs and mythical creatures like Dragons.  You can hold the mainstream view of the age of the Earth and still think a few small patches survived to Ancient or even modern times.  Or you could say Ancient people stumbled upon Dinosaur fossils which helped inspire those myths, but the later option doesn't explain eye witness accounts.

However opposition to Young Earth Creationism is the only explanation I can think of for why so many insist on denying any connection exists or could exist, insisting it must be just a coincidence that man imagined Dragons and then we found the bones of creatures that fit exactly the definition of what a Dragon is.  Because they love being able to casually mock Creationists with "if the Earth is only 6000 years old how come humans never saw Dinosaurs", then countless accounts of people seeing things like Dinosaurs are pointed out to them and they go "no, but..." and move the goal posts.

I'm not desperate to convert anyone to Creationism any more since I'm an Evangelical Universalist now.  I just want people to know that the existence of Dinosaurs is not a sufficient reason to doubt The Bible.

Dinosaurs weren't the only things to inspire these ancient myths, they're often also allegories of more abstract things like Greed.  Same as Godzilla was not inspired only by Dinosaurs but was first and foremost an allegory for the destructive power of Nuclear Weapons.  Even Jurassic Park is about more then just Dinosaurs, it's also another re-imagining of Frankenstein as well as being about the evils of Capitalism.

A lot of why people feel so confident they can mock the idea of a connection is because the modern default idea of what a Dragon looks like is much more specific then what it actually used to mean, being basically Smaug and Charizard.  But even in Tolkien not all Dragons looked like Smaug, Smaug represents a specific sub group, the winged Fire Drake.  And the really specific look of Smaug I don't think was even precedented much before Tolkien, even Beowulf's dragon is not described quite like that in the original text.  There were actually medieval bestiaries describing many different kinds of Dragons, not all of which could even be described as gigantic in size.

Yes, a lot of the images Creationists point to don't look exactly perfectly like a specific Dinosaur, just as Bugs Bunny doesn't look that much like a real bunny rabbit.  Artistic depictions take liberties and oral traditions can obscure the details even when they're trying to be perfectly accurate.
http://creationwiki.org/Ancient_dinosaur_depiction

The 12th century Ta Prohm Temple near Angkor Wat in Cambodia has a carving which resemblance to a Stegasaur is way to close to be coincidental.

But for something that's a personal hypothesis of mine that takes a bit more room for interpretation, let's talk about the Tarasque.

First of all it's said to originally come from Galatia, which fits the fact that the earliest Christian Community of Southern France were people who came there from Ephesus in the 2nd Century.  Now I'm not convinced Martha or the other Bethany siblings actually went to Asia Minor either, I suspect their remains are among those found at the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mont of Olives.

The most peculiar detail of the Tarasque is that it's not a Turtle but is described as having a turtle shell on it's back.  I think this animal was inspired by an Ankylosaurus (the same type of Dinosaur that inspired Anguirus).  This creature doesn't have a Turtle Shell on it's back but one can easily see how it might look that way to an ancient observer.

I no longer share the hostility other Creationists have to the idea of Feathered Dinosaurs.  I don't think Dinosaurs evolved into modern Birds, but God could easily have created creatures that would seem to us like Lizard/Bird hybrids, just as an Ankylosaur could have been mistaken to be a hybrid of a Turtle and something else.

And once we acknowledge Feathered Dinosaurs we can realize that only adds to the amount of evidence of them being known to the Ancients.  From Mesoamerican gods depicted as feathered serpents to the European examples of the Cockatrice and Basilisk.  Both words have been used in translations of The Bible.  Now I don't think the Hebrew word tsepha' was likely to be referring to the same thing as either of those European terms.  But if you're a radical KJV onlyist like Kent Hovind, you can't then deny that what Cockatrice meant to a 1611 English speaker is something The King James Bible is claiming exists (it's right in the etymology of Cockatrice that it resembles a Rooster in some fashion).  I remember watching one Kent Hovind debate where his opponent brought up the Cockatrice and Hovind just ignored it.

And now we've transitioned into talking about Dinosaurs in The Bible.  I believe Seraphim was a term for Pterodactyls aka Ropens.  And I mostly stand by my past speculation that Jonah was swallowed by a Sea Dinosaur. Reem (Unicorn in the KJV) however I do not think refers to a Dinosaur but probably an Auroch.

Now the big two when it comes to Dinosaurs in The Bible speculation are Behemoth and Leviathan.  It boggles my mind every time someone tells me that in context' it's clearly describing a demonic creature and not a natural animal.  No, it's context in Job 38-41 is as the climax of a list of normal animals, yet people keep getting away with saying it's the opposite.

Yes there are extra Biblical Jewish legends turning Behemoth and Leviathan into cosmic horrors not compatible with any real animals.  That's why Paul warned us to not regard Jewish Fables.  These non-Biblical ideas about Behemoth and Leviathan are partly the inspiration for Groudon and Kyogre the 3rd generation mascot Legendary Pokemon (and Rayqyaza was based on the Ziz) but none of that has any basis in Job.

I watched this YouTube video on Behemoth recently, at the very end it starts vaguely alluding to Republican politics and a Soterolgoy I no longer support, but mostly it's a pretty good video.  There is little internal debate among Creationsits about what Dinosaur the Behemoth is, it's a longed neck herbivore, basically the first Dinosaur we see clearly and unobstructed in Jurassic Park, so just imagine John Williams score for that scene as you read Job 40.

Leviathan is more complicated however.

Firstly because unlike Behemoth the word does show up outside of Job, in Isaiah 27 and a couple of Psalms.  Other references to Leviathan are possibly using him as an analogy for the 7 headed Dragon and/or The Beast out of the Sea of Revelation, like how Jesus uses Birds to represent Satan in the Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13, being used symbolically in some places doesn't make it not a word for a real animal.  I also think Leviathan is possibly used of a Constellation in some verses.  If The Ancient Hebrews had a view of the Constellations analogous to our own, then Draco, Serpens, Hydra and Cetus are all good candidates.

I think it's best to stick to Job when defining the Zoological characteristics of Leviathan.  Which first of all means the words translated "piercing" and "crooked" in Isaiah 27:1 aren't used in Job 41 and so maybe descriptions of the Constellation or poetic idioms about Satan are not useful for figuring out what the real animal looked like.

Isaiah 27:1 is a really complicated verse to consider here.  It could be using multiple idioms for one thing, or describing three different things, two Leviathans and a Dragon, or two things, Leviathan and a Dragon.  This verse probably isn't about the actual animal anyway, but I still wanted to point that out.

If we limit our clues for the real animal to Job 41 does that weaken it's aquatic association?  Not quite, verse 31 seems to say it spends some time in the sea.  But it is most likely Amphibious and not purely a Sea Creature.

I have a personal hunch that the Leviathan of Job 41 could be Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.  There are plenty of inaccuracies to how this Dinosaur was depicted in Jurassic Park 3, but according to this video it was indeed Amphibious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STn0CxdMIKk&t

Fire breathing, that is the big factor in objections to saying Dragons are real, including specifically Biblical ones which definitely attribute fire breathing to Leviathan and possibly but more debatably the Seraphim (there are other views of what them being called "firey" means).

The Bombardier beetle has an ability that certainly seems like shooting fire. 

Skeptical analysis of such arguments for fire breathing animals often miss the point. Creationists only need the specific Biblical references to be literally true, so it doesn't matter if it actually looked like what Smaug or a Fire Type Pokemon can do.

One anti-Creationist website I was reading gave a simplified summery of the history of dragon legends and claims dragons didn't start breathing fire till the 5th century AD and none had wings till the 13th.  That ignores The Bible's own descriptions of both winged serpents and Leviathan, as well as Beowulf.  Basically this site wants to say Dragons didn't start resembling Dinosaurs till the 19th Century, which is an utterly absurd suggestion.

Lilith, Serpents and Izanami

This post is somewhat a follow up to my post on The Two Seed Line Theory on another Blog.

I talked about Lilith once on my Prophecy Blog in Edom and Lilith.  I still think that theory might have some truth to it, but I want to talk about some other factors here.

The 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira is the first known example of Lilith being identified as a previous wife of Adam.  Though the suggestion that Adam had a previous wife is made in the 3rd-5th Century Genesis Rabbah.  But the Rabbah is weird, implying it's earlier woman was also made from a piece of Adam but he wasn't put to sleep that time.

Later on some Kabbalah writings like Treatise on the Left Emanation would identify Lilith with the Serpent of Genesis 3.  And to be honest there is no solid proof in the Genesis text that the Nahash is male rather then female.  Even Lilith being traditionally depicted as red haired could come from Nahash being similar to the Hebrew word for Bronze.  Lilith has also been associated with the Serpents in Isaiah 27:1, Humm, Alan. Lilith, Samael, & Blind Dragon.  And for some context in the Egyptian Ogdoad the female deities are depicted as Serpents while the males are Frogs.

Nahash is given in 2 Samuel 17:25 as the name of a parent of at least one of David's sisters.  And attempts to explain that usually debate between Nahash as another name for Jesse or a theory that David's mother had a husband before Jesse.  But it's occurred to me that maybe this name can be used by men and women and that this Nahash could have been a wife of Jesse.

Some scholars think the Lilith (Screech Owl in the KJV) of Isaiah 34 is most likely just some normal animal, other words used around there are clearly animals elsewhere in Scripture.  For example the Satyr in the KJV is actually Sayir a Hebrew word for Goat.  Lilith coming from a word for Night could mean it's some kind of Nocturnal animal.  Babylonian Talmud on Tractate Nidda 24b implies Lilith is a winged creature.  Those clues could support the Owl translation.  But if it refers to an animal called by some other term elsewhere in scripture, the flying Serpents of Numbers and other parts of Isaiah are arguably placed near the region of Edom.

The Latin Vulgate of Isaiah 34 translated Lilith as Lamia, the Lamia was a creature in Greek Mythology often depicted as part woman and part serpent. But Lamia's etymology has also been interpreted to mean "Nocturnal Spirit", being related to Lemures.

It is commonly theorized that the idea of a Jewish tradition of Adam having a wife before Eve must come from a desire to reconcile a supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  But the truth is if you view them as accounts of separate events, then more then one Adam was created too.  Also if you separate them neither the male or female Adam is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 1.

It is often overlooked that without even leaving Genesis 2:4-25 there is a basis for Adam having possible wives or at least wife-candidates before Eve, who were also formed from the Dust of the Earth like he was.  That is when Adam names the "Beasts of the Field".

Some of my fellow Creationists may feel the need to mock the suggestion that God was seriously considering mating Adam with any of them.  Indeed if you read verses 19 and 20 in isolation there is no clear indicator they were possible spouses.  But the fact is verse 18 comes before this narrative rather then being saved till after it, that presents it as somehow linked.  Now I certainly believe God knew what the outcome of this would be, but this still happens in the text.  And indeed the actual text of The Alphabet of Ben Sira supports this being where it placed Lilith's creation.

After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, "It is not good for man to be alone." He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith.

Plenty of Creationists have already seen the creation of these animals as separate from their initial creation in Genesis 1, whether we place these events on day six or a later point.  In Genesis 1 they're made before Adam, even those that were the same day, but in Genesis 2 they're made after Adam is placed in The Garden.  In which case I suspect Genesis 1 records the ancestors of the animals we generally see today, while Genesis 2 could be beings peculiar to the Garden, who perhaps were more "sentient".  Maybe the Living Creatures of Revelation aka the Cherubim and the Seraphim were among these?

Genesis 3:1 also says that whatever the Nahash is, it could qualify as a Beast of the Field.  Some use the terminology of that verse to say it's distinguished from being a Beast of the Field, but what's even the point of mentioning Beasts of the Field in that case?  Or maybe the Serpent is distinguished from them because he was the offspring of one? possibly by Adam?  I don't know, I'm not planning on building any doctrines on the theories in this post.

I've read that the most direct translation of the Hebrew would be something like "crafty from all of animals of the field", and that Genesis 3:14 clearly defined the Serpent as a a fellow beast of the field.

Maybe the extra-Biblical traditions of Lilith came to involve confusing or conflating all the creatures of chapter 2 verses 19 and 20 together?  After all Lilith is technically a feminine Plural.  Fowls of the air are also explicitly mentioned in those verses.

I've also noticed lately that comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows that what reads Edom in the Masoretic was probably originally Adam, which is spelled the same in Hebrew.  So maybe Isaiah 34 is the same, it was never about Edom but about the domain of Adam?

In my post about why we should not call Satan Lucifer.   I pointed out that Shachar/Shahar the Hebrew word for Dawn/Morning in Isaiah 14:12 is spelled the same as Shachor a Hebrew word that means Black or Dark, and that relating that meaning to the Dawn kind of makes sense because "The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn".  In that context it could make a good synonym for Lilith given the Night association of the name Lilith.  Giving me a basis to argue that Isaiah 14:12 says Satan is the Son of Lilith.

In the past I have noted possible parallels between the figure of Lilith and Izanami of Japanese Mythology.  In the Edom post I already linked to, in a post talking about the Anime called Evangelion, and when speculating on The Lost Tribes possibly going to Japan.  However as I've been reading up more on Lilith, I've noticed even more parallels.

Before it was mostly just her being the Wife of an Adam figure, plus Izanami speaking first in their mating ritual being an issue having a possible parallel to Lilith wanting to be on top in The Alphabet of Ben Sira.

But now I'm learning things like Lilith also being sent to an Underworld type location, from the Myths linking her to Asmodeus, to the Kaballah tradition of her going down to the Great Abyss.   Meaning the debate about if the Queen of The Night Relief is Lilith or Ereshkigal could be redundant, it could be they were always the same woman.

Izanami also possibly reflects Lilith's status as a mother of Demons via her sending Rajin and Shikome after Izanagi from the Underworld, and being the mother of many Kami.  Ryujin could also be compared to Isaiah 27:1, as he's literally a Dragon in the Sea, and as Watasumi is an offspring of Izanagi and Izanami.

In the context of all of that, there are two figures from Greek Mythology it might be plausible to compare to Lilith.

One is Echidna, a Half-Woman and Half-Snake monster who was the wife of Typhon.  And Aristophanes says she was a denizen of the Underworld.  And she was known as the Mother of Monsters.  The word Echidna also appears in the New Testament, the KJV always translated it Viper.  Is it possible that means Echidna was used in the Septuagint where the KJV has Viper in the Old Testament?  I don't know, checking the Septuagint isn't easy given how sometimes the Chapters aren't even in the same order.  Eph'eh is the Hebrew word Translated Viper in the KJV, it's used in Isaiah 30:6 in a way that's possibly synonymous with the fiery flying Serpent.  The Apocryphal Acts of Philip tells a story of Philip dealing with a Temple ruled by Echidna.

Another would be Eurynome who was the wife of Ophion, or in some theories his mother, who was also cast into Tartarus according to Lycophron (1191).  It's possible Eurynome and Echidna could have originally been the same, considering how Typhon and Ophion are almost certainly different versions of the same original myth.  Other Greek mythical figures who could be based on this same original idea are Nyx (means night) and Ceto, and maybe Lamia who was mentioned above.

There has naturally been a tendency to compare some takes on Lilith to Sophia in Gnosticism.  And Robert Graves basically made Eurynome a Sophia figure in his reconstruction.

This Mother of Monsters aspect could also make one think of Grendel's Mother in Beowulf.  Or in Norse Mythology Angrboða who by Loki was the mother of Hella (the Underworld Goddess), Jormungander, a Sea Serpent monster comparable to Serpents discussed above, and Fenrir a wolf creature you might recognize from Thor Ragnorock.  Sometimes another possible offspring named Larnvidia (she of the Iron-Wood) is mentioned, who is sometimes refereed to as a She-Wolf and the mother of Fenrir's children.  Fenrir and his offspring no doubt played a role in inspiring Tolkien's Wargs and Werewolves (who are not what the term Werewolf generally means), and Fenris Ulf in Narnia, as well as the Direwolves on Game of Thrones.  But the usual "Mother of Monsters" figure in Tolkien's lore is Ungoliant, the ancestress of both Shelob and the Spiders of Mirkwood.  Sulkaris is a villainess from a Zelda fan game who might be partly inspired by Ungoliant.

When I finally read George MacDonald's Lilith, I wonder how relevant all this speculation will be?

Update December 25th 22019: It seems like Fate/Grand Order: Babylonia is identifying the Mesopotamian Tiamat with Echidna since they're clearly implying a relationship with Medusa (Fate/Stay Night's Rider) via a similar look and having the same Voice Actress in both Japanese and the Aniplex Dub, and a similar "mystic eyes" ablity.  And there does seem to be prior precedent for such an identification.  Graves makes Tiamat the same kind of goddess he makes Eurynome.

Turns out the initial Tiamat isn't quite Tiamat but "Gorgon", they're still implying Tiamat is a Mother of Monsters.