Dragon? Unicorn? Mystical beasts in the bible????

In case you the reader of this thread don't know, there are various bible translations that have unicorn in place of a horned bull and dragon in place of snake/serpent.

In the book of numbers and other old testament books you'll find the unicorn thing.

And for the dragon thing the references is mostly in the book of Revelation.

My questions if simple: What the ??

It boggles my mind that so many people talk about the unicorn bit and forget about the enemy angel of God being called a "dragon" when no such creatures were referenced anywhere in the old testament because that enemy was referenced as a serpent or snake. What's with the unicorn and dragon bit in so many bibles these days and in the past?

Maybe symbolism has changed over the years? (Snake no longer being a powerful enough image, perhaps they began to replace it with 'dragon'?)

I'm afraid I may not be understanding the question: are you asking why they were mentioned, why they are traditionally seen as having an adversarial relationship, or something else?

FeathersinHair said:

Maybe symbolism has changed over the years? (Snake no longer being a powerful enough image, perhaps they began to replace it with 'dragon'?)

I'm afraid I may not be understanding the question: are you asking why they were mentioned, why they are traditionally seen as having an adversarial relationship, or something else?

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that it's what " translators priviledge" to change the translation because the inspired word of god penned by chosen persons of god didn't know what jesus meant when he relayed the message to john for the book of revelation so the modern translators put "dragon" in because it's more ominous that a snake or serpent like in the book of genesis? why didn't they use dragon in the genesis chapter 3 then to be consistent?

I'm asking why translators used mystical animals/creatures that man created in their own minds for accuracy of the bible versus the real meaning of whatever is supposed to be in their for the enemy of the biblical god.

It kinda freaks me out that "puff the magic dragon" might be satan and that's why i put this thread up. Or how about "barney the purple dragon". Maybe bible translators should leave comic book writing to the pro's.

I wonder if anyone really knows why they put dragon in the bible as a translation. Perhaps to pay homage to the medievel times or to kings. But I see your points I think...

t3gah said:

So what you are saying is that it's what " translators priviledge" to change the translation because the inspired word of god penned by chosen persons of god didn't know what jesus meant when he relayed the message to john for the book of revelation so the modern translators put "dragon" in because it's more ominous that a snake or serpent like in the book of genesis? why didn't they use dragon in the genesis chapter 3 then to be consistent?

I'm asking why translators used mystical animals/creatures that man created in their own minds for accuracy of the bible versus the real meaning of whatever is supposed to be in their for the enemy of the biblical god.

It kinda freaks me out that "puff the magic dragon" might be satan and that's why i put this thread up. Or how about "barney the purple dragon". Maybe bible translators should leave comic book writing to the pro's.

I wonder if anyone really knows why they put dragon in the bible as a translation. Perhaps to pay homage to the medievel times or to kings. But I see your points I think...

Click to expand...

I am not sure what point you are trying to make; what difference is there in how we visualize the Devil as long as we know who he is?

I find your reference to comic book writing lacking in tack, and possibly not the kindest of things that you might have said.

michel said:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make; what difference is there in how we visualize the Devil as long as we know who he is?

I find your reference to comic book writing lacking in tack, and possibly not the kindest of things that you might have said.

Click to expand...

the point i'm making is obvious, but i just realized i should have put this on my "error in bible translations" thread, because they put dragon in revelation instead of serpent.

my bad.

the "for emphasis bit" just doesn't wash when it comes to the scriptures. i think those that were chosen to write it used the right words to begin with.

i mean really. you think that since everyone on earth can be a devil or satan at one time or another, the scriptures would be a bit more precise and use a term or word that could not be used in reference to humans which then brings to mind why genesis has "serpent" and "snake" in many bible to describe the chief enemy of God to make it known how bad and evil that angel is and then need to use a mythical creature like "dragon" in revelation to show what?

added later after posted: michel, look up dragon and unicorn in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia please and you'll see why i used the "Comic book" reference.

I'm sorry, but are you attacking the interpretation, the interpretors or the book itself?

And 'mythological'? Just because things are mythological doesn't mean they don't exist.

Alex, why not dragons and unicorns. They have been equally evidence as angels and Satan. I would question why Christians reject the idea of dragons and unicorns and in the same breath except angels and satan. What makes one anymore believable than the other? It seems the conditions that the second set are accepted on is faith based on belief in the bible. To reject unicorns and dragons is to reject parts of the bible by rejecting the faith provided by christians that came before right?

robtex said:

Alex, why not dragons and unicorns.

Click to expand...

The questions is "why?", not "why not?".

They have been equally evidence as angels and Satan. I would question why Christians reject the idea of dragons and unicorns and in the same breath except angels and satan. What makes one anymore believable than the other? It seems the conditions that the second set are accepted on is faith based on belief in the bible. To reject unicorns and dragons is to reject parts of the bible by rejecting the faith provided by christians that came before right?

Click to expand...

All depends on the original text the translations came from. So in the Greek text, does it really say "dragon" is Greek or did someone put that in the translation like a previous post stated? And then the Hebrew-Aramaic text, does it really mean in that language, "unicorn"?

And that's where you need to go, robtex. Christian's didn't write the old testament. They wrote the new testament. Men of faith and devotion of judaism wrote the old testament. And all were worshippers of the Christian God but they didn't know that God was a Christian God until later. Well, for those living when Jesus came and went and came back and went away again.

I reinterate- is this an attack on the translators, the translation or the followers? There's really no other reason I see for discussing the matter- unless you'd like to debate about things that may or may not exist.