Can Christians Like Dragons?
Expanded and Updated Edition!
The Original: ambassadorherald.deviantart.co… “Can Christians Like Dragons?”
Update Installment 1: ambassadorherald.deviantart.co… “Punishments and Curses”
Update Installment 2: ambassadorherald.deviantart.co… “Honor and Praise”
In other words, is it un-Christian to be a fan of massive, fire-breathing reptiles? The reason this question is being addressed is because many Christians have decided that dragons are satanic/demonic. They say that this is the only conclusion you can draw from what we know of dragons in The Holy Bible. But is this true or is there more than what meets the common eye in The Sacred Book? Let us explore The Bible, ancient legends, and modern science to see if there is anything that could be being missed.
***Note that this is much longer and more detailed than the original. If you want a shorter read, go to the link above, and you will get the basics. If, however, you are more curious and adventurous, like I am sure many dragon-lovers are, then read on! Fascinating facts await you below! Also, no need to read it all in one sitting. There is no shame in reading a section now and another later and so on. Please enjoy your time here, whatever you choose to do!
THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
The place one must always begin with is The Sacred Scriptures. Nothing anyone else says matters even an inch if it does not line up with what God has revealed to us in His Pure Word.
Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV, “Every Word of God [Eloah] is pure [Heb. “purified”]: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
Note: brackets will be used to show the Hebrew names of God, the KJV Marginal Notes, and other minor things for clarity.
Before we can begin, though, it should be noted that if one is using a modern translation of The Holy Bible, then one will find following along in The Biblical Evidence difficult, as some have had with the original version of this article. Most translations have removed the word “dragon” from the entire Bible except for the 13 uses in the book of Revelation. This is probably why there is so much confusion as to what God really told us about these magnificent creatures He made.
Therefore, I recommend you look up all passages in the Authorized King James Version (KJV or AV; 1769), which is the base-translation of this treatise. However, nearly the same results can be found with other old translations, such as the Geneva Bible (GNV or GB; 1587), Bishops’ Bible (Bish; 1568), Douay-Rheims Bible (DV, DRA or DRB; 1899), and Young’s Literal Translation (YLT; 1863). These and other translations will be heavily consulted.
Recommended Website: www.BlueLetterBible.org/ Blue Letter Bible
Recommended FREE Program: www.E-Sword.net/ E-Sword, add all free downloadable content (DLC)
***TOP Recommendation: www.SwordSearcher.com/ SwordSearcher, buy latest edition
The Masoretic Hebrew word used for dragon(s) is “tanniyn” and shows up 29 times in The Old Testament. Although, the English word dragon is not always used, even in the KJV, so searching for that word will not find all the uses. These verses are divided up in this treatise into general uses of tanniyn, specifically named dragons, similar creatures to dragons, and other assorted references. This first part of the treatise will only cover dragons in general.
Part 1: Dragons in General
These are dragons who have no names and spoken of the same way we would mention animals someone finds in a Zoo. Just the species, its habitats, some behavioral traits, and a few physical characteristics.
Installment 3: Draconic Traits
God gave us more than just descriptions of where dragons lived, who they called neighbors, and general statements about their past, present, and future. There are several places in The Sacred Scriptures where we see attributes which at least some of the dragons possessed, if not all of them. Remember, like Dinosaurs, there are various types of Dragons in legends, yet all are known under the one term collectively. You could say, “Yeah, the park had a dinosaur statue in the playground and I sat on its back!” Without needing to specify a Tyrannosaurus Rex, Brachiosaurus, or Parasaurolophus. The same goes for dragons.
Although, if you said the dinosaur had two powerful hind legs and two smaller front legs, which it could use as hands while standing on its hind legs, and had a boney crest on the back of its head, you would likely know it was a Parasaurolophus. Likewise, if you lived at a time filled with dragons of many types, you could have likely identified which one was being spoken of by the below characteristics mentioned. So keep that in mind, just because one dragon had it does not mean all dragons had it, but it also does not mean they all did not have it either. Most dinosaurs had similar characteristics to each other that they shared, like most mammals do with each other.
Deuteronomy 32:28-33—For they [Israel] are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and The LORD [Yahweh] had shut them up? For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. For their vine is of the vine [or, “worse than the vine”] of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
Unfortunately, as already seen earlier, the Jewish people did not always follow The True God of all things. Even today they are mostly failing, because they do not accept The Messiah—or Christ—Who is Jesus. Jesus was a Jewish Carpenter from Nazareth and followed all of the God-given Laws in the Torah—our Pentateuch. Christianity is Jewish at its core and would not even exist if the Jews had accepted Jesus when He came 2,000 years ago. Gentiles would be being adopted into Judaism when they accepted Jesus as Savior, and thus be grafted into the same Jewish Tree and be one people (see Romans 11:16-24). Technically we already are one people, but the Jews and most Christians don’t realize it yet.
However, we do get some bonus information about dragons from the Jews not following their God. The Hebrew word here for poison is “chemah” and it literally means something which makes you burn. Out of the 124 times this word is used in The Masoretic Text, 67 of them it is translated “fury” and 34 as “wrath” (KJV) because these are both times when one burns inside. This could mean that dragons have a short and terrible temper, because only six times is this word translated as poison, but each time is for a good reason.
In Deuteronomy 32:24, Psalm 58:4 (double usage), and 140:3 it is used for serpents, of which many are poisonous, or adders, which is a type of poisonous snake. In Job 6:4 it is used in conjunction with “arrows” and “drinking”, which many arrows had poisoned tips and many poisons can be drank. In Hosea 7:5 it is translated as “bottles” for wine. Then here in Deuteronomy 32:33 it is coupled with “the fierce venom of asps”, which are another poisonous snake. Not to forget that Deuteronomy 32:24 is only nine verses previous.
There can be little doubt that some dragons had a venomous bite similar to many serpents. Interestingly, Beowulf’s dragon (circa 500s AD) also had a venomous bite, and it is from said venom that Beowulf meets his death. This surprised me in a good way because I had not seen many people portray dragons as being poisonous. This has been lost in recent years, apparently. But the ancients knew, and Beowulf even said the bite made his neck burn, which is the literal meaning of this Hebrew word. Beowulf could be a true account of a real battle with a dragon, and many portions of the poem are even Christian in nature!
For Deuteronomy 32:33 Coke makes the following notation:
“The Hebrew word תנים tanim, rendered dragons, signifies a kind of large serpents, which make a doleful and horrid noise and hissing. This property of theirs is observed by Aelian [Claudius Aelianus]; and to this Job alludes, chap. xxx. 29. [Job 30:29] and Micah 1:8.”
Above we see Coke referring to the sounds we have seen previously that dragons are said to make in Isaiah 13:21-22 and Jeremiah 51:37-38. Gill contributes the following, to which Poole gives a summary of the same:
“Of these creatures, both land and sea dragons; see Gill on Micah 1:8; Pliny [Pliny the Elder, 23-79 AD] says the dragon has no poison in it; yet, as Dalechamp [Jacques Dalechamp? 1513-1588], in his notes on that writer observes, he in many places prescribes remedies against the bite of the dragon; but Heliodorus [Heliodorus of Emesa? Circa 250s-363 AD] expressly speaks of some archers, whose arrows were infected with the poison of dragons; and Leo Africanus [Joannes Leo Africanus, circa 1494-1554] says, the Atlantic dragons are exceeding poisonous: and yet other writers besides Pliny have asserted that they are free from poison. It seems the dragons of Greece are without, but not those of Africa and Arabia; and to these Moses has respect, as being well known to him.”
Beowulf was in Denmark and Sweden, so we can add those locations to the list of venomous dragons that Gill provides: African and Arabian.
In regards to why Pliny would deny dragons having venom and yet offer remedies for people who have suffered a bite, we today would likely explain this as germs. Vampire Bats cause numerous deaths to their victims, more if people would go without care afterwards, but the cause of death is not the bite or the blood they take from you. The problem is blood attracts bacteria which spread disease, like the crusted blood on the bat’s teeth, and are then inserted into your bloodstream when you get bitten. Dragons were primarily carnivorous after the Noachian Deluge and therefore would carry the same bacteria as Vampire Bats, which would require treatment.
Jeremiah 14:1-7—The Word of The LORD [Yahweh] that came to Jeremiah concerning the dearth [Heb. “the words of the dearths”, or, “restraints”; drought]. “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads. Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads. Yea, the hind [doe] also calved [gave birth] in the field, and forsook it [the fawn], because there was no grass. And the wild asses [donkeys] did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.” O LORD, though our iniquities testify against us, do Thou it for Thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against Thee.
Here dragons do not show up in the physical way, but as an example. The only animals mentioned are the deer and donkey. The land is once again parched and dry, just as where dragons are often said to live, only this time it is because of a God-sent drought as punishment. So bad was the “dearth” that the doe who had just given birth would abandon her own newborn fawn to die, because there was no way to care for it anyways. The donkeys would stand on the bare heights to try to spot some water and all they’d do is pant heavily in desire for even a drop. A terrible drought is being described.
Different translations of the phrase “they snuffed up the wind”:
“[she] drowen wynde [drowns wind]” – Wycliffe’s Translation
“drewe in their winde [drew in their wind]” – Bishops’ Bible
“They have swallowed up wind” – Young’s Literal Translation
“they pant for air” – ASV
“they gasp for air” – Jewish Publication Society
“they sniffed at the wind” – King James 2000 (KJ2000, 2001)
“are opening their mouths wide” – Bible in Basic English (BBE, 1949)
The Hebrew word “sha`aph” literally means to gasp, pant, breathe heavily, inhale eagerly, to hasten, and devour. Gill gives some astounding information here:
“Dragons: which, being of a hot nature, open their mouths, and draw in the wind and air to cool them. Aelianus [Claudius] reports of the dragons in Phrygia, that they open their mouths, and not only draw in the air, but even birds flying.”
That is one serious gulp of air! Poole adds more incredible info:
“Dragons, of whom Aristotle [Aristoteles, 384-322 BC] and Pliny [the Elder] report, that by reason of the great heat of their bodies, they ordinarily stand upon high places sucking in the cool air, and they tell us those creatures will live upon it for some time. The prophet describing this great drought, tells us the wild asses [donkeys] did the like.”
This explains why dragons often favored snowcapped mountains to live in, they were using it like air conditioning today! John Trapp’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Trapp, 1654) contributes a bit more to the above:
“Dragons. Quorum est vehementissima spiratio ac sorbitio; who, in defect of water, can continue long by drawing in the air, as Aristotle likewise testifieth of the goats in Cephalonia, that they drink not for various days together, but instead thereof gape and suck in the fresh air.”
John Calvin’s Verse-Specific Commentary (Calvin, 1509-1564) gives testimony to the above remarks, but in an odd way:
“And thence drew in wind like serpents: for great is the heat of serpents; on account of inward burning they are constrained to draw in wind to allay the heat within.”
Mere serpents are cold-blooded, we know this and to any ancient observer it would be obvious as well in the behavior of them. Serpents would have no need of sunbathing if they were already scorching internally, so either Calvin is mistaken here, or he is using old slang for dragons because they were often called serpents. For the sake of not assuming Calvin to be ignorant, we shall go with the slang hypothesis.
Using the above accounts, we get our first Biblical hint that dragons were warm-blooded like mammals, despite being reptilian in appearance. Even though the warm-bloodedness comes from extra-Biblical sources, this behavior of dragons trying to cool themselves is recorded in The Bible, even if only as an example of what the donkeys were doing. We can see how this matches earlier passages too, though. A great deal of the larger sea creatures are warm-blooded, with which dragons are clumped in Genesis 1:20-23. Plus, most of the animals they are mentioned to be living near are warm-blooded: the hyena, lion, ostrich, moko, jackal, night-raven, and falcon. Only the arrow-snake is arguably cold-blooded.
However, there is an alternative reason for why the dragons might be gasping. The Geneva Bible Footnotes (Geneva-FN, 1599) give a curious tidbit here:
“Dragons – Who are so hot by nature, that they cannot be cooled by drinking water, but still gasp for the air to refresh them.”
They cannot cool themselves with water? Air is a far worse coolant than water is, so why would air work and not water for dragons? Trapp seemed to imply water could cool them, but what if the assumption of their extreme body temperature is not why they gasp? More of the possible answer is pointed to in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Henry, 1706-1721):
“Nay, one would be sorry even for the wild asses [donkeys] (though they are creatures that none have any great affection for); for, though the barren land is made their dwelling at the best (Job 39:5-6), yet even that is now made too hot for them, so hot that they cannot breathe in it, but they get to the highest places they can reach, where the air is coolest, and snuff up the wind like dragons, like those creatures which, being very hot, are continually panting for breath.”
This is a very true fact; heat can affect how one breathes. Ever gotten inside a car in the summer and the temperature is over a hundred degrees due to the beating sun? I, for one, suffocate in such conditions. Not because the air is bad, but just too boiling hot. But heat is not the only method of making air harder to breathe.
We know that the amount of air a creature needs depends on its body size. Well, dragons are oftentimes huge, so the air they need is higher. But air isn’t even the right word, oxygen is what we truly need. Dragons require more oxygen per breath than we do, but, what if our atmosphere is too short on supply of oxygen for them? Up until Henry every commenter alluded to only periods of time, long or short, of requiring gulps of air, but Henry changed that by stating dragons “are continually panting for breath”.
Is it possible our modern atmosphere was deadly to dragons? I believe so, because in Amber—fossilized tree sap—we find air-bubbles equaling approximately double todays atmospheric pressure and 35% more oxygen than now! Scientifically we know this is beneficial because of Hyperbaric Treatments, which use this amount of air-pressure in their sessions. It does a body good in numerous ways, including allowing your blood to assimilate and hold more oxygen than otherwise. This combined with more oxygen period would allow dragons to breathe easy.
But when did this super-atmosphere get lost, causing dragons to be fighting for oxygen like mountain climbers? The answer can be none else except the Flood of Noah’s time, if one is seeking The Scriptural Answer. The easiest way to get more atmosphere is to put a cap on it, because our gravity can’t hold more than we got right now. This is why Mars has no surface water and very little oxygen, its gravity is too low. But if there were a dome surrounding the entire planet, holding in the atmospheric gases, the density could be greater.
The ironic thing is, just about every ancient culture speaks of a dome in the sky, as if they knew there once was such a thing. The Holy Bible does teach such a thing existed, despite all the modern Liberal Theologians who try to make it just a myth. A Liberal Theologian is simply a person who studies The Bible but does not believe it. They like to call Biblicists like myself “literalists” because we take Scripture at face value and dig deeper from there, unlike them who spiritualize, symbolize, or discredit it all. Here are the base verses from which the Canopy Theory is founded:
Genesis 1:6-8—And God [Elohim] said, “Let there be a firmament [Heb. “expansion”] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were [Heb. “And the evening was, and the morning was”] the second day.
The waters above are usually seen as meaning clouds, but we know this to be false. If there were to be clouds, then that would indicate the current Hydrological Cycle was in place, because what goes up must come down. But we have it plainly stated below that rain, or precipitation, was not happening.
Genesis 2:5-6—And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
So if clouds are not the waters above, it must be something we no longer have due to the Flood. The Hebrew word for firmament is “raqiya`” and Strong’s says it means “the visible arch of the sky”. This word is derived from “raqa`” which means something similar to metal pounded by a hammer to expand it into thin sheets and overlaid together. In other words, it means a physical arch of the sky, unlike the nonphysical arch we now observe. This would imply an Ice Canopy, since water at temperatures near Absolute Zero acts like a metal.
For those who may feel the birds in Genesis 1:20 provided previously would go against this, it actually doesn’t, as Young’s Literal Translation and the KJV Marginal Notes reveal. The birds flew in the “open” space against the firmament, at the firmament, at the edge of the firmament, in the face of the firmament, at the forefront/forepart of the firmament, in front of the firmament, over against the firmament, in the presence of the firmament, in sight of the firmament, within the firmament, so on and so forth. No problems at all.
And if any would object to the Sun, Moon, and Stars being inside this Ice Canopy, they’d be correct. See below.
Genesis 1:14-19—And God [Elohim] said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night [Heb. “between the day and between the night”]; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth:” and it was so. And God made two great lights; the Greater Light to rule the day [Heb. “for the rule of the day”], and the Lesser Light to rule the night [Heb. “for the rule of the night”]: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were [Heb. “And the evening was, and the morning was”] the fourth day.
These are all put in a Firmament, sure, but it is not the same firmament. On Day #2 the Firmament, or “expanse”, is around our planet, which on Day #5 the birds fly in. This is our atmosphere and the Ice Canopy around it. But the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the “Firmament of the Heavens”. This would be the expanse of Outer Space. When trying to understand Scripture, paying close attention to details is important.
Speaking of details, Young’s Literal Translation makes it clear that the original Hebrew says the stars are to rule the night too, but here we see an issue. If the stars rule the night along with the Lesser Light, then this means both must be out just as often as the other. The stars are out every single night, but the moon is out only 50% of the night. A king who ruled only half the month would not do well in his job. So the moon does not fit the Lesser Light, but an Ice Canopy would. Ice has the ability to transfer light through it. This would mean the Ice Canopy would be the Lesser Light, indicating it was where the sun and other stars are: outside the atmosphere.
So, here we see the gift of God which allowed dragons to live abundantly. The large sauropod dinosaurs have baffled scientists a long time. Even the mighty Brachiosaurus—my favorite dinosaur—had nostrils not much larger than those of a horse. Compered to body size, the nose was like us trying to breathe out of two of our skin pores. Without the Ice Canopy, dragons and dinosaurs alike suffered and struggled to cling to their every gasp of oxygen. See what a price sin has? We dragon fans wouldn’t have to dream of them so much if God had not needed to flood this planet!
Micah 1:8-9—“Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls. For her wound is incurable; for it is come unto Judah; he is come unto the gate of my people, even to Jerusalem.”
Here we have Biblical confirmation of Isaiah 13:22 where dragons are said to “cry to one another” in similar fashion as wolves. Dragons are now said to “micepd”, which means to lament, mourn, and wail. It is used with its root word “caphad” which means roughly the same in noise, but also to rip out your hair and beat your chest in grief, as the Jews still do today.
The comparison animal this time is an owl, which is said to “ebel”. Again, a similar meaning word and used for mourning the loss of a life. This word comes from the word “abal” which means to bewail. Does this mean that dragons “hoo”? I’d likely say no, because the finale word used is “yalal” which means to howl in a wailing tone, but their sound would be a lamenting one similar to owls.
To recap the other sounds dragons are said to make in Jeremiah 51:37-38—hissing, growling, and roaring.
Lamentations 4:1-6—“How is the gold become dim! How is the most fine gold changed! The stones of the Sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion [Jerusalem], comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter! Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of My [Yahweh’s] people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking [nursing] child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of My people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.”
This is a passage of comparisons, what once was and what now is. At least most of it is. Israel once was like shining gold, but that gold is now dirty and dim. The people of Jerusalem who were once as precious as gold are now as worthless as clay pottery. Those who were once well fed are now starving, those who had rich clothes are now in rags, and those who had fancy houses are now shoveling refuse. But all of this was avoidable, if only Israel had remembered their God. God punishes His children like any father should. In this case, Sodom had it better than Israel, partly because they were not God’s Chosen People. Sodom shows up with dragons three times, which is another curious fact that one can only speculate as to why God did that.
Tanniyn in this passage was translated as “sea-monsters” in the KJV, but the Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, and Young’s Literal Translation all say dragons. They are used here to show how bad it was in Israel. Even dragons feed their young when they are hungry, but not so with Israel. The babies were dry in the mouth from their mothers’ neglect, and the children asked their fathers for bread and none was provided. Sad day indeed when people stoop so low as to become worse than the animals that God put in our care (Genesis 1:26-28). How unloving we can become.
For obvious reasons, this is the most rejected dragon passage in The Holy Bible. “Dragons and milk? Can’t be serious can you?” Honestly, I thought the same thing. I still remember the first time I read this verse, I was like “WHAAAAAAAT?!?” I had missed it in my earliest studies of dragons because I had only looked up the English word, not the Hebrew word, so it was a bombshell. My eyes were wide, my jaw dropped, and I was completely stunned. Afterwards I had to show it to my Dad because it was unbelievable.
I would not say unbelievable anymore, because I am a firm believer in all things Biblical.
2 Timothy 3:16-17—All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Clearly God inspired it to be written in His Scriptures, so who am I to question it? If you are going to question a word’s meaning in one passage, then you must give a reason why it is not to be read the same way in other passages. I see no such reason to change the meaning here or anywhere. So yes, I believe dragons could produce milk for their young. I also believe that this is likely a trait they all shared with one another, at least the quadruped land-dwellers and their swimming sea-monster cousins.
The first question anyone would likely ask, especially about dinosaurs here, is: “Didn’t they lay eggs?” Answer is: Yes. Dragons in legends laid eggs and fossilized dinosaur eggs have been found, the largest of which is just a little longer than an NFL football. So, this would automatically disqualify any sort of milk production, right? That is what one would typically assume, but it is fascinatingly false. There are actually five species of egg-laying milk-producing mammals alive today, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. These are known as Monotremata and include the Duckbilled Platypus and the four types of the Spiny Anteater, a.k.a. Echidnas. All of these are indigenous to Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea. Let’s take a closer look at the most unique Monotremata.
The Duckbilled Platypus mate between August and October. The females seal themselves inside one of the burrow’s chambers to lay their eggs two weeks after mating. A mother typically produces one or two eggs in each clutch and incubates them by holding them between her body and her tail. After 10-14 days the infants hatch, but platypus infants are the size of lima beans and totally helpless. The mother nurses them without the benefit of typical mammal organs. The mammary glands rest underneath the mother’s chest. The infants push against the chest wall with their soft, pliable bills, then lick the oozing milk off their mother’s skin and fur. The infants leave the burrow at 17 weeks of life and live with their mother while they are being raised. When the youngsters can swim and get food on their own the nursing period ends, which is around March. They reach adult maturity at two years old and the father does not help at any stage of their development.
Whales follow a similar method of nursing their young, minus the egg-laying, in order to keep the milk warm under their blubber. Science is increasingly showing that dinosaurs are not reptiles, no matter how much we want to call them such. One of the easiest examples is that reptiles have their legs to the side of their body and need to push up to walk, like alligators and komodo dragons. While dinosaurs stood and walked upright like most mammals, with legs pointed down underneath their body. One will observe the same structure in most Occidental Dragons.
There is also strong evidence that many dinosaurs, and by extension dragons, were warm-blooded and not cold-blooded. This is due to their super-large size, which could not be warmed enough by the sun to function properly. Cold-blooded creatures depend upon external heat, most commonly the sun, to warm their body thoroughly in order to become active. This is why fish move slower during the winter months in colder climates, they are cold-blooded. This form of living only works up to a certain size, however. Eventually one would require living in a desert, such as the Sahara, in order to get enough heat to move. The downside is deserts get extremely cold at night, which would overcompensate the warm days in a large cold-blooded creature. This would ultimately result in death.
These are both not reptilian traits, and both are present in dinosaurs and dragons. Application is, if God has already done an egg-milk combination, and dinosaurs and dragons are not true reptiles, then they could have had the same nursing mechanism installed. Soft tissue rarely fossilizes and one could not tell from just the bones how a creature nursed. Just compare a human of either gender to their skeletal system; you’d never guess how you looked based solely on your bones and no other knowledge.
Now, dinosaur milk has been professionally suggested already. Professor Paul Else proposed this in February 2013 to The Journal of Experimental Biology. Paul Else is a professor at the University of Wollongong, which is in Australia. You can read the source for the following information in the March 17, 2013 article of the Illawarra Mercury, the local newspaper, titled “Did Mother’s Milk make Dinosaurs so Big?” www.illawarramercury.com.au/st…
Using the evolutionary claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds as a base, which is scientifically impossible and Biblically false, Else began working with the idea of dinosaurs giving milk to their young in a manner similar to bird—like pigeons, emperor penguins, and flamingos. They feed their young from crop glands at the back of the throat by opening their mouths. Paleontologists already knew that dinosaur babies grew quickly, like pigeons grow to 85% of their adult size in just four weeks. Else assumed that there must be similar events happening to cause the two similar results. He observed that milk is often “spiked” with additives, such as antibodies, antioxidants, calcium, minerals, fat, protein, carotenoids, and growth hormones. If dinosaurs did the same thing, then the mystery of their rapid growth would be solved.
Else decided to take his hypothesis and apply it to the herbivorous duckbills: Hadrosaurs. These are pretty common in the fossil record, so a fair amount is known about them. Hadrosaurs were herd breeders with nest-bound young fed by parents. There is also strong evidence that hadrosaurs raised their hatchlings in vast nesting colonies where they cared for them for some time, similar to the nesting colonies of seabirds. Baby hadrosaurs would not have been able to feed themselves enough to sustain life, yet somehow they managed to grow rapidly—from a 300-gram hatchling to a 20-kilogram juvenile in just eight weeks. Personally, knowing it was eight weeks is a just guess, since fossils do not tell time but are merely a splint moment captured in stone.
Professor Frank Seebacher, of the University of Sydney, has told Australian Geographic that the controversial idea will be very difficult to prove and will likely remain only an idea, although that’s what science is made of. With the modern trend of dinosaur bones, such as finding fossilized skin, fully mummified corpses, and even un-fossilized blood (look these up online or inquire in the comments), we may prove it yet. But Paul Else is probably hypothesizing the wrong method of milk-production. Birds would not be applicable except to the winged pterosaurs, which are the flying dinosaurs.
God is pretty clear in Lamentations 4:3 that dragons lactate, because they have “shad”, or the mammalian pouch(s) to hold and dispense milk. Birds do not lactate, which disqualifies Else’s hypothesis as far as method. He is almost certainly correct about dinosaurs and milk, because God agrees, but he needs to think more mammalian and less avian. This is just one Biblical example of why getting your scientific information in-line with The Bible is important. It’s so you don’t go into mythology, such as evolution.
For the sake of being completely honest in my findings, Susan Fletcher published a novel on March 9, 2010 called “Dragon’s Milk” and is part of her Dragon Chronicles series. I have not read these and so cannot vouch for their morality. The point is simply to show that at least one person has played with dragons giving milk in modern fantasy.
Regretfully, this is where we must leave it for Part 1. Stay tuned…
Go back to Installment 2: ambassadorherald.deviantart.co… “Honor and Praise”
Restart at Installment 1: ambassadorherald.deviantart.co… “Punishments and Curses”