![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/03\/SiegfriedDragon.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAtheist anti-theist and \u201cphilosopher\u201d\u00a0Jonathan M. S. Pearce<\/strong>\u00a0runs the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under\u00a0a post dated 12-14-21<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity \u2013 it\u2019s a fine line. But they are committed, and there is something to be said for taking that commitment into the lion\u2019s den. Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. . . . thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn\u2019t get to more of them.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0This echoes his words about me in a\u00a0post dated 7-20-17<\/a>, where he said,\u00a0\u201cwell done . . . for coming here and suffering the slings and arrows of atheists\u2019 wrath. . . . I commend him for getting involved and defending himself. Goodonya, mate.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Under a post dated 1-27-22<\/a>, he stated: \u201cI do welcome disagreements because I don\u2019t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. . . . [S]omeone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces!\u201d<\/span> Likewise, on 3-18-14<\/a> he proclaimed: \u201cDissenting views are utterly vital to being sure that you are warranted in your own beliefs and views.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And\u00a0on 7-20-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI put my ideas and theories about the world out there for people to criticise. . . . I want to make damned sure that they are warranted. I can\u2019t stand the idea that I could . . . believe something that is properly unwarranted. . . . What\u2019s the point in self-delusion? . . . I put something out there, people attack it, and if it still stands, it\u2019s pretty robust and I am happy to hold it. If not, I adapt and change my views accordingly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m delighted to oblige his wish to receive critiques and dissenting views! The rarity of his\u00a0counter<\/em>-replies, however, is an oddity and curiosity in light of this desire. He wrote, for example, on 11-22-19<\/a>: \u201c[I can\u2019t be]\u00a0someone who genuinely is not interested in finding out the truth about philosophy, God and everything.\u00a0If I come up against\u00a0any\u00a0<\/em>point that is even remotely problematic to my worldview, I feel the absolute necessity to bottom it out. I need to reconcile at least something; I have work to do. I cannot simply leave it as it is. . . . I would simply have\u00a0<\/em>to counter the arguments, or change my position.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Whatever; this hasn\u2019t been my<\/em> experience with him; only in short and infrequent spurts. I continue to offer them in any event, because they aren\u2019t just for\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0sake.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what he thinks (by the way) of Jesus:\u00a0\u201cThe Jesus as reported in the Gospels is so far removed from the real and historical figure of Jesus, overlaid with myth, story-telling, propaganda and evangelist agenda, that the end result is synonymous with myth. . . . I\u2019d take mythicism over Christianity any day. And they call mythicists fringe as if the position is absurd? Now\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>crazy.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0(8-2-14<\/a>)<\/p>\n Jonathan\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to his article, Answers in Genesis and Dragons. Fact or Fiction? Er\u2026 fiction.<\/a> (11-27-17).<\/p>\n Most of it is a lengthy citation of a fundamentalist piece<\/a>, which appears to actually believe that dragons (i.e., dinosaurs) lived at the same time as man. That has nothing to do with what I write about or defend. I deal with serious, mainstream, intellectually cogent Christianity. Jonathan commented on it:<\/p>\n Probability-wise, it\u2019s<\/span> [the article he is critiquing] a shocker which depends on presupposing the truth of the Bible at any rate.<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible teaches no such thing, as I will shortly prove. The central issue here is what the Bible means<\/em> by a \u201cdragon.\u201d There are reptiles today with the name dragon<\/em> (e.g., bearded dragon, Chinese water dragon<\/a>), but they are obviously not the fire-breathing mythical animals of folklore, fantasy, and fairy tale. It\u2019s the same with the Bible.<\/p>\n New Bible Dictionary<\/em>\u00a0on \u201cBehemoth\u201d states that the word occurs nine times in the Old Testament, \u201cand in all but one of these occurrences \u2018beasts\u2019, \u2018animals\u2019, or \u2018cattle\u2019 is apparently the intended meaning.\u201d In Job 40:15, \u201cthe hippopotamus . . . seems to fit the description best.\u201d The\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cAnimals in the Bible\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0agrees:<\/p>\n [G]enerally translated by \u201cgreat beasts\u201d; in its wider signification it includes all mammals living on earth, but in the stricter sense is applied to domesticated quadrupeds at large. However in Job 40:10, where it is left untranslated and considered as a proper name, it indicates a particular animal. The description of this animal has long puzzled the commentators. Many of them now admit that it represents the hippopotamus, so well known to the ancient Egyptians; it might possibly correspond as well to the rhinoceros.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n No necessary interpretation of mythical animals here . . .<\/p>\n According to\u00a0New Bible Dictionary<\/em>, \u201cLeviathan\u201d in Psalms 104:26 is \u201cgenerally thought to be the whale.\u201d In Job 41:1-34, \u201cmost scholars\u201d think it is a crocodile. In other instances, the use is clearly symbolic. Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary<\/em><\/a>\u00a0essentially concurs:<\/p>\n In the Hebrew Bible the word\u00a0livyathan<\/i>\u00a0, which is, with the foregoing exception, always left untranslated in the Authorized Version, is found only in the following passages: (\u00a0Job 3:8<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a041:1<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Psalms 74:14<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0104:26<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Isaiah 27:1<\/a>\u00a0)\u00a0In the margin of\u00a0(\u00a0Job 3:8<\/a>\u00a0) and text of\u00a0(\u00a0Job 41:1<\/a>\u00a0) the crocodile is most clearly the animal denoted by the Hebrew word. (\u00a0Psalms 74:14<\/a>\u00a0) also clearly points to this same saurian. The context of (\u00a0Psalms 104:26<\/a>\u00a0) seems to show that in this passage the name represents some animal of the whale tribe, which is common in the Mediterranean; but it is somewhat uncertain what animal is denoted in (\u00a0Isaiah 27:1<\/a>\u00a0) As the term\u00a0leviathan<\/i>\u00a0is evidently used in no limited sense, it is not improbable that the \u201cleviathan the piercing serpent,\u201d or \u201cleviathan the crooked serpent,\u201d may denote some species of the great rock-snakes which are common in south and west Africa.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for \u201cdragons\u201d in the Bible, Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>states:<\/p>\n The translators of the Authorized Version, apparently following the Vulgate, have rendered by the same word \u201cdragon\u201d the two Hebrew words\u00a0tan<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0tannin<\/em>, which appear to be quite distinct in meaning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The former is used, always in the plural, in (\u00a0Job 30:29<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Psalms 44:19<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Isaiah 34:13<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a043:20<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Jeremiah 9:11<\/a> ) It is always applied to some creatures inhabiting the desert, and we should conclude from this that it refers rather to some wild beast than to a serpent. The Syriac renders it by a word which, according to Pococke, means a \u201cjackal.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n The word\u00a0tannin<\/em>\u00a0seems to refer to any great monster, whether of the land or the sea, being indeed more usually applied to some kind of serpent or reptile, but not exclusively restricted to that sense. (\u00a0Exodus 7:9<\/a>\u00a0Exodus 7:10<\/a>\u00a0Exodus 7:12<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a032:33<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Psalms 91:13<\/a>\u00a0)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n The\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cAnimals in the Bible\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0has an excellent treatment of \u201cdragon\u201d:<\/p>\n It stands indeed for several\u00a0Hebrew names:<\/p>\n Other places, such as\u00a0Esther 10:7<\/a>;\u00a011:6<\/a>;\u00a0Ecclesiasticus 25:23<\/a>,\u00a0can be neither traced back to a Hebrew original, nor identified with sufficient probability. . . . Of the fabulous dragon fancied by the ancients, represented as a monstrous winged serpent, with a crested head and enormous claws, and regarded as very powerful and ferocious, no mention whatever is to be found in the\u00a0Bible. The word dragon, consequently, should really be blotted out of our Bibles, except perhaps\u00a0Isaiah 14:29<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a030:6<\/a>,\u00a0where the\u00a0draco fimbriatus<\/em>\u00a0is possibly spoken of.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The word itself doesn\u2019t have to necessarily refer to a mythical creature, and scientists at the time of the King James Version in 1611 referred to large serpents as \u201cdragons.\u201d Wikipedia in its\u00a0article on dragons<\/a>\u00a0provides the etymology:<\/p>\n The word\u00a0dragon<\/i>\u00a0entered the\u00a0English language<\/a>\u00a0in the early 13th century from\u00a0Old French<\/a>\u00a0dragon<\/i>, which in turn comes from\u00a0Latin<\/a>:\u00a0draconem<\/i>\u00a0(nominative\u00a0draco<\/i>) meaning \u201chuge serpent, dragon\u201d, from\u00a0Ancient Greek<\/a>\u00a0\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0dr\u00e1k\u014dn<\/i><\/i>\u00a0(genitive\u00a0\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0dr\u00e1kontos<\/i><\/i>) \u201cserpent, giant seafish\u201d.<\/sup><\/sup>\u00a0The Greek and Latin term referred to any great serpent, not necessarily mythological.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cFlying serpents\u201d are mentioned in Isaiah 14:29, and \u201cfiery serpents\u201d in Numbers 21:6-8. Wikipedia has an excellent article, \u201cFiery flying serpent\u201d<\/a>\u00a0that lists all these passages and provides an altogether adequate and plausible explanation (see further source information there):<\/p>\n Ronald Millett and John Pratt identify the fiery serpent with the\u00a0Israeli saw-scale viper<\/b>\u00a0or\u00a0carpet viper<\/b>\u00a0(Echis coloratus<\/a><\/i>)\u00a0based on ten clues from the written sources: the serpents inhabit the\u00a0Arava Valley<\/a>,\u00a0prefer rocky terrain, are deadly poisonous,<\/sup>\u00a0extremely dangerous, especially painful \u201cfiery\u201d bite, reddish \u201cfiery\u201d color, lightning fast strike, leaping\/\u201dflying\u201d strike, and death by internal bleeding.<\/sup>\u00a0A Roman account dated 22 AD about the deserts of Arabia indicates the presence of the saw-scale viper, reporting that \u201cthere are snakes also of a dark red color, a span in length, which spring up as high as a man\u2019s waist, and whose bite is incurable.\u201d<\/sup>\u00a0Other candidates include\u00a0desert horned viper<\/a>\u00a0(and close relatives) and the\u00a0desert black snake<\/a>\u00a0or black desert cobra.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wikipedia,\u00a0\u201cSerpents in the Bible\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\/ section:\u00a0\u201cFiery serpents\u201d<\/a>\u00a0provides more relevant information:<\/p>\n \u201cFiery serpent\u201d (Hebrew:\u00a0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05e3<\/span><\/span>,\u00a0Modern:<\/small>\u00a0saraph<\/i><\/i>,\u00a0Tiberian:<\/small>\u00a0s\u00e4\u00b7r\u00e4f\u2019<\/i><\/i>, \u201cfiery\u201d, \u201cfiery serpent\u201d, \u201cseraph\u201d, \u201cseraphim\u201d) occurs in the\u00a0Torah\u00a0to describe a species of vicious snakes whose poison burns upon contact. According to\u00a0Wilhelm Gesenius,\u00a0saraph<\/i>\u00a0corresponds to the\u00a0Sanskrit\u00a0Sarpa<\/i>\u00a0(Jawl aqra<\/i>), serpent;\u00a0sarpin<\/i>, reptile (from the root\u00a0srip, serpere<\/i>).\u00a0These \u201cburning serpents\u201d\u00a0infested the great and terrible place of the desert wilderness (Num.21:4-9; Deut.8:15). The Hebrew word for \u201cpoisonous\u201d literally means \u201cfiery\u201d, \u201cflaming\u201d or \u201cburning\u201d, as the burning sensation of a snake bite on human skin, a metaphor for the fiery anger of God (Numbers 11:1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The ancient Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, believed in a huge number of mythical<\/em> animals. For example,\u00a0Pliny the Elder<\/a> (AD 23\u201379), the Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher, wrote the 37-volume Naturalis Historia<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(Natural History<\/i>), which became an editorial model for\u00a0encyclopedias. Book 8, devoted to land animals, contained information about legendary creatures such as the\u00a0Manticore, Basilisk, and Werewolf<\/a>. He opined\u00a0about the second<\/a>:<\/p>\n It is produced in the province of\u00a0Cyrene, being not more than twelve fingers in length. It has a white spot on the head, strongly resembling a sort of a diadem. When it hisses, all the other serpents fly from it: and it does not advance its body, like the others, by a succession of folds, but moves along upright and erect upon the middle. It destroys all shrubs, not only by its contact, but those even that it has breathed upon; it burns up all the grass, too, and breaks the stones, so tremendous is its noxious influence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pliny was the first to describe a mythical animal called the\u00a0catoblepas<\/a>\u00a0\u201cas a mid-sized creature, sluggish, with a heavy head and a face always turned to the ground. He thought its gaze, like that of the\u00a0basilisk, was lethal, . . .\u201d\u00a0Herodotus<\/a>,\u00a0Ovid<\/a>, and\u00a0Virgil<\/a>\u00a0all wrote seriously about\u00a0werewolves<\/a>. Pliny \u201cdescribes the [phoenix<\/a>] as having a crest of feathers on its head\u201d and\u00a0\u00a0Tacitus<\/a>\u00a0thought its color \u201cmade it stand out from all other birds.\u201d<\/p>\n Jonathan Pearce and many atheists seem to assume that the Bible teaches similarly. It does\u00a0not<\/em>. The ancient Hebrews, being a far more sophisticated and advanced culture than the Greeks or Romans in this respect, did not<\/em><\/strong> believe in mythical animals, as has just been demonstrated. We see that yet another of the innumerable atheist bashings of the Bible is groundless.<\/p>\n For some curious reason, Jonathan never mentioned that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed in all these mythical animals (that doesn\u2019t fit the \u201cplan\u201d of his polemics, you see). All he can do is quote fringe Christian fundamentalists and pretend that they accurately pass along biblical teachings and represent mainstream Christianity. Shame on him.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit: <\/strong>Richard Wagner\u2019s opera Siegfried<\/em>; Siegfried slays the dragon. From the painting by Delitz;<\/span> The Victrola book of the opera : stories of one hundred and twenty operas with seven-hundred illustrations and descriptions of twelve-hundred Victor opera records<\/a> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Anti-theist atheist Jonathan MS Pearce sez that the Bible teaches the existence of (fire-breathing?) dragons who lived at the same time as man. Once again, he\u2019s wrong.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist anti-theist and \u201cphilosopher\u201d\u00a0Jonathan M. S. Pearce\u00a0runs the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under\u00a0a post dated 12-14-21:\u00a0\u201cI even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity \u2013 it\u2019s a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":63150,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[4121,2519,15825,9408,1043,745,258,2639,9137,1054,335,525,524,6519,1367,15831,15834,4107,15828],"class_list":["post-63108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","tag-a-tippling-philosopher","tag-alleged-biblical-contradictions","tag-animals-in-the-bible","tag-anti-christian-polemics","tag-anti-theism","tag-anti-theists","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-exegesis","tag-atheist-hermeneutics","tag-atheist-christian-dialogue","tag-atheists","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-contradictions-in-the-bible","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-dragons","tag-dragons-the-bible","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-mythical-animals"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n