bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
It was pointed out on Twitter today that, in the Septuagint of Exodus 7:9, Aaron's rod turned into a dragon, not a serpent.
Big, if true!
Big, if true!
A Dragon, Not a Serpent?
- Thread starter bookslover
- Start date
- Status
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
In Numbers they were flying fire snakes.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
In Isaiah 27:1, the serpent and Leviathan and the serpent/dragon used in Exodus 7 all appear to be the same animal, or something similar. And in Deuteronomy 32:33, the serpent/dragon is used in parallel with a cobra or asp. It makes me suspect "dragon" might not always the best way to translate the word. What do the experts say?
And even it if is best translated "dragon," what were you thinking the ramifications are? Connections to the dragon in Revelation, perhaps? I think we can safely connect many Old Testament appearances of serpents to that dragon anyway. Or were you thinking there are ramifications in the world of biology?
And even it if is best translated "dragon," what were you thinking the ramifications are? Connections to the dragon in Revelation, perhaps? I think we can safely connect many Old Testament appearances of serpents to that dragon anyway. Or were you thinking there are ramifications in the world of biology?
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
There is a type of snake (recorded by Herodotus) in Egypt that was known to "fly" through the air.
Sounds like these were serpents that would leap from an upper place and glide to a lower place.
Such snakes exist today in SE Asia.
(The "fiery" is a reference to the effect of their bite; i.e., venom that increases body temperature rapidly. Still common.)
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
Dragon is used (most often?) when describing the overwhelming destructive nature of Satan. I.e., it is a description of a serpent envisaged large and monster-like. Given the nature of the empire-beasts (of Daniel, Rv), the description of Satan as a destructive dragon (fire breathing) brings to mind the imagery of a dinosaur like monster.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
There are a number of questions here that deserve a fuller answer than I have time for. I think a couple of different Hebrew words may be being conflated here: nachash and tannin. There are challenges of overlapping semantic range (snake, serpent, crocodile, sea monster, supernaturally evil creature), as well as the issues of a homonym tannin that means "jackal". Then there are issues of denotation and connotation (even if we convey the denotation of a word correctly [e.g. the right "biological creature"] does the word have the same connotation for us that it had for the original readers? For example, is it better to translate nachash as "snake" in Genesis 3 or "serpent"? The former is certainly defensible linguistically but it could be argued that the latter fits better given the creature's role as a Satanic messenger.
Likewise, in Genesis 1:21 tanninim is translated as "great sea creatures" (ESV) or "great whales" (KJV). But neither of these is remotely threatening to modern readers in the way that tanninim would have been to the original audience. Yet if we translate "great sea monsters" (or "sea dragons") then modern people would assume that Genesis 1 is talking about fictional events, not the real universe in which we live. Did I mention that translation is hard?
Likewise, in Genesis 1:21 tanninim is translated as "great sea creatures" (ESV) or "great whales" (KJV). But neither of these is remotely threatening to modern readers in the way that tanninim would have been to the original audience. Yet if we translate "great sea monsters" (or "sea dragons") then modern people would assume that Genesis 1 is talking about fictional events, not the real universe in which we live. Did I mention that translation is hard?
- Status
