With the new Jurassic world movie out I thought it be a nice time to talk about dinosaurs again. Some Christian communities of whom I will not name have latched onto the idea that dinosaurs were the direct inspiration for mythical dragons, and that stories of dragons are concrete proof that humans did once coexisted with dinosaurs. This I believe to be extremely erroneous based off all the evidence available.

To demonstrate my point, I will use the exact same evidence that some of cited as evidence of dinosaurs, and demonstrate the multiple ways that I and most biblical scholars disagree with the conclusion that these descriptions are a dinosaur. I will also do so by not citing evolution or the geologic timeline. Thus if one believes in a young earth, this evidence will be perfectly applicable to your world view, hopefully helping correct some statements I believe have been made by those who are misinformed or been misled.

In Paleontology, we establish connections between different species by observing the strata in which they are buried in, the location, and sometimes direct evidence of interaction. For instance finding a set of two footprints overlain each other, meaning they had to been set down in the same mud within a couple hours of one another, or finding that teeth of one predator leaving marks or pieces in a potential prey item, or possibly retaliatory strikes from such prey can all establish coexistence. For instance, we know Allosaurus lived in the same time and place as Stegosaurus because we have found teeth marks directly matching Allosaurus alone in the neck and dorsal plates of Stegosaurus, and the broken-off tip of a Stegosaurus tail spine stuck in an Allosaurus' groin. Yes, we actually have a hit-below-the-belt from a dinosaur.

We have not found any of this with dinosaurs and humans, with proposed evidence being so extremely vague it could be anything as well as, sadly, outright forgeries. Trust me when I say this, that there is not a single paleontologist, zoologist, or historian that would not be absolutely biting at the bit the prove at least some dinosaurs coexisted with man or persistent to the modern day. The accepted idea in science that this did not happen does not come out of Antitheism, in fact many paleontologists are people of faith. Dr. Robert T. Bakker is a world renown Paleontologists who helped revolutionize how dinosaurs are seen and studied, and he is also an ordained minister and Old Earth Christian. The guy that invented the theory of the geological timescale and provided evidence of an older earth, Dr. Charles Lyell, was a devout Christian his entire life. No, rejection of the idea humans and dinosaurs coexisted by mainstream science is not born out of hatred of religion, but rather because there is simply no testable evidence and science strictly deals with the physical word, not the metaphysical.

Such is the same conclusion between most biblical scholars. This is because the proposed evidence of dinosaurs as dragons does not hold up very well when one understands the context. Let me make myself as clear as I can. There is not a single animal described in the Bible that fits the description of a dinosaur. When Biblical authors professed to give historic witness to flesh and blood events, they tended to be reasonably accurate as to the happenings they observed. If one of them did see a dinosaur, we'd expect the description to be far different.

For a bit of reading material, I'd like to go over an easy to prove point. In the King James translated English Bible, the word "dragon" appears on average 34 times. Many of these times it is used as an adjective or descriptor, such as calling something like a dragon. However many times it could be seen as a normal creature. In total mention count some versions might have slightly more or slightly less depending on the translation. A vast majority of the time instances of dragon were translated words from other languages as the KJB has no singular source. The New Testament was translated from Greek which was translated from Hebrew, the Old Testament from Hebrew from Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin; all into English. In particular, the most common word is a Hebrew word often anglicized into 'Tannin' (but a closer phonetic match is 'Tahneen').

Tannin was actually a word of multiple meaning in Hebrew, with the root word meaning something that hisses and thrashes or coils in movement. It should be known Hebrew classification of animals was based much less on observable relation or similar traits and instead based off behaviors and in the case of consumable species, if they were clean to eat. This is already observable in causing hiccups in the English translations as some animals would have been unfamiliar to the early 1600s. Of the 47 scholars who worked on the King James Bible, all of them were English and few had ever even left England. Medieval bestiaries were loaded with erroneous facts one can even see in the modern day. The leopard is called such because it was believed to be the hybrid offspring of a lion (leo) and cheetah (originally called a Pard), of which it most certainly is not. Before the publishing of Buffon's "Histoire Naturelle" volumes in 1749 to 1804, which contained lifelike woodcuts and depictions of exotic wildlife, most Europeans only had a vague idea of what lived outside of their continent. One of many examples of species getting shuffled about is in Habakkuk 1:8, in which the word leopard is used on context to the swiftness of a group of horses. Leopards are quick, but only in a short burst of speed as they lack the stature lions and tigers do to maintain a sprint with long strides. They are not faster than horses which makes it seem odd the horses would be called fast if they were only as fast as something slower than them (leopard top speed is 30-36mph in a sprint, a horse can gallop that fast and sprint at over 45-55mph). They are also rare in the area mentioned as it was a large open habitat, whereas leopards are typically found in wooded areas. Instead the original Hebrew word used "namer" was almost certainly referring to a cheetah, an animal unfamiliar to English scholars at the time outside of, again, poorly informed bestiaries.

Tannin in the Hebrew thus does not mean just one type of animal in fact it doesn't just mean an animal. Tannin was also a name for a Canaanite deity whom had a serpentine body. By using the name for the deity in an insulting manner to describe animals who were trodden upon and slithered rather than walked, it was actually a stealthy insult towards the Canaanites whom were often adversaries to the ancient Hebrews.

Later on, it began to be chiefly used to describe flesh and blood animals and in modern Hebrew, tannin means "crocodile". This is why some of the older books use the word 'Tannin'/Dragon in a insulting, almost demonic manner, but later books use it simply as an animal's species name. Keep in mind the books of the Old Testament especially were written down at different dates and then compiled together into the Torah, with Job is the oldest known of written record and books such as Ester and Malachi being much younger, with the full compilation of the written word into one form much after many of the numerous books had been in the oral Torah and their own separate volumes. Much the same, when tannin is used in older books, it seems more mythic as it was a reference to a rival culture's deity. Later on it is far more mundane.

Every instance in which "dragon" was "tannin" in Hebrew, I will mark it with an *. I'd also like to note again, tannin specifically means animals that slither or thrash about on the ground. Dinosaurs, which walked with straight legs no different than a mammal or bird, didn't do this. Describing a dinosaur as "tannin" is about as sensible as calling an ox a snake.

Deuteronomy 32:33
Their wine is the poison of dragons*, and the cruel venom of asps.

"Dragons" (tannin) are associated with venom. Venom requires specialized skulls, glands, and delivery mechanisms (often hollow fangs) to use and no dinosaur has ever been found with such. There was one dinosaur suggested to have venom, Sinornithosaurus, but this was largely disproven and even if it was the animal in question was venomous as the one featured here, the reptilian word 'tannin' would be the last word they'd use to describe it given it looked and behaved nothing like a reptile. Instead the direct association with asps, a type of small viper, indicates this is a venomous reptile the Hebrews were familiar with and there are over a dozen species of venomous snakes ranging from cobras to vipers present in the region.

Job 30:29
I am a brother to dragons*, and a companion to owls.

Our speaker is comparing himself to animals the Hebrew audience would loathe. Owls were seen as omens of violence and death, with the old and modern words for the bird, yaanah, being derived from the words for "To violently assault" or "threat with violence". Hebrew words for animals are often based off what that animal does, and most predators are described based on the fact they dispatch or process prey. Tannin here is likely a slam on the Canaanite deity as the speaker is describing himself as a threat and horrid person. He isn't describing himself as something great and powerful like we often think when we hear the word 'dragon' or else he would have used another animal besides an owl to compare himself to. There were small dinosaurs as well, but they still don't fit the passage's context of using the word 'tannin'.

Psalms 74:13
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons* in the waters.

This passage specifically talks about God destroying Tannin is a very obvious jab at the rival religion as God is specifically stated to be breaking multiple heads whereas the word Tannin used here is singular. In other words one body, multiple heads. Animals in nature with multiple heads almost never survive past infancy so this is a spiritual victory of God over the false deity of a rival civilization to show the Hebrew God is mighty. Also there were no dinosaurs that lived in the sea and if an ancient observer saw a marine reptile such as a Mosasaurus or Plesiosaurus, not only would it only have one head, it wouldn't look appropriate for the label of tannin.

Psalms 91:13
Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon* shalt thou trample under feet.

This is a case of the English translation fudging a label. The first part of the passage uses the word "pethen", which was correctly translated to "adder". However the following sentence used "tannin" and it ends up as "dragon", making us go from a snake and young lion to a young lion and Smaug from The Hobbit. Tannin is a more general term than pethen, but all pethen are tannin. We see the same transition in the feline. The first instance uses the word "shachal", which means lion. The second instance however uses "kephir", which can still mean lion, but it can mean young felines in general like how we would say "kitten" or "cub". Both times the more specific use is used first, then the more general label is used as a bit of wordplay as Hebrew writing dislikes repeated words. A more correct translation, offered in some Bibles is, "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young cub and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet."

Also the instance of treading upon the "tannin" emphasizes it is not always a large animal like we might think of when we think dragon.

Isaiah 27:1
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon* that is in the sea.

Tannin again, tell a friend. I'll get to Leviathan/Livyatan, but once again, the serpent is used to emphasize the animal slithers. In this case as an aquatic animal, it slithers through the water. I will note the reference to Livyatan is one of the extremely few times tannin implies anything powerful. Why? Because it was the name of a member to an opposing religion's pantheon. Why dignify your enemy with anything resembling a compliment to power and strength? It be like the USA naming a battleship after Bin Laden. Livyatan is used as an exception as although it is "tannin" and exceptionally powerful, Job makes it clear it is subservient to and another creation of God. Thus the comparison basically amounts to "My God is bigger than your false one, so much so your deity's name is its pet".

Isaiah 34:13
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons*, and a court for owls.

Once again, someone is being given negative characteristics by comparing them to seemingly despicable animals through wordplay. By saying the court would be for owls, it is stating any company kept would be dangerous and threatening. Tannin carried a similar negative connotation for reasons described above. If taken literally, briar patches and nettles so thick it is compared to a fortress is hardly suitable habitat for a dinosaur. A snake however, which can slither and slide between the thorns, would be of fine "habitation".

Isaiah 35:7
And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons*, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

Something that inhabits watering holes, springs, and lays amongst reeds and rushes of water. Here my friend, is your dragon and it is a powerful beast to be sure, but I don't think this is the reptile you are looking for if you seek dinosaurs.

Whilst crocodiles are not snakes, the label of "tannin" still works as it is used to describe the animal's actions and general appearance, not specifics. While crocodiles do not slither on land, they do through water as well as leave sliding marks on the banks of rivers and water locales they inhabit. Fossil trackways show dinosaurs did not do this.

Isaiah 43:20
The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons* and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Notice how tannin and owls are so often used as an insulting bit of wordplay. Hebrew does this extremely commonly. And in this case, the declaration is cast not to literal beasts, but the context of the passage which is talking about gentile nations one day honoring the God of the Hebrews through the process of time converting them and the sacrifice of Christ. More here.

Isaiah 51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou, not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon*?

Lots of tannin' going around here, must be a sunbathing season. Anyways the passage is referring to Egypt, something not lost on other translations which blatantly call Rahab the "Dragon of the Nile". It's a reference to the God of the Hebrew's enemies and the dragon was a metaphor for the pharaoh. If one wishes to take it as a literal animal, the tannin of the Nile is a very adept description of a Nile crocodile. It can also be additional wordplay as crocodiles were valued in Egyptian culture for their strength and power, which shows how powerful the God of the Hebrews is by wounding someone so easily who is associated with crocodiles. (See Ezekiel 29:3 for a repeat of this statement)

Jeremiah 9:11
And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons*; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.

If one takes this as a literal description, "tannin" referenced here live in dens. Dinosaurs largely did not burrow, with only one genus (Oryctodromeus) being known to do possibly do so and it did not live in Mesopotamia nor did it look anything like a snake or crocodile, thus the word "tannin" makes no sense. By comparison, snakes, lizards, and crocodilians can all burrow. Numerous snakes especially are very adept burrowers, with the species Atractaspis engaddensis or the Israeli Burrowing Asp being both in the right region and having the exact right behavior. What the passage is saying is that Jerusalem will be desiccated so much humans will no longer inhabit it and it will become habitat for dangerous venomous snakes so no one may wish to return.

Jeremiah 10:22
Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons*.

See above.

Jeremiah 49:33
And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons*, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

Ditto. Saying a region will be the habitat of dangerous snakes was an insult to be repeated to emphasize it.

Jeremiah 51:34
Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon*, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out.

While this is obviously a metaphor, I was going to point out as it emphasizes that tannin guzzle their food. The wordplay implies they do not rip chunks off their food and then swallow it like most predators do. Instead, they guzzle it whole. Dinosaurs didn't do this. We have multiple teeth marks on multiple prey animals of both attacks and scavenging instances the proof this. Theropods stripped the flesh off the carcass, much like predatory mammals or birds because they had limbs long enough to manipulate the food with and pull pieces off. Monitor lizards and snakes, two animals that fit the description of "tannin" much better, largely swallowed their food whole. Hence a Hebrew audience, familiar with how a snake or large lizard eats, would understand the comparison. If Nebuchadnezzar devoured someone like an Allosaurus, he'd be pinning them down under his foot and biting off chunks he pulled off with his teeth.

Jeremiah 51:37
And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place for dragons*, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.

Because one good insult demands repetition to get the point across.

Ezekiel 29:3
Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon* that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

Once again, dragon is used metaphorically as a statement about the Pharaoh of Egypt. Moreover, the reference to the tannin of the river and Egyptian culture brings forth the Nile crocodile. God is stating the Pharaoh of Egypt, who may be mighty like a crocodile, holds no ownership over creation (the river), that is God's. Moreover, it is also stating that the crocodiles the Pharaoh might claim represent his power are God's creations as well. Any might such powerful beasts have is not because of the Pharaoh nor for him, but because their Creator endowed them with such.

Micah 1:8
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.

This is noteworthy as the Hebrew word, "misped", which means "to sob and mourn" was translated as "wailing" or "howling". If you want to know where the idea of "tannin/dragon = jackal" came from, it's here. It's likely because the sound associated with owls, "Ebel" had already been translated as mourning when in Hebrew they mean different types of sounds. Sharp hissing sounds, similar to one who is sobbing while mourning, are common in serpents, large lizards, and crocodiles. By comparison, dinosaurs vocalizations are increasingly being understood as being far different than the movies portray.

While there is nothing here to outright rule out a dinosaur, the constant use of tannin in a company with owls mirrors other scripture in which the tannin in question much more closely matches a snake or lizard.

All further mentions of "dragon" in the King James translated Bible are either repeated metaphors I already went over, or passages from Revelation in which the dragon is clearly not a flesh and blood animal but a monster of demonic nature.

Bravo! Glad to see another essay, very interesting examples!

WOW....Just wow...You have destroyed the notion that dinos are 'dragons' in its entirety.

6502085
Actually it's funny you mention that. The English word "Dragon" comes from the Greek word "Drakon" which simply means "large or dangerous snake". The entire concept of the huge; Medieval dragon actually is a relatively modern concept. Take for instance the story of Saint George, of whom we typically think of this-

However, the actual Early Medieval artwork does not show this.

The earliest depictions of dragons actually never depict them as flying or having fire breath. The flying comes from the old meaning of the word 'flight', which simply meant "to move quickly". When Gandalf yells at the Fellowship to run from the Balrog or Joseph and Mary departed to Egypt to escape Herod, the references to "Fly you fools!" and "Flight to Egypt" don't literally mean to get airborne. Additionally the earliest associations with dragons call them poisonous, not fiery. The earliest references to fire say it as "Spit of fire", which means it's saliva burns like fire. In other words, it's venomous.

So, here's a dragon for ye'.

And many times dragons are referenced to be associated with water and spend time in rivers. These references are curiously devoid of fire references. A quasi-canon story called the Gospel of Psuedo-Matthew even has a reference to dragons stalking a cave on the edge of the river when Mary, Joseph, and a young Jesus were fleeing to Egypt and this happens.

And, lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.
-- The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18

The location, river habitat, and living in caves or dens dug out of the riverside make it abundantly clear the dragons in question are Nile Crocodiles. At up to 20 feet long, these beasts are effectively spear, arrow, and sword proof and would be a terrifying creature to antagonize.

Historic records even show one such beast was almost certainly Dieudonné's slain dragon, of which it was very well documented and you can read of here.
https://www.journeygreece.com/stories/story-tale-knight-dragon/

6502081
My pleasure
The basic truth is if the Biblical authors were witness to dinosaurs, they wouldn't have described them the way they do. And such authors are fully capable of such details on the natural world as the habits of lions, song of certain birds, and a lovely description of an elephant (Behemoth) are all included in that good ol' book. And given how unique and amazing some dinosaurs looked with ornamentation like bright colors, feathers, crests, horns, and distinctive calls such detail wouldn't be lost in such an awed audience. A raptor would look more like a giant hawk with shark teeth and a long tail, how would such a figure be not mentioned in detail and be slapped with the generic "dragon" label? Simple fact is they wouldn't. Contrary to Jurassic Park, most dinosaurs didn't really look that reptilian.

If you'd like some more information on dragons being everyday reptiles, check here-
https://www.fimfiction.net/group/1565/christian-bronies/thread/365975/dragons-in-the-bible-dinosaurs#comment/6502113

6501972
Oh come on, if you've been paying attention then you know that dragons are winged, fire breathing, English speaking, bipeds, some of whom have a penchant for hanging around with violet coloured alicorns, or drooling about white unicorns when they aren't busy eating gems, moulting, or running o&o sessions.

6502171
Last I checked they were also all named Puff

6502206
Y'know there might be some truth to that. In Sikhism last names were done away in order to defeat the cast system, and all Sikh men were given the last name "Singh" (lion) while all women were called "Kaur" (Princess). Still are, actually. It would be an interesting speculation if something like that had occurred among the dragons (hey if Ponies can do weird things that end up summoning Windigos then Dragons can have their own history of issues that needed dealing with...). Thus we would get Spike Puff, or Garbel Puff, Smoulder Puff, even "Ember Puff; Queen of the Dragons!". And given how wacky MLP is it might even be possible. I know, it's not your original point, but this is an MLP forum too, and such silly speculations are fun, and might even be the stuff of future fanfics...