Dinos and Humans in Europe

There are many historical records describing Dragons, what we know as dinosaurs, take a peek, if you dare.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nation09.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Historical records? And they use Geoffrey of Monmouth as a source? More fiction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not just Geoffrey.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are many tales of elves, fairies and pixies too, I guess they are real too.

 

Granted, but using Geoffrey at all speaks volumes for the level of reseach doesn't it?

 

What's wrong with Geoffrey's histories?

 

They're fabrications.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Geoffrey_of_Monmouth
Just google - he was discredited ages ago as a "serious" historian.

 

You don't know that they're fabrications, and there are many other sources there other than Geoffrey, so you're out o' luck.

 

Actually if you READ Geoffrey (as I did 30+ years ago) and then check with other, verified sources, plus commentaries on his work, you'll find that his work is a fabrication.
It was, among other things, a political work to establish a "line of descent" for our royalty...

 

*************
M*W: Religion is not the only topic I relate to astro-theology. The story of King Arthur (some say Arcturus, other say Great Bear constellation) that the story of King Arthur and the Holy Grail was also taken from the stars. The Holy Grail, of course, is represented by the Big Dipper. Then there are the Dragon stories (taken from Draco). The constellations, stars and planets were kind of like the first video games for ancient humans.

 

Yes, old British kings lists, prominently displayed in museums and castles until the 1600's in England, show the kings descent from Iafeth (Japheth) and Noa (Noah).

 

Uh, Med Woman, a bear is not a dragon (dinosaur), so maybe you should start your own thread about "Video Games of the Ancients."

 

Just as any other ruling class trying to justify its own existence. But there was no direct unbroken line from one king/ queen to the other. And those lists are aslo fictional... junior school history for us here.

 

Yeh, but you have Darwin on your money.

 

Nope we have genuine records (family histories) as well as the political fictions...

 

Some of you ilk Oli say that the kings' lists were to establish a heritage from the Jewish kings, and so, a God ordained status for the British kings, which is foolish, as the kings' lists trace through Japheth (Iafeth), not through Shem, who was the patriarch of the Jews.

 

It doesn't matter what the list states - it was set up to justify rule by king. It was, in fact, not an unbroken line from one king to another. A line from Jewish kings? When for I don't know how many hundreds of years we were swapping from Saxon to Norman to Viking to whoever else wandered in with sword and brand to take over? Right.

 

The foolish argument has been made that the British kings concocted the list to prove descent from the Jewish kings, and thus, divine right, but obviously, that is ridiculous because the kings' list do not trace through Shem, but through Japheth, so their motivation, which you espouse, is not reflected in their "fabrication." Get it?

 

So they made a mistake in their list - big news. Maybe Shem was politically a "non-person" at the time. Maybe they used Geoffrey as Monmouth as the source...
Government-motivated lists don't contain mistakes?
The list itself (and the reasoning behind it) was an unjustified, unfounded fabrication.

 

They had Bibles, they knew the truth, so trying to establish divine right could have been achieved by altering the list to include Shem rather than Japheth, but they didn't do that.