Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Angrboda]

In the first case, what you have is some internet rando reinterpreting Norse legend.  In the same vein, if some internet weirdo referred to Mickey Mouse as a rat, that wouldn't bear any weight in establishing that Mickey Mouse was indeed a rat.  What is relevant is what the Norse who created the legends meant, and for that you need to bring evidence that the Norse had the concept of a dragon, a word for it in their language, and that they referred to Jormungandr in those terms in the original sagas.  Until you do, it's simply unknown whether Jormungandr was a dragon or not.  But given that you research everything in depth, the answers to these questions should already be in your notes on the matter.  I will await your enlightening me on this matter, as I simply do not know.

Nevermind.  Dragon is correct.  So all told you're 1 for 3 so far.  Still need to see evidence that Thor opposed the serpent because the serpent was angry, and that I am in fact a lady.

Oops. Belay that order.

dragon, n.

1. A huge serpent or snake; a python. Obsolete (except in etymological use).

Apparently, according to the OED, referring to Jormungandr as a dragon would be obsolete usage. I was under the impression that because the word dragon had the etymology of 'serpent' that this would make the modern word also mean serpent, but that's an example of the genetic fallacy and so the conclusion doesn't hold.

So you're back to 0 for 3.