Talk:VenomMyotismon

Second Beast of Revelation and Abaddon
So, where did you get the info that VenomMyotismon's design was derived from the Second Beast of Revelation and Abaddon?RERU Kareru (talk) 05:55, October 30, 2013 (UTC)K.R.
 * Abaddon is the angel of the bottomless pit and the plague of demonic locusts (which resemble Venom in a few details), and the Second Beast is the one associated with 666. 19:21, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 666 is actually associated with the First Beast of Revelation. Can you explain how VenomMyotismon resembles Abaddon. I don't see how a demon of demonic locust is associated with VenomMyotismon.RERU Kareru (talk) 02:28, October 31, 2013 (UTC)K.R.
 * It has the lower half of a beast (lion) and an upper half with a beetle-like shell (locust and iron breastplate), it has hair like a woman, wings, and the "Venom" part of its name and abilities is easier to explain if it's a reference to the scorpion part of the demonic locusts. It is the king of these locusts, and Abaddon is the angel or personification of the land of the dead -- fitting for the "Undead King". In addition, the lines talking about Abaddon talk about how the sky was darkened by smoke from the abyss, similar to how the Venom prophecy states "The sky will be darkened by the wings of many bats."
 * As for the beast, there's the 666 thing, and that the prophecy specifically calls him the beast. Ogudomon explicitly is the first beast, "out of the sea" and with seven heads/ten crowns. The bit about being wounded but healing is similar to Vamdemon, as well as the feet of the bear, but otherwise not much similarity. Instead of the sea, we see Venom rise from the earth, and he has two horns like a lamb, but also has a voice like a vicious dragon. Finally, while the "mark of the beast" references the number of the first beast, the second beast is the one who causes the people to receive the mark, as Venom did with forcing his victims to chant for him. 14:15, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Koro (^_^). I think his lower half is more like a horse rather than a lion, as with the locusts of Abaddon. I think his teeth look are similar that of a lion. Where can I find in Revelation the part where "Abaddon talk about how the sky was darkened by smoke from the abyss?" In "It is the king of these locusts" are you referring to VenomMyotismon and are the locusts bats? I think about how the Second Beast of Revelation speaks like a dragon is how he is good with lying, because the Devil is also called "the Father of Lies." VenomMyotismon seems to be a combination of the two Beast, because he has lion's teeth, bear feet, he (false prophet) caused his victims to chant to him (First Beast) or he is the image of the Beast.RERU Kareru (talk) 09:23, November 1, 2013 (UTC)K.R.
 * Abaddon is the king of those locusts; my analysis of how the design draws direction from Abaddon is in having elements reminiscent of those locusts (Abaddon himself is not given a good description, so modern fantasy usually depicts him as a locust monster). Causing the victims to call on the beast would be the beast of the earth, actually, and his physical form, beyond the bear feet, is not very reminiscent of the beast of the sea; see Ogudomon for that, who is a very literal depiction of that beast, even more than Venom is for either of them.
 * http://biblehub.com/revelation/9-2.htm

Attacks
DMO, and the cards. No, except for Tyrant Savage. But how about Kimeramon's Heat Viper attack it was depicted as an attack that came from its mouth, in the anime, but it is also written in the cards that its attack came from its arms. So, should I remove that info from the list of Kimeramon's attacks? RERU Kareru (talk) 14:07, October 31, 2013 (UTC)K.R.
 * DMO has Venom Infusion and Chaos Flame. Venom Infusion already has an official description from the Digimon Reference Book, so it's fine. As for the cards: unless the card art explicitly says the action being depicted is a specific attack, then we don't assume that it's whichever attack we feel fits best; furthermore, the cards you cited don't depict any actions at all, so I'm very confused about what the source for your attack descriptions was. For Kimeramon, the cards are not the basis of the attack description -- again, it's the Digimon Reference Book. 14:15, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. m(v_v)m I used Wikimon for the sources. Can I add the information about Chaos Flame?RERU Kareru (talk) 09:23, November 1, 2013 (UTC)K.R.
 * Just remember not to rely on fansites for sources. You can use them to say "hey, I don't remember seeing that on the wiki, I should confirm it!", but you always have to check the original sources before posting info to the wiki.
 * Chaos Flame should be okay, as long as you make it clear whether you are describing what you personally see, or what the official description of the attack is. 13:49, November 1, 2013 (UTC)