Sadly, I also have to agree that this article is inherently flawed. It shows not only a disrespect to textual criticism but also a blatant disregard to any type of historical accuracy. The text of Beowulf was obviously edited from its original form. The editors use varying syntax, dialect, and grammar, and it is quite clear that the particular choices they make when editing place them at a much later time period than the work was written. Even suggesting that this work is any sort of proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed is farcical and laughable. As a History and Literature teacher, I find it appalling that this article would be published on any website that considered itself credible.

Sadly, this article is deeply flawed by a lack of knowlege about Old English (Anglo-Saxon) and the manuscript/story itself. Case in point, medieval scholars all agree that the Christian elements (references to God, the devil, Adam, and Cain) were all added decades to centuries after the original story, probably by the monk who wrote it down. Also, the name "Beowulf" does not translate as "bee-wolf" but rather as "I am wolf" since beo is the first person, singular, present tense of the verb "to be." Based on this information, he was likely an ulfhethnar or wolf-coat (a member of a war band similar to berserkers). It should also be noted that Grendel is decidedly described as man-shaped, not serpentine, as is his mother.