Ol' translation proven true after all!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Well, it aint a horse-like critter as KJ depicted on his coat-of-arms.
     
  3. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want to know what kind of music his 'band' plays...
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    That does not look like the unicorn of which there was a picture in the 1611 edition of the KJV.


    The Oxford English Dictionary noted that the unicorn is “usually depicted heraldically as having the head, neck, and body of a horse, the legs of a deer and tail of a lion, with a straight and spirally twisted horn growing out of the forehead” (XIX, p. 56).

    The title page of the 1616 edition of The Works of the most High and Mighty Prince, James included the typical head of a unicorn as pictured in English heraldry and in the Royal Coat of Arms. Dore pointed out that the 1616 folio edition of the KJV published by Barker has a picture of an unicorn (Old Bibles, p. 336). Herbert also confirmed that the 1616 KJV edition had a picture of an unicorn (Historical Catalogue, p. 196). Herbert also noted that the 1648 KJV edition has the "royal arms with lion and unicorn," and that before the book of Genesis it has a woodcut of Adam and Eve, with lion on one side and unicorn on the other (p. 196). The 1611 edition of the KJV has the royal coat of arms that includes an unicorn. It was King James I of England who introduced the unicorn into the British royal coat of arms. Arnold Whittick maintained that James IV of Scotland first used the unicorn in his Royal Coat of Arms and that “when James VI of Scotland became I of England, he substituted the white unicorn of Scotland for the red dragon of Wales as the sinister supporter, and it has remained there ever since” (Symbols, p. 343). Whittick observed: “With the union of England and Scotland under James I, the lion remained on the dexter side, guardant with a gold crown, and on the sinister side the white unicorn of Scotland was introduced” (p. 25).
     
  5. Danger Dog

    Danger Dog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just like the evolution debate, science will one day possibly catch up with FAITH in the truth of the KJV, the preserved Word of God to every generation!
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Truth is, THERE AINT NO UNICORNS!

    But again, we can't hold that against the KJV makers. they had no reason to doubt the unicorn's existence. After all, their KING had one depicted on his coat-of-arms.

    And the KJV is but ONE VERSION of God's preserved word, and it's NOT to every generation. There were lotsa generations before 1611, and there've been quite a few other English versions made since then.
     
  7. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    A mutated deer is not a unicorn....
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Right. It aint yer daddy's uny-korn!
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In volume one of his commentary on the Book of Psalms, Peter Ruckman seems to suggest that the horse-like animal pictured in the 1611 edition of the KJV in the Royal Coat-of-arms is the animal meant by the rendering "unicorn" in the KJV.

    Concerning Psalm 22:21, Peter Ruckman wrote: "I read about 'chariots and horses of FIRE' in 2 Kings two times (chap. 2:11 and 6:17). If a horse can be composed of fire, can't he have a horn? Why are all the unicorns WHITE? It is WHITE HORSES that show up at the Advent, and if they were in heaven with one horn each, then God would have heard CHRIST FROM THE THIRD HEAVEN--from 'the horns of the unicorns.'" (Vol. 1, p. 136).
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    On the other hand, concerning Job 39:9-12 in his commentary on the book of Job, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Now the animal in question has a ‘single horn’ (unicorn, vs. 9) which is probably a reference to something like a rhinoceros” (p. 582). Ruckman wrote: “You don’t find many tame rhinoceroses eating out of a crib (vs. 9) after plowing a field (vs. 10)“ (p. 584).
     
  11. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    I think this shows the folly of contending for an inspired translation. The Hebrew being translated "unicorn" is "re'em" Sometimes the Hebrew translators left it untranslated beause they didn't know to which creature it referred. That it refers to a real animal is clear from the text. But what kind of animal? A mythical unicorn?

    Hardly.

    From an article on AiG,

    "Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox."

    They also wrote later,

    There is a way of showing from the KJV itself that the translation of the Hebrew re’em as ‘unicorn’ is incorrect. In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses speaks a blessing on the descendants of Joseph, saying, ‘In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are like the horns of a wild ox (Heb: re’em). With them he will push the peoples …’.

    The KJV translation says: ‘His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people … .’

    The simile is appropriate if the reference is to the aurochs or wild ox, because they had huge, long horns. However, the main point here is the dilemma for the KJV translators who had elsewhere determined that the re’em was a unicorn.

    In the Hebrew of this passage, the word ‘horns’ is plural, but the word re’em is singular. But if they translated it this way, it would read, ‘His horns are like the horns of a unicorn’, which would give a unicorn more than one horn, obviously a contradiction in terms. The KJV translators clearly recognized the inconsistency in comparing the pair of horns (plural) on a bull with the single horn on a unicorn, because they took the liberty in their translation to make the unicorn plural (see the marginal note in the KJV, which makes this clear). However, it needs to be stressed again that the word is not plural in the Hebrew. Unless one grants an English translation authority over the original Hebrew, this is a once-and-for-all indication that the re’em could not be a one-horned creature.

    Note that in Modern Hebrew, re’em also means wild ox.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
     
  12. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox."

    That is called "blowing smoke".

    Scholars are prone to make their point in the strongest possible terms. When they say "highly likely" that indicates that there is simply no proof of the proposition. If there were any evidence at all they would say "certainly".
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2


    Concerning the word unicorn, the 1895 Sunday School Teachers' Bible pointed out: "The LXX translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves." McClintock also observed that this text "puts a one-horned animal entirely out of the question" and that one of its scriptural characteristics is "having two horns" (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 638). The unabridged Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary noted at its entry unicorn: "in the Bible, a two-horned, oxlike animal called reem in Hebrew: Deut. 33:17" (p. 1998). Since the Hebrew word reem is singular at Deuteronomy 33:17, Unger's Bible Dictionary and Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible also noted that "the reem had more than one horn" (p. 66; Hastings, IV, p. 834). The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible also confirmed that the Biblical animal "was 2-horned (Deut. 33:17), where the word is singular, and not plural, as in A. V.)" (p. 617).
    The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible also referred to the animal's "2 horns (Deut. 33:17)" as "its outstanding characteristic" (I, p. 114). Likewise, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary asserted that the reem had “two horns” (p. 714). The People’s Dictionary of the Bible also noted that “the passages mentioning it, correctly understood, require an animal with two horns” (p. 210). Based on this same verse, Cansdale pointed out that "there is no possibility of it [the reem] referring to a one-horned animal" (All the Animals, p. 82). Concerning this verse, Tristram maintained that “nothing could prove more clearly than this passage that the ‘unicorn’ was a two-horned animal” (Natural History, p. 146). At Numbers 23:22, Ellicott’s Commentary has a note that affirms that Deuteronomy 33:17 indicates “that the reem had more than one horn” (I, p. 546). Granbery also described this animal as “having two horns” (Bible Dictionary, p. 396). In his 1848 Bible (KJV) and Commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: "Reem is in the singular number, and because the horns of a unicorn, a one-horned animal, would have appeared absurd, our [KJV] translators, with an unfaithfulness not common to them, put the word in the plural number" (I, p. 834).

    Following the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate or both, the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops') all had unicorn [singular] at Deuteronomy 33:17. The 1569 Spanish Bible and 1602 Spanish Valera had unicornio [singular] at this verse. The 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural. Either the 1762 Cambridge standard KJV edition or the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition added the following marginal note for the word unicorns: “Hebrew an unicorn.” Other KJV editions that had marginal notes such as the 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, and 1885 Oxford editions, the 1853 American Bible Society standard edition, the 1769, 1844, 1872, 1887, and the 2005 Cambridge editions, and the 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible have this same marginal note at this verse. This marginal note in standard editions of the KJV affirms with the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1602 Spanish Valera, and the 1657 English translation of the Dutch that the Hebrew word was singular in number. There is a plural form for this Hebrew word, which was not used at this verse (Deut. 33:17). The number of the Hebrew word at this verse is the same as its number at Numbers 23:22 [singular]. In his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster defined an as “one; noting an individual, either definitely known, certain, specified, or understood; or indefinitely, not certain, known, or specified.” Webster noted that “an, a and one, are the same word, and always have the same sense.” Webster’s New Twentieth-Century Dictionary noted that a is “an abbreviation of Anglo-Saxon an or ane” with the meaning “one.” Therefore, “an” unicorn has the same meaning or sense as “one” unicorn, affirming that the Hebrew word is singular in number.

    When another English translation changes a noun that is singular in number in the KJV to a plural, it is claimed that this type change is "diabolical dynamic equivalency" and is "not accuracy in translation." For example, D. A. Waite listed several such examples as claimed dynamic equivalencies in his booklet concerning the NKJV (see pages 22-25 in The NKJV compared to KJV). In formal equivalence, Gail Riplinger maintained that “a singular is carried over as a singular” (In Awe, p. 270). According to a consistent application of the KJV-only view's own reasoning, was the KJV wrong to change a singular to a plural at this verse?

    The context of the verse in Deuteronomy also supports the view that this animal had more than one horn. In the context, the “them” of this verse refers back to “horns.“ William Houghton observed: "The two horns of the reem are 'the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh'--the two tribes which sprang from one, i.e. Joseph, as two horns from one head" (Hacket, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 3351). Likewise, Tristram commented: “For the two horns of the reem are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and the thousands of Manasseh, both growing out of one head, Joseph. This, then, entirely sets aside the fancy that the rhinoceros, which the Jews could scarcely have known, or any one-horned creature, is intended” (Natural History, p. 146). Wiley noted that "the emblem of Joseph was the re'em; and his two powerful sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were typified by two horns" (Bible Animals, p. 429). T. E. Espin asserted that the “tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh are represented by the two mighty horns of the beast” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 743). Ellicott’s Commentary mentioned “the two-horned power of Joseph” (II, p. 94). The Companion Bible [KJV] suggested that the “horns” are “put by figure Metonymy” for Ephraim and Manasseh (p. 287). These observations concerning the context are in agreement with another verse (Num. 14:4) which stated: “For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim“.
     
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Logos1560 thank you for your excellent post, of which I highlighted just two statements. This KJV rendering at Deut. 33:17 (and there are others, but it only takes one) leave us only two possible options from which to choose: either the KJV was divinely re-inspired (allowing for such a change), or it is just another good translation (but not perfect) among the many English versions.
     
    #14 franklinmonroe, Jun 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2008
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Hmm, I wonder if Dr Ruckman has been reading the Douay Rheims:

    Douay:
    Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty as of the firstling of a bullock, his horns as the horns of a rhinoceros: with them shall he push the nations even to the ends of the earth. These are the multitudes of Ephraim and these the thousands of Manasses.​

    Which is a translation of a translation : The Latin Vulgate:​

    Deuteronomy 33:17 quasi primogeniti tauri pulchritudo eius cornua rinocerotis cornua illius in ipsis ventilabit gentes usque ad terminos terrae hae sunt multitudines Ephraim et haec milia Manasse​


    HankD​
     
    #15 HankD, Jun 24, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The reprint copy of one volume of the 1610 Douay Old Testament entitled The Original and True Douay Old Testament edited by William von Peters and printed by Lulu Press has "his horns the horns of an unicorn" at Deut. 33:17. Perhaps it was changed in the later revisions of the Douay. This claimed 1610 Douay edition has "whose strength is like to the unicorn" at Numbers 23:22, but has "whose strength is like to the rhinoceros" at Numbers 24:8.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Thanks Logos1560.

    Interesting, I have a 1962 Confraternity Challoner-Rheims which has "wild-ox" at Deuteronomy 33:17 and "wild-bull" at Numbers 24:8.

    The "rhinoceros" of Deuteronomy 33:17 is from the 1899 Douay-Rheims American Edition.


    HankD
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Numbers 23:22

    KJV - unicorn
    1962 Challoner-Rhiems - wild bull
    1899 Douay-Rheims - rhinoceros
    Vulgate - rinocerotis

    1884 Darby
    Numbers 23:22 God brought him out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a buffalo.

    HankD​
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    God is bringing them out from Egypt, As the swiftness of a Reem is to him;
    from Young's Literal
     
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Edward Topsell published The History of Four-footed Beasts in 1607; it was reprinted in 1658 bound together with his The History of Serpents (released alone in 1608). Topsell's books would have been well known to the king's revisors and the English-reading public. He has a entry for "Unicorn" and an illustration (which appears as the classic horse-like creature). There is no doubt that this is the precise creature intended by the KJV translators (since they took no action to avoid it), and the image evoked in the KJV readers' minds during the 17th century and beyond.
     
    #20 franklinmonroe, Jun 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...