Uni-corny unicorn

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Dec 20, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The KJV translators had no reason to not believe unicorns existed. And I'm not referring to anyting except the horse-like creature with one spiraled horn in its forehead. While its existence cannot be 100% ruled out, it's about as likely to have existed as the centaur or Pan, the half-man, half-goat demigod of the Romans.

    When King James took the British throne, his royal coat-of-arms from Scotland had a unicorn upon it, while the British royal COA had a lion standing upon its back feet in a belligerent pose. KJ made a new COA with both the lion and the unicorn depicted upon it.

    Here's a URL for the current British COA:

    http://www.fleurdelis.com/royal.htm

    While we cannot fault the AV translators for rendering the Hebrew re'em as 'unicorn', the KJVOs certainly cannot fault later Bible versions for saying 'wild ox'. Any Jew proficient in Hebrew will tell you that re'em has no specific definition, that it could be almost any large, powerful wild animal with a horn or horns. To me, it isn't much of an issue to use to show the KJVOs that the KJV isn't perfect. There are many far-better arguments based upon solid, undeniable evidence to prove the KJVOs wrong.

    However, for the KJVO who insists 'unicorn' is correct and 'wild ox' is wrong, I can show you a wild ox...But can YOU show ME a unicorn? There's no mistaking that the AV men had the unicorn depicted on the royal COA in mind when they wrote'unicorn'. They did NOT mean 'rhino' or any other animal not native to England or Israel.
     
  2. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK,how about this?

    [​IMG]


    Job 39:10-11.Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?


    Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?



    That is if you believe the Biblical account of creation;and that they got OFF the ark after the flood.

    What sayeth ye??
     
  3. chipsgirl

    chipsgirl
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    You raise a good point there Slambo.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1611 reprints by Thomas Nelson and Hendrickson
    do not have the royal coat of arms and the several pages of Genealogies of Holy Scriptures
    that were in the original edition of the 1611.
    The 1611 reprint by Greyden Press and also available from www.greatsite.com has the royal coat of arms with the unicorn on p. xli across from the page with the names and order of all the books of the Old and New Testament.

    A. S. Herbert also noted that the 1616 KJV edition had a picture of an unicorn and 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" (HISTORICAL CATALOGUE OF PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 196).
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not really. The Hebrew word r'em (translated in the KJV as "unicorn") referrs to a bull. The parasauroloph does not remotely resemble a bull in general. Additionally, the books of Job and Numbers were written approx 1470BC, covering a time period between the c1650BC and c1470BC. There is no evidence whatsoever that the parasaurolophs existed at that time. The word also appears in Psalms, written c450bc, some 1000 years after Job and Numbers. Parasaurolophs most definitely were not in existence in 450bc.

    However, bulls were in copious existence in several species of animal during the time of Numbers and Job, as well as Psalms. Since r'em means "bull", thiere is no arguement here whatsoever.

    Sorry, but this is yet another KJVO myth that fails to the test of scriptural support.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is a problem with claiming that the "unicorn" refers to either a parasauroloph
    or a rhinoceros. Isaiah 34:7 counts this animal among the animals fit for sacrifice and associates it with cattle.

    In addition, as noted on another thread, the Hebrew word reem (Deut. 33:17) is singular and
    yet it has horns (plural) and thus is not one-horned.

    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" (Vol. I, p. 834). This rendering "unicorn" likely came from the Greek Septuagint which used "monokeros" and the Latin Vulgate which used "unicornis."
    Likely influenced by these sources, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles all had "unicorn" [singular] at Deuteronomy 33:17.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    First, I don't think they ever got on the ark; they were extinct before God created man. Otherwise, their remains wouldn't have been fossilized. I don't care what the likes of Kent Hovind say, fossilization is a S-L-O-W process. Remember, the "skeletons" of prehistoric creatures you see in museums are made of ROCK, which had very gradually replaced the bone as it lay buried and undisturbed. This process simply cannot naturally occur rapidly. I believe GOD is sending us a message by allowing us to discover just how fossilization occurs.

    I believe a more representative species of dino for your little illustration would be any of several species of protoceratops, which had one stubby horn on its nose, had a beak, ate vegetation, grew to twice the size of the modern rhino, & had a brain the size of an orange.

    Second, the AV men weren't familiar with dinosaurs. Over 2K years ago, the Chinese found some "dragon bones", but that's as far as it went. In 1676, a British clergyman, Reverend Plot, found a huge femur which he believed had belonged to a giant such as Goliath. The first complete dinosaur skeleton was assembled in 1824 by William Buckland, a British clergyman whose hobby was fossil collecting. The name "dinosaur" was coined in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen.

    However, the AV men WERE familiar with the mythical horse-like unicorn depicted on KJ's Scottish coat-of-arms, and soon incorporated into the British royal COA.

    Third, when MOSES speaks of the re'em, it had to be an animal familiar to Israel. Even though the earliest references to re'em are in Job's book, first written long before Moses' time, it's doubtful if Israel in general was familiar with it. To make sense of his illustration, Moses had to mention a familiar creature.

    You've missed the bus again. My initial post was a brief explanation of why the AV men wrote 'unicorn', along with a reminder that later translators knew the unicorn is a mythical critter. Therefore, while 'unicorn' isn't wrong in older Bibles, it would be remiss to continue to use that word in later Bibles when the existence of such a creature is questionable to put it mildly.

    You make yourself look slightly foolish in defending such readings made with 17th century knowledge that are shown to be incorrect in light of today's knowledge. I know the AV men didn't deliberately write 'unicorn' incorrectly, but time has shown it to be incorrect.
     
  8. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean Solomon was wrong when he penned " and there is no new thing under the sun???????"

    Lookie:

    1)Animals were created after the sun was made.

    2)Death didn't enter into the scene until after Adam sinned(Rom 5:12).

    So,are you saying these creatures were dying before death and sin entered the world??

    Are you suggesting theistic evolution????

    Give me one good reason that it wasn't a parasauroloph?
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has been addressed already.

    The Hebrew word r'em (translated in the KJV as "unicorn") referrs to, in general, a bull. The parasauroloph does not remotely resemble a bull. Additionally, the books of Job and Numbers were written approx 1470BC, covering a time period between the c1650BC and c1470BC. Regardless of one's view onm the age of the earth, whether it's 6000 years or 10000 years old, there is no evidence whatsoever that parasaurolophs existed at that time. The word r'em also appears in Psalms, written c450bc, some 1000 years after Job and Numbers. Parasaurolophs most definitely were not in existence in 450bc.

    However, bulls were in copious existence in several species of animal during the time of Numbers and Job, as well as Psalms. Since r'em means "bull", thiere is no arguement here whatsoever.

    Sorry, but this is yet another KJVO myth that fails the test of scriptural support.

    [ December 20, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Slambo:You mean Solomon was wrong when he penned " and there is no new thing under the sun???????"

    Newp! The fossils were already there.
     
  11. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are saying that Romans 5:12 is a lie???

    So according to you,those creature were running around killing one another before Adam's sin brought death into the world;am I reading you correctly there "Bible Believer"?
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Notice how Slambo's last post makes an underhanded attempt to question another poster's faith. That's amusing, considering that Slambo has mane an assertion about "unicorn" without backing it up in scripture.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trouble is, Slambo, you have your worlds mixed up. The fossils were there before God arranged the world into its present configuration and created man. Obviously, the animals died same as today in the prehistoric world as well as the present one.

    Animals cannot sin; thus Romans 5:12 is as true today as it was when written.
     
  14. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    So your saying that death was present BEFORE Adam sinned??? Where in scripture is that found??!!
     
  15. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    YOu've been scarce, Orvie. Welcome back.
     
  17. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was always told that it referred to a rhino.
    Gina
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    The word "parasauroloph" cannot be found in the Bible.

    HankD
     
  19. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    So your saying that death was present BEFORE Adam sinned??? Where in scripture is that found??!! </font>[/QUOTE]-------------------------------------------------

    Your not going to get 'em nailed down Slambo. Most likely what you will get it that passage only applies to the death of man. Not animals.

    It is wrong! But most likely, that iis the "theistic evolutionists" mantra. You will notice that this person said "God arranged" this present world. That is what the Mromon's say too!

    :eek: :eek:

    IN HIS service;
    Jim
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Slambo:So your saying that death was present BEFORE Adam sinned???

    Yes, in the world before God made the present arrangement.


    Where in scripture is that found??!!

    It's not. God is now concerned with THIS world order since He wiped out the older one. He chose not to give us any Scriptures about the old order that existed before this one.

    Try a little study, Slambo. Do you realize that less than 1/20 of all the various species of both plants & animals that have ever existed are alive today? God didn't allow fossils to form and geological evidence to exist to CONFUSE us. He didn't allow us to discover the maximum speed of light & how to roughly measure the distances to many stars just to throw us off. There is a vast amount of evidence showing there has been life on earth for AGES before God ever created man or arranged the land and seas into their present order.

    Remember, Moses wrote that at least one pair, male and female, of EVERY CREATURE went aboard the ark. It should be a no-brainer that meant every THEN-LIVING creature.I hardly believe that Noah woulda missed such a creature as megalosaurus, which was 1/4 the size of the ark, had they been extant.

    Slambo, I KNOW you're not as silly as some of your posts are. God's Scriptures are concerned only with THIS world; He leaves it up to us to discover many things in His good time. Remember, He chose to include the bat among non-kosher BIRDS, leaving it up to later generations to find that bats aren't birds. Does that make God WRONG? Of course not. He communicated His message that bats are non-kosher. The bat would be no more non-kosher if He'd included it in His list of small mammals such as mice.

    AND GOD DIDN'T INCLUDE THE UNICORN IN ANY OF HIS LISTS OF KOSHER & NON KOSHER!
     

Share This Page

Loading...