is'nt it about time you read your bible

So, I take it that you believe in unicorns then?

Numbers 23:22 (KJV)
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 23:21-23 (KJV)
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Numbers 24:7-9 (KJV)
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 together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Deuteronomy 33:16-18 (KJV)
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:8-10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Job 39:9-11 (KJV)
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalm 22:20-22 (KJV)
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalm 29:5-7 (KJV)
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7 (KJV)
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Numbers 23:22 (KJV)
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 23:21-23 (KJV)
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Numbers 24:7-9 (KJV)
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 together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

these are all analogies (comparisons using like or as) referencing a powerful figure in local mythologies of the day not saying they actully exist, it is the way they spoke back then, if you read acient literature you would know that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

here's a great book - "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. the guy is a religion professor and an evangelical and even he can admit to the flaws of the bible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

a comparison using the words "like" or "as" is called a simile

an analogy is something along the lines of - "baby is to parent as tadpole is to frog"

if you took english literature class you would know that.

 

I'm not English, so I have to make due with less inspired Bibles

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- but I don't know what the fuss is over the "unicorn" translation. The skeptic's argument is supposedly that the text refers to a mythical creature as if it were real (thereby displaying some kind of ignorance), but it doesn't: it refers to an extinct animal.

Strong's 07214: Ra'em (from Ra'am "to rise", possibly referring to a distinctive horn) - probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.​

Maybe the King James translators thought unicorns once existed, and was a likely candidate for this unknown majestic horned animal. It's similar to referring to a species of hominid that actually existed as hobbit-like. Even if the word Ra'em was literally translated as "unicorn" (which simply means "single horn"), it's obvious from the descriptions that the Bible no more refers to the fictional unicorns of myth than those paleoanthropologists are referring to the fictional hobbits of Lord of the Rings, when they refer to the real thing.

 

this is an auroch

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i dont know about you, but i'd have trouble mistaking that for a unicorn. especially considering that the word unicorn means "one horn" and that myths of them were inspired by sailors who saw Narwhals in the arctic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

something tells me that the bible authors had never seen a narwhal, but still believed in unicorns.

if translators of the KJV thought that unicorns existed and translated the bible incorrectly to reflect that, it is only proof that the bible is full of errors and agendas, and that one should not trust that the words in it are the actual words of god, or even carry the same intent.

 

*poof*ed here? That's pretty naive. No wonder you've had to cling to invisible sky fairies all your life.

Once you realise the error, kindly take the time to study. It will teach you reality and remove the need for floating omnipotent jews.

 

You really are intent on making a mountain of this mole-hill, aren't you?

"The allusions to the re'em as a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns (Job xxxix. 9-12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild, or mountain bull with large horns." (Jewish Encyclopedia: "unicorn") This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile with only one horn visible." - Wikipedia: unicorns​

The same kind of depiction is visible at Lascaux, with the same kind of effect: Wikipedia again: "...since the species of the figure is otherwise unknown, it has received the moniker 'the Unicorn'". Words describing unknown creatures are no more accurate than pictures depicting unknown creatures. The first translators (of the Greek Septuagint, which the Latin Vulgate and therefore the KJV relied on) would have done some homework, found out that rimu/re'em was usually depicted as a one-horned animal, and simply translated the word-picture literally (monokeros/monoceras) for lack of any better knowledge. People believed such an animal really existed until at least the 17th century (and Narwhal horns didn't help to point them in the right direction). Jewish translators had the luxury of being able to leave the unknown Hebrew word without having to translate it. I'm certainly not arguing that translators are infallible.

I'm curious, though. Which word would you have used under the circumstances that would be more accurate than "unicorn" (considering the auroch is simply the best explanation available, not necessarily the historically correct one)?

 

i think "ox", "bull", "yak", "wildebeast", or "auroch" would have worked better. especially considering that these are all animals (maybe with the exception of the wildebeast) that toil and are considered to have considerable strength, whereas the mythical unicorn is usually described as having many magical properties, but not especially great strength. considering that the Ra'am or Ra'em was an unknown animal, i fail to see how a translator would see fit to substitute the word meaning "one horn" for its proper name. that just doesn't make a ton of sense to me,. i mean if i came upon a jewish name for a creature that i didn't know, i wouldn't just assume that it was a cattle-like creature that was inaccurately depicted in cave paintings as having one horn and then call it a unicorn. i would probably try to find out what it actually was. i would even go as far as to question why anyone is said to have the same strength as a mythical animal that no one really knows for sure existed.

 

If they did try to find out what it was, they would not have had access to your very nice pictures, they would have come across the only depictions of an extinct animal called rimu/re'em - an ox with one horn, or a "monoceros" (compare that with "rhinoceros") - that for all they knew once existed. You didn't think they thought it was a horse, did you? It's we who think a unicorn is horse, and that belief probably has an interesting history of its own.

 

you will have to excuse the error when i made that post my signifigant other wasnibbling my neck, my consentration was nill. a mistake i shall not make again

 

i guess what i'm saying here is that if i saw a cave painting of a bull and it only had one horn because it was in profile, wouldn't i think of other bulls or similar creatures that i might have seen before and realize that it in fact probably had more than one horn. i'm guessing that if the pictures were so primitive, the animal also appears to only have two legs, how come they don't describe it as a one-horned, two-legged wonderbeast?

by the way, i think the rhino part of rhinoceras refers to the fact that it has horns on its nose or snout, and does not indicate any number.

 

i read parts of the parts of the bible and i had to say it was quite fun to read (the old testament i mean) however if i had to read the new testament again i would kill myself

 

Where and how old is the oldest 'written' bible?

 

the oldest "bible" featuring all the books of the new testament is called the Codex Sinaiticus. it dates from the 4th century. it is written in Greek and currently resides in the British Library in London. it is believed to be one of 50 copies of the agreed-upon books of the christian bible that roman emperor constantine had commissioned for the end result of the council of Nicea.

 

Thanks for that.
Interesting. so proir to the 4th century how exactly did god 'speak' to his people?

 

charles you are right to a degree, however, there are older.

The "Old Latin Vulgate" around AD 157. used for nearly a millennium, until Latin ceased being a everyday language.

however Portions of the Old Testament in Hebrew go back several hundred years more than the Latin version. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, means we have manuscripts that exist from as early as 168 B.C.
The Masoretic Text, written in Hebrew, became the standard Hebrew text around 100 AD.

hope that helps you sniffy.

 

Doesn't help me in the slightest but I was hoping it might help others.
Interesting though....

 

Oh and one other thing. What does the Vatican hold in its vaults?

 

yeah, but the point here is that the "bibles" that existed before that were either incomplete, or heretical compared to today's version of the bible. Marcion's Bible for instance contained the old testament, one book of the new testament, and all the epistles of paul edited to make it appear as though the Jewish god who created the world was not the same thing as the god that manifested itself through jesus. that's a bible that predates the Codex, but it's nothing at all like todays bible and Marcion himself was considered a heretic later on for having written it. so the Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest complete bible that "agrees" with today's version.
in addition to that, the latin vulgate is one of the most unreliable biblical forms ever to exist. many of the copies of it were printed so that the church's latin interpretation was situated side by side on three column pages with the greek and hebrew original translations, and if you could read all three languages, the passages completely disagreed.