tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post8906836524884764452..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-57138853813757889482018-08-01T19:14:35.922-04:002018-08-01T19:14:35.922-04:00Also you have to consider the amount of animals ma...Also you have to consider the amount of animals man has hunted to extinction. Unicorns were not horses with one horn but their own animal that could not be tamed and therefore thought to have powers. They also were not rhinos as the the Bible says they skipped, which rhinos and dinosaurs did not. They were more like a goat or a gazelle, with a curly mane and cloven hooves and an extra joint in their leg. Also in the Natural History book of the 1700s rhinos and unicorns are both drawn, showing they are sep creatures.<br /><br />nothosaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06113578032515961785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-62377011364403320622012-07-19T20:04:00.848-04:002012-07-19T20:04:00.848-04:00Justin,
When the OT was translated into Greek aro...Justin,<br /><br />When the OT was translated into Greek around 100BC (the LXX), the term "one horn" was already understood. Certainly you do not mean to suggest that European idea of a horned horse was on the minds of the translators a century before Christ!<br /><br />Also, you've completely ignored the fact that unicorns exist today and have existed in history. Not the horned-horses, of course, but the one horned rhino as discussed in my post. <br /><br />Thanks for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-72934295950734190842012-07-19T18:50:35.905-04:002012-07-19T18:50:35.905-04:00For me, all the talk about unicorns and trying to ...For me, all the talk about unicorns and trying to justify the use of it in the king james version doesn't makeup for the fact that its misleading and proves the infallibility of the bible to be incorrect. When this version was published, there was a definite mindset as to what a unicorn was. In fact, the coat of arms of King James included a typical unicorn. And I'm sure most bibles of the time had the royal arms in the front pages where it said 'commissioned by his most gracious majesty, king james I of england and IV of scotland blah blah blah' so either way its a flaw.Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-3663718397513125862011-11-10T22:34:03.918-05:002011-11-10T22:34:03.918-05:00PB,
Thanks for your comments. You're correct...PB,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. You're correct about capitalizing and italicizing the names. Grammar is something I usually have a handle on but I guess I'm a little fuzzy on the correct rendering of technical terms.<br /><br />Have a great one. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-73919697466575727072011-11-10T16:22:33.388-05:002011-11-10T16:22:33.388-05:00Interesting stuff. My only quibble, which is inten...Interesting stuff. My only quibble, which is intended to be constructive, is that <i> Triceratops </i> and <i> Monoclonius </i> are the names of genera, so they should begin with a capital and be emphasised with italics.The Palaeobabblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-39487789127477899232011-11-08T22:07:44.074-05:002011-11-08T22:07:44.074-05:00Steven J,
I abbreviated the BDB definition. The ...Steven J,<br /><br />I abbreviated the BDB definition. The full definition given there is “probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.” Other sources like Scofield and Barnes also name aurochs as the culprit only they write a little more confidently. BDB and Strong both claim the root of the word rêm (or your preferred transliteration, re'em) is a primitive word meaning to rise or be lifted up. You are correct that there's nothing about the word that suggests “one horn.”<br /><br />As for the LXX, it has its flaws as a translation. I still refer to it occasionally, though, because I feel it gives me a little insight into the how the second century BC Jews understood a particular passage. If there is some doubt about the meaning of a Hebrew word, the word chosen in the Greek translation might shed some light on it. In my post here, my point was that the KJV translators weren't the first people to have the opinion the animal referred to in Numbers et al was a “unicorn.”<br /><br />Thanks for visiting and for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-54454354972904764162011-11-08T14:20:35.189-05:002011-11-08T14:20:35.189-05:00I have long leaned towards the idea that the re...I have long leaned towards the idea that the <i>re'em</i> (as I learned to transliterate the word) was the same as the Assyrian <i>rimu</i>, which was depicted in bas-reliefs as an aurochs (the now-extinct but then-extant <i>Bos primigenius</i>, looking very much like a Texas longhorn six feet high at the shoulder). The Bible, as far as I know, doesn't actually say that the <i>re'em</i> had only one horn, and the Septuagint may be a mistranslation on this point.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com