- This topic is empty.
- Posts
“He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.” (Psalms 29:6)
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 11 2013,11:15) Be entertained then. Tim. Unicorns were known as Rhinos 200 or so years ago.
Within the last 200 years, it changed into a mystical white horse.That is not the Bible's fault Tim.
Good vid T8!Quote (t8 @ Feb. 10 2013,20:34) Well if a unicorn is a rhinoceros, then there are unicornis and bicornis varieties.
Which are the bicorned unicorns?Stuart
Stu, it is truly not known what animal this is talking about as it could be extinct or it may well have been a Rinocerous or even an extinct Rinocerous.
It must be noted that only the AKJV uses the word Unicorn, while others translations use Wild Ox. I also found this little bit of text in a Concordance.
“probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.”
The translators of the AKJV used Unicorn because in English back then, a Unicorn was a species of Rhinoceros, while Rhinoceros had 2 species, the Unicorn and Bicornis.
This video explains it clearly and has the answer you are looking for. Just bear in mind that the AKJV was translated 400 years ago, so the original word was translated using what was in use in English in that time, which was that a Rhinoceros was a Unicorn and vice versa. Perhaps the word Bicornis was not that well known as that animal is I assume much more rare than the Unicorn. Remember too, that the AKJV may be 400 years old, but the Book of Job is thousands of years old. There is no controversy here. It is easily explained as this video will demonstrate.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 08 2013,15:35) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 08 2013,17:29) Not at all.
Just imagining what the world would be like if everyone had the same attitude.
Nothing new under the sun.Holiness and faith has always irritated those who don't like God.
That is why they spend much of their life attacking what they say is fairies and unicorns.
Somethings up aye!While I spend very little time arguing about unicorns because it matters not.
It's your book of talking snakes and donkeys that mentions the unicorns.Stuart
Stu and all,The experts don't really know what plant or animal bears what name in some cases and thus put down then one they believe best fits the evidence.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 13 2013,09:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 08 2013,15:35) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 08 2013,17:29) Not at all.
Just imagining what the world would be like if everyone had the same attitude.
Nothing new under the sun.Holiness and faith has always irritated those who don't like God.
That is why they spend much of their life attacking what they say is fairies and unicorns.
Somethings up aye!While I spend very little time arguing about unicorns because it matters not.
It's your book of talking snakes and donkeys that mentions the unicorns.Stuart
Stu and all,The experts don't really know what plant or animal bears what name in some cases and thus put down then one they believe best fits the evidence.
The experts on what?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2013,09:08) Stu, it is truly not known what animal this is talking about as it could be extinct or it may well have been a Rinocerous or even an extinct Rinocerous.
But even though “we don't know what it is talking about” nevertheless you are willing to speculate wildly. Perhaps we are talking about a supernatural creature that only existed as a spirit and never left any skeletal or fossil remains.Quote It must be noted that only the AKJV uses the word Unicorn, while others translations use Wild Ox. I also found this little bit of text in a Concordance. “probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.”
The translators of the AKJV used Unicorn because in English back then, a Unicorn was a species of Rhinoceros, while Rhinoceros had 2 species, the Unicorn and Bicornis.
This video explains it clearly and has the answer you are looking for. Just bear in mind that the AKJV was translated 400 years ago, so the original word was translated using what was in use in English in that time, which was that a Rhinoceros was a Unicorn and vice versa. Perhaps the word Bicornis was not that well known as that animal is I assume much more rare than the Unicorn. Remember too, that the AKJV may be 400 years old, but the Book of Job is thousands of years old. There is no controversy here. It is easily explained as this video will demonstrate.
On the other hand, if you hadn't relied on half-watching a ridiculously poorly researched amateur video for your information, you might have realised that the one-horned white horse is an ancient symbol of religious art dating from before the Authorised King James bible of 1611. It was unquestionably well known as the unicorn.
Zampieri, 1602<img src=" ” target=”_blank”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped….MG]
The Lady and the Unicorn, made from drawings of the late 15th Century is one of the greatest art works of the European Middle Ages.There are several more examples on the Wikipedia page on Unicorns.
Indeed I would agree that unicorn it is probably a poor translation of re'em, based on poor observations of the animal by ancient Hebrew writers, leading to ambiguity about what they meant.
But then, ancient writing about people being resurrected is similarly poor observation or poor conclusion too.
By the way, the video didn't answer my question, it pointed out that the bible had the grammar wrong.
Stuart
The Lady and the Unicorn, made from drawings of the late 15th Century is one of the greatest art works of the European Middle Ages.Hi T8,
I actually kind of enjoyed the video. But it lost all credibility when it mentioned Ken Ham and called him a scientist. Calling Ken Ham a scientist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prophet.Tim
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2013,23:06) But even though “we don't know what it is talking about” nevertheless you are willing to speculate wildly. Perhaps we are talking about a supernatural creature that only existed as a spirit and never left any skeletal or fossil remains.
Well to be fair, animals go extinct all the time and the Book of Job is between 2500 and 3000 years old I think. So the Unicorn was known then and even when the AKJV was written hence why it is the only translation that uses that word. While modern translations were done at a time when Unicorns were a white mythical horse, hence why they had difficulty in translating that particular animal into English.Further, God speaks about a number of animals in one part of the Book of Job and all of these animals exist or are known to have existed, except for the Unicorn. So it is reasonable to assume that this Unicorn was a real animal too, otherwise it doesn't follow the pattern of mentioning a group of real animals and then including a mythical one.
So some investigative work shows that it is a Rhinoceros as that video demonstrates and let's face it, last week you probably believed that Unicorns weren't real, but now know that the Unicorn is a species of Rhinoceros along with the Bicornis and they exist today. So if you don't believe in Unicorns, then you are the one in denial. Lol. And you said that I was speculating wildly, what a joke. Rhinoceros's are real and they are called Unicorns and they have a horn, and there is a 2 horned one as well called Bicornis.
Speculating wildly, honestly Stu. Google Rhinocerous in Google Images. You will see that they are likely to be real given the amount of photos from different sources. Then look up the Latin for Rhinoceros in Wikipedia and YouTube will even show you a young Rhinoceros skipping along as described in scripture.
I know this is upsetting for you Stu, I can hear it in your voice, (typing), but get over it. You cannot mock Unicorns in the Bible anymore. Oh no, you poor man.
Speculating wildly. Ha, thanks for the laugh.
Going back to something I said a while ago. Please find an Atheist who is 10 times more intelligent than yourself. You are too easy an opponent. I want some real competition.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 14 2013,00:39) Hi T8,
I actually kind of enjoyed the video. But it lost all credibility when it mentioned Ken Ham and called him a scientist. Calling Ken Ham a scientist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prophet.Tim
Oh yeah, that negates all the facts because he said that.
For me, I couldn't care less who said what. If it is fact, or even a very good theory, then I don't let a persons beliefs get in the way. I can accept truth from anyone, so long as it is true that is good enough for me.
But judging from your statement, that all the guy said in the video lost credibility because he said something that was unrelated but you happened to disagreed with that unrelated part, does that not make you lose credibility? Sure it does. Because it has no bearing on the facts in the video. So you are being completely illogical and driven by emotions.
That is about as illogical as Stu saying that because men argue over who God is, then God cannot exist. It's also like saying that because men argue over who killed President Kennedy, then no one killed him.
Tim, do you know of an Atheist 20 times as intelligent as yourself. I really need to talk to people who can challenge me. It gets a little tedious talking simply about things and having to repeat the most basic of things. I prefer an opponent who understands the other persons argument, who is logical, and can concede when a good point or argument is made. That would be much better than a couple of mocking apes who have no clue about what caused the Universe, deny all evidence because it doesn't agree with their fantasy world, and spends Saturday nights eating pizza and posting on Heaven Net because they have nothing else to do.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 13 2013,16:39) Hi T8,
I actually kind of enjoyed the video. But it lost all credibility when it mentioned Ken Ham and called him a scientist. Calling Ken Ham a scientist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prophet.Tim
Tim,I am a scientist. It is not that hard to be one as all I have is an associates in science degree. Computer science.
He is bachelor in science. His expertise is in environmental biology.
As far as I know there is no degree for prophet.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2013,17:18) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2013,23:06) But even though “we don't know what it is talking about” nevertheless you are willing to speculate wildly. Perhaps we are talking about a supernatural creature that only existed as a spirit and never left any skeletal or fossil remains.
Well to be fair, animals go extinct all the time and the Book of Job is between 2500 and 3000 years old I think. So the Unicorn was known then and even when the AKJV was written hence why it is the only translation that uses that word. While modern translations were done at a time when Unicorns were a white mythical horse, hence why they had difficulty in translating that particular animal into English.Further, God speaks about a number of animals in one part of the Book of Job and all of these animals exist or are known to have existed, except for the Unicorn. So it is reasonable to assume that this Unicorn was a real animal too, otherwise it doesn't follow the pattern of mentioning a group of real animals and then including a mythical one.
So some investigative work shows that it is a Rhinoceros as that video demonstrates and let's face it, last week you probably believed that Unicorns weren't real, but now know that the Unicorn is a species of Rhinoceros along with the Bicornis and they exist today. So if you don't believe in Unicorns, then you are the one in denial. Lol. And you said that I was speculating wildly, what a joke. Rhinoceros's are real and they are called Unicorns and they have a horn, and there is a 2 horned one as well called Bicornis.
Speculating wildly, honestly Stu. Google Rhinocerous in Google Images. You will see that they are likely to be real given the amount of photos from different sources. Then look up the Latin for Rhinoceros in Wikipedia and YouTube will even show you a young Rhinoceros skipping along as described in scripture.
I know this is upsetting for you Stu, I can hear it in your voice, (typing), but get over it. You cannot mock Unicorns in the Bible anymore. Oh no, you poor man.
Speculating wildly. Ha, thanks for the laugh.
Going back to something I said a while ago. Please find an Atheist who is 10 times more intelligent than yourself. You are too easy an opponent. I want some real competition.
T8,There is also the Leviathan which sound like a deep sea creature with a serpent like body.
The cockatrice is an interesting creature as well.
Then there is a fiery serpent.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2013,14:13) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 13 2013,09:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 08 2013,15:35) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 08 2013,17:29) Not at all.
Just imagining what the world would be like if everyone had the same attitude.
Nothing new under the sun.Holiness and faith has always irritated those who don't like God.
That is why they spend much of their life attacking what they say is fairies and unicorns.
Somethings up aye!While I spend very little time arguing about unicorns because it matters not.
It's your book of talking snakes and donkeys that mentions the unicorns.Stuart
Stu and all,The experts don't really know what plant or animal bears what name in some cases and thus put down then one they believe best fits the evidence.
The experts on what?Stuart
Stu,The Ancient Languages.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2013,22:35) Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 14 2013,00:39) Hi T8,
I actually kind of enjoyed the video. But it lost all credibility when it mentioned Ken Ham and called him a scientist. Calling Ken Ham a scientist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prophet.Tim
Oh yeah, that negates all the facts because he said that. For me, I couldn't care less who said what. If it is fact, or even a very good theory, then I don't let a persons beliefs get in the way. I can accept truth from anyone, so long as it is true that is good enough for me.
But judging from your statement, that all the guy said in the video lost credibility because he said something that was unrelated but you happened to disagreed with that unrelated part, does that not make you lose credibility? Sure it does. Because it has no bearing on the facts in the video. So you are being completely illogical and driven by emotions.
That is about as illogical as Stu saying that because men argue over who God is, then God cannot exist. It's also like saying that because men argue over who killed President Kennedy, then no one killed him.
Tim, do you know of an Atheist 20 times as intelligent as yourself. I really need to talk to people who can challenge me. It gets a little tedious talking simply about things and having to repeat the most basic of things. I prefer an opponent who understands the other persons argument, who is logical, and can concede when a good point or argument is made. That would be much better than a couple of mocking apes who have no clue about what caused the Universe, deny all evidence because it doesn't agree with their fantasy world, and spends Saturday nights eating pizza and posting on Heaven Net because they have nothing else to do.
Well let's see T8. The guy cited Ken Ham as a scientist that thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but still believes that Job knew what an Elasmotheriom Sibiricum, an animal that became extinct 50,000 years ago, looked like, and called it a unicorn. That makes perfect sense.The fact is that once the guy making the video cited Ken Ham as his resource, he lost credibility with me. If someone gave me perfectly true facts about the forest, but said that the Easter bunny told him, that person would lose credibility with me, even if his facts about the forest were correct.
As for the rest of your rant, I can only respond that
I have been civil with everyone on this forum. I don't mock their thinking, even when I think it is worthy of mockery, mainly because I once believed as they do. I understand how difficult it is to accept the other point of view.You on the other hand have become rude and condescending. Mocking your guests instead of refuting their views. I understand that this domain is your home T8. If it is your wish that I not be here, I will be happy to not return.
Since most atheist that I know are more intelligent than I, it will be easy to find one 20 times more intelligent to challenge you in the future.
Tim
Tim.
Facts stand on their own.
Does a fact not become a fact because someone you think has no crebility is mentioned.
No it has no bearing on the facts.Thinking that it effects it can only mean that you are not being credible because reality doesn't work like that.
Like I said, Stu's biggest proof that God doesn't exist to date is that people cannot agree on who God is.
Likewise, debate amongst who God is has no bearing whatsover on God's existence.If God existed, and men didn't know who God was and argued over that, then does God disappear in a puff of smoke.
And for the uncivil rant, think of it as entertainment and no more.
I like to get some value out of my discussions with people, so if logic doesn't work, I am happy to resort to humour and at least get a laugh.
So my advice is harden up a bit in that area and relax. Might as well have a bit of fun at least.Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 14 2013,11:29) Since most atheist that I know are more intelligent than I, it will be easy to find one 20 times more intelligent to challenge you in the future.
I accept. They might even try and answer the questions I have posed to you guys. That would be great. I prefer a real discussion where hard questions are not ignored but tackled.Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 14 2013,11:29) Well let's see T8. The guy cited Ken Ham as a scientist that thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but still believes that Job knew what an Elasmotheriom Sibiricum, an animal that became extinct 50,000 years ago, looked like, and called it a unicorn. That makes perfect sense.
Ke?How would he know about that animal unless God showed it to him in a vision, or they existed when Job existed.
This doesn't help your case at all.
BTW, I also think the 6000 year old Earth is ludicrous. But even people who hold that view can still come up with facts about stuff. Like I said, I judge the facts themselves not the person.
You appear to judge the person and then that skews the facts. That is illogical.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
