- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 16 2013,03:24) Hi T8,
Adding words to what I said and inferring that I said it is a feeble way to think you win a debate.The one horned rhinoceros is not, and never was called a unicorn.
It is described as having one horn. The scientific name given it was Rhinoceros unicornis.
A name that was never used 3,ooo years ago, but I suppose to you that only proves that Job was a scientist.
A name that was never used 3,ooo years ago because Tim is clever and knows that Latin wasn't around 3000 years ago.The Latin Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. And the Bible mentions the exact Latin words for Rhinoceros and the one horned Rhino Unicornis.
But I guess that 3000 years ago, Rhinos were not known because the Hebrew or Aramaic would never have mentioned them because Latin wasn't invented yet.
You believe in Unicorns Tim. That is something you cannot deny. And 1 month ago you didn't believe in Unicorns.
Translators believe that both Unicorn and Bicornis are mentioned in scriptures. But then, you guys would know better than them right? So please tell me if not a Rhinoceros, then what animals is being mentioned instead? Bet you can't answer that.
And how long did you study Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin again. Iv'e forgotten already.
This is entertainment. Debating you guys is 10 times more fun than watching Coronation Street.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 17 2013,22:02)
So just to be clear, the animal in the image appearing here is thought by Ken Ham to be a candidate for the unicorn of the KJV, even though that species was completely unknown for all of recorded history up until the start of the 19th Century.Is that what you are claiming too, t8?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 18 2013,20:35) So just to be clear, the animal in the image appearing here is thought by Ken Ham to be a candidate for the unicorn of the KJV, even though that species was completely unknown for all of recorded history up until the start of the 19th Century. Is that what you are claiming too, t8?
Stuart
You wish. And I don't have to answer because if that is what I was claiming then you could quote it right.Think about it before you say things like that in future.
Address real things I say Stu. That is how this thing is suppose to work.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 18 2013,20:35) So just to be clear, the animal in the image appearing here is thought by Ken Ham to be a candidate for the unicorn of the KJV, even though that species was completely unknown for all of recorded history up until the start of the 19th Century.
Ha ha. Recorded history. Oh yeah, that is the the record of all history of the world. Everything that ever happened and everything that any person has ever seen.There are eye witness accounts from humans who hunted Mammoths and Sabre Tooth Tigers. Interesting read that Recorded History thing you are talking about.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,18:27) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 18 2013,20:35) So just to be clear, the animal in the image appearing here is thought by Ken Ham to be a candidate for the unicorn of the KJV, even though that species was completely unknown for all of recorded history up until the start of the 19th Century. Is that what you are claiming too, t8?
Stuart
You wish. And I don't have to answer because if that is what I was claiming then you could quote it right.Think about it before you say things like that in future.
Address real things I say Stu. That is how this thing is suppose to work.
So you are not claiming that you agree with the contents of the video you posted alongside your comment “This video explains it clearly and has the answer you are looking for”.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,18:31) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 18 2013,20:35) So just to be clear, the animal in the image appearing here is thought by Ken Ham to be a candidate for the unicorn of the KJV, even though that species was completely unknown for all of recorded history up until the start of the 19th Century.
Ha ha. Recorded history. Oh yeah, that is the the record of all history of the world. Everything that ever happened and everything that any person has ever seen.There are eye witness accounts from humans who hunted Mammoths and Sabre Tooth Tigers. Interesting read that Recorded History thing you are talking about.
Recorded as in written down as in the writing of scripture. That happened during the period of human history known as “Recorded history”. You can read about it in Wikipedia, because we are still living in the period of recorded history.Mammoths were still extant at the start of recorded history. Sabre-tooth cats weren't, so perhaps you could supply a reference for that extraordinary claim about eyewitness accounts of hunting them.
If the scriptures record the existence of an animal in terms that imply it is well-known enough to make it into an analogy for people to use, for example the strength of the unicorn or the skipping of the unicorn, then it would be a bizarre claim that it was an extinct species of oral legend to which they were referring.
Stuart
Regardless if it is a Wild Ox or a Rhino, Stu believes in Unicorns now. The very thing he thought was myth. And I think he is annoyed about it to, but what can he do but just accept it. Poor man.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,21:39) So you are not claiming that you agree with the contents of the video you posted alongside your comment “This video explains it clearly and has the answer you are looking for”. Stuart
This is the bit where my lawyer asks your lawyer to talk about this over lunch.It should be understood that when you post a video or a quote from a book or a whole book that you are not necessarily endorsing everything single thing in the work. Sure I could have said “NOTE: Posting this video does not mean that I endorse the whole video or the views of the person who posted it or any other person mentioned in the video”. However even then, the only thing I probably disagree with in that video is a reference to a guy who believes the Earth is 6000 years old. My belief is the world is about that old, but not the Earth.
But let's keep it simple and after all you are an ape, so do you want to make things complicated?
You should have had enough intelligence to figure out that the overall message explained clearly the answer you are looking for. And what was that exactly.
That the KJV mentions Unicorns and that a Unicorn is a one horned Rhinoceros and not a winged horse.
See that wasn't hard was it Stu. Getting all legal and trying to win on a technicality only means one thing, you are grasping at straws because you don't have a good argument to make. Mockery is pretty much all you have in the end. No evidence, logic, reason, or wisdom. That is why you are not a threat to my faith. You have nothing that threatens what I believe. But by all means, have another go Stu.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,19:09) Regardless if it is a Wild Ox or a Rhino, Stu believes in Unicorns now. The very thing he thought was myth. And I think he is annoyed about it to, but what can he do but just accept it. Poor man.
I suppose if you believe in Imaginary Friends that communicate through talking donkeys then inventing strawmen of what other people believe isn't much of a stretch.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,21:49) Mammoths were still extant at the start of recorded history. Sabre-tooth cats weren't, so perhaps you could supply a reference for that extraordinary claim about eyewitness accounts of hunting them.
Oh you poor fellow. You can't even tell a joke when you see one. You shouldn't be so serious. It can lead to stress. I was actually making the opposite argument Stu, that not all things are recorded. Again, you fail to even understand that.I should really tone down my words and aim them at a child.
And are cave paintings recorded history? I think Sabres might have feasted on what you call early man
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,22:27) I suppose if you believe in Imaginary Friends that communicate through talking donkeys then inventing strawmen of what other people believe isn't much of a stretch. Stuart
When all else fails, put on the Mockery hat and throw in the word 'strawmen' and 'donkey' and surround it by meaningless words.Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,21:49) If the scriptures record the existence of an animal in terms that imply it is well-known enough to make it into an analogy for people to use, for example the strength of the unicorn or the skipping of the unicorn, then it would be a bizarre claim that it was an extinct species of oral legend to which they were referring.
But there are Rhinos that skip today. Did I not post a video of a young Rhino skipping to the music on his iPod?Have another go Stu. Chances are you might actually make a valid point if you keep trying. Not sure how many years it will take, but I think it could happen.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,14:27) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,19:09) Regardless if it is a Wild Ox or a Rhino, Stu believes in Unicorns now. The very thing he thought was myth. And I think he is annoyed about it to, but what can he do but just accept it. Poor man.
I suppose if you believe in Imaginary Friends that communicate through talking donkeys then inventing strawmen of what other people believe isn't much of a stretch.Stuart
Stu,The donkey was given a human voice and vocabulary. He spoke as an animal, lacking intellect, and probably more.
The serpent was owned by the evil one but his language was that of a serpent, as I see no evidence he spoke the human tongue. Eve was more in touch with nature than Baalam and so understood his language.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,14:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,21:49) Mammoths were still extant at the start of recorded history. Sabre-tooth cats weren't, so perhaps you could supply a reference for that extraordinary claim about eyewitness accounts of hunting them.
Oh you poor fellow. You can't even tell a joke when you see one. You shouldn't be so serious. It can lead to stress. I was actually making the opposite argument Stu, that not all things are recorded. Again, you fail to even understand that.I should really tone down my words and aim them at a child.
And are cave paintings recorded history? I think Sabres might have feasted on what you call early man
T8,You seem to be getting emotionally invested.
Thanks Kerwin. I am actually smiling. I find this funny and entertaining even if it is not really productive. Sometimes a laugh is good though.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 15 2013,19:24) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2013,22:44) Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 16 2013,01:33) I believe that there exists, at least for the time being, a one horned rhinoceros.
I believe that there exists, at least for the time being, a one horned rhinoceros. called a Unicorn. And the two horned one, is called Bicornis.Thank you. You officially believe in Unicorns. Now you have to convince the Unicorn Atheists that they exist. Good luck.
So now that you have changed your mind and now believe that the Unicorn is a real animal and not a mythical horse creature, perhaps other things that you put in the realm of mythology may be real to. Are you open to that possibility?
Hi T8,
Adding words to what I said and inferring that I said it is a feeble way to think you win a debate.The one horned rhinoceros is not, and never was called a unicorn.
It is described as having one horn. The scientific name given it was Rhinoceros unicornis.
A name that was never used 3,ooo years ago, but I suppose to you that only proves that Job was a scientist.It is called a great one horned rhinoceros or greater one horned rhinoceros.
It is also very unlikely that Job ever saw or heard of one, let alone try to put it in his stable.Good try T8, but in the future at least quote me accurately.
Tim
Timothy,The LXX has been around a long time and uses unicorn. The Ethiopian translation of the Septuagint translates it to words that are said to mean rhinoceros. The LXX translaters were translating living languages and not dead ones. I do not know the pertinent details of the Ethiopian translation.
Asian unicorn rhinoceroses are still around.
Consider these images:
Auroch:
Rhinoceros:
Elasmotherium sibiricum:
The only one of these animals that has horn(s) in the proper biological sense, is the auroch. The horns are bones that form part of its skeleton. The “corn” part of unicorn refers to a bony corn. But since the auroch has two horns it hardly qualifies as a unicorn. The skull of the rhinoceros has no horn in the proper sense. The clue is in the name – rhino means nose and ceros derives from the word keratin. Rhinoceros “horns” are called that but they aren't proper horns because they are made of keratin fibres, not bone. The same applies to Elasmotherium, a species related to the rhinoceros.
For me to believe that unicorns existed I would need to see the skeleton of an animal that had a single horn composed of bone. If you can show me genuine evidence of such an animal then I will believe in unicorns. Tusked animals like the narwhal don't count because tusks are adapted teeth.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
