- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,21:39) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:35) Either you are saying that you, as the alter ego of heaven, accept that “taking the piss” is an acceptable turn of phrase here, or if it isn't then perhaps as a longstanding member of the forum I should complain, with a request you log on as heaven and give yourself a square and a reprimand
Stu, “taking the piss” is a British term for making fun of someone. It is not to be confused with “taking a piss” which is completely unrelated.
Ethiopia.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:42) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,21:37) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:21) It's the Latin adjective for “one-horned”, not the noun unicorn. I realise there is a generalised use of the word horn that is incorrectly applied to keratin outgrowths, and that is how this adjective is used in the name. But the rhinoceros doesn't have a horn, biologically speaking.
Stuart
It wouldn't matter.If the Webster English Dictionary 200 years ago said that a Unicorn was a mono horned Rhinoceros and then the meaning changed to a mythical horse between then and now,
I showed you this wasn't true.Stuart
Ke.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,21:46) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:42) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,21:37) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:21) It's the Latin adjective for “one-horned”, not the noun unicorn. I realise there is a generalised use of the word horn that is incorrectly applied to keratin outgrowths, and that is how this adjective is used in the name. But the rhinoceros doesn't have a horn, biologically speaking.
Stuart
It wouldn't matter.If the Webster English Dictionary 200 years ago said that a Unicorn was a mono horned Rhinoceros and then the meaning changed to a mythical horse between then and now,
I showed you this wasn't true.Stuart
Ke.
I showed you it wasn't true.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,21:48)
Nice. But no Sabre-toothed cat cave art, and no pictures of hunters.I guess one positive to come out of it is that you have debunked the so-called story of Noah's flood that many claim happened some 4500 years ago. Maybe you could start a thread where you point that out to all those who like Ken Ham!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:21) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,20:48) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,23:45) It's not a unicorn. It's a keratin nose. Stuart
Unicornis.Latin for Unicorn.
It's the Latin adjective for “one-horned”, not the noun unicorn.I realise there is a generalised use of the word horn that is incorrectly applied to keratin outgrowths, and that is how this adjective is used in the name. But the rhinoceros doesn't have a horn, biologically speaking.
Stuart
Notice it says “This name…”.
Just admit that if that dictionary is correct, then people called the Rhinoceros a Unicorn.
Whether that is technically correct or not, it was obviously used that way.There are plenty of English words you use everyday that are not technically correct, nevertheless, that is the word and that is what it means.
If you can't see that, then you have a problem with reality.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:58) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,21:48)
Nice. But no Sabre-toothed cat cave art, and no pictures of hunters.I guess one positive to come out of it is that you have debunked the so-called story of Noah's flood that many claim happened some 4500 years ago. Maybe you could start a thread where you point that out to all those who like Ken Ham!
Stuart
Ahh but the point is that even when I am taking the piss, it turns out that Sabres were there when cave art was created, according to that.Of course if that is the case, then it is possible that it actually exists. Like Einsteins biggest blunder that turned out to be probably true.
I might check 'Recorded History' and see if one actually exists. How do I get access to Recorded History? Sorry I am new at this.
If you get an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says:
Unicorn
An animal with one horn; the monocerous. This name is often applied to the Unicorn.Rhinocerous
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.According to Noah Webster, back in the early 1800’s it was understood that there were two species of the rhinoceros. The one-horned species was called “unicorn,” and the two-horned species was called “bicornis.”
Today it is understood that there are five species of the rhinoceros, three of which have two horns, and two of which have one horn.Case closed. You failed. Move on, or prove that the Websters Dictionary was a fraud.
The original printing of the KJV has this on the front:
“Newly Translated out of the Original
Tongues: & with the former Translations
Diligently compared and revised by his
Majesty’s special Commandment”
The King James was translated from the original tongues, but the translators also diligently compared their work to former translations, including the Latin. They would have known that the Latin said “rinoceros,” and they put “unicorn.” This is evidence that unicorn meant rhinoceros back in 1611 just like it did in 1828.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,22:23) If you get an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says: Unicorn
An animal with one horn; the monocerous. This name is often applied to the Unicorn.Rhinocerous
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.According to Noah Webster, back in the early 1800’s it was understood that there were two species of the rhinoceros. The one-horned species was called “unicorn,” and the two-horned species was called “bicornis.”
Today it is understood that there are five species of the rhinoceros, three of which have two horns, and two of which have one horn.Case closed. You failed. Move on, or prove that the Websters Dictionary was a fraud.
Already did. You missed it. Go back and find the paintings of white horses and white goats with bony horns on their noses that were called unicorns that I posted earlier in this thread, one of which was dated a few years before the compilation of the KJV in 1611, and the other dated to the late 16th Century, which was definitely before Webster.Once you've found that, you could try me to see if I will accept an additional apology from you.
Webster was more of a zealot than an intentional fraud.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,22:25) The original printing of the KJV has this on the front:
“Newly Translated out of the Original
Tongues: & with the former Translations
Diligently compared and revised by his
Majesty’s special Commandment”
The King James was translated from the original tongues, but the translators also diligently compared their work to former translations, including the Latin. They would have known that the Latin said “rinoceros,” and they put “unicorn.” This is evidence that unicorn meant rhinoceros back in 1611 just like it did in 1828.
They also “would have known” that much medieval artwork showed unicorns as white horses or goats with a single bony horn. As I already explained to you.And the Vulgate has unicorn in Isaiah.
But as I have also said, I don't think the compilers of the KJV actually meant people to think of a white unicorn. It is just that they did use that word in nine verses even though they knew that unicorns were known as the white mythical beasts, and they could easily have just inserted the word “rhinoceros” (as it is spelled), as they actually did as a sidenote originally.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,22:08) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:21) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,20:48) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,23:45) It's not a unicorn. It's a keratin nose. Stuart
Unicornis.Latin for Unicorn.
It's the Latin adjective for “one-horned”, not the noun unicorn.I realise there is a generalised use of the word horn that is incorrectly applied to keratin outgrowths, and that is how this adjective is used in the name. But the rhinoceros doesn't have a horn, biologically speaking.
Stuart
Notice it says “This name…”.
Just admit that if that dictionary is correct, then people called the Rhinoceros a Unicorn.
Whether that is technically correct or not, it was obviously used that way.There are plenty of English words you use everyday that are not technically correct, nevertheless, that is the word and that is what it means.
If you can't see that, then you have a problem with reality.
I have no problem with what I said originally. To convince me that unicorns exist you would have to demonstrate the existence of an animal that conformed to the biological uses of the terms.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,22:23) If you get an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says: Unicorn
An animal with one horn; the monocerous. This name is often applied to the Unicorn.Rhinocerous
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.According to Noah Webster, back in the early 1800’s it was understood that there were two species of the rhinoceros. The one-horned species was called “unicorn,” and the two-horned species was called “bicornis.”
Today it is understood that there are five species of the rhinoceros, three of which have two horns, and two of which have one horn.Case closed. You failed. Move on, or prove that the Websters Dictionary was a fraud.
In Latin the noun unicornis specifically means the mythical white horse unicorn, and the adjective unicornis means one-horned.Rhinoceros unicornis is a binomial Linnaean name that takes the adjective unicornis, which has the third declension masculine singular genitive ending -is. This means the intention of the word is to describe the species as one-horned, not to offer unicornis as an alternative noun for that species of rhinoceros. To do that would be to describe a rhinoceros as being like a white horse.
It is possible to use a noun as the second word in a binomial name, but the word would be spelled “unicorns”, taking the third declension nominative masculine ending -s.
Webster is a fraud.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2013,18:13) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,22:25) The original printing of the KJV has this on the front:
“Newly Translated out of the Original
Tongues: & with the former Translations
Diligently compared and revised by his
Majesty’s special Commandment”
The King James was translated from the original tongues, but the translators also diligently compared their work to former translations, including the Latin. They would have known that the Latin said “rinoceros,” and they put “unicorn.” This is evidence that unicorn meant rhinoceros back in 1611 just like it did in 1828.
They also “would have known” that much medieval artwork showed unicorns as white horses or goats with a single bony horn. As I already explained to you.And the Vulgate has unicorn in Isaiah.
But as I have also said, I don't think the compilers of the KJV actually meant people to think of a white unicorn. It is just that they did use that word in nine verses even though they knew that unicorns were known as the white mythical beasts, and they could easily have just inserted the word “rhinoceros” (as it is spelled), as they actually did as a sidenote originally.
Stuart
Stu,The KJV translators did not make it easy for the readers of their version of Scripture.
As for that mythical horse from the 15th century, that is French I think. The French didn't create the KJV, the Brits did. So it is possible that while the British used the term Unicorn to describe a Rhino as testified by the first Websters Dictionary, it could have become that horse due to the way the French or those on the continent used that word.
It is also possible that the mythical horse in that art work was not called a Unicorn at all, but some French word. And the title of that came much later and after its discovery. Whatever the truth about that, it has no direct bearing on the fact that the Rhinoceros was called a Unicorn and a Unicorn was known as a Rhinoceros.
We often see on Coat of Arms, mythical creatures and that particular art work might have got its name after the Unicorn changed to a mythical horse. If not, it still doesn't change the fact that Websters Dictionary refers to Unicorns as Rhinos. Admit it, 200 years ago, the first Websters Dictionary does not say that a unicorn is a white mythical horse and given the KJV is 400 years old, then as the video aptly demonstrated, you cannot apply your understanding of Unicorn to the KJV Bible's meaning of it.
It makes no difference to me or King James that the word may not be the best term to use to describe that animal. It was obviously in use for the pure fact it was in the dictionary. That is the point, thus the use of the word in the KJV should not conjure up an image of a white horse as some Atheists do, because that is not the truth of the matter.
So back to the point which you lost a while back.
Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about a horse with a horn on it's head even though some Atheists are fond of promulgating that misconception.
And you have no choice but to believe that the Unicorn that is spoken of in the KJV actually existed/exists as a real animal. You have no excuse now.
You believe in the existence of what was called a Unicorn 200 years ago if you believe that mono-horned Rhinoceroses exist or existed.
Case closed Stu. Nothing can change that fact, unless you can go back in time and alter the past.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,02:13) But as I have also said, I don't think the compilers of the KJV actually meant people to think of a white unicorn. It is just that they did use that word in nine verses even though they knew that unicorns were known as the white mythical beasts, and they could easily have just inserted the word “rhinoceros” (as it is spelled), as they actually did as a sidenote originally.
Okay, you are finally making sense in your conclusion.
Except that I take it you are guessing that the KJV people knew Unicorns as white horses. Websters Dictionary backs up the view that they would have been thinking Rhinos.So now you can see how those Atheists look silly for saying that the Bible teaches the existence of this mythical horned horse.
You are now enlightened and know that they are not telling the full story. They are taking a modern understanding of a word and making out that the Bible teaches the existence of a horned horse when it is clearly not.
So mission accomplished. One more argument against the Bible falls by the way side. Even you now acknowledge that, with one exception that you have no proof for.
So this following video for example looks silly now that you have the facts.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2013,00:11) Webster is a fraud.
Is it not the job of a dictionary to list words in use and what they mean in their usage.How can it be a fraud if it fulfills that description.
The word “wicked” for example is defined as “evil or morally wrong”… But it also is used in the following:
playfully mischievous: a wicked sense of humour
wonderful: Sophie makes wicked cakesThe dictionary is not making a mistake here, it is only telling you what words mean in its varying uses.
Probably time to get over it Stu.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
