next »

[smfmommy]

I mentioned to my daughters that the Bible had unicorns in it.  They were pleased and wanted to read the verses.  I looked up in our concordance and found one.  But in their New King James it was translated as wild ox.  I checked using our eSword software and in the various translations it has been translated wild ox, ox, buffalo, wild bull, rhinoceros, mountain ox, and reem as well as unicorn.  Which one is right?  When the King James translators used the word unicorn what were they seeing - was it some animal we know of now or was it a one horned horse?

Can anyone clarify for me?

Thank you!
 

[Momofone]

I'm certainly no expert on the subject of unicorns - but my personal thought is that we may never know for sure.  Old pictures depict them from horses to goats to dragons, and explorers have written of seeing (some) one horned beast(s).  The word unicorn just means "one horn" - but gives no indication of what the rest of the animal looks like. 

I once had a discussion with a person who was trying to discredit the Bible.  This person used the "fictitious" unicorn as an example.  I explained that once we get rid of our preconceived "Bar*ie" ideal - we see that there are still one horned beasts in the world today - some goats & the narwhal for example.

Don't think that really answers your question, though.

[smfmommy]

The word unicorn just means "one horn" - but gives no indication of what the rest of the animal looks like. 

Yeah, that's why I wondered what the original translators were thinking when they used the word unicorn.  I am OK with the Bible unicorn not looking like what you typically see in a picture today but I was surprised that the alternate translation was wild ox.  Not exactly a one horned animal.  Or is there something about the wild ox I don't know?

 

[denim&lace]

Biblical
 
The aurochsAn animal called the re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם‎) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or 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 mountain bull with large horns."[3] This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.

found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

[ForeverGirl]

I always liked, "Rhino" but I really don't know... I agree with the image of strength and raw power. Probably not a horse-like creature.

--gabe

[brandplucked]

UNICORNS

Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.”

Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.”

All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby's, Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims of 1610 read "unicorn" (Deut. 33:17) but the revised Douay-Rheims of 1821 and 1950 have "rhinoceros" (Deut. 33:17) but "unicorn" in some of the other verses.  Young's 'literal' translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads "the rheem", while the Ferrar Fenton translation done in 1910 had "bulls".  Let's see now...unicorns, buffaloes, rhinoceros, rheem and bulls.  Yep, all pretty much the same things, right? ;-) Whenever you hear the phrase "All scholars agree" you should know right away that the guy has no idea what he is talking about.

I recently discovered something that I think is very interesting of quite enlightening about how modern scholars are changing the definitions that words once had. I have in my study two different printings of the well known Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. One is from 1887 and the other one is from 1976, which was a reprint of the 9th edition of 1940. The more modern Liddell and Scott defines the word monokeros as "a wild ox". However the 1887 edition gives only one definition of the word - A UNICORN!!!. Now, it should be obvious that Liddell and Scott themselves were not alive in 1976 so that they could suddenly change their minds about what this word meant. So who changed the definition of this word for future generations?

 

Using the Correct Definition

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”; it was a one horned animal.  If you look in  Websters’ 1828 Dictionary of the English Language for the definitions of these two words - unicorn and rhinocerous - here is what you find.


unicorn
U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.

3. A fowl.

fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar.

Notice there is no mention of a mythical horse like creature.


rhinoceros
RHINOC'EROS, n. [L. rhinoceros; Gr. nose-horn.]

A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, as 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.
 
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

"The Reem, most probably denotes the Rhinoceros, so called from the horn on its nose. In size he is only exceeded by the elephant; and in strength and power inferior to none. He is at least twelve feet in length, from the snout to the tail; six or seven feet in height; and the circumference of the body is nearly equal to his length. He is particularly distinguished from all other animals by the remarkable and offensive weapon he carries on his nose; which is very hard horn, solid throughout, directed forward."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown

"Israel is not as they were at the Exodus, a horde of poor, feeble, spiritless people, but powerful and invincible as a Reem - that is, a Rhinoceros." 


 Here is a very interesting 7 minute video showing the direct relationship between the words unicorn and rhinocerous and why the King James Bible uses the word unicorn to refer to this animal. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzhThugPfY8
 

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating this specific Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition "unicornio", the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible,  the French Martin 1744 "licornes", Luther's German 1545 (Einhorn) and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 "einhornshomer", the Russian Synodal Translation 1876,  the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament "monokeros"(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation of 1870, Brenton Translation 1851, English Jubilee Bible 2000, The Word of JAH 1993, the 21st Century King James Version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible 1833,  Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York. 

The Modern Greek Bible (totally different from the so called Greek Septuagint) has the word monokeros in these same Old Testament passages, and if you look at a Modern Greek dictionary, the word simply means a UNICORN! Here is an online Greek dictionary with both Greek and English.  http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon   Just type in the word monokeros for Greek to English, or on the other side (English to Greek)  type in the word unicorn.  There you will clearly see that the way to say unicorn is this same Greek word, and the Modern Greek Bible has unicorns in these same Old Testament passages.

 Here is what the Modern Greek translation looks like in Job 39:9-10 where the unicorn is mentioned twice - Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?  Canst thou bind the unicron with his band in the furrow?

Job 39:9    Θελει ευχαριστηθη ο μονοκερως να σε δουλευη, η θελει διανυκτερευσει εν τη φατνη σου;
Job 39:10.    Δυνασαι να δεσης τον μονοκερων με τον δεσμον αυτου προς αροτριασιν;
 

 

The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.

 Some King James Bible critics hypocritically tell us that the KJB translators followed the so called Greek Septuagint (LXX) when they translated the word as "unicorn".  It is both hypocritical and false.  Hypocritical because all modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV frequently reject the clear Hebrew readings and follow one of the various LXX readings, and  false because in Deut. 33:17 where the KJB and others rightly have the plural "unicorns" the KJB margin says: "HEBREW - an unicorn". Notice that it does NOT say "LXX - an unicorn".

One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of “wild ox”, besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. ‘But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN.” The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: “You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX.” Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.

Psalm 92:10 Wycliffe 1395 - And myn horn schal be reisid as an vnicorn; and myn eelde in plenteuouse merci.

Bishop's Bible 1568 - But my horne shalbe exalted lyke the horne of an vnicorne: for I am annoynted with excellent oyle.

Coverdale 1535 - But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Vnicorne, & shal be anoynted with fresh oyle.

Geneva Bible 1599 - But thou shalt exalt mine horne, like the vnicornes, and I shalbe anoynted with fresh oyle.

Third Millenium Bible 1998 - But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn; I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: “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.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - " his horns are like the horns of unicorns",  Websters Bible 1833, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 21st Century KJV 1994. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are showing their selective use of the Hebrew language.

All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Deut. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 “dowr” generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.

So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re'em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy.  As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert.  Go to the link (it is still active as of Feb. 2010) and scroll down to Discussion #115 where he talks about the Lion and the Unicorn.

http://britam.org/proof3.html

Rabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). "It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn."

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the "wild ox" of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.

A Bible believing Christian at one of the online Christian forums had this to say:  "In every case the unicorn is mentioned in the bible it is referring to a spiritual animal. Psalm 22:21 is one example. Whatever a unicorn was it didn't matter because the word is used symbolically in scripture. It pertains to something in the spiritual realm. In 1611 England the unicorn was well known to be a symbolic mythical creature representative of strength and power. The translators knew this therefore the word fit for what the text demanded. Perhaps a unicorn is some kind of animal in heaven."     

One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.

In the original 1611 edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.

Jerome in the 4th century translated the Hebrew word Reem as Rhinocerotis five times and Unicornis four times. Jerome studied Hebrew under the Jews before he began his translation of the OT, thus it is from the Jews directly that Jerome derived his definitions.

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

[smfmommy]

Thank you Gabe and Brandplucked.  The Rhino isn't as pretty as the unicorn my girls were thinking of  but it is definitely stronger and seems to fit well.

Thanks again for the clarification!
 

[AndysDad]

smfmommy:

was it some animal we know of now or was it a one horned horse?

It was not a one-horned horse. Such a creature has never existed. The one-horned rhino, however, has been around since speciation developed after the Flood.  The reason we now have the word Unicorn in the English language is due to the problem that early explorers had in describing "an animal with four hoofed legs and a tail--kind of like a horse--but with a big horn coming out of the forehead."  To further the myth, Norsemen speared narwhals in the Arctic and sold the tusks as "unicorn horns" to unsuspecting Europeans. You will notice that medieval depictions of unicorns show a perfectly normal looking white horse with a perfectly normal looking (albeit usually--not always--rather short) narwhal tusk protruding from their forehead.  The KJV translated reem as Unicorn because, like so many animal names in the Old Testament, they didn't know what modern name to use and just stuck with what the Greek Bible had, monoceros. Why the Greeks used that word we don't know for sure, but obviously it became associated with reem at some point way back in history. Denim & Lace provides a likely clue:

The aurochs: An animal called the re’em (Hebrew) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns, 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 mountain bull with large horns." This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.

Will isn't going to like that, but while he's at responding he can explain how the bat is a kind of bird (Lev. 11:19).


Will

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture (emphasis added)

The Bible:

For my sword shalbe drunken in the heauen: beholde, it shall come downe vpon Edom, euen vpo the people of my curse to iudgement.
The sword of the Lord is filled with blood: it is made fat with the fat & with the blood of the lambes & the goates, with the fat of the kidneis of the rams: for the Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.

OK Will, what's so good and positive about rhinos rampaging through Edom (when did rhinos go extinct in Edom, anyway)?

And the vnicorne shall come downe with them and the heiffers with the bulles, and their lande shalbe drunken with blood, and their dust made fat with fatnesse.

Come to think of it, I think it's talking about bulls and heifers--wild oxen, maybe?

Will:

There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness.There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

The Bible:

Be not farre from me, because trouble is neere: for there is none to helpe me. Many yong bulles haue compassed me: mightie bulles of Bashan haue closed me about. They gape vpon me with their mouthes, as a ramping and roaring lyon . . . Deliuer my soule from the sword: my darling from the power of the dogge. Saue me from the lyons mouth, and answere me in sauing me from the hornes of the vnicornes.

More bulls. Wild oxen, maybe?  But assisting our Lord in his hour of need? Doesn't look like it.

Will:

All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct.

Or maybe it was the KJV translators that didn't know what it was?

Will:

Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated.

Maybe Will doesn't know what an auruchs was. It is extinct, and it was not domesticated. Ever watched someone hitch an American bison bull--or cow, for that matter--up to a plow? It's never happened. "Wild" really does mean "wild."

A Bible believing Christian at one of the online Christian forums had this to say: 

"In every case the unicorn is mentioned in the bible it is referring to a spiritual animal.

  Here's our authority on the matter; no doubt here. When stuck on the literal, just spiritualize it. A very handy stratagem for getting out of doing your homework.

Whatever a unicorn was it didn't matter because the word is used symbolically in scripture. It pertains to something in the spiritual realm.

And it no doubt, when it chooses to grace its worshipers with its visible presence, appears as a white horse with a protruding narwhal tusk.

In 1611 England the unicorn was well known to be a symbolic mythical creature representative of strength and power.

Odd, by 1828 in New England that universal knowledge was already lost to Noah Webster, a man who knew 20 languages.

Will:

One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.

Yes, and those who have a little classical education can translate this as Genus: Nose horned; Species: One horned. Make up your mind, Will. Were the animals that God Himself said would ravage Edom mythical, spiritually present comforters or 2-ton leftovers from the Flood that never made it to India?

One definite possibility was the aurochs. Males were called bulls. Females were called heifers. They were wild. The were dangerous. They lived in the Middle East in ancient times, and we have the pictures (one-horned in profile) to prove it.

ETA: Unicorns weren't quite pictured as 'normal' horned white horses, it turns out. They had non-equine hooves and tails, in keeping with the fact that rhinos don't have equine hooves or tails.

[brandplucked]

Hi Andy's Dad.  As I pointed out in the article, we don't really know what animal the unicorn was, but it only had ONE horn, not two.  I suggested that it might have been a rhinoceros. So your auruch thingy is wrong.  Just another wild guess on your part.


Andy's Dad - "Will isn't going to like that, but while he's at responding he can explain how the bat is a kind of bird (Lev. 11:19)."

Well, the is what the Hebrew text and most Bibles out there in all languages say, isn't it.  God's classification is not the same as modern man's made up scientific categories.

If it has wings and flies, it is called "a fowl".

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes (including the Whale!) and another of birds."  1 Cor. 15:39

Will Kinney

[AndysDad]

If it has wings and flies, it is called "a fowl".
"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes (including the Whale!) and another of birds."  1 Cor. 15:39

Caterpillars don't have wings or fly; moths and butterflies do. Steamer Ducks have wings but don't fly. Are you saying that caterpillars and Steamer Ducks have one kind of flesh, but butterflies and bats have another?  Oh, except some Steamer ducks ARE able to fly, so I guess they're another kind of flesh from the ones that can't.

Andy'sDad

[brandplucked]

Hi Andy's Dad.  Just read Leviticus 11:13 through 19 in just about any bible version out there.  I know of no exceptions.  They ALL list the bat among the "fowls" or even "birds" in the new versions.  So, are you now of the opinion that God and all bibles got it wrong?  Is that where you are headed with this stuff?

Will K

[AndysDad]

Hi Andy's Dad.  Just read Leviticus 11:13 through 19 in just about any bible version out there.  I know of no exceptions.  They ALL list the bat among the "fowls" or even "birds" in the new versions.  So, are you now of the opinion that God and all bibles got it wrong?  Is that where you are headed with this stuff?

That's a fair question, Will. But I won't give it short answer, as I don't like being misunderstood.
Whenever I come across a quotation that is allegedly from the Scripture, I first ask myself, Is this actually from the Scripture? If I can't get through that step, there's no use even going any further. Here are some of the alleged Scripture quotations I've had to deal with:

1. "God helps those who help themselves."  A quick search will show that no Bible version contains this phrase. It is instead lifted from Aesop's Fables. End of discussion: I don't guide my life by a pagan who lived 2600 years ago. Turn it from a Biblical to a philosophical discussion, and I might have some input, but the Biblical discussion is over once the non-Biblical source of the quote is revealed.

2. "Pride goeth before a fall." The Jacobean English here is a distractor; this quote is a more recent invention. But behind the exact wording of this alleged Scripture quotation is an actual verse of Scripture,  Proverbs 16:18.  As it happens, whoever contracted the verse did so without changing the contextual meaning, due to the character of Hebrew poetic parallelism.  Other misquotes, however, are not as harmless.

3. "Obey your elders." This appears to be somewhat of a conflation between "obey your parents" (Eph. 6:1) and "obey them that have the rule over you" (Hebrews 13:17).  But as my big sister often quoted it to me as a child, it was clearly a twisting of those verses' meaning in context.  To deal with this misquotation would require a systematic study of what the whole Bible teaches about submission--something I was not equipped to do at the time, to my detriment.

Once we get past that step, the next one is to determine if it has been translated correctly. This requires an understanding of both the original and the target language, and how both may have changed over time. The Bible has been translated so many times that one can generally assume a translation to be reasonably correct, unless something else indicates a problem--such as the case here, where bats are referred to as 'fowl' or 'birds'.

Here we are in Leviticus 11, where a list of unclean animals is given by categories. "Beasts" include camels and coneys--both mammals, although figuring out what the text means by 'divide the hoof' and 'chew the cud' can be a bit difficult. English speakers do not describe camels as 'not dividing the hoof' or coneys as 'chewing the cud.' Apparently the problem is in understanding the Hebrew original--something the KJV translators themselves admitted to needing help with.

Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

We don't use the word 'beast' now like they did in the 16th century. But at least we are capable, in the English language, of including everything from coneys to camels under the category of 'beasts', and making sense of it.

The next category is 'all that are in the waters'. We commonly refer to such creatures as 'fish', even if they aren't what botanist strictly refer to by that designation. For example, we speak of 'shellfish' that are actually mollusks. "Fishermen" will often bring in catches of arthropods or even cetaceans.  So no big problem there.

Finally we come to 'fowls.' Here we have a problem, because we classify bats as beasts rather than fish or fowl. But not so the Hebrews: they distinguished between creeping things that flew and creeping things that didn't, but not between bats and birds. They called them all 'oaf.'  If I were translating Leviticus 11 into English, I would not use the word 'fowl' here, or even 'birds', but 'wing-flappers'.  That denomination may sound a bit awkward, but it's the only way I can think of including steamer ducks, flying foxes, and vultures all in the same category. Because it alone accurately conveys the meaning of the Hebrew original, I would consider it a better translation than what is in the KJV, but of course others are entitled to their opinions on that. What isn't acceptable, IMO, is forcing a meaning on an English word that it cannot bear. "Fowl" is a poor translation anyway, as it has a much more specific meaning now then it did in the 16th century. But the category in view here is wider still. In English, bats are not birds. Those who continue to translate them as such need to at least provide a footnote explaining why they insist on calling them birds anyway, or they do the reader, and the cause of biblical literacy, a great disservice.

Andy'sDad

[brandplucked]

Hi Andy's Dad.  Well, maybe you should just go all the way and write your own bible.  Your "wingflappers" would also include the grasshoppers then I assume, right?  God calls them "creeping flying things" but not "fowls" as He does the bat.  God's classification is not the same as mans.

You may think that "fowls" or "birds" is incorrect, but that is what is found in the Hebrew texts themselves as well as the Geneva bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman Standard and almost any bible translation out there.

Once you set up your own mind as your final authority, then I guess even "wingflappers" would be acceptable.

No thank you, brother.  I'll stick with my King James Bible.

Will Kinney

[AndysDad]

No, 'Wing-flappers' would not include grasshoppers in any Bible I write myself. Why should it? But it your world, 'fowls' does include the following, according to Leviticus 11:20--
locusts
bald locusts
beetles
grasshoppers

While you're at sticking to the King James Bible, you'll need to be careful to never use the word 'cricket'. The biblical name for this creature is 'beetle'.
Well, I suppose it's OK to use it to refer to a game played with a ball and bat--and in that case, you don't have to call the bat a fowl. The ball might be foul though.

Andy'sDad

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 08, 2012, 03:43:01 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6896
• Latest: ESTel987

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 37
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 29
• Total: 29