If you don't believe in unicorns, you are against God's word

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-in-bible

I'd be curious to know what the original Hebrew said. Unicorn literally means "one horn." It does not necessarily mean a one horned horse, and I strongly suspect that the use of the word "unicorn" is one of the many sloppy examples of translating the Greek and Hebrew into English.

I think I know what this really means. I recall reading about a type of ox called a one-horn in Hebrew. The reason had something to do with the horns being so symmetrical that in profile it looked like one horn. Egyptian art, which painted things in profile, painted them with just the one horn visible, thus making them like like one-horned (uni-corn) oxen. Thus the Hebrews while in Egypt referred to this ox as a "one-horn" or whatever Hebrew words translate to "one" and "horn").

Then centuries later an ignorant translator who didn't know what the Hebrew word refers to assumed that it was referring to the one-horned horse of European folklore. Nevermind that the story came from the Middle East, not Europe. And thus the ignorance snowballs centuries later into ignorant websites trying to defend the Bible by defending unicorns.

So denying unicorns exist is to deny a sloppy English translation of the Bible as being accurate. But you have to deny the existence of oxen if you wish to object to the original Hebrew version.

The sad thing is that I can write the above defense of Job and I'm not even a believer of any of the two religions that should know this stuff.

I disagree with answers in Genesis on more than just the subject of unicorns.

I think it was skafather84 who started up the ties to the site debunking the horned red devil. Even if you apply literality to TRANSLATIONS - which God forbid - there is no need to see in scripture a one horned horse or flying purple people eater.

The Septuagint [and I have NO idea what the alleged 70 Jewish fathers who produced that Greek translation thought they were doing] translates monokeros - Einhorn except in Isaiah 34 where it comes out hadroi - the fat ones. Go figure. The Syriac translation kindly retains the Hebrew word - a lot of the Syriac OT is supposed to be a straight Jewish Targum anyway.

Jerome here has to answer for his failings - he is all over the board. In Isaiah where the Septuagint does NOT use monokeros he has unicorns; in Job he actually gives us as rhinoceros. WHAT was he thinking? We know he hated Hebrew [not just Hebrew, Semitic in general, too many uncouth sounds he could not get his tongue around. We also know in places there was pressure on him to be more traditional thasn accurate in his translation, I suspect he listened to his language tutors with their Palestinian Greek and then figured hey, it is fantastical poetry, who cares about sense? A bad attitude - but it is plausible.

And, face it, most Alexandrian Jews are going to have seen more rhinoceronts than aurochs. Their ideas on what the critter is [check out behemoth some time - that is even cuter] wetre likely pretty fuzzy.

I am told there are parts of Africa where there are no lions [too much jungle, not enough savannah - yes, Savannah, there is a Georgia] but people know the word, know it means a kind of mythic animal, and can draw you a picture that has SOME things in common with a lion. Traditions can persist.

Who says it was a horse? It could have been a narwhale or one of these. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/11/italy1

While the European unicorn is commonly portrayed with a gracile equine head and neck, inspection reveals it is an even-toed ungulate, not part of the equine lineage. Also, we know nothing of the strcture of the horn - more comparable to rhinocerous, giraffe, Bos taurus, or the cervids?

Without even a hide in hand, speculation seems unproductive.

The Bible is not total fiction. Contrary to what Atheists say, the Bible presents history that has archeological evidence to support it. However, it is a biased history and opinionated. The Koran has a similar situation. Real history, with bias. The bible and Koran draw conclusions about Faith that cannot be proved and are subject to opinion.
The Bible cannot be proven to be God's Word, because an opinionated history cannot claim to be God's Word. The Bible we read s a translation of a translation of a translation. Fundamentalists act like the English Bible is the Word of God, they are as wrong as Atheists. The meanings are wrong.
The Od Testament was written in archaic Hebrew and archaic Aramaic. There is evidence of Canaanite, Phoenician, Syriac words as well. These are Semitic languages that have vast difference in meaning from IndoEuropean languages. The old testament was translated into Greek then English or Greek mixed with Latin then into English.
IndoEuropean language (English Latin Greek) use a system of meaning that is monosyllabic and vocalic in it's original form. Semitic languages is based on three consonants forming a root word. The consonants convey meaning. The vowels (which are often unwritten) are subordinate to the consonants. The infection of the vowels determine the manner and form of the idea. The system of tenses is also different.
The original Hebrew and Aramaic words are then translated into unrelated Greek then into English. Now, we know why the meanings have changed.
The New Testament was written in Greek years after the death of Jesus. He preached in Aramaic, his followers rewrote it in Greek after he died.
Read the Bible with a Hebrew/Aramaic dictionary.
You find out that not only are unicorns are really wild oxen. You will find out that we do not burn in Hell for any sins. Angels are not what we have been told. Lucifer is not the Devil. Satan is not really the Devil. We do not go to Heaven after death. Satan is a servant of YHWE (though a nasty one). God is an inappropriate word for the Creator. The Devil is not who we think he is. Demons are not what we are told they are. Demons are Greek and are the wrong word for evil spirits. Devil is a mixed Latin-Persian title for the world. Christianity is a form of Zoroastrianism and the Devil is Ahriman. Satan is a title for a kind of sneaky rat prosecutor or accuser who tempts others. There are many forms of "angels" that have different functions and our Bible just lumps these unrelated beings under one Greek term "angel".
Then read the Koran and the Book of Enoch.

Zoroastrianism?

Too much to say to that even to start.

The Book of Enoch is a very interesting work, but of dubious value. The Qur'an is useful readinmg if only because it behooves one these days to know a little about what Islam is about.

Oh, yes- apparently the mideast had extinct rhinos and hippos.