Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Radrook]

This is the explanation that I find most reasonable in relation to whether or not mankind consumed meat prior to the Noachian Flood.

To answer the question, “Were all men prior to the Flood vegetarians?,” one merely can conclude that the Bible reveals God giving instructions only regarding the eating of food made from vegetation prior to the Deluge. God’s Word is conspicuously silent regarding the eating of animals.

However, just because God apparently did not authorize man to eat animal flesh before the Flood, does not mean that mankind abided by this regulation. It seems likely that there were some people who went beyond what God allowed, and ate various kinds of animals anyway. It is not difficult to imagine those living just prior to the Flood, whose every thought was evil continually (Genesis 6:5), leaning over a sacrificial sheep, smelling the sweet aroma, and taking a bite out of the lamb’s leg (cf. 1 Samuel 2:12-17).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1257

BTW

Preflood mankind was under Satanic influence and the Nephilim are described as being ravenously Carnivorous in some apocryphal accounts. When food supply began to become scarce-they are said to have turned on mankind as a source of meat.

Some Christians believe that the dietary stipulations contingent on the animals as specified in Eden were restricted to Eden and were not incumbent on animals in non-Edenic regions where inter-animal predation was allowed.

Creation Science Issues:

Death Before the Fall of Man
http://www.oldearth.org/death.htm#sthash.U0qipzAs.dpuf
http://www.oldearth.org/death.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Radrook said: ↑
Virgins were the only ones supposedly able to tame a unicorn.

-- Ai yi yi!

Guess that leaves you and I out ehehehe.......




.

 

[Radrook]

Guess that leaves you and I out ehehehe.......

I think that being a female virgin was a requirement.

BTW
Are you familiar with the unicorn having been left out of the Ark because it was too slow getting there and evolving into the Narwhal?

 

[Goonie]

LOL @ the pic.

As I said, they pose a problem for evolutionists.

In fact, I have a thread on the subject here.

I've got to say they seem to pose more of a problem for the creationist, ie no evidence of their existence exists outside of the bible ( though given that the Unicorn is almost certainly a rhinoceros, that can be crossed of the list)

 

[Hieronymus]

I've got to say they seem to pose more of a problem for the creationist, ie no evidence of their existence exists outside of the bible

No evidence is FOUND (yet).
It won't be the first time that evidence or even proof turns up that confirms Scripture.

 

[Goonie]

No evidence is FOUND (yet).
It won't be the first time that evidence or even proof turns up that confirms Scripture.

Well some of the animals on that list are probably the bible authors names for animals that are already known, ie unicorn = rhino. Or supposed, for example on finding fossil dinosaur bones naming said animals dragons. Dinosaur bones were not suddenly found only in the 19th century, and are likely the origin for the idea of the dragon.

 

[Ophiolite]

Some scientists speculate that in an infinitely large universe the emergence of a creature such as the unicorn would be virtually inevitable.

Yes, I see the point.

 

[Radrook]

I've got to say they seem to pose more of a problem for the creationist, ie no evidence of their existence exists outside of the bible ( though given that the Unicorn is almost certainly a rhinoceros, that can be crossed of the list)

Mistranslations give that impression just as mistranslations give the impression that the Hebrew word "sheol" is a fiery hell when "sheol" is merely referring to the common grave. This and other matters concerning the original word translated as "unicorn" have been mentioned previously on this thread. When a book is mistranslated-we don't blame the book-we blame the translators.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think it's a pity though that God apparently didn't bother to assist the translators a little here...
It's God who made translations necessary due to Babel.
O well, it's that same question again: "God, why would you allow this?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Okay ... um ... let's back up and try this again.

I submit that unicorns are in the Bible and they are examples of animals that existed that are not on Linnaeus' list today.

This means they are not "ponies with horns," hippopotamuses, narwhals, or anything else codified.

Yes they are in the Bible Ree-em.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7214.htm

"reem: a wild ox"

Yes, they are no longer on the list. The Auroch is extinct because it would not bend to the plow.

They were codified and are - they are just extinct. They were a wild ox, a form of cattle. They simply could not be domesticated - and so serving no purpose to man - were driven into extinction - as all things that serve no purpose to man's greed are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think it's a pity though that God apparently didn't bother to assist the translators a little here...
It's God who made translations necessary due to Babel.
O well, it's that same question again: "God, why would you allow this?"

Why allow Adam to eat the fruit and fall? I guess if you want to be a robot, He could indeed enforce His will, but such is the price we pay for free will to choose our path in life. One must accept the bad things that happen because of choices - not just the good. Job understood this.

No, it was man that caused Babel - not God.

Job 11:4 "otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

Yet the command from God from the beginning was to multiply and fill the earth - not sit in one place for fear of going forth over the face of it.

Don't blame God for what man through his choices caused.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But they are "real Christians" quite often. They believe, but they don't mind cheating. And if you look at the people behind most scientific hoaxes it appears that they are not scientists. The person behind Archaeoraptor was a Chinese man that saw there was quite a bit of interest in specific fossils, so he made one. They still aren't sure who made the skull that became "Piltdown man". But the sad fact is that there are thousands of Christian frauds for every scientific one. From small scale local conmen to leaders of mega-churches, you will find people that take advantage of the beliefs of others. To make a con in the science world takes a lot more effort and tends to be less monetarily rewarding.

No they not. Just as the Pope that started the Inquisition was not a Christian. He might claim to be one - but he wasn't.

And those people taking advantage of the beliefs of others are not Christian. if they were - they would not be doing such.

Just as those who claim birds interbreeding before their eyes and producing fertile offspring are separate species are not scientists.

Both categories are fakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they not. Just as the Pope that started the Inquisition was not a Christian. He might claim to be one - but he wasn't.

Sorry, but he was a Christian. You can't say who and who is not a Christian, in fact if he was a member here you would have to acknowledge that he was a Christian by the rules of this forum.

And those people taking advantage of the beliefs of others are not Christian. if they were - they would not be doing such.

It must be nice to have a religion where anyone that does something that you disagree with is no longer a member of your religion. Of course that ultimately reduces the members in your religion to only one.

Just as those who claim birds interbreeding before their eyes and producing fertile offspring are separate species are not scientists.

Shame on you! You know better than this. You are alluding to your failed claim that all of the Darwin's finches interbreed. You were only able to show that some of them do. No one is saying that the people involved in that work were not scientists. Of course your misinterpretation of their work shows that you are not a scientist.

Both categories are fakes.

The second one definitely is since that is your own strawman, and you are not in any position to decide if someone is a Christian or not. You can reasonably say that their sort of Christianity is not your sort of Christianity.

 

[Radrook]

Sorry, but he was a Christian. You can't say who and who is not a Christian, in fact if he was a member here you would have to acknowledge that he was a Christian by the rules of this forum.

It must be nice to have a religion where anyone that does something that you disagree with is no longer a member of your religion. Of course that ultimately reduces the members in your religion to only one.

Jesus disagrees with you:

Matthew 7:21-23New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many a]">[a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

------------------------------------------------------

Rev 22:


…14Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. 16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."…

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus disagrees with you:

Wrong again. That quote does not show that any particular person is not a Christian. It only says that some that claim to have been Christians will be judged not to be. Many of those people that performed acts that we can now see were evil did it because of their Christian beliefs. Many creationists will lie today supporting those beliefs. In fact most creationist articles tend to have one form or another of lie in them. Since they are clearly breaking the Ninth Commandment does that make them "not Christian"? Again, if Christians start eliminating everyone that disagrees with them in one point or another the size of the Christians community will shrink to one person.

 

[Radrook]

Wrong again. That quote does not show that any particular person is not a Christian. It only says that some that claim to have been Christians will be judged not to be. Many of those people that performed acts that we can now see were evil did it because of their Christian beliefs. Many creationists will lie today supporting those beliefs. In fact most creationist articles tend to have one form or another of lie in them. Since they are clearly breaking the Ninth Commandment does that make them "not Christian"? Again, if Christians start eliminating everyone that disagrees with them in one point or another the size of the Christians community will shrink to one person.

Your claim seems to have been that there is no one who claims to be Christian who isn't a Christian or who can justifiably be deemed unchristian based on that person's devilish behavior. Which implies that the Count De Sade, Jack the Ripper, the Boston Strangler, Vlad the Impaler later referred to as Dracula, the notoriously sadistic and murderous Nazi Doctor Mengele, and all such demon-like persons could smugly claim Christianity and that their claim cannot be challenged. Jesus disagreed via the illustration. That you choose to understand it differently doesn't change it. It merely shows that you prefer to understand it in your own morally-permissive way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your claim seems to have been that there is no one who claims to be Christian who isn't a Christian or who can justifiably be deemed unchristian based on that person's devilish behavior. Which implies that the Count De Sade, Jack the Ripper, the Boston Strangler, Vlad the Impaler later referred to as Dracula, the notoriously sadistic and murderous Nazi Doctor Mengele, and all such demon-like persons could smugly claim Christianity and that their claim cannot be challenged. Jesus disagreed via the illustration. That you choose to understand it differently doesn't change it. It merely shows that you prefer to understand it in your own morally-permissive way.

No, I am saying that you can't judge who is and who is not a Christian. And you really don't know what Jesus agreed with or disagreed with. All you have is your interpretation of the Bible. And all of those people that you mentioned, if they were truly sorry at the end of their lives and asked for forgiveness then by the rules of your religion they would be Christians and they would have been saved. I am not going by my morals here, which are much better than Christian morals, I am going by what is written by the Bible and of course by the rules of this forum. If I suddenly had a change of heart and decided that I did believe in Jesus you would be in no position to challenge that belief here. In fact challenging my beliefs would be actually against the rules of the forum. In the same way I can't say "You are not a real Christian" if you don't follow part of the Bible that I interpret in a specific way that you would disagree with.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why allow Adam to eat the fruit and fall? I guess if you want to be a robot, He could indeed enforce His will, but such is the price we pay for free will to choose our path in life.

Read Genesis 3, A & E were tempted by the serpent.

No, it was man that caused Babel - not God.

God confused the languages, remember?

 

[Radrook]

No, I am saying that you can't judge who is and who is not a Christian. And you really don't know what Jesus agreed with or disagreed with. All you have is your interpretation of the Bible. And all of those people that you mentioned, if they were truly sorry at the end of their lives and asked for forgiveness then by the rules of your religion they would be Christians and they would have been saved. I am not going by my morals here, which are much better than Christian morals, I am going by what is written by the Bible and of course by the rules of this forum. If I suddenly had a change of heart and decided that I did believe in Jesus you would be in no position to challenge that belief here. In fact challenging my beliefs would be actually against the rules of the forum. In the same way I can't say "You are not a real Christian" if you don't follow part of the Bible that I interpret in a specific way that you would disagree with.

I never claimed that a person is not forgiven if he repents or that I would go out of my way to challenge such a claim.
Neither did I claim to know who will or who will not ultimately attain salvation.
That is for God to decide, not me.

I merely said that the Bible provides criteria upon which we as humans are allowed to judge whether a person is sincerely trying to please God or is not and whether the person meets the behavioral requirements of being a Christian or not.

Obviously a person who knows that adultery is wrong and engages in it anyway isn't meeting the behavioral requirements of being a Christian. Neither is a habitual unrepentant thief. Not because I say so-but because the Bible plainly tells us so. If indeed that is against the forum rules to say as you keep reminding me, then maybe I am at the wrong forum.
According to Paul to say otherwise is to deceive ourselves:

1 Corinthians 6

. 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[brinny]

I assume everyone that responds to that will supposedly be a scientist?
That leaves me out ....

.

i'm not a scientist, but i do believe in unicorns......

The word unicorn means literally "one-horn". It comes from the Latin word unus, which means one, andcornu which means horn, which term is in itself borrowed from the earlier Greek word monokeros (also 'one horned')

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

i believe they look like this: