Kinds

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry, Jro -- this isn't John 9.

And you're not Jesus and what you're offering isn't wisdom.

What's your point?

 

[Targ]

So the unicorn gave birth to the predator and his prey? Kin predating on kin? You are depicting your god really as a psychopath.

"Unicorns" don't exist in any major translation after the KJV (of the Bibles I have access to, anyway). All modern versions translate it as "wild ox". There's little evidence that ancient Hebrew and Mesopotamian cultures had ideas of unicorns. Unicorns appear to have only become a popular image during the rise of the Grecian empire and therefore it would be anachronistic to translate a word from ancient Hebrew as "unicorn". Likewise with satyr, all modern versions have "wild goat".

The Hebrew words may have adopted those meanings (unicorn and satyr) later on, but at the time the Bible was written they would not have had those meanings, which is why you will not find mention of either in any modern versions, including the NKJV.

Not that this makes much difference to KJVOs like AVET, but anyway.

 

[Jro]

Yes

Would that really matter?

I 'concocted' a belief in kinds the minute I saw that word in Genesis 1.

I suppose it would matter to me because it would mean that you draw some kind of line between your imagination and the world at large. But it seems like, from this thread at least, that you're willing to invent any number of explanations as soon as you feel that they're needed, while simultaneously professing greater accuracy than people who explicitly interpret the bible.

I am sorry you're not interested in answering my questions. Would you share some thoughts on which lines of questioning you would be interested in answering (eg, "I'd like to discuss how 'kind' chromosomes mutate as opposed ot modern day chromosomes" or "let's speculate on how many kinds there actually were," etc.) as I'm not really sure what you're interested in discussing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Unicorns" don't exist in any major translation after the KJV (of the Bibles I have access to, anyway). All modern versions translate it as "wild ox". There's little evidence that ancient Hebrew and Mesopotamian cultures had ideas of unicorns. Unicorns appear to have only become a popular image during the rise of the Grecian empire and therefore it would be anachronistic to translate a word from ancient Hebrew as "unicorn". Likewise with satyr, all modern versions have "wild goat".

The Hebrew words may have adopted those meanings (unicorn and satyr) later on, but at the time the Bible was written they would not have had those meanings, which is why you will not find mention of either in any modern versions, including the NKJV.

Not that this makes much difference to KJVOs like AVET, but anyway.

Of course, weren't unicorns prominent symbols of Jesus in Medieval artwork as well? More material for King James' translators to draw inspiration from.

Not for nothing is a group of unicorns called a "blessing."

 

[Targ]

I'm not sure about in pictures of Jesus, but unicorns were certainly popular images in Medieval times, including on shields. Originally unicorns were actually pictures of bulls in profile where only one horn was visible with the other one hidden behind it. Over time this got turned into the image a creature that did actually only have one horn and at some point it was changed from a bull to a horse like creature.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure about in pictures of Jesus, but unicorns were certainly popular images in Medieval times, including on shields. Originally unicorns were actually pictures of bulls in profile where only one horn was visible with the other one hidden behind it. Over time this got turned into the image a creature that did actually only have one horn and at some point it was changed from a bull to a horse like creature.

33

 

[Nathan Poe]

33

And you should be thanking that higher academia for filling you in on what exactly you've been worshipping all these years -- education's good for you.

 

[corvus_corax]

I'm not sure about in pictures of Jesus, but unicorns were certainly popular images in Medieval times, including on shields. Originally unicorns were actually pictures of bulls in profile where only one horn was visible with the other one hidden behind it. Over time this got turned into the image a creature that did actually only have one horn and at some point it was changed from a bull to a horse like creature.

33

You just confirmed Targ's point.
Specifically, Hallmark and medieval paintings and drawings influencing what we think of certain creatures from the Bible.
Namely (in this case), the Unicorn and the Cherub

Glad to see you agreeing with Targ on this point AV

 

[AV1611VET]

You just confirmed Targ's point.
Specifically, Hallmark and medieval paintings and drawings influencing what we think of certain creatures from the Bible.
Namely (in this case), the Unicorn and the Cherub

Glad to see you agreeing with Targ on this point AV

I absolutely agree with Targ on this point; and it's a crying shame.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm hoping to show that not nearly -- (not even close to...) -- as many animals had to board the Ark as some think.

I don't see why you've bothered to bring this up because it doesn't really 'show' anything. I'm sure you'd be quite happy arguing that Noah could take a brick aboard a dinghy and still create from it all the life we see now.

One miracle doesn't make it easier to understand than another miracle, as both are practically impossible.

I don't gain any more from thinking about God creating all life from 6 fantasy animals than I do from thinking about him cramming 10 million species into a 500ft box.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't gain any more from thinking about God creating all life from 6 fantasy animals than I do from thinking about him cramming 10 million species into a 500ft box.

Well, for those who do -- this one's for them.

 

[Targ]

I absolutely agree with Targ on this point; and it's a crying shame.

You mean you agree that the KJV translators were wrong to use the words unicorn and satyr? Because if you agree that the unicorn was originally a bull in profile, then "uni-corn" ("one-horn") is not an appropriate name for that creature.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean you agree that the KJV translators were wrong to use the words unicorn and satyr?

QV my profile, please.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm hoping to show that not nearly -- (not even close to...) -- as many animals had to board the Ark as some think.

Except you can't do that without defining "Kind," which you've already said cannot be done.

But then again, this isn't about Noah -- as always, it's about you, isn't it?

DNFTAV.

 

[driewerf]

Except you can't do that without defining "Kind," which you've already said cannot be done.

But then again, this isn't about Noah -- as always, it's about you, isn't it?

DNFTAV.

DNFTAV ?

I'm sure many people here don't know what it means, but are too shy to ask.

 

[AV1611VET]

DNFTAV ?

I'm sure many people here don't know what it means, but are too shy to ask.

Do Not Feed The Authorized Version?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do Not Feed The Authorized Version?

As always, AV, close, but no cigar.

 

[Targ]

QV my profile, please.

Well yes I know that, I'm just confused about what you were agreeing with. Don't get me wrong, I like it when people agree with me, but with you, your agreements tend to have me suspicious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well yes I know that, I'm just confused about what you were agreeing with. Don't get me wrong, I like it when people agree with me, but with you, your agreements tend to have me suspicious.

You guys will never understand me until you learn to act right.

Ridiculing what I say, making jokes, automatically disagreeing -- even when you don't know what you're disagreeing about, snubbing basic doctrine, calling us what we aren't and coming here with holier-than-thou attitudes -- it's no wonder you're suspicious & confused.

 

[Targ]

You guys will never understand me until you learn to act right.

Ridiculing what I say, making jokes, automatically disagreeing -- even when you don't know what you're disagreeing about, snubbing basic doctrine, calling us what we aren't and coming here with holier-than-thou attitudes -- it's no wonder you're suspicious & confused.

This hissy fit doesn't answer my question.