King James Bible, the best and only one to read.

[Tellyontellyon]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

 

[dqhall]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

It might have been a desert oryx or ibex. Sometimes the meanings of words change. Gay once meant cheerful. Some people twisted the meaning to mean homosexual. I do not know what unicorn meant to the ancient Israelis.

Since Israel is close to Egypt, separated by the Sinai desert, there were bound to be Semitic people going to and going from Egypt. There was some knowledge of Egyptian culture in Israel. Some of the ten commandments were based on moral principles written into the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Is this post meant to mock the KJV?

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Is this post meant to mock the KJV?

Not to mock, but to question the attitude of having a best translation.
It is a criticism of any sort of 'onlyism' when it comes to Bibles... whatever the translation.... NIV or ESV or NASB onlyisms are also problematic.

(though I'm also interesting that the KJV translators considered unicorn as a likely possibility for the word they were trying to translate... the English must have had a concrete belief in unicorns at the time of translation)

 

[Tuur]

Not to mock, but to question the attitude of having a best translation.
It is a criticism of any sort of 'onlyism' when it comes to Bibles... whatever the translation.... NIV or ESV or NASB onlyisms are also problematic.

(though I'm also interesting that the KJV translators considered unicorn as a likely possibility for the word they were trying to translate... the English must have had a concrete belief in unicorns at the time of translation)

Isn't the question actually if the KJV translators considered the word rendered unicorn as meaning unicorn?

 

[HTacianas]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

I don't care much for the King James version. But the "unicorn" comes from the Greek translation of Hebrew as monokeros, meaning "a thing with one horn". You can see one below. But if you want to pick on the KJV for animals, begin with cockatrice.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Zoological nomenclature was not very advanced in 1611.

 

[Larry H.]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

I run across the term (unicorn) many years ago in my Bible studies but really don't stress over it. That is because according to the "Strong Exhausted Concordance Of The Bible", which was and is one of my main tools of study, the word unicorn was translated in all 3 scriptures from a Hebrew word which had the English definition of "a wild bull".

I guess a person could always entertained questions such as: Was there really a unicorn as we know it that became extinct, or is the so called Siberian Unicorn fossil or the Fuzzy Rhinoceros fossil, what is left of the wild bull the Bible was referring to as unicorn.

However keep in mind, you have to be very cautious when reading about fossils because science has a tendency to add lots of drama to their find. Remember the embarrassment of the caveman, where they would take one single bone and build an entire man, only to find out through additional years of science that the odd shape of the bone was due to some present condition at the time, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Very interesting about Unicorns etc.
I suppose what I'm really interested in is the question of 'Onlyism' of any sort.

Is it reasonable to only read one version, are they all basically good enough?

Or would it be necessary to have a few different translations to avoid going wrong?

When you consult, or meditate on a page in the scriptures.. is it better to have read multiple versions first? Or would that not really add much?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Very interesting about Unicorns etc.
I suppose what I'm really interested in is the question of 'Onlyism' of any sort.

Is it reasonable to only read one version, are they all basically good enough?

Or would it be necessary to have a few different translations to avoid going wrong?

When you consult, or meditate on a page in the scriptures.. is it better to have read multiple versions first? Or would that not really add much?

Only-ism is always problematic unless you read the literal text in its original language. You cannot translate a language 100% accurately into every other language, nor are the translators infallible.
Regarding the KJV there are serious issues with the Old-Testament-translation because Hebrew grammar wasn't very well known in 1611 yet. Some words and verses are mistaken (like "covers" in Ex 25:29 which are actually "jars", or the words "did not cease" in Numbers 11:25 where it actually says "did not do it again". Or Numbers 13:17 where it says the Israelites were heading "southward" while they were in fact going to the north).

Of course reading the original language is not an option for everyone. In that case it's very helpful to look at 2 or 3 different (English) translations. When they differ (or one version even omits a verse) it is a good indication that the original verse wasn't easy to translate (or didn't exist in the first place) and you might wanna look into it a bit deeper.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is it reasonable to only read one version, are they all basically good enough?

When you consult, or meditate on a page in the scriptures.. is it better to have read multiple versions first? Or would that not really add much?

I thin one needs only to truly live the the message in any translation. But for deeper understanding, certainly other translations will help.

 

[Larry H.]

Very interesting about Unicorns etc.
I suppose what I'm really interested in is the question of 'Onlyism' of any sort.

Is it reasonable to only read one version, are they all basically good enough?

Or would it be necessary to have a few different translations to avoid going wrong?

When you consult, or meditate on a page in the scriptures.. is it better to have read multiple versions first? Or would that not really add much?

For a person that only speaks English, I would say that the King James Version is the most reliable version. I say this because when I first accepted Christ I had a similar question, would any version do? To answer that question I invested many hours of studying translations and where they came from. There was a lot of information. I actually even put that study in a booklet form that I give away for the asking. That being said let me add, I do use several different translations but if they do not line up with the King James version I go with the King James. I would see changes in the King James version such as the ones Frederick noted, as minimal compared to some of the changes I found in other translation. In some of the popular English versions there were words that had been changed that completely change the meaning of the scripture. In some there was scriptures or parts of scriptures completely left out. I do agree with Frederick in that "You cannot translate a language 100% accurately into every other language". However myself only knowing English, I needed a reliable Foundation Bible. I found that in the King James version.

 

[Blade]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

Well 1st thanks it might be wise to look into this as to why it was written or translated at first like that. It still is one that some like because its close the original translation then. Still is but there are allot today to pick from.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

would be hilarious if the unicorn was just a rhino.

 

[eleos1954]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

The bible often uses symbolic and/or metaphoric language to help convey spiritual truth ... when one diligently studies His word it becomes clear of the fact that not all of it is to be taken strictly literally.

 

[Goonie]

Zoological nomenclature was not very advanced in 1611.

Indeed but if your someone who believes the bible is divinely inspired, and infallible. Somewhat problematic……

 

[Lazarus Short]

Indeed but if your someone who believes the bible is divinely inspired, and infallible. Somewhat problematic……

I believe the Bible is divinely inspired...translations, not so much.

 

[RileyG]

Or to ask in another way.... Do you believe in unicorns?


Numbers 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17: "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: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

I do not read the King James Bible. I prefer the NAB or The Jerusalem Bible. IMO.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Hebrew word isn't very clear, it's re'em, and seems to indicate a horned animal of some kind. Many today are convinced it probably refers to the aurochs, or wild ox which went extinct several centuries ago (the last known aurochs died in the 17th century in Poland). But, still, we aren't completely certain what animal it is.

For reasons perhaps not entirely clear, the translators of the Septuagint chose to translate re'em as monokeros ("one-horned"), which was then translated literally into the Vulgate as unicornis. From this the translators of the KJV chose the Latin word and used the English version of it: unicorn. Whether or not they actually believed in literal unicorns is probably anyone's guess, nevertheless they chose to use a word that had been used to translate the Hebrew for centuries in the West. While they relied on the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew of the Old Testament, they also consulted the Septuagint and Vulgate, at times preferring readings from these over the Masoretic Text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Indeed but if your someone who believes the bible is divinely inspired, and infallible. Somewhat problematic……

Even the most ardent biblical inerrantist usually doesn't consider translations inerrant. To find those you have to find the KJV-Onlyists, who like flat-earthers and believers in lizard people, aren't really taken very seriously in most corners of global Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran