KJV-Onlyism. Why should I believe it?

[CalledOutOne]

I want a KJV-Onlyist to explain to me why I should be one myself. The purpose of this thread is for me to learn what you have to say, not to attack you over your beliefs. Personally, I like the KJV, but I don't see it as it being the only true Bible.

 

[01tj]

I use the KJV but often prefer other versions. I have some relatives who say that the KJV is the closest version to the original. They feel that the other versions have other interpretations thrown in

 

[CalledOutOne]

I know some Geneeva Onlyists too.

 

[Skala]

As an Ex-KJVOnlyist, I could say a lot about this topic, but most of it would be negative

 

[SwordoftheLord]

I am a KJV Onlyist, and I am always prepared to debate this subject....Heres why:

Fighting Back -by James L. Melton

among many others at that site..

:o)

 

[SwordoftheLord]

As an Ex-KJVOnlyist, I could say a lot about this topic, but most of it would be negative

And most of it would be incorrect

 

[branchofthevine]

Unicorns!!!!

 

[DCJazz]

Personally, while the language is a bit... flowery, I really don't prefer the KJV. If I can't understand what's being talked about, why bother.

I used to like the NIV version until they 'redid' it. Now lately I've been reading this ESV bible, a MacArthur study bible I got for Christmas. I like it so far as I can understand it, but it's not so dumbed down that I feel like it's treating me as if I were unable to understand what 2+2 means.

 

[Skala]

And most of it would be incorrect

You don't even know me

 

[CalledOutOne]

As an Ex-KJVOnlyist, I could say a lot about this topic, but most of it would be negative

Could you provide me with arguments for and against? I'm doing some research on it. I've been watching a little bit of James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), but it's not adequate enough.

 

[Skala]

Could you provide me with arguments for and against? I'm doing some research on it. I've been watching a little bit of James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), but it's not adequate enough.

Sure, when I get some time I could sit down and write a post for you. In the meantime, I can suggest the book by James White: The King James Only Controversy.

It's pretty decent. Check it out.

I can make some smaller/shorter arguments right now:

The most obvious argument against is: what did Christians do for 1611 years without the KJV?

What makes the KJV the only reliable English translation? Because it was the first? But it wasn't first. There were English bibles before the KJV.

KJVO's rarely bring attention to the fact that the KJV translators were not without their dynamic equivalences. For example, 1 Sam 10:24 has the phrase "let the king live!" (or "long live the king!") but the KJV renders the phrase "God save the king". This wording reflects british culture in the 1600's. Yet to be consistent KJVO's would have to argue that "God save the king" is the most accurate and only reliable translation of that Hebrew phrase and that the Holy Spirit is behind the rendering.

The KJV uses the word "unicorn" in the Old Testament 6 times. The underlying hebrew word is a word for a beast with 1 or two large horns (like a rhinoceros or oxe) This was fine 400 years ago because unicorn was the English rendering of the Latin "unicornus" (uni = one horn...bicornis was latin for a 2 horned beast like an oxe), but today, we don't refer to Rhinoceros as unicorns. Today we don't use Latin. The modern translations accurately refer to these creatures in a way we can understand them to day in our own language. The KJVO advocate, to be consistent, would have to argue that "unicorn" is the most accurate way to refer to a strong beast with with large horns. If you read the verses that mention "unicorn" in context it's no surprise that the underlying Hebrew word is meant to portray a strong beast like an oxe or a rhino.

Num_23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

However, a "unicorn" as we understand it today is make-believe horse animal, not nearly as strong as a beast like an oxe or rhino. A unicorn today is not representative of the attribute of strength and power. It's clear that it's not the best translation or understanding.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNsjsbJLaM

These are just some small examples of arguments. The KJV is a fine translation and it is a historically important one. But it's the not the only reliable translation of the bible into English.

In fact the KJVO movement is counter intuitive. The KJVO movement has seemingly noble motives, wanting to keep God's word pure down through the ages. But on the contrary, having textual variants from all over the earth down through history is what God has used to keep His word pure. Since God's word existed in multiple places all throughout history, this means that no one group of people could change or alter the Bible without anyone else knowing about it.

Another irony is that Erasmus is responsible for translating the TR, and he was one of the biggest humanists of his time. Erasmus lined up opposite of the Protestant reformation on the matters of God's grace and salvation. The irony is that today, most KJVOnlyists are protestants (ie, non-roman catholics) who despise Roman Catholicism. Yet they blindly follow his translation of the TR into English. A bit of a double standard here is that many KJVO's believe that if a person's doctrine is wrong their treatment of the text (translating it) would be compromised. For example KJVOnlyists dig up "dirt" on the NIV translators and point out mistaks in their theology, thus arguing that they cannot be trusted. However they do not apply this same standard to Erasmus, as it would clearly back them into a corner.

I could go on and on my friend

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Sure, when I get some time I could sit down and write a post for you. In the meantime, I can suggest the book by James White: The King James Only Controversy.

It's pretty decent. Check it out.

And as a rebuttle to James White (who takes alot of quotes out of context and doesnt include entire quotes in his book) is "The Scholarship Only Contreversy" by Peter Ruckman... Although I disagree with Alot of Ruckmans views on things, the book is good...

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Could you provide me with arguments for and against? I'm doing some research on it. I've been watching a little bit of James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), but it's not adequate enough.

If your reading James White, then look into Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, D.A. Waite for the KJV Side...

 

[SwordoftheLord]

You don't even know me

But I'm cool like that

In reality though, I do like to debate the KJVO vs Non-KJVO subjects, just wish I had more time to, but with Mission work, School and a full time job, its very hard to debate anymore

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I am not interested in a debate but here is a link that gives some good arguments from a KJB viewpoint. Keep in mind KJB is for English speakers. There are other translations for people that speak other languages such as Spanish.

 

[Skala]

You can't be serious when you recommend Gail Riplinger as a scholarly source of objective information. This is mandatory reading for anyone who's concerned about the truth: http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

Here's an example from Gail's book "New Age Bible Versions":

A snippet from the link above:

The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous. The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232 we are warned against the letter "s." Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the letter 's': sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent." Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and sanctification as well!

Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJV's use of the term "sober" over other translations, possibly missing the "hiss" of that "s" on "sober." I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the "Five Points" of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram (p. 231)! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs. Riplinger's use of "acrostic algebra" on page 149. (chart below)

Here, in a passage reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the antiChrist two decades ago, Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviations for the New American Standard Version and the New International Version add up to the word "sin" when the Authorized Version is taken away. Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into "acrostic algebra," she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again the arguments that are put forward could easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger's position. The use of such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible Versions.
SIDEBAR:

Gail Riplinger's Acrostic Algebra!

Step 1 : (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 2: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X
Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X
Step 5: SIN = X

====

Look at the above "algebre". You can't be serious. Talk about looking for a witch in every corner. Not only did she inconsistently change "NASB" to "NASV" just for the sake of this argument, but she invented her own rules, her own formulas, and her own conclusion, then somehow thinks its an authoritative, compelling, objective argument against an English translation of another language. One could "subtract" and "add" whatever letters they wanted to, with any word, to come up with whatever word they wanted to.

I can't help but notice the user suggesting Gail Riplinger has as his user name "SwordoftheLord". Watch out for the "S" sir! Gail says it's an evil letter. ...

 

[CalledOutOne]

Sure, when I get some time I could sit down and write a post for you. In the meantime, I can suggest the book by James White: The King James Only Controversy.

It's pretty decent. Check it out.

I can make some smaller/shorter arguments right now:

The most obvious argument against is: what did Christians do for 1611 years without the KJV?

What makes the KJV the only reliable English translation? Because it was the first? But it wasn't first. There were English bibles before the KJV.

KJVO's rarely bring attention to the fact that the KJV translators were not without their dynamic equivalences. For example, 1 Sam 10:24 has the phrase "let the king live!" (or "long live the king!") but the KJV renders the phrase "God save the king". This wording reflects british culture in the 1600's. Yet to be consistent KJVO's would have to argue that "God save the king" is the most accurate and only reliable translation of that Hebrew phrase and that the Holy Spirit is behind the rendering.

The KJV uses the word "unicorn" in the Old Testament 6 times. The underlying hebrew word is a word for a beast with 1 or two large horns (like a rhinoceros or oxe) This was fine 400 years ago because unicorn was the English rendering of the Latin "unicornus" (uni = one horn...bicornis was latin for a 2 horned beast like an oxe), but today, we don't refer to Rhinoceros as unicorns. Today we don't use Latin. The modern translations accurately refer to these creatures in a way we can understand them to day in our own language. The KJVO advocate, to be consistent, would have to argue that "unicorn" is the most accurate way to refer to a strong beast with with large horns. If you read the verses that mention "unicorn" in context it's no surprise that the underlying Hebrew word is meant to portray a strong beast like an oxe or a rhino.

Num_23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

However, a "unicorn" as we understand it today is make-believe horse animal, not nearly as strong as a beast like an oxe or rhino. A unicorn today is not representative of the attribute of strength and power. It's clear that it's not the best translation or understanding.



Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns? - YouTube

These are just some small examples of arguments. The KJV is a fine translation and it is a historically important one. But it's the not the only reliable translation of the bible into English.

In fact the KJVO movement is counter intuitive. The KJVO movement has seemingly noble motives, wanting to keep God's word pure down through the ages. But on the contrary, having textual variants from all over the earth down through history is what God has used to keep His word pure. Since God's word existed in multiple places all throughout history, this means that no one group of people could change or alter the Bible without anyone else knowing about it.

Another irony is that Erasmus is responsible for translating the TR, and he was one of the biggest humanists of his time. Erasmus lined up opposite of the Protestant reformation on the matters of God's grace and salvation. The irony is that today, most KJVOnlyists are protestants (ie, non-roman catholics) who despise Roman Catholicism. Yet they blindly follow his translation of the TR into English. A bit of a double standard here is that many KJVO's believe that if a person's doctrine is wrong their treatment of the text (translating it) would be compromised. For example KJVOnlyists dig up "dirt" on the NIV translators and point out mistaks in their theology, thus arguing that they cannot be trusted. However they do not apply this same standard to Erasmus, as it would clearly back them into a corner.

I could go on and on my friend

Very good. I am familiar with the video (I'm a big fan of that YouTuber).

Thanks for your input. It looks like I have a lot of studying ahead of me. I think I'm going to invest in that book pretty soon.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

You can't be serious when you recommend Gail Riplinger as a scholarly source of objective information. This is mandatory reading for anyone who's concerned about the truth: </title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God'

Here's an example from Gail's book "New Age Bible Versions":

A snippet from the link above:

The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous. The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232 we are warned against the letter "s." Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the letter 's': sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent." Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and sanctification as well!

Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJV's use of the term "sober" over other translations, possibly missing the "hiss" of that "s" on "sober." I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the "Five Points" of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram (p. 231)! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs. Riplinger's use of "acrostic algebra" on page 149. (chart below)

Here, in a passage reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the antiChrist two decades ago, Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviations for the New American Standard Version and the New International Version add up to the word "sin" when the Authorized Version is taken away. Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into "acrostic algebra," she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again the arguments that are put forward could easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger's position. The use of such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible Versions.
SIDEBAR:

Gail Riplinger's Acrostic Algebra!

Step 1 : (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 2: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X
Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X
Step 5: SIN = X

====

Look at the above "algebre". You can't be serious. Talk about looking for a witch in every corner. Not only did she inconsistently change "NASB" to "NASV" just for the sake of this argument, but she invented her own rules, her own formulas, and her own conclusion, then somehow thinks its an authoritative, compelling, objective argument against an English translation of another language. One could "subtract" and "add" whatever letters they wanted to, with any word, to come up with whatever word they wanted to.

I can't help but notice the user suggesting Gail Riplinger has as his user name "SwordoftheLord". Watch out for the "S" sir! Gail says it's an evil letter. ...

I am not a huge fan of Gail, but come on please... Use someone other than James White and his bogus website. He has been caught misquoting, and using half quotes numerous times (and this is by non KJVO people)... I just used Gail, because she is no differant that James by putting in half truths and flat out lying sometimes in his work. No offense Brother, but James White is the last person I would use from a non KJVO stance.

Also Gail is the last person I would use from a KJVO stance, pulling out one part of one of her books wont work in a debate, because she isnt perfect, but she has some great info in one of her books "In Awe of Thy Word"...

 

[SwordoftheLord]

As for unicorns......since alot of people like to pull them out in a KJVO debate for some reason. I will paste from a buddies website regarding this:


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 carefully 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 and 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?

 

[SwordoftheLord]

continued from above:

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.

[FONT=Tahoma,'times new roman',times]Treasury of Scripture Knowledge[/font]

"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."
Check out this fascinating short You Tube video about the correct definition of a unicorn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWHJMz2Neog&feature=player_embedded


[FONT=tahoma,'times new roman',times]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 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 by Cassiodoro de Reina, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceded 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 Portuguese A Bíblia Sagrada - Job 39:9-10 "Querer-te -á servir o unicórnio ou ficará na tua cavalariça? [FONT=tahoma,'times new roman',times]10 Ou amarrarás o unicórnio ao rego com uma corda, ou estorroará após ti os vales?", 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. [/font][/font]
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.You can see the Modern Greek Bible at this site here: http://unbound.biola.edu/
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?
[FONT='Arial Unicode MS','Lucida Sans Unicode',Arial,sans-serif]Job 39:9 &#920;&#949;&#955;&#949;&#953; &#949;&#965;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#951;&#952;&#951; &#959; &#956;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#961;&#969;&#962; &#957;&#945; &#963;&#949; &#948;&#959;&#965;&#955;&#949;&#965;&#951;, &#951; &#952;&#949;&#955;&#949;&#953; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#957;&#965;&#954;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#949;&#953; &#949;&#957; &#964;&#951; &#966;&#945;&#964;&#957;&#951; &#963;&#959;&#965;;Job 39:10. &#916;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; &#957;&#945; &#948;&#949;&#963;&#951;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#957; &#956;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#961;&#969;&#957; &#956;&#949; &#964;&#959;&#957; &#948;&#949;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#945;&#961;&#959;&#964;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#957;;[/font]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 Numbers 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". This objection 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.
The Great Bible 1540 - "Psalm 92:10 But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Unicorne, for I am anoynted with fresh oyle."
Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549 - "Psalm 92:10 But my horne shalbe exalted like þe horne of an Vnicorne, & shalbe anoynted wyth 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 - "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva]his horns are like the horns of unicorns", [FONT=tahoma,'times new roman',times]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.[/FONT][/font]