Unicorns in the King James Version

[Bible Highlighter]

Isaiah 34:7 is criticized by some who think it is anything but wild oxen. One website goes so far so as to provide a mocking picture of Jesus with blood all over him along with a bunch of ripped up looking horse like unicorns in a lake of blood. Regardless if one disagrees, such childish disagreements shows a lack of respect for God’s Word.

While Job 39 is talking of a literal unicorn or a one horned creature of great strength that cannot be tamed or be able to farm like oxen, I believe Isaiah 34:7 refers to the word “unicorn” in a metaphorical way because of all the metaphors being heavily used within the chapter. I believe the word “unicorns” is in reference to strong nations being brought down at the place mentioned in Isaiah 34. For Revelation refers to beasts as kingdoms.

 

[straykat]

Again, Jesus was a Jew and He did not even bother much with the Gentiles until they sought after Him. It is ridiculous that Jesus quoted from the LXX. He didn't. Matthew 5:18 makes that clear. Jots and tittles are Hebrew and not Greek. But believe as you wish, my friend. Anyways, here is an article on some problems with the LXX, too.

Lay it to Heart - The Septuagint is Incorrect
(Note: I am only agreeing with this article; It does not mean I agree with the author or the website on other things they may say).

Of course Jesus is a Jew. I'm talking about the Rabbinical tradition. Not Jews in general. Not all Jews are from this tradition. These are the offshoots of the Pharisees. This is just one group out of many forms of Jewish thought.

These same rabbis said in the Talmud that Mary was a harlot who slept with a Roman centurion, that Jesus is his secret lovechild, and that Jesus now burns in hell in a pile of excrement. These aren't your friends and they certainly don't care about the Word of God or have some special stewardship over the scriptures. If they killed the Word Made Flesh, and then revel in blasphemy about him, what makes you think they care about the written Word?

And I didn't say Jesus quoted the LXX in the first place. I said the New Testament in general used the LXX. Or at best, it used a line of the Hebrew scriptures with some resemblances to the DSS or the Hebrew that the LXX translators used.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course Jesus is a Jew. I'm talking about the Rabbinical tradition. Not Jews in general. Not all Jews are from this tradition. These are the offshoots of the Pharisees. This is just one group out of many forms of Jewish thought.

These same rabbis said in the Talmud that Mary was a harlot who slept with a Roman centurion, that Jesus is his secret lovechild, and that Jesus now burns in hell in a pile of excrement. These aren't your friends and they certainly don't care about the Word of God or have some special stewardship over the scriptures. If they killed the Word Made Flesh, and then revel in blasphemy about him, what makes you think they care about the written Word?

And I didn't say Jesus quoted the LXX in the first place. I said the New Testament in general used the LXX. Or at best, it used a line of the Hebrew scriptures with some resemblances to the DSS or the Hebrew that the LXX translators used.

Again, I believe it is a false version of history. Can I prove it? No. I don’t have to. When you identify the real Word of God, everything else is a fraud. Granted, I believe the KJV comes from a line of manuscripts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), the KJV has many evidences that it is superior and divine in origin. It has the same marks of being a holy book as the Greek New Testament. Folks want to poke holes in the KJV by throwing down the “unicorn card,” when in reality it is is easily explained. It’s not talking about horses with horns.

 

[Radagast]

The unicorn, the mythical animal, is mentioned a number of times in the King James Bible.

The Hebrew word (rĕ'em) we know only from the Old Testament. It refers to an animal that is strong (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8), wild (Job 39:9-10, Psalms 22:21), cow-like (Psalms 29:6), and horned (Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 22:21, Psalms 92:10).

The most common translation is "wild ox." Another possibility might be "antelope."

The KJV is influenced by the Greek Septuagint translation, which uses monokerōs, meaning "one-horned." If those translators were correct, it could mean "rhinoceros."

There is no reason to think that the "unicorn" of medieval legend was meant.

 

[Radagast]

I said the New Testament in general used the LXX. Or at best, it used a line of the Hebrew scriptures with some resemblances to the DSS or the Hebrew that the LXX translators used.

I'd go stronger than that: the New Testament often quotes the LXX word-for-word (i.e. not making an independent translation of the Hebrew).

the KJV has many evidences that it is superior and divine in origin. It has the same marks of being a holy book as the Greek New Testament.

Well, no, it doesn't. The KJV isn't even a great translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'd go stronger than that: the New Testament often quotes the LXX word-for-word (i.e. not making an independent translation of the Hebrew).

First, there are problems with the LXX as mentioned in a link article I posted in post #60. Second, as the for the exact quotations of the OT not always matching what is said in the NT: There are explanations that in certain cases gives more added spiritual meaning to these quotes. Three, I believe the LXX was created after the NT was complete and it is a fraud; So naturally it would be able to make it look like it was able to quote more accurately in certain places (So as to discredit the true line of manuscripts).

Well, no, it doesn't. The KJV isn't even a great translation.

Based on what? God telling you, or is this based on your own limited human logic and reason? There are actually many evidences that back up the KJV being divine in origin (if you are truly interested in being a continued truth seeker):

Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

However, the attack against the KJV will continue. The whole unicorn thing is an extremely weak argument that is easily explained and just shows how desperate folks can be in trying to discredit God's Word. It's obviously not talking about a horse with one horn but it is most likely talking about a Elasmotherium one horned type dinosaur.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Hebrew word (rĕ'em) we know only from the Old Testament. It refers to an animal that is strong (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8), wild (Job 39:9-10, Psalms 22:21), cow-like (Psalms 29:6), and horned (Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 22:21, Psalms 92:10).

The most common translation is "wild ox." Another possibility might be "antelope."

The KJV is influenced by the Greek Septuagint translation, which uses monokerōs, meaning "one-horned." If those translators were correct, it could mean "rhinoceros."

There is no reason to think that the "unicorn" of medieval legend was meant.

Wild oxen can be tamed and can be used in farming. This is a problem because Job 39 describes a creature whose strength is so great that it cannot be tamed and or used for farming. Please keep in mind that Job 39 falls in line with two more chapters of describing dinosaur like creatures. So Job 39, Job 40, and Job 41 all describe dinosaur like creatures and their amazing showcase within the creation of history.

 

[Radagast]

I believe the KJV (Cambridge Edition circa 1900) is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for our day.

And before the KJV?

Besides, Jesus did not quote from the LXX.

We don't know exactly what Jesus quoted from. The New Testament quotes from the LXX, however. Word-for-word in places.

Jesus was very Jewish.

And many Jews spoke Greek. That's why the LXX was produced. Many synagogues in the Holy Land were Greek-speaking.

I believe the LXX was created after the NT was complete and it is a fraud

This is simply false. We have manuscript fragments of the LXX from before the NT.

There are actually many evidences that back up the KJV being divine in origin

No, there are not.

Wild oxen can be tamed and can be used in farming.

Not really. Domestication of e.g. the now-extinct aurochs took many generations of breeding.

 

[straykat]

I believe the LXX was created after the NT was complete and it is a fraud.

Have you even read the Preface to your own favored KJV translation? They praise the LXX themselves, and illustrate it's story as a means to defend their own translation and necessity of bringing God's words to new languages. There were people like you in their own day telling them they shouldn't do their own translation, and they defended themselves by talking about the LXX. While they consider it had some weaknesses, even they were content to call it the Word of God.

I want to be kind, but this is just exasperating. I'm glad you love the KJV, but I hope you expand your thoughts. You've obviously drank the kool-aid Gail Riplinger gave you. Perhaps it tasted good going down? Either way, she gave you poison, man. Just so you know.



"Then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current."

Bible (King James Version, 1611)/Translators to the Reader - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe it presumptuous for folks to assume I don’t know certain things in regards to the KJV (as if to say I am not familiar with the common every day ole arguments against the KJV). I am not looking to rehash this topic. A person can research for themselves the answers to such things. If not, God will reveal the truth to a person in His timing (if they are a truth seeker).

Moving on.

May God bless you all.

 

[Knee V]

The LXX and its dating and the events surrounding its translation are historically attested by numerous independent sources. Whether it is good or reliable or trustworthy is a whole other issue, but I really don't see why or how anyone would think that it was translated in the AD era.

But regardless, moving on to the subject of the OP...

The LXX translators were Jews who spoke both Hebrew and Greek. For much of the OT, the Hebrew source manuscripts may have been of a textual family distinct from the textual family that gave rise to the Masoretic Texts.

When we talk about the original Hebrew word from which "unicorn" is translated, it is assumed and taken for granted that the word in the Masoretic Texts IS the original Hebrew word, and we judge the LXX by the standard of the Masoretic. I do not take for granted that the translators of the LXX were necessarily using a Hebrew text that had that same word. Of course they might have, but we nonetheless can't assume that.

Even if the Hebrew texts behind the LXX had the same word as the Masoretic Texts, it is also possible that those Jewish scholars understood a certain historical context to that word that necessitated that it be translated as "one-horned creature". The meanings of words change over time, and the word could have had different meanings or nuances 2300 years ago.

The fact that the translators of the LXX used the word "monokeros" should give us pause to consider that there may have been a good reason for that, and that they might have actually known what they were doing.

"Monokeros" doesn't mean anything more than "one-horned creature". That could be a one-horned rhino, or it could be an extinct creature that we aren't familiar with today. It might not have been a horse with one horn, but that doesn't mean it doesn't refer to something very real.

 

[Knee V]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Top 'hit' in internet search: (yes, already noted)
Monokeros | Worm Wiki | Fandom

https://worm.fandom.com › wiki › Monokeros
Monokeros used to be a greek term for all one horned animals like Rhinos and Narwhals, meaning "one horn". The name itself is translated into latin, transmuted into french, and transmitted from Norman English into the modern word Unicorn. Along the way it became the name for a mythical goat-like creature.

 

[Radagast]

The LXX translators were Jews who spoke both Hebrew and Greek.

Indeed -- although it's interesting that they didn't know how to translate "mazzaroth."

For much of the OT, the Hebrew source manuscripts may have been of a textual family distinct from the textual family that gave rise to the Masoretic Texts.

Seems almost certain, if you compare.

"Monokeros" doesn't mean anything more than "one-horned creature". That could be a one-horned rhino, or it could be an extinct creature that we aren't familiar with today.

If the LXX is correct, I think rhinos are the most likely option.

 

[Radagast]

Top 'hit' in internet search: (yes, already noted)
Monokeros | Worm Wiki | Fandom

https://worm.fandom.com › wiki › Monokeros

You do realise that that's a fan wiki about a work of fiction, right?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

? since "UNICORNS" are fiction,

good!

Even fandom can be useful, for the pure in heart !