Unicorns in the King James Version

[Bob Carabbio]

If anyone abides in Jesus and talks every day with the Author, no problem with the translation they use.

BINGO!!!!
The Holy Spirit KNOWS exactly what He means, and IF we seek single mindedly, He'll give wisdom liberally.

Otherwise, all you have is "Theology". All God's Chilluns gots "Theologies".

 

[solid_core]

Check out this article here on Psalms 14 and the LXX.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

The KJV only sources will, of course, try to dismiss the LXX, because it differs from the KJV text.

As for the Star Wars reference:

I don't watch secular movies like Star Wars anymore. I have put away watching films like this because they promote sinful things within them. Watching popular secular sinful films is also easily leads to one loving the things of this world, as well (Which is a violation of 1 John 2:15-17).

Good.

 

[robycop3]

The AV makers had no reason to believe unicorns weren't real critters. After all, they were on their king's coat-of-arms, along with lions.

It's doubtful the AV men had ever seen a real lion, but they didn't doubt their existence. We can't fault those men for placing unicorns in their work.

 

[Dale]

"Better"?

How is "better" being measured?

I am not a KJVOist and I will readily agree the KJV contains translation flaws but I will say the same about the other two dozen translations I have in my library. To my knowledge no English translation is perfect and diligence is necessary for those who study the word in depth..

It is therefore necessary to use multiple translations, typically one formal and one dynamic. Blessedly, we live in an age when multiple translations and access to the Hebrew and Greek is just a few mouse clicks away, almost instantaneous. This makes the KJVO debate almost obsolete with only ideologues holding to such a view and nothing you or I post is likely change the minds of ideologues. It's good and just to get the information on record but expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

And if I were to cite problems in the KJV I'd pick something ore substantive that unicorns. I know of no one basing any doctrine or practice on the existence of unicorns in the KJV.


What translation do you prefer? I prefer the more formal translations and the NAS is what I usually carry around when using a hard bound Bible. Most days, though, I take my tablet with me which contains the NAS, NIV, and ESV. I'm reading through the NLT but repeatedly find it a poor translation, even though the read does flow and the basic information is intact.

What is better? The most important thing is accuracy. Ease of understanding also counts, or at least it is a major point against a translation as archaic as the KJV.

I have a book to recommend.

Dr. James White, The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust Modern Translations
Bethany House, 2009. 368 pages.

One of the things that Dr. White brings out in this book is that new translations are always resisted. Even the best translations are not easily accepted. People prefer the famililar. New translations were resisted at the time of the Roman empire.

 

[Dale]

Did the King James translators do the best they could? The original King James Bible had notes in it, and I don’t have access to those. Without having access to those notes, it looks like they were excessively literal at best. Ironically, many KJV advocates today object to notes. They think that footnotes weaken the authority of the text. Authority is more important than accuracy in their eyes.

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) is an interesting figure in religious history. He did a translation of the Bible, which is one of the earlier Bibles the KJV translators borrowed from. Wycliffe seems to have used a method of giving the most literal, or most obvious translation of a passage, and then putting what he thinks it means in parenthesis.

What follows is the Wycliffe translation of most of the verses I’ve already quoted in the KJV and RSV. Wycliffe gives “unicorn” or “unicorns” as the most obvious translation but switches to “wild ox” in his parenthetical translation. Wycliffe died in 1384, so over two hundred years before the KJV, Wycliffe clearly realized that the wild ox is most likely the animal that the original manuscripts are talking about.


21 None idol is in Jacob, neither simulacrum is seen in Israel; his Lord God is with him, and the sound of the victory of a king is in him. (There is no idolatry in Jacob, no false god is seen in Israel; the Lord their God is with them, and they hear the shout of the victory of their King.)
22 The Lord God led him out of Egypt, whose strength is like an unicorn; (The Lord God led them out of Egypt, whose strength is like a wild ox
Numbers 23:21-22 WYC

17 As the first engendered of a bull is the fairness of him; the horns of an unicorn be the horns of him; in those he shall winnow folks, till to the terms of [the] earth. These be the multitudes of Ephraim, and these be the thousands of Manasseh. (His fairness is like the first-born of a bull; his horns be like the horns of a wild ox; and with them he shall winnow the nations, unto the ends of the earth. Such shall be the multitudes of Ephraim, and the thousands of Manasseh.)
Deuteronomy 33:17 WYC

9 Whether an unicorn shall desire to serve thee, either shall dwell at thy cratch? (Shall a wild ox desire to serve thee, or shall he stay in thy stall?)

10 Whether thou shalt bind the unicorn with thy chain, for to ear thy land, either shall he break the clots of the valleys after thee? (Shalt thou bind the wild ox with thy chain, to plow thy land, or shall he break up the clods of the valleys after thee?)
Job 39:9-10 WYC

21 Make thou me safe from the mouth of a lion; and my meekness from the horns of unicorns. (Save thou me from the lion’s mouth; yea, my poor body from the horns of these bulls.)
Psalm 22:21 WYC

5 The voice of the Lord breaking cedars; and the Lord shall break the cedars of Lebanon. (The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars; yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.)
6 And he shall all-break them to dust, as a calf of the Lebanon; and the darling was as the son of an unicorn. (And he maketh Lebanon to jump like a calf; and Sirion to leap like a young wild ox.)
Psalm 29:5-6 WYC

10 And mine horn shall be raised as an unicorn; and mine eld (age shall be) in plenteous mercy. (But my head shall be raised up, like the horn of a wild ox; and I shall be richly anointed with oil.)
Psalm 92:10 WYC


7 And unicorns shall go down with them, and bulls with them that be mighty (And wild oxen shall go down with them, and bulls with other mighty beasts); the land of them shall be filled with blood, and the earth of them with [the] inner fatness of fat beasts;
Isaiah 34:7 WYC

 

[robycop3]

Same for cockatrices & satyrs in the KJV. The AV makers had no reason to doubt their existence, although they'd not seen any of them. It's not likely any of them had ever seen most of the animals they mentioned, as zoos weren't too common at that time, & most of these critters didn't live in Europe or the British Isles.

"Behemoth" & "leviathan" doubtlessly refer to real animals. The behemoth could be an elephant, as elephants are not mentioned in Scripture & were likely unknown to the writers of Scripture. and leviathan could be a salt-water crocodile, which often reaches a length of 17 to 20 ft. & can weigh a ton. (They are known man-eaters.)

The Hebrew word rendered "cockatrice" in the KJV is "thepha", which means any poisonous snake or serpent. And the Hebrew word rendered "satyr" twice in the KJV is "saiyr", which means "a he-goat". In every other appearance in Scriptural Hebrew, this word is rendered "goat". So we see cockatrice & satyr are translators' choices, not actual Scripture.

 

[Josheb]

What is better? The most important thing is accuracy. Ease of understanding also counts, or at least it is a major point against a translation as archaic as the KJV.

Do you have an objective criteria by which to measure the overall accuracy of the KJV compared to other translations? The KJV is generally understood to be a fairly good (not best) formal translation and in that regard measurably more accurate than dynamic renderings like the NIV. We wouldn't expect a dynamic to be more formally accurate (or vice versa). Do you have an objective criteria by which you measure accuracy?

Similarly, those with an affinity for the KJV find it easy to read. I, personally, find it laborious; I don't speak English the way they did 300 years ago, and I dost often posteth in manner like in nature so as to thereunto mockingly demonstrate that problem .

I have a book to recommend.

Dr. James White, The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust Modern Translations
Bethany House, 2009. 368 pages.

One of the things that Dr. White brings out in this book is that new translations are always resisted. Even the best translations are not easily accepted. People prefer the familiar. New translations were resisted at the time of the Roman empire.

I've read it. I like White. Not his best book, though.

If not already read, I encourage you to read, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They make some very good comparisons between various translations objectively demonstrating the errors found in those translations, including the KJV, NAS, and NIV.


And new translations should be resisted. Their being new is not warrant for acceptance (I trust that was not the intended point). They should be examined and tested (as I am doing now with the NLT, and have done previously with the woefully inadequate CEV).


Do you think most 21st century readers of the KJV actually believe unicorns existed in ancient times because that is the word they read in the KJV? or because they read it in the KJV?

 

[straykat]

Same for cockatrices & satyrs in the KJV. The AV makers had no reason to doubt their existence, although they'd not seen any of them. It's not likely any of them had ever seen most of the animals they mentioned, as zoos weren't too common at that time, & most of these critters didn't live in Europe or the British Isles.

"Behemoth" & "leviathan" doubtlessly refer to real animals. The behemoth could be an elephant, as elephants are not mentioned in Scripture & were likely unknown to the writers of Scripture. and leviathan could be a salt-water crocodile, which often reaches a length of 17 to 20 ft. & can weigh a ton. (They are known man-eaters.)

The Hebrew word rendered "cockatrice" in the KJV is "thepha", which means any poisonous snake or serpent. And the Hebrew word rendered "satyr" twice in the KJV is "saiyr", which means "a he-goat". In every other appearance in Scriptural Hebrew, this word is rendered "goat". So we see cockatrice & satyr are translators' choices, not actual Scripture.

Cockatrice has always been a lousy choice to me, as much as I love the KJV (I'm not KJV Only though). That said, they used satyr because some of those passages are referring to "haunts" and desolate places that had been abandoned with nothing left but unclean entities roaming in them. Goat is more suitable as a word on it's own, but the idea that the text is referring to a mere "goat" and not just using it as a more disturbing symbol could be misleading. This is why the KJV (and older translators, like Jerome.. who used "hairy ones") went this route. There was an older tradition of seeing something more nefarious in this language.

And the "satyr" tradition goes back beyond the Greeks. It has it's counterpart in the middle east. Not exactly satyrs per se, but goat like demons in the wilderness areas. Some scholars would even say the scapegoat idea being sent off into the wilderness has some relation to this as well.

These same texts of Isaiah also mention Lilith residing in these desolate areas. The KJV translators put "screech owl" (and the NIV uses "night creatures"), but owls were (are) a symbol for Lilith. Either way, they were nocturnal demons of some kind. The texts also mention howling beasts (NIV uses jackals and hyenas, I think), but the idea that these are mere dogs could be wrong. The Dead Sea Scrolls in the "Song of the Sage" also mentions certain creatures in an exorcism prayer to ward off demons. They mention Belial at the top of the list (another name often left out of modern translations), along with Lilith and howlers, and "spirits of the bastards" (Nephilim) among this motley crue. This is a good guidepost on premodern Jewish thought and how they read these texts. It's even better than later medieval Rabbinic understandings who also tended to see only the "mundane". The Qumran sect were also Jews, even less removed from Isaiah, and yet they warned of these demonic creatures and used similar language as the KJV and Jerome. It's worth considering why.

But "cockatrice"... that's definitely a real "howler" (in the literary sense).

 

[Dale]

Do you have an objective criteria by which to measure the overall accuracy of the KJV compared to other translations? The KJV is generally understood to be a fairly good (not best) formal translation and in that regard measurably more accurate than dynamic renderings like the NIV. We wouldn't expect a dynamic to be more formally accurate (or vice versa). Do you have an objective criteria by which you measure accuracy?

Similarly, those with an affinity for the KJV find it easy to read. I, personally, find it laborious; I don't speak English the way they did 300 years ago, and I dost often posteth in manner like in nature so as to thereunto mockingly demonstrate that problem .


I've read it. I like White. Not his best book, though.

If not already read, I encourage you to read, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They make some very good comparisons between various translations objectively demonstrating the errors found in those translations, including the KJV, NAS, and NIV.


And new translations should be resisted. Their being new is not warrant for acceptance (I trust that was not the intended point). They should be examined and tested (as I am doing now with the NLT, and have done previously with the woefully inadequate CEV).


Do you think most 21st century readers of the KJV actually believe unicorns existed in ancient times because that is the word they read in the KJV? or because they read it in the KJV?

Josheb: “Do you think most 21st century readers of the KJV actually believe unicorns existed in ancient times because that is the word they read in the KJV? or because they read it in the KJV?”

As far as I know, no one believes in unicorns for that reason but it’s no more bizarre than some things that creationists believe. Creationists have told me that dinosaurs are still around somewhere, for instance.


Josheb: “And new translations should be resisted.”

Resistance to new translations is often irrational. In the early 20th century, local churches split over the use of the Revised Standard Version. Yet the RSV is still one of the best translations available. Yet by 1970, many conservative Christians were reading the Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man, which don’t deserve to be called translations at all. Then there is the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the Bible. I have been known to ask people if that is the one with the Three Commandments in it.

Josheb: “Similarly, those with an affinity for the KJV find it easy to read. I, personally, find it laborious; I don't speak English the way they did 300 years ago, and I dost often posteth in manner like in nature so as to thereunto mockingly demonstrate that problem .”


One of the points that James White makes is that the language of the KJV is not actually circa 1600 AD but was designed to sound old fashioned. It’s more like circa 1300 AD.

Here’s a question for you. The King James Bible is contemporary with the Shakespeare plays. Most people enjoy Shakespeare but it’s hardly easy reading. It’s on the borderline of needing translation. In one scene, Hamlet is talking to his friends and he says, “Buzz, buzz.” Without googling that, do you know what “Buzz, buzz” means?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you have an objective criteria by which to measure the overall accuracy of the KJV compared to other translations? The KJV is generally understood to be a fairly good (not best) formal translation and in that regard measurably more accurate than dynamic renderings like the NIV. We wouldn't expect a dynamic to be more formally accurate (or vice versa). Do you have an objective criteria by which you measure accuracy?

Similarly, those with an affinity for the KJV find it easy to read. I, personally, find it laborious; I don't speak English the way they did 300 years ago, and I dost often posteth in manner like in nature so as to thereunto mockingly demonstrate that problem .


I've read it. I like White. Not his best book, though.

If not already read, I encourage you to read, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They make some very good comparisons between various translations objectively demonstrating the errors found in those translations, including the KJV, NAS, and NIV.


And new translations should be resisted. Their being new is not warrant for acceptance (I trust that was not the intended point). They should be examined and tested (as I am doing now with the NLT, and have done previously with the woefully inadequate CEV).


Do you think most 21st century readers of the KJV actually believe unicorns existed in ancient times because that is the word they read in the KJV? or because they read it in the KJV?

I believe the KJV (Cambridge Edition circa 1900) is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for our day. However, I am not one of those who think that the KJV is always easy to read; Particularly the Old Testament and the book of Acts are difficult to read. But as they say, nothing good in life comes easy. It takes careful study. I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English in the KJV, but the KJV is my final word of authority. We all need a final Word of authority. If not, then we are the author or authority and not GOD. For anyone can just say this word is in error based on their own limited reason and logic. A perfect GOD would provide for this generation today a perfect Word. It is not only by pure logical deduction that this is so, but by Scripture, as well.

You may be interested in checking out my reasons why I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God today.

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

 

[straykat]

One of the points that James White makes is that the language of the KJV is not actually circa 1600 AD but was designed to sound old fashioned. It’s more like circa 1300 AD.

Here’s a question for you. The King James Bible is contemporary with the Shakespeare plays. Most people enjoy Shakespeare but it’s hardly easy reading. It’s on the borderline of needing translation. In one scene, Hamlet is talking to his friends and he says, “Buzz, buzz.” Without googling that, do you know what “Buzz, buzz” means?

I think what helps both is that they were intended for oral reading/performance (i.e. appointed to be read in churches). So obviously, much could be explained by a minister, and it wasn't merely intended as a reading bible. While Shakespeare has all kinds of theatrical and visual cues to accompany the text that makes even the more difficult passages for modern audiences make sense once put in a performing context (even then however, I get stumped from time to time).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The KJV only sources will, of course, try to dismiss the LXX, because it differs from the KJV text.

If you were to read the article, you would see the explanation as to why.... and you would go..... "Ooooh, okay. I get it now." But if you are hard pressed and determined to shoot arrows at the KJV, then by all means, you will not see it. Besides, Jesus did not quote from the LXX. Again, Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).

Jots and tittles is Hebrew and not Greek.
Jesus was very Jewish. He said salvation was of the Jews.
A Gentile woman was coming to Him, and she had to convince him of her faith. She had to keep being persistent. Jesus told His disciples to only go to Israelite places, and not Gentile ones during His earthly ministry before the cross. Salvation was first going out to the Jews. So Jesus was very Jewish. His quoting of Scripture, and His keeping of it.

 

[straykat]

If you were to read the article, you would see the explanation as to why.... and you would go..... "Ooooh, okay. I get it now." But if you are hard pressed and determined to shoot arrows at the KJV, then by all means, you will not see it. Besides, Jesus did not quote from the LXX. Again, Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).

Jots and tittles is Hebrew and not Greek.

This is one thing I'll never understand about KJV Only - the denigration of even the LXX.

If it wasn't for the LXX, the KJV would still read (from the Masoretic) "Like a lion my hands and feet" in Psalm 22. For centuries, the LXX was the oldest witness with the Messianic reading "They pierced my hands and feet". And Rabbis dismissed it as a corruption and instead held up nonsensical "Like a lion my hands and feet" in the Masoretic.

Then lo and behold, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Rabbis were wrong all along. Now we have a Hebrew Psalm 22 older than anything and it resembles the LXX. If the New Testament didn't use the LXX, they had an older Hebrew like the one at Qumran.

This isn't the only issue btw. Coincidentally, other passages that are Messianic in nature like Psalm 22 are altered or redefined in the Masoretic. Just like they lie about almah simply meaning "young woman". And we were all warned to not trust the synagogue tradition wholesale. Revelation 3:9 -

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

 

[JackRT]

The reason is that the 17th century translator of the KJV believed in unicorns, and when he found a word in the original Hebrew that no one knew the meaning of but obviously meant some kind of big strong animal, for want of anything else he translated it as “unicorn”. Later translations guess differently.

This is a perfectly reasonable explanation. I don't believe that the mythical unicorn ever existed or even could exist. I think the reference is to the aurochs or wild cattle. The last known living aurochs was killed in the early 17th century on a nobleman's hunting preserve in Poland. Scientists are currently attempting to breed them back and reintroduce them to the wild. They are about a foot taller than even the largest modern cattle. Here is a photo of what they have accomplished so far.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb: “Do you think most 21st century readers of the KJV actually believe unicorns existed in ancient times because that is the word they read in the KJV? or because they read it in the KJV?”

As far as I know, no one believes in unicorns for that reason but it’s no more bizarre than some things that creationists believe. Creationists have told me that dinosaurs are still around somewhere, for instance.

What, specifically, is this op about?

Josheb: “And new translations should be resisted.”

Resistance to new translations is often irrational....

Do you like to when others quote mine you? New translations should be resisted...… until examined and tested. That prevents "irrational resistance." I remember when the NIV came out and how much opposition it received and because I have several copies of the NIV I've noticed how it has been amended (corrected) over the years since its inception. The KJV has been amended over 200 times since it was first translated. Such corrections are unnecessary if the translation is perfect. Imperfection is perfected...… by examination and testing.

Nothing irrational about that.

Josheb: “Similarly, those with an affinity for the KJV find it easy to read. I, personally, find it laborious; I don't speak English the way they did 300 years ago, and I dost often posteth in manner like in nature so as to thereunto mockingly demonstrate that problem .”


One of the points that James White makes is that the language of the KJV is not actually circa 1600 AD but was designed to sound old fashioned. It’s more like circa 1300 AD.

Irrelevant. Whatever its flaws the KJV is still a better (formal) translation than many alternatives (modern or otherwise) and it should be accepted and respected as such. KJVNeverism isn't much better than KJVOnlyism. Just because I find a place where the KJV is accurate and the NAS or NIV is not does not mean the whole of either translation is inaccurate and to be disregarded. That's the kind of false-cause fallacy many KJVOists attempt.

Here’s a question for you. The King James Bible is contemporary with the Shakespeare plays. Most people enjoy Shakespeare but it’s hardly easy reading. It’s on the borderline of needing translation. In one scene, Hamlet is talking to his friends and he says, “Buzz, buzz.” Without googling that, do you know what “Buzz, buzz” means?

If memory serves me correctly itt has to do with the condescending impatience of being told that which is already known.

Whether I got that wrong or right the point is well taken but it works both ways and is applicable to all translations, especially since no one in modern times reads the mention of "unicorn" in the KJV to mean a literal reference to real uncorns. The problem here is one of a translator idiom, and not original culture idiom, which is admittedly a problem, but many translations mistranslate original-culture idioms and we don't trash those translations.

For example, many take Romans 12:20 to be about shaming a person with kindness (or worse) but that is not what was being communicated. Some study Bibles (like the New Life Study Bible) go so far as to say this is a reference to an Egyptian pagan practice of placing ashes over oneself in shame. No, that s not correct. In a culture where they have no matches or Bic lighters to heap buring coals on one's head means to rekindle their warmth and sustenance.

"To the contrary, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you rekindle his warmth and sustenance.”​

When a person's fire went out they were unable to cook or keep warm. They went next door to a neighbor or to the municipal fire kept burning in the center of most towns to take coals from it so their own fire could be restarted. Since hot buring coals cannot be carried openly in an unprotected hand they were carried in pots, heavy clay pots, which were often carried on the head.

We gonna discard all the Bibles that either translate the passage literally or don't get the study notes correct? If so we'd have to throw away every Scofield Bible ever printed? Well, they are all KJVs so maybe.... .




The example of "unicorn" is valid, but limited. KJVOism is a problem, but KJVNeverism is not the solution, and any believer seasoned in study invariably uses more than one translation and should do so. Personally, I think all anyone needs to know to understand this is 1 Corinthians 13's use of "charity" for the Greek "agapē." It is much more misleading the "unicorn."

 

[Josheb]

BINGO!!!!

Hi Bob, nice having you here. Do you know whether the other forum is down permanently?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Hi Bob, nice having you here. Do you know whether the other forum is down permanently?

They say they have "Serious Technical Problems" that will "Take a while to resolve", so I don't think they're "Down for the count", but it'll "be a while" before it's back.

 

[JackRT]

Then there is the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the Bible. I have been known to ask people if that is the one with the Three Commandments in it.

Must be REALLY condensed because the Bible has Three Versions of the Ten Commandments.

 

[Josheb]

They say...

Thx.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is one thing I'll never understand about KJV Only - the denigration of even the LXX.

If it wasn't for the LXX, the KJV would still read (from the Masoretic) "Like a lion my hands and feet" in Psalm 22. For centuries, the LXX was the oldest witness with the Messianic reading "They pierced my hands and feet". And Rabbis dismissed it as a corruption and instead held up nonsensical "Like a lion my hands and feet" in the Masoretic.

Then lo and behold, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Rabbis were wrong all along. Now we have a Hebrew Psalm 22 older than anything and it resembles the LXX. If the New Testament didn't use the LXX, they had an older Hebrew like the one at Qumran.

This isn't the only issue btw. Coincidentally, other passages that are Messianic in nature like Psalm 22 are altered or redefined in the Masoretic. Just like they lie about almah simply meaning "young woman". And we were all warned to not trust the synagogue tradition wholesale. Revelation 3:9 -

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

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).