QuestionMark

Have Unicorns ever existed are are they the figment of someone's imagination?

The KJV mentions Unicorns about 6 times.

I say Bah Humbug! to the "Wholey Babble".

(credit to Heide)

Steven Avery

Have you checked how the Latin and Greek OT translate re'em ?

pharoah

The Biblical references to unicorns are believed to be references to a now extinct mammal called an auroch. See here and here.

RUmike

Don't forget...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22.18)

Steven Avery

That is one viewpoint. Here is a summary of a different viewpoint, as well as clearing up some usage qeustions.

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/bible/bible.htm
The "unicorn," mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible, is the Hebrew word "Re-em." The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) translated it "Monokeros" (one-horn) which was used in Bibles until the 19th century when Akkadian and Ugaritic records were found that mentioned the "Re-em" being hunted like a wild ox. However, their early pictograph for the "Re-em" shows an animal head with three horns, like a Triceratops. In Psalm 92:10 the "Re-em" has but one horn... Although most commentators and modern versions translate it as a bull or rhino, some have theorized that "Re-em" might be a Monoclonious (single horned dinosaur like Triceratops). In Job 39:9-12 God asks, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve you, or abide by your crib? Can you bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after you? Wilt you trust him, because his strength is great?" This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed to be used in farming, as could an ox. In his classic work Naturalis Historia the first century author Pliny the Elder described "an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros [one-horned]. ...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead." He describes it as like an elephant in length, but with much shorter legs. Other classical authors like Aelian, Oppian, and Martial also mention a "nose-horn" creature (a "Rinokeros"). Some claim that the "Rinokeros" sharpens his horn on a rock and utilizes it in fighting elephants. This is the root word from which we get the modern name rhinoceros. But a rhino does not stab with its horn, which is actually composed of keratin (hair). The correlation between the classical authors and some modern cryptozoological reports is striking. Dr. Roy Mackal’s explorations in the Congo brought back reports of a rare, single-horned animal called "Emela-ntouka" or "killer of elephants." In a recent expedition, pygmies in Cameroon identified the horned creature (there called "Ngoubou") with a Ceratopsian dinosaur and claimed it could sport from one to four horns. Indeed, modern researchers believe that the ceratopsian dinosaurs likely did use their great horn for combat (Dodson, Peter, The Horned Dinosaurs:A Natural History, 1996, p.123.)

=======================================

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/r...e/kjames01.htm
A Defense of King James By Tim and Barb Aho

....The unicorn is not a mythical creature. There were common English usages of the word "unicorn" in the 19th century and probably in Elizabethan era also. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary does not even mention a mythical creature but defines unicorns as varieties of animals:

Unicorn, 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, ramarkable for
a horn growing out at its nose.
3. A fowl. Fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine,
a terrene crustaceous spar. 22.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

RUmike

It does not matter if you can explain away the unicorn references, or the witch references, or that the bible says the world is flat. Even if you can positively demonstrate to me that these things were not intended by the authors, it does not matter. The point is, for hundreds and hundreds of years, people believed these things: believed literally that witches existed and deserved to die because of that infamous passage in Exodus; believed the world to be flat and punished with death those who disagreed. If God indeed caused those passages to be written, he would know exactly how every single human would interpret them, and he would know every subsequent consequence. Being God, he would also know exactly what passages he should write instead to avoid said consequences. If he did not do this, then God is not good. If he could not do this because of the nature of human beings, then a revelation from God to humans through language is absolutely impossible. Robert Ingersoll elaborates a little bit on this idea beautifully:

Explain away what Robert Ingersoll says here and perhaps then I can believe that the Bible in some capacity may be the word of God.

Sheshbazzar

"When evil comes to a city, has not YHWH caused it?"
Men move and discard 100,000 tons of rock for the sake of a single diamond, of less than an ounce in weight, yet you marvel that Elohim rejects 100,000 in the selection of one?
Men do not highly value and save every pile of discarded rocks, neither does Elohim; He made both the stones and the gemstones, He sorts and piles them as He pleases. He hardens His countenance against every heart of stone, and makes His countenance to shine upon those He favors; Every choice is His.
Strait is the gate, and narrow is the path that leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it, Wide is the gate and broad is the path that leadeth to destruction, and MANY enter therein.
Many shall seek, and shall NOT find.
Robert Ingersoll's sayings are a moot point in as much as the warning Word was given of old time.

QuestionMark

YHWH, Elohim, caused, His countenance, Word - define each of these words used above. Other than letters of the alphabet grouped together, specifically what do these 'words' actually correspond to in reality?



Do you have any factual evidence to support your defintions.

What factual

Barbarian

And consequently, every responsibility is likewise his. Or are you arguing that the stones are responsible for not being valuabe in someone's eyes?

RUmike

This is the most absurd analagy. Did the men create the diamond and the rocks? Are the diamond and rocks sentient beings?

Why did God create 101,000 people if he was only going to save 1 of them?
Why can't God ensure that all 101,000 are to be saved? Is he not powerful enough?