FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-25-2005, 02:59 PM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Posts: 3,432
Question Proof that "The" Bible is in error.

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)
QuestionMark is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 03:09 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionMark
Have Unicorns ever existed are are they the figment of someone's imagination? The KJV mentions Unicorns about 6 times.
Have you checked how the Latin and Greek OT translate re'em ?
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:23 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
The Biblical references to unicorns are believed to be references to a now extinct mammal called an auroch. See here and here.
pharoah is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:26 PM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 491
Default

Don't forget...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22.18)
RUmike is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 09:14 PM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pharoah
The Biblical references to unicorns are believed to be references to a now extinct mammal called an auroch[
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
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 10:55 PM   #6
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 491
Default

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:

Quote:
It may be urged that we do not understand the sacred record correctly. To this it may be replied that for thousands of years the account of the creation has, by the Jewish and Christian world, been regarded as literally true. If it was inspired, of course God must have known just how it would be understood, and consequently must have intended that it should be understood just as he knew it would be. One man writing to another, may mean one thing, and yet be understood as meaning something else. Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood, and also knew that he could use other words that would convey his real meaning, but did not, we would say that he used words on purpose to mislead, and was not an honest man.

If a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or caused it to be written, he must have known exactly how his words would be interpreted by all the world, and he must have intended to convey the very meaning that was conveyed. He must have known that by reading that book, man would form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity, and size of this world; that he would be misled as to the time and order of creation; that he would have the most childish and contemptible views of the creator; that the "sacred word" would be used to support slavery and polygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good, and light fagots to consume the brave, and therefore he must have intended that these results should follow. He also must have known that thousands and millions of men and women never could believe his Bible, and that the number of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilization, and therefore, he must have intended that result.

Let us understand this. An honest finite being uses the best words, in his judgment, to convey his meaning. This is the best he can do, because he cannot certainly know the exact effect of his words on others. But an infinite being must know not only the real meaning of the words, but the exact meaning they will convey to every reader and hearer. He must know every meaning that they are capable of conveying to every mind. He must also know what explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If an infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use such words that every person to whom a revelation is essential will understand distinctly what that revelation is, then a revelation from God through the instrumentality of language is impossible, or it is not essential that all should understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a being of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence, that he cannot by any means make known to them his will? We are told that it is exceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. This statement is refuted by the religious history of the Christian world. Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, he must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible for all.

Is it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes and facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the "very form and pressure of its time"?

- Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses
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.
RUmike is offline  
Old 12-26-2005, 12:58 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
If written by an infinite God, he must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible for all.
"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.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-26-2005, 06:14 AM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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
QuestionMark is offline  
Old 12-26-2005, 06:59 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,666
Default

Quote:
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.
And consequently, every responsibility is likewise his. Or are you arguing that the stones are responsible for not being valuabe in someone's eyes?
Barbarian is offline  
Old 12-26-2005, 09:02 AM   #10
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
RUmike is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:57 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.