Is "unicorns" better than "unicorn" at Deut. 33:17?

[Logos1560]

All the quotes in the NT that are taken from the OT are translated into the Greek language when they were written and they are often not word for word. What is the common denominator between them? It is the person of God. When Paul addressed the angry mob of Jews in Acts 22, he spoke in Hebrew but Luke wrote the record of his words in Greek. Translation had to take place. In which language was the words inspired? Who chose the words, Luke or the Holy Ghost? Which were more inspired, the Hebrew or the Greek?
.

The Old Testament in its original languages and the New Testament in its original language are equally inspired. Both were given by the process of inspiration of God. That translating took place as part of the process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets. God breathed out the words that were given to Luke and other NT writers so that those words become the original language words of the New Testament.

You try to make an invalid comparison or jump to a wrong opinion as you try to equate the very different process of translating in the making of the KJV than any translating that was part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God. Is your making invalid comparisons the best that you can do? Luke and the other NT writers did not have a list of man-made rules to follow, did not have committees to overrule, revise, or change the individual translation decisions of others, did not have a revision committee that could change and revise the earlier work of the six committees, did not have an archbishop such as Richard Bancroft to oversee the translating, etc.

The process for the making of the KJV was very different from the supernatural process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets.

 

[37818]

Did you really not understand my point?

Yes. But making a false premise does not support your point. Or else your point is false too.

Without the New Testament documents we have no Christianity.

The issue of this thread is over the fact the KJV translators took the liberty of translating the Hebrew singular as a plural to make the passage work being translated as a unicorn. A unicorn in concept only having one horn, not two. Horns of a unicorn. Re: Deuteronomy 33:17.

I use the KJV as my primary Bible translation. But I personally find the KJ-Onlyism untenable. Now if you want to hold that view to me, it is as bad or worse as using the modern critical text Bibles. It amounts to an attack on God's word. Though you intend it to defind God's word as do the promoters of the critical text Bibles.

 

[Logos1560]

The issue of this thread is over the fact the KJV translators took the liberty of translating the Hebrew singular as a plural to make the passage work being translated as a unicorn. A unicorn in concept only having one horn, not two. Horns of a unicorn. Re: Deuteronomy 33:17.

Yes, the Hebrew name for the animal [transliterated reem] is singular in number. The scriptural evidence is compelling that the reem had two horns, not one.

This translating of the Hebrew noun singular in number as a plural has led to misunderstanding and misinterpretation as a KJV-only poster incorrectly tried to make this noun singular in number into the supposed antecedent for plural pronouns.

 

[JD731]

[

Yes. But making a false premise does not support your point. Or else your point is false too.

Without the New Testament documents we have no Christianity.

The issue of this thread is over the fact the KJV translators took the liberty of translating the Hebrew singular as a plural to make the passage work being translated as a unicorn. A unicorn in concept only having one horn, not two. Horns of a unicorn. Re: Deuteronomy 33:17.

I use the KJV as my primary Bible translation. But I personally find the KJ-Onlyism untenable. Now if you want to hold that view to me, it is as bad or worse as using the modern critical text Bibles. It amounts to an attack on God's word. Though you intend it to defind God's word as do the promoters of the critical text Bibles.

You are way over my head on this one. I don't know what you are arguing. I sure thought that Christians teach that the foundation of Christianity is our Lord Jesus Christ himself.

May I suggest you stop "using" the KJV and start believing it. You are using it on this forum to attempt to prove it is not true. It is the craziest thing I have ever seen. One can just be glad that hard core sinners don't show up on these kinds of websites and see what "Christians" think about their bibles. If they did show up here they would have enough sense to know that a continual line of new bibles is evidence you don't believe any of them. They would probably agree with you about that.

 

[37818]

May I suggest you stop "using" the KJV and start believing it.

May I suggest had you done that yourself, you would know KJ-Onlyism is error.

 

[JD731]

Yes, the Hebrew name for the animal [transliterated reem] is singular in number. The scriptural evidence is compelling that the reem had two horns, not one.

This translating of the Hebrew noun singular in number as a plural has led to misunderstanding and misinterpretation as a KJV-only poster incorrectly tried to make this noun singular in number into the supposed antecedent for plural pronouns.

Remember that I quoted Isa 55 saying the ways of God are not our ways? Somehow the KJV translators knew the ways of God and you do not. I know his ways, at least in an instance like this. I know that Joseph is a single person and his sons are a plural. I know Joseph's glory is pictured as a 1st born bullock and his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are pictured as the horns of unicorns, because they are of Joseph and are manifest as receiving his two parts of the land.

16 And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him (Joseph) that was separated from his brethren.

17 His (Joseph's) glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his (two) horns are like the (two) horns of (two) unicorns (uni. get it): with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they (the ones like the unicorns) are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

It is so simple. This is typical prophetic teaching about Joseph, who received a double portion of the inheritance of the land grant. Joseph is a type of Jesus Christ and the northern nation of Israel is called Ephraim. The people in this passage are this nation.


God uses this kind of typology from the front of his book to the end. It is his way. You must acknowledge it and interpret his words in this context.

Hebrews 3:10
Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

This is said about two generations of Israel. You do not know the ways of God, and neither does your bible translators.

 

[Conan]

Information about Bible Translations.

English Versions of the Bible

 

[Logos1560]

Somehow the KJV translators knew the ways of God and you do not.

You fail to prove your opinion to be true.

Do you incorrectly imply that God supposedly contradicted Himself as He gave by inspiration a Hebrew word singular in number to Moses but later supposedly gave an English rendering plural in number to the KJV translators?

God by inspiration gave revelation to Moses concerning one animal [singular] with horns [plural] [two horns according to the dual form in Hebrew for horns in another verse concerning the same animal] while your opinion would seem to imply that God lied to Moses or that God contradicted Himself as He supposedly directed the KJV translators to assume that the animal had only one horn.

According to the ways of God as described in the Scriptures, God does not contradict Himself and God does not lie. It is in clear agreement with the ways of God to disagree with your human, non-scriptural opinions.

 

[Logos1560]

You do not know the ways of God, and neither does your bible translators.

My preferred English Bible translators include the KJV translators along with William Tyndale and the other pre-1611 English Bible translators so you are in effect asserting that the KJV translators did not know the ways of God.

It is in clear agreement with scriptural truth and the wisdom from God above that I choose not to show partiality to one exclusive group of translators/priests/critics in 1611.

 

[Logos1560]

his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are pictured as the horns of unicorns, because they are of Joseph and are manifest as receiving his two parts of the land.

His two sons are pictured as the two horns of one reem [Hebrew noun is singular in number].

According to the Hebrew Scripture given by inspiration of God, one animal [singular in number] is referred to as having horns [two horns].

 

[JD731]

His two sons are pictured as the two horns of one reem [Hebrew noun is singular in number].

According to the Hebrew Scripture given by inspiration of God, one animal [singular in number] is referred to as having horns [two horns].

You are not getting the prophesy and the typology that God is employing here. He uses terminology that is intended to apply the characteristics of a physical entity that the reader is familiar with to teach a prophetic reality that is sure to have a demonstrable fulfillment sometime in the future.

You have commented on the supposed error but you have not commented on the prophesy. We would have a much clearer view of this verse if we could examine how it was fulfilled, if you believe it has been fulfilled already.

I think I have some insight on it but I will save my commentary until you have had a chance to respond.

 

[Logos1560]

You are not getting the prophesy and the typology that God is employing here. He uses terminology that is intended to apply the characteristics of a physical entity that the reader is familiar with to teach a prophetic reality that is sure to have a demonstrable fulfillment sometime in the future.

You fail to prove that I do not understand what is stated.

You seem to be the one who in effect is trying to deny what God stated by inspiration through Moses as your reasoning would unsoundly imply that God did not state the truth in Hebrew [the Hebrew name of one animal (singular) that had two horns] and later perhaps had to correct it in the KJV. According to your human reasoning, the KJV would supposedly correct and contradict the Hebrew Masoretic text. Do you imply a supposed error in the Hebrew Masoretic text on which the KJV's OT is based?

 

[JD731]

You fail to prove that I do not understand what is stated.

You seem to be the one who in effect is trying to deny what God stated by inspiration through Moses as your reasoning would unsoundly imply that God did not state the truth in Hebrew [the Hebrew name of one animal (singular) that had two horns] and later perhaps had to correct it in the KJV. According to your human reasoning, the KJV would supposedly correct and contradict the Hebrew Masoretic text. Do you imply a supposed error in the Hebrew Masoretic text on which the KJV's OT is based?

This passage should settle the matter once and for all and we should be able to see that a unicorn in the eyes of God has only one horn.

Psa 92:1 ¶ « A Psalm [or] Song for the sabbath day. » [It is a] good [thing] to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High:
2 To shew forth thy lovingkindness in the morning, and thy faithfulness every night,
3 Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a solemn sound.
4 For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands.
5 O LORD, how great are thy works! [and] thy thoughts are very deep.
6 A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.


7 ¶ When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; [it is] that they shall be destroyed for ever:
8 But thou, LORD, [art most] high for evermore.
9 For, lo, thine enemies, O LORD, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered.
10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
11 Mine eye also shall see [my desire] on mine enemies, [and] mine ears shall hear [my desire] of the wicked that rise up against me.
12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
13 Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God.
14 They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;
15 To shew that the LORD [is] upright: [he is] my rock, and [there is] no unrighteousness in him.
_______________________________-

Psa 92:10 But my horn <07161> shalt thou exalt <07311> (8686) like [the horn of] an unicorn <07214>: I shall be anointed <01101> (8804) with fresh <07488> oil <08081>.

De 33:17 His glory <01926> [is like] the firstling <01060> of his bullock <07794>, and his horns <07161> [are like] the horns <07161> of unicorns <07214>: with them he shall push <05055> (8762) the people <05971> together <03162> to the ends <0657> of the earth <0776>: and they [are] the ten thousands <07233> of Ephraim <0669>, and they [are] the thousands <0505> of Manasseh <04519>.

This is a single person in Psa 92 and the reason for the reference to the horn of the unicorn is to highlight the singular horn, who in this case is the Lord Jesus Christ in the millennium.

If one is using the unicorn type and he needs to have more than one horn on the unicorn, then he must have more than one unicorn. This he did in Deut 33:17 and he tells us the names of the unicorns. They are Ephraim and Manasseh.

How simple is this? Don't have God refer to you as a fool. (see verses 5 and 6)

The KJV translators were consistent in their translation

Nu 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn <07214>.
Nu 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn <07214>: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.
De 33:17 His glory [is like] the firstling of his bullock, and his horns [are like] the horns of unicorns <07214>: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they [are] the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.
Job 39:9 Will the unicorn <07214> be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn <07214> with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Ps 22:21 Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns <07214>.
Ps 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn <07214>.
Ps 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn <07214>: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isa 34:7 And the unicorns <07214> shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

07214 ראם rᵉ’em [reh-ame’] or
ראים rᵉ’eym [reh-ame’] or
רים reym [rame] or
רם rem [rame

]from 07213; n m; [BDB-910a] [{See TWOT on 2096 @@ "2096a" }]

AV-unicorn 9; 9

1) probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.

 

[Logos1560]

This passage should settle the matter once and for all and we should be able to see that a unicorn in the eyes of God has only one horn.

Psa 92:

10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.


Psa 92:10 But my horn <07161> shalt thou exalt <07311> (8686) like [the horn of] an unicorn <07214>: I shall be anointed <01101> (8804) with fresh <07488> oil <08081>.

This is a single person in Psa 92 and the reason for the reference to the horn of the unicorn is to highlight the singular horn, who in this case is the Lord Jesus Christ in the millennium.

If one is using the unicorn type and he needs to have more than one horn on the unicorn, then he must have more than one unicorn. This he did in Deut 33:17 and he tells us the names of the unicorns. They are Ephraim and Manasseh.

Do you demonstrate that you jump to a wrong conclusion if you claim that Psalm 92:10 proves that the reem had only one horn?

Is it really a problem to refer to one horn of an animal that had two horns according to another verse? Does your claim and reasoning also assert that it is incorrect to refer to a horn [singular] of an ox that has two horns (Exod. 21:29)?

If someone mentions or describes the leg [singular] of a horse, it would not be claimed that the person was saying that the horse has only one leg. It is common to speak in the singular of various members of an animal even when those members are plural in number. John Kitto observed: “It is quite usual, poetically, or in common discourse, to speak in the singular of those members of men and animals which are really dual or plural” (Daily Bible, p. 222). When David referred to “the paw of the lion” and to “the paw of the bear” (1 Sam. 17:37), he was not saying or claiming that a lion or bear has only one paw.

Likewise, referring to the horn of the reem would not prove that the reem definitely had only one horn. The phrase the “horn” of the reem would not declare that the reem was one-horned near as strongly as the phrase the “horns” of the reem [singular] would declare it to be not one-horned.

Concerning the mention of “horn” in Psalms, Maria Catlow stated: “This, however, is no evidence against the animal in question having two horns, as it is not uncommon to speak of ‘the horn’ of an animal that has really two, but never of the horns of a creature having but one” (Popular Scripture Zoology, pp. 80-81). It is wrong to seem to attempt to try to make Psalm 92:10 contradict Deuteronomy 33:17, which one animal [singular in Hebrew] has horns [plural].

The evidence from Deuteronomy 33:17 is much stronger than the incorrect assumptions and claims of KJV-only advocates concerning Psalm 92:10. One reem [singular in Hebrew] has horns [plural] in the eyes of God.

I clearly and directly answered the points that you raise, but you do not deal with and answer the sound, scripturally-based points that I raise.

 

[JD731]

Do you demonstrate that you jump to a wrong conclusion if you claim that Psalm 92:10 proves that the reem had only one horn?

Is it really a problem to refer to one horn of an animal that had two horns according to another verse? Does your claim and reasoning also assert that it is incorrect to refer to a horn [singular] of an ox that has two horns (Exod. 21:29)?

If someone mentions or describes the leg [singular] of a horse, it would not be claimed that the person was saying that the horse has only one leg. It is common to speak in the singular of various members of an animal even when those members are plural in number. John Kitto observed: “It is quite usual, poetically, or in common discourse, to speak in the singular of those members of men and animals which are really dual or plural” (Daily Bible, p. 222). When David referred to “the paw of the lion” and to “the paw of the bear” (1 Sam. 17:37), he was not saying or claiming that a lion or bear has only one paw.

Likewise, referring to the horn of the reem would not prove that the reem definitely had only one horn. The phrase the “horn” of the reem would not declare that the reem was one-horned near as strongly as the phrase the “horns” of the reem [singular] would declare it to be not one-horned.

Concerning the mention of “horn” in Psalms, Maria Catlow stated: “This, however, is no evidence against the animal in question having two horns, as it is not uncommon to speak of ‘the horn’ of an animal that has really two, but never of the horns of a creature having but one” (Popular Scripture Zoology, pp. 80-81). It is wrong to seem to attempt to try to make Psalm 92:10 contradict Deuteronomy 33:17, which one animal [singular in Hebrew] has horns [plural].

The evidence from Deuteronomy 33:17 is much stronger than the incorrect assumptions and claims of KJV-only advocates concerning Psalm 92:10. One reem [singular in Hebrew] has horns [plural] in the eyes of God.

I clearly and directly answered the points that you raise, but you do not deal with and answer the sound, scripturally-based points that I raise.

Now you are getting silly and quoting women preachers. You refuse to answer what the prophesy in Duet 33:17 is referring to, a point that would shed light on this conversation and you are actually suggesting that the unicorn of Psalm 92 has two horns in a context that is dealing with the person of Jesus Christ after his second coming. The reason the unicorn is chosen to typify Jesus Christ in Psa 92 is because of the one horn.

You are showing desperation and a refusal to be corrected.

Psalms 92:1
A Psalm or Song for the sabbath day. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High:

The millennium is a sabbath rest. It is the seventh day of the week of one thousand year days of God, after he has spent the first six days in his work of redemption. I doubt that you know this but only born again subjects will enter the righteous kingdom rest of Jesus Christ, who is then King over all the earth. Jesus said unless a man is born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

There is reason and purpose for God choosing the unicorn to picture this rule. It is because he has only one horn. Unicorns have one horn and the women are wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

You are showing desperation and a refusal to be corrected.

Your opinion is incorrect. You may be describing you yourself.

My appeal to clear scriptural truth does not show any desperation at all. You dodge and avoid clear facts from the Scriptures themselves.

 

[JD731]

Your opinion is incorrect. You may be describing you yourself.

My appeal to clear scriptural truth does not show any desperation at all. You dodge and avoid clear facts from the Scriptures themselves.

You are practicing hypocrisy. You have rules for the KJV believer while affording complete editorial liberty for the creators of dynamic equivalent translators, condensed versions, paraphrases and the like. You are conflicted, which makes your counsel worthless.

 

[Conan]

. You are conflicted, which makes your counsel worthless.

Or you have been captured by Onlyism and made an idol.

 

[JD731]

Or you have been captured by Onlyism and made an idol.

And maybe not.

Did you know that beginning at the very start of the third millennium of human history as recorded in Ge 15, for the first time we are introduced to God by his name of Adonay Jehovah and this person is Jesus Christ who is personified from that time until now as “ the word of the LORD?” Therefore, when the scriptures says the word of the LORD came to someone we know it was a person who came to them and that person was Jesus.

The distinction between the Godhead in the work of redemption is clearly apparent in the scriptures. His Revelation is exact and his words precise. In the Beginning of this age John, his apostle, Called him the Word and God in the same sentence. The designation of Jesus Christ as “the word of the Lord” is still maintained in the NT in the KJV. I therefore am worshipping Jesus Christ who has power and motivation to preserve the words that he has given throughout history and men of every age will accept or reject the same revelation of God.

Your cavalier approach to the word of God and influencing others to approach it in the same way is wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

You are practicing hypocrisy. You have rules for the KJV believer while affording complete editorial liberty for the creators of dynamic equivalent translators, condensed versions, paraphrases and the like. You are conflicted, which makes your counsel worthless.

Your allegation is not true. I consistently have advocated that the same exact measures/standards be applied justly. You do not cite any different rules that I supposedly have for KJV believers. You show that you do not know what my scripturally-based counsel and position is if you are unaware of my consistent advocating of applying the same measures/standards justly. I am a KJV believer in what the KJV actually is, and I properly oppose vain attempts to make the KJV into something that it is not. KJV-only advocates believe assertions for the KJV that are not true.

It is KJV-only advocates who in effect give complete editorial liberty to the Church of England makers of the KJV and that do not apply the same exact measures/standards to them that they inconsistently and unjustly attempt to apply to other Bible translators. KJV-only advocates permit the KJV translators to use dynamic equivalent renderings, paraphrases, no English rendering at all for some original-language words of Scripture, and many added words for which they have no original-language words of Scripture. They permit the KJV translators to change a Hebrew noun singular in number to a plural, but they would condemn other Bible translators that do the same thing.

According to consistent, just application of your very own assertion, it would make you conflicted, which would make your counsel worthless, but you will not apply your own assertion to you yourself.

I have not even recommended nor advocated the Critical Text or any English translations made from it even though you seem to assume that I supposedly have. You jump to wrong conclusions without consideration of all the facts.