Originally posted by steaver:
There is no way this can be called an "error". All of these translators must have purposefully chose "unicorn" either because of good reason or because of evil deciet. There is no "mistake" made here in the translating. They had a reason and just because the reason might be long lost, it doesn't give us the right to say they were wrong. Maybe the reason is researchable, but rest assured these translators, and there were many, not just KJViers, had some good reason for saying unicorn. No God fearing Christian would conclude that a word which could mean "wild ox" should be translated "unicorn" without some sort of logical reason. Since you don't know the reason then maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Just my opinion
Yes, it can be called an error. Just because people copy other people's errors doesn't make it any less an error. Quite often the majority is wrong. No one said anything about evil deceit, and you are the one that implies that. The fact is that it is not a good translation and you are so emotionally attached to the translation that you won't admit it.
If there was a good reason for using the word "unicorn" then what is it? I haven't heard it yet. It was a bad translation. Period. A mistake in translation--whatever suits your terminology best.
Are you saying that all the translations since the KJV that have translated the word "rheem" as wild ox, whether in commentaries, lexicons, or in the many other translations (both English and in other languages) are ALL ungodly? How arrogant an assumption!! There are dictionaries (lexicons) available. The Hebrew word is "rheem." Learn how to use a Hebrew lexicon and look the word up for yourself. It does not mean unicorn. That means the translation of the KJB is wrong. Isn't that simple?
Here is some information about the KJV you ought to know:
the King James Bible which they (KJVOers) use is in fact the 1769 edition of the KJV. That edition differs in substance from 1611 in 136 places. However, the vast majority of those who take a KJVO position use the 1769 edition.
Another problem facing those advocating a KJVO position is the difference between the Oxford Edition of the 1769 edition and the Cambridge Edition thereof. The Cambridge Edition is the one used in England. The Oxford Edition is the more commonly used one in the United States. These two editions differ in their rendering of Jer.34:16. The Cambridge edition (of the 1769) reads as follows:
"But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids."
The Oxford edition (1769) reads thus:
But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids."
As it turns out, the Cambridge Edition is the correct translation of the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text. Moreover, the KJVO position is almost an American phenomenon. What is ironic, however, is that many KJVO advocates use the Oxford Edition of the 1769 KJV.
("Touch Not the Unclean Thing," Sorenson)
The only infallible, God-breathed, inspired error-free documents were the original manuscripts written by the prophets and the Apostles which we no longer have.
And it is true that this must be accepted by faith.
It is a position that can be accepted by intelligent faith. All others (ex. secondary inspiration) are based on blind faith, if not absolute illogical fallacies and absuridities which cannot be explained away. My position is the only position which has Scriptural support.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Frist point is all Scripture is inspired of God. We can all agree on that.
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Second, The Scriptures came by the will of God, as holy men of God (the prophets and the Apostles) spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the process of inspiration. Who did God inspire? He inspired: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, John, etc.: the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament. Specifically, God inspired their words. Thus it was their manuscripts and no other manuscripts that were inspired. No copies were inspired. No translations were or are inspired. Only the words of the prophets and Apostles are inspired. This is exactly what this verse says. The problem is that you don't want to believe it.
2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Third, What does Peter say, by way of a commandment? Be mindful of the words which were spoken to you. Spoken by Whom?
1. by the holy prophets.
2. and of the commandment of US the apostles of the Lord and Savior.
Peter says that they should be mindful of both the OT prophets and the NT Apostles, and puts the words of the Apostles on par with the words of the prophets--just as important as the prophets whom the Jews revered.
Never is any translation said or inferred to be inspired, neither any copy, but only the words of the prophets and of the Apostles. We don't have those words any longer. We only have copies of them, and then translations of them. I believe that the Word of God is preserved in the copies that we have of the originals that don't exist any longer for God has promised to preserve his word. He never promised to preserve his language in the KJV or in any other language.
I believe that God has preserved his Word in the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have today, but not in translations, not in any translation.
Again this is only by faith, correct? You have no way of proving that the existing manuscripts are exactly what was written in the originals, correct?
God Bless!
Today there are more than 5,650 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The vast majority of these contain only portions of the New Testament. In some cases, they represent less than a single page of a given book.
Nevertheless with such a preponderance of manuscripts still in existence, there is a way to determine what exactly was written in the originals if one is willing to take the time to do the study. Again, study and faith go together. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence and intelligence.
Many religions, like Islam, go by "blind faith." They blindly believe whatever the Mullahs teach whether it makes sense or not. Many KJVO's do the same thing. They have blind faith. It is irrational to do so.
DHK
