The KJV translaters translated the singular unicorn in the plural in
Deuteronomy 33:17.
Right, which can't help but put a huge bolder in the road to adopting a double inspiration stance, because it is inexplicable by all accounts we have available to consider.
That's why I said the following.
Leave it to God to make fools out of the double inspiration holders and work in these tiny Minutia like how many horns the thing had and what kind of beast or beasts there should be
And what could be less Minutia than unicorn(s)?
It could just be a common Enallage.
Yes, that would a (unsubstantiated) gratuitous assertion.
The figure of metonymy would have two horns to be The two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manassah, who had been adopted into the family of Jacob, and appointed the founders of two distinct tribes, whose descendants in the time of Moses were become numerous and respectable in the congregation.
These were the two horns with which Joseph was to attack and subdue his enemies, and by consequence, propriety required an allusion to a creature, not with one, but with two horns” (
Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures, II, pp. 191-192).
(if 'horns' indicate 'two horns-dual'(?), instead of the horns-plural of more than one one-horned beast being spoken of generically by 'unicorn' in the original language texts and all previous versions, in singular, that the KJ translators changed to 'unicorns', as having the same essential referent, to possibly avoid the confusion of a 'one-horned beast' seeming to be said to have 'horns-plural'.
That would make "horns of an unicorn [generic, assuming more than one horn being on more that one unicorn, generically spoken of as several animals] and "horns of the unicorns", the same, for the sake of explaining their differing the plural rendition in what they devoutly considered sacred territory, in their tremendously faithful execution, otherwise.)
It seems you missed the point of truth.
Yes, given the original language texts were correct and truth which we assume they were, of course.
There was an inexplicable change made, from everything we know, that would be a case in point of the KJ translators not being inspired, in this instance. And one little 's' is enough of an instance to impeach that whole scheme. Good enough. Nobody told them they were inspired to start with and you would think God or somebody would have...
