inaccurate renderings in the KJV

[Logos1560]

The KJV's renderings "unicorn" or "unicorns" are additional examples where the KJV may not give the most accurate or precise rendering of the Hebrew. These renderings are found in the KJV nine times: Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9, 10, Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7.

In his book recommended by some KJV-only advocates, Gustavus Paine maintained that “the mythical unicorn is found in nine Bible verses” (Men, p. 61). John Worcester asserted that “the name ‘unicorn’ is a translator’s mistake” (Animals, p. 22). Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle noted: "The mistaken rendering began with the Greek Septuagint, which used monokeros, and the Latin Vulgate, which used unicornis or rhinoceros" (KJB Word Book, p. 353). William Houghton asserted that “the ‘Unicorn’ of our English Bible owes its origin to the Septuagint and Vulgate versions” (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, X, p. 365). At its entry reem, the 1897 American Encyclopaedic Dictionary noted: “In the A. V. the influence of the Septuagint has prevailed, and the word is translated unicorn, but erroneously, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves” (Vol. 8, p. 3391).


This rendering may have been from the influence of the Hebrew-Latin lexicons that gave the renderings of the Latin Vulgate as the definition for many Hebrew words instead directly from the Vulgate. According to a consistent application of the claims in Gail Riplinger’s book Hazardous Materials, did the Hebrew-Latin lexicon used by the KJV translators borrow its definition for the Hebrew word reem from a corrupt Bible translation--the Latin Vulgate? In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster defined unicorn as "an animal with one horn; monoceros." In his 1755 dictionary, Samuel Johnson defined it as “a beast, whether real or fabulous, that has only one horn.”


Concerning the word unicorn, the 1895 Sunday School Teachers' Bible maintained: "The LXX translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves." The Illustrated Bible Treasury asserted: “That the translation [unicorn] is impossible, even if there ever had been such a creature, is shown by Deuteronomy 33:17, where the two horns of one reem are spoken of” (p. 283). McClintock and Strong also observed that this text "puts a one-horned animal entirely out of the question" and that one of its scriptural characteristics is "having two horns" (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 638).

Worcester maintained that “the Bible says that the animal has ‘horns,‘ not one horn (Deut. 33:17)“ (Animals, p. 22). The unabridged Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary noted at its entry unicorn: "in the Bible, a two-horned, oxlike animal called reem in Hebrew: Deut. 33:17" (p. 1998).

 

[Deacon]

It’s charming that some are so attached to the King James Version that they still use it in their daily study but I believe that it is a hindrance to a better knowledge of the scriptures.

Our understanding of both the Ancient Hebrew and the Greek languages has advanced far beyond that of the scholars of the 16th century.

Archeological discoveries also give us a much better understanding of the culture and helped us better translate unfamiliar words.

Textual inaccuracies have been identified, classified and often reconstructed; thousands of Greek manuscripts some dating to mere decades after the original writing, as well as the Qumran manuscripts provide abundant data unavailable to the early translators.

Today’s versions provide a more accurate rendering of the holy scriptures.

Rob

 

[Oldtimer]

Rebuttal:

13.Some writers who hold to the two-horned identity think that the KJV translators substituted the plural unicorns for the singular an unicorn in Deuteronomy 33:17 because they were uncomfortable with the idea of a two-horned unicorn. However, the KJV translators themselves noted the literal translation an unicorn in their own margin note. They likely chose the plural rendering to fit the context of the verse. Deuteronomy 33:17 states, “His [Joseph’s] glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: 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.” The verse compares the tribal descendants of Joseph’s “horns,” meaning descendants of his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, with the strong horns of unicorns. “Horns” is plural because there are two sons in view, and “unicorn” is referenced because the unicorn’s horn is so incredibly strong. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

Manasseh:


Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: 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.”

Moses is saying here that Ephraim consists of tens of thousands of people, but Manasseh only has thousands of people, thus confirming that Jacob’s prophecy really did come true. Ephraim really is greater than Manasseh just like Jacob prophesied. And in order to paint a picture of who Joseph is, he says that Joseph’s horns are like the horns of the “rinocerotis,”talking about the two-horned rhinoceros. This actually makes perfect sense, because the two-horned rhinoceros has a larger horn and a smaller horn. The larger horn represents Ephraim, and the smaller horn represents Manasseh. http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-the-bible-mention-unicorns/

http://brandplucked.webs.com/unicorns.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWHJMz2Neog&feature=player_embedded and part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4rBq61neoA

Side Note: Is this some of the result of the continual attack on the KJB?
http://davidtlamb.com/2012/03/07/unicorns-in-the-bible/

Unicorns in the Bible March 7, 2012 by David Lamb

Do you believe in unicorns? A student in my psalms class (Phil) pointed out to me recently that unicorns appear in the Bible.

I said, “What?” He said, “Yep”. I said, “Where?” He said in Psalm 22 and other places. “You’re kidding.” “Nope, but only in the King James Version.”

snip

I know I’m going to anger my 7 year-old females readers with this, but despite the fact that they appear in the KJV Bible, I don’t believe in unicorns.

If you like unicorns and the comic strip Baby Blues, check this out: http://www.babyblues.com/archive/index.php?GoToDay=2006-10-27.

I love the King James Version, but it has a few problems. This is why it’s good to use multiple versions of the Bible when we study the text.

A children's teacher of Psalms who claims to love the KJB yet denies it while pointing to a cartoon alluding to gender preference. While also ignoring the fact that unicorns does, indeed, appear in "multiple" versions. May God have mercy on us all.

Back to the main point. Please be specific in how those rebuttals above are in error. Any one of them that you may choose to address.

 

[Logos1560]

Rebuttal:

13.Some writers who hold to the two-horned identity think that the KJV translators substituted the plural unicorns for the singular an unicorn in Deuteronomy 33:17 because they were uncomfortable with the idea of a two-horned unicorn. However, the KJV translators themselves noted the literal translation an unicorn in their own margin note. They likely chose the plural rendering to fit the context of the verse. Deuteronomy 33:17 states, “His [Joseph’s] glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: 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.” The verse compares the tribal descendants of Joseph’s “horns,” meaning descendants of his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, with the strong horns of unicorns. “Horns” is plural because there are two sons in view, and “unicorn” is referenced because the unicorn’s horn is so incredibly strong. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...corns-in-bible

Actually whoever wrote that information was mistaken. The KJV translators themselves did not note the literal translation "an unicorn" in their own marginal note since the 1611 edition has no marginal note at Deuteronomy 33:17. Later editors/printers did add a marginal note at this verse to acknowledge that the Hebrew word is singular in number. That marginal note that affirms that the Hebrew name for the animal is singular in number is sound evidence that the KJV does not have the most accurate rendering of it.

The 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural. The 1762 Cambridge standard KJV edition and the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition have the following marginal note for the word unicorns: “Hebrew an unicorn.” The marginal note can be seen in an edition of the KJV printed in London in 1711 so it was added before 1762. Other KJV editions that had marginal notes such as the 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, and 1885 Oxford editions, the 1853 American Bible Society standard edition, the 1769, 1844, 1872, 1887, and the 2005 Cambridge editions, and the 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible have this same marginal note at this verse. This marginal note in standard editions of the KJV affirms with the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1602 Spanish Valera, and the 1657 English translation of the Dutch that the Hebrew word was singular in number.

When another English translation changes a noun that is singular in number in the KJV to a plural, it is claimed that this type change is "diabolical dynamic equivalency" and is "not accuracy in translation." For example, KJV defender D. A. Waite listed several such examples as claimed dynamic equivalencies in his booklet concerning the NKJV (see pages 22-25 in The NKJV compared to KJV). In formal equivalence, Gail Riplinger maintained that “a singular is carried over as a singular” (In Awe, p. 270).

According to a consistent application of the KJV-only view's own reasoning, was the KJV wrong to change a singular to a plural at this verse? Has any valid evidence been presented that proves that this Hebrew word that is singular in number must be precisely translated as plural at this verse?

 

[Logos1560]

Psalm 92:10

Rebuttal:

One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of “wild ox”, besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. ‘But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN.” The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: “You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX.” Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/unicorns.htm

Some KJV-only advocates sometimes maintain 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?

Is it incorrect to refer to a horn [singular] of an ox that has two horns (Exod. 21:29)?

Exodus 21:29a But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past

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 make Psalm 92:10 contradict Deuteronomy 33:17. The evidence from Deuteronomy 33:17 is much stronger than the incorrect assumptions and claims of KJV-only advocates concerning Psalm 92:10.

 

[Logos1560]

Psalm 22:21

It has also been maintained that Psalm 22:21 indicates that the reem had two horns. Friedrich Delitzsch asserted: “Who does not see the obvious contradiction involved in the translation of Psalm 22:21, ‘For thou hast heard me from the horns [dual in Hebrew] of the unicorns,’ where more than one horn is ascribed to the unicorn?” (Hebrew Language, p. 6). Moses Stuart noted: “The dual in Hebrew is used principally to designate such objects as are double either by nature or by custom” (Hebrew Grammar, p. 271). The Hebrew word for horns has a dual form that can be used. Scrivener indicated that where KJV editions have “two horns” or “two horns” at Daniel 8:3, 6, 20 “the noun is dual” (Authorized Edition, p. 34). Just as this dual form for the Hebrew word for horns was translated “two horns” in Daniel, it could just as accurately been translated “two horns” in reference to the reem. Robert Brown cited Deuteronomy 33:17 as follows: “his horns (i.e. two horns) are like the horns of a wild bull” (Unicorn, p. 9).


In his commentary, John Hewlett wrote: “The reems are in effect called ‘wild bulls’ by the Psalmist, Psalm 22. For those he styles ‘bulls of Bashan;‘ i.e. of the mountains of Bashan, verse 12, he calls ‘reems;‘ verse 21, as though they were synonymous terms” (Vol. 2, p. 397). Charles Taylor also quoted or noted that the “reems are in effect called wild bulls” . . . “as though they were synonymous terms” (Scripture Illustrated, p. 192). In the Companion Bible, E. W. Bullinger has this note: “unicorns=the bulls of v. 12” (p. 740). In his 1839 book edited from the writings of others, George Bush indicated that the three animals in verses 20 and 21 correspond “to the three before mentioned as besetting him, but ranged in an inverted order, viz. the dog, the lion, and the reem, in place of the bulls of Basham (Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures, p. 403). He added that “the interference is almost irresistible, that the reemim of verse 21 are the parim of verse 12, the bulls of Bashan (Ibid.). He continued: “At least we may infer that the reem was an animal not so unlike those bulls that it might with propriety be interchanged with them in poetic parallelism” (Ibid.). In his Commentary on the Bible, J. R. Dummelow asserted: “In this [Ps. 22:21] and the preceding verse the figures of verses 12, 13, 16 (bulls, lions, dogs) are repeated” (p. 338).

Does Psalm 22:12 provide the scriptural built-in definition for reem? Gail Riplinger maintained that one of the ways to find the built-in definition was to “look for parallellism” (Language of the KJB, p. 25). Riplinger wrote: “Locate the parallelism. Find the word or words which sit in a parallel position to the word in question” (In Awe, p. 62). Riplinger asserted: “The parallel definition is perfectly suited to the context” (p. 65). Does this parallelism use the Hebrew word for the tame or domesticated animal in one place and the Hebrew word for the wild animal in the other?

At Deuteronomy 33:17, a London edition of the KJV printed by Henry Hills in 1660 has this marginal note for unicorns: “Or of a wild bull.” Did the person responsible for the additional marginal notes in this 1660 KJV find and give this built-in definition for reem?

By this way, this 1660 marginal note is found earlier in an edition of the KJV than the later marginal note "Heb. an unicorn" in some other editions.

 

[Logos1560]

animal with two horns is not an unicorn

Rebuttal:

This actually makes perfect sense, because the two-horned rhinoceros has a larger horn and a smaller horn. The larger horn represents Ephraim, and the smaller horn represents Manasseh. http://www.creationtoday.org/why-doe...tion-unicorns/

.

Thanks for giving evidence that shows that the KJV's rendering is less accurate. Would it be completely accurate to refer to an animal that has two horns as an unicorn?

In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster defined unicorn as "an animal with one horn; monoceros." In his 1755 dictionary, Samuel Johnson defined it as “a beast, whether real or fabulous, that has only one horn.”

 

[Logos1560]

Was reem an rhinoceros?

In agreement with the rendering at some verses in editions of the Latin Vulgate, some may suggest that the reem could be the rhinoceros. Concerning Job 39:9-12 in his commentary on the book of Job, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Now the animal in question has a ‘single horn’ (unicorn, vs. 9) which is probably a reference to something like a rhinoceros” (p. 582). Ruckman wrote: “You don’t find many tame rhinoceroses eating out of a crib (vs. 9) after plowing a field (vs. 10)“ (p. 584). The 1610 Douay O. T. from the Latin Vulgate has “rhinoceros” in the text at Numbers 24:8. The 1611 KJV has the following marginal note from the likely if not certain influence of the Latin Vulgate at Isaiah 34:7: "or, rhinoceros." It is interesting that some KJV-only advocates may appeal to this one marginal note in the 1611 to try to defend a KJV rendering when usually they consider the marginal notes to have no weight at all.


John Kitto asserted that “people were driven to the rhinoceros by the unfounded notion that it was necessary to find a one-horned animal” (Daily Bible, p. 224). J. G. Wood claimed that “the unicorn has been erroneously supposed to be identical with the rhinoceros of India” (Story, p. 159). That identification may be based on its Latin name [Rhinoceros unicornis].

One very serious problem with the identification of the reem with the rhinoceros is that a rhinoceros was not an animal that was used as a sacrifice by the Jews in the O. T. times. Houghton noted that the rhinoceros “would have been forbidden to be sacrificed by the Law of Moses, whereas the reem is mentioned by Isaiah as coming down with bullocks and rams to the Lord’s sacrifice” (Hackett, Smith's Dictionary, p. 3351). Wiley maintained that the reem "were counted among animals fit for sacrifice and associated with bovines" (Bible Animals, pp. 431-432). Henry Hart also asserted that “in Isaiah 34:7, the reem is spoken of as suitable for sacrifice” (Animals, p. 214). John Worcester also claimed that “it was fit for sacrifice” (Animals, p. 22).

The scriptural association and connection of the reem with domesticated work animals at Job 39:9-12 and with domesticated cattle and animals used for sacrifice at Isaiah 34:6-7 would conflict with the claim that the reem could be the rhinoceros. Thus, some of the various scriptural contexts where the Hebrew word reem is found provide the evidence that affirms that the reem was not a rhinoceros. The horns of the reem were indicated to be like the horns of a bullock or ox (Deut. 33:17). The horn of a rhinoceros is different. Although the reem was signified as being too strong (Job 39:11) to be used as a work animal, it was still clearly associated with this type of animal in the Bible.

Concerning Job 39 in his 1816 Commentary, John Hewlett noted that the reem “is represented in our author’s description as qualified by its make and strength for the business of agriculture, like the tame ox” (Vol. 2, p. 397). Is there any evidence that shows that those who lived in the time of Job would have considered a rhinoceros as the type animal to be possibly put in a yoke and used to plow and that could eat from a crib? A Biblical Cyclopaedia edited by John Eadie noted that the reem “seems to have been reckoned as belonging to the bovine species, with the tame and domesticated members of which it is sometimes contrasted” (p. 654).

Houghton concluded: "Considering, therefore, that the reem is spoken of as a two-horned animal of great strength and ferocity, that it was evidently well known and often seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an animal fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is frequently associated with bulls and oxen, we think there can be no doubt that some species of wild ox is intended" (Hackett, Smith's Dictionary, p. 3352). The Encyclopedia of Mammals asserted that “the fearsome appearance of the rhino masks a gentle, largely passive creature” (Vol. 13, p. 1934). While there are some varieties or species of the rhinoceros which have two horns, all the evidence considered together does not make a compelling case for the view that the reem was or could be a rhinoceros. All the description and character of the reem that is given in the Scriptures do not apply to the rhinoceros.

 

[Oldtimer]

It’s charming that some are so attached to the King James Version that they still use it in their daily study but I believe that it is a hindrance to a better knowledge of the scriptures.

Rob

Rob, the only reason why I do not call myself King James Bible Only is because I believe God's word, printed on the back of a business card, can help bring a lost soul to Christ.

I use the KJB in my daily study. It is NOT a hinderance to a better knowledge of the scriptures. Here's just one of the reasons, the most important reason why it isn't.

Proverbs 2: KJB
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

coupled with

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Wisdom and understanding comes from God, first and foremost. He is the one who removes scales from our eyes.

Next...

It's nice, but not a vital necessity to have additional study aids. Even those using ______ (insert version) can benefit from them. Before the age of instant access, I can't think of anything that I've studied, indepth, that I didn't spend time with my nose buried in a book(s) in a hardcopy library.

And, I listened to instructors, teachers, professors and yes, pastors to supplement printed word, regardless of subject/text. The way my father learned, since he could not read or write his name. A God fearing man who understood, and put into practice in his daily life, that set of verses far better than many folk around me today.

Today, in addition to perhaps a half dozen or so modern versions within arms reach, along with other reference materials, the rest of my "library" resides here.

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/king-james-dictionary/
http://utmost.org/ & http://utmost.org/classic/today/

And, perhaps, another 100 or so links under the heading "Bible Study" on my computer. Never counted them.

The KJB is only a hinderance to those who want to make it so. Those who find excuses to ignore that pair of verses, regardless of which version of the Bible they appear. Just one example of many that can be cited: "It's too hard to read." Spoken by a lady who only opens her SS quarterly on Sunday morning. (Takes one from the stack of extras and returns it to the stack when she leaves.)

Daily study of His word using the KJB is NOT a hinderance.

In my layman's opinion.................

 

[Logos1560]

Rebuttal:

Please be specific in how those rebuttals above are in error. Any one of them that you may choose to address.

Specific information has been given that addresses your claimed rebuttals.

Waite's Defined KJB included in its note concerning "unicorns" at Deuteronomy 33:17 the following: "Heb probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct" (p. 315). Waite wrote: “Get a Defined King James Bible if you want to have the Words of God translated into understandable English” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 34). Waite suggested that if “you don’t know what these words mean, get a copy of The Defined King James Bible” [where] “each of the 600 or more uncommon words is defined accurately” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 91).

Concerning Numbers 23:22, KJV defender David Sorenson also asserted that this creature “likely refers to the aurochs which were great wild bulls, now extinct” (p. 813). In his tract “King James Bible Dictionary,“ O. Ray Smith defined unicorn as “wild bull.“ In his King James Old English Word Definition Guide, Michael Williams defined unicorn as “wild ox” (p. 21). Do most other KJV-only advocates reject this claimed understandable and accurate definition of the Hebrew word given at Deuteronomy 33:17 in Waite’s Defined KJB?


Unger's Bible Dictionary noted that this Hebrew word "most certainly denotes the 'wild ox,' for the cognate word in Akkadian rimu has this meaning (p. 66). Encyclopaedia Biblica maintained that “the Hebrew reem is the same as the Assyrian rimu” (IV, p. 5229). Friedrich Delitzsch asserted: “We know now, by the cuneiform inscriptions, that the reem is the Assyrian rimu, that strong-horned, fierce-looking wild bull, skilled in climbing the mountains, whose colossal and formidable likeness was placed by the Assyrian kings before the entrance of their palaces to ward off and terrify the approaching enemy” (Hebrew Language, p. 7). At its entry reem, the American Encyclopaedic Dictionary stated that “the Assyrian rimu clearly denotes this same wild bovine” (Vol. 8, p. 3391). In his article entitled “On the Mammalia of the Assyrian Sculptures,“ William Houghton wrote: “The Hebrew name of this wild bull, so unfortunately translated ’unicorn’ by the authorized version, is rem, which is identical with the Assyrian rimu” (Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. 5, p. 336). In his 1876 book with the same title as the cited article, Houghton concluded: “I think there is not the slightest doubt that the rimu of the Assyrian language, the am-si of the Accadian, is the rem of the Hebrew Bible” (On the Mammalia, p. 54).


At its entry reem, the Oxford English Dictionary declared: "The Hebrew name of an animal mentioned in the Old Testament, now identified with the wild ox" (XIII, p. 453). This same authority on the English language included this statement: “The identification of the Hebrew reem with the wild ox (Bos primgenius) is one of the most certain of all Bible names” (Ibid.). Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary defined reem as “the wild ox” (p. 1516). Green's Concise Lexicon gave the meaning of this Hebrew word as "wild ox" (p. 213). This Hebrew word is translated "wild ox" or "wild oxen" in English translations by Jews such as their 1899 Magil’s Linear School Bible, 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text, and Tanakh. Targum Neofiti 1 of Deuteronomy as translated by Martin McNamara has a note (Deut. 33:17) that maintained that “the HT [Hebrew Text] has ‘horns of a wild ox’” (p. 169, note 53). At Deuteronomy 33:17, Thompson's Chain Reference Bible gave this marginal note: "i.e., horns of the wild ox." At Numbers 23:22, the Scofield Reference Bible has the marginal note: "i.e. the aurochs, or wild ox." The 1952 Pilgrim Edition of the KJV edited by E. Schuyler English and the 2002 New Pilgrim Bible with two KJV-only advocates as consulting editors have the footnote “a name for a wild ox” at Numbers 23:22. The Jewish Commentary on the Psalms by A. Cohen supported the rendering of the Hebrew word at Psalm 22 as “wild-oxen” (p. 64). The English translation by R. G. Finch of the Longer Commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi on the First Book of Psalms has “the wild oxen” in the text at Psalm 22:21 (p. 104). The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia stated: “Reem, a word used in the Bible to denote a species of wild oxen” (Vol. 1, p. 329).

 

[Oldtimer]

Thanks for giving evidence that shows that the KJV's rendering is less accurate. Would it be completely accurate to refer to an animal that has two horns as an unicorn?

In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster defined unicorn as "an animal with one horn; monoceros." In his 1755 dictionary, Samuel Johnson defined it as “a beast, whether real or fabulous, that has only one horn.”

1828 is displaying an error when I try to access it to see if it has more than one definition of "unicorn".

"Would it be completely accurate to refer to an animal that has two horns as a unicorn?"

Yes, when the animal can have either one or two horns.

Rhinoceros are killed by humans for their horns, which are bought and sold on the black market, and which are used by some cultures for ornamental or traditional medicinal purposes. The horns are made of keratin, the same type of protein that makes up hair and fingernails.[2] Both African species and the Sumatran rhinoceros have two horns, while the Indian and Javan rhinoceros have a single horn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros

A parallel is the camel. Some have one hump, others have two.

In a debate about camels, if one's position depended on the number of humps being one, would that person mention camels that have two humps? :flower:

Since I don't have the advantage of ready-made responses supporting books & articles, it'll take a while to review your rebuttals, before further responding.

As time permits..... :type:

 

[Logos1560]

context indicates animal had two horns

The context of the verse in Deuteronomy supports the view that this animal had more than one horn. In the context, the “them” of this verse refers back to “horns.“

George Paxton wrote: “Moses, in his benediction of Joseph, states a most important fact, that it has two horns; the words are: His horns are like the horns of (a reem, in the singular number) an unicorn. Some interpreters, determined to support the claims of the unicorn to the honour of a place in the sacred volume, contend, that in this instance the singular, by an enallage or change of number, is put for the plural. But this is a gratuitous assertion; and besides, if admitted, would greatly diminish the force and propriety of the comparison. The two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manassah, 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). With the two horns of a reem, he [singular] shall push.

William Houghton observed: "The two horns of the reem are 'the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh'--the two tribes which sprang from one, i.e. Joseph, as two horns from one head" (Hacket, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 3351). Likewise, H. B. Tristram commented: “For the two horns of the reem are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and the thousands of Manasseh, both growing out of one head, Joseph. This, then, entirely sets aside the fancy that the rhinoceros, which the Jews could scarcely have known, or any one-horned creature, is intended” (Natural History, p. 146). Wiley noted that "the emblem of Joseph was the re'em; and his two powerful sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were typified by two horns" (Bible Animals, p. 429). M’Clintock and Strong observed: “The two horns of the reem are ‘the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh’--the two tribes which sprang from one--I.el., Joseph, as two horns from one head” (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 638). The two horns that picture or illustrate the two sons of Joseph are clearly indicated to be on one head [Joseph] (Deut. 33:16). John Gill noted that the horns “are figures of the power and strength of the tribes of Ephraim and Manesseh.“ T. E. Espin asserted that the “tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh are represented by the two mighty horns of the beast” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 743). Ellicott’s Commentary mentioned “the two-horned power of Joseph” (II, p. 94). The Companion Bible [KJV] suggested that the “horns” are “put by figure Metonymy” for Ephraim and Manasseh (p. 287). Robert Tuck wrote: “The two horns of the reem represent the two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim, which sprang from the one tribe Joseph” (Handbook, p. 341). These observations concerning the context are also in agreement with another verse (Num. 14:4) which stated: “For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim“. In contrast, some KJV-only authors seem to ignore this credible evidence from the context that indicates that this animal had two horns.

Should the context be considered a decisive factor in deciding whether the animal had more than one horn or not?

 

[Yeshua1]

1828 is displaying an error when I try to access it to see if it has more than one definition of "unicorn".

"Would it be completely accurate to refer to an animal that has two horns as a unicorn?"

Yes, when the animal can have either one or two horns.


A parallel is the camel. Some have one hump, others have two.

In a debate about camels, if one's position depended on the number of humps being one, would that person mention camels that have two humps? :flower:

Since I don't have the advantage of ready-made responses supporting books & articles, it'll take a while to review your rebuttals, before further responding.

As time permits..... :type:

isn't just easier to admit that the KJV translators made a simple mistake here, that the KJV was not perfect?

 

[franklinmonroe]

The KJV's renderings "unicorn" or "unicorns" are additional examples where the KJV may not give the most accurate or precise rendering of the Hebrew. ...

I don't really have a problem with the KJV's rendering "unicorn". How accurate or precise can any translation be when no one knows what animal was intended?

 

[Oldtimer]

isn't just easier to admit that the KJV translators made a simple mistake here, that the KJV was not perfect?

Many things in this world are "easier". That's why there's also a wide gate and path, that many choose to enter. If our walk of faith is "easy", there'd be no need to don the Armour of God. Nor would we have the instruction in 2 Tim 2:15. WORK often isn't "easy".

It's "easier" to debate with a few simple remarks without substance and questions of a similar nature than it is to roll up sleeves and work for the truth.

Last time I checked, you still haven't answered this question asked of you in another thread.

Quote:
Address the specifics in the referenced article. Please tell me exactly how he is wrong in each instance presented.

General comments are a dime a dozen, even in these times of inflated prices of food. To use another cliche, it's when the rubber hits the road that we learn whether the vehicle has any traction. How much traction do you have with regards to proof that the referenced article is a false accusation?
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=85105 post #19​

That said, it's OK, if you don't want to answer that one. I'll just chalk it up as another "drive by shooting". After all that is much "easier" than to provide evidence that the man's words in that article were incorrect.

However, this one isn't quite so easy to ignore, if you want to remain creditable. Please show me the exact quote where I have stated that the KJB or any other Bible is perfect. That is the implcation in your post. Prove it! If you can, I will offer an immediate apology. Are you man enough to do the same, if you can't prove it?

Further: "Perfection" of the KJB isn't the question in this thread. The question is whether the KJB was correct in using "unicorn(s)" in referenced verses. (Unless Logos has included that in one of his posts that I haven't had time to study yet.) A specific question. Can you provide a specific rebuttal if you believe the translation "unicorn" is incorrect? Or, is this, yet another "drive by"?

It's late and I'm tired. Hope everyone has a good night or morning depending on your time zone. Tomorrow is another day, Lord willing.

 

[Logos1560]

How accurate or precise can any translation be when no one knows what animal was intended?

At its entry reem, the Oxford English Dictionary declared: "The Hebrew name of an animal mentioned in the Old Testament, now identified with the wild ox" (XIII, p. 453).

This same authority on the English language included this statement: “The identification of the Hebrew reem with the wild ox (Bos primgenius) is one of the most certain of all Bible names” (Ibid.).

At its entry reem, the American Encyclopaedic Dictionary stated that “the Assyrian rimu clearly denotes this same wild bovine” (Vol. 8, p. 3391). In his article entitled “On the Mammalia of the Assyrian Sculptures,“ William Houghton wrote: “The Hebrew name of this wild bull, so unfortunately translated ’unicorn’ by the authorized version, is rem, which is identical with the Assyrian rimu” (Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. 5, p. 336). In his 1876 book with the same title as the cited article, Houghton concluded: “I think there is not the slightest doubt that the rimu of the Assyrian language, the am-si of the Accadian, is the rem of the Hebrew Bible” (On the Mammalia, p. 54).

Unger's Bible Dictionary noted that this Hebrew word "most certainly denotes the 'wild ox,' for the cognate word in Akkadian rimu has this meaning (p. 66). Encyclopaedia Biblica maintained that “the Hebrew reem is the same as the Assyrian rimu” (IV, p. 5229). Friedrich Delitzsch asserted: “We know now, by the cuneiform inscriptions, that the reem is the Assyrian rimu, that strong-horned, fierce-looking wild bull, skilled in climbing the mountains, whose colossal and formidable likeness was placed by the Assyrian kings before the entrance of their palaces to ward off and terrify the approaching enemy” (Hebrew Language, p. 7).

 

[Logos1560]

It's "easier" to debate with a few simple remarks without substance and questions of a similar nature than it is to roll up sleeves and work for the truth.

A great deal of documented evidence and substance have been presented in this thread that indicates clear problems with the KJV's rendering "unicorns" at Deuteronomy 33:17.

 

[Yeshua1]

A great deal of documented evidence and substance have been presented in this thread that indicates clear problems with the KJV's rendering "unicorns" at Deuteronomy 33:17.

Now if we figure out why they used easter in Acts!

 

[Yeshua1]

?

would there be any reasons why we should not regard things liek unicorns and easter being translated into the KJV as areas where they made honest mistakes in the KJV version itself?