so there may be unicorns, but Cockatrices?

Timothy,

Take a look at this snake:

http://www.flyingsnake.org

HankD

 

Swell, now we're going to have hordes of KJV-onlyists claiming that when the translators used the word "cockatrice," they actually had a parachuting snake from southeast Asia in mind . . .

 

That is what we call being a Bible believer;I believe it from cover to cover,and NO amount of discounting it,or doubting on your part will change my mind.

If the Bible says it,that settles it.What about it bible believer? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree. My Bible says "goat demon". I believe it, why are you trying to get me to doubt my Bible?

 

MV-neverist said:

Likening the word of God to a Harry potter book is getting pretty desperate;

Not as desperate as believing in magical horned horses and snakes just because the KJV translators made a stupid word choice in a few places.

This is almost, but not quite, as funny as the KJV-only "creation scientist" who was on here a few months ago claiming whales were fish.

Bartholomew said:

The depths to which some of you guys sink to try to discredit the Authorised Version sickens me.

The absurd lengths to which some of you guys stretch to defend your favourite mythical creature, "the perfectly preserved Word of God for the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible," amuses me.

You gotta laugh.

 

Dear Ransom,

Just reporting the truth, there are "flying" snakes in this world.

On the other hand, it is obvious to me that the KJV translators were probably influenced by the creative mind of William Shakespeare.

HankD

 

HankD said:

Just reporting the truth, there are "flying" snakes in this world.

I'm not disputing it, merely pointing out that now the KJV-onlyists have another excuse for their delusion.

On the other hand, it is obvious to me that the KJV translators were probably influenced by the creative mind of William Shakespeare.

If so they wouldn't have admitted it. Despite James' patronage, Shakespeare and the theatre in general were not well regarded in that culture.

 

my main points are

1) just because something sounds fatastic that doesn't mean it's ok to start ridiculing the kjv and it's adherenets. there's PLENTY of that kind of material in ALL our bibles.

2) the critized words, unicorn, cockatrice, satyr, etc. often have multiple meanings, not all of which can be used to make your opponents look stupid. for example, unicorn can mean any one horned creature, cocktrice can mean any deadly serpent-like creature.

in any event, prophecy and poetry often use vivid, even fantastic, imagery and i think it's sad to artificially limit such translations so that evangelicals won't be embarrassed in front of their college professors and secular humanist friends. these fantastic/demonic overtones may be exactly what god intended.

 

thanks hankd, it's nice to learn somthing

now if only i would have BELIEVED my bible instead of just RIDICULING it...

 

whales are fish!

FISH, n. [L. piscis.]

1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs, and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters, &c. We use fish, in the singular, for fishes in general or the whole race.

webster's 1828

 

timothy 1769 said:

whales are fish!

According to the very source you cited, whales are not fish. Behold:

In other words, Webster is saying that although they are commonly called fish, cetaceans are not fish because they breathe with lungs and give birth to live young.

Nice try, timothy, but the proper emphasis corrects your distortion of Webster's definition.

 

I think this should be the final discussion on the subject. You can point out the absolute, unquestionable absurdity of the KJVO position in the most clear terms; and the KJVO crowd won't be budged.

Although, I must admit, these discussions are pretty entertaining.

Joshua
Who wonders if there's any overlap between KJVO's and members of the Flat Earth Society.

 

timothy 1769 said:

cocktrice can mean any deadly serpent-like creature.

It's not important what it can mean; what matters is, in 1604-11, what did it mean?

I took a look in a dictionary of the time, Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabetical of Hard Usual English Words, published in 1604.

The definition of "cockatrice" reads: "a kind of beast." Not "any deadly serpent-like creature"; not simply "a serpent"; a "beast."

It is clear that at the time the KJV was being translated, the proper understanding of the word "cockatrice" was, in fact, the fantasy beast. The same would be true of unicorns and satyrs - if they meant goats and rhinoceroses, those words were available to them.

in any event, prophecy and poetry often use vivid, even fantastic, imagery

None of the four KJV passages that use the word "cockatrice" are particularly fantastic or call for amazing beasts to make an appearance.

 

Actually there are some who have left KJVOnlyism over the time of their participation in this forum. I am not aware of anyone who has gone the other way.

As silly and sometimes frustrating as the KJVO's conduct here is, they probably cause more people to reject their position than those of us who oppose them. What reasonable person would not be convinced by their evasion and avoidance of hard questions.

 

Webster's dictionary is not inerrant, so how can I trust any of it?!?

 

As far a the Bible(AV) is concerned,if it says a cockatrice,then bank on it. This Link should help clear up any doubts of what God placed in the AV(disclaimer:I do not support the evolutionist point of veiw on this site);that is if you subscribe to the creationists point of view.The idea of evolution is Anti-Biblical nonsense.

The AV is,so you can trust it;that part is up to you.

 

In other words, Webster is saying that although they are commonly called fish, cetaceans are not fish because they breathe with lungs and give birth to live young.

Nice try, timothy, but the proper emphasis corrects your distortion of Webster's definition. </font>[/QUOTE]what's irrefutable is that fish can include whales, especially in popular usage.

 

The AV is,so you can trust it;that part is up to you.
</font>[/QUOTE]Says who? You? Are you inerrant? Why should I believe you?

 

AV Defender said:

As far a the Bible(AV) is concerned,if it says a cockatrice,then bank on it.

OK, sure. "God's perfectly preserved Word for the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible" says "cockatrice," and so despite the complete lack of evidence whatsoever that such a beast ever existed, I will believe nonetheless that at one time there was a half-bird, half-serpent magical creature that hatched from crocodile eggs and could kill you with a look.

As a high school math teacher of mine used to say, pas de problemo.

This Link should help clear up any doubts of what God placed in the AV

This page is equally helpful, for what it's worth.

 

But we are not talking about "popular usage" according to you folks. We are talking about the God inspired words of the KJV. While people in 1611 and even now might be confused over what a whale is and what a fish is, God is not confused. So if "whale" were correct in the NT and "fish" is correct in the OT then we have an irreconcilable error in the actual words God inspired.