Unicorns Preserved in Siberia Yield Analyzable DNA!

Here is a list of those who more or less agreed with Ussher:

1 Julius Africanus c. 240 5501
2 George Syncellus c. 810 5492
3 John Jackson 1752 5426
4 Dr William Hales c. 1830 5411
5 Eusebius c. 330 5199
6 Marianus Scotus c. 1070 4192
7 L. Condomanus n/a 4141
8 Thomas Lydiat c. 1600 4103
9 M. Michael Maestlinus c. 1600 4079
10 J. Ricciolus n/a 4062
11 Jacob Salianus c. 1600 4053
12 H. Spondanus c. 1600 4051
13 Martin Anstey 1913 4042
14 W. Lange n/a 4041
15 E. Reinholt n/a 4021
16 J. Cappellus c. 1600 4005
17 E. Greswell 1830 4004
18 E. Faulstich 1986 4001
19 D. Petavius c. 1627 3983
20 Frank Klassen 1975 3975
21 Becke n/a 3974
22 Krentzeim n/a 3971
23 W. Dolen 2003 3971
24 E. Reusnerus n/a 3970
25 J. Claverius n/a 3968
26 C. Longomontanus c. 1600 3966
27 P. Melanchthon c. 1550 3964
28 J. Haynlinus n/a 3963
29 A. Salmeron d. 1585 3958
30 J. Scaliger d. 1609 3949
31 M. Beroaldus c. 1575 3927
32 A. Helwigius c. 1630 3836

How Old Is the Earth?

 

I agree that we have a young earth, but would not make it a faith test if one denies the exact dating of Ussher!

 

Does anyone make it a test of faith to disagree with Ussher? What about if they disagree with Luther's theologian friend Melanchthon (1497-1560)? Seriously, that long list of Reformation theologians seems to say that the OT dates are good enough to allow the construction of a timetable.

 

Yes, but again, how one view the issue of how old Earth is is an important discussion, buy at times some seem to have made it a cardinal test of the faith!

 

Name the names of those people. It is no one ar AiG, Creation.com, or ICR.

 

I am not saying any here or there, just that it seems that sometimes this aging issue gets too far raised up on the required doctrines to hold with...

 

I myself have never seen it made a required doctrine. It may be an emotional issue when Scripture is consulted for history. The American educational system is politically invested in evoluton and deep time.

 

So are theistic evolutionists!

 

It is difficult to think of an American theologian who is not a believer in deep time. Creationism is a minority doctrine. Theologians say to look at the science but are silent about scientific errors in deep time. Uniformitaranism dating to Lyell is overturned by Noah's Flood, but still dominates American science. So the theologians look foolish in the light of things such as tissue attached to bones and not yet decayed.

 

It actually takes much more faith to believe in Evolution as a viable option than to believe in God!

 

Evolutionists control the educational system. Also, the museums and parks. You can't watch a nature program without hearing about about evolution and deep time.

Tissue on bones challenged that but when they began finding a lot of tissue, they merely said that tissue could last for millions and millions of years in an obvious lie.

 

I have Polo's book, so I'll have to check, but alas, there is no index in it.

 

I remember the person claiming that Polo stated saw 30 foot long giant lizards, so maybe Hugh gators/Crocs?

 

Young earth believer here.I like to believe 10k and younger. Evolutionists/Big Bang theorists/Atheists loooove saying everything is millions upon billions of years old,it’s their trusty stand by;to make things seem so out of reach and impossible,and without any purpose or order.

 

Interesting. Hugh the Croc....

 

I agree, and welcome to the BB.

 

@John of Japan - can you comment on the Hebrew & Greek please?

This post got lost with other points made.

Looks as if the Vulgate got it right

LXX has μονοκέρωτος as the translation of the Hebrew RE'EM. Look's if the Greek is the origin of UNICORN.

Interesting comments in the article on climate change & it's potential for changing habitat &causing extinction of species.

 

Thank you! Good to be here!

 

My understanding is that the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain. It "has long been unknown," according to Brown-Driver-Briggs. The Latin Vulgate word is the word for rhino, and the Greek word does not appear in the NT, of course, but simply means "one-horned"; by extension, perhaps the unicorn of legend.

 

How did the Latin Vulgate get it right when the Hebrew provides evidence that the animal the re'em had two horns and was not a one-horned animal?

At Deuteronomy 33:17, a reem [singular in number in Hebrew] is described as having horns [plural], two horns according to the context? The two horns of a reem are compared to the two sons of Joseph. With them [the two horns], he [one reem] shall push.

The Greek LXX and the Latin Vulgate are the likely source of the early English Bibles' rendering "unicorn."