4484 Shares

Do those who ridicule an old Bible edition for mentioning "unicorns" freak out when they see a rhinoceros?

Do those who ridicule an old Bible edition for mentioning "unicorns" freak out when they see a rhinoceros? Topic: Basic principles of writing article
July 17, 2019 / By Diane
Question: ....when they go to a zoo? Does proof that unicorns (one-horned animals) actually exist shake their faith in silly "Bible error" cliches? Why does this popular "unicorn obsession" appear in R&S posts ridiculing the Bible on what appears to be a daily basis? (This seems especially odd when one considers that one has to go back centuries to find English Bible editions which translated the Hebrew word in that way.) [Yes, I am aware that early English translators thought the word referred to what we would call a rhinoceros but the Hebrew word probably referred to a wild ox or an antelope of the ancient Near East. Either way, they translated the "one horn" meaning as best they could so it is not a translation error per se.] _______________________ Thank you all for responding. I needed some popular (and even emotive) views of Bible translation issues for an article and you have not disappointed. Two of your replies provided the perfect types of layperson illustrations I needed! Much appreciated! __________________ And to correct the error contributed by MOM: No, only African and Sumatran Rhinos have two horns. The Indian rhinos were known to Europeans prior to the Africans so when European artists heard descriptions of a large animals that was compared to a draft horse but it had a single horn in the middle of its forehead, they imagined the creature which has come to us in a "fantasy evolved" form that is the magical unicorn. So, MOM, it always helps to know something about a topic before correcting others. (Obviously, when I wrote "Africans" above, I meant the African rhinos, which were not sent to European zoos until later.) ____________________ Even allowing for the general public's failure to understand language translation issues, the linguistic myths and illogical presuppositions posted below are astounding. But that's what I needed by way of examples so I am grateful for everyone's time and effort. Thanks much. ____________________ MIKEY JUST MIKEY: As to the popular "bats as birds" an related "errors", I've published debunking articles on that topic in both popular and academic venues as well as on R&S. You asked for an explanation of this issue and so you can simply do a search on Yahoo Answers' archives for R&S and you should be able to find several of my posts about it. Of course, a general Google search will find many such explanations. (It is hardly a challenging conundrum. But it does illustrate basic principles of translation and the general public's tendencies to be fooled by anachronistic arguments. It also reminds me of the comical "grasshoppers have six legs" debate.)
Best Answer

Best Answers: Do those who ridicule an old Bible edition for mentioning "unicorns" freak out when they see a rhinoceros?

Caramia Caramia | 5 days ago
Where do you come up with these things? Rhinos are not native to the Near East. The Bible is not talking about them.
👍 138 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Do those who ridicule an old Bible edition for mentioning "unicorns" freak out when they see a rhinoceros? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Basic principles of writing article


Caramia Originally Answered: The King James version of the Bible says that UNICORNS are real. Does anyone use that version.?
I would like chapter and verse on your statement before I reply. **EDIT** Ok, other translations use "Ox". When I read those verses, the first animal that came to my mind is a rhinoceros.

Amice Amice
No, I don't freak out when I see a rhino. I've studied the rhino's evolutionary tree, I know where it comes from. I also know there's no such thing as a unicorn. Even if the writers "meant" a wild ox or antelope or whatever, there are no one-horned versions of those, and no such thing has ever been found in the fossil record. See, rational people read "unicorn" and realize, "oh, just another silly made-up bible superstitious creature." It takes real delusion to read "unicorn" and try to come up with convoluted apologetic explanations to try and make the fiction fit reality. Especially since those same people are always telling us how perfect and infallible the bible is... Peace.
👍 50 | 👎 1

Warwick Warwick
There are innumerable ways to ridicule the bible and its believers. I am sure, however, that I could easily tell a rhino from a unicorn. Maybe it is just Christians who cannot.
👍 46 | 👎 -3

Rylan Rylan
Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts club Band...Magical secret excursion...Yellow Submarine..the Beatles courtroom of the purple King...King purple Quark, Strangeness and appeal..Hawkwind
👍 42 | 👎 -7

Rylan Originally Answered: If the NEW Testament was not written until King James edition what Bible did Christians use before that?
I think you're confusing "written" with compiled. The King James version is nothing but another translation of what God inspired and men wrote down thousands of years ago. The last book of the new Testament was written about 100 years after Jesus died. The KJV wasn't compiled until 1611. You need to remember that much of the New Testament is comprised of letters that Paul and others wrote to different congregations or to christians in different regions. ===== To answer your additional point: The Bible is a compilation of little books. The New Testament has 27 I believe. Those books were written at different times after Jesus death, with the writings of John being the last since he was the last surviving apostle. What the KJV is, as are all "Bibles" are compilations of the various little books penned by 40 men.

If you have your own answer to the question basic principles of writing article, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.