I am starting this thread in response to a statement made by GreekTim, a welcome new member of the board. Below I am copying his original statement, and then my first response. I know that information abounds on this topic, but maybe we can chew on it for a little while. The paragraph has more discussion in it, but on this thread, please stay on point. Thanks.

-------------------
GreekTim's original paragraph: (bold emphasis mine, typos corrected)

My first response:

Brothers, let us enjoy a little unicornburger.

The chief reason for addressing this is that we who believe in the absolute accuracy of the KJB must be able to defend criticism from those who "think" that they have found examples of where the KJB was mistranslated. The unicorn issue is a good test case. It does not affect any Biblical doctrine other than the teaching that God has perfectly preserved His Words in the English language, that "every word of God is pure".

I will begin by saying you nailed me right off the bat. I am not omnipresent so I can't be every place at every time. Thus I cannot know for 100% accuracy that there is no such thing as a unicorn. I should know better than to use blanket statements like that.
[attachment=6] Click on the pic to make it bigger (If someone could help me make this larger that would be great).    
With that admission, lets begin with a definition of a unicorn. I have always understood them to be mythological creatures of horses with a spiralled horn on their head. Is this incorrect? I am away from my library so I will have to wait and study the Hebrew word that the KJV translators decided "unicorn" would be the best.

I am well aware that the translators of the KJV are far more advanced than me in Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic. But as time passed, we have gained more insight into certain word meanings that they did not have access to at the time. My point in mentioning the unicorn issue is just to show that while the KJV was an outstanding translation considering the sources they were limited to at the time (especially compared to the sources we now have available), it may not be the best translation. Nothing is wrong with the Hebrew text, but the translators might have erred from taking the meaning from the original language to the receptor language thus not making it a perfect translation.

Ok, let the hair pulling/eye gouging begin. To all, remember I am not trying to offend or heat up a debate to divide brothers. Brother Tim asked me to explain my views so I did. I hope that is understood before this discussion continues. I like to call it gracious debate.

This post was last modified: Thu Mar 20, 2008 03:26 PM by Greektim.

Uniorns in antiquity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Uni..._antiquity

Maybe a different way to approach this is the fact that only a cursory study of the term unicorn in Websters dictionary or Strongs concordance would turn up the following:

U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

1) probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.


Let's not let our otherworldly fantasy ideas cloud our biblical judgment of matters. Did not the Lord ask us to study ourselves to be approved unto him? Does that mean we can just read the bible, with no help from dictionaries, or the Holy Spirit, and expect to know exactly what everything means?

I think that is what the MV translators attempted to do... make the bible "easy" to understand. In fact, they were so successful in making it so "easy" that it is completely wrong.

Love in Christ,

Jim

So the idea of the word translated "unicorn" is a rhino?

According to Strong's, the rhinocerous has been called a "unicorn" in times past. The definition of unicorn in the Greek, as you must know being a Greek scholar, simply means "one horn".

Our imagination conjuring a white stallion only having one horn comes from mythology. That is our issue with translating the bible, having to debunk these preconceived ideas of what things are in our thought process, often contradicted by reality.

I am not saying that you have an overactive imagination. I am saying that in general, human minds are affected by what their perception of reality is, and it often conflicts with common sense, facts, and/or logic.

Often untraining must accompany training in teaching and learning.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:50 AM by Jim.

Actually, "unicorn" comes from Latin not Greek (not a Latin scholar but have considered learning it). But it was pretty easy to figure out the meaning based on the "uni" prefix.

I still have yet to study extensively the meaning of the Hebrew word, but just brief research leads some to believe that the word might refer to a 2 horned animal thus making "unicorn" inaccurate. I don't hold to this yet since I have yet to study it further. (My wife's family is coming into town and I haven't had a chance to do much else than clean house. Please pray for me while the in-laws are here!)

Another issue is what word was used in the 1600 for rhino's? Was a unicorn thought to be a form of a rhino? To this I need to study, but the idea of a horse w/ a horn is seen in ancient cultures. MOst of the myths of the horned horse creature comes from the 15th century medieval Europe on up.

Hmmm, must be my mistake.

I don't know about a unicorn meaning a two-horned animal, I have never heard that, I will also have to look into that.

And it is amazing that mythology can stay around for so long affecting so many people that badly isn't it?

And if the latin root for unicorn means one horn, then it is most likely would have been attributed to a rhinocerous, even if the rhino did not have a name assigned ot it at that particular time.

That is exactly my point. We don't get the meaning from the translation but from the original language. If the original Hebrew word refers to a 2 horned animal (again I haven't researched this enough to be conclusive either way) then obviously any translation calling it a one horned animal would be incorrect.

If you are looking into the Hebrew word referring to a 2 horned animal or 1 horned that is fine. But I am sure there is no reference of "unicorn" as a 2 horned animal.

I think we are miscommunicating between what we are stating that we believe to be true, and possible rhetorical questions for thinking purposes.

I do not believe that "unicorn" ever referred to a two-horned animal.

I feel I am losing the continuity of this discussion. I am at a kind of loss as to the content of what we are discussing.

The basis for the LXX, is as Brother Tim has said, seems to be a relatively useless book, therefore deemed to be useless in any type of biblical study.

I believe the KJV interpreters aligned themselves with this type of thinking, therefore rejecting any manuscript the deemed uninspired or not preserved with the English translations.

We are not just talking about a book here. I think that is the common denominator with all translational arguments. It is not just a word by word translation from a book to a book.

We are talking about a Holy God who is not limited by man's translations of His Word (I speak this carefully).

Since I believe the LXX/Septuagint is a useless reference, since we have the MHOT, then why even discuss it? To me, that is like discussing the Alexander Szandor LeVay's Satanic Bible to see if we can extrapolate anything true out of it.

If it is in error, then it is thrown away. I am just at a loss to what significance it has here?

Love in Christ,

Jim

My point is, if the Hebrew word meant a 2 horned animal, then the KJV or any translation that does not communicate a 2 horned animal is wrong. Since the English word "unicorn" refers to a 1 horned animal and if the Hebrew word refers to a 2 horned animal, then there is a problem. Again, I have not had the chance to delve into the Hebrew word in question so I am not taking a side, I am just stating a possible scenario.

By the way, most rhinos have 2 horns. Can anyone think of an animal that has only 1 horn? None are popping in my mind right now but I am sure there are some that exist.

I have a nother possible scenario, but I know you are going to hate it since it deals with culture change and translation updates. This gets more into translation philosophy 101 so I am holding off mentioning it.

I am going to leave the LXX alone for this post since that is discussed in another place.

Let's look to wiki:

So the single-horn rhino is well-documented.

I have actualyl never heard the usage of the term "unicorn" as a basis for any "mistake" in any translation of the bible. The simple raising of this argument, is like what I said earlier in this thread:

I am quite convinced that if no mythical one-horned creature was ever imagined, then the conjuring of a "unicorn" in our minds would be a somewhat rational easily identifiable creature, like a hind. I don't think there is anyone arguing over what a "hind" is in the bible, and what one is today. It is a deer.

This post was last modified: Fri Mar 21, 2008 04:56 PM by Jim.

The word translated “unicorn” in the KJV is a difficult word to determine the correct meaning with 100% certainty. Other ancient Semitic languages have a similar word which refers to a wild ox (most ancient Semitic languages shared the same words with similar spellings just with different alphabets). If a rhino is not in view (which it may not be) then the idea behind the Hebrew word is a wild ox (a 2 horned animal). It may be (and I know you might totally disregard what I am about to say) that the idea of a “unicorn” comes directly from the LXX or Vulgate where the words translated from the Hebrew word is “one horn.” I don’t know for an absolute certainty whether the KJV translators used such sources as the LXX or the Vulgate. It seems that the Vulgate is a likely possibility. The Latin word (unicornis) was probably transliterated to “unicorn” kind of the way baptism was done from Greek. It seems that the best that scholarship can provide is 2 options – 1) a rhino or 2) a wild ox. I would lean to the ox translation simply because of the other Semitic language similarities (that is with all bias aside to or against the KJV). Those biased toward the KJV will probably keep the rhino view. So, not much has been accomplished in this discussion. There is no clear evidence to know absolutely sure 100% unless reinspiration took place.

With that being said, I might have erred and this then may not be the best example to cite against the KJV. It seems the KJV translators were very close with the idea of a rhino (albeit I wish they would have said rhino not unicorn). If it is accepted that the Hebrew word means rhino (and I do not accept it since the 2 horned ox is preferable), then that brings me to another conclusion. If unicorn is what the word for rhino was in the 1600’s, then now I have to do double the research. I have to study the Hebrew word as well as the Old English idea of “unicorn” to gain the meaning.

This is one of the reasons I say that there is no perfect translation. Translations are unable to keep up with the times and word changes. Since a translation is to bridge a culture gap (from one language to another) then it seems that as a culture changes, so should the translation. Since our modern culture understands a unicorn to be a mythological creature (Even my Webster’s Dictionary gave me that definition), then perhaps it is better to update the translation to a word that the culture understands – i.e. rhino.

Now I know this leads into an entirely new discussion, but it seems relevant that the translation remains relevant for its modern day readers since translations are for a culture barrier aid. I am not trying to say that the KJV is difficult to read as some anti-KJV people would say. I am only speaking to relevancy. The word unicorn is not relevant to our culture in the way it was in the 1600’s. Since the idea of a unicorn has changed, and the idea of a rhino is established, then it seems that the later editions of the KJV could have changed this as well (or another edition could be made). Ok, now you can burn me at the stake. But before you do, keep reading.

Now if the Hebrew word means a wild ox (which I lean toward due to the similar words of other Semitic languages referring to a wild ox, but I am not absolutely sure), then the KJV translation would be incorrect in a translation of a one horned animal such as a unicorn. The context of Job 39:9-12 also speak of a farming animal like an ox. It would seem that the idea behind the word is an untamable animal that would normally be used in farming – i.e. a wild ox. (keep reading)

Again, this is probably not the best example to cite against the KJV, so I will retract what I said previously with the idea of a unicorn. I still don’t believe there is a perfect translation for many other reasons which we can flesh out later if we are willing. I don’t think unicorn is the best word to use for culture reasons and accuracy reasons, but it does not discredit the KJV as I once thought it did. Just so you know, that was hard to say, but I will admit my flaw. If I ever hear someone try to discredit the KJV by using the unicorn argument, I am look forward to playing devil’s advocate. I am glad we had this discussion. I feel like I have learned quite a bit from this. Sorry for the length.

I think it is fairly clear.

Thank God the bible says that God never changes. I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. One of the fallacies of translations today is that they try to fit whatever culture they are aiming towards. Like the culuter of blacks depicting a black Jesus of African genes. Biblical Translations should have nothing to do with a culture gap.

Unlikely. It is almost as if you are saying that God's Word changes relevant to whoever is reading it. Remember that God says that the bible is of no man's private interpretation, it also says the God never changes. I am gathering from you that you feel the bible is no different than any other translation, execept for literary work, eloquence and few other tidbits of literature.

This is what scripture says about God's Word (itself):

That sums it up for me. It is living, it is active. That is what seperates itself from every literary work ever produced by anyone or anything. It does not hold to the same criteria for translation or interpretation. It does not hold to the same criteria for reading and understanding. It is God's Word, period. And we ought to treat it as such, not as we treat every other work we come across.

Love in Christ,

Jim