King James Bible & the Unicorn

[NSMinistries]

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

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.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

( All Verses taken from the KJV Bible )

I don't understand how KJVO groups can claim that this can be good for a new believer. If I were to read this and not understand that it meant Ox I would really wonder if Christians were believing in fairy tales, and if that was true what else could be wrong.

[NSMinistries]

:huh: Wheres Ed I want his thoughts? :nsm:

[TCapp]

You mean there weren't any unicorns? :shocked: :bawl:

[yxboom]

They were fluffy pink unicorns.

[NSMinistries]

:nsm:

[TCapp]

I just figured that they goofed off while Noah built the ark, just like the dragon and the gryphon. Tsk tsk.

[kelco]

Kelco hums quietly,
"There were green aligators and-long necked geese.......You're never gonna see a unicorn. :lol:

[Socrates]

:cheers: That's why it was so helpful that AiG explained the original Hebrew in The Unicorn: The Bible does not refer to fantasy animals (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4244cen_m1992.asp). This has already proven most helpful -- see Appreciates information about the ‘Unicorn’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/feedback_11june2001.asp). But I bet KJVOs would have hated this article even though it was affirming biblical inerrancy. :bawl:

[Conductor42]

The Hebrew word there has no meaning of 'unicorn' whatsoever.


10-17-2003 @ 06:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247995#post247995)
NSMinistries:

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

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.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

( All Verses taken from the KJV Bible )

I don't understand how KJVO groups can claim that this can be good for a new believer. If I were to read this and not understand that it meant Ox I would really wonder if Christians were believing in fairy tales, and if that was true what else could be wrong.

[bar Jonah]

TCapp:
I just figured that they goofed off while Noah built the ark, just like the dragon and the gryphon. Tsk tsk.
And other mythical creatures, too... like virgins, and 4-pt. Calvinists.

:ri:

[johnnybanano]

RightIdea:

And other mythical creatures, too... like virgins, and 4-pt. Calvinists.

:ri:


Check-MATE! :thumb:

[Tobias Reiper]

Could have been a mistranslation, but then again there are actual unicorns. I don't remember where they're from or what the animal is, but in one of the Arabic countries they take an animal in its youth and tie the horns so they grow together into a single horn.

Although I doubt that practice would have been going on in the days of Moses and Job.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 11:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=251232#post251232)
dwmitch:

Could have been a mistranslation, but then again there are actual unicorns. I don't remember where they're from or what the animal is, but in one of the Arabic countries they take an animal in its youth and tie the horns so they grow together into a single horn.

Although I doubt that practice would have been going on in the days of Moses and Job.


Even so that would not really change what kind of animal it was.

[EdJones]

In every age and in every generation there have been those unstable, uneducated and unwilling elements of society that choose to reject the Bible as the objective rule and practice of life and worship. Among the hackneyed retorts of these irreligious zealots is the claim that the Bible contains error. If their claim were true, the Bible would then be an unreliable record and certainly not the plenary, verbally inspired will of Almighty God. Though the Bible contains irrefutable proof of its own attestation by demonstrating that the writers of the Bible wrote from a source beyond themselves in such instances as referring to the "circle of the earth" when the rest of the world thought mankind rested on the back of a tortoise shell (Isa. 40:22); in citing the biological truism that "life is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11); by referring to the hydrological cycle in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; in declaring hygiene laws and knowledge of the human body that ancient man simply did not have access to (Gen. 17:12; Num. 19:17-19); there are still some who will not accept the Scripture regardless of the evidence.

One particular argument leveled against the Scripture is the King James reference to the "unicorn." There are eight references in the Old Testament to the beast that the Hebrew text refers to as reem. Because the KJV translators chose the word "unicorn" to translate the Hebrew reem, some of those who sift ever so carefully through the Bible hoping to find inconsistency think they have found one. After all, is not the unicorn a mythological horselike animal with wings and a single horn? "Surely," they say, "this is an instance of error." Yet if one will check Mr. Noah Webster he will find twelve references to the unicorn, seven of which are references to different animals. The third definition given by Webster says, "In the Bible, a two horned ox-like animal called reem in Hebrew." The KJV translators in 1611 found difficulty in determining the exact nature of the beast that was referred to as reem. This reem was described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22). It was also considered untamable (Job 39:9). Some have supposed the reem was a buffalo and others a white antelope. Most probably, it was the bos primigenius or "primitive ox," which is now extinct. The ultimate reason that the translators chose the word "unicorn" was because of the Septuagint rendering monokeruz which refers to a one-horned beast. The Septuagint translators were convinced the huge reem in Hebrew was a rhinoceros. Yet in Deuteronomy 33:17, the "horns of the unicorns" are compared to the "horns of a bullock." The animal referred to had prominent horns and was primarily known for its horns. For this reason the Septuagint translators thought the animal was the rhinoceros which then led to the KJV translation of "unicorn." Yet never is there any intimation in the Bible that the "unicorn" was a flying horse-like animal with a single horn protruding out of its forehead.

The Hebrew reference to reem is a reference to an animal now extinct. Just as dinosaurs (another type of beast the Bible mentions in Job 40:15-24) no longer roam the earth, so there have been other animals that lived and are no longer in existence. The skeptics argument is nothing but casuistry that is held to by those who will not investigate and make only decisions warranted by proper evidence.

Throughout the ages the Bible has been ridiculed and sneered at, jilted and spit upon, rejected and scorned by those who would not heed the message of love and truth. Yet for thousands of years its power has not been diminished, its resilience has not been out-lasted and its message has not been defeated. The Bible is still shining and burning in the hearts of all those that humble themselves before the divine throne of God and accept its testimony as the absolute Truth of God. May all learn as the Thessalonians did when they, "received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (I Thess. 2:13).

(Holger W. Neubauer; Bulletin - Northeast Church of Christ, Cookeville, TN; 5/16/99)

[Conductor42]

EdJones,

Your religion is Christian - your religion is not Jewish. Why are you using the maggen david as your faith identifier?? :hrm:
.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 11:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=253462#post253462)
EdJones:

In every age and in every generation there have been those unstable, uneducated and unwilling elements of society that choose to reject the Bible as the objective rule and practice of life and worship. Among the hackneyed retorts of these irreligious zealots is the claim that the Bible contains error. If their claim were true, the Bible would then be an unreliable record and certainly not the plenary, verbally inspired will of Almighty God. Though the Bible contains irrefutable proof of its own attestation by demonstrating that the writers of the Bible wrote from a source beyond themselves in such instances as referring to the "circle of the earth" when the rest of the world thought mankind rested on the back of a tortoise shell (Isa. 40:22); in citing the biological truism that "life is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11); by referring to the hydrological cycle in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; in declaring hygiene laws and knowledge of the human body that ancient man simply did not have access to (Gen. 17:12; Num. 19:17-19); there are still some who will not accept the Scripture regardless of the evidence.

One particular argument leveled against the Scripture is the King James reference to the "unicorn." There are eight references in the Old Testament to the beast that the Hebrew text refers to as reem. Because the KJV translators chose the word "unicorn" to translate the Hebrew reem, some of those who sift ever so carefully through the Bible hoping to find inconsistency think they have found one. After all, is not the unicorn a mythological horselike animal with wings and a single horn? "Surely," they say, "this is an instance of error." Yet if one will check Mr. Noah Webster he will find twelve references to the unicorn, seven of which are references to different animals. The third definition given by Webster says, "In the Bible, a two horned ox-like animal called reem in Hebrew." The KJV translators in 1611 found difficulty in determining the exact nature of the beast that was referred to as reem. This reem was described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22). It was also considered untamable (Job 39:9). Some have supposed the reem was a buffalo and others a white antelope. Most probably, it was the bos primigenius or "primitive ox," which is now extinct. The ultimate reason that the translators chose the word "unicorn" was because of the Septuagint rendering monokeruz which refers to a one-horned beast. The Septuagint translators were convinced the huge reem in Hebrew was a rhinoceros. Yet in Deuteronomy 33:17, the "horns of the unicorns" are compared to the "horns of a bullock." The animal referred to had prominent horns and was primarily known for its horns. For this reason the Septuagint translators thought the animal was the rhinoceros which then led to the KJV translation of "unicorn." Yet never is there any intimation in the Bible that the "unicorn" was a flying horse-like animal with a single horn protruding out of its forehead.

The Hebrew reference to reem is a reference to an animal now extinct. Just as dinosaurs (another type of beast the Bible mentions in Job 40:15-24) no longer roam the earth, so there have been other animals that lived and are no longer in existence. The skeptics argument is nothing but casuistry that is held to by those who will not investigate and make only decisions warranted by proper evidence.

Throughout the ages the Bible has been ridiculed and sneered at, jilted and spit upon, rejected and scorned by those who would not heed the message of love and truth. Yet for thousands of years its power has not been diminished, its resilience has not been out-lasted and its message has not been defeated. The Bible is still shining and burning in the hearts of all those that humble themselves before the divine throne of God and accept its testimony as the absolute Truth of God. May all learn as the Thessalonians did when they, "received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (I Thess. 2:13).

(Holger W. Neubauer; Bulletin - Northeast Church of Christ, Cookeville, TN; 5/16/99)

you still really have not answered the question:
I don't understand how KJVO groups can claim that this can be good for a new believer. If I were to read this and not understand that it meant Ox I would really wonder if Christians were believing in fairy tales, and if that was true what else could be wrong.
Wouldn't you think using a word that todays new believers might understand help with their faith.

[RumTumTugger]

10-17-2003 @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=248491#post248491)
kelco:

Kelco hums quietly,
"There were green aligators and-long necked geese.......You're never gonna see a unicorn. :lol:

RumTumTugger hums along with Kelco. :hi:

[EdJones]

By Will Kinney


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way as our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all and used in farming. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the nkjv, niv and nasb, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carefully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.” Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.” All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible editors do not know what this animal was, and they say it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, until they are tamed or domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”.

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”, and it was a one horned animal. Noah Websters first Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.” Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1901, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible, published in 1833, Lamsa’s Bible translation of 1933, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

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 and 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.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel he says: “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.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticize the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are really being hypocritical and showing their ignorance of the Hebrew language. I myself do not know Hebrew, but I do know some other dear brothers who do, or have helped me in other ways by giving me some very useful information about this subject. I would like to thank brothers Scott Jones and Marty Shue for their fellowship, their spirit of love for God’s Holy Words, and their defense of the KJB.

All Bible translations very frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the nkjv, niv and nas do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Dt. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the nkjv, Dt 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in nkjv, KJB, and niv. Dt. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in niv, nkjv; Dt. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in niv, Dt. 7:9 “dowr” generations in niv & nkjv; Dt. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in nasb, niv and nkjv; Dt. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in nasb, niv and nkjv; and Dt. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in niv, nkjv, and nasb. So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the nkjv, nas and niv have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, and the wild ox has two horns, not just one. One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS. In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else, but God, what the unicorn was or is. It was a one horned animal of great strength, and it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Come hither, and hear the words of the LORD your God.
Josh. 3:9b

[NSMinistries]

Yesterday @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254013#post254013)
EdJones:

By Will Kinney


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way as our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all and used in farming. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the nkjv, niv and nasb, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carefully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.” Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.” All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible editors do not know what this animal was, and they say it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, until they are tamed or domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”.

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”, and it was a one horned animal. Noah Websters first Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.” Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1901, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible, published in 1833, Lamsa’s Bible translation of 1933, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

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 and 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.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel he says: “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.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticize the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are really being hypocritical and showing their ignorance of the Hebrew language. I myself do not know Hebrew, but I do know some other dear brothers who do, or have helped me in other ways by giving me some very useful information about this subject. I would like to thank brothers Scott Jones and Marty Shue for their fellowship, their spirit of love for God’s Holy Words, and their defense of the KJB.

All Bible translations very frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the nkjv, niv and nas do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Dt. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the nkjv, Dt 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in nkjv, KJB, and niv. Dt. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in niv, nkjv; Dt. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in niv, Dt. 7:9 “dowr” generations in niv & nkjv; Dt. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in nasb, niv and nkjv; Dt. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in nasb, niv and nkjv; and Dt. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in niv, nkjv, and nasb. So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the nkjv, nas and niv have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, and the wild ox has two horns, not just one. One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS. In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else, but God, what the unicorn was or is. It was a one horned animal of great strength, and it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Come hither, and hear the words of the LORD your God.
Josh. 3:9b

Very good a history lesson from the net. The question is still unanswered. Why use the King James language that confusses new beleivers or makes them doubt the Word. Yes I agree the KJV has a nice flow and poetry like air, but for really understanding most people would shake their head and give up.

[EdJones]

10-24-2003 @ 05:45 PM
NSMinistries:



Very good a history lesson from the net. The question is still unanswered. Why use the King James language that confusses new beleivers or makes them doubt the Word. Yes I agree the KJV has a nice flow and poetry like air, but for really understanding most people would shake their head and give up.


Why would you suppose that the KJV would confuse new Christians? Or for that matter young in age new Christians.



---------------------------------------------
Things that are different are not the same.


---------------------------------------------

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=257538#post257538)
EdJones:




Why would you suppose that the KJV would confuse new Christians? Or for that matter young in age new Christians.



---------------------------------------------
Things that are different are not the same.


---------------------------------------------

Thats what I thought. Ed answer a chalenge around here or give a clear answer but please stop taking up everyones time...

[EdJones]

I know many (100s) of new and young Christians that have no problem with the KJV. Maybe you need to be saved to understand it, you think?

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=258447#post258447)
EdJones:

I know many (100s) of new and young Christians that have no problem with the KJV.

I know many who have heaps of problems with the archaisms but have no problems with the NIV. They don't usually need dictionaries or a pastor to explain the words.


Maybe you need to be saved to understand it, you think?

So if someone doesn't understand it, he's not saved? What about someone who hardly speaks English?

[EdJones]

. :huh:





Don't you think someone needs to be born again to understand Gods word?

Why would you think you don't need someone to explain or teach the Bible?

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=258447#post258447)
EdJones:

I know many (100s) of new and young Christians that have no problem with the KJV. Maybe you need to be saved to understand it, you think?

1.) My problem is not the KJV its people that turn it into an idol such as you.

2.) I know many people around the world have come to love Christ and be saved and they have never seen a Bible. Are you telling me that they are not saved? What about those that do not speak or read english? Because they do not have access to a KJV Bible you beleive their Bibles are not God's Word? Lets get real here.

3.) My relationship with Christ is secure. I would question the whole train of thought you have provided here as suspect. Be careful where you tread...

4.) It's a question of language. Someone from the street picks up a KJV Bible do you really think they are going to have a clue what is saying. I guess you have never been in the city before. It's a whole different ball game. Even out here in the country there is a diffrent language barrier.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=258545#post258545)
EdJones:

. :huh:





Don't you think someone needs to be born again to understand Gods word?

No.

John 3:16 For God So Loved the World
16 “For God so loved the world, [1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

Footnotes
[1] 3:16 Or For this is how

Sounds pretty clear to me and I knew what it meant before I was saved.

[EdJones]

My problem is not the KJV its people that turn it into an idol such as you.

Why would believing the Bible is the words of God and FINAL authority in ALL things make me a idol worshipper?:huh:


.


-------------------------------------------
Now I see what your "problem" REALLY is, in your profile it says"Bible & Books Sales and Research" If it don't make sense there's a buck in it. Gotta keep all those "new" bibles selling.:lol:

[Conductor42]

No, but you might fit into Isaiah 29:13, since any and all translations show are biased, you're also taking on whatever misconceptions they had.

BTW, are you *ever* going to show up to our debate?


Today @ 01:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259569#post259569)
EdJones:



Why would believing the Bible is the words of God and FINAL authority in ALL things make me a idol worshipper?:huh:


.


-------------------------------------------
Now I see what your "problem" REALLY is, in your profile it says"Bible & Books Sales and Research" If it don't make sense there's a buck in it. Gotta keep all those "new" bibles selling.:lol:

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259569#post259569)
EdJones:



Why would believing the Bible is the words of God and FINAL authority in ALL things make me a idol worshipper?:huh:


.


-------------------------------------------
Now I see what your "problem" REALLY is, in your profile it says"Bible & Books Sales and Research" If it don't make sense there's a buck in it. Gotta keep all those "new" bibles selling.:lol:




Funny how the KJV is the one that brought in the most money over the years. And the Bible is the Word of God. But you forget all scripture is inspired not just the KJV. Or are you denying that fact as well.

After reading this it gives me an idea who sent the nasty gram to my email. Do us all a favor and debate or shut up.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259335#post259335)
NSMinistries:



1.) My problem is not the KJV its people that turn it into an idol such as you.

2.) I know many people around the world have come to love Christ and be saved and they have never seen a Bible. Are you telling me that they are not saved? What about those that do not speak or read english? Because they do not have access to a KJV Bible you beleive their Bibles are not God's Word? Lets get real here.

3.) My relationship with Christ is secure. I would question the whole train of thought you have provided here as suspect. Be careful where you tread...

4.) It's a question of language. Someone from the street picks up a KJV Bible do you really think they are going to have a clue what is saying. I guess you have never been in the city before. It's a whole different ball game. Even out here in the country there is a diffrent language barrier.

Ed care to answer the others as well...


Oh I forget you don't do that do you. You like to hit and run...

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=258545#post258545)
EdJones:

Don't you think someone needs to be born again to understand Gods word?

Only to believe it, not to understand it. But are you denying that it's possible to be be born again and not understand the KJV? Many non-English-speaking Christians can't understand the KJV or even modern English translations. And I can understand only a smattering of the original Hebrew and Greek, so does that prove I'm not born again?


Why would you think you don't need someone to explain or teach the Bible?

Who is denying the role of teachers? However, note that the Bereans were commended for checking the Apostle Paul with Scripture (Acts 17:11 -- note that this wasn't the King Jimmy!). How much more are we supposed to check out pastors or teachers with God's Word? This is somewhat difficult if we can't understand the language without a pastor to tell us what the archaic words mean.

Far too often I've heard a whole sermon or devotion on explaining a single word in the KVJ, going to the Greek, sounding all learned, and finally explaining what it means in modern English. And that's what my NASB had all the time! The cynical side of me thinks that a major reason that some pastors use the KJV is that if they didn't, they would have hardly anything to explain! :rofl:

[EdJones]

"Face facts -- the King Jimmy is not written in the language of the people today."

No kidding, aren't you glad it isn't?

Like to see them update Isaiah 36:12 into the "language of the people today.".:nc:

Does God need any help making His words easier to understand?

[NSMinistries]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/1506.gif"Out out!! You demons of stupidity!!"

[EdJones]

:fight:

[NSMinistries]

Ed,

why do you have the Jewish symbol if your so big A Christian???

[EdJones]

:fight:

[NSMinistries]

Just wondering.

You its really a pitty you won't take the time to really defend your beliefs... :nsm: oh well...


Believe it or not I'm praying for you. Try not to turn to many Christians off the path as you go.

NSM

[EdJones]

Why would I have to defend the Scriptures?

There is no debating truth.
But since you have tried to hijack this thread, lets get back to it.

Unicorns and The Authorized Version

By Will Kinney


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way as our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all and used in farming. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the nkjv, niv and nasb, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carefully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.” Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.” All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible editors do not know what this animal was, and they say it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, until they are tamed or domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”.

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”, and it was a one horned animal. Noah Websters first Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.” Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1901, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible, published in 1833, Lamsa’s Bible translation of 1933, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

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 and 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.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel he says: “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.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticize the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are really being hypocritical and showing their ignorance of the Hebrew language. I myself do not know Hebrew, but I do know some other dear brothers who do, or have helped me in other ways by giving me some very useful information about this subject. I would like to thank brothers Scott Jones and Marty Shue for their fellowship, their spirit of love for God’s Holy Words, and their defense of the KJB.

All Bible translations very frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the nkjv, niv and nas do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Dt. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the nkjv, Dt 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in nkjv, KJB, and niv. Dt. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in niv, nkjv; Dt. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in niv, Dt. 7:9 “dowr” generations in niv & nkjv; Dt. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in nasb, niv and nkjv; Dt. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in nasb, niv and nkjv; and Dt. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in niv, nkjv, and nasb. So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the nkjv, nas and niv have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, and the wild ox has two horns, not just one. One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS. In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else, but God, what the unicorn was or is. It was a one horned animal of great strength, and it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Come hither, and hear the words of the LORD your God.
Josh. 3:9b


.

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=263252#post263252)
EdJones, replying to:


Socrates: Face facts -- the King Jimmy is not written in the language of the people today.

No kidding, aren't you glad it isn't?

No. The KJV translators explicitly stated that they wanted to produce a translation in the "vulgar tongue" of their own day. Modern Bible translators are continuing in this spirit while KJVOs are going against it. See my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=222439#post222439 for documentation.


Like to see them update Isaiah 36:12 into the "language of the people today.".:nc:

Why not? Modern Bibles are perfectly clear on this.


Does God need any help making His words easier to understand?

Why translate at all if that's the attitude? Why not be like the Moslems who claim that only the original Arabic can be the true word of Allah? So Christians must all learn Hebrew and Greek to understand what God originally inspired?

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=263252#post263252)
EdJones:

"Face facts -- the King Jimmy is not written in the language of the people today."

No kidding, aren't you glad it isn't?

Like to see them update Isaiah 36:12 into the "language of the people today.".:nc:

Does God need any help making His words easier to understand?

You are a rude SOB, and a poor attempt at a jew poser.

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=263287#post263287)
EdJones:

:fight:

"Mommy, Wow! I'm a big boy now" (cough cough)

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 09:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=263272#post263272)
NSMinistries:

Ed,

why do you have the Jewish symbol if your so big A Christian???

Thank you for addressing this. He never answered me when I asked him.

[Paulbarbee]

Yesterday @ 03:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=263252#post263252)
EdJones:

"Face facts -- the King Jimmy is not written in the language of the people today."

No kidding, aren't you glad it isn't?

Like to see them update Isaiah 36:12 into the "language of the people today.".:nc:

Ed, isn't it easier for today's people to be able to read the Bible in today's language? Most Americans and probably most English speakers in general when thy read "unicorn" think of a MYTHICAL horse with a horn in the center of its forehead. If you go up to the average high school graduate and ask him to read certain passages from the King James he will have NO idea what the authors were trying to convey. I have trouble understandinding the King James sometimes and must use a dictionary, and I am much better educated than a high school graduate and even have specific training in Languages, and I was reaised on the KJV and went to a KJVO church for a time. I doubt that you can understand the KJV without a dictionary in some places. I admit that I have had this problem a few times with the NASB, but it, like the KJV attemps the be very literal and was written for educated people. See Psalm 7:16 for an examle.

As for Isiah 36:12 I checked several modern versions. They all seem to have a good easily-to understand translation. The read something like the NASB "But Rabshakeh said, "Has my master sentme only to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, doomed to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?" I prefer this to the King James which uses the word "p***", which might be offensive and vulgar to some people.


Does God need any help making His words easier to understand?

No He doesn't, but if it were not translated then as Socrates said we would all have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand it. I can read slowly and painfully through the Greek with the use of a dictionary, but as for the Hebrew I can't read more than the character Aleph. The King James is a translation and like all the modern translations came out of the Hebrew and Greek, therefore the King James translators helped make God's Word easier for you to understand unless of course you would rather go back to the original Hebrew and Greek. I am quite sure that you understood at least to some degree the Bible before you were saved, thusly, while a spiritual mind is INDEED needed to fully understand and "rightly divide" the "Word of truth" all that's needed to comprehend the most basic meaning of the text is an understanding of the language in which it's written.

[NSMinistries]

10-29-2003 @ 11:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=264812#post264812)
yoshiah_ap:



Thank you for addressing this. He never answered me when I asked him.

:thumb:

[EdJones]

:popcorn:

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 07:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287075#post287075)
EdJones:

:popcorn:

Thats like calling the kettel black my friend...


Besides didn't I start the thread...:teeth:

[EdJones]

Why would you assume that I was talking to you?

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289232#post289232)
EdJones:

Why would you assume that I was talking to you?

You may not have been talking to me but the statement still stands. If someone wants to talk about how problematic you are then thats fine...

[mickiel]

Whats more amazeing is how certain people cling to it like a pacifer. In the late 19th century, the American Bible Society examined 6 editions of the KJV and discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions. Astounding mistranslations that people simply absorb because of habitual use.


Not only is the fictional unicorn used by the KJV, but the Satyr- Is. 13:21, 34:44. The Cockatrice- Is. 11:18, 14:29, 59:5, Jer. 8:17. It even uses animals complettely unknown to mythology or zoology, the Arrowsnake in Gen. 49:11.


It uses the word Lucifer in Is. 14:12, and that has no support in the original manuscripts whatsoever, the term is not even Hebrew, its Latin. Much of the error in the KJV comes from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, which is simply corrupt.

The use of the KJV is evidence that people will absorb and build on error, grow so comfortable with it, that its deception becomes to them acceptable.

[EdJones]

:offtopic:



11-16-2003 @ 09:28 PM
mickiel:




It even uses animals complettely unknown to mythology or zoology, the Arrowsnake in Gen. 49:11.



arrowsnake? , I think you are a little confused on your "bibles".

Genesis 49
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

[mickiel]

Today @ 01:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=295520#post295520)
EdJones:

:offtopic:



arrowsnake? , I think you are a little confused on your "bibles".

Genesis 49
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:





This is the correct way it should read. The old version was the inncorrect rendering. The KjV has under gone much changes, and still needs much more. I am not confused, you just don't research enough before you comment. I can give the dates of the version that has it render as i listed, but then that would lazy your research.

[EdJones]

lol, all I can say is, 'where's the ignore button'.

[bar Jonah]

Indeed, the truth often hurts.

[EdJones]

:haha: the Arrowsnake? :lmbo:

[GrayPilgrim]

/ot Congratulation Ed, you have brought about a first, me agreeing with Mickiel!

[yxboom]

Ed apparently doesn't realize he isn't reading the KJV 1611 (the real Bible that God preserved unlike the 1769 revision).

Do a search for arrowsnake and you will find it in your good ole' KJV 1611 just like the cockatrice in Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17.

And honorable mention goes to the UNIcorn that had hornS Deuteronomy 33:17 that some scholars tampered with the preserved word of God and made it unicorns to keep God from looking retarded, apparently God didn't know a unicorn can not have horns (plural) as that would not make it a unicorn now would it. :doh:

[NSMinistries]

and here I thought EdJones stop posting in here

[yxboom]

no he is just requesting that you not.

[NSMinistries]

:nsm: Guess that settles it don't it...































:haha:

[EdJones]

Always got to have the last word don't ya? :fight:


Ecclesiastes 5:7
For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349595#post349595)
EdJones:

Always got to have the last word don't ya? :fight:



No just the sane one...

[EdJones]

You ought to start reading some of those "bibles" you are "peddling."





2 Corinthians 2
17Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.
© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide


2 Corinthians 2
17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God,

© Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

2 Corinthians 2
17For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word,
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

2 Corinthians 2
17For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; © Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349622#post349622)
EdJones:

You ought to start reading some of those "bibles" you are "peddling."





2 Corinthians 2
17Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.
© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide


2 Corinthians 2
17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God,

© Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

2 Corinthians 2
17For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word,
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

2 Corinthians 2
17For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; © Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

The Word is free the paper it is printed on is not. Lets get real here. You had to buy your Bible from someone at one time. That means you were part of that peddling at one time or another. It does take two to make a transaction...

SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...
SKIP SKIP SKIP...

[EdJones]

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349649#post349649)
EdJones:

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Ya, and I can just see todays youth reading that thinking what???. Did they say corrupt the word or not... Lets get real once again... Try spreading the word to everyone not just those who might have some education...

[yxboom]

When you go to a Christian Bookstore I will bet there are KJV Bibles with a price tag on them just like every other book in that store.

[Dee Dee Warren]

nope you are allowed to steal the good ole KJV

[EdJones]

Today @ 03:40 PM
EdJones:

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Someone must of been (and still is) corrupting the word(not Word) of God.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 10:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349684#post349684)
EdJones:



Someone must of been (and still is) corrupting the word(not Word) of God.

I gotta ask... Are you a small man... Because you give off that "poor little man air" (that needs to have a pity party).

[yxboom]

Dee Dee Warren:

nope you are allowed to steal the good ole KJV

In the bathroom I found a notice in the local Mercy Christian Bookstore that anyone caught shoplifting will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I guess I never looked good enough to find the KJV in a shoplifting protected area.

[djconklin]

10-17-2003 @ 12:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247995#post247995)
NSMinistries:

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

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.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

( All Verses taken from the KJV Bible )

I don't understand how KJVO groups can claim that this can be good for a new believer. If I were to read this and not understand that it meant Ox I would really wonder if Christians were believing in fairy tales, and if that was true what else could be wrong.

From an old file I had on this subject:

If one were to look in a concordance one might be surprised to find a listing for “unicorns” in the following texts (of course, we’re assuming here that you are using the KJV): Num. 23:22, 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalms 22:21, 29:6, 92:10; and Isa. 34:7. Now, one might think that with all these references there might be something to it. Unfortunately, for the critic, there isn’t anything to this claim. This can be discovered by first looking at each of the texts in the actual Hebrew rather than the KJV translation. In Deut. 33:17 the KJV has the phrase "the horns of the unicorns". In the Hebrew, however, the word translated as "unicorn" ("re’em") is in the singular! So, it should have been translated as "the horns of the unicorn" and that, of course, creates an obvious difficulty. (BTW, in Psalms 29:6 the KJV translators translated a plural as singular.) The second thing the Bible critic should have done is get a hold of any decent English-Hebrew lexicon and look up the word "re’em." They would have then discovered that "re’em," whose exact meaning may never be known, probably referred to either wild bulls or great aurochs which are now extinct from the region.

The Douay-Rheims (1899) has “unicorn(s)” in Ps. 28:6, 91:11 and Isa. 34:7; elsewhere it has “rhinoceros”! The Darby translation inexplicably has “buffalo”!

[Dee Dee Warren]

You have proved the point DJ, and that is that the translation is in error. Not the Bible, not the original Hebrew.

[djconklin]

Today @ 01:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349821#post349821)
Dee Dee Warren:

You have proved the point DJ, and that is that the translation is in error. Not the Bible, not the original Hebrew.

Oddly enough the Septuagint does refer to unicorns!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh boy, don't tell Ed!

[djconklin]

11-16-2003 @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289374#post289374)
mickiel:

Whats more amazeing is how certain people cling to it like a pacifer. In the late 19th century, the American Bible Society examined 6 editions of the KJV and discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions. Astounding mistranslations that people simply absorb because of habitual use.


Not only is the fictional unicorn used by the KJV, but the Satyr- Is. 13:21, 34:44. The Cockatrice- Is. 11:18, 14:29, 59:5, Jer. 8:17. It even uses animals complettely unknown to mythology or zoology, the Arrowsnake in Gen. 49:11.


It uses the word Lucifer in Is. 14:12, and that has no support in the original manuscripts whatsoever, the term is not even Hebrew, its Latin. Much of the error in the KJV comes from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, which is simply corrupt.

The use of the KJV is evidence that people will absorb and build on error, grow so comfortable with it, that its deception becomes to them acceptable.


Genesis 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

Where's the Arrowsnake?

Before one condemns a given translation shouldn't one be very sure of their alleged facts?

[djconklin]

Today @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349851#post349851)
Dee Dee Warren:

Oh boy, don't tell Ed!

I don't know who Ed is or what his beliefs are. But, I have found that most critics are as ignorant as what they accuse Christians as being. One critic didn't even look up the word "turtle" in the Oxford English Dictionary to see that it was used as a figure of speech for "turtle-dove" in 1611 (see SOS 2:12).

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349854#post349854)
djconklin:




Genesis 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

Where's the Arrowsnake?

Before one condemns a given translation shouldn't one be very sure of their alleged facts?

If you would have read carefully you would have seen that arrowsnake is in the 1611, but was changed by the 1769 revision of the KJV, oops does inerrancy apply to the 1769 or 1611 KjV????

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349656#post349656)
yxboom:

When you go to a Christian Bookstore I will bet there are KJV Bibles with a price tag on them just like every other book in that store.

And no one but the Royal printer was allowed to print them for a century. If that's not a "copyright" then I don't know what to call it.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 03:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349955#post349955)
Socrates:



And no one but the Royal printer was allowed to print them for a century. If that's not a "copyright" then I don't know what to call it.

:lol:

[EdJones]

Today @ 04:15 PM
NSMinistries:



I gotta ask... Are you a small man... Because you give off that "poor little man air" (that needs to have a pity party).


No, not really, 5'4' 143lbs, about average I would say.

[Paul]

I believe in unicorns :smile:
:nc:
:eek:
:wink:

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 05:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349994#post349994)
EdJones:




No, not really, 5'4' 143lbs, about average I would say.

:no:

[$cirisme]

Ed, we've been waiting for you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349693#post349693

[EdJones]

I just weighted myself and its 141, One Hundred Forty One, pounds.

[djconklin]

12-20-2003 @ 02:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349871#post349871)
GrayPilgrim:



If you would have read carefully you would have seen that arrowsnake is in the 1611, but was changed by the 1769 revision of the KJV, oops does inerrancy apply to the 1769 or 1611 KjV????

How can I read carefully a text that doesn't exist in my library? Nor, were we told that is was in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

BTW, I have never claimed inerrancy in in either translation--they are all flawed in some places.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 12:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351459#post351459)
djconklin:



How can I read carefully a text that doesn't exist in my library? Nor, were we told that is was in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

BTW, I have never claimed inerrancy in in either translation--they are all flawed in some places.

You came and said that "Arrowsnake does not occur in the KJV, but if you had read the thread you would have ssen that it did occur in the 1611.

On the issue of inerrancy, I misunderstood you post and thought that you were arguing with Ed Jones that the KJV is inspired and without error, even if the manuscripts it came from had error. So on that point, sorry,

[djconklin]

You came and said that "Arrowsnake does not occur in the KJV, but if you had read the thread you would have ssen that it did occur in the 1611.


I think I can dare say without fear of contradiction that most people do not have a copy of the 1611 "version" of the KJV. It is well-known that early printings of the Bible had errors in them (like the one the dropped the word "not" in the 6th commandment!).

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356183#post356183)
djconklin:



I think I can dare say without fear of contradiction that most people do not have a copy of the 1611 "version" of the KJV. It is well-known that early printings of the Bible had errors in them (like the one the dropped the word "not" in the 6th commandment!).

Which version was that?

[djconklin]

The KJV we now have is not the same one that was printed in 1611; you could call each of them "versions".

[EdJones]

...they are editions.

[bar Jonah]

So then... which edition is the perfect one, again? I can't remember...

[djconklin]

Today @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357433#post357433)
RightIdea:

So then... which edition is the perfect one, again? I can't remember...

None.

According to Websters an edition is "the size, style, or form in which a book is published". Since there were changes in the wording (vs. "size, style, or form") I would suggest that "version" is a better word.

[Conductor42]

How about the original mss?

[bar Jonah]

djconklin:
None.

According to Websters an edition is "the size, style, or form in which a book is published". Since there were changes in the wording (vs. "size, style, or form") I would suggest that "version" is a better word.
I know that. I'm asking what he thinks. :doh:


yoshiah_ap:
How about the original mss?
Well, those aren't perfect... after all, they're not written in the original English... right, Ed? :wink:

[EdJones]

THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS
OF THE 1611 KJV

Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.
In the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV "revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!
Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process: the purification of early printing errors, so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process: the standardization of the spelling, These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth.


Copied by permission-Dr. David F. Reagan

[djconklin]

first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) .... the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

I just love it when the critics provide the very evidence that contradicts their sarcasm (the parenthetical remark)! At least, this one was honest enough to tell the truth.

[djconklin]

Today @ 01:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357505#post357505)
yoshiah_ap:

How about the original mss?

There aren't any original mss around to check. However, textual criticism provides a method by which we believe we can re-create what the originals said--see the UBS 4th edition or the Nestle-Aland 26th.

[EdJones]

Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence.

Printing Changes
For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.
Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modem reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

"The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions."
by Dr. David F. Reagan

[yxboom]

:haha: EdJones

Hardly spelling and printing changes only. The 1611 does not have "of silver" (Exod. 21:32), "of God" (1 John 5:12), and "Amen" (Eph. 6:24). The 1769 KJV has "the city of the Damascenes" (2 Cor. 11:32) while the 1611 KJV has "the city." 1611 KJV in Eccl. 8:17 has "seek it out" instead of "seek it out, yet he shall not find it."

Now shouldn't the perfect preserved word of God not contain a single alteration in the text? Otherwise the Bible would be fallible right if any changes are made to it.

[EdJones]

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.
What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

"The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions."
by Dr. David F. Reagan

[Socrates]

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357665#post357665)
yxboom:

:haha: EdJones

Hardly spelling and printing changes only. The 1611 does not have "of silver" (Exod. 21:32), "of God" (1 John 5:12), and "Amen" (Eph. 6:24). The 1769 KJV has "the city of the Damascenes" (2 Cor. 11:32) while the 1611 KJV has "the city." 1611 KJV in Eccl. 8:17 has "seek it out" instead of "seek it out, yet he shall not find it."

Exactly. Ed has consistently ignored my documentation or far more differences in The REAL KJV-1611 had marginal notes and Scriptural reading guide including Apocrypha (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=234794#post234794)


Now shouldn't the perfect preserved word of God not contain a single alteration in the text? Otherwise the Bible would be fallible right if any changes are made to it.

On would think so, and in any case, Ed has followed the KJVO's botching of Psalm 12 which is not talking about preserving words but people -- see Does Psalm 12 teach word preservation? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=166624#post166624)

[EdJones]

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.
The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.
F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing - this thing also (1638)
2 shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)
3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)
4 requite good - requite me good (1629)
5 this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)
6 chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)
7 And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)
8 For this cause - And for this cause (1638)
9 For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)
10 Seek good - seek God (1617)
11 The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)
12 returned - turned (1769)
13 a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)
14 The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)
15 thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)
16 the wayes side - the way side (1743)
17 which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)
18 the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)
19 now and ever - both now and ever (1638)
20 which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modem alterations.

"The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions."
by Dr. David F. Reagan

[yxboom]

Socrates:

Exactly. Ed has consistently ignored my documentation or far more differences in The REAL KJV-1611 had marginal notes and Scriptural reading guide including Apocrypha (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=234794#post234794)



On would think so, and in any case, Ed has followed the KJVO's botching of Psalm 12 which is not talking about preserving words but people -- see Does Psalm 12 teach word preservation? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=166624#post166624)

Great resources. Those would be valuable to those unlike EdJones who are interested in better understanding the KJVO debate.

[EdJones]

Since God's Word abides forever, and from generation to generation (Psalm 100:5), then that means (at least to me) that His Word is pure (Psalm 12:6) and will be available to all (every, not missing any-Psalm 100:5) generations. If that is the case (and it is), then His Word must have been extant from the time that Vaticanus was shelved in the Twelfth Century until it was rediscovered in the Nineteenth Century. That is seven hundred years. If the new versions, based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are truly the Word of God, then why were they hidden from view for seven hundred years (400 in the case of Sinaiticus)? Since many modern version supporters militantly dislike the King James Version and cast dispersions on its accuracy, then, accordingly, the English-speaking world must have been without the true Word of God for those several hundred years.


My conclusion is that Psalm 12:6-6 simply states the obvious, in agreement with the whole Bible, that the words of God will be preserved forever. And if His words are preserved, then so are the poor and needy.

[yxboom]

You are using your own conclusion that God is preserving His word in your own interpretation of what preservation entails for every generation and concluding fallaciously to fit your purpose.

[EdJones]

The Bible, as a whole, states that God's Word endures forever. Here are some further proof texts that God preserves His word:

Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Ps 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Ps 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

[yxboom]

Maybe in the Omega code or DaVinci code somewhere inserted into those passages are the KJV 1769 cause I am seeing "word" or "words", where did Jesus say,
Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words contained in the KJV 1769 (cause the 1611 would under go spelling and textual changes) shall not pass away."

[EdJones]

God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared.

But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors?

[yxboom]

Do you never reply with your own words instead of only copy and pasting other's works.

[EdJones]

You have not posted one thing edifying in this whole thread. :bonk:

Do the scriptures befuddle, confront or equivocate you?

[yxboom]

EdJones:

You have not posted one thing edifying in this whole thread. :bonk:

To those who actually care to study the KJVO debate I would say yes I have been far more edifying to that student just as many others here have.


Do the scriptures befuddle, confront or equivocate you?

Which Scriptures are you referring to? The actual OT/NT MSS or the perfect 1611 or the re-perfected 1769 KJV?

[EdJones]

You know, It's the Bible God uses and Satan hates.

[yxboom]

EdJones:

You know, It's the Bible God uses and Satan hates.

Oh silly me. John forgot to note in Revelation that the other book beside the Book of Life would be open is the KJV.

[EdJones]

final authority in all matters of faith and practice?

[yxboom]

EdJones:

final authority in all matters of faith and practice?

The Holy Scriptures consisting of Old and New Testaments.

[EdJones]

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
New Life Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Wycliffe New Testament
New International Version - UK

[yxboom]

thats a good start

[Paul]

boom ... do you really consider The Message to be the scriptures? I personally wouldn't call that book the scriptures. Some of the paraphrases/translations are a little creative ... they are more like the rewrite your bible stories contest we have going :smile:

[yxboom]

Paul:

boom ... do you really consider The Message to be the scriptures? I personally wouldn't call that book the scriptures. Some of the paraphrases/translations are a little creative ... they are more like the rewrite your bible stories contest we have going :smile:

No I wouldnt but it would get a rise out of Ed Jones cause it isn't the KJV so...

I personally prefer the ESV, NASB and NKJV but I wasn't going to give Ed Jones the satisfaction regarding a few others on that list.

[EdJones]

"I personally prefer"...... that's your problem, you don't know what is Scripture and what is not, so you chose what you 'prefer'.

Why hasn't the Holy Ghost taught you which "bible" is Gods words?

[Conductor42]

Just read the source mss

[yxboom]

EdJones:

"I personally prefer"...... that's your problem, you don't know what is Scripture and what is not, so you chose what you 'prefer'.

Why hasn't the Holy Ghost taught you which "bible" is Gods words?

Cause the Holy Spirit unlike you realizes there is no inspired translation.

[NSMinistries]

:popcorn:

[djconklin]

Yesterday @ 06:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357696#post357696)
yxboom:

You are using your own conclusion that God is preserving His word in your own interpretation of what preservation entails for every generation and concluding fallaciously to fit your purpose.

The Bible says that God's Word is preserved; it does not say that the exact words in the book are preserved. Note that the word "word" has two different meaning here and does not entail the propagandistic pique in the above "critique" which does not advance the analysis of the issue at hand.


Cause the Holy Spirit unlike you realizes there is no inspired translation.

Amen!

[EdJones]

Script=written

[yxboom]

EdJones:

Script=written

I am sure your third grade teacher is applauding.

[yxboom]

djconklin:

The Bible says that God's Word is preserved; it does not say that the exact words in the book are preserved. Note that the word "word" has two different meaning here and does not entail the propagandistic pique in the above "critique" which does not advance the analysis of the issue at hand.


I believe Socrates links to a post on this thread where it is shown that against Ed Jones' better judgment that the KJV translators err'ed cause the passage is referring to God preserving the Israelites and not a "word".

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358625#post358625)
yxboom:

I believe Socrates links to a post on this thread where it is shown that against Ed Jones' better judgment that the KJV translators err'ed cause the passage is referring to God preserving the Israelites and not a "word".

Even stronger -- the KJV translators themselves in a marginal note to the REAL 1611 made it clear that it was most likely the Israelites and not a "word". While they had their faults (e.g. Anglo-Catholic ecclesiastical bias that makes one wonder why most KJVOs are Baptistic), they definitely did not support the inanity of the KJVO crowd.

[bar Jonah]

Socrates:
Even stronger -- the KJV translators themselves in a marginal note to the REAL 1611 made it clear that it was most likely the Israelites and not a "word". While they had their faults (e.g. Anglo-Catholic ecclesiastical bias that makes one wonder why most KJVOs are Baptistic), they definitely did not support the inanity of the KJVO crowd.
Yeah, sure, but what did they know? They were Anglo-Catholic, after all. :ahem:

[Conductor42]

What's the difference between Anglo-Catholic and normal Catholic? Is it like the difference between Russian and Greek Orthodox Christianity?

[yxboom]

yoshiah_ap:

What's the difference between Anglo-Catholic and normal Catholic? Is it like the difference between Russian and Greek Orthodox Christianity?

I believe so.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358726#post358726)
yoshiah_ap:

What's the difference between Anglo-Catholic and normal Catholic?

Anglo-Catholism is basically the new religion founded by Henry VIII. Remember that before his break with Rome, the Pope had awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith" for a pamphlet attacking Martin Luther. Later, Cranmer founded a sort of Anglo-Protestantism that has had an uneasy co-existence with Anglo-Catholicism.

Anglo-Catholism sometimes seems like Catholicism without the Pope, because it is liturgical and accepts all 7 sacraments. Instead of the Pope, the Monarch of GReat Britain is the earthly head of the church. Ironic that s/he has the title "Defender of the Faith" but is not allowed to be or marry a Roman Catholic.

Official Roman Catholic doctrine denies that Anglo-Catholic priests are valid so don't recognise their Communion, while they recognize Eastern Orthodox priests as true priests and all their 7 sacraments as genuine.

The Anglo-Catholicism of the King Jimmy translators comes through in the real KJV-1611, with the Apocrypha, Saints' Days, translating pasca as Easter instead of Passover, and episkopoV as bishop rather than overseer.


Is it like the difference between Russian and Greek Orthodox Christianity?

No, they have almost identical doctrines. Any difference is schismatic rather than doctrinal.

[Paul]

Socrates:

Anglo-Catholism is basically the new religion founded by Henry VIII. Remember that before his break with Rome, the Pope had awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith" for a pamphlet attacking Martin Luther. Later, Cranmer founded a sort of Anglo-Protestantism that has had an uneasy co-existence with Anglo-Catholicism.

Anglo-Catholism sometimes seems like Catholicism without the Pope, because it is liturgical and accepts all 7 sacraments. Instead of the Pope, the Monarch of GReat Britain is the earthly head of the church. Ironic that s/he has the title "Defender of the Faith" but is not allowed to be or marry a Roman Catholic.

Official Roman Catholic doctrine denies that Anglo-Catholic priests are valid so don't recognise their Communion, while they recognize Eastern Orthodox priests as true priests and all their 7 sacraments as genuine.

The Anglo-Catholicism of the King Jimmy translators comes through in the real KJV-1611, with the Apocrypha, Saints' Days, translating pasca as Easter instead of Passover, and episkopoV as bishop rather than overseer.



No, they have almost identical doctrines. Any difference is schismatic rather than doctrinal.

boom, yosiah,

Socrates explanation here is correct. Even though Soc already has a ton of pearls, I'm going to send him another one.

[EdJones]

Yesterday @ 02:30 AM
“ EdJones:
final authority in all matters of faith and practice? ”


yxboom:



The Holy Scriptures consisting of Old and New Testaments.

What is YOUR ONE
final authority in all matters of faith and practice?

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358982#post358982)
EdJones:



What is YOUR ONE
final authority in all matters of faith and practice?

To use your KJV

II Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV)

To me and most here that would mean a Bible. To include translations such as ESV NIV NASB KJV NKJV etc... ect... ect...

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358982#post358982)
EdJones:

What is YOUR ONE
final authority in all matters of faith and practice?

Read Isaiah 45:21

[centuri0n]

Can I suggest that arguing from the position that there is something "bad" in the KJV does not phase the KJVO advocate?

The KJVO advocate doesn't see anything bad in the KJV -- in fact, he sees it as perfect, and running down that God-inspired perfection is inherently the work of the devil. You are far better off running down the objections to non-KJV translations and wearing down the resistence to 20th century English, or demonstrating the history of Bible translation with the KJV having a key but transitory position in that chain of events.

The problem with KJVO is not that they have a lousy view of Scripture: they have a superstitious view of one particular translation.

[EdJones]

12-31-2003 @ 03:45 PM
NSMinistries:



To use your KJV

II Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV)

To me and most here that would mean a Bible. To include translations such as ESV NIV NASB KJV NKJV etc... ect... ect...

Why are you useing 2 Timothy 3:16 to prove your point? Is that what the verse really says? Looking at the verse in the context in which it appears (2 Tim. 3:14-17), you will notice that Paul admonished Timothy to continue (v.14) in those same scriptures that he had studied as a child (v.15), because those scriptures are inspired (v.16) and are able to "throughly" fur nish" the man of God. Did Timothy somehow own the original manu scripts of the Old Testament books? Of course not. Yet the scrip tures which he owned were inspired!

[bar Jonah]

EdJones:
Why are you useing 2 Timothy 3:16 to prove your point? Is that what the verse really says? Looking at the verse in the context in which it appears (2 Tim. 3:14-17), you will notice that Paul admonished Timothy to continue (v.14) in those same scriptures that he had studied as a child (v.15), because those scriptures are inspired (v.16) and are able to "throughly" fur nish" the man of God. Did Timothy somehow own the original manu scripts of the Old Testament books? Of course not. Yet the scrip tures which he owned were inspired!
And of course all the manuscript copies available at Timothy's time were exactly the same, letter for letter. :ahem:

[Conductor42]

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=362015#post362015)
RightIdea:


And of course all the manuscript copies available at Timothy's time were exactly the same, letter for letter. :ahem:

That would be true, depending on which transcripts were used. The temple manuscripts were the perfect ones, and that is where the "originals" were kept. The copies made for the temple were made with the same strictness, and perhaps more so, as the Talmudic standards for copying manuscripts. However, manuscripts that were made for the homes were not neccessarily copied at the same precision. Example, sloppy handwriting could make it so a person's י (yod) may appear to be a ו (vav). Some of them replaced uncommon hebrew words that weren't used much in those times, with Aramaic words that were common at the time. Some of the DSS are examples of this.
.

[EdJones]

Even taken out of context, 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot be used as a proof-text for limited inspiration. Look at it closely. Nowhere in the verse do the words "in the original manuscripts" occur. For that matter, nowhere in the verse will you find a verb in the past tense. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," not "was given." The inspiration of the Bible is present tense - NOW. It is alive and still breathing, and you had better be glad it is. God inspired the Bible for only one reason: "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:17). If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts you would have no chance of living and working for God the way He wants you to!

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 01:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=362111#post362111)
EdJones:

Even taken out of context, 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot be used as a proof-text for limited inspiration. Look at it closely. Nowhere in the verse do the words "in the original manuscripts" occur. For that matter, nowhere in the verse will you find a verb in the past tense. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," not "was given." The inspiration of the Bible is present tense - NOW. It is alive and still breathing, and you had better be glad it is. God inspired the Bible for only one reason: "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:17). If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts you would have no chance of living and working for God the way He wants you to!

I don't see KJV is inspired in that verse either...

[bar Jonah]

yoshiah_ap:
That would be true, depending on which transcripts were used. The temple manuscripts were the perfect ones, and that is where the "originals" were kept. The copies made for the temple were made with the same strictness, and perhaps more so, as the Talmudic standards for copying manuscripts. However, manuscripts that were made for the homes were not neccessarily copied at the same precision. Example, sloppy handwriting could make it so a person's י (yod) may appear to be a ו (vav). Some of them replaced uncommon hebrew words that weren't used much in those times, with Aramaic words that were common at the time. Some of the DSS are examples of this.
.
Exactly, Yoshiah! Thank you! :thumb:

[Elle]

"In every age and in every generation there have been those unstable, uneducated and unwilling elements of society that choose to reject the Bible as the objective rule and practice of life and worship. "

Hi, I'm uneducated, unstable and unwilling. :smile: 'Reckon I can put that on my CV?

"If their claim were true, the Bible would then be an unreliable record and certainly not the plenary, verbally inspired will of Almighty God. "

[djconklin]

Today @ 01:23 PM post located here
EdJones:
Even taken out of context, 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot be used as a proof-text for limited inspiration. Look at it closely. Nowhere in the verse do the words "in the original manuscripts" occur. For that matter, nowhere in the verse will you find a verb in the past tense. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," not "was given." The inspiration of the Bible is present tense - NOW. It is alive and still breathing, and you had better be glad it is. God inspired the Bible for only one reason: "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:17). If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts you would have no chance of living and working for God the way He wants you to! ”

NSM:
I don't see KJV is inspired in that verse either...

Both are true.