Putin, why even bother with this argument when you can make so many others without translation error being a legitimate defense.

"It is you who typically run from our arguments, Putin."

Right, which is why I've wasted many an hour/day arguing with you dopes. Where have I ever run from an argument.

And I will once again tell you, I am catholic, and I am also Italian. Two things that retards dislike a lot. Try again motard.

Jamiet,

Are you under the impression that bad things happening is a novel idea for Christians? A new "drop dead" argument I've never heard before?

"Where have I ever run from an argument. "

Well, I'll find you one, but only on condition that you'll admit that you ran from the argument once I post the thread and we see that I made arguments in a final post that was never responded to. I only enter into these things with you if the conditions are well defined.

Semck, you're complaining about getting the last word. Really?

Define 'never responded to', and also, are you going to count threads in which I post 20 times saying the same thing but you continue to act obtuse and claim I "didn't answer"? Yes indeed things must be well defined, because you're real slick with redefining terms at your convenience and playing word games.

"I have no idea what you're talking about. "

I quoted you the psalm. What do I have to do to get you to read?

@ghug,

I wouldn't if putin hadn't said that I "run away and declare victory." Of course it's common for arguments to be dropped on webdip. People get busy, other topics come up, etc., etc. We've all done it, and I have no problem with it. However, putin made a specific charge about my pattern of argument with him when exactly the opposite is true. In that context, my getting the last word is indeed a refutation.

I'll give you a one horned animal that looks a fucking hell of a lot like a ox and very much would be a beast.

Ladies and gentlemen (and athiest fucktards whose limited view never thinks there might actually be a one horned beast), I give you the rhinoceros! The rhino species vary between dual horn and single horn. So there is your one horned beast. Pwnd, fucktards!

http://shadesofgreenacj.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/one-horned-rhino.jpg

@ Jamietuk

So what?

Mentioning something is far from affirming a belief in it., nor is it deliberatly misleading to use an image to make a point. for instance:

"Barbara has breath like a dragon"

Isn't necessarily a statement an affirmation of belief in dragons, but certainly is a statement about Barbara's breath.

And Draug manages to simultaneously say something irrelevant, concede the translation argument, and sound like a 13 year-old all at the same time.

Oh and are we to attack the Chinese for their belief in dragons as well? (thanks for the reminder of that mythical creature, CA). Or how about the Irish and leprechauns?

@ghug, that was my goal this evening. Fire up Putin and see where he goes with it. :-)

Yes, because those people legitimately believe in those things and try to push those beliefs on others and use bullshit science to back them up.

If only the biblical passages were referring to unicorns in the form of a simile, then maybe Crazy Anglican would be making some sense.

@ Draugnar

Do Rhinos skip? "He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, Sirion like a unicorn."

I stopped reading when the KJV unicorn discussion started. Wanted to bring everyone's attention to this, the funniest shit in all of Christendom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

""The KJV As New Revelation" – This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman

"Ruckman distinguishes between the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the numerically fewer manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type underlying most modern New Testament versions. Ruckman characterizes those who endorse the latter as members of the "Alexandrian Cult" who believe that while the autographs were God-inspired, they have been lost, and that therefore his opponents believe there to be "no final, absolute written authority of God anywhere on this earth." Ruckman also believes that the Septuagint was a hoax created by the Alexandrian cult in the 3rd century A.D. in order to subvert belief in the integrity of the Bible."

*were all referring to unicorns in the form of a simile*

Indeed, putin, the rhinoceros is one of several possible translations. (Even in English, these were occasionally referred to as unicorns back in the day).

That said, there's

(a) nothing to say one could not refer to the horn of a wild ox as "exalted" (certainly it's above his head, and it's such a poetic term in the first place that it's pretty hard to know what would or wouldn't be considered exalted), and

(b) if there are two of something, there is also one. Consider for example Psalm 94:9:

"Does he who fashioned the ear not hear?
Does he who formed the eye not see?"

Are we to infer that the Psalmist believed humans (and in particular, he himself) had only a single ear or eye? I would suggest not.

In fact, in Deut. 33, plural IS used of the horns of this same creature:

"A firstborn bull[k]—he has majesty,
and his horns are the horns of a [wild ox];
with them he shall gore the peoples,
all of them, to the ends of the earth;"

(I've bracketed the word in question).

Most telling is the fact that in several of the uses of this word, it's clear that imagery is being used that is supposed to appeal to the familiar in the readers (as you can tell, for example, from the context and the other comparisons being made).

So Rhinos skip like calves then?

The Greeks who wrote the bible called this "rhino" Monokeros. So somebody please tell me how an animal called "One-Horn" could have more than one horn.

Not commonly putin, which is a good argument for favoring one of the other possible translations. You may notice that the rest of my post ("That said, there's...."), which you ignored, was focused on why the other translations were perfectly acceptable.

"The Greeks who wrote the bible called this ...."

Please tell me you don't actually think the Greeks wrote the OT.

@ Putin

"If only the biblical passages were referring to unicorns in the form of a simile, then maybe Crazy Anglican would be making some sense."


"“But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn".

"He makes Lebanon skip like a calf",
"Sirion like a unicorn."


Those are all like... you know.. simlies ....


Really, better luck next time. lol.

I amended that comment. There are also passages which aren't in simile form at all. "LOL".

@ Semck

Actually the original Bible had books that were not translated from Hebrew at all, like Maccabees. So yes, the Greeks wrote the Bible.

"which is a good argument for favoring one of the other possible translations."

Yes, like...unicorn.

Hey, geniuses. I'm an atheist. This is ridiculous.

Rather than point out the obvious -- that those parts of the Bible in which the alleged "unicorn" appears WERE all written in Hebrew, and that the Greeks in question all came many hundreds of years later -- rather than do that, I'll just take advantage of this opportunity to get you to agree forever that there is no issue with the rendering of "virgin" in "The virgin shall conceive" in Isaiah 7 in the Septuagint. After all, the Greeks wrote the Bible -- right?

Also, Yellowjacket, in case you're reading, you got it backwards in the other thread. Red herring was the first one, then straw man, then non sequitur.

@putin,

"Yes, like...unicorn."

Well, OK, but let's review the case for the Bible supposed error here. There is an unknown Hebrew word, clearly referring to an animal, and we can deduce that it has the following properties:

(*) It has at least one horn (Psalm 92)
(*) It has multiple horns (Deuteronomy 33)
(*) It is not tameable or useable for agriculture (Job 39).
(*) It is dangerous, and the Psalmist had had his life rescued from an attack by one (Psalm 22).
(*) It skips like a calf.

The question is -- is this animal so clearly a unicorn that the Bible is clearly being absurd and claiming that a mythical creature exists? Or maybe -- just maybe -- it refers to an actual animal, and early translators got it wrong?