Right! If one prefers "wild ox" use the version that tickles your ears, for it matters not if we believe it is a rhinoceros unicornis or a wild ox to our salvation. Just don't use the New World Translation.
bwhahahah, at the time yet its still in the King James Version, no wonder you people are so mixed up, you are living in the past, unicorns, brilliant.
What major tenet of my faith is effected by the presence of the word "unicorns" in the King James Bible ?
Does it insist that no other English version but the KJV should I use ?
Do ence the word "unicorns" in the 17th century King James English version of the Bible ?
none, but that is not the point, is it. We are talking of accuracy of translation, last time I looked, unicorns were different from rhinos.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie none, but that is not the point, is it. We are talking of accuracy of translation, last time I looked, unicorns were different from rhinos.
Nope, they are still the same. You will still find them in the scientific literature. It is just some fool changed the definition in the dictionary and others followed suit. That is why today's Biblical translators don't know a unicorn from a wlid ox or a wild bull.
Originally posted by RJHinds Nope, they are still the same. You will still find them in the scientific literature. It is just some fool changed the definition in the dictionary and others followed suit. That is why today's Biblical translators don't know a unicorn from a wlid ox or a wild bull.
The Instructor
bwahahahah, such court jesters like you are hard to find these days, people care too much.
17 Jun '13 14:482 edits
Origins of the King James Version of the Bible
Back to Top