I dont know, perhaps but you would have to talk to the person who wrote said verse to find out what they were talking about.
2006-06-26 13:02:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by erik c 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
actually the biblecal unicorn was like an OX except very very much bigger and mean. the ( Halley's bible handbook ) has drawings and tells where in the bible it gets its info.
In the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible we read of God questioning Job (Chapter 39:9,10):
‘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?’
The unicorn is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. Nowhere in these passages is there any suggestion that anything other than a real animal is being described.
So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is ראם (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.
Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.
It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the rimu/re’em were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the rimu/re’em was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).
The real re’em or wild ox was also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This was the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle. For more information, see the feature article on the aurochs, ‘Recreating the extinct Aurochs?’ in this issue of Creation magazine, pages 25–28).
There is a way of showing from the KJV itself that the translation of the Hebrew re’em as ‘unicorn’ is incorrect. In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses speaks a blessing on the descendants of Joseph, saying, ‘In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are like the horns of a wild ox (Heb: re’em). With them he will push the peoples …’.
The KJV translation 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 … .’
The simile is appropriate if the reference is to the aurochs or wild ox, because they had huge, long horns. However, the main point here is the dilemma for the KJV translators who had elsewhere determined that the re’em was a unicorn.
In the Hebrew of this passage, the word ‘horns’ is plural, but the word re’em is singular. But if they translated it this way, it would read, ‘His horns are like the horns of a unicorn’, which would give a unicorn more than one horn, obviously a contradiction in terms. The KJV translators clearly recognized the inconsistency in comparing the pair of horns (plural) on a bull with the single horn on a unicorn, because they took the liberty in their translation to make the unicorn plural (see the marginal note in the KJV, which makes this clear). However, it needs to be stressed again that the word is not plural in the Hebrew. Unless one grants an English translation authority over the original Hebrew, this is a once-and-for-all indication that the re’em could not be a one-horned creature.
Note that in Modern Hebrew, re’em also means wild ox.
2006-06-26 13:05:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by His eyes are like flames 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Okay, my Bible Dictionary says, that when it's mentioned it referring to it's great strength. Num. 23:22; 24:8; Deut.33:17
However, the biblical writer could have been talking about the Aurochs. They were horned wild ox that were so large and powerful, that no one could control or tame them.
Job 39:9-10; Ps. 22:21; 92:10; Is.34:7
In addition, in the Middle Ages, the unicorn was a symbol of purity.
2006-06-26 12:59:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kitten 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the Hebrew, unicorn means "a wild bull".
Perhaps,at that time, there were wild rhinos in their regions, but this is more than likely there name for a wild ox.
Different culture and regions have different dialects.
The behemoth was a hippo.
2006-06-26 13:04:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by montanacowgirlwannabee 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was told as a child that the unicorn was not allowed to enter Noah's Arc because he was an unclean beast. What I heard was that because of sexual acts and beastiality he was contaminated and died in the great flood. However, I have never found any scripture or scientific data to substantiate this.
2006-06-26 13:01:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by ŧťŠ4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well there's some info on the web about it here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
read for yourself about the hebrew word for it ראם (re’em) and what it means etc... Also the word was used more than once in the bible just read the site for the verses.
2006-06-26 13:04:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by docteur4u 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pegasus the rhino w/ wings.
I wouldn't want to be walking under that.
______
to: the_pretty_one22 (below) - did you really just say horses aren't real?
2006-06-26 12:58:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kenny ♣ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
a 'unicorn' is a horse, they arent real...what about a rhino?
2006-06-26 12:59:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Duh, it's so obvious. Jesus is the opposum, he plays dead but comes back to life. His disciples are squirels, except for Judas, who was the rat. The romans are cars killing them all (except Jesus just acts dead and then is "resurrected" later on when the coast is clear)
2006-06-26 13:08:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joe Shmoe 4
·
0⤊
0⤋