Creationists on the Square in Madison, Wisconsin

Here in Norn, Iron Skip, we have our very own version of this:

http://creationoutreachministries.com/

"I'm used to them exclusively using second hand sources and knowing less than a zit on a rat's ass about the topics they expound upon."

"Man killed off most Dinosaurs... 1. For Meat

2. Because they were a menace

3. To be a hero (save the village)

4. To prove his superiority

5. Competition for the land

Medicinal purposes

So, if you don't believe that knights of the round table killed off the dinosaurs so that they could be heroes by saving their village, feed the starving peasants and heal the sick with Tyrannosaurus testicles, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!

Well, I can't fault their logic...
*rolls eyes*

The question I want to ask Kevin this Saturday is if all these knights were killing off dinosaurs, and we have literally tons of artifacts from that era, why don't we have a single bone from one of their kill as trophies? I know hunters that would mount a friggin' squirrel!

Skip said: The question I want to ask Kevin this Saturday is if all these knights were killing off dinosaurs, and we have literally tons of artifacts from that era, why don't we have a single bone from one of their kill as trophies? I know hunters that would mount a friggin' squirrel!

I thought I was familiar with the bible, but I don't recall any references to dinosaurs. Are there any? If not, why not?

Skip said: The question I want to ask Kevin this Saturday is if all these knights were killing off dinosaurs, and we have literally tons of artifacts from that era, why don't we have a single bone from one of their kill as trophies? I know hunters that would mount a friggin' squirrel!

I hope someday, mythbusters does a Knight vs. T. Rex involving things like, how much armor would be needed to stop the T. Rex's bite and how high up could a knight reach to get a vital organ....

This would be fun.

Good write-up, Skip.

I thought I was familiar with the bible, but I don’t recall any references to dinosaurs.

Robin said:

"Man killed off most Dinosaurs... 1. For Meat

Hmmm...given a 40 ton chicken (like T-rex) one must wonder why so many people were starving back in our bygone days...

2. Because they were a menace

Oh I'm sure...rabbits and deer are bad enough these days. Imagine what a herd of apatosaurs would have done to a garden...

3. To be a hero (save the village)

Must have been a LOT of heroes then. Odd that not one account is recorded anywhere...

4. To prove his superiority

Well...can't argue with this one...

5. Competition for the land

Isn't this covered under 2. above?

Medicinal purposes

Seriously? Given the morality rate of our ancestors, just what exactly was triceratops horn, stegosaurus plate, or t-rex gallbladder used for? Wow oh wow...just some zany stuff! Thanks for the chuckles, Skip!

I thought I was familiar with the bible, but I don’t recall any references to dinosaurs. Are there any? If not, why not?

Day 6, creation of land animals. Dinos included.

Skip said: The question I want to ask Kevin this Saturday is if all these knights were killing off dinosaurs, and we have literally tons of artifacts from that era, why don't we have a single bone from one of their kill as trophies? I know hunters that would mount a friggin' squirrel!

But where are the unicorn fossils? The bible mentions unicorns a few times. There must be fossils of them, right? FL? Or at least someone must've made a trophy of a horn that would survive through the ages? Like those ram horns? Shofar, sho good.

SLC said: AFAIK, a full grown TRex tipped the scales at 7 tons. The 40 tonners+ were all plant eaters.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: But where are the unicorn fossils? The bible mentions unicorns a few times. There must be fossils of them, right? FL? Or at least someone must've made a trophy of a horn that would survive through the ages? Like those ram horns? Shofar, sho good.

heddle said: No, it does not mention unicorns.

Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2 Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration. Modern readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength. The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick . . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.”3 The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn.4 In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian rhinoceros.5 The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium.6 Assyrian archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu).7 The aurochs’s horns were very symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism.8 Fighting rimu was a popular sport for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I boasted of slaying them in the Lebanon mountains.9 Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures.10 Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as: “a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied . . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.”11 The aurochs’ highly prized horns would have been a symbol of great strength to the ancient Bible reader. One scholarly urge to identify the biblical unicorn with the Assyrian aurochs springs from a similarity between the Assyrian word rimu and the Hebrew word re’em. We must be very careful when dealing with anglicized transliterated words from languages that do not share the English alphabet and phonetic structure.12 However, similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian (other languages of the ancient Middle East) as well as Aramaic mean “wild bull” or “buffalo,” and an Arabic cognate means “white antelope.” However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning “one-horned animal.” 13 The importance of the biblical unicorn is not so much its specific identity—much as we would like to know—but its reality. The Bible is clearly describing a real animal. The unicorn mentioned in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

heddle said:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: But where are the unicorn fossils? The bible mentions unicorns a few times. There must be fossils of them, right? FL? Or at least someone must've made a trophy of a horn that would survive through the ages? Like those ram horns? Shofar, sho good.

No, it does not mention unicorns.

I would guess that the translators came upon a word they didn't understand well or that had been garbled in its meaning over time, and just plugged in "unicorn" for want of anything better.

However, it is nonetheless true: Scripture does reference unicorns.

AIG cannot be trusted to report honestly. That piece is just a chunk of apologetics. Funny how SOME odd biblical concepts can be seen as translation errors, while other things are, if you'll pardon me here, taken as gospel.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Funny how SOME odd biblical concepts can be seen as translation errors, while other things are, if you'll pardon me here, taken as gospel.

Joel said: I thought I was familiar with the bible, but I don't recall any references to dinosaurs.

Oh no? I cut and pasted this from the web, from WikiAnswers

You’re not going to tell me it’s from the wrong translation, are you Heddle?

Funny how SOME odd biblical concepts can be seen as translation errors, while other things are, if you’ll pardon me here, taken as gospel.

heddle said: Buy even beyond that, you must go back to the Hebrew. Does the Hebrew word translated by the KJ writers as unicorn ever mean a horse-like creature (or for that matter any mythical creature) with one horn?

OK, what’s the Hebrew term and what does it mean?

But the fact remains that scripture does indeed refer to unicorns.

Heddle, unless you're a biblical scholar versed in Hebrew, you're talking out your hat on this one. And if you ARE versed in the original texts in their native languages, I apologize, but will also request that you provide further explanation about what "unicorn" meant to the ancient Jewish peoples.

For my money, ALL christianity is cafeteria christianity. No sane person could possibly believe every single word is true, and no one could possibly follow all the rules. It's all a giant mish-mash, and that is part of the whole problem. Like that poor deluded nice-guy Kevin from the article.

I'll ignore the smugness implied by your "case closed, game over" attitude. It reeks of the same litany I hear from the literalists: "the bible says it, I believe, and that ends it". You do not get the last word by bully and bluster. Or smugness. More tomorrow...

MrG said:

heddle said: Buy even beyond that, you must go back to the Hebrew. Does the Hebrew word translated by the KJ writers as unicorn ever mean a horse-like creature (or for that matter any mythical creature) with one horn?

OK, what's the Hebrew term and what does it mean? I was thinking in an analogy that if the translators had, actually, been working in Japanese instead of Hebrew and had run across the term "Kirin" -- a deerlike mythological animal common to Asian cultures and somewhat well-known as label of a beer -- they might have just shrugged in desperation and called it a "Unicorn". But the fact remains that scripture does indeed refer to unicorns. There is also the fact that people often take scripture with an extreme literalness. But you need not argue the matter with me, because I don't care one way or another, and if you try to argue it with me, I will tell you that again.

heddle said: MrG...

I’ll ignore the smugness implied by your “case closed, game over” attitude. It reeks of the same litany I hear from the literalists:

Skip,

A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written.

Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since:

1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real.

2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken).

3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon.

5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Of course feel free to argue “the KJV says it, and they must have translated the Hebrew without error, and they must have meant by unicorn exactly what we mean by unicorn 400 years later, and any argument to the contrary is just cafeteria Christianity.”

Stanton said:

Skip said: The question I want to ask Kevin this Saturday is if all these knights were killing off dinosaurs, and we have literally tons of artifacts from that era, why don't we have a single bone from one of their kill as trophies? I know hunters that would mount a friggin' squirrel!

Either the hunters were too stupid, too humble to take trophies, or God magically poofed away the remains in order to deliberately screw with the heads of evil evolutionists. Probably both.

harold said: Heddle -

Of course feel free to argue “the KJV says it, and they must have translated the Hebrew without error, and they must have meant by unicorn exactly what we mean by unicorn 400 years later, and any argument to the contrary is just cafeteria Christianity.”

Well, then, I guess you must accept the theory of evolution. After all, the only coherent argument against the theory of evolution is literal interpretation of the Bible. Now that you've introduced interpretation and consideration of the original meaning and context, you'd have to be a complete and utter hypocrite, jackass and fool to continue to deny scientific reality. Oh, wait...

heddle said: MrG,

OK, what’s the Hebrew term and what does it mean?

It is not always the same word that is translated as unicorn. Typically it means something like "wild bull" or "the horns of the wild ox."

Juicyheart said:

Stanton said:

Skip said: The question I want to ask Kevin this Saturday is if all these knights were killing off dinosaurs, and we have literally tons of artifacts from that era, why don't we have a single bone from one of their kill as trophies? I know hunters that would mount a friggin' squirrel!

Either the hunters were too stupid, too humble to take trophies, or God magically poofed away the remains in order to deliberately screw with the heads of evil evolutionists. Probably both.

Didn't you read Tristan? The knights only took the tongues!! And well, they don't preserve very well. Um yeah thatsit.

harold said: Heddle -

Of course feel free to argue “the KJV says it, and they must have translated the Hebrew without error, and they must have meant by unicorn exactly what we mean by unicorn 400 years later, and any argument to the contrary is just cafeteria Christianity.”

Well, then, I guess you must accept the theory of evolution. After all, the only coherent argument against the theory of evolution is literal interpretation of the Bible. Now that you've introduced interpretation and consideration of the original meaning and context, you'd have to be a complete and utter hypocrite, jackass and fool to continue to deny scientific reality. Oh, wait...

heddle said:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: But where are the unicorn fossils? The bible mentions unicorns a few times. There must be fossils of them, right? FL? Or at least someone must've made a trophy of a horn that would survive through the ages? Like those ram horns? Shofar, sho good.

No, it does not mention unicorns.

Heddle said:

"Fair enough–your simpleminded certainty that the bible mentions unicorns, with no hint of a scholarly investigation of the claim, also reminded me of of the literalists. "

Surely you mean that some Bibles no longer mention the word "unicorn", but that other Bibles still do use the simple-mindedly exact word "unicorn", and that many Bibles have used the word for - how long now - ten...fifty...a hundred.... a thousand years? - without revision, but no one felt the need to revise the obvious mistranslation, because although most people actually believed in unicorns until just a few years ago, it was such an obvious mistranslation, that occurred nine times in a row, that no one actually took it literally because they understood that the revision, like Christ's return, would be within their lifetime?

This is not an accurate response or argument, Heddle. The fact is, the translators of the KJV did know what a unicorn was from Greek literature.

You may quibble about the semantic intention of the Hebrews all you wish, but the fact remains that the ‘bible’, as it were, contains references to all sorts of different concepts depending on the version.

Gingerbaker said: Heddle said: "Fair enough–your simpleminded certainty that the bible mentions unicorns, with no hint of a scholarly investigation of the claim, also reminded me of of the literalists. " Surely you mean that some Bibles no longer mention the word "unicorn", but that other Bibles still do use the simple-mindedly exact word "unicorn", and that many Bibles have used the word for - how long now - ten...fifty...a hundred.... a thousand years? - without revision, but no one felt the need to revise the obvious mistranslation, because although most people actually believed in unicorns until just a few years ago, it was such an obvious mistranslation, that occurred nine times in a row, that no one actually took it literally because they understood that the revision, like Christ's return, would be within their lifetime?

Hebble,

If one considers only the Greek and Hebrew original translations (and what you are saying is correct), then yes, those versions of "the bible" do not contain unicorns (as we now know them, horses with spiral horns on the bridge of their nose).

That being said, Many people do consider the King James as "the bible", and that version (if what Robin is saying is correct) does contain references to unicorns, then, "the bible" does contain references to unicorns.

So, you are both right, as you are both using different definitions of what "the bible" is. As, a scholar, I would prefer Hebble's definition, but as a realist, I can not simply ignore the reality of Robin's definition.

Heddle -

My comment does not backfire. I did not presuppose your position at all. I merely noted that you would have to be a hypocrite, jackass, and fool to fail to accept the theory of evolution, if you simultaneously allowed any contextual interpretation of the Bible.

My comment remains logically valid.

That being said, Many people do consider the King James as “the bible”,

harold said: Heddle - My comment does not backfire. I did not presuppose your position at all. I merely noted that you would have to be a hypocrite, jackass, and fool to fail to accept the theory of evolution, if you simultaneously allowed any contextual interpretation of the Bible. My comment remains logically valid.

Heddle -

It seems that your quarrel is with those who interpret the KJV Bible overly literally, and without reference to the most original available Hebrew texts, etc.

You appear to be arguing with the wrong people.

The creationist FL is claiming, on this thread, on the basis of the KJV, I presume, that the Bible does mention dinosaurs. The original way dinosaurs got into the discussion was their inclusion in evolution denial material linked by the author of the post.

The comment about unicorns was made only to illustrate the point that those who insist on the KJV as a divinely inspired "literal" text must acknowledge that that particular seventeenth century text makes use of the English term "unicorn".

In middle and modern English, the term does refer to the mythical beast, and if people called other, natural, horned animals by that name, they were misusing the word.

However, this is all a problem only to someone who insists that the KJV Bible be "literally" interpreted.

Although I am not personally religious, in contrast to many, I actually respect valid Biblical scholarship.

There are nine mentions of "reem" in the original Hebrew. It was translated into the Greek Septuagint as "monokeros", which could be any one-horned animal. In the Latin Vulgate it was translated, eight times, into "rhinoceros", and once into "unicorn". See http://www.kjv-only.com/unicorn.html for the details and some discussion.

Not all the classical commentators even thought "reem" was always meant as an animal. For example, according to Rashi, Numbers 23:22 "reem" is referring to God's loftiness. He also mentions the Talmudic interpretation that it refers to demons. See http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=45614&p=5&showrashi=true for a bilingual version.

As to identifying what the King James Version translators had in mind when they chose "unicorn", one thing to keep in mind was that King James was the Scottish king who became the English king and thereby United the Kingdoms. And the unicorn was the official symbol of Scotland and the Scottish monarchy. (As in, "the lion and the unicorn".)

Heddle -

I make a point of retracting my mistakes, to differentiate myself from creationists and others who won't.

Therefore I will concede that "Oh, wait..." at the end of my comment sardonically implies a suspicion that the comment applies to you.

Therefore I retract that part of the comment, and withdraw any such suspicion.

The overall point - that someone would be those things to deny science on the basis of the Bible, yet allow flexible interpretation of the Bible in other circumstances - is still valid.

william e emba said: As to identifying what the King James Version translators had in mind when they chose "unicorn", one thing to keep in mind was that King James was the Scottish king who became the English king and thereby United the Kingdoms. And the unicorn was the official symbol of Scotland and the Scottish monarchy. (As in, "the lion and the unicorn".)

If the Bible is what is really important to you why not just tell people what you think about the Bible in your own words and get rid of all this nonsense that's making you look like a cross-eyed, drooling fool in public!

"...The only relevant question is what does the Hebrew state–and it does not argue for the mythical creature. There is no description in the bible of a horse-like unicorn. There is only the words that the KJV writers translated as unicorn. By the way people generally don’t revise bibles..."

heddle said: Robin,

This is not an accurate response or argument, Heddle. The fact is, the translators of the KJV did know what a unicorn was from Greek literature.

Yes they (probably) did, but what did ancient Greek literature say about the unicorn? It is not a mythical creature from Greek mythology, but possibly an Indian Rhino Rhinoceros unicornis (OMG, there be unicorns in biology text books!)

You may quibble about the semantic intention of the Hebrews all you wish, but the fact remains that the ‘bible’, as it were, contains references to all sorts of different concepts depending on the version.

One man's quibbling is another man's going back to the original source. That is why you need to look at the Hebrew or the Greek, and not just make a trivial argument such as: The KJV translators used unicorn therefore there are unicorns, of the mythical variety, in the bible.

Gingerbaker said: Heddle said:

"...The only relevant question is what does the Hebrew state–and it does not argue for the mythical creature. There is no description in the bible of a horse-like unicorn. There is only the words that the KJV writers translated as unicorn. By the way people generally don’t revise bibles..."

Not just the KJV, but also the LXX which held sway for 600 years straight through the origins of Christianity! I think a strong argument could be made that the Bible, rather than being only seldomly revised, may well be the most highly revised popular, non reference work in history. I would also argue that whether a horse-like creature is described in the Hebrew is irrelevant, most animals are not described. And plenty that was written in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek testaments never made into the Bible as we know it. What is important, it seems to me, is what *did* make it into the Bible - the revisions and translations that were ordained, vetted, and approved by the Church itself. The same folks who avowed as the Word of God that a man dead for three days returned to life and rose to Heaven in plain sight of many dozens of witnesses while hundreds of zombies rose from their own graves and walked about for days. A set of events, which, if I am not mistaken, you hold to be true? It seems curious to me that you question their judgment about unicorns and but not the Resurrection.

John Kwok said: Don't argue with him Pharyngulite MrG. Heddle knows his scripture and has earned his battle stars, having done a good job in confronting Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Bill Dembski in the past (A feat which not even your hero, the great cephalopod lover, has accomplished.):

MrG said:

heddle said: Buy even beyond that, you must go back to the Hebrew. Does the Hebrew word translated by the KJ writers as unicorn ever mean a horse-like creature (or for that matter any mythical creature) with one horn?

OK, what's the Hebrew term and what does it mean? I was thinking in an analogy that if the translators had, actually, been working in Japanese instead of Hebrew and had run across the term "Kirin" -- a deerlike mythological animal common to Asian cultures and somewhat well-known as label of a beer -- they might have just shrugged in desperation and called it a "Unicorn". But the fact remains that scripture does indeed refer to unicorns. There is also the fact that people often take scripture with an extreme literalness. But you need not argue the matter with me, because I don't care one way or another, and if you try to argue it with me, I will tell you that again.

John Kwok said: Would you be so quick to condemn Francis Collins, Ken Miller or Guy Consolmagno (the Vatican Astronomer and a Jesuit Brother) Gingerbaker? I think this whole discussion is starting to swerve towards the ridiculous. If you are worried that heddle is a creationist, then fear not. I was reminded of this by Pandas Thumb founder Wesley Elsberry, who brought to my attention that heddle had engaged with William Dembski back in the mid 2000s, and had done so succesfully. That's a lot more than I can say about one "prominent" New Atheist scientist who blogs here:

Gingerbaker said: Heddle said:

"...The only relevant question is what does the Hebrew state–and it does not argue for the mythical creature. There is no description in the bible of a horse-like unicorn. There is only the words that the KJV writers translated as unicorn. By the way people generally don’t revise bibles..."

Not just the KJV, but also the LXX which held sway for 600 years straight through the origins of Christianity! I think a strong argument could be made that the Bible, rather than being only seldomly revised, may well be the most highly revised popular, non reference work in history. I would also argue that whether a horse-like creature is described in the Hebrew is irrelevant, most animals are not described. And plenty that was written in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek testaments never made into the Bible as we know it. What is important, it seems to me, is what *did* make it into the Bible - the revisions and translations that were ordained, vetted, and approved by the Church itself. The same folks who avowed as the Word of God that a man dead for three days returned to life and rose to Heaven in plain sight of many dozens of witnesses while hundreds of zombies rose from their own graves and walked about for days. A set of events, which, if I am not mistaken, you hold to be true? It seems curious to me that you question their judgment about unicorns and but not the Resurrection.

harold said: Heddle - My comment does not backfire. I did not presuppose your position at all. I merely noted that you would have to be a hypocrite, jackass, and fool to fail to accept the theory of evolution, if you simultaneously allowed any contextual interpretation of the Bible. My comment remains logically valid.

MosesZD said:

John Kwok said: Would you be so quick to condemn Francis Collins, Ken Miller or Guy Consolmagno (the Vatican Astronomer and a Jesuit Brother) Gingerbaker? I think this whole discussion is starting to swerve towards the ridiculous. If you are worried that heddle is a creationist, then fear not. I was reminded of this by Pandas Thumb founder Wesley Elsberry, who brought to my attention that heddle had engaged with William Dembski back in the mid 2000s, and had done so succesfully. That's a lot more than I can say about one "prominent" New Atheist scientist who blogs here:

Gingerbaker said: Heddle said:

"...The only relevant question is what does the Hebrew state–and it does not argue for the mythical creature. There is no description in the bible of a horse-like unicorn. There is only the words that the KJV writers translated as unicorn. By the way people generally don’t revise bibles..."

Not just the KJV, but also the LXX which held sway for 600 years straight through the origins of Christianity! I think a strong argument could be made that the Bible, rather than being only seldomly revised, may well be the most highly revised popular, non reference work in history. I would also argue that whether a horse-like creature is described in the Hebrew is irrelevant, most animals are not described. And plenty that was written in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek testaments never made into the Bible as we know it. What is important, it seems to me, is what *did* make it into the Bible - the revisions and translations that were ordained, vetted, and approved by the Church itself. The same folks who avowed as the Word of God that a man dead for three days returned to life and rose to Heaven in plain sight of many dozens of witnesses while hundreds of zombies rose from their own graves and walked about for days. A set of events, which, if I am not mistaken, you hold to be true? It seems curious to me that you question their judgment about unicorns and but not the Resurrection.

Concern troll is concerned. Gingerbaker is right. There are over 1,000 variants of "the Bible" that are so divergent that they're grouped into related families of divergent texts. This divergence doesn't include the 600 gospels they left out in the narrow vote that approved what we currently have as the gospels. It would be fair to say, Gingerbaker asserted, the Bible is one of the most changed/human-centric/meddled texts known to mankind. When I used to get in the old Usenet wars, I'd actually quote the divergent parts. I had seven different bibles, in many places do the not only they diverge, but the divergence between many of them was so great that they could not be interpreted to mean the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

MosesZD said:

John Kwok said: Don't argue with him Pharyngulite MrG. Heddle knows his scripture and has earned his battle stars, having done a good job in confronting Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Bill Dembski in the past (A feat which not even your hero, the great cephalopod lover, has accomplished.):

MrG said:

heddle said: Buy even beyond that, you must go back to the Hebrew. Does the Hebrew word translated by the KJ writers as unicorn ever mean a horse-like creature (or for that matter any mythical creature) with one horn?

OK, what's the Hebrew term and what does it mean? I was thinking in an analogy that if the translators had, actually, been working in Japanese instead of Hebrew and had run across the term "Kirin" -- a deerlike mythological animal common to Asian cultures and somewhat well-known as label of a beer -- they might have just shrugged in desperation and called it a "Unicorn". But the fact remains that scripture does indeed refer to unicorns. There is also the fact that people often take scripture with an extreme literalness. But you need not argue the matter with me, because I don't care one way or another, and if you try to argue it with me, I will tell you that again.

No he doesn't. He knows a very narrow, quite incorrect interpretation of the scriptures. He sure as hell doesn't know who changed them and why. He sure as hell can't accept anything about them that contradicts his monotheistic world-view. His mind is a closed book.

I believe 'young girl' in Hebrew, is translated into 'virgin' in English. I also believe this was (first?) done by the Oxford Dons who translated the King James Bible, for King James of course.:)

Robin said:

2. Because they were a menace

Oh I'm sure...rabbits and deer are bad enough these days. Imagine what a herd of apatosaurs would have done to a garden...

Here we go again!

MosesZD, are you yet another one of those New Atheist fanatical extremists who despises all religion no matter how harmless it is, simply because you disagree with it? Let's clarify that before this goes much further.

If you support the theory of evolution and proper science education, that's all that should matter here. Bashing anyone for merely adhering to a religion is bigotry. Sorry, New Atheists, but that's how I feel.

You can be a Christian, a Muslim, or any other religious type without being a bigot, a hypocrite, or a terrorist.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

John Kwok said: Don't argue with him Pharyngulite MrG. Heddle knows his scripture and has earned his battle stars, having done a good job in confronting Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Bill Dembski in the past (A feat which not even your hero, the great cephalopod lover, has accomplished.)

My experience over the years jousting with antievolutionists--from the ID gang (Johnson, Wells, Behe, Berlinksi & Dembski)to doctrinal creationists (Kent Hovind, or Mike Riddle of AiG just last March) the behavior of Larry and Kevin fall squarley along the deep end of the Tortucan bell curve. Their addiction to secondary citation (where it simply doesn't occur to them that an apologetic snippet from a work, even if textually accurate, isn't the same as reading teh original) is a pathology of people who have a knack for not thinking about things they don't want to think about. Thus disconnected from the grounding of careful primary source research, well, there's just no stopping them. Which is why, at least, you have to "stop them" insofar as society must never permit such people to get in charge of any notable levers of power (from school boards to government administration).

robert van bakel said: I believe 'young girl' in Hebrew, is translated into 'virgin' in English. I also believe this was (first?) done by the Oxford Dons who translated the King James Bible, for King James of course.:)

Dale Husband said: Here we go again! MosesZD, are you yet another one of those New Atheist fanatical extremists who despises all religion no matter how harmless it is, simply because you disagree with it? Let's clarify that before this goes much further. If you support the theory of evolution and proper science education, that's all that should matter here. Bashing anyone for merely adhering to a religion is bigotry. Sorry, New Atheists, but that's how I feel. You can be a Christian, a Muslim, or any other religious type without being a bigot, a hypocrite, or a terrorist.

FL said:

I thought I was familiar with the bible, but I don’t recall any references to dinosaurs.

Day 6, creation of land animals. Dinos included.

Thank you Mr Luckett, very fulsome. Perhaps I should have said, basing your life on the interpreted, misinterpreted, re-interpreted, over-interpreted, wrongly-interpreted writings of 2000 plus years ago, is a really stupid thing to do.:)

Gingerbaker said: Heddle said:

"...The only relevant question is what does the Hebrew state–and it does not argue for the mythical creature. There is no description in the bible of a horse-like unicorn. There is only the words that the KJV writers translated as unicorn. By the way people generally don’t revise bibles..."

Not just the KJV, but also the LXX which held sway for 600 years straight through the origins of Christianity! I think a strong argument could be made that the Bible, rather than being only seldomly revised, may well be the most highly revised popular, non reference work in history. I would also argue that whether a horse-like creature is described in the Hebrew is irrelevant, most animals are not described. And plenty that was written in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek testaments never made into the Bible as we know it. What is important, it seems to me, is what *did* make it into the Bible - the revisions and translations that were ordained, vetted, and approved by the Church itself. The same folks who avowed as the Word of God that a man dead for three days returned to life and rose to Heaven in plain sight of many dozens of witnesses while hundreds of zombies rose from their own graves and walked about for days. A set of events, which, if I am not mistaken, you hold to be true? It seems curious to me that you question their judgment about unicorns and but not the Resurrection.

A set of events, which, if I am not mistaken, you hold to be true? It seems curious to me that you question their judgment about unicorns and but not the Resurrection.

Malchus said: John, I understand you are about 48. I find your apparent attraction and emphasis on the "cuteness" of these teenagers singularly inappropriate for a science evolution discussion board. You might consider checking your libido at the door.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Juicyheart said:

Dale Husband said: Here we go again! MosesZD, are you yet another one of those New Atheist fanatical extremists who despises all religion no matter how harmless it is, simply because you disagree with it? Let's clarify that before this goes much further. If you support the theory of evolution and proper science education, that's all that should matter here. Bashing anyone for merely adhering to a religion is bigotry. Sorry, New Atheists, but that's how I feel. You can be a Christian, a Muslim, or any other religious type without being a bigot, a hypocrite, or a terrorist.

I don't see MosesZD's comments as attacking religious adherence, but attacking the use of religious text, the Bible in particular, as a reliable source of information. And if you accept evolutionary theory, you really have to agree. But if you don't accept the Bible as reliable, how do you come to any evidence for the god it proposes? If you aren't indoctrinated into the concept of god and are fluent in our current body of scientific knowledge, would you come up with the idea of god(s)? And no religious adherence is harmless when the adherents want to use it to regulate MY being, and/or expect me to recognize that adherence as being based on anything other than wishful thinking. Sorry, Dale, but that's how I feel. 

Juicyheart said: Still smarting, heh?  Can you sit sown yet?

John Kwok said: Don't argue with him Pharyngulite MrG. Heddle knows his scripture and has earned his battle stars, having done a good job in confronting Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Bill Dembski in the past (A feat which not even your hero, the great cephalopod lover, has accomplished.)

william e emba said: There are nine mentions of "reem" in the original Hebrew. It was translated into the Greek Septuagint as "monokeros", which could be any one-horned animal. In the Latin Vulgate it was translated, eight times, into "rhinoceros", and once into "unicorn". See http://www.kjv-only.com/unicorn.html for the details and some discussion. Not all the classical commentators even thought "reem" was always meant as an animal. For example, according to Rashi, Numbers 23:22 "reem" is referring to God's loftiness. He also mentions the Talmudic interpretation that it refers to demons. See http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=45614&p=5&showrashi=true for a bilingual version. As to identifying what the King James Version translators had in mind when they chose "unicorn", one thing to keep in mind was that King James was the Scottish king who became the English king and thereby United the Kingdoms. And the unicorn was the official symbol of Scotland and the Scottish monarchy. (As in, "the lion and the unicorn".)

Skip,

Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this:

Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn’t have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since:

1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they’re there, then they are real.

2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I’m not mistaken).

3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

I thought I was familiar with the bible, but I don’t recall any references to dinosaurs.

Day 6, creation of land animals. Dinos included.

Then why would God create entire groups of animals that would later become extinct? Centuries ago, even the idea of species becoming extinct was denied by theologians because that would imply that God was a failure as a Creator. So modern Creationists saying that dinosaurs became extinct is an example of a denialist rhetorical technique known as moving the goalposts. Only con artists dare to engage in such moves, usually by never telling people the whole truth about past Creationist beliefs, as I just did.

John Kwok:

"Skip,

Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this:

[some shit about Klingons]"

JK - you're the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle's rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn't talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle's support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons.

WTF?

"I assume you checked the Vulgate and it reads, in Latin, unicorn. And I assume that, if it does (I don’t know) that you know that Jerome meant the mythical creature. And I assume that you can substantiate that most people believed in unicorns until recently. And I assume that you understand that even if that is so it is irrelevant. I don’t believe the KJV translators meant the mythical creature–but they got the translation wrong regardless. If they meant the mythical creature–then they got it even more wrong (similarly for Jerome). The only relevant question is what does the Hebrew state–and it does not argue for the mythical creature. There is no description in the bible of a horse-like unicorn. There is only the words that the KJV writers translated as unicorn."

"Yes they (probably) did, but what did ancient Greek literature say about the unicorn? It is not a mythical creature from Greek mythology, but possibly an Indian Rhino Rhinoceros unicornis (OMG, there be unicorns in biology text books!) " .

Ctesias, Indica (summary from Photius, Myriobiblon 72) (trans. Freese) (Greek historian C4th B.C.) : "In India there are wild asses [the Monokerata or Unicorns] as large as horses, or even larger. Their body is white, their head dark red, their eyes bluish, and they have a horn in their forehead about a cubit in length. The lower part of the horn, for about two palms distance from the forehead, is quite white, the middle is black, the upper part, which terminates in a point, is a very flaming red. Those who drink out of cups made from it are proof against convulsions, epilepsy, and even poison, provided that before or after having taken it they drink some wine or water or other liquid out of these cups. The domestic and wild asses of other countries and all other solid-hoofed animals have neither huckle-bones nor gall-bladder, whereas the Indian asses have both. Their huckle-bone is the most beautiful that I have seen, like that of the ox in size and appearance; it is as heavy as lead and of the colour of cinnabar all through. These animals are very strong and swift; neither the horse nor any other animal can overtake them....

heddle said: Robin,

This is not an accurate response or argument, Heddle. The fact is, the translators of the KJV did know what a unicorn was from Greek literature.

Yes they (probably) did, but what did ancient Greek literature say about the unicorn? It is not a mythical creature from Greek mythology, but possibly an Indian Rhino Rhinoceros unicornis (OMG, there be unicorns in biology text books!)

You may quibble about the semantic intention of the Hebrews all you wish, but the fact remains that the ‘bible’, as it were, contains references to all sorts of different concepts depending on the version.

One man's quibbling is another man's going back to the original source. That is why you need to look at the Hebrew or the Greek, and not just make a trivial argument such as: The KJV translators used unicorn therefore there are unicorns, of the mythical variety, in the bible.

He [Matthew] wrote a polished, stylish Greek, but there is plain evidence that he didn’t speak Hebrew or Aramaic, and his quotations from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint.

John Kwok said: Agreed. I would recommend reading classicists who have written about them, and one whom I think has is the author and independent scholar Adrienne Mayor. Think it is pointless for so many to be arguing with you heddle if they have no familiarity with Greek mythology. Since unicorns were unknown in Greek mythology and since the New Testament was written by Jews who were probably Hellinistic in orientation, and thus, most likely, spoke either Greek or Aramaic (not Hebrew), then those criticizing you should think twice before doing so again:

Juicyheart said:

Robin said:

2. Because they were a menace

Oh I'm sure...rabbits and deer are bad enough these days. Imagine what a herd of apatosaurs would have done to a garden...

Hey!!! Rabbits, in fact have long sharp teeth and, in the day, could take down a score of knights no problem. I'm surprised they were never rampant on coats of arms. The little guys get no respect!

Gingerbaker said: John Kwok: "Skip, Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this: [some shit about Klingons]" JK - you're the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle's rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn't talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle's support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons. WTF?

And to think, all I was trying to do was insert a little levity into the discussion about people accepting "everything" in the Bible as fact, without consideration about the foolishness of much that is contained therein, on top of twisting certain words into new meanings to explain away scientific concepts they don't like. I never meant to paint ALL believers with the brush of ridicule. But the fact is, despite the differences between what is "scripture" and what is "Bible", unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the KJV, and here in America, the KJV still holds sway as the most commonly accepted version of the scriptures. As you should both FULLY understand, Heddle and John K., it is also the version most frequently put forth as THE authoritative, inerrant word of god by US fundamentalists and evangelicals. So any talk about misinterpretations is MOOT, because fundies deride any interpretation that isn't their precious KJV.

Please, no ad-hominem attacks on my scholarship in this matter. Like many curious one-time Christians who have become atheists, I have a more-than-passing interest in, and knowledge of, the history of the construction of the bible most frequently put forth as the word of god in the here-and-now. I was perhaps glib in wondering about Unicorn fossils, but that was just to tweak FL and his ilk. We could have a nice discussion of the 5 books (at least) in the NT that are known forgeries. This is the problem with basing any part of your life on the mess that is the bible.

Gladly, this thread has become very educational. I'm learning more cryptozoology, and more scripture history I hadn't explored before.

Robin said:

John Kwok said: Agreed. I would recommend reading classicists who have written about them, and one whom I think has is the author and independent scholar Adrienne Mayor. Think it is pointless for so many to be arguing with you heddle if they have no familiarity with Greek mythology. Since unicorns were unknown in Greek mythology and since the New Testament was written by Jews who were probably Hellinistic in orientation, and thus, most likely, spoke either Greek or Aramaic (not Hebrew), then those criticizing you should think twice before doing so again:

One of my fields of study *IS* Greek mythology, so I believe we can dispense with what you deem "pointless", eh? On top of that, my sister *IS* a biblical scholar with Navpress who has done the legwork on Koine Greek and Hebrew translations along with a bit of Aramaic. There is little doubt that the Hebrews had no concept of a unicorn in any such terms, but that isn't actually the point since the majority of fundamentalists - along with the average lay person - takes their concept of "scripture" from Greek translations. Quibbling about what the original authors meant is a rather moot point since few Christians from even the 4th century recognized such, nevermind what people recognize today. Hence, Mike's comment is legit. Heddle can insist all he wishes that the Hebrews didn't mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, but that *IS* what the Greeks meant and what the vast majority of Christians then and today understand. Are their churches and theists now that are more aware of the intent of the Hebrews (thanks to modern scholarly research)? Yep...you betcha. But that doesn't change the understanding of the term used that presented over several hundred centuries Christians had and still have today. There is very little, if any, validity in arguing what *was* intended when such is not what is understood now by the representative community nor historically by the majority audience.

Robin said: Quibbling about what the original authors meant is a rather moot point since few Christians from even the 4th century recognized such, nevermind what people recognize today. Hence, Mike's comment is legit. Heddle can insist all he wishes that the Hebrews didn't mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, but that *IS* what the Greeks meant and what the vast majority of Christians then and today understand.

Good Lord. The LXX Bible uses ‘monokeros’ the Greek word for unicorn. The Vulgate Bible uses ‘unicornis’. The KJV Bible uses ‘unicorn’. As far as I can tell, so did every Bible since before Christ until unicorns became recognized as mythological and apologists said “Uh-oh, Houston we have a problem”

Heddle’s rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn’t talk about unicorns

There is very little, if any, validity in arguing what *was* intended when such is not what is understood now by the representative community nor historically by the majority audience.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: And to think, all I was trying to do was insert a little levity into the discussion about people accepting "everything" in the Bible as fact, without consideration about the foolishness of much that is contained therein, on top of twisting certain words into new meanings to explain away scientific concepts they don't like. I never meant to paint ALL believers with the brush of ridicule. But the fact is, despite the differences between what is "scripture" and what is "Bible", unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the KJV, and here in America, the KJV still holds sway as the most commonly accepted version of the scriptures. As you should both FULLY understand, Heddle and John K., it is also the version most frequently put forth as THE authoritative, inerrant word of god by US fundamentalists and evangelicals. So any talk about misinterpretations is MOOT, because fundies deride any interpretation that isn't their precious KJV. Please, no ad-hominem attacks on my scholarship in this matter. Like many curious one-time Christians who have become atheists, I have a more-than-passing interest in, and knowledge of, the history of the construction of the bible most frequently put forth as the word of god in the here-and-now. I was perhaps glib in wondering about Unicorn fossils, but that was just to tweak FL and his ilk. We could have a nice discussion of the 5 books (at least) in the NT that are known forgeries. This is the problem with basing any part of your life on the mess that is the bible. Gladly, this thread has become very educational. I'm learning more cryptozoology, and more scripture history I hadn't explored before.

John, don't tell me how to feel. You are an utterly useless, name-dropping, self-important concern troll. Nobody here cares who you know, what you say, where you went to high school, or your pathetic axe-grinding against PZ. "Wahhh! Wahhhh! PZ hurt my poor widdle feewings!" Only when you speak of human evolution do you sound informed. Why don't YOU relax? Give us all a break and relax your fingers. I happen to ENJOY a snappy exchange and vigorous disagreement. Don't come in here and piss on my fun, you humorless git.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: And to think, all I was trying to do was insert a little levity into the discussion about people accepting "everything" in the Bible as fact, without consideration about the foolishness of much that is contained therein, on top of twisting certain words into new meanings to explain away scientific concepts they don't like.

but the fact is, despite the differences between what is “scripture” and what is “Bible”, unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the KJV, and here in America, the KJV still holds sway as the most commonly accepted version of the scriptures. As you should both FULLY understand, Heddle and John K., it is also the version most frequently put forth as THE authoritative, inerrant word of god by US fundamentalists and evangelicals. So any talk about misinterpretations is MOOT, because fundies deride any interpretation that isn’t their precious KJV.

John Kwok said: I think I'll ask Adrienne Mayor myself, since she's an expert on mythical creatures and a noted Classical Greek scholar in her own right (And yes, I do know her.):

Robin said: One of my fields of study *IS* Greek mythology, so I believe we can dispense with what you deem "pointless", eh? On top of that, my sister *IS* a biblical scholar with Navpress who has done the legwork on Koine Greek and Hebrew translations along with a bit of Aramaic. There is little doubt that the Hebrews had no concept of a unicorn in any such terms, but that isn't actually the point since the majority of fundamentalists - along with the average lay person - takes their concept of "scripture" from Greek translations. Quibbling about what the original authors meant is a rather moot point since few Christians from even the 4th century recognized such, nevermind what people recognize today. Hence, Mike's comment is legit. Heddle can insist all he wishes that the Hebrews didn't mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, but that *IS* what the Greeks meant and what the vast majority of Christians then and today understand. Are their churches and theists now that are more aware of the intent of the Hebrews (thanks to modern scholarly research)? Yep...you betcha. But that doesn't change the understanding of the term used that presented over several hundred centuries Christians had and still have today. There is very little, if any, validity in arguing what *was* intended when such is not what is understood now by the representative community nor historically by the majority audience.

heddle said: It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word "unicorn" does not appear in the Hebrew.

Heddle, for the record, I would never call YOU a fundy. You believe in evolution and deep time. You fall into that wide majority of theistic non-literalists who accept science. We disagree vigorously, but we are managing to respectfully disagree. There are, of course, those for whom I have no respect...

JT said:

heddle said: It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word "unicorn" does not appear in the Hebrew.

OK, I'm going to stop you right there. The word unicorn does appear in the KJV bible. The KJV bible is the version put forth as inerrant by the creationist hoards. Therefore the creationist hoards must believe in unicorns to maintain that position. What the Hebrews wrote or meant is irrelevant to those people. Therefore irrelevant to this discussion. I can accept that the Hebrews did not mean the actual mythical beast. That, however, does not matter in any way shape or form when the topic of the discussion is those bible bashing Paul worshipers.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, don't tell me how to feel. You are an utterly useless, name-dropping, self-important concern troll. Nobody here cares who you know, what you say, where you went to high school, or your pathetic axe-grinding against PZ. "Wahhh! Wahhhh! PZ hurt my poor widdle feewings!" Only when you speak of human evolution do you sound informed. Why don't YOU relax? Give us all a break and relax your fingers. I happen to ENJOY a snappy exchange and vigorous disagreement. Don't come in here and piss on my fun, you humorless git.

Gingerbaker said: WTF?

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Heddle, for the record, I would never call YOU a fundy. You believe in evolution and deep time. You fall into that wide majority of theistic non-literalists who accept science. We disagree vigorously, but we are managing to respectfully disagree. There are, of course, those for whom I have no respect...

Robin said:

John Kwok said: I think I'll ask Adrienne Mayor myself, since she's an expert on mythical creatures and a noted Classical Greek scholar in her own right (And yes, I do know her.):

Robin said: One of my fields of study *IS* Greek mythology, so I believe we can dispense with what you deem "pointless", eh? On top of that, my sister *IS* a biblical scholar with Navpress who has done the legwork on Koine Greek and Hebrew translations along with a bit of Aramaic. There is little doubt that the Hebrews had no concept of a unicorn in any such terms, but that isn't actually the point since the majority of fundamentalists - along with the average lay person - takes their concept of "scripture" from Greek translations. Quibbling about what the original authors meant is a rather moot point since few Christians from even the 4th century recognized such, nevermind what people recognize today. Hence, Mike's comment is legit. Heddle can insist all he wishes that the Hebrews didn't mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, but that *IS* what the Greeks meant and what the vast majority of Christians then and today understand. Are their churches and theists now that are more aware of the intent of the Hebrews (thanks to modern scholarly research)? Yep...you betcha. But that doesn't change the understanding of the term used that presented over several hundred centuries Christians had and still have today. There is very little, if any, validity in arguing what *was* intended when such is not what is understood now by the representative community nor historically by the majority audience.

You do that John. Perhaps you'll discover that Ms. Mayor actually notes the same thing I do with respect to where the concept of the unicorn came from and what people understood it to be culturally.

robert van bakel said: I believe 'young girl' in Hebrew, is translated into 'virgin' in English. I also believe this was (first?) done by the Oxford Dons who translated the King James Bible, for King James of course.:)

It does matter, even though you used boldface. To argue that in questions of "what does the bible say?" that is does not matter what the oldest manuscripts in the original languages read is---utter nonsense.

heddle said: Mike in Ontario, NY,

but the fact is, despite the differences between what is “scripture” and what is “Bible”, unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the KJV, and here in America, the KJV still holds sway as the most commonly accepted version of the scriptures. As you should both FULLY understand, Heddle and John K., it is also the version most frequently put forth as THE authoritative, inerrant word of god by US fundamentalists and evangelicals. So any talk about misinterpretations is MOOT, because fundies deride any interpretation that isn’t their precious KJV.

No it doesn't. It is not the most popular translation sold (I believe that honor goes to the NIV) and the KJV would be even farther down the list if you subtract off purchases by the Gideons. The New King James is also more popular, and it does not contain the word "unicorn". As for fundies "deriding any interpretation that isn’t their precious KJV", that of course depends on the definition of fundy. I have been called a fundy many times on PT--but since I don't like the KJV I guess I get a temporary reprieve.

Decades from now, when the Evangelical Church has come to terms with the reality of evolution, we hope she will look back at those who were the pioneers on its journey toward a fuller understanding of the manner by which God has created. I could list other pioneers, a number of whom are good friends and colleagues. Right there alongside them will be Dr. Bruce Waltke who, in the latter phase of an extremely distinguished career, had the courage to tell the Church what it needed to hear. The fact that he did so with a remarkably gentle spirit of love will be a reminder to all that the real battles are won when we simply live the reality of the Gospel. To do this—in the face of adversity—is the ultimate in courage.

heddle said: Gingerbaker

Heddle’s rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn’t talk about unicorns

It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word "unicorn" does not appear in the Hebrew. Even if we grant your contention (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) that the translators meant the mythical creature--it only goes to my point that translations are subject to human error. You always, always have to return to the Hebrew for the OT and the Greek for the NT. And nowhere in the Hebrew OT is the word "unicorn" used, and nowhere is the beast described. Even the oldest extant manuscripts will contain errors. But in lieu of original autographs they are the best we have--and are considered by anyone rational, that is anyone not wanting to make a cheap point, to have precedence over translations, especially pre-scientific era translations of translations into a new language, such as was the KJV.

If only the Hebrew was available, with Hebrew scholarship being what it is today, we would not even be having this discussion. Nobody would argue that the OT spoke of mystical unicorns. It is only because you can use a translation of convenience that you can make such a claim.

Robin,

There is very little, if any, validity in arguing what *was* intended when such is not what is understood now by the representative community nor historically by the majority audience.

Simply not true. It is common in sermons for the pastor to say, for example: what was the Greek word translated as 'faith'? What did it mean? And what tense was used--was it a tense that does not even exist in English? If so, how do we understand it?

If you want some examples you listen to the sermons from my church. I'd say at least 75% of them will make a reference as I described--what does the Hebrew or Greek say?

John Kwok said: Your only really lucid observation IMHO, especially since you were among those going after heddle as though he was a real fundy supportive of creationism. Maybe since you realize that heddle is a supporter of evolution, could you kindly remind others of that too:

John Kwok said: You are a delusional liar. I jumped in when I saw others were trying to insinuate that heddle is a creationist. He isn't and, moreover, he has dealt with Dembski in a most admirable manner, which is more than I can say for the New Atheist apostle from Morris, MN. If you doubt my words, then ask one of the founders of Panda's Thumb, former NCSE staffer Wesley Elsberry:

Gingerbaker said: John Kwok: "Skip, Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this: [some shit about Klingons]" JK - you're the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle's rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn't talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle's support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons. WTF?

heddle said: To argue that in questions of "what does the bible say?" that [it] does not matter what the oldest manuscripts in the original languages read is---utter nonsense.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said: It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word "unicorn" does not appear in the Hebrew.

OK, I'm going to stop you right there. The word unicorn does appear in the KJV bible. The KJV bible is the version put forth as inerrant by the creationist hoards. Therefore the creationist hoards must believe in unicorns to maintain that position. What the Hebrews wrote or meant is irrelevant to those people. Therefore irrelevant to this discussion. I can accept that the Hebrews did not mean the actual mythical beast. That, however, does not matter in any way shape or form when the topic of the discussion is those bible bashing Paul worshipers.

It does matter, even though you used boldface. To argue that in questions of "what does the bible say?" that is does not matter what the oldest manuscripts in the original languages read is---utter nonsense.

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

SLC said:

John Kwok said: You are a delusional liar. I jumped in when I saw others were trying to insinuate that heddle is a creationist. He isn't and, moreover, he has dealt with Dembski in a most admirable manner, which is more than I can say for the New Atheist apostle from Morris, MN. If you doubt my words, then ask one of the founders of Panda's Thumb, former NCSE staffer Wesley Elsberry:

Gingerbaker said: John Kwok: "Skip, Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this: [some shit about Klingons]" JK - you're the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle's rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn't talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle's support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons. WTF?

Interestingly enough, Prof. Heddle admitted to me several years ago that he was at one time a denier of common descent but changed his mind when he learned of such evidence as the merger of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 to form human chromosome 2. My PhD thesis adviser in elementary particle physics was also a denier of common descent although that was long before the technology such as was used in the human genome project existed.

SLC said:

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Did Mr. Kwok find those teenage girls to be "hot"?

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, if I want any more lip out of you, I'll rattle my zipper.

To argue that such wasn’t the intention of the original writers and thus insist that in some philosophically illusionary reality that the bible, by association, doesn’t actually contain the word is ludicrous.

JT said:

heddle said: It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word "unicorn" does not appear in the Hebrew.

OK, I'm going to stop you right there. The word unicorn does appear in the KJV bible. The KJV bible is the version put forth as inerrant by the creationist hoards. Therefore the creationist hoards must believe in unicorns to maintain that position. What the Hebrews wrote or meant is irrelevant to those people. Therefore irrelevant to this discussion. I can accept that the Hebrews did not mean the actual mythical beast. That, however, does not matter in any way shape or form when the topic of the discussion is those bible bashing Paul worshipers.

heddle said: So if someone translated the Iliad, and added Bill Buckner as a character--it would be ludicrous to argue that in fact the Iliad makes no reference to Bill Buckner?

John Kwok said: That's exactly how I feel about you. Substitute your name for mine:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, if I want any more lip out of you, I'll rattle my zipper.

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

heddle said: Gingerbaker,

To argue that such wasn’t the intention of the original writers and thus insist that in some philosophically illusionary reality that the bible, by association, doesn’t actually contain the word is ludicrous.

So if someone translated the Iliad, and added Bill Buckner as a character--it would be ludicrous to argue that in fact the Iliad makes no reference to Bill Buckner?

Science Avenger said:

heddle said: So if someone translated the Iliad, and added Bill Buckner as a character--it would be ludicrous to argue that in fact the Iliad makes no reference to Bill Buckner?

If such occurred in a discussion with people who had only read the Bill Buckner version, and who claimed that was the basis for their views, yes, it would be ludicrous. It's analogous to having a discussion with someone who had only seen the movie version of Lord of the Rings (a mistranslation of the original if ever there was one), based their views on same, and wondered about the significance of Arwen rescuing Frodo from the black riders. It would be ludicrous to argue that in the original it was Glorfindel who rescued Frodo, because the original is a different work than the mistranslation, and isn't what they worship.

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Geez, it's been so long since I posted anything to PT I forgot how this crowd can go off: teenage girls and if calling them cute makes you a lustful dirty ol' man (count me in); unicorns and various biblical translations; and who knows what else.

You guys are all just so endearing. With folks like you who needs pain in the ass relatives on Facebook?

But I've missed all the rancor, so on to my next piece, "Casey Luskin: Day Time Blood Sucking Vampire of the Discovery Institute!" (I've uncovered a few of his darker secrets.)

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Awww, now you've gone and hurted my feewings. Guess you sure showed me. And in a really, super-duper original way, too. Do I need to remind you that the grownups are talking John?

John Kwok said: That's exactly how I feel about you. Substitute your name for mine:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, if I want any more lip out of you, I'll rattle my zipper.

Skip said: Geez, it's been so long since I posted anything to PT I forgot how this crowd can go off: teenage girls and if calling them cute makes you a lustful dirty ol' man (count me in); unicorns and various biblical translations; and who knows what else. You guys are all just so endearing. With folks like you who needs pain in the ass relatives on Facebook? But I've missed all the rancor, so on to my next piece, "Casey Luskin: Day Time Blood Sucking Vampire of the Discovery Institute!" (I've uncovered a few of his darker secrets.)

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

Skip said: But I've missed all the rancor, so on to my next piece, "Casey Luskin: Day Time Blood Sucking Vampire of the Discovery Institute!" (I've uncovered a few of his darker secrets.)

Stanton said:

Skip said: But I've missed all the rancor, so on to my next piece, "Casey Luskin: Day Time Blood Sucking Vampire of the Discovery Institute!" (I've uncovered a few of his darker secrets.)

That, sir, is possibly the most odious libel I've heard all month. Dracula ought to pound a steak through your heart for insinuating that Mr Luskin is a member of his species.

Skip said: But I've missed all the rancor, so on to my next piece, "Casey Luskin: Day Time Blood Sucking Vampire of the Discovery Institute!" (I've uncovered a few of his darker secrets.)

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Just to add: At no point did I say "all" creationists. There are exceptions in every group.

heddle said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

That is not true. The Southern Baptist Convention prohibits (is that the right word?) certain translations it finds too liberal, such as "Today's New NIV" but it does not demand that its members use the KJV. In fact, when condemning the New NIV, they praise the original NIV. Furthermore their seminary in Louisville does not demand the use of the KJV. Their may be churches that belong to the SBC that are KJV-Only--but this is in spite of the SBC, not because of it.

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Dale, in my considerable, albeit anecdotal, experience engaging face-to-face with fundies, they are hooked on the older KJV and refuse to accept (and even openly mock!) any other translation. It really has no bearing on which text, if any, are endorsed by any particular church. Besides, many evangelical churches are non-affiliated, so elucidating the endorsement of any one text over another is sort of a red herring. But, hey, the KJV is the text that is used by the Westboro Babtist church. It also appears to be the version most quoted by AIG.

Science Avenger said:

heddle said: So if someone translated the Iliad, and added Bill Buckner as a character--it would be ludicrous to argue that in fact the Iliad makes no reference to Bill Buckner?

If such occurred in a discussion with people who had only read the Bill Buckner version, and who claimed that was the basis for their views, yes, it would be ludicrous. It's analogous to having a discussion with someone who had only seen the movie version of Lord of the Rings (a mistranslation of the original if ever there was one), based their views on same, and wondered about the significance of Arwen rescuing Frodo from the black riders. It would be ludicrous to argue that in the original it was Glorfindel who rescued Frodo, because the original is a different work than the mistranslation, and isn't what they worship.

JT said: You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Dale Husband said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Just to add: At no point did I say "all" creationists. There are exceptions in every group.

Then why did you dismiss Heddle's explanation of how the word "unicorn" didn't exist in the original Hebrew and continue ranting about what today's Creationists supposedly believe, even without proving it at all? That's not just stupid, that's downright malicious. You owe heddle an apology, dumbass. As for the Southern Baptists, I was also one as a teenager and I never heard a Baptist leader claim the King James Version was the only good translation. Maybe you were talking to some that were more idiotic than usual. If you are going to attack Creationists, stick to what you really know, not this unfounded crap about the King James Version. That's so last century!

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

That is not true. The Southern Baptist Convention prohibits (is that the right word?) certain translations it finds too liberal, such as "Today's New NIV" but it does not demand that its members use the KJV. In fact, when condemning the New NIV, they praise the original NIV. Furthermore their seminary in Louisville does not demand the use of the KJV. Their may be churches that belong to the SBC that are KJV-Only--but this is in spite of the SBC, not because of it.

You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

That is not true. The Southern Baptist Convention prohibits (is that the right word?) certain translations it finds too liberal, such as "Today's New NIV" but it does not demand that its members use the KJV. In fact, when condemning the New NIV, they praise the original NIV. Furthermore their seminary in Louisville does not demand the use of the KJV. Their may be churches that belong to the SBC that are KJV-Only--but this is in spite of the SBC, not because of it.

You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Really? Someone asked for a denomination that demanded the KJV, and you said the Southern Baptists. I pointed out they in fact do not. And their seminary does not. Not sure why that is splitting hairs. And if we are arguing anecdotally I know of many churches in the SBC that are not KJV-Only. In fact the SBC is far from monolithic on anything. They have conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians.

Dale Husband said:

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Dale, in my considerable, albeit anecdotal, experience engaging face-to-face with fundies, they are hooked on the older KJV and refuse to accept (and even openly mock!) any other translation. It really has no bearing on which text, if any, are endorsed by any particular church. Besides, many evangelical churches are non-affiliated, so elucidating the endorsement of any one text over another is sort of a red herring. But, hey, the KJV is the text that is used by the Westboro Babtist church. It also appears to be the version most quoted by AIG.

Can you show a direct quote from the AIG site that only the KJV is acceptable?

heddle said:

JT said: You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Really? Someone asked for a denomination that demanded the KJV, and you said the Southern Baptists. I pointed out they in fact do not. And their seminary does not. Not sure why that is splitting hairs. And if we are arguing anecdotally I know of many churches in the SBC that are not KJV-Only. In fact the SBC is far from monolithic on anything. They have conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians.

JT said:

heddle said: It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word "unicorn" does not appear in the Hebrew.

OK, I'm going to stop you right there. The word unicorn does appear in the KJV bible. The KJV bible is the version put forth as inerrant by the creationist hoards. Therefore the creationist hoards must believe in unicorns to maintain that position. What the Hebrews wrote or meant is irrelevant to those people. Therefore irrelevant to this discussion. I can accept that the Hebrews did not mean the actual mythical beast. That, however, does not matter in any way shape or form when the topic of the discussion is those bible bashing Paul worshipers.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

That is not true. The Southern Baptist Convention prohibits (is that the right word?) certain translations it finds too liberal, such as "Today's New NIV" but it does not demand that its members use the KJV. In fact, when condemning the New NIV, they praise the original NIV. Furthermore their seminary in Louisville does not demand the use of the KJV. Their may be churches that belong to the SBC that are KJV-Only--but this is in spite of the SBC, not because of it.

You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Really? Someone asked for a denomination that demanded the KJV, and you said the Southern Baptists. I pointed out they in fact do not. And their seminary does not. Not sure why that is splitting hairs. And if we are arguing anecdotally I know of many churches in the SBC that are not KJV-Only. In fact the SBC is far from monolithic on anything. They have conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians.

I'm begining to think you're being deliberately obtuse. No, the Southern Baptists are not monolithic. But some of them are exactly the way I described. Those people vote, head school boards, hate, and drive "undesirables" out of their neighborhoods. High minded debates of various religious esoterica matters not one whit to the vast majority of them.

Dale Husband said:

heddle said:

JT said: You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Really? Someone asked for a denomination that demanded the KJV, and you said the Southern Baptists. I pointed out they in fact do not. And their seminary does not. Not sure why that is splitting hairs. And if we are arguing anecdotally I know of many churches in the SBC that are not KJV-Only. In fact the SBC is far from monolithic on anything. They have conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians.

heddle is correct. The SBC, like most Baptist denominations, does not have a binding creed. Individual Southern Baptists who may still read only the KJV do so by their own choice, not because their leaders tell them too. One of the Bibles I would read as a Baptist was the Living Bible, which was a highly simplistic paraphrase. And I would take it to church every Sunday and no one ever challenged me about it.

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

That is not true. The Southern Baptist Convention prohibits (is that the right word?) certain translations it finds too liberal, such as "Today's New NIV" but it does not demand that its members use the KJV. In fact, when condemning the New NIV, they praise the original NIV. Furthermore their seminary in Louisville does not demand the use of the KJV. Their may be churches that belong to the SBC that are KJV-Only--but this is in spite of the SBC, not because of it.

You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Really? Someone asked for a denomination that demanded the KJV, and you said the Southern Baptists. I pointed out they in fact do not. And their seminary does not. Not sure why that is splitting hairs. And if we are arguing anecdotally I know of many churches in the SBC that are not KJV-Only. In fact the SBC is far from monolithic on anything. They have conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians.

I'm begining to think you're being deliberately obtuse. No, the Southern Baptists are not monolithic. But some of them are exactly the way I described. Those people vote, head school boards, hate, and drive "undesirables" out of their neighborhoods. High minded debates of various religious esoterica matters not one whit to the vast majority of them.

Well then next time say, from the start, that some of them are (whatever), and I won't argue with you.

James Downard said: My experience over the years jousting with antievolutionists--from the ID gang (Johnson, Wells, Behe, Berlinksi & Dembski)to doctrinal creationists (Kent Hovind, or Mike Riddle of AiG just last March) the behavior of Larry and Kevin fall squarley along the deep end of the Tortucan bell curve. Their addiction to secondary citation (where it simply doesn't occur to them that an apologetic snippet from a work, even if textually accurate, isn't the same as reading teh original) is a pathology of people who have a knack for not thinking about things they don't want to think about. Thus disconnected from the grounding of careful primary source research, well, there's just no stopping them. Which is why, at least, you have to "stop them" insofar as society must never permit such people to get in charge of any notable levers of power (from school boards to government administration).

Dave Luckett said:

robert van bakel said: I believe 'young girl' in Hebrew, is translated into 'virgin' in English. I also believe this was (first?) done by the Oxford Dons who translated the King James Bible, for King James of course.:)

Not exactly. The original Hebrew is "almah", the best English translation of which is "young unmarried woman", with no specific connotation of virginity. "Maiden" conveys something of the same feeling, but no one-word translation has exactly the same meaning. Most of the Old Testament - including the crucial passage Isaiah 7:14 - was translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second century BCE, for the use of Jews living in the Greek world who no longer spoke Hebrew. This translation was called the "Septuagint", from the Greek for "seventy", the number of scholars said to have been the translators. It translated "almah" as the Greek "parthenos", which actually means "virgin", specifying physical virginity. It can be argued that Isaiah was not prophesying a miracle or a virgin birth. After all, it requires no miracle for a young unmarried woman to fall pregnant, and the Prophet was well aware of that fact. Later, however, Matthew clearly wrote his Gospel with the specific intention of justifying in Jesus as many Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah as possible. He wrote a polished, stylish Greek, but there is plain evidence that he didn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic, and his quotations from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint. He quotes that passage from Isaiah (in that translation) and specifies that a physical virginity was meant. When the Bible came to be translated into English, the various translators correctly translated Matthew's Greek "parthenos" as "virgin", but it remains very much an open question whether "physical virgin" was what the original Hebrew meant. Most commentaries I have seen point out that the word "almah" does not carry that implication; others argue that Isaiah's prophecy would sound excessively laboured if he were only speaking of a non-miraculous birth. To my mind, the former interpretation is just, and the latter hangs too much on trying to read the prophet's mind. The fact that this explains the insistance of the Evangelists on a virgin birth is a bonus.

heddle, I've been re-reading your posts and I think I see a source of confusion on both our parts. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you see a church as defined by its leadership and official positions, whereas I see a church as defined by the thoughts and actions of its rank and file.

Yes, there are Christians and even individual churches, if not whole denominations, that insist on the KJV. I've met them, and dealt with their kids in class. Where I live, there is a radio station KJAV (King James Authorized Version) that was originally dedicated to maintaining that the KJV is the ONLY acceptable Bible, along with other silliness. (It's since been sold and now plays "devil music".)

For heddle or anyone else: You seem to be arguing that the KJV is not the real Bible, since it clearly contains errors in translation, and is therefore not inerrant. My question then, is if I wanted to own and "believe in" the Bible, where would I find one? What is it called?

It seems to me that if there is not one volume that is completely accurate in all its translation, then there is no "Bible." If the Bible is supposed to be the "word of God," but there is no single one that can be counted on to report that word accurately, then a true Bible doesn't exist.

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

heddle said:

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: Of course it matters, heddle, in a general sense. However, it does not matter to the creationists. The creationists are the topic of this discussion. Therefore, it does not matter to the topic of this discussion. I don't know how I can spell that out any more clearly.

Your statement is a falsehood, assuming that all Creationists are hung up on the King James Version. That's not true anymore, since newer versions of the Bible have been gaining popularity for decades. Name one Christian denomination that claims the King James Version is the only acceptable translation of the Bible and all others are false. Just one.

Southern Baptists. They don't always "admit" it. Just like they don't admit that slavery was the basis of their formation, but it's still the case in fact. I know this because that was the sect I belonged to.

That is not true. The Southern Baptist Convention prohibits (is that the right word?) certain translations it finds too liberal, such as "Today's New NIV" but it does not demand that its members use the KJV. In fact, when condemning the New NIV, they praise the original NIV. Furthermore their seminary in Louisville does not demand the use of the KJV. Their may be churches that belong to the SBC that are KJV-Only--but this is in spite of the SBC, not because of it.

You're splitting hairs heddle. I'm talking beliefs in fact, I.E. what the average believer will tell you in confidence. The "official" position of the church and the actual position of the vast majority of its members have little resemblance to each other. And arguing on the basis of the one that, quite frankly, doesn't matter in the least to defend the one with actual real world implications is downright silly.

Really? Someone asked for a denomination that demanded the KJV, and you said the Southern Baptists. I pointed out they in fact do not. And their seminary does not. Not sure why that is splitting hairs. And if we are arguing anecdotally I know of many churches in the SBC that are not KJV-Only. In fact the SBC is far from monolithic on anything. They have conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians.

I'm begining to think you're being deliberately obtuse. No, the Southern Baptists are not monolithic. But some of them are exactly the way I described. Those people vote, head school boards, hate, and drive "undesirables" out of their neighborhoods. High minded debates of various religious esoterica matters not one whit to the vast majority of them.

Well then next time say, from the start, that some of them are (whatever), and I won't argue with you.

heddle, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. For future reference. Group X is Y may imply that every single member of X is Y in strictly logical terms, but in standard, everyday English that is not the implication.

What about "groupie"? Does that term appear in any of the popular translations? I seem to remember something like

And, lo, upon descending from the mount Jesus did encounter a young "groupie" who sayeth unto him, "Wow, you really jam, Jesus. Let us journey to your tent since hotel rooms have not yet been invented, and know of each other covered in wax." And Jesus said, "Yeah, bitch, let us do that, with haste. For morrow I play Toronto, and my drummer hath drunk too much wine."

...something like that.

Does an approximation the the Word of God count as "good enough"?

Robin said:

John Kwok said: I think I'll ask Adrienne Mayor myself, since she's an expert on mythical creatures and a noted Classical Greek scholar in her own right (And yes, I do know her.):

Robin said: One of my fields of study *IS* Greek mythology, so I believe we can dispense with what you deem "pointless", eh? On top of that, my sister *IS* a biblical scholar with Navpress who has done the legwork on Koine Greek and Hebrew translations along with a bit of Aramaic. There is little doubt that the Hebrews had no concept of a unicorn in any such terms, but that isn't actually the point since the majority of fundamentalists - along with the average lay person - takes their concept of "scripture" from Greek translations. Quibbling about what the original authors meant is a rather moot point since few Christians from even the 4th century recognized such, nevermind what people recognize today. Hence, Mike's comment is legit. Heddle can insist all he wishes that the Hebrews didn't mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, but that *IS* what the Greeks meant and what the vast majority of Christians then and today understand. Are their churches and theists now that are more aware of the intent of the Hebrews (thanks to modern scholarly research)? Yep...you betcha. But that doesn't change the understanding of the term used that presented over several hundred centuries Christians had and still have today. There is very little, if any, validity in arguing what *was* intended when such is not what is understood now by the representative community nor historically by the majority audience.

You do that John. Perhaps you'll discover that Ms. Mayor actually notes the same thing I do with respect to where the concept of the unicorn came from and what people understood it to be culturally.

Just Bob said: Yes, there are Christians and even individual churches, if not whole denominations, that insist on the KJV. I've met them, and dealt with their kids in class. Where I live, there is a radio station KJAV (King James Authorized Version) that was originally dedicated to maintaining that the KJV is the ONLY acceptable Bible, along with other silliness. (It's since been sold and now plays "devil music".) For heddle or anyone else: You seem to be arguing that the KJV is not the real Bible, since it clearly contains errors in translation, and is therefore not inerrant. My question then, is if I wanted to own and "believe in" the Bible, where would I find one? What is it called? It seems to me that if there is not one volume that is completely accurate in all its translation, then there is no "Bible." If the Bible is supposed to be the "word of God," but there is no single one that can be counted on to report that word accurately, then a true Bible doesn't exist.

John Kwok said: You're utterly dense. I didn't say I had any sexual fantasies about them, moron. Funny you picked up on that missed my important points with regards to why I believe Klingon Cosmology has far more validity than does creationism:

Malchus said: John, I understand you are about 48. I find your apparent attraction and emphasis on the "cuteness" of these teenagers singularly inappropriate for a science evolution discussion board. You might consider checking your libido at the door.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Kevin B said:

Science Avenger said:

heddle said: So if someone translated the Iliad, and added Bill Buckner as a character--it would be ludicrous to argue that in fact the Iliad makes no reference to Bill Buckner?

If such occurred in a discussion with people who had only read the Bill Buckner version, and who claimed that was the basis for their views, yes, it would be ludicrous. It's analogous to having a discussion with someone who had only seen the movie version of Lord of the Rings (a mistranslation of the original if ever there was one), based their views on same, and wondered about the significance of Arwen rescuing Frodo from the black riders. It would be ludicrous to argue that in the original it was Glorfindel who rescued Frodo, because the original is a different work than the mistranslation, and isn't what they worship.

Mind you, Tolkien repeated rewrote the early chapters of the Lord of the Rings. In the early drafts, the character "Strider" (ie Aragorn, Isildur's Heir) was "Trotter", a Hobbit! What might be more pertinent to note is the image (referred to earlier) of the knight slaying the dinosaur and reporting back to the Round Table, since the "knights in armour" idea of the Arthurian legend was fostered in the 19th century by Tennyson and the Pre-Raphaelites, based on Malory in the 15th century, in turn based on the highly-dubious writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th. If Arthur ever existed, he was some sort of Celtic chieftain in the Dark Ages, before Mediaeval armour was invented. Further, we know that (like the Bill Buckner suggestion) the Round Table is an addition to the corpus, in this case some time between Geoffrey and Malory.

John Kwok said: I just heard back from her and she said that unicorns were unknown to the ancient Greeks, However, she does note that Herodotus did describe a one-horned creature from Africa, and presumably, was hearsay about the rhinoceros.

As for the Hebrews and the Old Testament, she does note this: "The mystery creature in the old testament called re'em is controversial. Some say it means one-horned animal. If so, then it probably referred to the rhinoceros."

John Kwok said: You're utterly dense. I didn't say I had any sexual fantasies about them, moron. Funny you picked up on that missed my important points with regards to why I believe Klingon Cosmology has far more validity than does creationism:

Malchus said: John, I understand you are about 48. I find your apparent attraction and emphasis on the "cuteness" of these teenagers singularly inappropriate for a science evolution discussion board. You might consider checking your libido at the door.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Malchus said: Why does your point about Creationism vs. Klingon cosmology matter? I wasn't commenting on that; I was merely pointing out that your continued emphasis on underaged women was inappropriate for this kind of forum.

John Kwok said: You're utterly dense. I didn't say I had any sexual fantasies about them, moron. Funny you picked up on that missed my important points with regards to why I believe Klingon Cosmology has far more validity than does creationism:

Malchus said: John, I understand you are about 48. I find your apparent attraction and emphasis on the "cuteness" of these teenagers singularly inappropriate for a science evolution discussion board. You might consider checking your libido at the door.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

Ntrsvic said: For the record, I only except the "Excalibur" version of the story of Arthur. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/

The fact is, the bible DOES reference unicorns, and most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, and not a rhino or any other creature.

Since there is clearly no "THE Bible", I guess there can't really be said to be "THE word of God", and it all turns out to be a grossly and tragically misunderstood collection of myths, stories, and a highly creative fictional history of a warring culture on a genocidal rampage, with some unicorn sightings that may or may not have actually been rhinos. Or maybe narwals. I love narwals.

Rich Blinne [Quoting the Chicago statement] said: ...only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission...

...no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

Just Bob wrote:If the Bible is supposed to be the “word of God,” but there is no single one that can be counted on to report that word accurately, then a true Bible doesn’t exist.

heddle said: Sorry, you don't win the common use argument. The sentence "Southern Baptists demand the KJV" would mean to any reasonable person that it is a doctrinal position or, at the very least, an large majority of churches in the SBC are KJV-Only. Neither is the case. I'm not nit-picking. If you really meant that only some are, you used the wrong construct. Not just logically, but also in terms of every-day language.

Moreover, any type of Christianity which requires one to go hunting through ancient greek and hebrew versions to figure out the path to salvation is dangerously close to becoming gnosticism.

heddle said: Robin,

The fact is, the bible DOES reference unicorns, and most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, and not a rhino or any other creature.

No it does not, for reasons given.

And do you have a citation substantiating your claim that "most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn"? (not that is is particularly relevant--"most folks" can be wrong--I'm just curious if you have a citation.) John Calvin, for example, writing before the KJV, did not. (See Davis A. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World).

JT said:

heddle said: Sorry, you don't win the common use argument. The sentence "Southern Baptists demand the KJV" would mean to any reasonable person that it is a doctrinal position or, at the very least, an large majority of churches in the SBC are KJV-Only. Neither is the case. I'm not nit-picking. If you really meant that only some are, you used the wrong construct. Not just logically, but also in terms of every-day language.

heddle, from my point of view churches are composed of churchgoers. The attitudes and actions of its churchgoers define the church. It's official position on matters, in my experience, isn't even known by the majority of the church and does not in any practical way define it. See my post two above the one this is a reply to.

John Kwok said: Sorry Pharyngulite troll, but IMHO heddle has far more credibility than does PZ Myers in confronting successfully William Dembski. You don't have to rely on my word for it. Ask Wesley Elsberry's, since he is one of PT's founders, not PZ:

Juicyheart said: Still smarting, heh? Can you sit sown yet?

Robin said: The fact is, the bible DOES reference unicorns, and most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, and not a rhino or any other creature.

Well, I don't see where Skippy with the brain of peanut butter actually disproves anything that Kevin and Larry have said. Mr. extra crunchy and the rest of his Darwiniac followers merely attack them for thinking differently. Can anybody actually disprove that people and dinosaurs actually didn't live together? The fact that many ancient cultures had legends of dragons suggests they did.

It proclaims salvation by faith which, apart from any differences they might have in the weeds, is the unambiguously uniform gospel message of the KJV, NKJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, ESV,...

BTW, heddle and others, what do you take "inerrant" to mean? From the discussion, there seems to be some confusion.

A) A book with no errors in translation (or transliteration), and therefore a faithful representation of the authors' intents. (Note, it's not "no significant errors," since any error destroys inerrancy.)

B) A book with no errors in FACT, even if there could be errors in translation that do not affect the factual statements.

C) A book that has NEITHER errors in translation of fact.

A) and B) are both silly, of course, and C) is just plain nuts.

John Kwok said: Even someone who is not a fan of mine,

Juicyheart said: I'll take that as a "Yes!"

John Kwok said: Sorry Pharyngulite troll, but IMHO heddle has far more credibility than does PZ Myers in confronting successfully William Dembski. You don't have to rely on my word for it. Ask Wesley Elsberry's, since he is one of PT's founders, not PZ:

Juicyheart said: Still smarting, heh? Can you sit sown yet?

Robin said:

heddle said: Robin,

The fact is, the bible DOES reference unicorns, and most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, and not a rhino or any other creature.

No it does not, for reasons given.

What reasons? You haven't provided any actual reasons as of yet. You've argued that since not all creationists currently rely on the KJV that somehow that means not all current creationists think that unicorn is literal, but you haven't actually presented any evidence to suggest this except anecdotal personal experience. Further, this doesn't address the fact that such was a well-established Greek concept at the time of Christianity and on which the Greek writers based their translation. To simply dismiss such because you "feel" that such isn't an accurate translation has no validity - you don't carry any authority on the subject. Merely stating such over and over doesn't make it true either. So unless you actually have some compelling evidence that suggests that most Christians throughout history didn't understand what the term unicorn meant or understood it to mean "wild ox" or similar, you haven't actually made any point or demonstrated that Mike's joke wasn't funny based on association.

And do you have a citation substantiating your claim that "most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn"? (not that is is particularly relevant--"most folks" can be wrong--I'm just curious if you have a citation.) John Calvin, for example, writing before the KJV, did not. (See Davis A. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World).

I provided a reference. See Dr. Chris Levans The Natural History of Unicorns See also the Greek compendium Physiologus bestiary that includes the description that the Greeks understood at the time. Here's Ctesias description: "There are in India certain wild asses which are as large as horses, and larger. Their bodies are white, their heads are dark red, and their eyes dark blue. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length. The dust filed from this horn is administered in a potion as a protection against deadly drugs." Further, read Pliny's description in Cyclopaedia Historia Naturalis. Pliny's unicorn is depicted as a ferocious beast who cannot be taken alive, with the body of a horse, the head of a deer, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a wild boar and a solitary black horn two "cubits" long, standing out of its forehead. This was what Alexander the Great later declared he road into battle. Even Julius Caesar boasted of seeing one these beasts. These are the descriptions given, not one even alluding to a large oxen-like animal. While that may well have been what the Hebrews were thinking, that clearly didn't come across to the Greeks.

To simply dismiss such because you "feel" that such isn't an accurate translation has no validity - you don't carry any authority on the subject.

Merely stating such over and over doesn't make it true either.

utidjian said:

John Kwok said: Even someone who is not a fan of mine,

John, You have fans? Is there a facebook page for you fan club? If we ever meet I would so like to have a signed photograph of you with two cute teen aged girls on an NYC subway taken with a Leica M rangefinder camera. Hmmm... this could be a real business opportunity John. You could make up a range of different photos. Each one with some celebrity that you know or went to school with. I'm sure your fans would pay dearly for such collectibles. Perhaps I could pick up my copy when you have a book signing for your novel at B&N?

John Kwok said: David, Be nice. And yes, I was at my favorite Barnes and Noble last night to hear a prominent literary alumnus from my high school read from his latest novel (I think you know which one.). Am attending a book launch party for a friend's novel tonight.

Malchus said: John, I understand you are about 48. I find your apparent attraction and emphasis on the "cuteness" of these teenagers singularly inappropriate for a science evolution discussion board. You might consider checking your libido at the door.

John Kwok said: Skip, A fantastic write up. Too bad Larry isn't as physically attractive (for a woman) as the two cute teen-aged girls I met on a New York City subway train two weeks ago who told me that they believed everything Ken Ham has said and written. Could ask Larry why if creationism is true, it doesn't have the compelling truth that Klingon Cosmology has since: 1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they're there, then they are real. 2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I'm not mistaken). 3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon. 4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. 5) And this just in, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

John Kwok said: Oh for crying out loud, go fuck yourself. I mean it. I don't spend my days and nights dreaming about PZ. Heard from a friend that he had a serious automobile accident and am waiting to back from him regarding a doctor's visit to check him out:

utidjian said:

John Kwok said: David, Be nice. And yes, I was at my favorite Barnes and Noble last night to hear a prominent literary alumnus from my high school read from his latest novel (I think you know which one.). Am attending a book launch party for a friend's novel tonight.

But did you remember to take some pictures??!! ;-D

JT said: heddle, I've been re-reading your posts and I think I see a source of confusion on both our parts. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you see a church as defined by its leadership and official positions, whereas I see a church as defined by the thoughts and actions of its rank and file.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Wow John, way to bring down the level of civility. I am becoming concerned about your tone here. For the second time in this thread you've dragged your injured friend into the discussion, a disgusting ploy to generate guilty feelings. I'm sure your friend will be honored to be used in such a way, if he exists. And for someone who isn't obsessed with PZ, you somehow manage to bring him up on nearly every thread. Seek help. Please.

John Kwok said: Oh for crying out loud, go fuck yourself. I mean it. I don't spend my days and nights dreaming about PZ. Heard from a friend that he had a serious automobile accident and am waiting to back from him regarding a doctor's visit to check him out:

utidjian said:

Robin said: The fact is, the bible DOES reference unicorns, and most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, and not a rhino or any other creature.

I agree. Even if (as Heddle claims) that the "original bible" (whatever that means and if such a thing has ever existed as a complete work in some place and/or time) has no mention of unicorns... they are mentioned in the main English version which was the basis for just about all English speaking people for some 400 years. If you have never seen it there is a truly beautiful collection of tapestries at the Cloisters in NYC that depict the unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_of_the_Unicorn

Heddle, what do you mean by “salvation”?

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Wow John, way to bring down the level of civility. I am becoming concerned about your tone here. For the second time in this thread you've dragged your injured friend into the discussion, a disgusting ploy to generate guilty feelings. I'm sure your friend will be honored to be used in such a way, if he exists. And for someone who isn't obsessed with PZ, you somehow manage to bring him up on nearly every thread. Seek help. Please.

John Kwok said: Oh for crying out loud, go fuck yourself. I mean it. I don't spend my days and nights dreaming about PZ. Heard from a friend that he had a serious automobile accident and am waiting to back from him regarding a doctor's visit to check him out:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: heddle, I've been re-reading your posts and I think I see a source of confusion on both our parts. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you see a church as defined by its leadership and official positions, whereas I see a church as defined by the thoughts and actions of its rank and file.

Yes, because your definition is WRONG. Man up to your error, JT. The church leaders define what its members are supposed to beleive. If some of the membership are disobedient, that's not the fault of the leadership! A Catholic who disagrees with his Church's teachings on abortion is not a loyal Catholic, even if he claims to be a church member.

Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible.

How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously.

Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

Hmm, the ARCH-PHARANGULITE has passed through.

I would suspect that he would be flattered to realize that "PHARANGULITE" has become the term EMBODYING FOLLY & EVIL, even often applied to people who wouldn't notice if the blog had disappeared six months ago. (I think it's still there, but I can't recall when I last checked.)

Whatever unflattering things one might think of PZ Myers, he has the admirable knack of making enemies who cannot help but make him look good in comparison.

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

And WHAT was I just saying?

heddle is correct. The SBC, like most Baptist denominations, does not have a binding creed. Individual Southern Baptists who may still read only the KJV do so by their own choice, not because their leaders tell them too.

Well, I don’t see where Skippy with the brain of peanut butter actually disproves anything that Kevin and Larry have said. Mr. extra crunchy and the rest of his Darwiniac followers merely attack them for thinking differently. Can anybody actually disprove that people and dinosaurs actually didn’t live together? The fact that many ancient cultures had legends of dragons suggests they did.

heddle said: But of course Christianity requires no such thing. It does not proclaim salvation by a correct understanding of the bible. It does not proclaim salvation by correct theology. It does not proclaim salvation by a correct view of creation or a correct view of the end-times. It does not proclaim salvation by access to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. It does not proclaim salvation by knowledge of Greek verb tenses. It proclaims salvation by faith which, apart from any differences they might have in the weeds, is the unambiguously uniform gospel message of the KJV, NKJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, ESV,...

Skip said:

Well, I don’t see where Skippy with the brain of peanut butter actually disproves anything that Kevin and Larry have said. Mr. extra crunchy and the rest of his Darwiniac followers merely attack them for thinking differently. Can anybody actually disprove that people and dinosaurs actually didn’t live together? The fact that many ancient cultures had legends of dragons suggests they did.

Dead wrong, Hygaboo. The post clearly documents that Larry initially claimed at our very first encounter that all anthropologists believe autralos to be apes and not human ancestors. I produced the McHenry paper to show that claim false. Larry, suffering serious short term memory loss, claimed later that he never said "all" but that most anthropologists agreed with his claim. This time I asked him to write that down and sign his name to it. He refused, and I strongly suspect that Larry was finally beginning to realize that what he mistook for his mouth was in fact his anus. That same day I produced the McHenry paper again and showed him to be wrong on his modified claim as well.

You know, the part that asked: if the salvation message is so universal as you folks claim, why do self-identified Christians disagree on who’s going to heaven?

Hygaboo, please join Larry over in the Dead Wrong section of our waiting room. As the post points out the very chapter of Weiner's book that The Illustrated Origins Book cites details many features of the australos that are clearly transitional between humans and apes, and the post mentions several of them.

If you don't want to admit this because your theology will implode like rotten fruit that is your business, but at least have the intellectual honestly to admit when you are wrong.

John Kwok said: And one more thing, Mike. If you and your fellow delusional Pharyngulites

Hmmm, MrG, I thought Pharyngulite meant "a person to whom evidence is important". Guess I missed the memo. And ummm, Mr. Hugaboo? There is no such thing as creationism. It's a collective figment of the overactive imaginations of people who are suffering brain rot from taking scriptures too literally too often.

heddle said: So what about other languages? Bibles being translated into other languages, say by Wycliffe, are not translations of the KJV--so the word unicorn would not appear.

Do you still say "the bible" contains unicorns?

That seems mighty english-chauvinistic of you.

You would tell someone speaking some tribal language in the Philippines that the bible contains unicorns, even though the version they hold in their hands in their vernacular does not?

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Hmmm, MrG, I thought Pharyngulite meant "a person to whom evidence is important".

PS: Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea of what it means.

MrG said: PS: Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea of what it means.

JT said: It seems an odd sort of insult.

Ok...I'll bite. Why are my posts not posting?

heddle said: Yes I did provide practical reasons. To repeat: the oldest extant manuscripts in the original language do not contain the word unicorn, nor do they contain a description of a horse-like creature with a single horn. How can you say I gave no reasons?

robert van bakel said: I believe 'young girl' in Hebrew, is translated into 'virgin' in English. I also believe this was (first?) done by the Oxford Dons who translated the King James Bible, for King James of course.:)

Fookin Bruge!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDyEbUUpiLc
May not be safe-for-work.

Juicyheart said:

Robin said:

2. Because they were a menace

Oh I'm sure...rabbits and deer are bad enough these days. Imagine what a herd of apatosaurs would have done to a garden...

Hey!!! Rabbits, in fact have long sharp teeth and, in the day, could take down a score of knights no problem. I'm surprised they were never rampant on coats of arms. The little guys get no respect!

One has to wonder, with so many sects within just Christianity alone, what are the odds that any of them are right about anything?

People wanting or needing a template for their lives and some kind of traditional social structure in which they can find community is one thing; but haggling over translations of holy books, and which one is the “true” holy book seems to be the historical record of religious infighting.

Why should such haggling be necessary unless it has something to do with exclusivity, bigotry, and the need to dominate and rule over others?

If there is some kind of deity out there, it must find it amusing to see these little creatures it created all claiming to have the exclusive inside track to its mind and favoritism.

Maybe the fact that most species have gone extinct means the deity from time to time decides to scrub the planet of these niggling little creatures that can’t seem to get it; and then it starts over with a new batch.

If such a deity has an eternity to find amusement for itself, why not? ;-)

David Fickett-Wilbar said: There's a medieval Irish text which tells about killer sheep.

heddle said: Whether a horse-like creature with a single horn is described in the bible is entirely relevant, since no word that means "a horse-like creature with a single horn" appears in the Hebrew.

Right. Who has the best imaginary friend.

As my brother says, "Just because they're imaginary, doesn't meant they're your friend."

william e emba said:

He [Matthew] wrote a polished, stylish Greek, but there is plain evidence that he didn’t speak Hebrew or Aramaic, and his quotations from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint.

If he was writing in Greek and didn't know Hebrew, where, exactly would he get his Biblical quotations from?

heddle said: 75% of white evangelicals say that Catholicism can lead to salvation. That is essentially the same percentages as for mainline (less conservative and liberal) Protestants at 77%. As for (white) Catholics, 83% say that Protestantism can lead to salvation.

heddle said: Robin,

The fact is, the bible DOES reference unicorns, and most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn, and not a rhino or any other creature.

No it does not, for reasons given. And do you have a citation substantiating your claim that "most folks throughout history have understood that term in the bible to mean a horse-like creature with a single horn"? (not that is is particularly relevant--"most folks" can be wrong--I'm just curious if you have a citation.) John Calvin, for example, writing before the KJV, did not. (See Davis A. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World).

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter.

Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments…on interpretations of the Bible.

FL, I am ASTOUNDED! For ONCE you didn't harp on YOU CANNOT A WACHACALLIT AND BUY EVO SCIENCE AT THE SAME TIME!

FL said: Answer: Because the biggest, longest-lasting, most powerful opponent of evolution just happens to be...the Bible and Christianity. FL

MrG said: FL, I am ASTOUNDED! For ONCE you didn't harp on YOU CANNOT A WACHACALLIT AND BUY EVO SCIENCE AT THE SAME TIME!

Usually he's more explicit than that. Hey, what can I say? Maybe you can't be a member of the JayCees and buy evo science. Maybe you can't be a member of the JayCees and deny that the Moon is made of green cheese -- all the same to me.

I will offer that, as a disinterested viewer, that the JayCees don't seem to be in agreement on this matter, and that there doesn't seem to be any prospect of them being so any time soon. But they might come to an agreement on the matter.

MrG said: But they might come to an agreement on the matter.

Mike Elzinga said: Not as long as there are people like FL.

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

PZ-- The Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart a special burden for your soul. He knows the trials and tribulations you have been going through in your relationship with John Kwok. He understands the incompatibility issues you have faced due to both of you having the same spiritual darkness. There are places where you can go to be healed from your condition and embrace Jesus with open arms!

FL said:

Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments…on interpretations of the Bible.

Yes, I noticed that too. An interesting development, honestly. As I have previously suggested, (I think), there is a seriously high level of interest amongst the Pandas in the Bible and Christianity. Visibly high. Question: Why is that? Answer: Because the biggest, longest-lasting, most powerful opponent of evolution just happens to be...the Bible and Christianity. FL

INERRANCY IS NOT PERFECT TRANSMISSION OR TRANSLATION Jesus did not say that the people who translated or copied Scripture spoke by the Holy Spirit. Since people without divine assistance cannot be inerrant, it follows that transmission or translation would not be perfect. Most inerrantists at this point would say that the transmission is nonetheless fundamentaly accurate. This argument is a philosophical one based on God's providence. Obviously, this is not as strong as the argument for inerrancy of the original document. But, textual evidence shows that fundamental accuracy of the text is a reasonable position. Until I did research for this post I had assumed that the distinction between the autographs and the manuscripts was a modern one coming mainly from the work of B. B. Warfield (a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary around the turn of the century and an early systematizer of the doctrine of inerrancy). After reading some of Warfield's work I found I was mistaken. Warfield showed how the distinction went back to the Patrician period. He quoted Augustine who said that if there was an apparent contradiction in what he was reading Augustine would assume one of the following: 1. Transmission error. 2. Translation error. 3. Interpretational error. By this Warfield showed that Augustine believed in original copy inerrancy. Warfield also extensively showed how the Westminster Assembly had the same view also. INERRANCY IS NOT IS NOT IS NOOOOT LITERAL INTERPRETATION (Jumping up and down and getting red in the face :-) This is the biggest misconception about inerrancy. This is the result of the combination of Luther's dictum and an over-reaction to Liberalism and Modernism by the Independents in the Fundamentalist camp taking on an anti-intellectual stand. (This is basically the "nothing but Christ group".) Luther's dictum is literal wherever possible. The problem with this dictum is a priori approach to hermeneutics. The Reformed approach of letting Scripture interpret Scripture is more in line with inerrancy. If Scripture is really inerrant it should also dictate its own method of interpretation rather than have a priori rules applied to it. The biggest offenders currently of over-literalizing the Bible are of the Dispensational camp. Their version of estachology depends on the literal interpretation of the prophetic portions of Scripture. This is not in accord with Scripture interpreting prophesy. When the New Testament deals with fulfilled prophesy roughly one third of it is in a "literal" fashion. For example, the OT prophesy stated that Elijah would precede the Messiah. Luke reports that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. This type of "symbolic" fulfilment is common in the New Testament. So, if we want to be true to inerrancy we must be suspicious of overly literal interpretations of prophetic sections of Scripture. ... WHAT ABOUT GENESIS Here is an interesting turn of events. Most inerrantists who are specialists in the field (and particularly OT scholars) do not hold to the "literal" six-day creation. An example of this thought is Gleason Archer. It seems that inerrantists and six-day creationists are thought to be one and the same, but from what I can tell six-day creationists are only a small subset of inerrantists.

those who claim to know the mind of gods are annoying to those of us who actually do.

heddle said: This is my last comment and I am reluctant to make it because I have to heed PZ's warning--he has disemvowelled me before on PT and I hate being disemvowelled

Hygaboo Andersen said: Well, I don't see where Skippy with the brain of peanut butter actually disproves anything that Kevin and Larry have said. Mr. extra crunchy and the rest of his Darwiniac followers merely attack them for thinking differently. Can anybody actually disprove that people and dinosaurs actually didn't live together? The fact that many ancient cultures had legends of dragons suggests they did.

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: heddle, I've been re-reading your posts and I think I see a source of confusion on both our parts. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you see a church as defined by its leadership and official positions, whereas I see a church as defined by the thoughts and actions of its rank and file.

Yes, because your definition is WRONG. Man up to your error, JT. The church leaders define what its members are supposed to beleive. If some of the membership are disobedient, that's not the fault of the leadership! A Catholic who disagrees with his Church's teachings on abortion is not a loyal Catholic, even if he claims to be a church member.

How is it wrong? If a church leader or an official document says A, but the vast majority of the church believes B then the position of that church is B. A is at best irrelevant and at worst a deliberate deception. Actions matter, esoteric positions paid attention to by only a few do not.

Hygaboo Andersen said: PZ-- The Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart a special burden for your soul. He knows the trials and tribulations you have been going through in your relationship with John Kwok. He understands the incompatibility issues you have faced due to both of you having the same spiritual darkness. There are places where you can go to be healed from your condition and embrace Jesus with open arms!

Hygaboo Andersen said: Mr. extra crunchy, trying to play extra smooth, has completely missed the point. Larry's point is not that most anthropologists do not believe Australopithecans to be the ancestors of humans, but rather that they believe they are still apes, which is just what Creationism proves. There are humans and there are apes and there is nothing in between!

FL said:

Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments…on interpretations of the Bible.

Yes, I noticed that too. An interesting development, honestly. As I have previously suggested, (I think), there is a seriously high level of interest amongst the Pandas in the Bible and Christianity. Visibly high. Question: Why is that? Answer: Because the biggest, longest-lasting, most powerful opponent of evolution just happens to be...the Bible and Christianity. FL

Ray Martinez said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

PZ-- The Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart a special burden for your soul. He knows the trials and tribulations you have been going through in your relationship with John Kwok. He understands the incompatibility issues you have faced due to both of you having the same spiritual darkness. There are places where you can go to be healed from your condition and embrace Jesus with open arms!

You are wasting your time. Myers, like all Atheist-evolutionists, interprets your message to mean that God wants him. Just the opposite is true. Atheism and evolution is embraced because God has rejected these people---that's why they accept Atheism and evolution. Myers is like that aged movie star, convinced of self-importance, ready for her close-up, unaware that the Studio (= God) has long forsaken her.

FL said:

Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments…on interpretations of the Bible.

Yes, I noticed that too. An interesting development, honestly. As I have previously suggested, (I think), there is a seriously high level of interest amongst the Pandas in the Bible and Christianity. Visibly high. Question: Why is that? Answer: Because the biggest, longest-lasting, most powerful opponent of evolution just happens to be...the Bible and Christianity. FL

FL said: Answer: Because the biggest, longest-lasting, most powerful opponent of evolution just happens to be...the Bible and Christianity. FL

I can't believe there is an argument on what most people would think of when the word "unicorn" is used. The average Christian wouldn't qualify as a "biblical scholar" that would know that the word "unicorn" in the KJV doesn't actually mean the stereotypical mythological unicorn you'd see in any popular culture. Google "unicorn" and then come back here and try to claim that saying "most people think of a white horse like creature with a single horn coming out of its head" is not accurate.

Complaining that since the oldest text, and even most new versions of the bible, doesn't refer to a unicorn doesn't change the the fact that for the last 400 years the KJV was the standard bible for many people and most of those people would not be at the level of "biblical scholars" to know that "unicorn" didn't mean something like this http://users.on.net/~waynefrancis/unicorn.jpg

Hygaboo Andersen said:

Ray Martinez said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

PZ-- The Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart a special burden for your soul. He knows the trials and tribulations you have been going through in your relationship with John Kwok. He understands the incompatibility issues you have faced due to both of you having the same spiritual darkness. There are places where you can go to be healed from your condition and embrace Jesus with open arms!

You are wasting your time. Myers, like all Atheist-evolutionists, interprets your message to mean that God wants him. Just the opposite is true. Atheism and evolution is embraced because God has rejected these people---that's why they accept Atheism and evolution. Myers is like that aged movie star, convinced of self-importance, ready for her close-up, unaware that the Studio (= God) has long forsaken her.

No, God has not forsaken anybody this side of eternity; you need to have more faith! The problem with PZ and John is that atheistic evolutionism has caused them to deny the teleological meaning of a certain part of their body until it no longer functions the way God intended. However, when Satan brought them together in their unholy union, his own trick backfired. They were unable to perform since both of them are receivers and not givers. This is why the relationship broke up and there is so much friction between them. The Holy Spirit has instructed me to use this opportunity to lead both of them back to God. After all, it is in times of trouble that many of us do.

Maya said:

heddle said: This is my last comment and I am reluctant to make it because I have to heed PZ's warning--he has disemvowelled me before on PT and I hate being disemvowelled

I don't often comment on this part of the site, preferring to save my pearls of wisdom for AtBC, but I've got to say, as one of those militant New Atheists, that based on the discussion thus far I'd much rather have a beer with Dr. Heddle than with either Mr. Kwok or Dr. Myers. Thank you for your participation here.

Strictly for your amusement, my favorite cartoon panel of all times

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Strictly for your amusement, my favorite cartoon panel of all times

John, you remain a bastion of irrelevance.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

william e emba said: If [Matthew] was writing in Greek and didn't know Hebrew, where, exactly would he get his Biblical quotations from?

The Septuagint, which is the translation the gospel writers quote from is a Greek version.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, you remain a bastion of irrelevance.

heddle:

This isn't PZ's thread, so you are not under threat from him. Did you notice who else is not under any threat from him?

John Kwok said: I have on some very reliable sources, that PZ can be quite hospitable in person (though in my case, I know he won't, which is why he's getting cream pies aimed at his head as a present when we finally do meet). Same is true for me, but I'm not a beer drinker (which is a suprising admission to make for someone who was once a geologist):

Maya said:

heddle said: This is my last comment and I am reluctant to make it because I have to heed PZ's warning--he has disemvowelled me before on PT and I hate being disemvowelled

I don't often comment on this part of the site, preferring to save my pearls of wisdom for AtBC, but I've got to say, as one of those militant New Atheists, that based on the discussion thus far I'd much rather have a beer with Dr. Heddle than with either Mr. Kwok or Dr. Myers. Thank you for your participation here.

william e emba said: heddle: This isn't PZ's thread, so you are not under threat from him. Did you notice who else is not under any threat from him?

MrG said:

william e emba said: heddle: This isn't PZ's thread, so you are not under threat from him. Did you notice who else is not under any threat from him?

And, as you well realize, it is hard to notice who would be. PZ Myers is a very competent biologist who has outspoken atheism as a hobby. He is not a threat to anyone, and despite his occasional ventings I doubt he would willingly harm a fly. Well, he might dissect it.

Dale Husband said:

JT said: How is it wrong? If a church leader or an official document says A, but the vast majority of the church believes B then the position of that church is B. A is at best irrelevant and at worst a deliberate deception. Actions matter, esoteric positions paid attention to by only a few do not.

That's a hypothetical situation that almost never happens in real life. So why did you bring it up?

Rich,

I am not trying to protect you. I am merely trying to stress the need for tolerance - though I will be the first to admit that I've been a bit clumsy, merely trying to fend off attacks from the fanatical New Atheists posting here - and to remind others that heddle is a scientist and an Evangelical Protestant Christian who has a much better track record in dealing effectively with Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Bill Dembski than does PZ Myers AND is a scientist who affirms the scientific reality of biological evolution.

Mr. Kwok: Would I be correct in concluding you don't like PZ Myers very much?

MrG said: Mr. Kwok: Would I be correct in concluding you don't like PZ Myers very much?

I'll take that as a "yes".

MrG said: Mr. Kwok: Would I be correct in concluding you don't like PZ Myers very much?

MrG said: I'll take that as a "yes".

You guys must drink a lot of water.

This pissing contest has been going on forever.

Oh, no clarifications necessary.

MrG said: Oh, no clarifications necessary.

Whatever you do, just don't say: "BELGIUM!"

I've begun work on MY first book. It's a Kwok-to-English dictionary. Here's some samples:

"delusional": Anyone who disagrees with Kwok, even a little.

"attacking": Whenever anyone who disagrees with anyone Kwok agrees with, and says so.

"new theist": Same as the traditional atheist, but with internet access and the desire to challenge theists in the marketplace of ideas

"friend": A casual acquaintance unfortunate enough to have met Kwok, even once. May also mean someone who has met with misfortune, and can therefore be used in a pity ploy.

"mendacious intellectual pornographer": At one time, an original and entertaining way to say "creationist". Over time, this has lost all meaning, like any other word or phrase repeated over and over.

"PZ Myers": A largely imagined bogeyman that haunts Kwok's dreams. Also mysteriously owes Kwok a Kamera.

Does anyone have more submissions?

You forgot "Pharyngulist": a bafflingly obscure and indiscriminately applied label that apparently means something really bad.

And let's not EVEN get into Klingons.

And "BELGIUM!" A word so vile that even Kwok dare not speak it.

Courtesy of Bernie Taupin (with apologies to him and his long-time collaborator, the rock musician formerly known as Reginald Dwight):

Remember Belgium and the Brussels Museum
Where we piled on the front steps like stray cavaliers
Our code of living meant little to others
The few francs we saved bought some cheap souvenirs

But the red lights where the catfights make it just like Belgium
See us face down on the floor of another cheap barroom

Streetwalkers sweet talk you out of your spare change

And your sweet madame makes it seem just like Belgium

Just like a hustler when they look attractive
It's nothing more than a slap on the back
The price tag of being just a little bit different
The first rule to learn is to keep your own distance

Mike in Ontario, NY said: I've begun work on MY first book. It's a Kwok-to-English dictionary. Here's some samples: "delusional": Anyone who disagrees with Kwok, even a little. "attacking": Whenever anyone who disagrees with anyone Kwok agrees with, and says so. "new theist": Same as the traditional atheist, but with internet access and the desire to challenge theists in the marketplace of ideas "friend": A casual acquaintance unfortunate enough to have met Kwok, even once. May also mean someone who has met with misfortune, and can therefore be used in a pity ploy. "mendacious intellectual pornographer": At one time, an original and entertaining way to say "creationist". Over time, this has lost all meaning, like any other word or phrase repeated over and over. "PZ Myers": A largely imagined bogeyman that haunts Kwok's dreams. Also mysteriously owes Kwok a Kamera. Does anyone have more submissions?

David Fickett-Wilbar said: 5. The argument that has been going on here is about the meaning of the term "the bible." heddle has been using it correctly from the point of view of textual criticism, the majority of Christians, and reason. Others have been pointing out that for many YECs it has a different meaning. That is also true. The question of whether "the bible" mentions unicorns is therefore not a linguistic one, but rather a contextual one: in what context are we thinking about "the bible?" Or perhaps it is a linguistic one, but in the area of semantics, rather than translation. 6. However you care to define "the bible" I think both sides should accept that the other side is using the term correctly in their context, and that both contexts are equally valid, while one may be more useful depending on the situation.

And if you don't know who Bernie Taupin is, you might recognize these lyrics of his:

I remember when rock was young
Me and Suzie had so much fun
holding hands and skipping stones
Had an old gold Chevy and a place of my own
But the biggest kick I ever got
was doing a thing called the Crocodile Rock
While the other kids were Rocking Round the Clock
we were hopping and bopping to the Crocodile Rock

Well Crocodile Rocking is something shocking
when your feet just can't keep still
I never knew me a better time and I guess I never will
Oh Lawdy mama those Friday nights
when Suzie wore her dresses tight
and the Crocodile Rocking was out of sight

But the years went by and the rock just died
Suzie went and left us for some foreign guy
Long nights crying by the record machine
dreaming of my Chevy and my old blue jeans
But they'll never kill the thrills we've got
burning up to the Crocodile Rock
Learning fast as the weeks went past
we really thought the Crocodile Rock would last

Well Crocodile Rocking is something shocking
when your feet just can't keep still
I never knew me a better time and I guess I never will
Oh Lawdy mama those Friday nights
when Suzie wore her dresses tight
and the Crocodile Rocking was out of sight

I remember when rock was young
Me and Suzie had so much fun
holding hands and skipping stones
Had an old gold Chevy and a place of my own
But the biggest kick I ever got
was doing a thing called the Crocodile Rock
While the other kids were Rocking Round the Clock
we were hopping and bopping to the Crocodile Rock

Well Crocodile Rocking is something shocking
when your feet just can't keep still
I never knew me a better time and I guess I never will
Oh Lawdy mama those Friday nights
when Suzie wore her dresses tight
and the Crocodile Rocking was out of sight

Mike in Ontario, NY said: "new theist": Same as the traditional atheist, but with internet access and the desire to challenge theists in the marketplace of ideas

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Does anyone have more submissions?

Robin said:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: "new theist": Same as the traditional atheist, but with internet access and the desire to challenge theists in the marketplace of ideas

You owe me a monitor cleaning for this one... :P

Dedicating this to you, Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers. Another Bernie Taupin lyric:

Raised to be a lady by the golden rule
Alice was the spawn of a public school
With a double barrel name in the back of her brain
And a simple case of Momma-doesn't-love-me blues
Reality it seems was just a dream
She couldn't get it on with the boys on the scene
But what do you expect from a chick who's just sixteen
And hey, hey, hey, you know what I mean

All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice they say
Come over and see me
Come over and please me
Alice it's my turn today

All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice they say
If I give you my number
Will you promise to call me
Wait 'til my husband's away

Poor little darling with a chip out of her heart
It's like acting in a movie when you got the wrong part
Getting your kicks in another girl's bed
And it was only last Tuesday they found you in the subway dead
And who could you call your friends down in Soho
One or two middle-aged dykes in a Go-Go
And what do you expect from a sixteen year old yo-yo
And hey, hey, hey, oh don't you know

Speaking of creationism, recall the furor regarding Jendel & Louisiana & the dishonesty institute?
Well, here's one of the consequences of that issue:

http://blog.au.org/2010/07/29/unintelligent-by-design-louisiana-school-district-considers-teaching-creationism/?utm_source=au-homepage&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Recently-on-homepage

DavidK said: Speaking of creationism, recall the furor regarding Jendel & Louisiana & the dishonesty institute? Well, here's one of the consequences of that issue: http://blog.au.org/2010/07/29/unintelligent-by-design-louisiana-school-district-considers-teaching-creationism/?utm_source=au-homepage&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Recently-on-homepage

Oclarki said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: Well, I don't see where Skippy with the brain of peanut butter actually disproves anything that Kevin and Larry have said. Mr. extra crunchy and the rest of his Darwiniac followers merely attack them for thinking differently. Can anybody actually disprove that people and dinosaurs actually didn't live together? The fact that many ancient cultures had legends of dragons suggests they did.

Hmph....actually I can think of no compelling reason why we should try to "disprove" the coexistance of dinosaurs and "people". That coexistence is a claim made by certain YECs and so must be "proven" by them. In other (and perhaps better) words, those who make the claim that dinosaurs and "people" coexisted need to provide compelling evidence of such coexistence in order to be taken seriously.

And no, sarcastic renderings of names does not actually constitute compelling evidence supporting your claims. Indeed, I often wonder why creationists so readily resort to such insults. After all, respect begets respect, does it not? One wonders whether an historical entity with the attributes and philosophies assigned to Jesus would so readily resort to insult and denigration.

HA: I am wondering if you are even-handed -- do you go over to creationist forums and pretend to be an EVIL-utionist, too?

Probably not, they ban too quickly to make it fun. PT, it appears by principle, hates to ban.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

Oclarki said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: Well, I don't see where Skippy with the brain of peanut butter actually disproves anything that Kevin and Larry have said. Mr. extra crunchy and the rest of his Darwiniac followers merely attack them for thinking differently. Can anybody actually disprove that people and dinosaurs actually didn't live together? The fact that many ancient cultures had legends of dragons suggests they did.

Hmph....actually I can think of no compelling reason why we should try to "disprove" the coexistance of dinosaurs and "people". That coexistence is a claim made by certain YECs and so must be "proven" by them. In other (and perhaps better) words, those who make the claim that dinosaurs and "people" coexisted need to provide compelling evidence of such coexistence in order to be taken seriously.

I did provide compelling evidence. I cited eyewitness testimony from ancient men themselves who encountered dragons. There is no better evidence that that, right? Our ancestors saw large, reptilian beings and wrote about them. Merely because they are not around today does not mean they never were. The same goes for unicorns. There is no reason they could not have existed in ancient times as well. Without debating whether the Bible is inerrant or not, why can't we assume that the testimony of ancient men from whatever culture wasn't at least based in fact?

And no, sarcastic renderings of names does not actually constitute compelling evidence supporting your claims. Indeed, I often wonder why creationists so readily resort to such insults. After all, respect begets respect, does it not? One wonders whether an historical entity with the attributes and philosophies assigned to Jesus would so readily resort to insult and denigration.

Well, that what many evolutionists here have done with the name my mamma gave me, and I guess it doesn't support their contentions either!

DavidK,

Here's Barbara Forrest's take on this:

http://lasciencecoalition.org/2010/07/29/livingston-parish-and-discover-institute-law/

DavidK said: Speaking of creationism, recall the furor regarding Jendel & Louisiana & the dishonesty institute? Well, here's one of the consequences of that issue: http://blog.au.org/2010/07/29/unintelligent-by-design-louisiana-school-district-considers-teaching-creationism/?utm_source=au-homepage&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Recently-on-homepage

Robin said: I don't have enough hands for the facepalm this deserves.

MrG said: Mr. Kwok: Would I be correct in concluding you don't like PZ Myers very much?

MrG said:

Robin said: I don't have enough hands for the facepalm this deserves.

Back in the day, somebody at PT called the Louisiana law a "Dover Trap" -- too vague to be legally objectionable in itself, but capable of encouraging the naive into doing something that was. The situation is "spring-loaded to the accident position", and it's only a matter of time before the switch gets thrown.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

MrG said: Mr. Kwok: Would I be correct in concluding you don't like PZ Myers very much?

Both PZ and John were seduced by Satan into joining his religion of evolutionism. Since the Father of Lies set up this religion to deny teleology, it has led them to deny the teleological meaning of a certain part of their anatomy that because of said denial no longer functions as God intended. Then, Satan led them to each other in an attempt to form the sort of unholy union that is typical in prisons, San Francisco bath houses, and other evolutionary meeting places. However, much tension occurred in this relationship because both of them prefer to receive and not give, and the fallout from the explosion has been witnessed all over the internet. It is in times of crisis like these they are vulnerable to spiritual counsel. The Holy Spirit has inspired me to this task.

John Kwok said: DAMN YOU MORON. WILL YOU SHUT THE F**K UP!!!! NEITHER PZ NOR I WOULD ENJOY EACH OTHERS COMPANY:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

MrG said: Mr. Kwok: Would I be correct in concluding you don't like PZ Myers very much?

Both PZ and John were seduced by Satan into joining his religion of evolutionism. Since the Father of Lies set up this religion to deny teleology, it has led them to deny the teleological meaning of a certain part of their anatomy that because of said denial no longer functions as God intended. Then, Satan led them to each other in an attempt to form the sort of unholy union that is typical in prisons, San Francisco bath houses, and other evolutionary meeting places. However, much tension occurred in this relationship because both of them prefer to receive and not give, and the fallout from the explosion has been witnessed all over the internet. It is in times of crisis like these they are vulnerable to spiritual counsel. The Holy Spirit has inspired me to this task.

Look, I never met the guy, period. Nor do I want to, especially when he has attacked several people I admire greatly, including a friend who teaches at our undergraduate alma mater. Nor does he want to meet me. Comprendez vous?

I would never enjoy his company since he is a religious bigot and tolerates the posting of threats at his blog like the one that was posted back in March stating that the poster wanted to rape and to kill two other prominent science bloggers. Will you stop your stupidity regarding myself and that New Atheist fanatic please? Immediately.

John Kwok said: Look, I never met the guy, period. Nor do I want to, especially when he has attacked several people I admire greatly, including a friend who teaches at our undergraduate alma mater. Nor does he want to meet me. Comprendez vous?

John Kwok said: Look, I never met the guy, period. Nor do I want to, especially when he has attacked several people I admire greatly, including a friend who teaches at our undergraduate alma mater. Nor does he want to meet me. Comprendez vous?

Hygaboo Andersen said:

John Kwok said: Look, I never met the guy, period. Nor do I want to, especially when he has attacked several people I admire greatly, including a friend who teaches at our undergraduate alma mater. Nor does he want to meet me. Comprendez vous?

John, Repressing your memory of the despair you felt over your own supposed loathliness due to his inability to perform will not make it go away. Remember, he felt that same way too. However, it's not true! You can find true love in Christ Jesus. You can start by getting help here.

SWT said:

John Kwok said: Look, I never met the guy, period. Nor do I want to, especially when he has attacked several people I admire greatly, including a friend who teaches at our undergraduate alma mater. Nor does he want to meet me. Comprendez vous?

John, please stop feeding this troll.

Robin said: I can see that, but what I don't get is why the Disco 'Tute is encouraging the switch throwing.

They can't be that stupid.

Forget unicorns. Does any serious academic dispute that the writers of the bible believed in a flat Earth with a domed canopy?

Hygaboo Andersen said: They were unable to perform since both of them are receivers and not givers. This is why the relationship broke up and there is so much friction between them.

william e emba said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

william e emba said: If [Matthew] was writing in Greek and didn't know Hebrew, where, exactly would he get his Biblical quotations from?

The Septuagint, which is the translation the gospel writers quote from is a Greek version.

You missed the point of my (rhetorical) question. Matthew relied on the Septuagint, mostly because he didn't really have other options.

John Kwok said: DavidK, Here's Barbara Forrest's take on this: http://lasciencecoalition.org/2010/07/29/livingston-parish-and-discover-institute-law/

JT said:

Dale Husband said:

JT said: How is it wrong? If a church leader or an official document says A, but the vast majority of the church believes B then the position of that church is B. A is at best irrelevant and at worst a deliberate deception. Actions matter, esoteric positions paid attention to by only a few do not.

That's a hypothetical situation that almost never happens in real life. So why did you bring it up?

Umm... wow. I'm sorry but if you think that situation "almost never" happens then I simply can't take you seriously anymore. That situation not only happens often, but quite possibly accounts for the majority of church beliefs.

I would have expected a couple of posters on this thread to have been put on moderation by now - and John Kwok is not one of them. Hygaboo, however, would certainly seem to qualify.

Hygaboo Andersen said: I did provide compelling evidence. I cited eyewitness testimony from ancient men themselves who encountered dragons. There is no better evidence that that, right? Our ancestors saw large, reptilian beings and wrote about them. Merely because they are not around today does not mean they never were. The same goes for unicorns. There is no reason they could not have existed in ancient times as well. Without debating whether the Bible is inerrant or not, why can't we assume that the testimony of ancient men from whatever culture wasn't at least based in fact?

Hmph. I once observed the top of a fossil sand dune turn itself into a rather large mushroom that sprouted a low-flying C130. By your criterion, then, we should all accept that C130s grow from large mushrooms. After all, I did see that happen, and I have dutifully reported it. Indeed, I have witnesses as well...two friends saw the very same thing at the very same time. But wait...was what I directly observed actually real? It seemed so at the time, but is there any compelling evidence beyond my words and the memories of my friends? Sadly not the slightest bit. Supposed "eye witness" accounts mean very little without corroborating physical evidence. Provide physical evidence that the dragons of lore and hear-say actually existed, and then we will talk. Provide physical evidence that those dragons were actually dinosaurs and then we will talk. Without such physical evidence, there actually is nothing to talk about: your claim that humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs coexisted is just about as believable and supportable as my claim that C130s come from giant mushrooms that once were fossil sand dunes.

OK...so I have no idea what just happened to mess up the format of my response. Weird. Maybe I should not have resurrected memories of giant C13-sprouting mushrooms.

And there's another example of the creationist mindset. The misconception that an account presented as eyewitness testimony provides the best evidence of all.

Of course it isn't so. It's hardly evidence at all. That is anecdote, and nothing more. On the basis of anecdote, are we to believe in Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, the Fountain of Youth, El Dorado, the Valley of the Immortals, flying saucers, alien rectal examinations, lemmings jumping off cliffs, the Flying Dutchman, and Atlantis, to name but a few, plus three thousand years' worth of fairies, ghosts, witches, goblins, vampires, werewolves and hauntings by the gross, all of which are attested by people purporting to be witnesses?

But creationists want dragons in human history, because dragons means dinos, and that would mean...

What it would mean is that they want something, anything, to tell them that they're right, because everybody with any education or knowledge of the real world derides them and makes fun of them. And like the fellow in the G&S song, they can't think why!

Oclarki said: OK...so I have no idea what just happened to mess up the format of my response. Weird. Maybe I should not have resurrected memories of giant C13-sprouting mushrooms.

Damn, and I thought I'd been doing a good job (elsewhere) of trying to make John Kwok's head explode - but I got nothin' on Hygaboo Andersen.

I mean, sure, I got him fired up enough to make death threats and rant about unpublished manuscripts on top of the same standard name-dropping and hackneyed-expression repeating that he does on a daily basis, but to have worked him into such a frenzy he's posting the lyrics of whole Elton John songs and shouting in all-caps makes that seem insignificant.

Keep up the good work!

[cue new rant from John; probably no song lyrics, though]

Mike Elzinga said: Ah; magic mushrooms?

Hygaboo Andersen said: Both PZ and John were seduced by Satan into joining his religion of evolutionism.

Poe's Law applies, I'm afraid: "Real creationist statements may be so bizarre that it is impossible to know that any apparently creationist statement is parody, unless there are clear referents, such as smileys, in the text."

Dave Luckett said: Poe's Law applies, I'm afraid: "Real creationist statements may be so bizarre that it is impossible to know that any apparently creationist statement is parody, unless there are clear referents, such as smileys, in the text."

DavidK said:

John Kwok said: DavidK, Here's Barbara Forrest's take on this: http://lasciencecoalition.org/2010/07/29/livingston-parish-and-discover-institute-law/

But the dishonesty institute's ploy is to teach the "weaknesses of evolution," whereas this nonsense is an explicit effort to foist creationism on the students. Although that's what the dishonesty institute's ultimate goal is, they try to circumvent the creationism tag that stung them in "Pandas ..." There's no move here to cover up what they're trying to do, even though their BOE and laws say they can do it. I don't think it wlll pass muster in the courts. But maybe the BOE can ask dembski to testify, he'll soak 'em for money, then high tail it out of town. And too, maybe, though it'd be a cold day in hades, the dishonesty institute would bankroll this BOE in their efforts. Ha Ha.

Oclarki said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: Both PZ and John were seduced by Satan into joining his religion of evolutionism.

Wow. I need some help here...is this a serious claim or is it some too-extreme parody of how creationists express themselves? I really hope that it is the latter. If it is the former, though, I really do wonder why folks so readily make such unfounded and unsupported accusations, especially when their own declared spiritual gguide specifically warns that making such judgements may not be the best thing to do. Indeed, I seem to remember at least one Bibical statement about judging others.

Wowbagger said: Damn, and I thought I'd been doing a good job (elsewhere) of trying to make John Kwok's head explode - but I got nothin' on Hygaboo Andersen. I mean, sure, I got him fired up enough to make death threats and rant about unpublished manuscripts on top of the same standard name-dropping and hackneyed-expression repeating that he does on a daily basis, but to have worked him into such a frenzy he's posting the lyrics of whole Elton John songs and shouting in all-caps makes that seem insignificant. Keep up the good work! [cue new rant from John; probably no song lyrics, though]

John Kwok said: I usually tell people that I accept Kahless the Unforgettable as my Savior, except when I run into a bunch of obnoxious Xians on some New York City subway corner or in a subway station, peddling their wares. Then I tell them that I accept Lucifer as my personal Savior:

Oclarki said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: Both PZ and John were seduced by Satan into joining his religion of evolutionism.

Wow. I need some help here...is this a serious claim or is it some too-extreme parody of how creationists express themselves? I really hope that it is the latter. If it is the former, though, I really do wonder why folks so readily make such unfounded and unsupported accusations, especially when their own declared spiritual gguide specifically warns that making such judgements may not be the best thing to do. Indeed, I seem to remember at least one Bibical statement about judging others.

Oclarki said: Wow. I need some help here...is this a serious claim or is it some too-extreme parody of how creationists express themselves?

MrG said:

Oclarki said: Wow. I need some help here...is this a serious claim or is it some too-extreme parody of how creationists express themselves?

It's a parody. I've called him on it several times -- I can almost hear the snickering. I bet HA has several different "personas" that he uses on different forums: play liberal to annoy conservatives, play conservative to annoy liberals, play Nazi to annoy the Jewish, play Jewish to annoy Nazis ...

Oh no the SONG LYRICS OF DEATH!

Heddle said: "...It is astonishing only in that it is true. Again: the word “unicorn” does not appear in the Hebrew. Even if we grant your contention (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument) that the translators meant the mythical creature–it only goes to my point that translations are subject to human error. You always, always have to return to the Hebrew for the OT and the Greek for the NT. And nowhere in the Hebrew OT is the word “unicorn” used, and nowhere is the beast described...."

John Kwok: “Skip, Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this: [some shit about Klingons]” JK - you’re the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle’s rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn’t talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle’s support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons. WTF? "

"Vociferous" was too strong. - "vehement" or "spirited" is what I was trying to say. :)

Gingerbaker said: I said: "

John Kwok: “Skip, Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this: [some shit about Klingons]” JK - you’re the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle’s rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn’t talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle’s support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons. WTF? "

My error here. The bolded word "creationism" above was brain fart and should, of course been "evolution". Also, it was not you who perverted the thread toward creationism, as it was already underway. I did not see those posts before I made my statement. My apologies.

John Kwok said: Apologies accepted, Gingerbaker. I had posted on "Klingon Cosmology" so Skip could use my "proofs" to throw back at Larry the creationist, as a means of underscoring that the evidence for that is as good - and I would contend based on the same faulty logic used, much better - than creationism. I've mentioned Klingons for years. Even Ken Miler has gotten into the act by suggesting that ID "scientist" Michael Behe ought to be writing a textbook on Klingon biochemistry. My own attitude on this is why not have some fun with the creos while we're condemning them, which is why I came up with "Klingon Cosmology" in the first place:

Gingerbaker said: I said: "

John Kwok: “Skip, Just to get this thread back on topic, I am reposting this: [some shit about Klingons]” JK - you’re the one who peevishly perverted a side discussion about Heddle’s rather astonishing claim that the Bible doesn’t talk about unicorns into an irrelevant paean about Heddle’s support of creationism, complete with references to Francis Collins. And now congratulating yourself for setting the thread back on course with a repost about Klingons. WTF? "

My error here. The bolded word "creationism" above was brain fart and should, of course been "evolution". Also, it was not you who perverted the thread toward creationism, as it was already underway. I did not see those posts before I made my statement. My apologies.

Gingerbaker said: Heddle, as many modern apologists, claim this was based on a "mistranslation".

And then misplaces the burden of proof on those who merely observe what the words in officially sanctified Bibles have said. The burden of proof is rightfully on your shoulders, Heddle.

Upon what basis do you claim that the Hebrew was NOT referring to a unicorn, but rather another beast, besides convenience?

What other word was there in Hebrew that *should* have been used to indicate a white equine with a single horn ?

Why would all official versions "mistranslate" such an error, especially as other mistranslations or transcription errors are problems which have an origin rationally evident of substitution of a single character of script.

What evidence do you have that anyone objected to, or tried to correct this mistranslation?

Why would they use "unicorn" and not the term for a bovine?

Hygaboo Andersen said:

Ray Martinez said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

PZ-- The Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart a special burden for your soul. He knows the trials and tribulations you have been going through in your relationship with John Kwok. He understands the incompatibility issues you have faced due to both of you having the same spiritual darkness. There are places where you can go to be healed from your condition and embrace Jesus with open arms!

You are wasting your time. Myers, like all Atheist-evolutionists, interprets your message to mean that God wants him. Just the opposite is true. Atheism and evolution is embraced because God has rejected these people---that's why they accept Atheism and evolution. Myers is like that aged movie star, convinced of self-importance, ready for her close-up, unaware that the Studio (= God) has long forsaken her.

No, God has not forsaken anybody this side of eternity; you need to have more faith! The problem with PZ and John is that atheistic evolutionism has caused them to deny the teleological meaning of a certain part of their body until it no longer functions the way God intended. However, when Satan brought them together in their unholy union, his own trick backfired. They were unable to perform since both of them are receivers and not givers. This is why the relationship broke up and there is so much friction between them. The Holy Spirit has instructed me to use this opportunity to lead both of them back to God. After all, it is in times of trouble that many of us do.

william e emba said:

Gingerbaker said: Heddle, as many modern apologists, claim this was based on a "mistranslation".

Calling the "unicorn" a mistranslation may in fact be too strong, but it is certainly an evidence-free translation.

And then misplaces the burden of proof on those who merely observe what the words in officially sanctified Bibles have said. The burden of proof is rightfully on your shoulders, Heddle.

Because you said so? Sheesh.

Upon what basis do you claim that the Hebrew was NOT referring to a unicorn, but rather another beast, besides convenience?

I've posted on this earlier in the thread. Reem is in fact described in the traditional Hebrew sources and commentaries in various ways, but never as a one-horned anything. And the Biblical context makes it clear that what's significant about the reem is its strength. Moreover, the modern Arabic cognate and archaeological Akkadian cognate both refer to cattle-like creatures. Not one-horned equines.

What other word was there in Hebrew that *should* have been used to indicate a white equine with a single horn ?

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? You are apparently assuming that of course the Bible was somewhere just had to be talking about unicorns, and since we therefore know its in there, by process of elimination of the rest of the entire Bible, we end up deducing reem can only mean unicorn. You seem to have been hit in the face with the stupid train. I also posted earlier the fact that modern Hebrew calls them "one-horns" (using Hebrew, of course). This despite the fact that the Zionists who resuscitated Hebrew did so by taking Biblical words and repurposing them for modern concepts based on the flimsiest of similarities, whenever possible. That doing so offended religious sensibilities was ignored--after all, the religious objected strongly to bringing Hebrew back. Somehow nobody, but nobody, noticed a single word in the Hebrew Bible that gave the slightest impression of a one-horned equine.

Why would all official versions "mistranslate" such an error, especially as other mistranslations or transcription errors are problems which have an origin rationally evident of substitution of a single character of script.

Not just the stupid train, the Express Stupid Train! Seriously, the one and only Official Version has reem, nine times. No mistranslation whatsoever. As for the Septuagint, it has monokeros, nine times. As for the Vulgate, it has rhinoceros eight times, unicorn once. Of the various major "official" English translations, the KJV is the only one to have unicorn. The later ones pretty much all use wild ox. So your argument, such as it is, is based on factual error.

What evidence do you have that anyone objected to, or tried to correct this mistranslation?

The fact that pretty much no edition since KJV uses unicorn might tell an intelligent thinking person something. It obviously tells you nothing.

Why would they use "unicorn" and not the term for a bovine?

As I pointed out, your question is based on factual delusions. Regarding KJV, I also pointed out one interesting detail. The translators certainly made a reasonable effort to be scholarly. Given multiple traditions for what was meant by reem, they could have ducked the issue and simply transliterated the word, like they did with Leviathan and Behemoth. They avoided rhinoceros, perhaps because that was the official Catholic choice. Yet they chose unicorn, and it's a good question, why? As should be obvious by now, there really was no compelling scholarly reason. It may have been simply to give Biblical praise to King James, their sponsor. The unicorn was the symbol of the Scottish throne (like the lion was the symbol of the English throne). And so King James VI of Scotland became King James I of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland and France and all that), and reigned in a time of peace and prosperity. And there he was, the translators' patron. Check out his Coat of Arms. Check out the title page of a first edition 1616 KJV. You'll see the lion in the lower left corner, and the unicorn in the lower right corner. And check out this unicorn, the gold Scottish coin. I have no idea if all this influenced the actual choice of unicorn, but it's enough of a possibility that it can't be assumed away.

Ray M. said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

Ray Martinez said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

PZ Myers said: Tsk, tsk. Six pages of comments...on interpretations of the Bible. How about cutting through all the crap and realizing that you've been effectively distracted? The Bible is an old book written by a lot of strange people with weird ideas, almost completely ignorant of history and biology. It doesn't matter. It could babble about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and chupacabra...and it wouldn't matter, except for the fact that ignorant modern people take it seriously. Move on. The problem isn't the flaky translations, it's that people actually believe the Bible matters. And it doesn't.

PZ-- The Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart a special burden for your soul. He knows the trials and tribulations you have been going through in your relationship with John Kwok. He understands the incompatibility issues you have faced due to both of you having the same spiritual darkness. There are places where you can go to be healed from your condition and embrace Jesus with open arms!

You are wasting your time. Myers, like all Atheist-evolutionists, interprets your message to mean that God wants him. Just the opposite is true. Atheism and evolution is embraced because God has rejected these people---that's why they accept Atheism and evolution. Myers is like that aged movie star, convinced of self-importance, ready for her close-up, unaware that the Studio (= God) has long forsaken her.

No, God has not forsaken anybody this side of eternity; you need to have more faith! The problem with PZ and John is that atheistic evolutionism has caused them to deny the teleological meaning of a certain part of their body until it no longer functions the way God intended. However, when Satan brought them together in their unholy union, his own trick backfired. They were unable to perform since both of them are receivers and not givers. This is why the relationship broke up and there is so much friction between them. The Holy Spirit has instructed me to use this opportunity to lead both of them back to God. After all, it is in times of trouble that many of us do.

God didn't call a nobody on the Internet to save PZ Myers. You are just a modern day Pharisee and troll getting a fix. Myers, like any evolutionist, is rejected by God. He is just too stupid and dishonest to be a Christian and a Creationist.

Malchus said: God never rejects anyone. Apparently your understanding of the Bible and Christian doctrine is somewhat lacking.

John Kwok said: I pointed out to Robin two days ago that noted classics scholar Adrienne Mayor believes re'em probably refers to a rhinoceros, not a unicorn

Like I said, after a while you get used to it, sort of.

Okay, I'm laying down the law. There is no Unicode in the Bible; it's all ASCII. Comments are now closed.