Bible Questions?

Your mom!

(that makes me miss high school)

 

Does the Bible support the existence of unicorns, which are mentioned in some versions?

The King James, Douay, and other versions, mention unicorns. But that is not so with modern versions that accurately render the Hebrew.—Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10 (21:22; 28:6; 91:11, Douay).

Over the centuries many myths have developed about an animal with the body and head of a horse but having the legs of a deer and the tail of a lion. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of this legendary creature is the single twisted horn on its forehead.

“People once believed that the unicorn’s horn contained an antidote for poison, and during the Middle Ages, powders supposedly made from such horns sold for extremely high prices. Most scholars believe the image of the unicorn was derived from hearsay European accounts of the rhinoceros.” (The World Book Encyclopedia) Certain Assyrian and Babylonian monuments showed one-horned animals. These are now recognized as stags, ibex, cows, and bulls depicted from the side, a view that did not show both horns.

This is of some interest to Bible students because nine times the Scriptures refer to an animal by the Hebrew term re’em′. (Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9, 10; Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isaiah 34:7) Translators were long uncertain as to what animal was meant. The Greek Septuagint rendered re’em′ with the sense ‘of one horn,’ or unicorn. The Latin Vulgate often translates it as “rhinoceros.” Other versions use ‘wild ox,’ ‘wild beasts,’ or ‘buffalo.’ Robert Young simply transliterates the Hebrew into English as “Reem,” basically leaving the reader in the dark.

Modern scholars, though, have eliminated much confusion over the re’em′. Lexicographers Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner show that it means “wild oxen,” with the scientific identification Bos primigenius. This is a “subfamily of the large horned ungulate family.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica explains:

“Certain poetical passages of the Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called re’em′. This word is translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions, but many modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’ (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re’em′.”

Since in current English “ox” has the sense of a castrated male, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures consistently and correctly renders re’em′ “wild bull.” The aurochs (wild ox, or bull) seems to have become extinct by the 17th century, but scientists have deduced that it was quite different from the unicorn of legend. The ancient aurochs had a body height of about six feet [1.8 m], and a length of some ten feet [3 m]. It might weigh 2,000 pounds [900 kg], and each of its two horns could be over 30 inches [75 cm] long.

This certainly accords with the Biblical mention of the re’em′, or wild bull. It was noted for its strength and intractable disposition (Job 39:10, 11) as well as its swiftness. (Numbers 23:22; 24:8) Evidently it had two horns, not one horn like the legendary unicorn. Moses referred to its horns when illustrating the two powerful tribes that would spring from Joseph’s two sons.—Deuteronomy 33:17.

So the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns as renowned in legend. It does draw an accurate, though limited, picture of the massive and fear-inspiring aurochs, or wild bull, that existed in Biblical times and down into the not-too-distant past.

 

I just find it somewhat amusing that this question is probably hotly disputed in some Christian circles to begin with.

Ok...

Understood...

And how did they do that?

Other than wherever you cut and pasted this from, does it say that re'em translates to wild ox?

Only certain bibles do, but make no mistake they are all the word of a god...

 

If you are, as you say, interested in more information on this subject:http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2009/09/on_unicorns_rhinoceros_and_wil.html

 

Ill bet after after a good stoning.. , a Rhino looks alot like a unicorn..

 

Genesis

4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

This seems like an odd worry seeing as how the only other humans on the entire planet were supposedly his parents, strange how the author chose to use the word any in my opinion.

 

The solution lies in the fact that Adam and Eve had more than two children. According to the context, they had a large family. At Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam became father to another son named Seth and then, in the following verse, we read: “He became father to sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4)

 

Now here's the thing - we know now that inbreeding even over a single generation can cause all kinds of birth defects; and that doing it continuously for generations leaves you with really messed up things like Sarah Palin or American Idol fans.
So did God just turn off the rules of genetics for the first fifty generations or so? Or are we all actually stunted, defected versions of what humans were back then? (Which would explain why everyone in the early days of the Bible lived a thousand years and we last a century tops, I guess)

 

Yep, according to the bible the only people in existence were Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel (and Seth later on). So, if Cain was able to take a wife it must have been his sister (not mentioned anywhere), his mother (already taken by Adam), his own daughter (created by procreating with his mother Eve making her his sister as well as his daughter and then his wife) or his niece (daughter of Abel and Eve or Seth and Eve)

So, which of these abominations was it?

 

can anyone related the name avenged sevenfold 2 the bible???

 

what the fuck are you asking? (??)

 

The Bible says God is love, but love can only happen if there is someone or something to love. So does this mean God was never alone?

 

chilll the language buddy.........

 

In Adam’s original perfect state his children would have been born in perfection. (Deut. 32:4) There would have been no family weaknesses to be passed on and accentuated by the marriage of near relatives, as is the case today, when the sinful human race has greatly deteriorated and many genetic defects exist. Even after Adam had sinned, his descendants lived as long as 969 years in the days before the Flood.—Gen. 5:27.

Accordingly, it took a long time for genetic defects to become so numerous and so grouped in family lines that it became dangerous to the offspring for close relatives to marry. Even Abraham, some 2,000 years after the creation of Adam, married his half sister. (Gen. 20:12) Not until God gave the Mosaic law (about 500 years later) did He prohibit close family marriage unions among the people of Israel.—Lev. 18:6-18.

 

"Not mentioned anywhere"?

 

Well olderwaterbrother, that helps a lot.

He (Seth) became father of sons and daughters by procreating with Eve (his mother) who was the only woman at that point.

So, Cain took for his wife his niece and half-sister.

Which would be abominatiom number four of the four mentioned.

Man, that is just nasty (both Cain and Seth).

 

How does anything I've said lead to the conclusion that Seth had children with his mother?

The Scripture says: And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.(Genesis 5:4) So the sons and daughters spoken of were Adam and Eve's, not Seth's.

 

Love can only happen if there is someone or something to love? Is there a Scripture that you are thinking of that seems to support this?

 

Okay, oldderwaterbrother.

You now claim that the sons and daughters are a reference to Adam, not Seth. Why you intimated that Seth was the explanation prior to this is anybody's guess.

So, Cain took for a wife his sister.

So it was abomination number one of the four. And he obviously wasn't the only one 'knowing' a sibling. It was pretty much a family knowfest, I'd imagine.

Like I said, nasty stuff.

 

Like I said, I never intimated anything about Seth's children, you jumped to conclusions.

So yes, Cain took his sister for a wife, although it could have been a niece or grand niece.

And no, it was not an abomination as you call it. You only think of as an abomination because that is what you have been trained to believe and rightly so but not because taking your sister or niece for a wife is inherently wrong but because doing so now, has the greatest risk of inherited genetic problems and so it has been made a taboo or as you put it an "abomination".

And so, no it was not "nasty" stuff, because "if" the Bible is true, we are related to every other human on the planet and that means no matter who you "marry" you are still having a "family knowfest" and that would make it all still "nasty stuff".