Originally posted by borntowatch
Irrespective, does this sound like a horse
No. But then again...did I ever say that a "re'em"
was a one-horned horsey? Nope. Only that the "re'em"
referenced are clearly mythical, non-existant, make-believe creatures.
Now read my post laughing boy,
I've been laughing hysterically at most of your posts.
I never said it was a Rhino, I suggested by the link it could be one of many animals with one horn. The rhino by definition is classified a uni- corn
(One- horn). The Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is classified as such.
OK...[I]THERE ARE NO OTHER ANIMALS WITH ONE-HORN THAT MIDDLE EASTERN DESERT WANDERERS COULD POSSIBLY BE REFERENCING.
[/I] Indeed, it is even
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that any of the the biblical authors would have ever even SEEN, HEARD OF, OR WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED a one-horned rhinoceros. The
vast, VAST majority of rhino
species on earth (both historically and in the present) are 2-HORNED rhinos. Most notably, those native to Africa,
the Mediterranean World, and the Near East. You know...the area that all the Hebrews and Christians lived.
The only rhino species with one horn in existence from "biblical" times to the present are the Sumatran, Sunda, and Indian (aka "Greater
One-Horned") rhinos. Here are maps which show both their historical and present ranges of these species.
One would have to wonder whether or not the ancients would have even truly recognized that these three species were even truly "horned" given that
the long spike which comes to mind when we think of the word "rhinoceros" is really little more than a boney bump on their snouts. Here are some
comparative silhouette's of these three rhino species so you can get a good idea of one those "horns" really look like on the "one-horned"
species of rhinos.
So...given that the ancient Hebrews were certainly aware of the existence of rhinos and had decided to refer to this animal as a "qarnaf"
IN ADDITION TO
the highly improbable idea that they had a separate word for the one-horned rhinos that they almost certainly would not have
ever encountered (much less encountered them on a regular basis), we must ask ourselves..."WTF other kinds of 'one-horned animals' do you
propose that these desert nomads were talking about???"
I'm assuming it's safe to say that you (hopefully) aren't postulating that Moses
& Co. would sometimes go whaling in the arctic circle where they would have encountered a narwhal?
I mean...clearly the ancient Hebrews weren't referring to the wooly Elasmotherium
because they died out 50,000 years ago and everybody knows
that the entire Earth is only 9,000 yrs old and that any fossils found dating to PRIOR to 9,000 yrs ago were placed there by "god" to "test
mankind's faith" or some such nonsense...right? I mean...the bible says
that the Earth is only 9,000 yrs old...doesn't it?
So again...I ask you...what "other kinds" of one-horned animals were the Hebrews talking about?? Do tell...I can't wait to hear this one.
The KJV of Job followed the Septuagint and Jerome Vulgate in its translation unicorn:
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys
after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home
thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"Book of Job 39:9–12.
In fairness you bring up a good point regarding the Septuagint translation of "re'em"
. Don't get me wrong...I'm not stating that the
ancient Hebrew people ACTUALLY BELIEVED that there were "unicorns" scampering about.
Indeed, ordained Rabbi Natan Slifkin builds a compelling case that "re'em"
actually referred to the 2-HORNED Oryx.(
} Of course, Rabbi Slifkin is also sane in other matters as well. He has gone on record to state that
the Earth is billions of years old, the Torah is not scientifically valid, and we shouldn't EVER interpret judaic religious texts literally. Not
surprisingly his people have banned his books and branded him a heretic.
Feel free to revise your interpretation of the bible as being the oft-mistranslated myths of nomadic people instead of being "The Word of God" any