[_ Old Earth _] Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red Sea

[Jim Parker]

My point is that the books are literal accounts

Yeah, I got that. So you believe in unicorns, right? Num 23:22; 24:8; Job 39:9-10 Psa 29:6; Psa 92:10

you cannot say that the story of Abraham is a "parable"

I never said that.
What I did post was archaeological evidence of Abraham being known to the people of Ebla.

 

[Jim Parker]

In the literal Genesis account, there is symbolism. The literal Adam was literally covered up. His nakedness was the result of his sin.

Jack, to whom are you responding?
Click on the "reply" button at the bottom of the post to which you are responding. Then we can tell whose post you are referencing.
Thanks

Iakov the fool

 

[Jacks Bratt]

God told you it was so. And that makes it true.

Nope, you tried. I read the book far differently than you. Please don't pretend to speak for God.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Jack, to whom are you responding?
Click on the "reply" button at the bottom of the post to which you are responding. Then we can tell whose post you are referencing.
Thanks

Iakov the fool

If you checked the post again you would see whom I quoted.
It was done as you stated to do.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Yeah, I got that. So you believe in unicorns, right? Num 23:22; 24:8; Job 39:9-10 Psa 29:6; Psa 92:10

I never said that.
What I did post was archaeological evidence of Abraham being known to the people of Ebla.

I was not stating that you said such a thing. I was reinforcing my view on this topic.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Yeah, I got that. So you believe in unicorns, right? Num 23:22; 24:8; Job 39:9-10 Psa 29:6; Psa 92:10

Being a Christian, you should not scoff at the biblical account of the animals that existed or exist on this earth. Nor should you insult a brother in Christ by making fun of them or ridiculing them in a hurtful manner or assume that they believe something that you have no proof of.
This is really juvenile....

Yes, there were,and I may add, are Unicorns..... As they were intended in the early 1800's. If you look up in the Websters dictionary of 1828, you will see that the term "Unicorn" was intended for any animal with one horn.

Now, just like the Gay movement has hijacked the rainbow as their symbol, as a direct insult to God as the rainbow is God's symbol to the whole earth that He will never destroy the population of the world by water.....the secular intellects have portrayed the "unicorn" as a mythical horse like animal with one horn. This has been presented with such strength that even, presumably wise and intelligent people will picture such an animal as soon as they hear the word "unicorn".

However, these self appointed scholars should sit down and reconsider their knowledge. They should stop talking and keep their ignorance to themselves.

The term "unicorn" as used in the KJV was intended for the single horned rhinoceros. Check it out. Better still here you go.

Unicorn – An animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.


(This 1828 dictionary can be accessed free online. Just go to Google.com and type in “Noah Webster 1828” and it will be one of the first links that pop up.)


Notice how this 200-year-old definition of the word “unicorn” says absolutely nothing about a horse. It says nothing about a horse-like animal, or a mythical animal, or a fictitious creature. It says absolutely nothing about mythology whatsoever. But rather, it says that this is a name that is often applied to the rhinoceros.
.
So, please do me a favor and stop attempting to discredit a fellow follower of Christ with such child like insults, condescension and accusations.

Your embarrassing.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope, you tried. I read the book far differently than you.

Doesn't matter. It won't send you to hell, being wrong about it, but it's still wrong.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Doesn't matter. It won't send you to hell, being wrong about it, but it's still wrong.

I'm not worrying about you going to hell for your erroneous beliefs of scripture either.

 

[Jim Parker]

Being a Christian, you should not scoff at the biblical account of the animals that existed or exist on this earth. Nor should you insult a brother in Christ by making fun of them or ridiculing them in a hurtful manner or assume that they believe something that you have no proof of.

I wasn't scoffing; I asked you a direct question.
And I did not make fun of you or ridicule you an any manner whatsoever.
Get over yourself.

Yes, there were,and I may add, are Unicorns..... As they were intended in the early 1800's. If you look up in the Websters dictionary of 1828, you will see that the term "Unicorn" was intended for any animal with one horn.

The KJ reference is from 1611.
Can you show a direct connection to the two+ centuries later Webster's reference to the Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), also called the greater one-horned rhinoceros?
Or are you just reverting to the "looks similar so it must be proof" illogical nonsense?.
Can you demonstrate that the translators of the KJV were referring to the Indian rhinoceros? OR is that just more "similarity = absolute proof" nonsense?

Notice how this 200-year-old definition of the word “unicorn” says absolutely nothing about a horse. It says nothing about a horse-like animal, or a mythical animal, or a fictitious creature. It says absolutely nothing about mythology whatsoever. But rather, it says that this is a name that is often applied to the rhinoceros.

THat is false.
It is PART of a name applied to the Indian rhino 227 years later in an American dictionary. You have established absolutely nothing to demonstrate a verifiable connection between the 1611 English KJV and the 1828 American Webster's dictionary and certainly not any proof that the KJV translators were specifically referring to the Indian Rhino.
Your "proof" is based on an anachronism and inappropriately applying the definition of a 19th century American dictionary to the wor4k of 17th century English translators. In doing so you have also overlooked (or were totally unaware of) the fact that the KJV is written in Late Middle English while the Webster's dictionary is the report of current usage of 19th century, modern American English. They are not a word-for-word equivalent.
Your methodology boils down to "If it looks similar, it must be absolute proof." It's the kind of flim-flam that YEC evangelists use to amaze and astound the rubes. You have apparently mistaken their showmanship as having some validity as a research methodology. It has none.

So, please do me a favor and stop attempting to discredit a fellow follower of Christ with such child like insults, condescension and accusations.

You discredit yourself by your insistence on literalism in the wrong places .
No one has insulted you.
I asked if we should take the reference to unicorns in the KJV literally. That's all.

Your embarrassing.

That's insulting.

 

[Jim Parker]

I was not stating that you said such a thing. I was reinforcing my view on this topic.

Ah so! Then please try to do so on a manner which indicates what you are attempting to do.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm not worrying about you going to hell for your erroneous beliefs of scripture either.

To whom was that addressed?
And why would you imagine that having an inerrant belief about scripture is required for salvation? Are you a gnostic?

 

[Jim Parker]

This thread was originally about the discovery of the remains of Pharaoh's army at the bottom of the Red Sea.
Since that report turned out to be fraudulent, shouldn't the thread be closed???

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I wasn't scoffing; I asked you a direct question.
And I did not make fun of you or ridicule you an any manner whatsoever.
Get over yourself.

On a Christian forum, if you say to someone...." so, I guess you believe in Unicorns then" and post some scripture, containing the mention of Unicorns. It is definitely a jab and an insult. You were directly insulting my view of exceptiong scripture as being literal.. To deny this is dishonest.

The KJ reference is from 1611.
Can you show a direct connection to the two+ centuries later Webster's reference to the Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), also called the greater one-horned rhinoceros?
Or are you just reverting to the "looks similar so it must be proof" illogical nonsense?.
Can you demonstrate that the translators of the KJV were referring to the Indian rhinoceros? OR is that just more "similarity = absolute proof" nonsense?

To be quite honest, I was not aware that the KJV used the term "Unicorn" until you mentioned it. So.... I looked up some information.
Do they or do they not show the term "Unicorn" to mean an animal with one horn, like a rhino?
Is it, then, possible, that what they used for a definition in, what was it, early 1800's could possibly be the same term used in 1611?
Or, is a bovine still not a cow, today, 200 some odd years later than when the US was united into it's colonies?

Nonsense? Please....

THat is false.
It is PART of a name applied to the Indian rhino 227 years later in an American dictionary. You have established absolutely nothing to demonstrate a verifiable connection between the 1611 English KJV and the 1828 American Webster's dictionary and certainly not any proof that the KJV translators were specifically referring to the Indian Rhino.
Your "proof" is based on an anachronism and inappropriately applying the definition of a 19th century American dictionary to the wor4k of 17th century English translators. In doing so you have also overlooked (or were totally unaware of) the fact that the KJV is written in Late Middle English while the Webster's dictionary is the report of current usage of 19th century, modern American English. They are not a word-for-word equivalent.
Your methodology boils down to "If it looks similar, it must be absolute proof." It's the kind of flim-flam that YEC evangelists use to amaze and astound the rubes. You have apparently mistaken their showmanship as having some validity as a research methodology. It has none.

You discredit yourself by your insistence on literalism in the wrong places .
No one has insulted you.
I asked if we should take the reference to unicorns in the KJV literally. That's all.

That's insulting.

Then, it is you, not I that is saying the Bible mentions a mythical horse with one horn in the middle of its head...

I will go with the one horned rhino.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

To whom was that addressed?
And why would you imagine that having an inerrant belief about scripture is required for salvation? Are you a gnostic?

I blieve there is something wrong with the way you are seeing posts. In each of the posts you have questioned me as to whom I am addressing my post, it is quite apparent who the person is as it is stated in the quote.

Maybe check your display so that you are not confused.

 

[Jim Parker]

On a Christian forum, if you say to someone...." so, I guess you believe in Unicorns then" and post some scripture, containing the mention of Unicorns. It is definitely a jab and an insult.

It was a direct question.
If you choose to feel jabbed and insulted then that's what you get.

Is it, then, possible, that what they used for a definition in, what was it, early 1800's could possibly be the same term used in 1611?
Or, is a bovine still not a cow, today, 200 some odd years later than when the US was united into it's colonies?

You are using possibility and/or plausibility as verification.
That is illogical. That something is possible or plausible is proof of absolutely nothing.
This is an early 17th-century, European, fresco of a virgin with a unicorn by Domenico Zampier.
It's from the time of the KJV translation.
You will note that it is not a one horned rhino.
While this fresco does not prove that the beast depicted is that to which the KJV referred, it is clear evidence of what the current conception of the word "unicorn" meant at the time of the writing of the KJV.
View attachment 9857

I will go with the one horned rhino.

Then be prepared to not be taken seriously.

 

[Jim Parker]

who the person is as it is stated in the quote.

The quote isn't appearing.
It does appear on other posts.
curious

 

[Barbarian]

While this fresco does not prove that the beast depicted is that to which the KJV referred, it is clear evidence of what the current conception of the word "unicorn" meant at the time of the writing of the KJV.

Actually, it would be more likely that such a "unicorn" once existed, than it is likely that there was a global flood.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Who knows what creatures lived and died without fossil record. Believers of the TOE would have us believe that there are an infinite number of transitional beings that have no presence in the fossil record.

As for creatures mentioned in other cultures we have the Kraken, Griffin ( my high school animal ), Mermaids, Centaur, Pegasus, and the list goes on.

The Bible mentions the leviathan, Satyrs, Lion Men, dragons, the behemoth, and, now, news to me, I don't know why I never saw it before, the Unicorn.

Do we have any other evidence of these? What context was used to mention them?

Do I believe in the mythical one horned horse? No, not at this time and I don't really have any desire to research it.

We are told that "all flesh was corrupted" at the time before the flood. We are told that Noah was "perfect in his generations" that, in my opinion, depicts that his DNA was still 100% human. Who knows what other monsters could have been created by the genetic manipulation carried out on the animals and humans of that time by the fallen angels and the Nephilim?

However, if someone tells me that "if you believe scripture is literal, you must believe in a mythical horse with one horn" I will tell them that there are other possibilities for what the term "unicorn" is intended to describe.

If the poster who stated "Yeah, I got that. So you believe in unicorns, right?" in direct response to me stating that I take the bible literally, did not intend it to be a dig, an insult and a form of condescension, I must take their word for it. Maybe I was too sensitive. However, in the context that it was written, I believe it could have been taken either way.

 

[Edward]

Life is 10% what happens and 90% how you react to it. All this bickering is from bad reactions of some.

I believe in unicorns because the Bible mentions them.
Does that mean that I have to be thinking about a horned horse? No it doesn't. We need to get back on topic.

(Jim):
This thread was originally about the discovery of the remains of Pharaoh's army at the bottom of the Red Sea.
Since that report turned out to be fraudulent, shouldn't the thread be closed??? )

Where's your proof of that? I've seen a few videos from different sources
of underwater footage of bones, and wheels and so forth so there's very much circumstantial evidence that supports the Bible's account of the crossing of the red sea and demise of the Pharaoh's soldiers...

So explain how these reports, turned out to be fraudulent.
Have you been over there diving and found nothing, or something?

 

[Barbarian]

As a rule of thumb, if the people pushing a story put up fraudulent information to support it, you can be pretty sure there's no real evidence for it.