Unicorns In The Bible. That Makes Them Real?

Originally posted by Thoriumisbest
Also I don't consider my explanation to be any more preposterous than suggesting that some medieval Mr Magoo saw a rhino and thought it was a horse.

My suggestion had nothing to do with short-sightedness. It was about the ambiguity of verbal description.
Travellers tales describe, quite accurately, "charging animal".
European artist draws the only kind of charging animal that he knows.

In fact I have a suspicion that the sleek-looking unicorn of the popular image may be the product of modern artistic romanticising. A search of genuine mediaeval drawings may come up with much plumper, more rhinoceros-resembling, versions.
[however, a quick google doesn't reveal any, so I'll stay with the first line of thought for the moment]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c11873609786.jpg[/atsimg]

If you would do that..... you can also stick this warning to any book of the law, anywhere in the world...!!!

reply to post by hotbakedtater


yes it is interesting that the unicorn is noted... another creature is also affirmed by the 'Holy Books'
that is the half-man/ half-goat creature called a Satyr..

the destroyed Babylon of the latter days will become completely unpopulated and desolate of humans,
only Satyrs and hoot Owls will inhabit the destroyed city for the following 1,000 years of the kingdom


wasn't the unicorn a pre-flood creature?


Oh , yeah... heres a link to images:
flickrhivemind.net... de=all&sort=Date Posted, new first&quicksearch=1&textinput=unicorn&search_type=Tags

just punch in what your interested in...satyrs/ unicorns / dragons... all those Biblical creatures

Originally posted by noahproductions
Maybe they just chopped of the horns like they do with rhinos in our days....
or like stealing the ivory from the elephants.....???

Also a very good point. I was wondering the same thing after I finished my post.
Either for the material, or as a tool. I would think that if i ever saw a unicorn impale my buddy, I would want that weapon for myself.

I am going to use some creative license to illustrate a point, so bear with me please. `I think unicorns are symbolic of the solid part of universality. Hard-core truth. Those bastards always eat the mystery! I do not believe a unicorn every physically existed, but information surrounding the mythos does betray an I-dea in my view. Come on, think of the book of Job. Bet between devil and God. Ones perception of God is never God, no matter what God one believes in. Job was so stubborn as to believe in his tiny little concept of God until the end. WOW! I guess that obstinate little f*** thought he was special enough to be able to fully transcend duality. Or maybe descend is a better word. Or maybe this is just a stage in development we all go through and this book teaches volumes so we don't make the same dumb-butt mistakes. Or at least so that we can go through this stage more quickly and earlier in life. Whatever, the reader gets what the reader wants and/or needs. At the end of a stage or cycle, we see "perfectly" what birthed that drama. It was a unicorn. In a dynamic world, a unicorn will never be the goose that layed the golden egg, at least not forever.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Or the large creatures mentioned in the Bible are more likely the Giant Mammals that became extinct in the prehistoric era of man, such as the Wooly Mammoth, the Sabertooth Tiger, or the Giant Hornless Rhino. Link. The creators of the Bible could not have POSSIBLY ever seen a dinosaur, PERIOD!

True, you are correct, that could indeed be the reason. But I would like to see some proof dinosaurs and human beings did NOT coexist. I mean humans of any kind. And, do any of us know how ancient the texts/myths/stories/legends the Bible was copied from are? To me and many others, thes eissues are NOT so cut and dry.

according to esoteric history, unicorns did indeed exist. as did a slew of other animals we can't imagine. they were part of the old world though, and became extinct.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Dont fear the worst just yet. It's still considered a mysterious something none the less. There is no mention of them till some books later in the Old Testament. They could have been a leftover dino like the sabertooth and the dodo. I dunno why the saber tooth died out, but the horn of the unicorn or the originality of the creature showed strength. Could have been a mastadon, elephant or as some said, a rhino. We knew some of these creatures walked the earth not all that long ago. Perhaps they were hunted out of existance. Either way, you could still hold some mystery to it, just perhaps without the horn.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Thanks for the reply, glad it gave you a chuckle.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Thoriumisbest
Also I don't consider my explanation to be any more preposterous than suggesting that some medieval Mr Magoo saw a rhino and thought it was a horse.

My suggestion had nothing to do with short-sightedness. It was about the ambiguity of verbal description.
Travellers tales describe, quite accurately, "charging animal".
European artist draws the only kind of charging animal that he knows.

In fact I have a suspicion that the sleek-looking unicorn of the popular image may be the product of modern artistic romanticising. A search of genuine mediaeval drawings may come up with much plumper, more rhinoceros-resembling, versions.
[however, a quick google doesn't reveal any, so I'll stay with the first line of thought for the moment]

edit on 5-12-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I came across the following image, and can find no source for it! If anyone knows who painted this picture or anything about it, please share your knowledge with us!

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Your image is in the Wikipedia article on the subject, attributed to Domenico Zampieri.
c1602 Rome.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Or the large creatures mentioned in the Bible are more likely the Giant Mammals that became extinct in the prehistoric era of man, such as the Wooly Mammoth, the Sabertooth Tiger, or the Giant Hornless Rhino. Link. The creators of the Bible could not have POSSIBLY ever seen a dinosaur, PERIOD!

exactly why the bible is VERY inaccurate to the history of earth,.
It really makes me crazy when the Bible thumpers preach to me about the age of the earth being only 3000 years old.

I don't know about the "being in the bible makes it real" but such animals could exist due to a birth defect or if we assume that all the ancient alien theory is real due to genetic experiments.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


There is no evidence of the existance of dinosaurs after 65 million years ago in the fossil record. Link. Likewise, there is not evidence of homonids (human-like mammals) in the fossil record prior to 7 million years ago. Link. This is more than sufficient evidence to dispell the thought that man and dinosaur roamed the earth together. The Flintstones is NOT a documentary...

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by ararisq

 

But this begs the question, how can we trust the Bible if there are translation problems? I was always taught that even the translations were guided by the Hand of God Himself. (raised Catholic.) I agree that translation problem is one of the rebuttals, but it still remains up to the individual to make the final decision on belief.

The translators are just that - translators. If you were to go and start translating does that make you inspired by God? No. Translations are always better when there is a recognizable context - for example, when the Japanese translate some English words (especially regarding new technology) they simply don't translate - they bring the English word in to their lexicon because there is no equivalent translation. When the author describes an animal with an enormous tail and height that eats vegetation its easier for us (in this century) to understand the context, but to someone that had never seen a fossil not so much. However, when you leave out all context and mention an animal with strength then the translator (1000's of years in the future) is left to guess what the context really was. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. It doesn't invalidate the information in the Bible. The idea that the translators were infallible makes sense coming from a Catholic church that wants to ensure its dominance over its people.

reply to post by St Udio


Ah the Satyr!

Satyr and Unicorn In The Bible! Say What?

In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god, a companion of Bacchus. There is absolutely no relationship between this pagan concept and any passage in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa’ir is found about fifty-two times. It is related to the term se’ar (“hair”), which means a “hairy one.” Mostly the word is used of the male goat that was employed as a sin-offering – especially that solemn sin-offering of the day of atonement (Lev. 16).

So we have a Christian Apologist pooh poohing the notion that over fifty times the author really did mean SATYR, but messed up over fifty times in translation. OK.

And a nice picture of a satyr for those who do not know what one is! (really, this Bible is sounding way better than Harry Potter, the more I hear of it):




Fair warning if you search for Satyr, lots of really naked pictures come up with the search.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Your image is in the Wikipedia article on the subject, attributed to Domenico Zampieri.
c1602 Rome.

edit on 5-12-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Ah thank you. So even back then the unicorn was worthy of painting.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
True, you are correct, that could indeed be the reason. But I would like to see some proof dinosaurs and human beings did NOT coexist. I mean humans of any kind. And, do any of us know how ancient the texts/myths/stories/legends the Bible was copied from are? To me and many others, thes eissues are NOT so cut and dry.

If a fossil of a dinosaur was found - its would immediately be assumed to be millions of years old and if the carbon dating didn't validate that point then it would be thrown out as an anomaly or actually the bone of a non-dinosaur animal. Second, the proof won't exist until it is found and there aren't too many events in the past 10000 years to create fossils which is why the fossil record usually doesn't start until 8000 BC.

The same argument can be made for the transitional species which have never been found in the fossil record -- whoops I guess according to JaxonRoberts that the whole macro-evolution thing is a hoax.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
exactly why the bible is VERY inaccurate to the history of earth,.
It really makes me crazy when the Bible thumpers preach to me about the age of the earth being only 3000 years old.

It makes me crazy when Bible bashers attribute statements to Christians which are ludicrous. I've never heard a single Christian say the earth is only 3000 years old. That puts creation a few thousand years after most of the early Old Testament.

Unicorns went 'extinct' because people kept using them to ward off the orks black magic/machinery bioweapons. They were trying to kill many of us with disease, illnesses, and, as the article the OP linked stated, drinking from the cup of the Unicorns could heal one from any disease or ailment. The Unicorn IS the holy grail, and it has been lost, because they were actively sought out for magical/health purposes, and were pushed further and further out into obscurity as megacities were being built by The Dark Order to control the masses.

there is a garden, one place where they still rome.