God and Unicorns (page 2)

Sea Breeze

The original Hebrew is the word re’em which bascially means “beast with a horn.” One possible interpretation is the rhinoceros. The Hebrew word : tow’apaha in Numbers 23: 22 refers to more than one horn, so it’s likely the translators intended to infer a wild, powerful, but recognizable animal with a single horn.

This word was translated monokeros in the Septuagint and unicornis in the Latin Vulgate. The animal shown in the OP is certainly an example of a powerful, untamable animal with a single horn. It looks similar to an ox and a rhino. Atheist scientists date it to exactly the same dates we get from dinosaur soft tissue when carbon dated - around 29,000 years ago. Carbon dating assumes conditions on earth have been the same for millions of years. When corrected to account for pre-flood conditions, you get dates in line with bible chronology.

The Indian Rhinoceros is a possibility, having a single horn and living with humans today. - Rhinoceros unicornis

But the beast in the OP has a much bigger "WOW" factor and is certainly not excluded. It is a truly magnificiant creature; superior to the Indian Rhinoceros Unicornis.

That simple observational fact makes me think that "Elasmotherium sibiricu" is the correct referenced animal.

Sea Breeze

Scientists try (or should try!) their utmost to put any personal bias or beliefs aside when doing science.
There are just 'scientists', that's all.

@ LoveUnoHateExamas - That is impossible. They are humans first, before they are scientists. Their assumptions and worldview will ALWAYS PRODUCE CONCLUSIONS consistant with their pre-suppositions. Just a fact of life.

LoveUniHateExams

@ LoveUnoHateExamas - That is impossible - not always.

For example, scientists state that gravity exists. <---- you take their word for it, don't you?

cofty

Is this thread a parody of Fundy Christians?

Earnest

Sea Breeze : Atheist scientists now agree that "Elasmotherium sibiricu" lived with humans.

It's not quite clear which atheist scientists you are referring to. Are you referring to Svetlana Svyatko, who completed her PhD at Queens University, Belfast (a haven for atheist scientists) and who carried out AMS radiocarbon dating of the elasmotherium skull; or to Alexei Tesakov, head of the Laboratory of Quaternal Stratigraphy in Moscow (where the skull is held), or perhaps to the authors of the article in the American Journal of Applied Sciences, scientists Andrei Shpansky (who conducted the field research), Valentina Aliyassova (who designed the research plan) or Svetlana Ilyina (who measured the samples) ?

Sea Breeze

@ Ernest

It's not quite clear which atheist scientists you are referring to.

I'm not sure it really matters all that much. They all think they are accidents but want you to believe them anyway, right?

peacefulpete

Cofty I agree.

As far as what was identified by re'em, it's as uncertain and speculative as many other colloquial names for animals, places and expressions. It's entirely possible it meant different things to different authors, even taking on a mythological element in some contexts. What we can be sure of is that a 5th or 6th century BC author was not referring to a long extinct creature. Jewish scholarship has generally favored identifying the animal as the much more recently extinct auroch. A large wild bovine that did in fact exist in parts of the Middle East. It is likely this was the animal by which El and later YHWH were symbolized. Indeed, YHWH is described as having the horns of the re'em.

17 In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are the horns of a re'em.

Rather ironically the wild auroch while seemingly untamable was in fact the animal from which we get domestic cattle.

Slidin Fast

I love threads like these. They are entertaining as well as enlightening and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. I now know more than I did when I went to bed and I've enjoyed my morning. Much better than getting a WT, we know everything explanation.

Maybe it was a giant hen with tooth.

Sea Breeze

@ LoveUniHateExams,

For example, scientists state that gravity exists. <---- you take their word for it, don't you?

Gravity is not an untestable conclusion, but a demonstratable fact. We all have the same facts but draw sometimes completely different conclusions based on our worldview.

For instance, when dinosaur soft tissues, blood cells and DNA fragments were discovered to be quite common, "millions of years" proponents believed that there must be some unseen agent causing them to be preserved longer than it takes mountain ranges to wear down from erosion and rise up again.

Others with a different worldview believe this "saving device" is absurd and that the facts support a young earth in line with a literal biblical interpretation.

Same facts.... different conclusions. It's the way it is.

peacefulpete

The tortuous path of distortion and deception required to say that a young-earth chronology is a legitimate scientific interpretation of the facts is so tangled and incoherent as to make refutation not just a never ending chore but pointless.

The recent discovery that under the right conditions the hemoglobin (converted to hematite) acted as a cellular structure preservative is exciting and informative. What seemed impossible has been shown to be possible. No, actual biological cells, blood and DNA have not been recovered, that is a lie perpetuated by unscrupulous creationist authors selling books or ad space on their blogs. What is found are microstructures, traces and chemical markers, a level of fossilization thought beyond hope, that offer a deeper view into the lives of these ancient animals.

It is a great example of how science works. What was assumed impossible was later revealed to be possible through the scientific method and increases in technology. Creationists who have actually read the findings know they are grossly misrepresenting the work and the evidence.

God and Unicorns

Share this