Origins of the King James Version of the Bible

Right! If one prefers "wild ox" use the version that tickles your ears, for it matters not if we believe it is a rhinoceros unicornis or a wild ox to our salvation. Just don't use the New World Translation.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The Sahadic Coptic bible is dated late 2nd century by most scholars, some think it's slightly later.

Originally posted by sonship

bwhahahah, at the time yet its still in the King James Version, no wonder you people are so mixed up, you are living in the past, unicorns, brilliant.

What major tenet of my faith is effected by the presence of the word "unicorns" in the King James Bible ?

Does it insist that no other English version but the KJV should I use ?
Do ence the word "unicorns" in the 17th century King James English version of the Bible ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
none, but that is not the point, is it. We are talking of accuracy of translation, last time I looked, unicorns were different from rhinos.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nope, they are still the same. You will still find them in the scientific literature. It is just some fool changed the definition in the dictionary and others followed suit. That is why today's Biblical translators don't know a unicorn from a wlid ox or a wild bull.

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bwahahahah, such court jesters like you are hard to find these days, people care too much.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am only giving you the truth, so that if you will accept it that you will be set free.

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Soooo funny