The KJB (King James Bible) is often criticized for these, and many other word usages. Hebrew & Greek lexicons provide different definitions for KJB wording which Bible teachers and authors will often preface "...in the original languages this word really means...”. This is done so frequently today that it is the accepted method of Bible interpretation. The KJB is constantly filtered through Lexicons like Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New or Old Testament, Thayer's, G Ricker Berry, Green's and a compendium of other lexical, Bible dictionary & encyclopedia “authorities". One must go to the works of learned men (mostly apostates) who understand complex, invented ‘scientific’ methods of interpreting the Bible to understand what God is saying to us. (essentially, this is a ruse.) 1 While no one thinks to investigate the validity of these so-called “original language” sources (and methods), the prevailing attitude toward the KJB is that it's full of errors and must always need clarification. Where do they get this from? Such an approach does not give solid answers that build faith, but lead to more questions and ultimately doubt in the word of God. The second set of so-called authorities are modern Bible versions. It is a predominant and foregone conclusion that if these other sources say something different than the KJB they must be correct and authoritative without question. This can be seen in the following quote from a web article in the Christian Courier entitled What Are the Unicorns and Satyrs Mentioned in the Bible? It says, "The term “unicorn” is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible... (lists the nine Bible ref), However, unicorn does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions. This should be a signal that the “problem” is one of translation...”. Says who?
The purpose of this paper is to look at these KJB words (and a few others) as they are defined in its translated English and in the context in which they are written to see if they stand on their own merit (without the use of Lexicons or Commentaries or modern versions). This approach gives the KJB translators the benefit of the doubt as they themselves claim they translated from original sources as well as diligently comparing existing translations of the day.2 Further, this approach benefits the Bible reader/student by giving them a chance to first check the Bible alone. While I include historical facts and definitions (not surmising as commentary), I resolve that the translated word fits the context. If this approach has preeminence in your study, it's likely you’ll never feel the need to resort to the broad, endless and muddy waters of “biblical” hermeneutics.
(Bible helps are included in the Endnotes.)
Unicorn - It is supposed by many that the KJB translators meant the mythological horse with the single horn in the middle of its head.3 But, is it? Nay. It is a Rhinoceros. But the Rhino has two horns - right? No, not all Rhinos. The Rhinoceros Unicornis has only one horn. The name for the two-horned Black Rhinoceros is Diceros bicornis. “Unicorn”, singular, appears six times in the Bible and the plural, “unicorns” three times.
The term “horns of unicorns” (plural) throws scholars, especially in Deuteronomy 33:17 where the horns represent Ephraim and Manasseh. It has been said that the KJB translators somehow got it wrong, as the horns belong to one animal like the two horned Rhino; because Ephraim will be greater than Manasseh (Gen 48:19), so it must be talking about the big and little horns of ONE animal, the two-horned Rhinoceros (Bicornis). Therefore, it should be translated as Unicorn, singular or Bicornis.
However, that is conjecture only. The Unicorns, are TWO one-horned animals (or the horns of several unicorns). So, Ephraim & Manasseh are represented in these separate one-horned Rhinoceros. One Rhino (Unicornis) could have a greater horn than another Rhino, but it does not have to. Here the KJB is fine the way it is. No error or tweaking by the translators can be proven. What about the original Hebrew, the Septuagint, etc. modern Bible versions, etc.? What about them? They are NOT the "go-to" standards; why go there when everything needed is furnished in the context. Remember we are looking at just the KJB as it stands and here it makes perfect sense just as it is. Okay, just for fun, let's go ahead and look at what the Lexicons and modern versions say. They say "wild ox" or "oxen" for unicorn in the nine instances. God asked Job, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?" Job 39:9-10. This passage indicates an animal that is untamable. But a wild ox IS tamable; a Rhinoceros is not likely tamed. Do you see now how the KJB is so carelessly represented?
Satyr - Satyr appears twice in the Bible as a prophecy: Isaiah 13:21 says "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." Critics say it should be rendered as "he-goat". What do you think; a dancing goat or perhaps a monkey? Isaiah 34:14 says ”The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.” How would a goat cry to another goat? "Eh-eh-eh-eh-eh-eh-eh"! Oh, but a monkey...! Yes, the goat could fit, but the monkey more so. The monkey fits perfectly with the CONTEXT that desert and island animals shall meet to inhabit this deserted place. In mythology, Satyr is a licentious deity or devil of sorts, so, why a monkey? Is it a guess? No, Satyr is also known as the name for a certain monkey as early as Pliny, 79AD and through the 1800’s. At the time of the 1600’s, the monkey would also be known by the translators and readers of the day as the ‘Satyr’. Of, over 300 species of monkeys in the world, the Zoological Taxonomic name (Scientific Latin name) for the Chimpanzee is "Pan Satyrus". Orangutan is known as Simia satyrus. Satyr is correct.
Dragon may likely refer to several reptiles in the lizard family like a large Komodo Dragon or small ones like the Iguana or other ‘lizard dragons’. References to dragons in the Bible, along with certain other animals, live in deserted or desolate places once inhabited by people (ruins). It does not have to fit the description in Job of a fire breathing creature which may have existed as a dinosaur into the medieval times i.e. Leviathan and Behemoth which are mentioned in the same sentence with a dragon (but not necessarily defining the dragon). 4 It's about time we stop filtering our belief through old earth evolution. The biblical earth is only about 6,000 years old. So, most all Bible references to “dragons” do not describe fire breathing dragons but fit the descriptions of Lizards in the Dragon Family. Dragons is correct.
A couple more favorites of critics and skeptics is "Easter" and the word "Charity". Let's cut to the chase. They are both correct! They should not be translated "Passover” or "Love". Why?
Easter appears once in Acts where it is either referring to the Roman Pagan holiday" (not "Passover") or is actually referring to the annual time of Jesus’ resurrection. Strong evidence indicates New Testament Christians observed the Resurrection. The term ‘Easter’ may not be of Pagan origin (‘Ishtar’; Alexander Hilsop Two Babylons), but of European origin as in Germanic, ‘Oester’ meaning sunrise. All earlier English versions say ‘Passover lamb’ or ‘Easter lamb’. Hilsop was right in that Easter as is practiced today with egg laying bunnies, etc. has its roots in paganism. The point being made is that the translators knew it should not be translated Passover. They knew what they were doing when they translated it Easter.
Charity: Besides “giving relief to the poor,” the word charity refers to a specific kind of love, a love among the brethren. 1Corinthians 13 has been incorrectly dubbed the "love" chapter. This chapter coincides with the previous one and is talking about Christian behavior and interaction (love) in and among the Church; not love in a general sense that includes outsiders. Further, Vs 3 would not say "and have not charity" after: “And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor ..." if the passage were talking about our limited understanding of "charity". If you didn't know that Charity here means a special love towards the brethren, now you can read these passages in the understanding that God intended for you.
There are many such Bible words over which we often stumble. We should remember that God is the Author of the Bible and he is capable of preserving it. It is unlikely that his intention is for us to jump through scholarly hoops to find him (so, just jump over them). Read the English word as it is translated, read it in context, get a good English to English dictionary,5 pray and seek God for interpretation (for only he can give that). Find out the usage of Middle English words like Thee, Thou, Ye, You, etc. and the eth, est, ed, etc. endings and you will be pleasantly surprised how it is all done for accuracy of translation.6 You don't have to spend a valuable part of your life trying to grasp Greek and Hebrew or relying on tainted Lexicons and faulty manuscripts and modern versions. At best, these are wells without water. Yes, you will likely be ridiculed by your seminary friends, but leave them in the dust (If you have been to seminary, all is not lost). If you have a KJB, Bible interpretation is literally under your nose! And you will be far ahead of them in your understanding of the Bible simply because you believe what is there. Believing what is there is your springboard.
If Lexicons and other sources agree with the King James Bible it will be, at the least A) defined in English and B) in the context. Therefore, no Hebrew/Greek is of further benefit. If in agreement with the KJB, its rendering is watered down compared to an English definition of the KJB (If you run to the "Heb/Gk" you are simply not reading the context or studying the Bible itself for answers.)
These subjective sources are Trojan horses. They have no authority to qualify the Bible; let the Bible qualify them. They are substitutes, imposters, Suplanters, subtle and ever re-defining God; tempting us to find God by way of the secular (which affects doctrine). Their scholars have never entered in to a basic belief in inspiration and infallibility of scripture nor do they allow others to enter in. Remember Jesus’ admonition to "Enter ye in at the strait gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction..." (Read more in the following Endnotes)
by: B Haley
1 - promoted by Apologetics which employs Hermeneutics - a science of interpretation created for the classics but regarded as the best method to interpret the Bible, thus the term “biblical hermeneutics”. Hermeneutics gets its name from Hermes, the messenger of the gods or the god of interpretation. Aside from its origins, the major problem with carrying over this method to interpret the Bible is that it views the Bible on the same plane as the secular works like Plato, Socrates, Philo, etc, etc, as though the Bible were just another foreign language book. Though hermeneutics advocates logical things like the importance of context, such sensible attributes of interpretation are skewed and often overridden by heavy reliance on Heb & Gk Lexicons, modern versions and scholars’ opinions. Both cannot be correct. The reason this is not a good method of Bible interpretation is because hermeneutics is simply a carnal approach to a spiritual book.
1 Corinthians 2:10-16 says it best: 10 "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ".
Further, the secular language of these early lexicons was simply incorporated in all following Lexicons available today. This is why you see ‘Divine Being’ or ‘Deity’ as a choice for “Godhead” in Lexicons.
There are about four major Greek words for the English word ‘love’. They are: Agape, Philia, Storge and Eros. "Agape" is charity, the love of God for man and of man for God. "Philia" is a basic meaning of love between family and friends, coined by Aristotle. "Storge" love between parents and children. "Eros" as coined by Plato. Eros largely means erotic love. Do you suppose the Bible uses this form? Plato may talk like that but God does not! But you may find this in a Lexicon promoted to define Bible words.
2 – There is no evidence to support the claim that the KJB translators did not have access to the "oldest and best" manuscripts that are now available today (namely the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus on which all modern versions are based). The evidence suggests similar manuscripts were available to the King James translators, but they didn't use them because they found them to be unreliable.
3- It matters not that depictions of the mythological horse with one horn is so prevalent in history, even in Christianity or any such form. Also a goose is depicted as the Holy Ghost on the inside cover of the 1611 Bible, but a goose never appears in the Bible, only a dove. The Bible is the final authority. We ARE responsible for the text, but NOT pictures, marginal notes, nor footnotes; and certainly not commentary.
4 - Dragons and Man together:
Dragons (or remarkable similarities) are depicted in ancient art of disconnected cultures on several Continents; these cultures use dragon symbolism still today. Ancient cultures drew things they saw i.e. cattle, birds, monkeys, dogs, cats, lions, insects, spiders, scorpions, fish, whales, etc. They also depicted dinosaurs and dragon likenesses. Why would these be any different? Critics conclude dragons & dinosaurs were not observed but that they drew them from legends. We know dinosaurs existed and they drew and carved dinosaur images; if from legends, then their ancestors lived among them. The Bible says man and beast coexisted since creation.
5 - Among dictionaries, I highly recommend Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. This is usually free online and there are free phone apps. It is also available in hard copy reprint. This is Webster's first dictionary and contains most all words in the KJB and its definitions reflect the KJB time period. Webster is not 100% but it's very good.
6- HINT: In the KJB, ALL the “T” words for “you” are always singular and ALL the “Y” words for “you” are always plural. For example, God is NEVER referred to as Ye, You, Your or Yours, but ONLY as Thee, Thou, Thy or Thine. Why is that, do you suppose?
Copies of this tract, permission for its full reproduction or more information on pro-KJB materials for the Apostolic movement may be obtained from www.kjbapostolics.com or send request to: email@example.com
Tract # USD-01 updated 2-18-16
[Go to the Top of the page to download or share a this article.]