Favourite Bible Translations

sure. but my point in mentioning them was that all these existed, so KJV wasn't "the only English Bible in existence for 400 years"



i think it also may have also had something to do with the great numbers of them printed in England and the British Crown's preference that it be the official Bible of their vast empire.

if you're talking about systematic-theological-bias i think you must be referring to the Geneva Bible's copious notes, not its actual translation. plenty of KJV 'study Bibles' are available with poor commentary, too.


i'll see about looking into that; it's really not something i'm knowledgeable about. thanks

i was under the impression that the KJV uses fantasy mythological beasts like unicorn, basilisk, cockatrice, phoenix & satyr when they came to Hebrew words for animals for which they had practically no idea how to accurately translate.

that is, all these have some kind of connection to some kind of heraldry, sure, but it wasn't the heraldic associations the translators had in mind -- it was just the fact that the word meant some kind of animal, that was clear, but as far as what animal, scholars of their day were at a loss to definitively say -- so they put a beast's name from popular/pagan mythos that seemed to kinda fit.

the word translated unicorn, for example, is probably actually referring to an aurochs, the giant ancient species of bull that used to be common in the Levant, famously incorporated in rodeos & religion in Minos.
the word translated satyr, rather than being half-man-half-goat mythical Greek nature demigods, is probably referring simply to a kind of wild goat.
the word translated as a cockatrice in the KJV, rather than being a half-chicken-half-snake-or-dragon mythical monster, is likely just a type of snake.

several of these words that the KJV puts fantasy creature names down for in one place, are used in other parts of the Bible and the KJV uses a normal name for. the same word they put 'cockatrice' for, for example, they also just put 'viper' or 'adder' for in another place. in their preface they addressed criticism levied against them because they had chosen not to be consistent in translating particular Hebrew or Greek words, but to use many different English words in different verses for the same original Greek or Hebrew one. they explained, this variation makes the language more beautiful, and reflects the variation God put in nature. so i think, gee maybe the KJV translating body just thought 'cockatrice' was a pretty word, and wanted to use it in some places. so they'd used viper, they'd used adder, they'd used serpent... hmm what else we got. oh, cockatrice, that's a good one. it's half-snake. put that there.

Jehovah's Witnesses are irrelevant.

Wescott & Hort did not figure Jesus less than God, nor did they manipulate a bible translation to do so.
Those are false charges.

It is dishonest, God did not put "unicorns" in nature.

i agree.

in a similar way i think putting British coins like 'farthing' or 'penny' down in the translation was a misguided attempt to make the scripture more relatable to common people. it would be better, IMO, to leave currency like drachmas & denarii as they are in the text -- it would certainly be the accurate thing to do, and i think we're all smart enough to read the text and understand that it's some kind of coin. why do i need to be told it's a totally different coin of a totally different value that didn't even exist in the time period or was ever used in that part of the world? it's dishonest & it's misleading, and isn't it a bit bias? i mean, they left 'shekel' alone lol

but these are nits to pick, and we'll offend several brethren here if we belabor the points

mm probably. nitpicking a bit, but then for some of the trees they put oaks when in the middle east they didnt grow there.
I would say they picked a name that they didnt have a word for, it was probably oryx.

The KJV has a british slant that a lot of americans dont like as they want no part of the british empire, which is why it comes in for a bit of ire methinks. Thats why theres american versions of the bible like NASB.
But then the NASB probably has the same things but with american spellings.

I did keywording for americans and they have a heap of words spelled different or had different words that they used.
As you might know there are lots of animals in america that dont exist in europe and vice versa. So the translators would use the closes approximation. Unicorn is a bit funny though its shows the brits had no real idea what the creature was.

I dont know why they use the unicornin heraldry though...but then they also have dragons, when there was no word for dinosaur it hadnt come into common usage.

With the current fad for unicorns in publishing I am surprised NOT to see unicorns on the covers of the Bible marketed for little girls. lol

It used to be owls, then llamas, and now its unicorns.

I have seen 'unicorn poo' which is pink slime thats got glitter in it.

I'm British. I live in England. I have never had problems with reading, writing or learning other languages but I don't like the KJV for regular use or study. I have always preferred a modern English version. I am currently using the NASB.

It looks like most of the KJVO adherents are American. It's a religious indoctrination rather than an objective preference. Bearing in mind that people who simply prefer the KJV are not Onlyists. Onlyists are those who actively badger readers of other translations.

I don't think translators are off to translate strong trees as Oaks.
The English Oak, the big one (Quercus Robur) is not the one found in The Middle East but 5 species of oak do grow in Israel. The Kermes Oak, The Mt. Tabor Oak, The Cyprus Oak, The Lebanon Oak and European Turkey Oak. The Mediterranean land of milk & honey is really very fertile.

That's why they call it the Fertile Crescent.

I wonder if veterinarian plastic surgery is a thing? If they could implant a single horn on a horse? I would sell these under a patent. Would that be wrong?

That would be... uni-corny.

In reality, the horse skull is not designed for a horn. The physiology is just wrong. A narwhal skull, in contrast, is designed to support the external horn and its associated internal components. Sticking a horn on a horse would probably cause the horse great distress, if not actually cause its death.

Truth always matters...can I trust God‘s word 100%...

yeah... I guess you're right.

That's about the lamest response you have made. Come on; convince me that '70' or '72' matters.

There‘s no such thing as one horned beasts such as a rhino? Huh, good to know.

Truth, if you can’t understand that then let’s move on...we cannot pick and choose what is truth and what is not.

What is truth? A faithful witness cannot lie.

You are being dishonest trying to portray God's created rhinos as "unicorns". A "unicorn" is a one-horned horse mythical, mystical creature - no place for such a phantom of the human mind in God's sacred word.

Did I say anything at all about not understanding you? No. Did I say anything at all about what is or is not "truth"? No.

You mocked my assertion that it doesn't matter, so for you it does matter. What you seem unable to do is demonstrate why it matters. Merely saying, "A faithful witness cannot lie" doesn't come anywhere close to convincing me that it matters which is correct. Does anyone go to the lake of fire because they believed the wrong number of disciples sent out by Jesus? No.

Stop dodging; either step up with a clear, coherent, concise, and compelling explanation, or admit that you don't have one, and that in fact, it does not matter.

Man has made a unicorn a mythical creature not God.