Podcasts about nasb it

Welcome to Day 2576 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – Treason & Translation – I Dare You Not To Bore Me With The Bible. Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2576 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps! I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2576 of our Trek. The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Today is the 45th lesson in our segment, Theology Thursday. Utilizing excerpts from a book titled: I Dare You Not To Bore Me With The Bible written by Hebrew Bible scholar and professor the late Dr. Michael S Heiser, we will invest a couple of years going through the entire Bible, exploring short Biblical lessons that you may not have received in Bible classes or Church. The Bible is a wonderful book. Its pages reveal the epic story of God's redemption of humankind and the long, bitter conflict against evil. Yet it's also a book that seems strange to us. While God's Word was written for us, it wasn't written to us. Today's lesson is: “Treason & Translation.” *A famous Italian proverb declares atraduttore, traditore,” which means, “translator, traitor.” Those who assume this is true are unaware of how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator invariably discards the original text's meaning at some point. A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called “formal equivalence,” which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is a “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. The second is called “dynamic equivalence.” This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is a “thought-for-thought” translation. However, adopting this approach does not mean all translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make their own decision—which can lead to controversy. First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard. ESV "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." NASB "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." NIV "It is good for a man not to marry." NLT "It is good to live a celibate life.” The most “word-for-word” of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb "touch" (TTOLO, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous "touch" to "have sexual relations with" (ESV). The most controversial renderings are the NIV ("It is good for a man not to marry") and the NLT ("It is good to live a...

  In lesson 6 we consider the Torah, the 1st five books of the Bible, as a polemic.   A polemic is a concept that is diametrically opposed to a competing concept.  God seems to indicate this in Lev. 18:1-5 when God said ... Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'I am the LORD your God. 'You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. 'You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD. (Lev 18:1-5, NASB)   It is if God is inspiring Moses to write parts of the Torah as a polemic that comes against the truth claims and pagan mythology of Egypt.  Clearly, God wants to help His chosen people to get Egypt out of their life and prepare for entering the pagan world of the Canaanites in the Promised Land.  Later when we get to Genesis 50 and Exodus 1 and 2 we will study in detail the Bible proof that the Hebrews slowly but surely assimilated into the Egyptian culture - most of them forgot the God, the only God, the God of their fathers, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.   For further study use this link to study the idea that the Hebrews had assimilated into the pagan culture of Egypt.  Link to an article from World History about the Canaanite god YAMM the enemy of Ba'al - https://www.worldhistory.org/Yamm/ Here's the link to study that the Hebrews assimilated into Egypt –  https://halakhaoftheday.org/2023/03/29/from-propsperty-to-assimilationn/ Here's a podcast from Light of Menorah also a study that the Hebrews assimilated into the Egyptian culture -  LINK - https://lightofmenorah.podbean.com/e/the-gospel-according-to-moses-lesson-4-part-2-exod-211-25/   Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?  What's his background?  Why should I listen to him?  Check his background at this link - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ortnret3oxcicu4/BackgrndTeacher%20mar%2025%202020.pdf?dl=0      

Acts 9:10 ESV 10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” Acts 22:12 ESV 12 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, Acts 9:11-19 ESV 11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;19 and taking food, he was strengthened. John 15:20 NASB 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they followed My word, they will follow yours also. 2 Timothy 3:12 NIV In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,     Romans 1:7 NASB 7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:1-2 NASB Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philippians 1:1-2 NASB Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philippians 4:21-23 NASB 21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you. 22 All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 NASB 2 To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 5:1 NASB It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father's wife.

Day 6 Prayer Point: Give Me a New Outpouring  Scripture Reading: Joel 2:28-29; Acts 1:8   Joe 2:28-29 NASB “It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. (29) “Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. Act 1:8 NASB but you will receive power when the […] The post 21 Days of Prayer: Day 6 Give Me a New Outpouring appeared first on Revival Life Church Boca Raton, FL.

Trust in God with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6Growing up, my family took road trips. Often we would return home at night. As an 8 year old, I never doubted that Dad had enough money to buy gas. I never doubted he knew where we were going.I had complete and total trust. Not a hint of doubt. Just simple trust that Dad had it handled.If we could free ourselves from insisting on answers from God, second-guessing the route He has chosen or being on hyperalert to make sense of these dark days, we would discover that the essence of biblical faith lies in trusting God.For many of us, we're on a road trip and it's dark... And either God is at the wheel or we think we are.“Craving clarity, we attempt to eliminate the risk of trusting God. Fear (or doubt) of the unknown path stretching ahead of us destroys childlike trust in the Father's active goodness and unrestricted love.” -- Brennan Manning in Ruthless Trust: The Ragamuffin's Path to God (Page 6)Ruthless Trust:It is ”When all else is unclear, the heart of trust says ‘Into Your hands, I commit my spirit' Luke 23:46. (Ibid Page 6) It “is the defining spirit of authentic discipleship” -- of being a follower of Jesus.” (Ibid Page 4)It is in the midst of tragic events that leave us bereft of understanding. Trust does not demand explanations, but turns to the One who promised, “I will not leave you as orphans.” (John 14:18a NASB)It is a decisive conversion from mistrust to trust which must be renewed daily -- moment by moment. It becomes an acquired lifestyle.Growing Trust:...this kind of trust is acquired only gradually and most often through a series of crises and trials” which is called “life.” (Ibid Page 9) “In order to grow in trust, we must allow God to love us precisely as we are (warts, secret sins, and all) (not as we want to be or were told we should be)”. (Ibid Page 16)Trust is the remedy for our addiction to clarity about what's next. The antidote for parent's fearful hearts for our kids., The elixir for whatever it is that keeps us awake at night.-------------------------------------------------------------Pray Help me learn to trust in You throughout the darkness of my illness, divorce, under or unemployment, aging body, shame, and regrets. God the list is seemingly endless.Help me trust You have it handled and resist pushing You out of the way so I can drive the car. Help me banish any and every thought of doubt. Teach me the way of ruthless trust. Break me of the habit of thinking it's all up to me. Help me know You better -- not simply know about You -- but know and enjoy You. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

According to the "Inter Varsity Press Bible Commentary: the Old Testament," we read ... Gen_16:1-4. maidservants. Slave women or bondswomen were considered both property and legal extensions of their mistress. As a result it would be possible for Sarai to have Hagar perform a variety of household tasks as well as to use her as a surrogate for her own barren womb. Gen_16:2. contractual arrangements for barrenness. Concubines did not have the full status of wives but were girls who came to the marriage with no dowry and whose role included childbearing. As a result concubinage would not be viewed as polygamy. In Israel, as in most of the ancient world, monogamy was generally practiced. Polygamy was not contrary to the law or contemporary moral standards but was usually not economically feasible. The main reason for polygamy would be that the first wife was barren. In the Bible most cases of polygamy among commoners occur prior to the period of the monarchy. So is it possible in this amazing account that Sarai (her name hasn't been changed yet by the Lord to Sarah) may have learned from Avram (his name too has not been changed to Abraham) that God promised them a son.  Remember, the Bible says that only Avram had "heard" God tell him he'd have a son.  The Bible is silent regarding Sarai at this time.  Consider ... After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great." Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" And Abram said, "Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir." Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:1-4 NASB) It just doesn't seem probable that Avram could hold this news in and keep it from Sarai.  It can't be proven but it does not seem possible that a husband would keep this amazing promise of God from his wife.  So, Sarai is possibly taking matters in her own hands and using an accepted practice in the ancient Near East.  She and Avram can have a son and this would be through Sarai's Egyptian maid servant, Hagar.  Thus, this well known Bible "story" - I'd rather call it a Bible happening or event and not a story which implies it might be a work of fiction - is based upon real practices in the ancient Near East.  Once again as we put the Bible into its historical context, the veracity of this event is totally supported.   Hagar runs away after being treated harshly by Sarai.  Is this due to the fact that Avram was taken in with Hagar and the physical union they shared?  We don't know.  But, Hagar runs away and this pagan woman is the first person in the Torah to meet, talk to, and see the Angel of the Lord!  In lesson 32 in this series I discussed the Angel of the Lord in detail.  Rabbis teach it was an angel but the Torah is clear.  God inspired Moses to write ... Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.  (Gen 16:13-14 NASB) There is more we need to consider in this remarkable event in Hagar's life.  Once again we will see how this may connect to Jesus' life and a certain woman He met by a source of water.  On top of that this event may also be a powerful lesson for the Hebrews who came out of Egypt and were the first ones to hear this event in Torah.  How might have this affected them in that God "saved" this pagan Egyptian woman and her son?  God even told Hagar to name her son, ִישׁמעאל Ishmael, which means "God will hear."  Is it possible God is reaffirming the verse we know so well, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son ... " in John 3:16? I mentioned in this podcast that I would again provide the link to a powerful article.  This article demonstrates clearly that the rabbis of Judaism are wrong to conclude that the Angel of the Lord is only an angel.  Here's the link - click here for the article Who is this guy, Rev. Ferret?  What's his background?  Why should we take time to listen to him?  Here's a link to check out his background - click here    

"Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart." -1 Peter 1:22 (NIV)If you want to have a dating relationship that turns into a marriage that lasts, you have to put in the work! This week, Pastor Denny breaks down 4 different things that we can do to make your love last. Four Things to Make Love Last:In order to have a lasting marriage, you need to hear with all your heart. Be quick to listen in your marriage! "So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." -James 1:19 (NKJV)Make time to listen to and hear one another.The second thing we can do to form a lasting marriage is to forgive with all your heart. The only way you were going to have the power to forgive someone else is to understand how Jesus forgave you."Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." - Romans 15:7 (NIV)"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." -Ephesians 4:32 (NIV)3.) Next, you need to be humble with all your heart. Scripture says, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves." -Philippians 2:3 (NASB) It's important to see how God values you, because it's easier to consider someone else as important as well.Humility is the engine that drives unselfishness.Finally, the key to having a lasting marriage is to love God with all your heart. Make Jesus number one before you find your number two. Do what Jesus told us to do:"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." -Mark 12:30 (NIV)To close, we wanted to include some questions whether you're dating or married to ask your significant other this week. We hope these questions challenge you and your relationship! Questions to Ask When Dating:1. What was the best part of your childhood?2. What was the most traumatic thing that happened to you?3. What was your first job and how long were you there?4. What is your current job and what do you like about it?5. What is the most expensive item you've purchased?6. Where would you go if you could go anywhere?7. How many kids would you like to have?8. What is your favorite pastime?9. What's the one thing you can't live without?10. What kind of food do you like and do you cook?Questions to Ask When Married:1. What did you want to be when you grew up?2. How do you feel about education?3. What kind of activities did you enjoy as a kid?4. When did your family consider you an adult?5. What was your favorite book or movie as a kid?6. If you could have a super power what would it be?7. What's the best thing about our home? What is one thing you would change?8. What is the best strength of our marriage? 9. How would you like to see our marriage grow in the next year?10. What can I do or not do to help you feel fulfilled?

Ecclesiastes 7:2 (NASB) "It is better to go to a house of mourning Than to go to a house of feasting, Because that is the end of every man, And the living takes it to heart." Join Pastor B around the Kitchen Table to discuss relationships, self-improvement, and today's hot topics, all centered around the Word of God. Intro Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdDZ8ng2ujk --

Interested in this topic? You might enjoy my book: Monsters in the Bible Our focus on this show is on the Bible, and how interesting it is. Sometimes the show will be straight up Bible Q and A - down to earth topics with answers solidly grounded in the biblical text. Sometimes the show topics will be a little more - out there, shall we say. Like today. Today's topic is Unicorns, and it is dedicated to my daughter, Phoebe - who is a huge unicorn fan. You might be wondering what Unicorns have to do with the Bible, but if you are a King James only kind of person, you probably already know that the word ‘Unicorns' appears in the KJV version of the Bible 9 times in the 1611 KJV and 9 times in the updated 1769 Standard version. At some point in the show, we will probably do a podcast solely focused on the  1611 KJV and King James Version only people. It's an interesting topic for me in particular, because most people in the KJV Only camp would reject the more Catholic associated apocryphal books of the Bible, and yet the 1611 KJV contains 14 apocryphal books, in addition to the OT and the NT. But I digress. One day soon, I think we will cover both the 1611 KJV AND the Apocrypha, but today is not that day.  Today is the day, however, that we cover unicorns. You might not know that unicorns are actually in the Bible - but they are. Sort of. In the Bible. Let's take a look:  Psalm 22: 19 But be not thou farre from mee, O Lord; O my strength, hast thee to helpe me. 20Deliuer my soule from the sword: my darling from the power of the dogge. 21Saue me from the lyons mouth: for thou hast heard me from the hornes of the vnicornes.  1611 So - let me say this. As I mentioned in the trailer for the show, I believe that the Bible is faithful and true - inerrant in its original language and absolutely trustworthy. Therefore, I believe that the Bible is speaking of a real animal here and is not putting forward some sort of myth, or what have you. Does that mean unicorns are/were real creatures? Not necessarily. Believing in the trustworthiness of the Bible, we have two options here for our KJV Unicorns.  #1 - Unicorns actually existed, but they are probably extinct now. #2 - The KJV translators of the Bible did not properly or exactly translate the Hebrew word for ‘unicorn.‘ We will take a long look at both options, but first, let's take a look at the Hebrew word itself.  Re'em, Reh·ām' Reh-Aim   from the Verb rä·am' (Rah-Am), which means to ‘Raise up.'  All 9 times Reh-Aim appears in the Old Testament, the 1611 and 1769 translators of the KJV used the word ‘unicorn.'  Here are all of the appearances of the word in the Bible. Let's pay attention to any physical descriptions to determine if the word Reh-Aim actually refers to the equine/horselike creature of fantasy and legend, or perhaps some other creature:  Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. Isaiah 34: And the Unicornes shall come downe with them, and the bullockes with the bulles, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatnesse.8 For it is the day of the Lords vengeance, and the yeere of recompences for the controuersie of Zion.  KJV 1611 Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Psalms 22:21 Already read.  Psalms 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. So some interesting passages, to be sure. The KJV Bible seems to indicate that God has the strength of a unicorn, That his horns are like the horns of the unicorns, and that God is coming with unicorns and bulls on the day of judgment.  So, wow - what in the world is going on here? Here's what we learn from these passages, remembering that the actual Hebrew word in question is reh-Aim . Reh-Aims are powerful, they are difficult to control or tame, they have at least one horn (more on that later) and they are quite wild and untamable, Unfortunately, that description fits many wild animals, and doesn't really tell us exactly what creature the authors of the OT were referring to, though we can safely remove three toed sloths, dung beetles, and platypodes from consideration. The Bible's mention of unicorns was not lost on the leaders of the early church, who also puzzled over these passages.  Origen, an early church father living in the 200s, wrote this : “other prohibitions such as that to eat of the unicorn (τραγέλαφος), a creature which has no existence” Source: Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886), 192. Jerome, however, seems to have believed in the reality of these beasts, writing,  “There are beasts of this sort in the desert of the East, but they are never seen by human beings or captured by them.” (circa 400 A.D.)  Source: John Cassian, John Cassian: The Conferences, ed. Walter J. Burghardt, John Dillon, and Dennis D. McManus, trans. Boniface Ramsey, vol. 57, Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1997), 578. Theoderot also writing in the 400s, seems to take the Unicorn as symbolic, in a way, used by the biblical writers as a sort of euphemism: “They say the unicorn is equipped with one horn, and the Law gave instructions for adoring one God; so it was right for him to liken the one Temple, dedicated to the one God, to a unicorn.” Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms: Psalms 73–150, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 102, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 39. So  - lots of information so far, but no answers. Back to our original question: Does the Bible proclaim the existence of unicorns?  Here are our two options:  Yes, the Bible teaches that Unicorns, the fantastical beasts of legend, exist, or once existed, or no - the word Reh-aim means something different.  On the yes side, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, writing for Answers in Genesis, says this:  Modern readers have trouble with the Bible's unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God's menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength. The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.) Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one's arm, and at the base about as thick. . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.” SOURCE Dr. Mitchell goes on to mention a few other possibilities for the Reh-Aim, but does clearly seem to favor an equine, mono-horned solution - much like what we would call a unicorn. She does mention some evidences scattered about for such a creature as well, including drawings and eyewitness accounts from Africa of possible unicorn sightings.  This brings to mind that cryptid from the Congo in Africa that many talk about - the Mokele Mpembe. “ "one who stops the flow of rivers”   A German explorer, Captain Ludwig Von Stein, wrote this as a description of the Mokele Mpembe: The animal is said to be of a brownish-gray color with a smooth skin, its size is approximately that of an elephant; at least that of a hippopotamus. It is said to have a long and very flexible neck and only one tooth but a very long one; some say it is a horn. A few spoke about a long, muscular tail like that of an alligator. Canoes coming near it are said to be doomed; the animal is said to attack the vessels at once and to kill the crews but without eating the bodies. The creature is said to live in the caves that have been washed out by the river in the clay of its shores at sharp bends. It is said to climb the shores even at daytime in search of food; its diet is said to be entirely vegetable. This feature disagrees with a possible explanation as a myth. The preferred plant was shown to me, it is a kind of liana with large white blossoms, with a milky sap and applelike fruits. At the Ssombo River I was shown a path said to have been made by this animal in order to get at its food. The path was fresh and there were plants of the described type nearby. But since there were too many tracks of elephants, hippos, and other large mammals it was impossible to make out a particular spoor with any amount of certainty Is such a thing possible? I've no idea. It makes for a great campfire tale, but the lack of fossilized remains does seem to be a bit of a strike against the creature.  Likewise, the lack of fossilized remains seems to be a strike against the existence of an equine-style unicorn. In fact, I think, barring evidence to the contrary, it's likely that such a creature has never existed. Perhaps a horse or other horse-like animal with one horn has been seen - such mutations occasionally happen, but I'd like to see more evidence for a mythical unicorn before I sign on enthusiastically.  So that brings us to option #2 for Unicorns in the Bible. And that option is that the translators of the KJV, like the translators of the Latin Vulgate upon which much of the KJV is based on, mistranslated the word ‘Reh-Aim'.  Michael Heiser, Logos scholar in Residence  - the difficulties of Bible Translation.  SOURCE:  http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/2/28/treason-translation   A famous Italian proverb declares “traduttore, traditore,” which means, “Translator, traitor.” Those who assume this is true are unaware how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text. A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called “formal equivalence,” which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. The second is called “dynamic equivalence.” This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is “thought-for-thought” translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision—which can lead to controversy. First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard. ESV: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” NASB: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” NIV: “It is good for a man not to marry.” TNIV: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” NLT: “It is good to live a celibate life.” The most “word-for-word” of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb “touch” (ἅπτοµαι, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous “touch” to “have sexual relations with” (ESV, TNIV). The most controversial renderings are the NIV (“It is good for a man not to marry”) and the NLT (“It is good to live a celibate life”). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means “touch” to these options? The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Cor 7:7–8, Paul describes himself as single. His advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8, 26–27) because of an undefined “present distress” (7:26). This context is presumed in 7:1 by the NIV and NLT. These translations are certainly plausible, but still problematic. While Paul notes a “present distress” in 7:27, can we be certain that Paul was thinking of that distress in 7:1? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1 speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2–4). If morality was on Paul's mind, then the ESV and TNIV are more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself. Translation isn't just a matter of matching words of one language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process. SOURCE:Of the above): http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/2/28/treason-translation   This doesn't mean that we can't understand the Bible, of course - but what we are dealing with in this question of the unicorn, and what we are dealing with when we read some of the more thorny issues in Paul's letters is largely the same thing - the difficulty in translation. It's not an insurmountable difficulty, but it does require some careful study and thought. Back to Unicorns. I believe the best way to handle the unicorn/Reh-Aim issue is to realize that the writers of the KJV likely used a word, ‘Unicorn' which is a less than ideal translation. I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that these KJV translators themselves believed in the mythical unicorn. So, going with the thought that ‘Unicorn' isn't the best translation or meaning of Reh-Aim, what is? I suggest three Three possibilities, and then conclude with what I think is the best option:  Siberien Unicorn Elasmotherium sibiricum four metres long, 2.5 metres high, weighs 3.5 metric tonnes and has a preposterously large horn in the middle of its face? For you American listeners, we're talking 14 feet long, almost 9 feet tall, and beefier than your'e uncle Bubba carrying a four by four tire.  The Elasmotherium Sibircum is  A really massive unicorn, that's what….Despite its huge size it was lithe and seemed adapted to running across its homelands of central Asia: Kazakhstan, western and central Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and possible areas of Mongolia and China.   This animal GREATLY matches the biblical description of the Reh-Aim. It was large, powerful, had an incredible horn, but was also agile and fast.   According to Cosmos Magazine, “Until now, E. sibiricum had been thought to have gone extinct about 200,000 years ago as part of the natural extinction rate that preceded the arrival of humanity,” The radiocarbon dating yielded some surprising results, suggesting that the unicorn was still kicking until 39,000 years ago.  So, science up until late last year, was off on the extinction of the Elasmotherium by about 160,000 years. What if they are still off by a few more thousand years - what if Elasmotherium lived until Old Testament times? Not very likely, but a distant possibility. I rank this as the 3rd most likely explanation of Reh-aim.  2. Our second most plausible explanation is that the Reh-aim is actually what we would call a rhinoceros. There's a few solid reasons to go in this direction. For one, The Latin Vulgate says "rinocerotis" in Deut 33:17 and "rinoceros" in Job 39:9. The noble rhino would, like the Siberian ‘unicorn'  Professor Allen H. Godbey wrote an extended article on the biblical ‘unicorn in 1939. In that article, he notes that Pliny's Natural History records that in roughly 62 B.C., a rhinoceros was exhibited during the games of Pompey the Great. That rhinoceros had white skin, was roughly the size of an elephant, and that it had a single horn on its nose. Though we would hesitate to think of a rhino as graceful, they can be quite powerful, and fast, and undoubtedly have a large and powerful horn. Would that writers of the Old Testament be familiar with the rhino? It is possible, though nowhere near certain. 3. Finally, I would suggest that the most likely explanation for the Reh-aim would be either the extinct aurochs, or an animal very similar. I realize, of course, that an aurochs does not merely have one horn, but two, and that is okay. It does not appear that the original Hebrew word Reh-aim, demands a one-horned animal. Indeed, one way of translating Numbers 23:22, the way that the NASB, ESV and CSB translations choose,  is to say “"God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox.” The Hebrew for “horns” tow'apaha (also translated strength or glory) is indeed plural. That means that the mighty aurochs ticks all of the boxes off for the old testament description of a Reh-aim. It is large, and powerful. Difficult to tame, and quick, and has very imposing horns. In addition, unlike our options above, the aurochs appears to have inhabited Israel during the time of the Old Testament. Sadly, it would appear that the last aurochs died out in a forest in Poland in 1627. Happily, I think, there are several genetic projects underway right now to reintroduce the aurochs, though I can indeed imagine a sort of mammalian Jurassic Park scenario here that doesn't necessarily end well. Julius Caesar himself was quite familiar with the aurochs (whom he called an ‘urs,' and described him thusly in the first century:  “Those animals which are called uri. These are a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, colour, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. These the Germans take with much pains in pits and kill them. The young men harden themselves with this exercise, and practice themselves in this sort of hunting, and those who have slain the greatest number of them, having produced the horns in public, to serve as evidence, receive great praise. But not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.” Source: Gallic War Commentaries, Chapter 6.28 One more reason to support the candidacy of the mighty aurochs as the Biblical ‘unicorn' comes from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:  The allusions to the "re'em" as a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns (Job xxxix. 9-12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian "rimu," which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild, or mountain bull with large horns. Finally, Dr. Allen H. Godbey, who probably studied this question more than anybody in history, concludes: “The decisive factor came with the deciphering of the cuneiform inscriptions... reaching back four thousand years earlier than any Hebrew text that we have, [the texts] give the word rimu repeatedly... It is a gigantic wild ox. The cuneiform ideogram confines him to the mountains.” Source: The Unicorn in the Old Testament, 1939 Ultimately, though I am team aurochs, I think that recognizing the ambiguity of the term and preserving it, is the best approach here, because even though the aurochs checks all of our boxes, the evidence for it is circumstantial, at best. Therefore, we should probably do what most modern Bible translators do with the passage, which is similar to how they handle another passage of mystery, Genesis 6:4. In the KJV, Genesis 6:4 reads, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  What the translators did there is render the Hebrew word Nephilim as ‘Giants,' a very interesting translation, to be sure, but quite a problematic one.  Let's look at a more modern translation. Genesis 6:4 “The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.” Yes, it's a bit of a cop-out, but in the absence of compelling evidence that the best translation of Nephilim is ‘giants,' I think it might be a good cop-out, especially given that we have almost no idea whatsoever a Nephilim actually is. More on this in a future episode of this podcast.  Given all of the above, Numbers 23:22 would have been better rendered by the translators of the King James Version as, “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath, as it were, the strength of a great horned beast.”  In doing that, though we have slightly elongated the text, we have faithfully translated it in a better and much less problematic way. A rendering that preserves clarity while translating re'em Reh-Aim accurately and understandably in a way that avoids guessing about what exact animal the original authors of the Old Testament were referring to.  That doesn't solve the mystery, of course, but it is our best and safest option. Of course, we could also simply say, “He hath, as it were, the strength of a re'em.  Unfortunately, it means that we'll have to file this mystery in our ‘cold case' file. The identity of Reh-aim will remain a secret to us, and is likely to remain so until the Second Coming. Alas.  Well, that's all for this episode. I'm grateful that you took the time to listen - thank you for that! If you are particularly interested in this topic, I'd like to point you to my (in progress) book, Monsters in the Bible. I am editing the book, and adding lots of material to it, and should have a second edition out very soon. Please also check out our website, Biblemysterypod.com. You can leave us a voice mail there, and ask your own question. Finally, and probably most important, I'd love for you to subscribe to the show and share it with your friends. Nothing is more helpful to an indie podcaster like myself than word of mouth. Thanks again, and see you soon. 

Interested in this topic? You might enjoy my book: Monsters in the Bible Our focus on this show is on the Bible, and how interesting it is. Sometimes the show will be straight up Bible Q and A - down to earth topics with answers solidly grounded in the biblical text. Sometimes the show topics will be a little more - out there, shall we say. Like today. Today's topic is Unicorns, and it is dedicated to my daughter, Phoebe - who is a huge unicorn fan. You might be wondering what Unicorns have to do with the Bible, but if you are a King James only kind of person, you probably already know that the word ‘Unicorns' appears in the KJV version of the Bible 9 times in the 1611 KJV and 9 times in the updated 1769 Standard version. At some point in the show, we will probably do a podcast solely focused on the  1611 KJV and King James Version only people. It's an interesting topic for me in particular, because most people in the KJV Only camp would reject the more Catholic associated apocryphal books of the Bible, and yet the 1611 KJV contains 14 apocryphal books, in addition to the OT and the NT. But I digress. One day soon, I think we will cover both the 1611 KJV AND the Apocrypha, but today is not that day.  Today is the day, however, that we cover unicorns. You might not know that unicorns are actually in the Bible - but they are. Sort of. In the Bible. Let's take a look:  Psalm 22: 19 But be not thou farre from mee, O Lord; O my strength, hast thee to helpe me. 20Deliuer my soule from the sword: my darling from the power of the dogge. 21Saue me from the lyons mouth: for thou hast heard me from the hornes of the vnicornes.  1611 So - let me say this. As I mentioned in the trailer for the show, I believe that the Bible is faithful and true - inerrant in its original language and absolutely trustworthy. Therefore, I believe that the Bible is speaking of a real animal here and is not putting forward some sort of myth, or what have you. Does that mean unicorns are/were real creatures? Not necessarily. Believing in the trustworthiness of the Bible, we have two options here for our KJV Unicorns.  #1 - Unicorns actually existed, but they are probably extinct now. #2 - The KJV translators of the Bible did not properly or exactly translate the Hebrew word for ‘unicorn.‘ We will take a long look at both options, but first, let's take a look at the Hebrew word itself.  Re'em, Reh·ām' Reh-Aim   from the Verb rä·am' (Rah-Am), which means to ‘Raise up.'  All 9 times Reh-Aim appears in the Old Testament, the 1611 and 1769 translators of the KJV used the word ‘unicorn.'  Here are all of the appearances of the word in the Bible. Let's pay attention to any physical descriptions to determine if the word Reh-Aim actually refers to the equine/horselike creature of fantasy and legend, or perhaps some other creature:  Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. Isaiah 34: And the Unicornes shall come downe with them, and the bullockes with the bulles, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatnesse.8 For it is the day of the Lords vengeance, and the yeere of recompences for the controuersie of Zion.  KJV 1611 Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Psalms 22:21 Already read.  Psalms 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. So some interesting passages, to be sure. The KJV Bible seems to indicate that God has the strength of a unicorn, That his horns are like the horns of the unicorns, and that God is coming with unicorns and bulls on the day of judgment.  So, wow - what in the world is going on here? Here's what we learn from these passages, remembering that the actual Hebrew word in question is reh-Aim . Reh-Aims are powerful, they are difficult to control or tame, they have at least one horn (more on that later) and they are quite wild and untamable, Unfortunately, that description fits many wild animals, and doesn't really tell us exactly what creature the authors of the OT were referring to, though we can safely remove three toed sloths, dung beetles, and platypodes from consideration. The Bible's mention of unicorns was not lost on the leaders of the early church, who also puzzled over these passages.  Origen, an early church father living in the 200s, wrote this : “other prohibitions such as that to eat of the unicorn (τραγέλαφος), a creature which has no existence” Source: Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886), 192. Jerome, however, seems to have believed in the reality of these beasts, writing,  “There are beasts of this sort in the desert of the East, but they are never seen by human beings or captured by them.” (circa 400 A.D.)  Source: John Cassian, John Cassian: The Conferences, ed. Walter J. Burghardt, John Dillon, and Dennis D. McManus, trans. Boniface Ramsey, vol. 57, Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1997), 578. Theoderot also writing in the 400s, seems to take the Unicorn as symbolic, in a way, used by the biblical writers as a sort of euphemism: “They say the unicorn is equipped with one horn, and the Law gave instructions for adoring one God; so it was right for him to liken the one Temple, dedicated to the one God, to a unicorn.” Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms: Psalms 73–150, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 102, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 39. So  - lots of information so far, but no answers. Back to our original question: Does the Bible proclaim the existence of unicorns?  Here are our two options:  Yes, the Bible teaches that Unicorns, the fantastical beasts of legend, exist, or once existed, or no - the word Reh-aim means something different.  On the yes side, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, writing for Answers in Genesis, says this:  Modern readers have trouble with the Bible's unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God's menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength. The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.) Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one's arm, and at the base about as thick. . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.” SOURCE Dr. Mitchell goes on to mention a few other possibilities for the Reh-Aim, but does clearly seem to favor an equine, mono-horned solution - much like what we would call a unicorn. She does mention some evidences scattered about for such a creature as well, including drawings and eyewitness accounts from Africa of possible unicorn sightings.  This brings to mind that cryptid from the Congo in Africa that many talk about - the Mokele Mpembe. “ "one who stops the flow of rivers”   A German explorer, Captain Ludwig Von Stein, wrote this as a description of the Mokele Mpembe: The animal is said to be of a brownish-gray color with a smooth skin, its size is approximately that of an elephant; at least that of a hippopotamus. It is said to have a long and very flexible neck and only one tooth but a very long one; some say it is a horn. A few spoke about a long, muscular tail like that of an alligator. Canoes coming near it are said to be doomed; the animal is said to attack the vessels at once and to kill the crews but without eating the bodies. The creature is said to live in the caves that have been washed out by the river in the clay of its shores at sharp bends. It is said to climb the shores even at daytime in search of food; its diet is said to be entirely vegetable. This feature disagrees with a possible explanation as a myth. The preferred plant was shown to me, it is a kind of liana with large white blossoms, with a milky sap and applelike fruits. At the Ssombo River I was shown a path said to have been made by this animal in order to get at its food. The path was fresh and there were plants of the described type nearby. But since there were too many tracks of elephants, hippos, and other large mammals it was impossible to make out a particular spoor with any amount of certainty Is such a thing possible? I've no idea. It makes for a great campfire tale, but the lack of fossilized remains does seem to be a bit of a strike against the creature.  Likewise, the lack of fossilized remains seems to be a strike against the existence of an equine-style unicorn. In fact, I think, barring evidence to the contrary, it's likely that such a creature has never existed. Perhaps a horse or other horse-like animal with one horn has been seen - such mutations occasionally happen, but I'd like to see more evidence for a mythical unicorn before I sign on enthusiastically.  So that brings us to option #2 for Unicorns in the Bible. And that option is that the translators of the KJV, like the translators of the Latin Vulgate upon which much of the KJV is based on, mistranslated the word ‘Reh-Aim'.  Michael Heiser, Logos scholar in Residence  - the difficulties of Bible Translation.  SOURCE:  http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/2/28/treason-translation   A famous Italian proverb declares “traduttore, traditore,” which means, “Translator, traitor.” Those who assume this is true are unaware how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text. A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called “formal equivalence,” which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. The second is called “dynamic equivalence.” This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is “thought-for-thought” translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision—which can lead to controversy. First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard. ESV: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” NASB: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” NIV: “It is good for a man not to marry.” TNIV: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” NLT: “It is good to live a celibate life.” The most “word-for-word” of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb “touch” (ἅπτοµαι, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous “touch” to “have sexual relations with” (ESV, TNIV). The most controversial renderings are the NIV (“It is good for a man not to marry”) and the NLT (“It is good to live a celibate life”). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means “touch” to these options? The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Cor 7:7–8, Paul describes himself as single. His advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8, 26–27) because of an undefined “present distress” (7:26). This context is presumed in 7:1 by the NIV and NLT. These translations are certainly plausible, but still problematic. While Paul notes a “present distress” in 7:27, can we be certain that Paul was thinking of that distress in 7:1? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1 speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2–4). If morality was on Paul's mind, then the ESV and TNIV are more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself. Translation isn't just a matter of matching words of one language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process. SOURCE:Of the above): http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/2/28/treason-translation   This doesn't mean that we can't understand the Bible, of course - but what we are dealing with in this question of the unicorn, and what we are dealing with when we read some of the more thorny issues in Paul's letters is largely the same thing - the difficulty in translation. It's not an insurmountable difficulty, but it does require some careful study and thought. Back to Unicorns. I believe the best way to handle the unicorn/Reh-Aim issue is to realize that the writers of the KJV likely used a word, ‘Unicorn' which is a less than ideal translation. I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that these KJV translators themselves believed in the mythical unicorn. So, going with the thought that ‘Unicorn' isn't the best translation or meaning of Reh-Aim, what is? I suggest three Three possibilities, and then conclude with what I think is the best option:  Siberien Unicorn Elasmotherium sibiricum four metres long, 2.5 metres high, weighs 3.5 metric tonnes and has a preposterously large horn in the middle of its face? For you American listeners, we're talking 14 feet long, almost 9 feet tall, and beefier than your'e uncle Bubba carrying a four by four tire.  The Elasmotherium Sibircum is  A really massive unicorn, that's what….Despite its huge size it was lithe and seemed adapted to running across its homelands of central Asia: Kazakhstan, western and central Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and possible areas of Mongolia and China.   This animal GREATLY matches the biblical description of the Reh-Aim. It was large, powerful, had an incredible horn, but was also agile and fast.   According to Cosmos Magazine, “Until now, E. sibiricum had been thought to have gone extinct about 200,000 years ago as part of the natural extinction rate that preceded the arrival of humanity,” The radiocarbon dating yielded some surprising results, suggesting that the unicorn was still kicking until 39,000 years ago.  So, science up until late last year, was off on the extinction of the Elasmotherium by about 160,000 years. What if they are still off by a few more thousand years - what if Elasmotherium lived until Old Testament times? Not very likely, but a distant possibility. I rank this as the 3rd most likely explanation of Reh-aim.  2. Our second most plausible explanation is that the Reh-aim is actually what we would call a rhinoceros. There's a few solid reasons to go in this direction. For one, The Latin Vulgate says "rinocerotis" in Deut 33:17 and "rinoceros" in Job 39:9. The noble rhino would, like the Siberian ‘unicorn'  Professor Allen H. Godbey wrote an extended article on the biblical ‘unicorn in 1939. In that article, he notes that Pliny's Natural History records that in roughly 62 B.C., a rhinoceros was exhibited during the games of Pompey the Great. That rhinoceros had white skin, was roughly the size of an elephant, and that it had a single horn on its nose. Though we would hesitate to think of a rhino as graceful, they can be quite powerful, and fast, and undoubtedly have a large and powerful horn. Would that writers of the Old Testament be familiar with the rhino? It is possible, though nowhere near certain. 3. Finally, I would suggest that the most likely explanation for the Reh-aim would be either the extinct aurochs, or an animal very similar. I realize, of course, that an aurochs does not merely have one horn, but two, and that is okay. It does not appear that the original Hebrew word Reh-aim, demands a one-horned animal. Indeed, one way of translating Numbers 23:22, the way that the NASB, ESV and CSB translations choose,  is to say “"God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox.” The Hebrew for “horns” tow'apaha (also translated strength or glory) is indeed plural. That means that the mighty aurochs ticks all of the boxes off for the old testament description of a Reh-aim. It is large, and powerful. Difficult to tame, and quick, and has very imposing horns. In addition, unlike our options above, the aurochs appears to have inhabited Israel during the time of the Old Testament. Sadly, it would appear that the last aurochs died out in a forest in Poland in 1627. Happily, I think, there are several genetic projects underway right now to reintroduce the aurochs, though I can indeed imagine a sort of mammalian Jurassic Park scenario here that doesn't necessarily end well. Julius Caesar himself was quite familiar with the aurochs (whom he called an ‘urs,' and described him thusly in the first century:  “Those animals which are called uri. These are a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, colour, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. These the Germans take with much pains in pits and kill them. The young men harden themselves with this exercise, and practice themselves in this sort of hunting, and those who have slain the greatest number of them, having produced the horns in public, to serve as evidence, receive great praise. But not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.” Source: Gallic War Commentaries, Chapter 6.28 One more reason to support the candidacy of the mighty aurochs as the Biblical ‘unicorn' comes from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:  The allusions to the "re'em" as a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns (Job xxxix. 9-12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian "rimu," which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild, or mountain bull with large horns. Finally, Dr. Allen H. Godbey, who probably studied this question more than anybody in history, concludes: “The decisive factor came with the deciphering of the cuneiform inscriptions... reaching back four thousand years earlier than any Hebrew text that we have, [the texts] give the word rimu repeatedly... It is a gigantic wild ox. The cuneiform ideogram confines him to the mountains.” Source: The Unicorn in the Old Testament, 1939 Ultimately, though I am team aurochs, I think that recognizing the ambiguity of the term and preserving it, is the best approach here, because even though the aurochs checks all of our boxes, the evidence for it is circumstantial, at best. Therefore, we should probably do what most modern Bible translators do with the passage, which is similar to how they handle another passage of mystery, Genesis 6:4. In the KJV, Genesis 6:4 reads, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  What the translators did there is render the Hebrew word Nephilim as ‘Giants,' a very interesting translation, to be sure, but quite a problematic one.  Let's look at a more modern translation. Genesis 6:4 “The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.” Yes, it's a bit of a cop-out, but in the absence of compelling evidence that the best translation of Nephilim is ‘giants,' I think it might be a good cop-out, especially given that we have almost no idea whatsoever a Nephilim actually is. More on this in a future episode of this podcast.  Given all of the above, Numbers 23:22 would have been better rendered by the translators of the King James Version as, “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath, as it were, the strength of a great horned beast.”  In doing that, though we have slightly elongated the text, we have faithfully translated it in a better and much less problematic way. A rendering that preserves clarity while translating re'em Reh-Aim accurately and understandably in a way that avoids guessing about what exact animal the original authors of the Old Testament were referring to.  That doesn't solve the mystery, of course, but it is our best and safest option. Of course, we could also simply say, “He hath, as it were, the strength of a re'em.  Unfortunately, it means that we'll have to file this mystery in our ‘cold case' file. The identity of Reh-aim will remain a secret to us, and is likely to remain so until the Second Coming. Alas.  Well, that's all for this episode. I'm grateful that you took the time to listen - thank you for that! If you are particularly interested in this topic, I'd like to point you to my (in progress) book, Monsters in the Bible. I am editing the book, and adding lots of material to it, and should have a second edition out very soon. Please also check out our website, Biblemysterypod.com. You can leave us a voice mail there, and ask your own question. Finally, and probably most important, I'd love for you to subscribe to the show and share it with your friends. Nothing is more helpful to an indie podcaster like myself than word of mouth. Thanks again, and see you soon. 

Tonight Elder John Heeber talks about God’s interest in saving us. If you want to be with Christ you need to have a servants heart. Matthew 20:26-27 (NASB) It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant and whoever wishes to be first among you […]

In this Wednesday Night Bible Study message Pastor Joe Schimmel speaks on Garments of the Saints and fine linen which is the righteous acts of the Saints. Revelation 19:8 (NASB) It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. […]

Today we listen to a message from Pastor Joe Schimmel, on confronting and warning of sin as commanded in the scriptures, in gentleness, sharing God’s truth as believers, being watchmen less their blood be on our heads Ecclesiastes 7:5-6 (NASB) It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man Than for one […]

The Warrior's Stance is a 6 part series about praying, strategically. We’ll talk about striking an offensive stance, fighting and taking back stolen things by force, as we are told in Matt 11:12... “ From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” NASB It is very clear that God expects us to wage war against the kingdom of darkness, taking what has been stolen or bringing to an end every devilish ambush/attack, using spiritual might and violence. We have to stand up and fight for our inheritance and destiny! We have to fight. We are told to take by force. This means that God has equipped us to be spiritually violent and to be the victors. He never tells us to do anything that we have not been equipped or empowered to do. God has given us power and authority, much more than we can imagine and, definitely, much more than we are using. In this series, we’ll consider four requirements, to access and utilize this power, this authority, and to live our lives as formidable warriors. It’s time to take by force!

The Warrior's Stance is a 6 part series about praying, strategically. We’ll talk about striking an offensive stance, fighting and taking back stolen things by force, as we are told in Matt 11:12... “ From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” NASB It is very clear that God expects us to wage war against the kingdom of darkness, taking what has been stolen or bringing to an end every devilish ambush/attack, using spiritual might and violence. We have to stand up and fight for our inheritance and destiny! We have to fight. We are told to take by force. This means that God has equipped us to be spiritually violent and to be the victors. He never tells us to do anything that we have not been equipped or empowered to do. God has given us power and authority, much more than we can imagine and, definitely, much more than we are using. In this series, we’ll consider four requirements, to access and utilize this power, this authority, and to live our lives as formidable warriors. It’s time to take by force!

The Warrior's Stance is a 6 part series about praying, strategically. We’ll talk about striking an offensive stance, fighting and taking back stolen things by force, as we are told in Matt 11:12... “ From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” NASB It is very clear that God expects us to wage war against the kingdom of darkness, taking what has been stolen or bringing to an end every devilish ambush/attack, using spiritual might and violence. We have to stand up and fight for our inheritance and destiny! We have to fight. We are told to take by force. This means that God has equipped us to be spiritually violent and to be the victors. He never tells us to do anything that we have not been equipped or empowered to do. God has given us power and authority, much more than we can imagine and, definitely, much more than we are using. In this series, we’ll consider four requirements, to access and utilize this power, this authority, and to live our lives as formidable warriors. It’s time to take by force!

The Warrior's Stance is a 6 part series about praying, strategically. We’ll talk about striking an offensive stance, fighting and taking back stolen things by force, as we are told in Matt 11:12... “ From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” NASB It is very clear that God expects us to wage war against the kingdom of darkness, taking what has been stolen or bringing to an end every devilish ambush/attack, using spiritual might and violence. We have to stand up and fight for our inheritance and destiny! We have to fight. We are told to take by force. This means that God has equipped us to be spiritually violent and to be the victors. He never tells us to do anything that we have not been equipped or empowered to do. God has given us power and authority, much more than we can imagine and, definitely, much more than we are using. In this series, we’ll consider four requirements, to access and utilize this power, this authority, and to live our lives as formidable warriors. It’s time to take by force!

The Warrior's Stance is a 6 part series about praying, strategically. We’ll talk about striking an offensive stance, fighting and taking back stolen things by force, as we are told in Matt 11:12... “ From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” NASB It is very clear that God expects us to wage war against the kingdom of darkness, taking what has been stolen or bringing to an end every devilish ambush/attack, using spiritual might and violence. We have to stand up and fight for our inheritance and destiny! We have to fight. We are told to take by force. This means that God has equipped us to be spiritually violent and to be the victors. He never tells us to do anything that we have not been equipped or empowered to do. God has given us power and authority, much more than we can imagine and, definitely, much more than we are using. In this series, we’ll consider four requirements, to access and utilize this power, this authority, and to live our lives as formidable warriors. It’s time to take by force!

The Warrior's Stance is a 6 part series about praying, strategically. We’ll talk about striking an offensive stance, fighting and taking back stolen things by force, as we are told in Matt 11:12... “ From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” NASB It is very clear that God expects us to wage war against the kingdom of darkness, taking what has been stolen or bringing to an end every devilish ambush/attack, using spiritual might and violence. We have to stand up and fight for our inheritance and destiny! We have to fight. We are told to take by force. This means that God has equipped us to be spiritually violent and to be the victors. He never tells us to do anything that we have not been equipped or empowered to do. God has given us power and authority, much more than we can imagine and, definitely, much more than we are using. In this series, we’ll consider four requirements, to access and utilize this power, this authority, and to live our lives as formidable warriors. It’s time to take by force!