The revisers of the Reina-Valera 1960 would have us to believe that it was the greatest and most scholarly effort to update the verbage of the old Spanish Bible. But, the evidence suggests that those who have accepted that summary have been buffalo’ed!
One of the ‘great’ updates in the RV’60 is the changing of the word ‘unicorn’ for the word ‘buffalo’. This is supposed to be a more accurate and up to date version of the Hebrew word ‘reh-ame’ (ראם). This change was viewed necessary because “we all know that the King James uses a mythical creature, the unicorn, to describe God, and this can only further ignorance and superstition on the part of its readers.”
The problem is, unicorns really do exist in the real world, and they are a better illustration of God’s power than the búfalo.
A key verse in the debate is Job 39:10.
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? (Job 39:10)
Imagine if the word ‘unicorn’ was changed to ‘búfalo’ in your KJV. Would it make sense? In Asia buffalos are used to plow. They are hitched to plows to ‘harrow’ valleys. I offer as proof this picture. The answers to the questions that God asks should be ‘NO’. But, the Reina-Valera 1960 asks two questions that can definitely be answered ‘YES’, and therefore teaches that man is similar to God in his power. The point of the passage is to prove that man has his limits, and there are things only God can do. The RV’60 changes the meaning of the passage completely.
For this reason we insist that the proper translation is ‘unicorn’, and the word ‘unicorn’ is a very understandable and appropriate word. While it is true that the word ‘unicorn’ is used in refernece to a mythical creature in some circles, it is also used in a scientific sense to refer to a specific type of rhinocerous.
The Indian Rhinoceros or the Great One-horned Rhinoceros or the Asian One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is a large mammal primarily found in north-eastern India and Nepal. It is confined to the tall grasslands and forests in the foothills of the Himalayas. [Wikipedia.com]
I don’t mean to belabor the obvious but the questions in Job 39:9, 10, 11 y 12 are all rhetorical and the answer is NO. The unicorn is a much more accurate picture of the Lord than a servile water buffalo. bw 2 Timoteo 1:9
Where did the quote in the second paragraph come from?
Also, the unicorn is not used as a type of God, but as an illustration of something man doesn’t have power over that God does.
My question is, if the rhinoceros is what the passage is talking about, why not just say that, so every boy behind the plow will know what the passage is talking about?
Petrushka,
I am not sure where the quote came from, but I have heard it more than once from critics of the KJV.
You are right about the buffalo not being a type. As you say, it is a creature that man does not control for agriculture.
It doesn’t say rhinoceros because ‘unicorn’ is sufficient and accurate for those who are not looking for excuses.
Excuses for what?