Answers in Genesis: "Unicorns are fucking real."

Well, they did it. Just when you thought that Answers in Genesis could not get any dumber, they drag some moron off the street to write on their website. And it is the most idiotic, foolish, retarded, ridiculous, cockeyed claim...ever. Just beyond moronic. I suspect that it needs a new term to convey its idiocy....how about: "Unicorns-in-the-Bible-retarded"?

Unicorns.

Fucking unicorns.

It's written by "Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell," who should have her degrees not only revoked but used as lining for chimpanzee cages. It's called: "Unicorns in the Bible?" and its difficulty rating is "semi-technical." Dude, my cat is laughing at you.

"Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature."

"Some people claim that witches don't live in secluded gingerbread houses and eat children, but they do." Do you hear how stupid you sound, Elizabeth, you fucking airhead? The translation you link to, moron, I believe, translates it as "wild ox," you silly sod. Of course, the translator may have had more sense than you do, decided that "wild ox" sounded less Tolkien and went with it. You stuck to your guns, however, and I respect that decision. I just have absolutely no respect for you whatsoever and pity those who know you.

Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration.

(God's illustration....hey, Christians love the kitsch.)

As opposed to the "real fantasy animal" that you're endorsing? OK. Where are your unicorn bones? Let's see 'em. (I bet she doesn't have any. Heehee. Fucktard.)

By the way, I like Job. My favorite book of the Bible I think. I mean, I was once in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat as a 2nd grader, so I like that story too, but Job is actually literary. It gets into the questions of evil and shows that God is willing to let the Devil kill a lot of people to win a pissing contest. He also bets, which must be awkward for crazy, joyless Christians.

Also, you think that Job and God are sitting down over tea.

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.

Ah...she is using the King James edition but linking to the new King James edition! Single horns are common, she's saying. OK, I'm being nitpicky, but nits become lice, sometimes crotch lice. The major problem that I see is that what you are calling "horned" animals are in fact not horns at all. The narwhal (I keep thinking of the singer of the B52s saying, "Here comes a narwhal!") has a modified tooth. Not a horn. The rhinoceros is closer, but does not have living bone beneath the projection, so it is not a horned animal either. Unless God is just slinging words around carelessly like the illiterate assholes at AiG, which is possible.

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.)

"The lack of Grendels and Grendel's Mothers in the modern world should not cause us to doubt their past existence."

We have stuffed dodos, you goof. Multiple confirmed sightings by competent ornithologists. Frickin' dodo DNA, silly person. Several converging fields of evidence for their existence. And there are probably fossils of saber-toothed dodos, or whatever preceded them geologically. You have a bedtime story.

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.”³

Oooh! A footnote! "Edward Robinson, ed., Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible, 1832 revised edition, pages 907–908. " Anecdotal evidence from the 19th century! That's evidence so solid you could fuck your wife on it.

God, I hope you aren't breeding.

The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn.⁴ In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian rhinoceros.⁵ The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium.

Well, I think that problem is that at the very latest the very last of elasmotherium died out 4000 years before you think that the world was made. Swing and a miss, skidmark.

Assyrian archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu).The aurochs’s horns were very symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism. Fighting rimu was a popular sport for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I boasted of slaying them in the Lebanon mountains.

So God could have made a mistake, only having seen it from the side...but he created them didn't they? Oh, your God is a little stupid.

Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures. Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as:

“a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied . . . . 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.”

The aurochs’ highly prized horns would have been a symbol of great strength to the ancient Bible reader.

And they have an unmistakable set of horns. It's not like you could miss that. The thing was the size of an elephant, oh daft one.

One scholarly urge to identify the biblical unicorn with the Assyrian aurochs springs from a similarity between the Assyrian word rimu and the Hebrew word re’em. We must be very careful when dealing with anglicized transliterated words from languages that do not share the English alphabet and phonetic structure.¹² However, similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian (other languages of the ancient Middle East) as well as Aramaic mean “wild bull” or “buffalo,” and an Arabic cognate means “white antelope.”

Be careful? You're saying unicorns...FUCKING UNICORNS are REAL! Carve that into your forehead, you dizzy bint!

However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning “one-horned animal.”¹³

Yeah, you wouldn't recognize "conclusive proof" if it held you at knife point for a week. How about a SINGLE SKULL ANYWHERE!!!

The importance of the biblical unicorn is not so much its specific identity—much as we would like to know—but its reality. The Bible is clearly describing a real animal. The unicorn mentioned in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

Not its identity, but its reality. It's very existence, its reality is in severe doubt. You haven't come up with a single credible bit of evidence. Hell, we could find it and not know what it is and maybe be unable to identify it. But you need to have a skull in your hand. Nowhere, among all of the treasures of the ages, the untold trophies of hunters throughout for hundreds and hundreds (or thousands and thousands, if you are not infected by the stupid), among the collected detritus of human settlements, not a single identifiable bone has survived?

You people are pathetic.

HJ

Addendum: Greetings to those of you from Reddit! In keeping with the Answers in Genesis theme, I would like to remind you that I am currently sponsoring a contest to get a crank paper published in the AiG's "peer" "reviewed" "journal," the Answers Research Journal. If you expose your hoax here on my website, I will provide you with glory enough to last a lunchtime and a nearly endlessly valueless prize (a $$$ gift certificate for Amazon). Follow this link for the official rules to Happy Jihad's Happy Fatwah on Answers in Genesis, and strike a blow for good science and science education!

Subscribe