[Will Kinney]

Satyrs, Dragons, and Unicorns

There are many atheistic, Islamic and Christian sites that criticize the King James Bible and its use of such terms as satyrs, dragons and unicorns as being mythological creatures and therefore erroneous translations.

I find it of great significance that the only Bible these sites seem to pick on and criticize is the King James Bible. Modern Bible critics don't believe any Bible version or specific Hebrew or Greek text is the infallible words of God, and they don't defend their NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, or NKJV as being totally accurate or inspired. The only Bible believed by multiplied thousands if not millions of Christians today to be the inerrant word of God is the King James Holy Bible, and this is why only the true Holy Bible is attacked.

John Ankerberg is such a Bible critic who says: "All translations are neither 100% perfect nor equally competent. Only the prophets and apostles in their original autographs were inerrant."

Of course, Mr. Ankerberg has never seen the originals; never once did the originals form an entire Book called The Bible, and he has no absolute standard by which he compares and judges the King James Bible, but these are minor considerations to be ignored by men like Mr. Ankerberg. He wants you to think he knows what God really said and that it is not what is found in the King James Bible. Mr. Ankerberg continues: "Finally, mythical animals, such as the unicorn, the satyr, the dragon, and the cockatrice represent translations acceptable to men in 1611, but today these translations have either been corrected or it is admitted the exact meaning is unknown."

Mr. Ankerberg has every right to his own opinion regarding this matter, but as we shall see, a whole lot of other "scholars" do not share Mr. Ankerberg's particular views on this subject.

UNICORNS

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, the so called Greek Septuagint version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s 1833 translation of the Bible, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

In this particular article I will not be dealing with the unicorn issue, but please see my article about them at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

SATYRS

The word translated as satyr is the Hebrew word sa'ir #8163. It has several meanings, including "hairy" - "Esau my brother is a HAIRY man" Genesis 27:11; "goat" - "lay his hand upon the head of the GOAT" Leviticus 4:24; "devils" - "they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto DEVILS" Leviticus 17:7; "satyrs" - "and SATYRS shall dance there" Isaiah 13:21, and "rough" - "the ROUGH goat is the king of Greecia" Daniel 8:21.

The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.

Isaiah 13:21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there."

Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the SATYR shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."

Not only does the King James Bible use the word satyr in the Isaiah passages but so also do the following Bible versions. The Geneva Bible 1599, Calvin's Latin translation, the English Revised Version 1881, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the recent Judaica Press Tanach Jewish translation, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) - Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.

The satyrs are mentioned four times in the Greek Septuagint version. In Isaiah 13:22; 34:11 and 34:14 we read: "satyrs shall dwell in it...devils shall dance there and satyrs dwell there...and devils shall meet with satyrs...there shall satyrs rest."

Revised Standard Version 1952

Leviticus 17:7 "So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for SATYRS, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations."

Not only does the RSV translate this word as Satyrs in Leviticus 17:7, but so also do the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, Moffatt's New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.

What about a modern "evangelical" version? Well, surprise! Let's take a look at the New American Standard Version 1972-1995 Update.

2 Chronicles 11:15 "He set up priests of his own for the high places, for the SATYRS and for the calves which he had made."

Smith's Bible Dictionary: Satyr: Isaiah 13:21; 34:14. The Hebrew word signifies "hairy" or "rough," and is frequently applied to "he-goats." In the passages cited it probably refers to demons of woods and desert places. Comp. Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15.

Even among the various other modern versions there is little agreement on how to translate this term. What we see in the various versions is a wide variety of translations that include the following: "shaggy creatures (Rotherham), goats, goat-demons (NRSV), goad idols (ESV), demoniacs, hairy ones (Darby), demons (New English Bible 1970), wild goats, and evil spirits (Bible in Basic English 1970).

COCKATRICE

Another term that is often criticized in the King James Bible by those who do not believe that any bible in any language today is the complete and 100% true word of God is the word “cockatrice”. This word is found four times in the King James Bible - Isaiah 11:8; 14:29; 59:5 and Jeremiah 8:17.

There are several definitions of this word and the Bible critics latch on to the least reasonable definition and ignore the others. Many dictionaries list the following definitions:

Cockatrice (n.) A fabulous serpent whose breath and look were said to be fatal. See Basilisk. (n.) A representation of this serpent. It has the head, wings, and legs of a bird, and tail of a serpent. (n.) A venomous serpent which which cannot now be identified. (n.) Any venomous or deadly thing.

Several dictionaries actually list one of the Bible verses and define it as: “a venemous serpent - Isaiah 11:8.

Notice carefully the wording of the King James Bible in passages like Jeremiah 8:17 - “For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD. “ There is no word “and” between ‘serpents, cockatrices, among you’, thus showing that the cockatrice is a type of serpent, not some fabulous dragon like creature hatched from a cock’s egg as some affirm.

Likewise in the Isaiah passages we see that what is hatched from the egg of a cockatrice is a viper, or a snake. “They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.” - Isaiah 59:5.

We can see this simple equation between a ‘cockatrice’ and a ‘serpent’ in versions like Youngs and Wycliffe where these versions translate the Hebrew word as ‘cockatrice’ in Isaiah 11:8 and as ‘serpent’ in Jeremiah 8:17, thus equating the two words as synonyms.

Not only does the word ‘cockatrice’ occur in the King James Bible, but also in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 and 1599, Websters 1833 translation (Jer. 8:17), Young’s, the KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

DRAGONS

It is really silly of those who criticize the King James Bible for using the word dragon. Don't these people ever look at their own bible versions first before they try to criticize the KJB? It seems they just find these goofy arguments on some anti-KJV site and post them as though they had proven some undeniable error in the Holy Bible.

Here are just a few verses from the most popular modern versions that show the use of the word DRAGON.

NASB 1995, ESV 2001

Isaiah 27:1 "In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the DRAGON who lives in the sea."

Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the DRAGON?"

NKJV, NIV

Revelation 12:3-4 "And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red DRAGON having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the DRAGON stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born."

Of course, some of the modern bible versions can't seem to get their act together and agree with each other. Here is a good example. Nehemiah 2:13:

KJB: And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the DRAGON well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

NASB, ESV: So I went out at night by the Valley Gate in the direction of the DRAGON'S Well and on to the Refuse Gate, inspecting the walls of Jerusalem which were broken down and its gates which were consumed by fire.

Other versions that read "DRAGON well" are: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, both the 1917, and 1936 Jewish translations, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 and 1960, Douay version 1950, New American Bible 1970, Bible in Basic English 1970, NRSV 1989, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Young's, Revised Version 1881, the Message, KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and the Contemporary English Version.

BUT, some like the NKJV and NIV don't agree with the others nor with each other!

NKJV: And I went out by night through the Valley Gate to the SERPENT Well and the Refuse Gate, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem which were broken down and its gates which were burned with fire.

Also reading SNAKE well are Rotherham's 1902 Emphatic bible, and God's Word Translation

NIV: By night I went out through the Valley Gate towards the JACKAL Well and the Dung Gate, examining the walls of Jerusalem, which had been broken down, and its gates, which had been destroyed by fire.

Also reading JACKAL are the RSV, Living Bible, World English Bible, and the ASV.1901.

If the King James Bible critics don't care for these "mythological creatures", as they call them, then what will they do with these animals found in their modern versions?

MONSTERS

NASB

Isaiah 34:14 "The desert creatures will meet with the wolves, The hairy goat also will cry to its kind; Yes, the NIGHT MONSTER will settle there And will find herself a resting place."

Matthew 12:40 "for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

MANY HEADED MONSTERS

NIV, (ESV, NASB, NKJV) - Psalm 74:13-14 "It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke THE HEADS OF THE MONSTER in the waters. It was you who crushed the HEADS OF Leviathan..."

NIV Job 7:12 "Am I the sea, or the MONSTER OF THE DEEP, that you put me under guard?" The NIV has the word "monster" six times, and one of these is a many headed monster!

NKJV

Ezekiel 29:3 "Speak, and say, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I am against you, O Pharaoh king of Egypt, O GREAT MONSTER who lies in the midst of his rivers, Who has said, 'My River is my own; I have made it for myself.'

Ezekiel 32:2 "Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him: 'You are like a young lion among the nations, And you are like a MONSTER IN THE SEAS, Bursting forth in your rivers, Troubling the waters with your feet, And fouling their rivers."

FLYING SERPENTS

And last of all we have that good old standby the "FIERY FLYING SERPENT". In the ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, and many others we read: "and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." When was the last time you saw one of these?

So, regarding the correctness of the translation of SATYR, Mr. Ankerberg can think what he wants, but there are a lot of Bible scholars who differ with his opinion. Again, the Bible versions that sometimes translate this Hebrew word as SATYR include both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Geneva Bible, Moffatt's New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Revised Standard Version 1952, Webster's 1833, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the NASB - New American Standard 1995 Update version. And there are a whole lot of Bible versions that speak of unicorns, dragons, flying serpents and monsters.

Mr. Ankerberg may not have a perfect Bible, but I and a lot of other Christians believe we do. We'll stick to the King James Holy Bible and accept no inferior substitues, thank you very much.

Will Kinney

[Paladin54]

Bravo, but on some of these (like dragon), you defended the KJB's use of this by saying that other versions have this, but what if somebody attacks the use of "dragons" altogether?

Originally Posted by Paladin54

Bravo, but on some of these (like dragon), you defended the KJB's use of this by saying that other versions have this, but what if somebody attacks the use of "dragons" altogether?

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
Job 40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
Job 40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.


After reading this verse from Job carefully, and considering the the behemoths cedar sized tail, I defy anyone to say that this is not a description of a dinasour. Only trouble is that the word dinasour is only a relatively modern word:

Main Entry: di·no·saur
Pronunciation: \ˈdī-nə-ˌsȯr\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin Dinosaurus, genus name, from Greek deinos terrifying + sauros lizard — more at dire
Date: 1841

As explained above, the word dinosaur comes from the Greek, meaning "terrifying lizard".

In the absence of the word dinosaur from the English language prior to 1841, a valid description of an animal that was a 'terrifying lizard" would be the word "dragon"

As for the bible correctors claiming that dragons are a mythical creature....wrong again:

Komodo dragon



Main Entry: Ko·mo·do dragon
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈmō-dō-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Komodo Island, Indonesia
Date: 1927
: an Indonesian monitor lizard (Varanus komodoensis) that is the largest of all known lizards and may attain a length of 10 feet (3 meters)


Dragons exist today, in the flesh, just like they did when the scriptures were being written.

Fundy.

[bibleprotector]

I agree with Will Kinney's article and his analysis. However, the leviathan does not seem to have many heads according to Job 41. There it has one set of jaws, one tongue, one set of eyes, etc.

When it says, "Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces" (Psalm 74:14), the word "leviathan" seems to be a collective noun, because it does not say "the leviathan", just "of leviathan", which is like the usage of the word "fowl" (plural represented without "s" at the end). Confer with: "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" (Genesis 7:21).

Therefore the heads belong to different creatures of the leviathan category or class, not one creature having multiple heads. However, we do see that in prophecy there are many headed creatures, and also creation shows that mutant creatures sometimes appear with multiple heads. Therefore, either a mutation in leviathan breeding caused the creatures by the time of King David to have multiple heads, or else the word “leviathan” is a collective noun, which is more likely.

[Will Kinney]

Good stuff, Fundy. Dragons were dinosaurs.

Will K

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Good stuff, Fundy. Dragons were dinosaurs.

Will K

I believe that you can only come to this conclusion by using the KJV. As far as I am aware,"Scholars" have "corrected" all modern translations of the descrition of behemoth.
Why? because "science" says that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, so the Bible required fixing.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.


Fundy

[scott]

Isa 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
Isa 13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
Isa 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
Isa 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

In my Bible reading last week, I was in this chapter, and I remembered reading this post a while back, and I thought I'd share this story [you may or may not find this interesting, but here goes]. I was thinking about this word satyrs and dancing and the Lord kept that verse on my mind that day I was reading it....I came home from visitation and turned on the tv and the history channel was on, and some documentary that was kind of interesting and all I was going to do was take a 15 minute nap so I left it on....I was almost asleep and this music came on and I immediately woke up, and remembered the intro as a 60's or 70's song about drugs by Jefferson Airplane called "White Rabbit"; a new documentary had started called "hippies" and I watched in somewhat disbelief for about ten minutes and in that ten minutes I want to say that they showed groups of them doing drug induced dancing and spinning and as I watched, that verse kept coming into my head, so I got my computer out [with my trusty SSearcher program] and looked up the Websters 1828 dictionary for "satyr" and here it is:

SA'TYR, n. l. satyrus; Gr. a monkey, a fawn.

In mythology, a sylvan deity or demi-god, represented as a monster, half man and half goat, having horns on his head, a hairy body, with the feet and tail of a goat. Satyrs are usually found in the train of Bacchus [One who indulges in drunken revels; a drunkard; one who is noisy and riotous, when intoxicated.], and have been distinguished for lasciviousness and riot. They have been represented as remarkable for their piercing eyes and keen raillery.

Does that not pretty much sum up the hippie movement??
I guess the long and the short of my thought is, I think I saw satyrs dancing

Interesting scan. Fundy's, too.

Question on Job 40:21-22. The description of the behometh sure sounds like a dinosaur, but the KJV says "He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about." However, the Geneva Bible 1587 says "Lyeth hee vnder the trees in the couert of the reede and fennes? Can the trees couer him with their shadow? or can the willowes of the riuer compasse him about?" The Geneva seems more likely here, to be honest. The "covert of the reed" seems especially too small for a gigantic creature like Behemoth. The book of Job is a hard one, being Hebrew poetry (and they had never seen dinosaurs), so I can see how a small error like this could be made, if it be an error (and it doesn't effect anyone's salvation if it is). What think ye? Why even ask, seeing I know what you think. Another seeming error in the KJV of Job is Job 12:5 "He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease." That's a hard sentence to even read, and it doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would a person who is slipping be compared to a light? The person who is not slipping, you would think, would be compared to a light. The NKJV says "A lamp is despised in the thought of one who is at ease; It is made ready for those whose feet slip" which seems more sensical, but what do I know. Maybe some of you can help me out here. What do you think "He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease" means?

Originally Posted by sophronismos

Question on Job 40:21-22. The description of the behometh sure sounds like a dinosaur, but the KJV says "He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about." However, the Geneva Bible 1587 says "Lyeth hee vnder the trees in the couert of the reede and fennes? Can the trees couer him with their shadow? or can the willowes of the riuer compasse him about?" The Geneva seems more likely here, to be honest. The 54 or so translators of the KJB disagree with you, if they didnt, they would have used the Geneva rendering in their translation work. No offense to you, but I will stick with the unparalelled scholarship of these men rather than what might seem more likely to someone making a superficial examination of the texts..

The "covert of the reed" seems especially too small for a gigantic creature like Behemoth. Maybe you have never been duck hunting, but if you had,you would know that a reed marsh can easily be dozens of square kilometers in size, and could easily be a "covert" for hundreds of animals...didnt a passenger jet crash in the Florida everglades a few years ago and just totally disappear in the reeds?

The book of Job is a hard one, being Hebrew poetry (and they had never seen dinosaurs), so I can see how a small error like this could be made, if it be an error (and it doesn't effect anyone's salvation if it is). What think ye? The book of Job is not just poetry, it is an account of Job's experience when God allowed Satan to test him. What makes you think the people of that time had never seen Dinosaurs? God tells Job to ....Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox"....why would God tell Job to "Behold" an animal that he could not, or had never, seen?

Why even ask, seeing I know what you think. Another seeming error in the KJV of Job is Job 12:5 "He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease." That's a hard sentence to even read, and it doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would a person who is slipping be compared to a light? The person who is not slipping, you would think, would be compared to a light. The NKJV says "A lamp is despised in the thought of one who is at ease; It is made ready for those whose feet slip" which seems more sensical, but what do I know. Maybe some of you can help me out here. What do you think "He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease" means?
It is difficult to understand, but just because it is, is no reason to cast it aside in favour of an "easier" to read version that in all probability has lost some essence of the intended meaning in the process of "clarification"...2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Fundy