The Punks Zine - Abbotsford, BC

[Kenneth]

X-PAC,

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion.
The List is self-explanatory. It offers a brief explanation of why I shall never perform my music in Abbotsford again in this lifetime and lists some of the people I deem responsible for that decision,
for anyone who might be interested.

[Kenneth]

neil,

You are entitled to choose your approach to things,
and I am entitled to choose mine.

[neilsucks]

Kenneth said:

X-PAC,

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion.
The List is self-explanatory. It offers a brief explanation of why I shall never perform my music in Abbotsford again in this lifetime and lists some of the people I deem responsible for that decision,
for anyone who might be interested.

i think i'd rather see a list of people who would be insterested in you list.

[Kenneth]

Many people have expressed interest in 'The List' and the reason for it's existence.
I really don't care if anyone is interested in it, or not.

[hjfjfj]

Kenneth said:

Many people have expressed interest in 'The List' and the reason for it's existence.
I really don't care if anyone is interested in it, or not.

oh, but i think you do...

[r-dub]

ok.
i am convinced that kenneth is UNABLE to think for himself. answering questions with bible verses is just mindless brainwash.
i have no problems with you believing every word you type, but if you are trying to make a point....using someone elses words (in my opinion) is weakminded. i want to hear what you have to say, not what the gospel is saying. i can read that whenever i want. kenneth i am deeply unimpressed by you.

i can't even believe that you have a sense of humor. maybe your right winged christian friends think you're hilarious, but to me you're just a basic idiot. you are very close minded.

i don't care if you're 14 or 40, you have learned nothing from life except how to close your mind.

way to go!

[r-dub]

kenneth.
if you want to see a 'shit list' that is actually funny:
shzine.proboards10.com/index.cgi?board=thewpp&action=display&thread=1064630492

[Kenneth]

When discussing spiritual issues, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a point and then backing it up with the Word of God. None of man's words can express a spiritual truth better than Scripture can.
No offence, but I think you're the one who is close-minded.

[JayC]

holy shit.

i don't go to a message board for a while, and look at all this comedy i return to. not to insult christians for having a faith, but Ken, don't try and make other people think they're going to "hell" for their "sins". personally, i don't take the bible as it is written, instead as a manual on how to lead a good life, much like a 'life for dummies' guidebook. just because someone doesn't subscribe to your choice, doesn't mean their own is illicit or misinformed. your presence on this message board brings debate and activity to the ranks of lowly shzine readers, so please continue to bring your colourful commentary to us, i enjoy it.

"angels dipped blood and took a firstborn what?, there's a plague?, god sending plagues.. this is crazy, this is nonsense.. where are the Unicorns?" -David Cross

[r-dub]

"No offence, but I think you're the one who is close-minded."

haha, that's great! maybe i could quote a bible verse to back up why i think it's great.

[Kenneth]

JayC,

Thank-you for your comment.

Re: "i don't take the bible as it is written".

I do. One of us is right, and one of us is mistaken. If I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If you are wrong, you have lost everything. Time will tell.

Re: "angels dipped blood and took a firstborn what?, there's a plague?, god sending plagues.. this is crazy, this is nonsense.. where are the Unicorns?" -David Cross".

The unicorn: The Bible does not refer to fantasy animals.
by Carl Wieland

First published in
Creation 14(2):14–15
March–May 1992

[Addendum added March 2004]

In the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible we read of God questioning Job (Chapter 39:9,10):

‘Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?’

The unicorn is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. Nowhere in these passages is there any suggestion that anything other than a real animal is being described.

But the unicorn is well known to be a product of legend, a creature whose remains have never been found and about whom fabulous tales have been told. Some have used this to attack the Bible—this proves that the writers were simply retelling widely believed myths, they say.

Unicorn (‘one horn’) stories have been told in many parts of the world, including Syria, China, India, ancient Greece and medieval Europe. Although always having one horn, its body (usually shown in European stories as a horse, albeit with cloven hooves) has also been depicted in many other ways, including resembling a sheep, a goat or even something like a hare.

A recurring theme was its association with virtue and virginity; though wild, it liked to cradle its head in devotion in a virgin’s lap, while its horn ensured a skewered end for all who tried to falsely pass themselves off as so undefiled. Marco Polo searched for the unicorn, but rejected the rhinoceros in disappointment (such a rough, ugly, muddy head could not possibly be visualized nestling in the white flowing robes of a maiden’s lap).

It is well known that the unicorn horns were greatly prized because of the belief that they were able to render poisons harmless. Sailors occasionally found the tooth of a male narwhal washed up (a narwhal is an Arctic whale, the male of which has a long, spirally twisted tusk), and assumed that it was the only remaining part of a once-living unicorn. Fabulous prices were often paid for these—Queen Elizabeth I is said to have had one which was valued at 100,000 pounds!

However, as shipping became more widespread, it became clear that these ‘unicorn horns’ were actually whales’ teeth, which had a drastic effect on market prices.

So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is øàí (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.

Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.

It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the rimu/re’em were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the rimu/re’em was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).

The real re’em or wild ox was also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This was the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle.

Addendum (March 2004)

There is a way of showing from the KJV itself that the translation of the Hebrew re’em as ‘unicorn’ is incorrect. In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses speaks a blessing on the descendants of Joseph, saying, ‘In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are like the horns of a wild ox (Heb: re’em). With them he will push the peoples …’.

The KJV translation says: ‘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 … .’

The simile is appropriate if the reference is to the aurochs or wild ox, because they had huge, long horns. However, the main point here is the dilemma for the KJV translators who had elsewhere determined that the re’em was a unicorn.

In the Hebrew of this passage, the word ‘horns’ is plural, but the word re’em is singular. But if they translated it this way, it would read, ‘His horns are like the horns of a unicorn’, which would give a unicorn more than one horn, obviously a contradiction in terms. The KJV translators clearly recognized the inconsistency in comparing the pair of horns (plural) on a bull with the single horn on a unicorn, because they took the liberty in their translation to make the unicorn plural (see the marginal note in the KJV, which makes this clear). However, it needs to be stressed again that the word is not plural in the Hebrew. Unless one grants an English translation authority over the original Hebrew, this is a once-and-for-all indication that the re’em could not be a one-horned creature.

Note that in Modern Hebrew, re’em also means wild ox.

I think Mr. Cross is in for a big surprise.

[ryuttyi]

DOES THIS GUY KNOW HOW TO PARTY OR WHAT?!?! AM I RIGHT?!? no.

[r-dub]

kenneth. you really have your finger on the pulse, don't you?

i'm pretty sure you have no idea what's going on here.

[Kenneth]

r-dub,

What's your hang-up now?

[r-dub]

are you serious? or just dense?