I’m not really sure I get that wolf analogy. I’m also aware that names change over time. The author spent quite a bit of effort justifying the use of the term unicorn for no good reason. He could have just as easily chalked the unicorn up to a mistranslation as it seems is most likely the case given that almost all other translations have it as wild oxen.

Also, please elaborate on your second statement about me living in Christendom. It was confusing as well.

The “Wolf” was real. In order to understand what is meant by the words true in every detail you must understand what it means is true.

Because the name of something, or the name of a place has changed, or the idea, or the term, or even scientific principle has changed, does not make something written down at a certain time less true.

The point here is that the some numbskull at AIG spent a lot of time and effort dreaming up that article about how we shouldn’t mock god’s special creature, the unicorn. From the article:

To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

In actuality it all comes down to a translation issue at best. I mean, we are talking about translations of translations of ancient stories that were probably passed down in verbal form before ever being written down. To just assume that unicorns are real because some asshat committee in the 1600s wrote them into the Bible doesn’t make them real or “true in every detail.”

Is it so difficult to consider that Unicorn was the closest word the translators could think of?

Always so quick to insult, when really you should try using your brain for a few minutes.