Thread: KJV-ers: Unicorns? Please explain!

Haven't done any research on this myself. But I did look up unicorn in websters 1828 dictionary and here's what it says:

unicorn

U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.

3. A fowl.

fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar.

Search => [word] => unicorn :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And here are all of the instances "unicorn" is translated in the KJV,

Numbers 23
22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24
8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Deuteronomy 33
17 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 together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalms 22
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalms 29
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalms 92
10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34
7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Unicorns are in the Geneva Bible text, too.

That was one of my guesses! Thanks!

This reminds me of a Far Side Cartoon I saw years ago.

Noah is pictured looking sternly at two lions with guilty expressions. Two hoofed haunches lay dead in the foreground.

The caption reads: "Ok, so much for the Unicorns. From now on all carnivores are confined to C deck."

3743 Unicorn, described as an animal of great ferocity and strength Nu 23:22 R.V., "wild ox," marg., "ox-antelope;" Nu 24:8 Isa 34:7 R.V., "wild oxen", and untamable Job 39:9 It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius ("primitive ox"), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (comp.) De 33:17 Ps 22:21 29:6 92:10
EASTON’S BIBLE DICTIONARY

NKJ Job 39:9 "Will the wild ox be willing to serve you? Will he bed by your manger?

NAS Job 39:9 "Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Or will he spend the night at your manger?

ASV Job 39:9 Will the wild-ox be content to serve thee? Or will he abide by thy crib?

ESV Job 39:9 "Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will he spend the night at your manger?

GNV Job 39:12 Will the vnicorne serue thee? or will he tary by thy cribbe?

KJV Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

NIV Job 39:9 "Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will he stay by your manger at night?

NLT Job 39:9 "Will the wild ox consent to being tamed? Will it stay in your stall?

LXT Job 39:9 boulh,setai de, soi mono,kerwj douleu/sai h' koimhqh/nai evpi. fa,tnhj sou

Ask your friend if he's ever heard of a rhinoceros or a narwhal.

Does the hebrew word imply it must have a single, "uni" horn? If so, then I would think it to be something like a rhinoceros. But were rhinoceros' located in the middle east?

Or is the wild-ox (two horns) more probable?

Thanks.
Adam

Many translations have wild ox and unicorn. Wild ox doesn't make sense to me in the place of Job because it seems to be referring to a domesticated animal.

Here are some other translations:

buffalo (Darby and MLB)
forest-ox (Leeser)
ox of the mountains (BBE)
reem (YLT, this is a transliteration)
rhinoceros (DRC, RCC translation from Vulgate)
unicorn 'ox' (UKJV, exactly how it appears...)

Oh, and here's an evolution of the spelling of unicorn:

1395 Wycliffe: vyncorn
1534 Tyndale: vnycorne
1535 Coverdale: vnicorne
1568 Bishop: vnicorne
1587 Geneva: vnicorne
1611 King James: unicorne
1769 King James: unicorn

Don't tell the atheist about the Satyrs in Isaiah 13:21

And don't let him see the Geneva marginal note explaining the Zijm in that passage:

13:21 1 Which were either wild beasts, or fowls, or wicked spirits,
whereby Satan deluded man, as by the fairies, goblins, and such like
fantasies.

There have been some really cool breeding programs going on in Europe over the last 70 years or so to bring back the wild ox, and they're stunningly successful



But the unicorn and the dragon of the KJV are myths. I wish they weren't, but they are. The translators of the KJV simply didn't have the knowledge that we do today, so modern versions don't talk about dragons and unicorns.

Jessi, for you atheist friend who thinks he's found out some sort of weak spot in Christianity, only the KJV onlies need to get into linguistic and historical gymnastics to defend the faith against such as him. The rest of us just yawn, and assume that if he really wants to pursue the matter he'll come up empty handed.

PS nowadays the Aurochs are (unless someone changed the nomenclature when I wasn't looking) are grouped under Bos taurus, the ancestor of our domestic cattle.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 08:38:21 EST-----

If so, then I would think it to be something like a rhinoceros. But were rhinoceros' located in the middle east?

They were in Egypt and India at least, so everyone knew of them. We used to have a bunch of them a few miles from the farm I managed. Strong isn't the word!!

Originally Posted by TimV

That is an impressive looking beast!

This sounds like such a "New Atheist" internet anti-God fundy argument...

Hebrew is: רְאֵם

Possibly an Elasmotherium...
Elasmotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am curious as to how much the LXX translation (monokeros) played in translating the Hebrew as "unicorn" rather than "wild ox" or "rhinoceros" -- even though the Greek word appears to be closely related to rhinoceros!

I actually was quite pleased with this Q from my friend, for it was so easy to answer! Sometimes his question make me do lots of research, but as soon as I read this one, I responded to him with: "Either the KJV used the word unicorn for something other than what we call a unicorn today, or it was figurative. I don't think figurative, since none of the other translations I've looked at are figurative, but I will ask my KJV expert friends [this is where the PB comes in]."

And then the first answer I get from you all is a definition from the 1800's where unicorn had more than the mythological meaning (my first guess!). So this one was an easy, non-debatable issue. Which really, I knew it would be as soon as I saw it. I thought, "I don't know this answer, but I know it's going to be an easy one!"
Thanks!

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 09:38:14 EST-----

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I am curious as to how much the LXX translation (monokeros) played in translating the Hebrew as "unicorn" rather than "wild ox" or "rhinoceros" -- even though the Greek word appears to be closely related to rhinoceros!

LXX= ?

So do you think it means rhino as opposed to wild ox? (I don't think it matters for faith, but just for knowledge.)

Originally Posted by he beholds

I actually was quite pleased with this Q from my friend, for it was so easy to answer! Sometimes his question make me do lots of research, but as soon as I read this one, I responded to him with: "Either the KJV used the word unicorn for something other than what we call a unicorn today, or it was figurative. I don't think figurative, since none of the other translations I've looked at are figurative, but I will ask my KJV expert friends [this is where the PB comes in]."

And then the first answer I get from you all is a definition from the 1800's where unicorn had more than the mythological meaning (my first guess!). So this one was an easy, non-debatable issue. Which really, I knew it would be as soon as I saw it. I thought, "I don't know this answer, but I know it's going to be an easy one!"
Thanks!

Ever the advantage of the scoffer. He can release as many rabbits as we are willing to chase!

Originally Posted by he beholds

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I am curious as to how much the LXX translation (monokeros) played in translating the Hebrew as "unicorn" rather than "wild ox" or "rhinoceros" -- even though the Greek word appears to be closely related to rhinoceros!

LXX= ?

So do you think it means rhino as opposed to wild ox? (I don't think it matters for faith, but just for knowledge.)

LXX is the abbreviation for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (c. 300 B.C.). It was thought to have been translated by 70 (or 72?) scholars, hence the abbreviation LXX.

Unless I miss my guess, monokeros literally means "one-horn" just as rhinoceros means "nose horn." It is not too difficult to see how "one horn" becomes "unicorn" in an English translation, but that is a far cry from saying this is a reference to a mythological being.

If I am not mistaken, there are other instances of animals listed in Scripture in which we do not quite know what animal is being referenced. Compare different translations of 1 Kings 10:22, for instance; what did the ships from Tarshish deliver along with the apes? Was it baboons, monkeys, or peacocks? I don't think the foundations of Christianity are shaken here, imho.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I am curious as to how much the LXX translation (monokeros) played in translating the Hebrew as "unicorn" rather than "wild ox" or "rhinoceros" -- even though the Greek word appears to be closely related to rhinoceros!

That's it! I knew I had heard something that was supposed to be why the word unicorn was used and why rhino was a better translation, and it was the LXX.

Apostle's Bible and NETS, translations of the LXX, have unicorn FWIW.

Umm . . . exactly how does this do any damage? What if there were unicorns? What if the modern definition of unicorn is just wrong? I'd sure put the unbelieving scoffer to the test before I question the Bible. I don't have to apologize for there being dragons or unicorns in the text.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Umm . . . exactly how does this do any damage? What if there were unicorns? What if the modern definition of unicorn is just wrong? I'd sure put the unbelieving scoffer to the test before I question the Bible. I don't have to apologize for there being dragons or unicorns in the text.

I will not be embarrassed if the Lord shows us one day that there are actual unicorns (properly and historically so called). BTW glad to see that you are able to post again Josh.

This unicorn question comes up occasionally. From an earlier discussion (check the link in the post referred to):

KJV Bible: How to overcome the language barrier?

The unicorn died out around the same time as the Saber-Toothed Duck and the Wooly Frog.

I found an apologetic page last night on the unicorn and satyr translations.

Apologetics Press - Unicorns, Satyrs, and the Bible

I preached on Psalm 22 last Lord's Day evening, where unicorns are mentioned in verse 21, KJV. I explained this as most likely the aurochs, or ancient breed of wild cattle, now extinct. The translators of the KJV and Geneva bible took the description of the re’em and translated it with the word for a mythical creature of great strength. They had no way of knowing unicorns didn’t exist or hadn’t existed in creation. I came across a description by Marco Polo of an unicorn, which was obviously (from his words) a rhinoceros.

Why should I not understand dragons as some large ancient serpent creature known in man’s past? Genesis describes a serpent cursed by God to hence go on its belly, implying it may have conveyed itself otherwise before. Job 41 describes a dragon like creature which may have been a dinosaur species. After all, as non evolutionists, we believe men once lived on the earth with every ancient kind of creature, including those now extinct.

Didn't you know? Unicorns actually exist. Humans killed most of them for their horn, though, so the only ones that survived are of the invisible pink variety. They've occasionally been spotted around a certain atheistic day camp.

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Why should I not understand dragons as some large ancient serpent creature known in man’s past?

Because, Pastor Ferrell, we are to capitulate to "science" at every turn. If modern man defines unicorn and dragon in a certain way, we must adjust, because there's no way to make the Bible translation fit otherwise. Thus we need constantly to bring out new translations instead of educating folks on what already is. Else, people will use words like unicorn and dragon to disprove the Bible! And that would shake my faith.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Why should I not understand dragons as some large ancient serpent creature known in man’s past?

Because, Pastor Ferrell, we are to capitulate to "science" at every turn. If modern man defines unicorn and dragon in a certain way, we must adjust, because there's no way to make the Bible translation fit otherwise. Thus we need constantly to bring out new translations instead of educating folks on what already is. Else, people will use words like unicorn and dragon to disprove the Bible! And that would shake my faith.

Or one could assume that the translators existed in a day and time in which their science insisted dogmatically (and had so for centuries) that dragons existed, and the translators mistranslated a word. Would science be to blame if a mule was mistranslated as a camel?

one's faith would only be shaken if one did not know any Hebrew or Greek, had no access to a minister who did, and who insisted that there was no possibility of a faithful English translation occurring in the last 400 years.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Why should I not understand dragons as some large ancient serpent creature known in man’s past?

Because, Pastor Ferrell, we are to capitulate to "science" at every turn. If modern man defines unicorn and dragon in a certain way, we must adjust, because there's no way to make the Bible translation fit otherwise. Thus we need constantly to bring out new translations instead of educating folks on what already is. Else, people will use words like unicorn and dragon to disprove the Bible! And that would shake my faith.

Or one could assume that the translators existed in a day and time in which their science insisted dogmatically (and had so for centuries) that dragons existed, and the translators mistranslated a word. Would science be to blame if a mule was mistranslated as a camel?

one's faith would only be shaken if one did not know any Hebrew or Greek, had no access to a minister who did, and who insisted that there was no possibility of a faithful English translation occurring in the last 400 years.

Your position is noted, Pastor, and please know that I didn't intend for my comment to be a swipe at every person without exception that doesn't like the use of the terms unicorn and dragon, but rather those who would regularly and at a moment's notice change things just to "keep up with the joneses" of Science. My apologies for implying otherwise.

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

I came across a description by Marco Polo of an unicorn, which was obviously (from his words) a rhinoceros.

In Serendipities Umberto Eco has some engaging reflections upon that description by Marco Polo, and other similar adjustments of existing verbiage to the pressure of new situations.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Joshua

Because, Pastor Ferrell, we are to capitulate to "science" at every turn. If modern man defines unicorn and dragon in a certain way, we must adjust, because there's no way to make the Bible translation fit otherwise. Thus we need constantly to bring out new translations instead of educating folks on what already is. Else, people will use words like unicorn and dragon to disprove the Bible! And that would shake my faith.

Or one could assume that the translators existed in a day and time in which their science insisted dogmatically (and had so for centuries) that dragons existed, and the translators mistranslated a word. Would science be to blame if a mule was mistranslated as a camel?

one's faith would only be shaken if one did not know any Hebrew or Greek, had no access to a minister who did, and who insisted that there was no possibility of a faithful English translation occurring in the last 400 years.

Your position is noted, Pastor, and please know that I didn't intend for my comment to be a swipe at every person without exception that doesn't like the use of the terms unicorn and dragon, but rather those who would regularly and at a moment's notice change things just to "keep up with the joneses" of Science. My apologies for implying otherwise.

Understood. But I personally don't view a change every couple of centuries as "a moment's notice."

'Unicorn' Deer Found in Italy : Discovery News : Discovery Channel

My Geneva actually calls it a "vnicorne" is that the same thing?

Will the vnicorne serue thee? or will he tary by thy cribbe?(Job 39:9 Geneva)

I don't think it means "one horned" at all. I think it means either:
(1) great strength, Num_23:22; Job_39:11;
(2) two horns, Deu_33:17;
(3) fierceness, Psa_22:21;
(4) untameableness, Job_39:9-11, where the unicorn, probably the wild bison, buffalo, ox, or urus (now only found in Lithuania, but then spread over northern temperate climes, Bashan, etc., and in the Hercynian forest, described by Caesar as almost the size of an elephant, fierce, sparing neither man nor beast)

Originally Posted by Joshua

Umm . . . exactly how does this do any damage? What if there were unicorns? What if the modern definition of unicorn is just wrong? I'd sure put the unbelieving scoffer to the test before I question the Bible. I don't have to apologize for there being dragons or unicorns in the text.

Well, the question is, if (or since, according to most people today) there weren't unicorns, then why did the Bible say there were? I also would have no problem if there had been unicorns, but, if not, I would like to know why the Bible describes something that had never been...which is why I posted this question. I embrace the truth, despite the unexpected discoveries, and I think it is not a sin to try to find the truth, by means of dictionaries, science, or pastors on the PB!
I actually disagree that the Bible shouldn't be tested. I am confident that it is true and can handle its scoffers, but if I found an untruth (or ambiguous portion, such as the unicorn) I would try to discover where that came from. I think that is a legit practice.

Originally Posted by TimV

But the unicorn and the dragon of the KJV are myths. I wish they weren't, but they are. The translators of the KJV simply didn't have the knowledge that we do today, so modern versions don't talk about dragons and unicorns.

As a matter of curiosity, what's the difference between a dragon and certain dinosaurs?

And, speaking of dragons, don't they (and dinosaurs) bear some resemblance to the animals discussed in Job 41?

"His sneezings flash forth light,
and his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.
Out of his mouth go flaming torches;
sparks of fire leap forth.
Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke,
as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
His breath kindles coals,
and a flame comes forth from his mouth"
(ESV)

As a matter of curiosity, what's the difference between a dragon and certain dinosaurs?

Breathing fire.

And, speaking of dragons, don't they (and dinosaurs) bear some resemblance to the animals discussed in Job 41?

Mythological dragons do, but no reptiles. Not even cryptozoologists go that far.

The KJV translators were very ignorant of geography and natural history, and made mistakes that needed to be corrected.

Isaiah 34 :7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls

Well they weren't a bullock.

And it seems they would not be the wild ox or cattle since that would also make scripture false since you can tame the wild ox or cattle to plow.

So I prefer to believe they were one of many animals that went extinct at least in that area.

Had you not seen one, who would ever believe God made a Duckbill Platypus ??

Mythology is often built on something of reality.

When an animal goes extinct it can become a part of mythology or tradition and exaggerated or altered.

So as the one horned deer we saw in the unicorn the picture, which you don't tame to pull a plow, because you can't catch them, and could have been a genetic throw back, they could have existed, then died off, and thus embodied as a part of mythology.

And it may have looked nothing like the unicorn of mythology.

It could have been the antelope type or the rhinocerous.
But I do not see it being a wild ox or cow.

I think it had one horn. Thus called a one horn, as is the rhino called not nose horn.

Haven't seen any of them tamed pulling a plow either.

This has nothing to do with the ignorance of the KJV translators in fact may have more to do with the unfaithfulness of the other translators to the hebrew, and not wanting to look foolish to science since they didn't consider it was not the mythical unicorn and could have been the rhino. So they changed it to wild ox which is less likely and more easily pointed out as an error since you can tame them.

The rhino could have lived in that area for a while then migrated or been killed off. Or even only occasionally strayed up to those areas, or never have lived there but only been heard of from other lands.

I trust the word of God, one horn. Not a mistake.

Originally Posted by TimV

As a matter of curiosity, what's the difference between a dragon and certain dinosaurs?

Breathing fire.

And, speaking of dragons, don't they (and dinosaurs) bear some resemblance to the animals discussed in Job 41?

Mythological dragons do, but no reptiles. Not even cryptozoologists go that far.

The KJV translators were very ignorant of geography and natural history, and made mistakes that needed to be corrected.

Actually, there are paleo-zoologists who think that some of the large herbivorous dinosaurs may have been able to expel a fiery mixture of methane gas or hydrogen peroxide from either their nostrils or those odd cranial openings in the front of some types of skulls. There are both creationists and evolutionists who have postulated this. Sort of like a Bombardier Beetle in reverse. The Bombardier Beetle used H2O2, not methane.

Actually, there are paleo-zoologists who think that some of the large herbivorous dinosaurs may have been able to expel a fiery mixture of methane gas or hydrogen peroxide from either their nostrils or those odd cranial openings in the front of some types of skulls. There are both creationists and evolutionists who have postulated this. Sort of like a Bombardier Beetle in reverse. The Bombardier Beetle used H2O2, not methane.

Interesting. I wonder what would have lighted the methane? Could you give a name of one person attached to an accredited institute of higher education who holds to this? I'd like to read more.