Unicorns in the King James Version

[Bible Highlighter]

I love your paw-some dedication to the cat pun!

I believe absolutely in the litter-al interpretation of scriptures - but especially of the authoritative Greek text. I would interpret it as being a Rhino, because that is the straightforward interpretation of the text. The metaphorical and typological interpretations (so-called higher interpretations) of scripture loses all their meaning without the historical and literal interpretation being true. One must believe in the historical and literal incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, and not leave it as a metaphorical fable. And what is the incarnation of the "New Adam" without the historical reality of the "Old Adam" - what would making the creation a fable do to the redemption story? How could I have faith if I did not believe that the General Resurrection will be historical and literal? It must be, otherwise nothing matters. I agree "For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God." The Word of God who came to us personally as Christ, textually as the canon of scripture, and also creatively through his act of creating our universe.

Although maybe it is an extinct kind of Rhino or a larger Rhino in general, but I don't believe in the 'artistic license' of the paleontologists, so I find it implausible or im-paw-sible that such complexity as paleontological science would be required for the interpretation of scripture. All knowledge comes from revelation from God through grace and administered by the Holy Spirit. I fear that paleontology also presents a fable to believers. I also fear a faith based on the latest science, which as St. Basil the Great says, "refutes itself the next day." I don't believe in dinosaurs, although I admit 'I don't know whether or not they existed.'

Have you never seen the bones of dinosaurs in Science museums before? Sure, they could be faked, but if they are fakes, then they are doing a really good job of it. They even examined the blood of a T-Rex from one of its bones, and they suggested that this is not possible if the T-Rex was dead millions of years ago. This supports the Bible in the teaching that the Earth is young (i.e. if you were to follow the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam in Luke 3). Also, if you were to read Job 40, it sounds like a description of a Sauropod or Brontosaurus. In Job 41, it sounds like a description of a fire breathing dragon. A dragon would simply be a dinosaur. Only a lack of disbelief in what the Bible says will lead a person to think these things are metaphors and not real. They are not described as metaphors in Job, but as real creatures. It's funny. Folks can believe the Scriptures that Jesus rose from the dead, but they don't believe Job 39-41 in what it plainly says.

As for Job 39 being in reference to the word "unicorn" being in reference to a rhino:

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?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" (Job 39:9-12).

Verse 9 does not sound like this creature can be tamed because it asks the question "can it abide by your crib?"

Verse 11 asks: Will you trust him because his strength is great?

In other words, this creature cannot be tamed.

Yet, we see men and rhinos get along here:

Verse 10, and 12 suggest that this animal is not possible to use for farming.

Yet, we see the rhino used for farming here:

This is why it is some kind of one horned dinosaur whose strength and size would throw a person with ease around like nothing because the human is too small to control such a creature. Only a one horned dinosaur like creature fits the the description of the unicorn like creature mentioned in Job 39.

 

[Dale]

Perhaps it refers to what the scientists call "rhinoceros unicornis." The greek text suggests the rhino. The Hebrew suggests a type of ox. It would be historical illiteracy to think 'unicorn' here necessitates the mythical creature.

It's not an error. Is John 3:16 in error? Surely not. Words change with the passage of time. Most think of the mythological flying horse with one horn when you mention the word "unicorn" today. Then again, the word "gay" has an entirely different meaning today then it did in times past, as well. The word was generally regarded as being happy. But if you say that word today, people do not generally think that such a word means happy.

While we do not know with 100% certainty what kind of actual beast the unicorn is (as mentioned in the Bible), if I were to take a guess, there is a chance that it may be the extinct one horned dinosaur called the Elasmotherium.

Elasmotherium ("Thin Plate Beast") is an extinct genus of giant rhinoceros. Three species are recognized in this group.

Check out the following link to see an article on the reasoning behind the identity of this creature with the use of Scripture.

Unicorns - by: A True Church.
(Note: I merely happen to agree with what I stated in this post from their article; It does not mean I agree with the author or the website in regards to other things that they may believe).

But there are dino's that existed in history. The unicorn or creature described in Job 39 sounds like an untamable dinosaur to me.

Here is a possible recreation of the Elasmotherium (or ancient dino like unicorn).


I don't think this baby can be tamed (unlike oxen, horses, and even the rhino).

In Psalm 92:10, the psalmist is praying and says, “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn.” Looking at this verse in a Latin Bible, the word “unicorn” is unicornis, the same scientific Latin name of the present-day Asian one-horned rhinoceros. The King James Bible translators transliterated this word “unicornis” as “unicorn.”

Entire article

Several people have mentioned the rhinoceros as a candidate for what the KJV translated as “unicorn.” I thought that the RSV rendering and the quote from the Britannica would have settled the question that the correct translation is “wild ox.”

There is a problem with the rhinoceros being the animal in question. In Isaiah 34, the animal is mentioned in connection with ritual sacrifice.

6 The Lord has a sword; it is sated with blood,
it is gorged with fat,
with the blood of lambs and goats,
with the fat of the kidneys of rams.
For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah,
a great slaughter in the land of Edom.
7 Wild oxen shall fall with them,
and young steers with the mighty bulls.
Their land shall be soaked with blood,
and their soil made rich with fat.
Isaiah 34: 6-7 RSV

Scholars tell us that the sacrifice of a rhinoceros would be forbidden by the Jewish Law.

<< ... while in Isa 34:6-7, where Jehovah is said to be preparing "a sacrifice in Bozrah," it is added, "Reeim shall come down, and the bullocks with the bulls." >>

<< Little, however, can be urged in favor of the rhinoceros ... this pachyderm must be out of the question, as one which would have been forbidden to be sacrificed by the law of Moses; whereas the reem is mentioned by Isaiah as coming down with bullocks and rams to the Lord's sacrifice. >>


Let’s face it, “wild ox” is the correct translation.


Source:
McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia
Link
Unicorn from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Several people have mentioned the rhinoceros as a candidate for what the KJV translated as “unicorn.” I thought that the RSV rendering and the quote from the Britannica would have settled the question that the correct translation is “wild ox.”

There is a problem with the rhinoceros being the animal in question. In Isaiah 34, the animal is mentioned in connection with ritual sacrifice.

6 The Lord has a sword; it is sated with blood,
it is gorged with fat,
with the blood of lambs and goats,
with the fat of the kidneys of rams.
For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah,
a great slaughter in the land of Edom.
7 Wild oxen shall fall with them,
and young steers with the mighty bulls.
Their land shall be soaked with blood,
and their soil made rich with fat.
Isaiah 34: 6-7 RSV

Scholars tell us that the sacrifice of a rhinoceros would be forbidden by the Jewish Law.

<< ... while in Isa 34:6-7, where Jehovah is said to be preparing "a sacrifice in Bozrah," it is added, "Reeim shall come down, and the bullocks with the bulls." >>

<< Little, however, can be urged in favor of the rhinoceros ... this pachyderm must be out of the question, as one which would have been forbidden to be sacrificed by the law of Moses; whereas the reem is mentioned by Isaiah as coming down with bullocks and rams to the Lord's sacrifice. >>


Let’s face it, “wild ox” is the correct translation.


Source:
McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia
Link
Unicorn from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Isaiah 34 is not a literal descriptive event, but it is speaking a lot in metaphor.

9 "And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever:"
(Isaiah 34:9-10).

Surely the smoke is not going up forever today. So this is not exactly literal.

Also, it says, "The sword of the LORD is filled with blood,..." (Isaiah 34:6). So this is not a standard sacrifice or burnt offering being described. It is a metaphor of destruction.

Again, wild oxen can be used for farming. This is a problem because the unicorn described in Job 39 describes this creatures as not suitable for farming and or in being tamed in any way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In addition:

There is another Biblical description that adds to the Elasmotherium theory. The verse cited at beginning of this article described young unicorns skipping or jumping in play (Psalm 29:6). Maybe it’s just me, but rhinoceros and skipping do not belong in the same sentence.

But in fact, “skipping” suits Elasmotherium. Look at the description of this ancient rhino taken from Wikipedia:

Its legs were longer than those of other rhinos and were designed for galloping, giving it a horse-like gait.

With a horse-like gait, an Elasmotherium calf could easily be envisioned as skipping through the meadows.


Source:
Was it a Unicorn or a frolicking Elasmotherium?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The LXX chose μονόκερως (monokeros), "one-horned" to translate re'em. The Vulgate variously has unicornis and rinoceros (see Psalm 22:21 and Job 39:10 respectively). So the Translators of the KJV aren't so much as translating here as simply retaining a familiar term. We also shouldn't assume that by "unicorn" they necessarily were thinking the mythological creature. The Greek and Latin almost certainly implies a rhinoceros (especially given the use of rinoceros in the Latin text, a borrowing of the Greek rhinokeros referring to the same animal we know it by).

What has been understood, however, is that re'em almost certainly referred to the aurochs, the wild ox from which all our domesticated cattle are descended from. Extinct today, but a well-known animals from all over Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa at the time the biblical texts were written. The aurochs has only been extinct for a few centuries, the last living aurochs died in the 1600s in Poland.

I don't think this is an example of the KJV being in error so much as being unclear and confusing, especially for a modern reader. Given that the actual animal the Hebrew word referred to was all but extinct at the time, and the Greek and Latin text traditions use "one-horned" as a reference to the animal, and likely the fact that 17th century British translators may not have been all that familiar with the rhinoceros (that's something I'd have to look up, how well Western Europeans were familiar with sub-Saharan animals at the time) a borrowing of the word they were familiar with--unicornis, unicorn--was probably the most sensible thing at the time.

-CrytoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

In addition:

There is another Biblical description that adds to the Elasmotherium theory. The verse cited at beginning of this article described young unicorns skipping or jumping in play (Psalm 29:6). Maybe it’s just me, but rhinoceros and skipping do not belong in the same sentence.

But in fact, “skipping” suits Elasmotherium. Look at the description of this ancient rhino taken from Wikipedia:

Its legs were longer than those of other rhinos and were designed for galloping, giving it a horse-like gait.

With a horse-like gait, an Elasmotherium calf could easily be envisioned as skipping through the meadows.


Source:
Was it a Unicorn or a frolicking Elasmotherium?

Elasmotherium died out around 50,000 years ago, and its range was central-northern Eurasia.

There's simply no way re'em could refer to an animal that had been extinct for millennia when the texts were written and whose range would never have intersected with the world of the ancient Hebrews and other ANE peoples.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The LXX chose μονόκερως (monokeros), "one-horned" to translate re'em. The Vulgate variously has unicornis and rinoceros (see Psalm 22:21 and Job 39:10 respectively). So the Translators of the KJV aren't so much as translating here as simply retaining a familiar term. We also shouldn't assume that by "unicorn" they necessarily were thinking the mythological creature. The Greek and Latin almost certainly implies a rhinoceros (especially given the use of rinoceros in the Latin text, a borrowing of the Greek rhinokeros referring to the same animal we know it by).

What has been understood, however, is that re'em almost certainly referred to the aurochs, the wild ox from which all our domesticated cattle are descended from. Extinct today, but a well-known animals from all over Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa at the time the biblical texts were written. The aurochs has only been extinct for a few centuries, the last living aurochs died in the 1600s in Poland.

I don't think this is an example of the KJV being in error so much as being unclear and confusing, especially for a modern reader. Given that the actual animal the Hebrew word referred to was all but extinct at the time, and the Greek and Latin text traditions use "one-horned" as a reference to the animal, and likely the fact that 17th century British translators may not have been all that familiar with the rhinoceros (that's something I'd have to look up, how well Western Europeans were familiar with sub-Saharan animals at the time) a borrowing of the word they were familiar with--unicornis, unicorn--was probably the most sensible thing at the time.

-CrytoLutheran

The LXX is a fake. The KJV is superior to any corrupt Modern Translation today. A simple side by side comparison makes this fact obvious. Then again, I did my homework on this point when I first got saved back in 1992. So it is old news for me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Elasmotherium died out around 50,000 years ago, and its range was central-northern Eurasia.

There's simply no way re'em could refer to an animal that had been extinct for millennia when the texts were written and whose range would never have intersected with the world of the ancient Hebrews and other ANE peoples.

-CryptoLutheran

You don't have a time machine to confirm that date. However, I got something better than a time machine. It's called the Bible; And based on just looking at the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 that goes back to Adam, the Earth cannot be more than 6,000 years old. In addition, there are many evidences for a young Earth, as well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The LXX is a fake. The KJV is superior to any corrupt Modern Translation today. A simple side by side comparison makes this fact obvious. Then again, I did my homework on this point when I first got saved. So it is old news for me.

The fact that you can say "the KJV is superior to any corrupt Modern Translation" and offer "a simple side by side comparison makes this fact obvious" tells me that you haven't done the homework.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You don't have a time machine to confirm that date.

Nope, just corroborating evidence from nearly every field of science.

-CryptoLUtheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope, just corroborating evidence from nearly every field of science.

-CryptoLUtheran

Secular Science? Yeah, that's not reliable. Also, Historical Science is not the same as Observational Science. I will stick with the Bible in what it says over anything else. The Bible is backed by Observational Science. The Bible is divine in origin. There are many evidences that show this. Check out my Blogger article to see the evidences that proves God's Word is divine and or perfect.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

In other words, the Bible blows away any so called Historical Science that cannot be proven. To put it to you another way, my Bible crushes any falsely so called Science.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The fact that you can say "the KJV is superior to any corrupt Modern Translation" and offer "a simple side by side comparison makes this fact obvious" tells me that you haven't done the homework.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't think so. The devil's name is placed in Modern Translations where they do not belong. In Modern Translations the Trinity is attacked, the deity of Christ is attacked, the blood atonement is attacked, holy living is attacked, etc. Tons of verses are distorted for the worse and not for the better by way of comparison.

In addition, certain translators of Modern Translations have lost their voice (Which is a fulfillment of the warning in Revelation).

Biblical Numerics confirm the divine nature of the KJV. There is enough information to make a person's head explode ten times over. Check out Mike Hoggard and the number 7. He talks about the King James code. This code does not appear in the Modern Translations.

No other Bible is more attacked than the King James Bible. It is the most hated Bible in human history. Banks are attacked because they have value. Just like the KJV, it is attacked by many because it is the pure Word of God. In other words, folks do not like good stuff. So they naturally attack what is good.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope, just corroborating evidence from nearly every field of science.

-CryptoLUtheran

They are also discovering new stuff all the time in Israel. So you cannot say that the elasmotherium did not exist in ancient Israel or the surrounding region. There are lots of things that could have happened to such creatures over the many years. They may have migrated elsewhere and died off. Their remains could still to be yet discovered. Their remains could have been wiped out by some kind of natural disaster. We simply do not know. We do not have a time machine to know.

 

[solid_core]

The LXX is a fake. The KJV is superior to any corrupt Modern Translation today. A simple side by side comparison makes this fact obvious. .

So, lets do some side by side comparison to make this fact obvious:

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Romans 3:12-18 - KJV )

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." [Psalm ends]
(Psalm 14:3 - KJV)

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Psalm 14:3 - LXX)

Ehm...? What is fake? What is obvious? Oh, those side by side comparisons... dangerous thing, young padawan.

 

[Paidiske]

The LXX is a fake.

Every time I think I've heard it all, someone comes along and surprises me.

Fake in what sense? In that it is not actually a Greek translation of the OT (and deuterocanon) dating to somewhere circa 200 BC? You do realise that it's quoted extensively in the NT?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Every time I think I've heard it all, someone comes along and surprises me.

Fake in what sense? In that it is not actually a Greek translation of the OT (and deuterocanon) dating to somewhere circa 200 BC? You do realise that it's quoted extensively in the NT?

Jesus never quoted from the LXX. Jesus referenced jots and tittles which is a form of Hebrew writings. He said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18). The LXX does not have jots and tittles. Therefore, it will pass away.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So, lets do some side by side comparison to make this fact obvious:

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Romans 3:12-18 - KJV )

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." [Psalm ends]
(Psalm 14:3 - KJV)

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Psalm 14:3 - LXX)

Ehm...? What is fake? What is obvious? Oh, those side by side comparisons... dangerous thing, young padawan.

Check out this article here on Psalms 14 and the LXX.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

As for the Star Wars reference:

I don't watch secular movies like Star Wars anymore. I have put away watching films like this because they promote sinful things within them. Watching popular secular sinful films is also easily leads to one loving the things of this world, as well (Which is a violation of 1 John 2:15-17).

 

[Josheb]

It shows that the King James Version is not the best translation for people to use today. We have better translations.

"Better"?

How is "better" being measured?

I am not a KJVOist and I will readily agree the KJV contains translation flaws but I will say the same about the other two dozen translations I have in my library. To my knowledge no English translation is perfect and diligence is necessary for those who study the word in depth..

It is therefore necessary to use multiple translations, typically one formal and one dynamic. Blessedly, we live in an age when multiple translations and access to the Hebrew and Greek is just a few mouse clicks away, almost instantaneous. This makes the KJVO debate almost obsolete with only ideologues holding to such a view and nothing you or I post is likely change the minds of ideologues. It's good and just to get the information on record but expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

And if I were to cite problems in the KJV I'd pick something ore substantive that unicorns. I know of no one basing any doctrine or practice on the existence of unicorns in the KJV.


What translation do you prefer? I prefer the more formal translations and the NAS is what I usually carry around when using a hard bound Bible. Most days, though, I take my tablet with me which contains the NAS, NIV, and ESV. I'm reading through the NLT but repeatedly find it a poor translation, even though the read does flow and the basic information is intact.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the problem with this kind of thinking is that when we decide what words should and should not be in the Bible, our foundation is destroyed. We change God's Word to fit our beliefs, desires, or needs, when it should be the other way around. God's Word should change us. A second problem is that you have to decide which Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to go with, as well. There are two major vines in use today. There is the Textus Receptus line (the origin of the KJV), and the so called Majority Text (the origin of all the Modern Translations). How do you know which one is the correct line? A third problem is that you have to rely upon Hebrew and Greek scholars for your understanding on the Greek. Yet, Jesus said beware of the scribes. The scribes are those who TRAN-scribed the Scriptures. The scribes are the scholars of our day because they TRAN-scribe the Scriptures.

The best way is seek to find that perfect Word in your own language (English), and then believe it. I know that if you seek out the truth for this "ONE" Word (the perfect Bible), you will find it. Why? Well, God preserved His Word for us today in the world language. This is a fulfillment of His promise to us within His Word. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but his word shall not pass away. If His Word only existed in some dead language, then technically His Word would have passed away with the people who were only able to speak and write Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. A person could not ever trust to repent or come to God based on what their Bible says in the English. We could not be sure about anything in the Bible. This is exactly what the enemy wants. He does not want you to trust in a perfect and infallible Word of God.

I mean, stop and think for a moment. Think like the enemy. Don't you think that the enemy has an agenda to twist and change and alter God's Word? He sure does. That is why Modern Translations have the devil's name in places for holy things at certain points. That is why the Trinity is attacked, the blood atonement is attacked, the deity of Christ is attacked, and holy living is attacked, etc. It's no coincidence. See, my friends. When Jesus said that we have to be born of water, he was not talking about baptism or physical birth. Jesus is referring to how we must be born again by the Word of God. Meaning, we received the word not as the words of men, but in fact as the very words of God. For it is written:

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

For the purpose or reason Christ died for us was so that He could cleanse us with the washing of the water of the Word (Scripture) so that He may present to Himself a church that is holy, and blameless (See: Ephesians 5:25-27).

Need proof that the Bible are the very words of God that are perfect and divine in origin? Just check out my Blogger article here:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Source:
Unicorn | Definition of Unicorn by Webster's Online Dictionary
Monoceros | Definition of Monoceros by Webster's Online Dictionary

Notice, an older dictionary (i.e. the 1913 Webster) says that it is simply a one horned creature.

Check out this article here:

Will the Real Unicorn Please Stand Up?