KJV-ers: Unicorns? Please explain!

[he beholds]

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.

 

[Edward]

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)

 

[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.

 

[DonP]

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.

 

[LawrenceU]

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.

 

[TimV]

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.

 

[LawrenceU]

I'll do some looking when I get home for the sources. They may have ignited the methane or other gas chemically, like the Bombardier Beetle does. That little creature is an amazing animal. It stores hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone in separate chambers. When it want to 'bomb' an attacker it combines them in a combustion chamber in its abdomen. The resulting explosion is expelled in controlled jet of hot gasses. Pretty neat.

 

[TimV]

Yes, I was on the recieving end of a BB attack once growing up in Ventura, SoCal.

 

[Edward]

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

Breathing fire.

And the proof for this is?

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

The book of Job is a tough book. The vocabulary is rich, and the syntax is a nightmare! However, there is some light that has been shed on this.

First of all, the reason why the KJV translators probably translated this as "unicorn" has more to do with the Septuagint and Vulgate than anything. The Septuagint uses the Greek term monokeros, which means "an animal with one horn." Also, the Latin Vulgate translates this same term in Isaiah 34:7 with unicornis. In all likelihood, the KJV translators either were borrowing from the Septuagint, or got this gloss from an earlier usage in the Latin Vulgate, and just continued it throughout the translation.

Now, all I can say is, "Who can blame them!" This is not an easy word to define. However, more than likely, the KJV translators were wrong here. The Hebrew term is re'em. Studies in cognate languages, such as Akkadian, can give us a much better approximation for the meaning of this term. In this case, there is an Akkadian cognate, the Akkadian term rimum, which means "wild bull." Likewise, although I don't know Ugaritic, the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament says that there is a Ugaritic cognate, rum which means either "wild bull" or "buffalo." Hence, the more likely definition is something like "wild bull."

Interesting lexicography question!

God Bless,
Adam

 

[TimV]

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

Breathing fire.

And the proof for this is?

That's not how science works. Proving negatives. A better example of how science works is

First of all, the reason why the KJV translators probably translated this as "unicorn" has more to do with the Septuagint and Vulgate than anything. The Septuagint uses the Greek term monokeros, which means "an animal with one horn." Also, the Latin Vulgate translates this same term in Isaiah 34:7 with unicornis. In all likelihood, the KJV translators either were borrowing from the Septuagint, or got this gloss from an earlier usage in the Latin Vulgate, and just continued it throughout the translation.

Now, all I can say is, "Who can blame them!" This is not an easy word to define. However, more than likely, the KJV translators were wrong here. The Hebrew term is re'em. Studies in cognate languages, such as Akkadian, can give us a much better approximation for the meaning of this term. In this case, there is an Akkadian cognate, the Akkadian term rimum, which means "wild bull." Likewise, although I don't know Ugaritic, the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament says that there is a Ugaritic cognate, rum which means either "wild bull" or "buffalo." Hence, the more likely definition is something like "wild bull."

 

[he beholds]

Hey Everyone!

The book of Job is a tough book. The vocabulary is rich, and the syntax is a nightmare! However, there is some light that has been shed on this.

First of all, the reason why the KJV translators probably translated this as "unicorn" has more to do with the Septuagint and Vulgate than anything. The Septuagint uses the Greek term monokeros, which means "an animal with one horn." Also, the Latin Vulgate translates this same term in Isaiah 34:7 with unicornis. In all likelihood, the KJV translators either were borrowing from the Septuagint, or got this gloss from an earlier usage in the Latin Vulgate, and just continued it throughout the translation.

Now, all I can say is, "Who can blame them!" This is not an easy word to define. However, more than likely, the KJV translators were wrong here. The Hebrew term is re'em. Studies in cognate languages, such as Akkadian, can give us a much better approximation for the meaning of this term. In this case, there is an Akkadian cognate, the Akkadian term rimum, which means "wild bull." Likewise, although I don't know Ugaritic, the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament says that there is a Ugaritic cognate, rum which means either "wild bull" or "buffalo." Hence, the more likely definition is something like "wild bull."

Interesting lexicography question!

God Bless,
Adam

Can I copy your answer over to my questioning friend?
Though, I don't think he really wants to know, as his response to my first explanation that it was probably a KJV issue just made him change his question to, "Well, you do still believe there was a race of giants, though, don't you? Why can you accept that but not unicorns?"
Which I answered, "Well, maybe they were just a bunch of seven foot guys, or maybe bigger. I don't know, but I believe anything is possible, even unicorns, though I do doubt that they did exist and think that one was just a translation thing."

So yes, as rbcbob says,

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

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey He Beholds!

Can I copy your answer over to my questioning friend?

Sure, but you might want to fix my typo. The Latin Vulgate reads unicornes at Isaiah 34:7, not unicornis.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[HanleyBri]

One-Horned 'Unicorn' Deer Born in Italy

The Bible indicates that this one horned creature was real warm blooded mammal and not just a mythical creature. The absence of unicorns today should not cause us to doubt its past existence in the ancient world. You can simply indicate to this athesist that a mutation (within a kind) can easily explain the existance of a one horn creature in the past.

Brian
______________________________________
I don't know if this was mentioned on not:
'Unicorn' Deer Found in Italy : Discovery News : Discovery Channel

<quote>
June 11, 2008 -- A deer with a single horn in the center of its head -- much like the fabled, mythical unicorn -- has been spotted in a nature preserve in Italy, park officials said Wednesday.

"This is fantasy becoming reality," Gilberto Tozzi, director of the Center of Natural Sciences in Prato, said. "The unicorn has always been a mythological animal."

The one-year-old Roe Deer -- nicknamed "Unicorn" -- was born in captivity in the research center's park in the Tuscan town of Prato, near Florence, Tozzi said.

<end quote>