Unicorns in the Bible

[SpaceNarwhal]

So, I have ran across this theory several times, that there are unicorns in the bible, but then again, at the same time, the bible could mean a wild ox or a rhino, and not a real unicorn. Also, I feel this is a bit absurd because we all know that unicorns aren't real. Here are the places where they are mentioned:

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?

Job 39:10 – Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21 – Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

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

Psalm 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.

These are from the King James version of the bible. I was just wondering what the thoughts of others' are on the subject.

[Nicene Nerd]

These are only in the KJV. Modern translations use wild bull/wild ox/rhino/something else. It's not to say that the KJV was wrong; as far as I can tell the word "unicorn" simply lacked the mythological connotations in the 1600s. It just meant a one-horned beast.

[Marley]

I was under the impression that Unicorn meant Rinocerous. But heck I don't know. XD

[T.O.W.R.]

Caleb is correct. It was just a one horned beast. But it's still really, REALLY cool to me.

[Nicene Nerd]

Oh, and here's a present for you, Kaitlin:

[Paper Towels]

To my recollection, unicorn just meant beast with one horn. I could be wrong, but I think Europeans later interpreted it as a horse with one horn unicorn because unicorns were considered actual animals to them, even Aristotle wrote about unicorns as if they were actual animals.

[Wesker]

I would not be surprised if the ancient Hebrews believed in mythical creatures. The Medievals believed in anthropomorphic dogmen.

[SpaceNarwhal]

Thanks for confirming my thoughts, at first when I head about that I was like :woot:"WAIT?! UNICORNS ARE REAL?! OH MY FACE!" and then I realized what it probably was, I find it interesting how people used to think.

@Slave of Elyon: OH MY FACE YES! That is so funny!

[DoodleBoy]

Yeah, the KJV was probably just trying to make a point. I doubt it was talking about an actually unicorn, mostly because of the mythology of the 1600s. It would be pretty cool though.

[Kraken086]

It's talking about a single horned rhino.

[Wesker]

The Re'em (רֶאֵם) is either a mythological creature or an Arabian Oryx. My money is on the mythological interpretation, since that coincides more easily with the extra-biblical mythologies surrounding the Re'em.

[Nicene Nerd]

The Re'em (רֶאֵם) is either a mythological creature or an Arabian Oryx. My money is on the mythological interpretation, since that coincides more easily with the extra-biblical mythologies surrounding the Re'em.

As the same article says, it also could've been an auroch. And there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to consider it a mythological creature, especially from that article since the only mention of anything not normal was the description of it in Jewish folklore. More importantly, even if it were a mythological creature, the Bible has numerous examples of mythological terms being used typologically or polemically without necessarily affirming their existence.

[Wesker]

As the same article says, it also could've been an auroch. And there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to consider it a mythological creature, especially from that article since the only mention of anything not normal was the description of it in Jewish folklore. More importantly, even if it were a mythological creature, the Bible has numerous examples of mythological terms being used typologically or polemically without necessarily affirming their existence.

You do not have to convince me, my friend. I think that the entire Torah is non-historical, but rather mythological/moralistic writing.