jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (14 posts)

Why was the unicorn removed from the christian bible?

  1. nightwork4 profile image60
    nightwork4posted 7 years ago

    Why was the unicorn removed from the christian bible?

    i just found out it was removed in the 18th century and i'm curious as to why people think it was removed completely.

  2. Jose R. Carrion profile image57
    Jose R. Carrionposted 7 years ago

    I don't recall a unicorn in the Bible. There is mention of Leviathan and of a Behemoth. But, a unicorn would be more of a Greek thing.

  3. Claudin_Dayo profile image62
    Claudin_Dayoposted 7 years ago

    me too, was it there? I'm sorry but I never read about it I just encountered cherubim, angels but not unicorn smile

  4. Jen Buczynski profile image58
    Jen Buczynskiposted 7 years ago

    The mention of Unicorn was in the King James Bible:

    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.

    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 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.

    In all of these verses, the word once translated "unicorn" has now been translated as "wild ox". (Look up those same verses in the English Standard Verses or NIV (New International Version), and you will see "ox" or "wild ox".

    I think it's really a pity that they changed it. Personally, I think it's obvious that some animals in the Bible could have been different animals than what we had today. Is it likely that a "unicorn" actually had wings and one horn as we see it depicted today? I guess it's possible--we don't have any proof either way. But since the word "unicorn" literally means there is "one horn" on this animal, it's likely there was a very strong animal that could have been called a unicorn.

    Personally, I think that animals like the Leviathin (that Jose mentioned) could have been dinosaur-like animals. Like all of the dragons and dragons stories could have credibility-cultures all over the earth have stories (what we usually refer to as "folklore" about dragons. It's possible that these animals were the dinosaurs we now discover remains of. The word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until the 1800s anyway, and the skeleton that man found was probably not the first set of bones discovered of such a large animal.

    Just my two -cents smile

    (PS- that word "unicorn" is still in the King James Version.)

    (I may also make a hub about this)

  5. MickS profile image71
    MickSposted 7 years ago

    I've just had a look in my King James, it's definitely there, although I dread to think what is there in the modern Bibles after I saw the hatchet job they did on Ecclesiastes.

  6. peterxdunn profile image59
    peterxdunnposted 7 years ago

    I would imagine that the vatican and other church authorities would like to remove all mention of any creature that appears - even the slightest bit - mythological from the Bible. They want their two thousand year old con trick to appear a bit more scientific.

    I have also heard that there is a 'new' version of the Bible to be issued shortly. It is being presented as an update. How can they update the words of their god? How can this be credible? First they insist that the Bible constitutes the word of god (holy writ) and now they are claiming that it 's ok to edit those words. Is nothing sacred?

    I would like to prophecy, here and now (sight unseen), that none of the mythological stuff makes it into the new version.

    Christians who have read it please advise.

  7. nightwork4 profile image60
    nightwork4posted 7 years ago

    my mistake. i put the question wrong. other then the king james version, why was the word unicorn removed? it's not in the holy bible anymore or the christian bible.

  8. profile image0
    Butch Newsposted 7 years ago

    I hadn't noticed that.

    The Bible is not an ancient book but a translation of selected older texts.  The oldest known complete Bibles date from only a little over a thousand years ago.

    You should study the history of the Bible... you will likely be quite shocked what you learn.

    The Revised Standard Version of the Bible has corrected many mistranslations and errors of translation.  For instance the word Lucifer no longer appears in the Bible.  It was a well recognized error in translation.  There never was a Lucifer as a person.  It's the Latin word for Venus... the morning star.

    The word "devil" is a medieval word and most often used to translate the Greek word "diabolos" which translates as "coming out of/a result of the hit/the hurt".  It has no translatable word and the Roman Catholic Latin Bible simply translates it as Church Latin... "Diabolus".  They had no idea what the word meant.

    Devil comes from Wiccan ideas and comes from the sanscrit word "divas" which means "to shine"... as in our modern word "diva"... so "devil" would be better translated as "one who shines".

  9. Mr.Moonlight profile image58
    Mr.Moonlightposted 7 years ago

    If they were trying to remove "myth" from the Bible, they should just delete the whole book. It is a collection of unsubstantiated myths and legends.

    More likely, some prudish believer took umbrage with the horn, a symbol of sexual virility. Can't have sex in the Bible!

  10. Stigma31 profile image65
    Stigma31posted 7 years ago

    Seems funny, I always thought that the unicorn was one of the animals Noah couldn't save, therefore it made sense that they did no longer exist. Thus, giving to the whole mythology a credit towards it authenticity. Now, removing makes it look more like a farce then. As for rewritng the bible, there has always been interpretation issues in all the translations. As for the person who thinks that there is no sex in the bible, should "begat" reading it a little better.

  11. selfbetter profile image54
    selfbetterposted 7 years ago

    I don't know which version of the Bible you are referring to but no "unicorns" were removed from King James Version.

    Here is something you might find interesting:

    "Unicorn. A wild ox, the Bos primigenius, now extinct, but once common in Syria. The KJV rendering is unfortunate, as the animal intended is two-horned." (LDS Bible Dictionary)

  12. onegoodwoman profile image77
    onegoodwomanposted 7 years ago

    those who cry the loudest, seem to know the least.  Why is that?


    they each speak of the unicorn.

  13. ophoe profile image60
    ophoeposted 7 years ago

    You guys are so silly. Don't you know the english versions of the Bible are translations from Greek and Hebrew? They didn't "take out" the word unicorn, they translated it differently.

    Also, an FYI. The King James version is not the original, or only, translation of the Bible. It is a later Protestant, English translation the Vatican has never used or approved. It even excludes certain books the Catholic Bible has always included. So forget that crap about the Vatican trying to hide something mythological. You people need to do your research. I can't believe people are actually seriously holding this kind of discussion.

    The original Bible, like I said, was in Greek and Hebrew. The earliest translation to the people's language that I know of was the Latin translation, called the Vulgate. If you want to know if something was "removed" or not, go back to the original languages and the earliest translations. Do your research. Find out what scholars that don't have an agenda to bash Christianity say. Find out what the ancient Christians said.

    But don't jump to rash conclusions just to feed your pride. It makes you look silly. Come on, people. You're better than this. Christianity is a very old belief people have died for. They wouldn't have done that just to hide a scam. Believe it or not, Christians (that includes the Vatican) actually believe what they teach. Call them wrong, but don't call them deceivers. Why would men enforce lifelong celibacy, sometimes martyrdom, on themselves for a scam?

  14. marlanasifter profile image60
    marlanasifterposted 6 years ago

    So when the English version translates into 'unicorn,' what animal are they actually talking about. Is it a mistranslation for an extinct Syrian ox, or is it mythological reference to an imaginary animal?

    I didn't even know till now that the word 'unicorn' was in the Bible anywhere...

    This site below states that the 'unicorn,' because it is mentioned along with farm animals such as cows, donkeys, goats, and horses, and is said to be strong with pulling plows was a real animal with a horn somewhere on its face, and is possibly a now extinct version of some kind of bull or ox.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … s-in-bible