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.
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.
me too, was it there? I'm sorry but I never read about it I just encountered cherubim, angels but not unicorn
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
(PS- that word "unicorn" is still in the King James Version.)
(I may also make a hub about this)
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
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)
those who cry the loudest, seem to know the least. Why is that?
they each speak of the unicorn.
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?
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
by Insane Mundane 6 years ago
Here of late, I've run across several people (online & offline) that were spouting that only the King James Version of the Holy Bible contains the absolute truth. Even though the beloved dogma and ancient writings claiming to be inspired by the almighty God himself, it still has to be...
by Rev. Akins 8 years ago
What translation do you use when you study the Bible? and Why?I often wonder which bible people use when they study scripture. I have used several in my time as a minister and while I was studying to be a minister. But what do you use when you study scripture and why do you use that particular...
by Janis Leslie Evans 5 years ago
Which bible version do you prefer?Some readers prefer the "old language" tradition of writing and speech of the bible while others find some versions easier to understand if written in "plain English." Do you prefer the English Standard Version (ESV), Revised Standard Version...
by graceinus 7 years ago
The Bible is God's Word, so how is it that most translations have a Copywrite?So far I have found only one translation (in English) of Bible which does not have a copywrite and that is the King James Version. Other versions are copywrited. So I ask this question, Why would anyone copywright...
by Ann810 3 years ago
Do you trust the New International Version (NIV) Bible?It's said that the name Jesus Christ is taken out of the NIV Bible many times.
by Jesshubpages 5 years ago
Which Bible translation do you use and why? Do you consider your translation as superior to others? Why?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|