-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Haven't watched the video just yet, but to address the question there are two plausible theories I have come across in my research:
1. Unicorns are/were real at one point
2. Unicorns refers to the Rhinoceros
Now before someone starts laughing that unicorns may have actually existed at one point/still do exist, keep in mind, the Bible isn't the only set of texts that mention unicorns. Many different historical authors, whom were certainly never exposed to the Bible, and were spread around the world and time also mention unicorns quite casually as if this animal were a common in their time era.
And now to watch the video, I am rather interested in this video's take as most sources of unicorn mythology/historocity is mostly based around non-biblical accounts.
1. Unicorns are/were real at one point
2. Unicorns refers to the Rhinoceros
Now before someone starts laughing that unicorns may have actually existed at one point/still do exist, keep in mind, the Bible isn't the only set of texts that mention unicorns. Many different historical authors, whom were certainly never exposed to the Bible, and were spread around the world and time also mention unicorns quite casually as if this animal were a common in their time era.
And now to watch the video, I am rather interested in this video's take as most sources of unicorn mythology/historocity is mostly based around non-biblical accounts.
Yes, but unicorns and rhinoceroses are two entirely different animals, so would'nt the bible have called rhinos what they really are, and not called them unicorns, which is a whole different species of animal? LOL. Just because we have never seen a unicorn does not mean that they dont exist. Maybe they are in the Garden of Eden, with the angel with the two-edged flaming sword who guards the garden. 
The problem with the argument mentioned in the video is that the word unicorn was used to describe horned horses long before it was described in Webster's dictionary.
The particular species of rhinoceros wasn't referred to as "unicorn" until 1758 by Carolus Linnaeus. The Bible was translated to English in the 1300s. However, the word "unicorn" was well established by that time.
So the image at 2:46 in the video is quite misleading. It suggests the word "unicorn" wasn't even used to describe horned horses until after 1828. This is untrue. It also assumes the word "unicorn" was used to describe rhinos back in 1611, which ignores the fact that rhinos weren't referred to as unicorns until 1758.
Psalm 29:6 - He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
When did a rhino skip like a calf?
Job 39:10 - Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Although it's hard to imagine unicorns being used to plow fields, it's even more ridiculous to suggest they used rhinos.
The Bible was translated using the word "unicorn" before the species of rhino was referred to as unicorns. Clearly, the word "unicorn" in the Bible isn't referring to a rhinoceros. Does this mean the original texts were referring to horned horses? Not necessarily. It could be poor translation. But to suggest the English version of the Bible is referring to rhinos is just ridiculous.
---- Now, for some more nitpicking----
* The video argues that the word unicornis in original Latin is also used in the rhino species' name, therefore the original must be referring to rhinos and not horses. This argument is absurd for numerous reasons:
1. The Latin word unicornis was created before it was used to describe a species of rhino. How scientists use the word unicornis today doesn't change the original meaning. Therefore, one can't conclude that the original use of the word referred to rhinos just because that's how scientists use the word today.
2. Unicorn is Latin for "one horn". Though the word is most often used to describe horned horses, it was quite fitting to differentiate species of rhino using this literal translation of the word. The name "unicornis" wasn't applied to the species of rhino because that was the original meaning of the word, but because the literal translation of the word described one of the rhino's traits, which was quite convenient considering how species names are Latin.
* The video also points out that the word rhinoceros was used in the original Latin translation. He sources Latin Vulgate. After doing some research, I found out that Latin Vulgate refers to "Common Bible" and can refer to numerous different translations. Some translations of Latin Vulgate stem from the 1500s whereas newer translations are as new as 1979!
Bible translations into Latin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am having trouble finding the earliest Latin translation of Job online. The Latin translation which includes the word rhinoceros must be older than 1758. I can't find an Old Latin translation of the Bible online, nor can I find a Latin Vulgate version of the Bible online which hasn't been edited since 1758.
In short, just because it's written in Latin doesn't mean it's the original translation. This is why we need to source the date of the translation.
*The video points out that the word "Unicorns" was used in a book published in 2003. This doesn't prove that the original meaning of the word "unicorn" referred to rhinos. This book is referring to the species of rhino by calling them unicorns, but unless you can actually prove this is the way the word unicorn was used in the original English translation (or even Latin if it exists before the English translation), it's a moot point.
I then skipped the bit of the video where he continues to make the flawed argument in which he suggests the usage of a word today proves/disproves the usage of the word in the past. We now use the word "Mustang" to refer to a brand of car. But the word mustang has been used for hundreds of years! Does this mean people were referring to cars in the 1800s instead of wild horses? Of course not. The same is true for the word "unicorn". Using the word unicorn to describe a species of rhinos today doesn't mean the word was always used to describe rhinos.
* The video then points out that Deuteronomy 33:17, in Latin, uses the word rhinocerotis. Refer to my prior point in which I explained that this is most likely the result of a recent Latin translation, and not the original.
(I will concede that, if he's correct about the Hebrew, he made a good point in that the original context clearly isn't referring to a horned horse. But it still doesn't prove what kind of animal was being described.)
The particular species of rhinoceros wasn't referred to as "unicorn" until 1758 by Carolus Linnaeus. The Bible was translated to English in the 1300s. However, the word "unicorn" was well established by that time.
So the image at 2:46 in the video is quite misleading. It suggests the word "unicorn" wasn't even used to describe horned horses until after 1828. This is untrue. It also assumes the word "unicorn" was used to describe rhinos back in 1611, which ignores the fact that rhinos weren't referred to as unicorns until 1758.
Psalm 29:6 - He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
When did a rhino skip like a calf?
Job 39:10 - Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Although it's hard to imagine unicorns being used to plow fields, it's even more ridiculous to suggest they used rhinos.
The Bible was translated using the word "unicorn" before the species of rhino was referred to as unicorns. Clearly, the word "unicorn" in the Bible isn't referring to a rhinoceros. Does this mean the original texts were referring to horned horses? Not necessarily. It could be poor translation. But to suggest the English version of the Bible is referring to rhinos is just ridiculous.
---- Now, for some more nitpicking----
* The video argues that the word unicornis in original Latin is also used in the rhino species' name, therefore the original must be referring to rhinos and not horses. This argument is absurd for numerous reasons:
1. The Latin word unicornis was created before it was used to describe a species of rhino. How scientists use the word unicornis today doesn't change the original meaning. Therefore, one can't conclude that the original use of the word referred to rhinos just because that's how scientists use the word today.
2. Unicorn is Latin for "one horn". Though the word is most often used to describe horned horses, it was quite fitting to differentiate species of rhino using this literal translation of the word. The name "unicornis" wasn't applied to the species of rhino because that was the original meaning of the word, but because the literal translation of the word described one of the rhino's traits, which was quite convenient considering how species names are Latin.
* The video also points out that the word rhinoceros was used in the original Latin translation. He sources Latin Vulgate. After doing some research, I found out that Latin Vulgate refers to "Common Bible" and can refer to numerous different translations. Some translations of Latin Vulgate stem from the 1500s whereas newer translations are as new as 1979!
Bible translations into Latin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am having trouble finding the earliest Latin translation of Job online. The Latin translation which includes the word rhinoceros must be older than 1758. I can't find an Old Latin translation of the Bible online, nor can I find a Latin Vulgate version of the Bible online which hasn't been edited since 1758.
In short, just because it's written in Latin doesn't mean it's the original translation. This is why we need to source the date of the translation.
*The video points out that the word "Unicorns" was used in a book published in 2003. This doesn't prove that the original meaning of the word "unicorn" referred to rhinos. This book is referring to the species of rhino by calling them unicorns, but unless you can actually prove this is the way the word unicorn was used in the original English translation (or even Latin if it exists before the English translation), it's a moot point.
I then skipped the bit of the video where he continues to make the flawed argument in which he suggests the usage of a word today proves/disproves the usage of the word in the past. We now use the word "Mustang" to refer to a brand of car. But the word mustang has been used for hundreds of years! Does this mean people were referring to cars in the 1800s instead of wild horses? Of course not. The same is true for the word "unicorn". Using the word unicorn to describe a species of rhinos today doesn't mean the word was always used to describe rhinos.
* The video then points out that Deuteronomy 33:17, in Latin, uses the word rhinocerotis. Refer to my prior point in which I explained that this is most likely the result of a recent Latin translation, and not the original.
(I will concede that, if he's correct about the Hebrew, he made a good point in that the original context clearly isn't referring to a horned horse. But it still doesn't prove what kind of animal was being described.)
Last edited:
Atwood, then you dont read your bible very often. Unicorns are mentioned at least eight times in the KJV.
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.
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.
Numbers 23:22: God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn.
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 Manessah.
Job 39:9-10: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalm 92:10: But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn, and I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
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 of his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
U
Yes, but unicorns and rhinoceroses are two entirely different animals, so would'nt the bible have called rhinos what they really are, and not called them unicorns, which is a whole different species of animal? LOL. Just because we have never seen a unicorn does not mean that they dont exist. Maybe they are in the Garden of Eden, with the angel with the two-edged flaming sword who guards the garden.
If you use a little bit of critical thinking and do a little bit of research, you'll find that the video is completely unreliable. I already explained everything in a previous post, but essentially it falls down to this:
1. Just because the word unicorn wasn't defined as a horse in the dictionary doesn't mean nobody used it to refer to horned horse
2. The species of rhino was called unicornis AFTER the Bible was translated into English. Therefore, how we use the word today doesn't change the meaning of the word in the past. For example, we don't assume the word "mustang" referred to cars in the 1800s just because a brand of car is called "Mustang" today.
3. The video tries to argue that the word rhinoceros was used in original Latin. Yet, he didn't source original Latin. He sourced an updated version of the Latin translation.
The video provides faulty evidence which I have debunked already.
There's still zero evidence that the Bible was originally referring to rhinos. Does this mean the original Bible was always referring to horned horses? I don't know. The video pointed out that one of the translations in Hebrew was referring to an animal with two horns. So it's quite possible that at least some of the translations are wrong. But this still is not evidence that the Bible was referring to a rhino.
I believe the original interpreters of the Bible into English sincerely did believe the Bible was referring to horned horses. I don't think they meant rhinos since the species of rhino wasn't called such until later in history. If you want to argue that the word unicorn in the Bible isn't supposed to define horned horses, you'll have to look at the original texts. You'll also have to avoid jumping to conclusions such as what we see in the video. "It originally said an animal with two horns, therefore it must be a rhino!!!".
1. Just because the word unicorn wasn't defined as a horse in the dictionary doesn't mean nobody used it to refer to horned horse
2. The species of rhino was called unicornis AFTER the Bible was translated into English. Therefore, how we use the word today doesn't change the meaning of the word in the past. For example, we don't assume the word "mustang" referred to cars in the 1800s just because a brand of car is called "Mustang" today.
3. The video tries to argue that the word rhinoceros was used in original Latin. Yet, he didn't source original Latin. He sourced an updated version of the Latin translation.
The video provides faulty evidence which I have debunked already.
There's still zero evidence that the Bible was originally referring to rhinos. Does this mean the original Bible was always referring to horned horses? I don't know. The video pointed out that one of the translations in Hebrew was referring to an animal with two horns. So it's quite possible that at least some of the translations are wrong. But this still is not evidence that the Bible was referring to a rhino.
I believe the original interpreters of the Bible into English sincerely did believe the Bible was referring to horned horses. I don't think they meant rhinos since the species of rhino wasn't called such until later in history. If you want to argue that the word unicorn in the Bible isn't supposed to define horned horses, you'll have to look at the original texts. You'll also have to avoid jumping to conclusions such as what we see in the video. "It originally said an animal with two horns, therefore it must be a rhino!!!".
Arabian Unicorn
[video=youtube;J60LNkqsxz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J60LNkqsxz8[/video]
Back to the Arabian unicorn - Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog
"Strangest of all [the mythical beasties of south-west Arabia] is the Tahish. It is a fearsome beast, half animal and half jinni, which inhabits the mountains of the Yemen. It has frequently been described to me, and the descriptions vary little and only in detail. The Tahish lives in the less accessible rocks of the hills, and by day watches the valleys and hill tracks. By night it descends upon its chosen victim, but seems to do him little harm beyond giving him the fright of his life. It is the size of a large horse, with a horse’s head and mane, and neighs like a stallion, only with a more ringing and brassy note. Its eyes are luminous and a sign of the evil eye-pale blue. It is higher at the withers than at the quarters and has a lion’s tail, which is often described as being lashed from side to side. From the corners of its horse’s mouth project long, sharp tusks, usually flecked with bloody foam. Its feet are apparently variable, for it has camel’s feet to enable it to approach you noiselessly, and horse’s hoofs wherewith to stamp on the rocks and disperse your caravan. In colour it is a sandy grey. Should you indeed be one of the elect – a man of stainless record, an innocent child or a virgin (women of stainless records, once married, do not count) – it will not attack you. All others should fly and hide at its approach. But woe betide the hapless wretch who is cornered by a Tahish when it is out for blood! There is believed to be no hope for such an one, though I could never hear of anyone who was supposed to have been killed by a Tahish. No knife can pierce the Tahish’s hide, no bullet find a vital spot. Only the bravest of the brave can survive, and he only if he springs forward and snatches a particular hair from the Tahish’s forehead. This hair is described as being about a yard long; black and silky, and coiled round in a single curl. Should a man seize this, pull it out and retain it in his hand, the Tahish will vanish away and never be seen again. This hair is a powerful talisman. Opinion is divided as to whether its possession renders the possessor irresistible in love, but it is generally acknowledged that it confers invulnerability and omniscience in war, and, by stampeding the enemy hosts before a shot is fired, makes vain the carrying of other arms."
Arabian 'Unicorn,' White Oryx, Back From Brink Of Extinction
[video=youtube;J60LNkqsxz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J60LNkqsxz8[/video]
Back to the Arabian unicorn - Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog
"Strangest of all [the mythical beasties of south-west Arabia] is the Tahish. It is a fearsome beast, half animal and half jinni, which inhabits the mountains of the Yemen. It has frequently been described to me, and the descriptions vary little and only in detail. The Tahish lives in the less accessible rocks of the hills, and by day watches the valleys and hill tracks. By night it descends upon its chosen victim, but seems to do him little harm beyond giving him the fright of his life. It is the size of a large horse, with a horse’s head and mane, and neighs like a stallion, only with a more ringing and brassy note. Its eyes are luminous and a sign of the evil eye-pale blue. It is higher at the withers than at the quarters and has a lion’s tail, which is often described as being lashed from side to side. From the corners of its horse’s mouth project long, sharp tusks, usually flecked with bloody foam. Its feet are apparently variable, for it has camel’s feet to enable it to approach you noiselessly, and horse’s hoofs wherewith to stamp on the rocks and disperse your caravan. In colour it is a sandy grey. Should you indeed be one of the elect – a man of stainless record, an innocent child or a virgin (women of stainless records, once married, do not count) – it will not attack you. All others should fly and hide at its approach. But woe betide the hapless wretch who is cornered by a Tahish when it is out for blood! There is believed to be no hope for such an one, though I could never hear of anyone who was supposed to have been killed by a Tahish. No knife can pierce the Tahish’s hide, no bullet find a vital spot. Only the bravest of the brave can survive, and he only if he springs forward and snatches a particular hair from the Tahish’s forehead. This hair is described as being about a yard long; black and silky, and coiled round in a single curl. Should a man seize this, pull it out and retain it in his hand, the Tahish will vanish away and never be seen again. This hair is a powerful talisman. Opinion is divided as to whether its possession renders the possessor irresistible in love, but it is generally acknowledged that it confers invulnerability and omniscience in war, and, by stampeding the enemy hosts before a shot is fired, makes vain the carrying of other arms."
Arabian 'Unicorn,' White Oryx, Back From Brink Of Extinction
U
Still zero evidence of any form of horse unicorn as well. So....
And my point in what i said was that she asked questions that were discussed in the video itself. Which is evidence she didn't watch the video. Doesn't pay to ignore the OP and then ask questions that have already been answered in the first post.
And my point in what i said was that she asked questions that were discussed in the video itself. Which is evidence she didn't watch the video. Doesn't pay to ignore the OP and then ask questions that have already been answered in the first post.