There Are No Unicorns in the Bible

The scientific name of the Indian Rhino is “Rhinoceros unicornis” because of it’s single horn.

Internet atheists want you to believe the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales because it mentions creatures that are mythological, such as dragons and unicorns. I first learned about the unicorn passages in high school right after I converted and I thought this was weird but it didn’t really change my mind about the Bible. And eventually a pastor friend of mine gave me an answer to the unicorn question which I though was totally reasonable (short answer: unicorn is Old English for a one horned rhino).

After looking more into the topic on my own for the very first time today I can easily see where the misconception and actually it is slightly more complicated than the rhino answer and I just wanted to write a very short article on the topic. Hopefully you find this useful.

Dogmatic Rejection of Reality
First of all let me just mention the silliness that some of the brothers and sisters find themselves in because they are too over devoted to a strict literal interpretation of a 400 year old Bible translation. If you Google “unicorns in the bible” there are countless articles will come up saying that “if God’s word says unicorns existed, then they clearly existed but don’t exist any more and if we never find evidence of them we just need to trust God.” On the one hand I really appreciate the trust in God’s judgement against any opinion from humans. However, on the other hand and unfortunately taking kind of very literal and simplistic point of view is unnecessary because all you need is to apply a little critical thinking to find a simple answer to this question.

The King James Bible

Let’s get something clear here. The King James Translation of the Bible is not THE Bible it is one translation of the Bible. So if something is said in the KJV that doesn’t necessiarly mean that the BIBLE says it, it could just be the one translation that puts it that way.

This unicorn conundrum is only a problem in the King James Bible (a translation written in the 1600s and for some reason still really popular today). Let’s take a look at one of the unicorn verses in the King James Bible:

Isaiah 34:7 King James Version
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.

And compare that the English Standard Version (a more literal and more modern translation of the Bible)

Isaiah 34:7
Wild oxen shall fall with them,

    and young steers with the mighty bulls.
Their land shall drink its fill of blood,
    and their soil shall be gorged with fat.

Isn’t that interesting? Where the King James says “unicorn,” the more recent Bible translations say, “oxen.” Now, someone who is committed to the King James will say, “the new translations changed the pure King James to make it more acceptable to modern man.” But that’s just not the case. Biblical Hebrew is a very ancient language and there is much about the language that’s gotten confused over the years so as we study the original languages more and our understanding becomes clearer, sometimes it is necessary to update the English translations so that they are closer in meaning to the words and intentions of the original authors of the Bible from the original language. So now as I enjoy doing, let’s look at the Hebrew that is going on behind the scenes.

What’s a Re’em? 

The bones of a unicorn, an aurochs a species of giant cattle that went extinct around the middle ages.

The Hebrew word translated as unicorn in the KJV and oxen in the ESV is re’em and it definitely means oxen. How do we know it means oxen? To understand this let me first explain what a cognate is. Cognates are words in different languages that look the same and have the same meaning. For example the Spanish word “persona” is a cognate of the English word “person” different languages but the words look the same and have the same meaning. Now when we study the languages of the people who lived around Israel in Biblical times we find cognate words and we can then come to know the Biblical language better. In the Akkadian language there is a cognate for the word re’em which is, rimu. Rimu refered to a very specific kind of cattle called aurochs. The aurochs is now extinct but when it was alive it was a kind of giant cattle that lived in Africa, Europe and the middle East.

So where did “Unicorn” come from?

One example of a Babylonian drawing of a rimu which seems to show show them with one horn because the creature is in profile.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament for some reason re’em was translated as “monokeros ” which literally means “one horn.” They got the idea that the aurochs had one horn from Babylon drawings that showed the oxen in profile and so it appeared they had one horn. Later when the Bible was translated into Latin and then English “monokeros” became “uni-horn” or “unicorn.” And presumably the folks who translated the King James had the one horned rhino in mind when they translated the word this way.

I know that there won’t be many skeptics who look this up and then stop repeating this nonsense against the Bible, they tend to be very close-minded about the Bible. But I hope I’ve at least shown you dear reader that 1) this isn’t a problem with the Bible at all only the King James Translation 2) it’s really easy to see where the misconception comes from and we need not be skeptical about the word of God because of some “unicorn” threat.

Thank you for reading,


Should We Hate the Sin, But Love the Sinner?

The wrongs a man does to others correspond to the bad qualities that he himself possesses. “ – Aristotle

It is sometimes said, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” I agree, but I want to expand on what this should mean. We tend to think of hate or love in very emotional terms. This is natural, but it should not be the emphasis. We’re not called to love the sinner in the sense that our hearts just overflow with deep affection for who they are. After all, suppose someone has a character such that they tend to be very irritable and self-centered. Are we supposed to “love” this sinner while hating the concept of irritability and self-centeredness? It seems impossible to separate the sin from the person.

This is because as Aristotle would say, how a man acts reveal his character. Or as Jesus said, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts” (Matthew 15:19). In other words, evil thoughts come from an evil heart. If the heart defines a person, how could we possibly not hate the sinner in the process of hating the sin? We know the heart defines a person because we love people for their characters. Try to imagine your best friend having every character trait removed from him. All you have is an empty shell, a blob of nothing. Is your best friend a blob of nothing? Of course not. So we cannot possibly detach our affections from the person’s character.  Read More »


How to Feed the Homeless: Safe, Cheap and Legal

Back when I was a confused, selfish teenager I had an experience with God where He asked me to be his “Jesus of Suburbia.” My seldom mission in life has been to represent the character and love of Jesus to my community around me. The biggest part of this has been to put the commands of  Isaiah 58:7 into action, “Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in the homeless wanderer and do not turn away your own flesh and blood.” I believe that good deeds create good will within my community and that in turn opens more doors to the good news than it closes.

About half way through college I started to “feed the hungry” at my congregation’s weekly soup kitchen. Two and a half years of being a steady volunteer and donor to that soup kitchen ministry lead me down a road of creating a food-based business that would give jobs to people in desperate need of work. In addition to running this small food business, I worked as a part-time tentmaker job and as a manager for a cafeteria of a factory. When the plant workers go on break, they could come buy breakfast or lunch in the cafe.

Between running my own kitchen and working in the cafeteria, I’ve continued to make feeding the hungry a big part of ministry to my city. I’ve been able to redistribute hundreds of pounds of food to people who need it all on my own. And this year I challenged myself: I wanted to see if it would be possible to provide small, weekly meals to the homeless in my community all without a huge ministry or congregation backing me. We are currently on week 12 of the year and I’ve kept up the small meals with little to no problem. They’ve been as simple as 15 pb&j sandwiches with 2 pounds of potato salad and as complicated as 30 plates of Parmesan chicken with sides of funeral potatoes and green bean casserole.  Read More »


Be Disciples That Make Disciples

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. Matthew 28:19-20

Every Christian knows about the great commission, but they know little about what it really means. Today the ‘institutionalized’ church has taken this to mean getting baptized, going to church on Sunday, attending a bible study, and sending out specialized units of missionaries to fulfill this command for them. As long as you give some money toward the cause that means you’re okay, right? Wrong. This thinking has led to the destruction of churches, it is nothing but a 21st century way of living comfortably without living Christianly. Read More »


Does the Bible Talk About Tattoos?

Christians have a lot of conflicting opinions about tattoos. There is of course that famous Facebook group that claims everyone who gets a tattoo becomes a violent criminal. And then I know plenty of pastors who were out and in the world and got all tatted up but when they started following Jesus they keep the flaming skulls and gang marks for the sake of sharing their testimony. But then there are those of us who were Christian before we got our tattoos. My cousin for instance has a cross that takes up probably 2/3 of his ribs and stomach.

Many people think that tattoos have a clear cut answer and there are typically two answers to this question that people will dogmatically spit out to justify their actions. You’ll find hundreds if not thousands of articles out there that answer this question for you. My purpose here is not to just repeat the normal answers about tattoos but is rather to point out a really interesting fact that not a lot of folks seem to bring up. That being said, let’s first look at the typical answers about tattoos and I’ll tell you what I think of them.  Read More »


Did God Have to Create the Universe?

Some argue that God created the universe necessarily, but here I will make the argument that God must have created the universe freely. By freely, I mean that God had ability to do otherwise. To make this argument, I will be assuming that the universe is self-evidently contingent as the Five Ways of Aquinas or Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument demonstrate. The Bible itself seems to affirm that creation is a free act of God: “And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” (Acts 17:25). Aquinas develops this point rather well:

Since, then, the divine goodness can be without other things, and, indeed, is in no way increased by other things, it is under no necessity to will other things from the fact of willing its own goodness. (Contra Gentiles, Ch 81, 2)

If God was compelled to create, it would be because there was something either in the nature of His own being or in the nature of creation itself that necessitated it. If it was the nature of creation itself that compelled God to create, then this could only be if the divine intellect grasped creation as necessary in itself and therefore something that the perfect will of God must create – otherwise His will would be imperfect for not willing what is necessary. But this obviously cannot be because the universe is contingent. The divine will cannot be necessitated to will what the divine intellect grasps as contingent.

The other option would affirm the contingency of the universe, but would argue that it is the nature of God that necessitates the creation of the universe. The justification here is that it is the nature of goodness to diffuse itself. However, this view implies that God’s nature would be deficient without the creation of the universe. Why must goodness diffuse itself in contingent ways? Goodness itself is by nature necessary and perfect. It would only need to diffuse itself if it is somehow imperfect. Perfection by definition needs nothing but itself. So contrary this view, it follows that God need not have created anything external to Himself.


Paper: A Thomistic Defense of the LCA

I wrote this paper under Edward Feser because the LCA is my favorite argument but I thought it could use some Thomistic principles to strengthen it against various objections.

So You Want to Be a Philosopher? Here Are 9 Books You Must Read

For those who are aspiring to be a philosopher but have zero experience, it is absolutely crucial to start well. I often hear from people who took a philosophy class that they ended up being more confused than before. This is in part because they’re introduced to conflicting ideas but they’re not shown how to think about these ideas. Ideas are dangerous things; capable of destroying or creating societies. I’ll be honest, I do prefer the classical philosophers over the modern philosophers – which my list will reflect – but I think you can still benefit from it despite this bias by evaluating the ideas for yourself. Without further ado, here are the books that I would recommend reading in the following order:

1. Being Logical, A Guide To Good Thinking by D.Q. McInerny

This book starts off with some key logical concepts that are really just common sense ideas. This is important. Some people mistake philosophy for contrarian pseudo-intellectual ideas. I even met someone who thought the best way to do philosophy was to smoke weed.. That’s not philosophy; that’s either sophistry or stupidity. In my opinion it’s a good idea to start with common sense, or else we’ll end up with nonsense. The author’s lucid yet concise writing style is a role model for all philosophers.

2. Ancient Philosophy (Beginner’s Guides) by William J. Prior

It is crucial to start with the very beginnings of philosophy without being bogged down by technicalities and monotonous details as the more advanced books do. What better place to start than the very origins of philosophy itself? An aspiring philosopher needs to be introduced to ideas and the reasons for those ideas in order to prime their minds for philosophical reasoning.

3. Aquinas (A Beginner’s Guide) by Edward Feser

This book is an absolutely essential introduction to medieval / scholastic philosophy. You’ll become familiar with ideas like form and matter, the four causes, universals, five ways, etc. Personally, this book did the most to transform my philosophical perspective. I felt like a child who was seeing familiar things under a new light for the first time; it literally took my passion for philosophy to a new level. Feser does a great job of communicating the ideas clearly and diffusing common misconceptions that moderns have about Aquinas.  Read More »


Why Did God Create the Tree of Good and Evil?

“The Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden, as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:9)

The standard response, which I shall improve upon here, is that God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to give man a free choice to follow or obey Him. They also add that without it, the fullness of God’s character (e.g, His justice and mercy) would not have been displayed. Thus God allowed man to fall, despite foreknowing what they would freely choose, because He had some greater purpose – namely, the greatest display of His love for mankind through the death of His Son. If the fall had not occurred, we couldn’t have known the full extent of His love. Love that loves the perfect is expected, but love that loves the fallen is completely extraordinary.

Any good story is going to have conflict and through that conflict love displays the greatest acts of courage and sacrifice. Sometimes it ends tragically, such as when a LOTR character named Boromir valiantly dies to protect the hobbits from evil forces, but it is a beautiful tragedy because of the extraordinary good that it displays. Furthermore, if the characters in question were born in a world without challenges to themselves, their paradise would be as artificial as a greenhouse. Proper freedom involves self-mastery over one’s choices and character through tests. Since God values freedom and character-building, He tests man with the tree to see if they’ll reject or obey Him – thereby removing the artificiality of the paradise.  Read More »


A Response To “You Don’t March For Life”

Courtney Hood recently published a heartfelt article that I greatly sympathize with, at least with respect to her care for others. As someone who is prolife, there is more to human life than just its birth, but I think the article gets several things wrong:

I do value all stages of life so there’s an appeal to this, but I will say that if we cannot value life at its most innocent and vulnerable stage, how can we claim to value life at any of its other stages? At what stage does life start mattering and why that stage? If we cannot properly value the most fundamental aspect of life (which is our right to live) then our quality of life is not a right either. So the question can be turned around.

Now, to address this articles’ objection, we care about the quality of life but in a different way. The article condemns our moral values as expressing “outdated views” without realizing that these values are the pillars of a thriving society. To borrow from Plato, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” The quality of life is directly affected by our moral values. So if we think it is permissible to have premarital sex, children out of wedlock, no-fault divorces, and the like then what inevitably occurs is that the quality of life suffers with it. The family is one of the most effective weapons against poverty, but once the family breaks down, so does our life.

The liberal position is like encouraging a child to play with fire and afterwards providing free governmental care. Conservatives promote moral values that preemptively discourages harm from occurring in the first place. The liberal solutions to these problems (minimum wage, food stamps, welfare, etc) at best just patches the holes of an already sinking ship. You have to get to the root of a problem if you’re going to solve a problem, otherwise you’re just delaying and covering up the harmful effects until it sinks. I should note that only God can change hearts, however, so conservatives can only offer trade off solutions in the political realm.

Also, it’s not that conservatives are in principle against healthcare or against providing some kind of safety net for struggling mothers. We just have different methods of doing so that emphasize individual empowerment rather than dependency. The problem with liberals is that they equate their policies with caring about the quality of life and anyone who disagrees with their way of doing things must not care about life. This is completely unfair. Some disagree with minimum wage laws, for example, because it increases unemployment. They may be wrong, but it’s not because they do not care about life.