#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Welcome to the BB Samer. I hope you have a tough skin. You may need it in this forum.

As far as the word "unicorn" is concerned it was the foolish wisdom of the world (the KJV translator's world) that mistranslated the word in the first place. The word unicorn should have never been used. If the word means "rhinocerous," then why didn't they use the word "rhinocerous?" If the word means "wild ox," as many others believe, then why didn't they translate the word "wild ox?" Either way, they mistakenly translated the word "unicorn" which most dictionaries define as a Greek mythological creature--a horse having one horn protruding out of its head--part of the ancient Greek pagan religion.
I am sorry, but I don't believe that God is teaching Greek pagan religions here. In fact Job lived around the time of Abraham, long before the Greeks even existed. The translation is a mistake. It is ridiculous to say that it is even close to being accurate. It isn't. It is a glaring mistake in the KJV. But for pride the KJVO crowd won't admit it.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent post. I am in full agreement.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Because it shows an error in the KJV and we are talking about the KJV and whether it is inerrant or not.

This is cute and simple, but show me even one dictionary that agrees with this definition. You ignored some important facts that were mentioned in the previous post about the origin of the word unicorn and how it is actually a mistranslation from the Hebrew by the KJV translators. It was taken from Greek mythology that came AFTER the scripture was even written. Why didn't you respond to all of those things? Instead, you gave us the Art Book Dictionary definition.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

I fully second that artbook1611.

 

There was enough information available to the KJV translators for them to translate the Hebrew word "rheem" as either "wild ox" or "rhinocerous." But they didn't. They made a foolish decision to translate the word as "unicorn" and identify it with Greek mythology--clearly a mistake on their part. Why the big deal? The big deal is this. It shows, that though the KJV is a very good translation, and very relaible, it is not "perfect" or infallible, inerrant, and thus inspired as so many KJVO's claim it to be. This is a foolish claim. Only the original manuscripts were totally without error. Every translation, the KJV, notwithstanding, has errors in it. I use the "unicorn" example because it is easy to prove to others that this is an obvious mistake on the part of the KJV translators. There are hundreds of others. BTW I am a KJV preferred person, and I don't agree with most MV's. But it is the Greek and Hebrew that give one the proper definition of a word, not the English words of a translation.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The holy men of God that Peter spoke of, were not the KJV translators. They were the prophets that wrote the Old Testament, and by extension the Apostles who wrote the New Testament. It was only their words, and their words only that were inspired. Their words were written down on manuscripts that we no longer have. They were the words that were inspired. God promised to preserved His Word. He didn't promise to preserve the inspiration of His Word. There is a diffirence between inspiration and preservation. Only the original manuscripts were inspired. KJV translators or their words were not inspired.

There are more than 3,000 languages in this world. Would you not think it strange that God would only inspire just one Bible for 10% of the population of the world, and leave 90% of the world without a Bible? A little arrogant is the KJVO crowd aren't they?
DHK

 

Quote by Jason
This is cute and simple, but show me even one dictionary that agrees with this definition. You ignored some important facts that were mentioned in the previous post about the origin of the word unicorn and how it is actually a mistranslation from the Hebrew by the KJV translators. It was taken from Greek mythology that came AFTER the scripture was even written. Why didn't you respond to all of those things? Instead, you gave us the Art Book Dictionary definition.
End of his Quote.


Pick up a Noah Websters 1828 Edition and it says exactly what I posted on one horned animals- unicorns. Bi-corns have two horns.
Your mind is stuck on that mythological white horse with a marlin spike in its head but the bible just says it is a one horned animal - a uni...corn. (one- horned). Get over it.

My God never makes mistakes, He inspired the originals and has preserved that same word flawlessly generation after generation and forever. He is able to preserve His word as He first gave it and does not need a critic to edit or correct His Word.

 

DHX,

Your personal interpretation of what the Hebrew word for rhinocerous, or wild ox, is just that - your interpretation. The Hebrew word obviously was not descriptive enouph to render a specific animal, and that is why unicorn, in our language is the best, and most accurate rendering possible. This is most likely the reason the KJB translators used this word, as it is generic word meaning one-horned animal. Putting any specific animal in it's place could be wrong, and only one's interpretation. Please do not ruin the faith of others based upon your own interpretation of what this should be, and then falsely claim that this word is in error- when indeed it is NOT.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Interesting:
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/unicorn.html

In Deut 33:17 in the Hebrew, the horns are plural but the animal is singular (ie. "the horns of the (animal)"). In this verse, a "single-horned" animal is NOT what is in the Hebrew. God does not make mistakes.

Also, Riplinger says the unicorn is "a popular New Age symbol of Amduscias, the grand duke of Hades". What is a Satanic New Age symbol doing in the KJV?

 

In Duet 33:17 , It is not plural. It is still a singular noun. If you had a herd of single horned animals,they collectively would be plural but each one still possesses one horn, thus "horns" used here in Duet 33 is correct.

 

Amidst all this talk of unicorns, my question in the #2 KJV-Onlyism Commentary thread (the thread that had technical problems) seems to have fallen by the wayside. First, take a look at these two verses from the KJV:

-------------------------------------------

Here is the definition of "satyr" from the Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

--------------------------------------------

Question: Why is a mythological half-man/half-goat being mentioned as fact in the KJV?

 

artbook1611 said "In Duet 33:17 , It is not plural. It is still a singular noun. If you had a herd of single horned animals,they collectively would be plural but each one still possesses one horn, thus "horns" used here in Duet 33 is correct."

Well then, you have a problem. For the Hebrew has "horns" (plural) of the "animal" (singular). The KJV has plural/plural, where the Hebrew has plural/singular. The KJV is not perfectly preserving the Hebrew, it changed the singular to a plural, and introduced a popular New Age symbol of Amduscias, the grand duke of Hades, into the KJV.

 

Most of the lore surrounding unicorns, such as their captivity only at the hands of virgins, etc., is obviously fanciful. Other legendary aspects, such as the grinding of their horns into powder to neutralize poison, probably originated with conmen who carved narwhal tusks for sale to wealthy buyers. But, let's not be distracted from the real issue just because some pagan mythology has been attached to them. If they are or were real, then they were created by God who is worthy of praise (not mockery). None of us would question the existence of cats, for example, just because some people think they have nine lives.

The real issue is: Do or did unicorns exist? If the unicorn of the Bible is in fact the rhinoceros, then there is no problem whatsoever with the KJV. Remember, "unicorn" and "rhinoceros" are synonyms, according to Webster (1828), so we cannot righteously declare that the KJV translators should have chosen one synonym over the other.

Here are some interesting notes on the unicorn that I found in Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible. Section 8 was most interesting. If you want to see a rendering of what is deposited in the Museum of the London Missionary Society, go to: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/oddnotes/timbsunicorns.html and scroll to the bottom of the page. Campbell noted that "the animal is considered by naturalists, since the arrival of the skull in London, to be the Unicorn of the ancients, and the same that is described in Job. xxxix."

From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

It was an early opinion, and the opinion was probably entertained by the authors of the Septuagint translation, and by the English translators as well as by others, that the animal here referred to was the unicorn. This animal was long supposed to be a fabulous animal, and it has not been until recently that the evidences of its existence have been confirmed. These evidences are adduced by Rosenmuller, “Morgenland, ii. p. 269, following,” and by Prof. Robinson, “Calmet, pp. 908, 909.” They are, summarily, the following:

(1) Pliny mentions such an animal, and gives a description of it, though from his time for centuries it seems to have been unknown. “His. Nat. 8, 21.” His language is, Asperrimam autem feram monocerotem reliquo corpore equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephanti, cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente. IIanc feram vivam negant capi. “The unicorn is an exceeding fierce animal, resembling a horse as to the rest of his body, but having the head like a stag, the feet like an elephant, and the tail like a wild boar; its roaring is loud; and it has a black horn of about two cubits projecting from the middle of the forehead.”

(2) The figure of the unicorn, in various attitudes, according to Niebuhr, is depicted on almost all the staircases in the ruins of Persepolis. “Reisebeschreib. ii. S. 127.”

(3) In 1530, Ludovice de Bartema, a Roman patrician, visited Mecca under the assumed character of a Mussulman, and among other curiosities that he mentions, he says, “On the other side of the caaba is a walled court, in which we saw two unicorns that were pointed out to us as a rarity; and they are indeed truly remarkable. The larger of the two is built like a three-year-old colt, and has a horn upon the forehead about three ells long. This animal has the color of a yellowish-brown horse, a head like a stag, a neck not very long, with a thin mane; the legs are small and slender like those of a hind or roe; the hoofs of the fore feet are divided, and resemble the hoofs of a goat. Rosenmuller. “Alte u. neue Morgenland, No. 377. Thes ii. S. 271, 272.”

(4) Don Juan Gabriel, a Portuguese colonel, who lived several years in Abyssinia, assures us that in the region of Agamos, in the Abyssinian province of Darners, he had seen an animal of the form and size of a middle-sized horse, of a dark, chestnut-brown color, and with a whitish horn about five spans long upon its forehead; the mane and tail were black, and the legs long and slender. Several other Portuguese, who were placed in confinement upon a high mountain in the district Namna, by the Abyssinian king Saghedo, related that they had seen at the mountain several unicorns feeding. These accounts are confirmed by Lobe, who lived for a long time as a missionary in Abyssinia.

(5) Dr. Sparrman the Swedish naturalist, who visited the Cape of Good Hope and the adjacent regions in 1772-1776, gives, in his Travels, the following account: Jacob Kock an observing peasant on Hippopotamus river, who had traveled over a considerable part of Southern Africa, found on the face of a perpendicular rock, a drawing made by the Hotttentots of an animal with a single horn. The Hottentots told him that the animal there represented was very like the horse on which he rode, but had a straight horn upon the forehead. They added, that these one-horned animals were rare; that they ran with great rapidity, and that they were very fierce.

(6) A similar animal is described as having been killed by a party of Hottentots in pursuit of the savage Bushmen in 1791. The animal resembled a horse, was of a light grey color, and with white stripes under the jaw. It had a single horn directly in front, as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick. Toward the middle the horn was somewhat flattened, but had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but was fixed only in the skin. The head was like that of the horse, and the size about the same. These authorities are collected by Rosenmuller, “Alte u. nerve Morgenland,” vol. ii. p. 269ff, ed. Leipz. 1818.

(7) To these proofs one other is added by Prof. Robinson. It is copied from the Quarterly Review for Oct. 1820 (vol. xxiv. p. 120), in a notice of Frazer’s Tour through the Himalaya mountains. The information is contained in a letter from Maj. Latter, commanding in the rajah of Sikkim’s territories, in the hilly country east of Nepaul. This letter states that the unicorn, so long considered as a fabulous animal, actually exists in the interior of Thibet, where it is well known to the inhabitants. “In a Thibetian manuscript,” says Maj. Latter, “containing the names of different animals, which I procured the other day from the hills, the unicorn is classed under the head of those whose hoofs are divided: it is called the one-horned “tso’po.” Upon inquiring what kind of an animal it was, to our astonishment, the person who brought the manuscript described exactly the unicorn of the ancients; saying that it was a native of the interior of Thibet, about the size of a tattoo (a horse from twelve to thirteen hands high,) fierce and extremely wild; seldom if ever caught alive, but frequently shot; and that the flesh was used for food. They go together in herds, like wild buffalo, and are frequently to be met with on the borders of the great desert, in that part of the country inhabited by wandering Tartars.’

(8) To these proofs I add another, taken from the Narrative of the Rev. John Campbell, who thus speaks of it, in his “Travels in South Africa,” vol. ii. p. 294. “While in the Mashow territory, the Hottentots brought in a head different from any rhinoceros that had been previously killed. The common African rhinoceros has a crooked horn resembling a cock’s spur, which rises about nine or ten inches above the nose, and inclines backward; immediately behind this is a short thick horn. But the head they brought us had a straight horn projecting three feet from the forehead, about ten inches above the tip of the nose. The projection of this great horn very much resembles that of the fanciful unicorn in the British arms. It has a small, thick, horny substance, eight inches long, immediately behind it, and which can hardly be observed on the animal at the distance of 100 yards, and seems to be designed for keeping fast that which is penetrated by the long horn; so that this species must look like the unicorn (in the sense ‘one-horned’) when running in the field. The head resembled in size a nine-gallon cask, and measured three feet from the mouth to the ear; and being much larger than that of the one with the crooked horn, and which measured eleven feet in length, the animal itself must have been still larger and more formidable. From its weight, and the position of the horn, it appears capable of overcoming any creature hitherto known.”

A fragment of the skull, with the horn, is deposited in the Museum of the London Missionary Society. These testimonies from so many witnesses from different parts of the world, who write without concert, and yet who concur so almost entirely in the account of the size and figure of the animal, leave little room to doubt its real existence. That it is not better known, and that its existence has been doubted, is not wonderful. It is to be remembered that all accounts agree in the representation that it is an animal whose residence is in deserts or mountains, and that large parts of Africa and Asia are still unexplored. We are to remember, also, that the giraffe has been discovered only within a few years, and that the same is true of the gnu, which until recently was held to be a fable of the ancients.

 

Satyr is a monkey or fawn and is also the first meaning in Noah Websters 1828. Mythology was added by men but is not a part of scripture.

Natters:
Horns is not plural. There may be many unicorns in a field but each only has one horn. The horn is still singular.

 

artbook1611, that doesn't change the fact that the Hebrew is plural/singular, while the KJV is plural/plural. If what you're saying is true, the Hebrew should have been plural/plural, like the KJV. But it is not. The KJV changed this, and introduced a popular New Age symbol of Amduscias, the grand duke of Hades.

 

You guys just don't get it do you? Suppose the Hebrew word was prostitute. The KJV translates it "woman." You would argue that it would be a correct translation because a prostitute is, after all, a woman. But the woman in question is a very specific woman that the KJV translators for one reason or another don't want to refer to--a prostitute. That is an example.

The same is true of the word unicorn. You say that this very specific animal in the Hebrew is translated vaguely as a "one-horned" animal which most dictionaries define and associate with pagan Greek mythology. Would the Holy Spirit of God lead a translator to define a word given to the writers of His revelation to mankind to do such a thing? Absolutely not! You have such arrogance to suggest tha the KJV is more accurate than the Hebrew. The word might mean rhinocerous, but in all probability it means "wild ox." It was the ox that was legendary for its great strength which the word "unicorn" is constantly referred to. Where do we get the expression "strong as an ox?" A wild ox would be much stronger than a domestic one.

The KJV translators were not ignorant of these things, not were they ignorant of the associations of words like unicorn and satyr with mythology. They deliberately and mistakenly mistranslated these words for whatever reasons we do not know. Instead of defending the mistakes in the KJV, why not just admit that a translation has mistakes in it, and God has preserved His Word in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which we still have today. An English translation can never correct a Hebrew word. That is the most ridiculous premise ever heard. It is the Hebrew words of the Old Testament that give the meaning, not the English dictionaries.
DHK

 

Gee, I never knew an ox to have one horn.
And why do you guys keep reading the mythical meanings and leave out the first and intended meaning?
Unicorns are one horned animals with great strength, probably a rhino or something like it.
Satyrs are a monkey or fawn. These are first definitions in Noah Websters and are not mysterious mythical creatures.
Man has added the mythical and Webster just gives this as secondary meanings because they have crept into our thinking. The first meanings can be trusted and run in harmony with the original manuscripts.
The KJ is not better than the inspired originals, for the originals were inspired flawless and the KJ is of equal status. It was "preserved" by Gods hand, generation upon generation right to this present day in that same flawless state.
You guys just don't get it ,do you?

 

Unicorn from Strong's
Mar r@'em reh-ame'
or rieym {reh-ame'}; or reym {rame}; or rem {rame}; from 7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness):--unicorn. See Hebrew 7213

Strong's No: 7214
Transliterated: r̀em; reh-ame' or ראים r̀eym rehAame' or רים reym rame or רם rem Pronounced: rame
from 7213; TWOT 2096a; n m
Trans. & freq. in the AV— unicorn 9 times; 9 occurrences of Hebrew word in AV
1. probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.
 (Quick Verse—Hebrew Lexicon)

UNICORN KJV translation of several related Hebrew terms which modern translations render as wild ox (as in Num. 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17). (Holman Bible Dictionary)

Unicorn
Described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22, R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” Num. 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi. 28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (compare Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10).
(Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Unicorn,
the rendering of the Authorized Version of the Hebrew reem, a word which occurs seven times in the Old Testament as the name of some large wild animal. The reem of the Hebrew Bible, however, has nothing at all to do with the one-horned animal of the Greek and Roman writers, as is evident fromDe 33:17

where in the blessing of Joseph it is said; "his glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of a unicorn;" not, as the text of the Authorized Version renders it, "the horns of unicorns." The two horns of the ram are "the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh." This text puts a one-horned animal entirely out of the question. Considering that the reem is spoken of as a two-horned animal of great strength and ferocity, that it was evidently well known and often seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an animal fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is frequently associated with bulls and oxen we think there can be no doubt that, some species of wild ox is intended. The allusion in Ps 92:10

"But thou shalt lift up, as a reeym, my horn," seems to point to the mode in which the Bovidae use their horns, lowering the head and then tossing it up. But it is impossible to determine what particular species of wild ox is signified probably some gigantic urus is intended. (It is probable that it was the gigantic Bos primigeniua, or aurochs, now extinct, but of which Caesar says, "These uri are scarcely less than elephants in size, but in their nature, color and form are bulls. Great is their strength and great their speed; they spare neither man nor beast when once; they have caught sight of them" --Bell. Gall. vi. 20.-ED.) (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

UNICORN
One-horned, corresponding to the word Monoceros, by which the original Hebrew REEM is translated by the Seventy. The Hebrew word means erect, and has no reference to the number of horns. Most interpreters now understand it of the wild buffalo of the Eastern continents, the Bos Bubalus of Linaeus, resembling the American buffalo, but having larger horns and no dewlap. This animal has the appearance of uncommon strength. The bulk of his body, and his prodigious muscular limbs, denote his force at the first view, Nu 23:22. His aspect is ferocious and malignant, and at the same time stupid. His head is of ponderous size; his eyes diminutive; and what serves to render his visage still more savage, are the tufts of frizzled hair which hang down from his cheeks and the lower part of his mouth, Job 39:9-12; Ps 22:21.

Wild buffalo occur in many parts of Africa and India, where they live in great troops in the forests, and are regarded as excessively fierce and dangerous animals. The hunters never venture in any numbers to oppose these ferocious animals face to face; but conceal themselves in the thickets or in the branches of the trees, whence they attack the buffaloes as they pass along.

In Egypt, as also in Southern Europe, the buffalo has been partially domesticated in comparatively modern times. Travelers also find it in parts of Syria, Persia, and India. It is less docile than the ox, retaining a remnant of ferocity and intractability, together with a wild and lowering aspect. It is commonly driven and guided by means of a ring in the nose. To the ancient Hebrews, however, it seems to have been known only in its wild state, savage, ferocious, and often immensely large. (American Tract Society Dictionary)

Yes we get it. The KJV is not of equal status of the originals. It has mistakes in it. It is not inerrant. It is not infallible. It is not inspired. It is not even preserved. The Word of God is preserved in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The evidence is in the dictionaries and lexicons above. If you will not believe the evidence, then you are going on blind faith--a faith that will believe anything over and beyond empirical evidence. You are treading on dangerous ground, even to the point of heresy.
DHK

 

Not a real good analogy DK. A prostitute can be either gender.

After all of the presentations here about "unicorns", I must conclude that the KJV is perfectly inerrant in the use of this word. Many may not like the translation "unicorn", but the translation is definitly not an error. You simply must get the childhood stories out of your minds and focus on the true definition of the the word.

Let's continue onward on this never ending search for an "error" in God's Holy Word, the beloved KJB. I have yet to be convinced of one.

God Bless!

 

:
Thanks, DHK, for your comments. Like Seaver, I don't see "woman" as a synonym for "prostitute", so I'm afraid I still don't get it. If you have an actual 1611 KJV handy, look at Isaiah 34:7. As has been mentioned previously, there is a marginal note indicating the term "Vnicornes" was synonymous with "Rhinocerots". The two words were synonymous then and also as late as 1828, according to Webster (who also used the term "unicorn" in his translation of the Bible.) Of all the possible beasts that the unicorn could have been, the rhinoceros is probably the best choice in my opinion. Apart from the rhinoceros, it may have been an animal now extinct or so rare as to have evaded modern science. But, the marginal note alone almost assuredly points us to the rhinoceros. Yes, the Biblical unicorn was a one-horned animal or at least had one very prominent horn which was exalted as a notable feature (Psalms 92:10) much to the dismay of commentators who insist it had two horns. There is nothing particularly notable about the horns of wild oxen or buffalo, which can both be domesticated. As an interesting aside, the modern Arabic word re'em is the rhinoceros. Moreover, the rhinoceros of 1611 had no mythological significance that I am aware of, nor does the KJV attach any credibility to any of the fanciful legends of the unicorn. All we can really deduce from scripture is that they were strong, intractable, and had a prominent horn. I know unicorn(s) may look like "a glaring mistake in the KJV," but this is simply a case where the popular definition of an English word has changed, probably due to 19th-century scientists' fondness for and popularization of the term "rhinoceros" which now seems to have completely replaced the old definition of "unicorn." As you may know, the KJV translators circulated their proposed renderings throughout Britain on public bulletin boards so that anyone with any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek could object or provide input. In the end, all nine occurences of the word were translated as "unicorn(s)," no doubt through much prayer as well. It is my understanding that the word "rhinoceros," while known to scholars of the day, was not yet well-known by the common man.

But, enough "doting about questions and strifes of words" (1 Tim 6:4). Either you believe God is soverign or not. Please let me comment on one of your previous postings:

"There are more than 3,000 languages in this world. Would you not think it strange that God would only inspire just one Bible for 10% of the population of the world, and leave 90% of the world without a Bible? A little arrogant is the KJVO crowd aren't they?"

I don't know which KJVO crowd you've actually sat down and discussed things with, but I do know that a lot is lost in translation due to the poor communication tool we know as the Internet. I have never heard of anyone who insists that English is the language of God, which would be the logical conclusion of such people. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think it strange that God would inspire just one OT for the less than 1% of the world's population who speak modern Hebrew (quite different from the Masoretic Hebrew) and a NT for the almost 0% who speak Koine Greek (a language which had significantly died by 150 AD and had virtually vanished by 330 AD), thus leaving over 99% of the world without a Bible. No, there are many excellent (and for all I know, perfect) translations of the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Textus Receptus into many of the worlds languages, especially those languages spoken by the great missionary and evangelical outreaches of history.
:

 

I gave you five definitions from both lexicons and Bible dictionaries. They all say the same. The unicorn is a wild ox. The word unicorn is a wrong translation. The word was completely unnecessary. Why use an ambiguous word with pagan meanings, or at the very least, pagan and mythical connotations, and confuse the readers? They could have been specific and unambiguous, but they were not. The erred.
DHK

 

And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;(Luk 1:69)

The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

I wouldn't be so quick to mess with the scriptures. There are reasons far beyond our puny minds why the scripture uses the word Uni-corn.
They have but one horn and we only have but one saviour. Selah.
He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour.