Okay, first, I sent the article to my friend who taught ESL in Korea. I asked for no response, but this is what she told me anyway (whatever it is worth):
"Koguryo was founded in 37 BC "by Chumong and a band of his followers from Puyo," and there is no mention of unicorns... However the early powerful proto-Korean states (like Koguryo) were centered to the north and I think Pyongyang was actually the capital of Koguryo."
Alright, onto Greek and Hebrew. First, our Greek text of the OT (the LXX) is /older/ than our Hebrew text (the Masoretic). The Masoretic is, in part, itself a translation. There were a number of books composed in Aramaic originally. So, not only is the Hebrew younger, it is also not really the "Hebrew" text (in a pure sense; of course, the Greek is no more pure than it is, but if it's a matter of "original," we don't have those in either language).
Second, copyists sometimes made errors, which is where the infamous "variant readings" come from. This happens as misread-copy mistakes and misheard-copy mistakes (if someone was listening and copying rather than reading and copying), not to mention, of course, simple miswritten-copy mistakes. There are several versions of the Septuagint (three to seven, depending on who you ask, none 100% complete texts, a couple not surviving except in quotes, which may also be a translation of another text, again, depending on who you ask). These versions do not all agree, and in some cases, folks like Origin /edited/ the text to make it make more sense to him (so what's to stop a copyist from doing so? or a rabbi? or a different church father?). This happened all the time in the ancient world. It's the same reason we have variant readings of Homer, Aristotle, Aeschylus, etc.
Third, whether the original text meant unicorn (as a horse with a horn) or not, the only extant English word (at the time of the KJV) to express "a one-horned animal" /was/ unicorn. (Interestingly, in French, Latin unicorn > Old French une icorne "beast" > le icorne > l'icorne.) Translation then did not have the same rigor it does today. You must recall that there were plenty of popular reasons to translate it as unicorn, not the least of which is, μονόκερως literally translated means "one-horned." Some scholars dismiss the Greek because other texts "retain" the Hebrew word, but we do not have the original, and thus, this claim is only a feel-good dismissal. The truth is that we have the Greek, it's older than the Masoretic text, and we cannot pretend to have the original Hebrew or Aramaic texts when we do not. Yes, we have /fragments/ of some older texts than the LXX, but these do not enlighten the current discussion.
Finally, I tend to agree with semck that the unicorn of the KJV is a rhinoceros. This alignment has a problem - that rhinoceros is a perfectly good Greek word where they instead used monokeros (note rhino "nose" + keros "horn" and mono "one" + keros "horn"). It could be that rhinoceros was a later invention, a replacement word, if you will, and that they originally called them monokeros (well, after calling them "wild asses," from the Ctesias except quoted in semck's book link). The fact that romanticism had developed and glorified the idea of the unicorn (with striking parallels to the Spear of Longinus) as a horse with one horn, the translation of monokeros as unicorn is not a mistranslation, but a misunderstanding, and a persistent one at that (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible). So while I might agree that monokeros refers to the rhinokeros, I do note the larger problem that both words are Greek. I will check my etymological dictionaries on Monday when I go back to the office. Admittedly, this question has piqued my academic interests. :)
I hope this helps. If I need to cite anything in particular or offer links to anything you wish to know more about, I will happily do so, in thread or PM.
)
So I have this huge addition to my family coming in.....
)
)
)
)