The KJV translators had no reason to not believe unicorns existed. And I'm not referring to anyting except the horse-like creature with one spiraled horn in its forehead. While its existence cannot be 100% ruled out, it's about as likely to have existed as the centaur or Pan, the half-man, half-goat demigod of the Romans. When King James took the British throne, his royal coat-of-arms from Scotland had a unicorn upon it, while the British royal COA had a lion standing upon its back feet in a belligerent pose. KJ made a new COA with both the lion and the unicorn depicted upon it. Here's a URL for the current British COA: http://www.fleurdelis.com/royal.htm While we cannot fault the AV translators for rendering the Hebrew re'em as 'unicorn', the KJVOs certainly cannot fault later Bible versions for saying 'wild ox'. Any Jew proficient in Hebrew will tell you that re'em has no specific definition, that it could be almost any large, powerful wild animal with a horn or horns. To me, it isn't much of an issue to use to show the KJVOs that the KJV isn't perfect. There are many far-better arguments based upon solid, undeniable evidence to prove the KJVOs wrong. However, for the KJVO who insists 'unicorn' is correct and 'wild ox' is wrong, I can show you a wild ox...But can YOU show ME a unicorn? There's no mistaking that the AV men had the unicorn depicted on the royal COA in mind when they wrote'unicorn'. They did NOT mean 'rhino' or any other animal not native to England or Israel.