The King James Bible in using the translation unicorn gave one of it’s infrequent footnotes so that the reader would understand what was being spoken of and that was a rhinocerous. The single horned rhinocerous.
Now if people read it and think a mythical animal like a horse with a single horn, that’s not the fault of the KJV translators.
Now here’s what happened. Linguistic work in the 1800’s finally showed it was a species of extinct oxen in view. Unfotunately, in the 1600’s it was a word for an animal unknown to the translators. And it’s not really their fault. What they did was standard among transltors, when they didn’t know the Hebrew they followed earlier translations in languages they did know.
This particular one has quite a history. It starts with the Septuagint. Literally meaning the monohorn.
The Vulgate follows the Septuagint using both the Latin rhinocerous and unicorn.
Luther followed with the singlehorn in German and Tyndale did in English.
I don’t know where anyone got the idea the Geneva didn’t use the unicorn translation, maybe they didn’t get it in a text search because the original Geneva followed the older English style and so unicorn starts with a “v”.
Num 23:22 Geneva
(22) God brought them out of Egypt: their strength is as an vnicorne.
And so everyone followed the previous.
Now it’s not such a bad thing. For one word disproves the double inspiration of all those translations people over the years claimed were perfect. The Septuagint, the Vulgate the King James all have this sign of the lack of knowledge of the word by the translators and so prove God was not inspiring the translators.
The only theological importance at all is sometime you will run into someone who claims Jesus was hung on a stake and not a cross, because of the unicorn mistake.