Illustrating the Superiority of KJV Biblical Scholarship
by Dr. Lawrence Bednar (Used with permission)
Job 38:24 God’s question for Job.
KJV: By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
NKJV: By what way is light diffused, Or the east wind scattered over the earth?
NASV: Where is the way that the light is divided, Or the east wind scattered on the earth?
NIV: What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Job, the oldest Bible book, written ~2000 B.C. according to classical scholarship, teaches modern technology of wind generation. Wind occurs as solar energy heats the surface of the earth, causing rising of air and lateral flow to replace rising air. Job reveals this, saying light scatters (moves) the east wind upon the earth. Light is the correct term, conversion of light to heat on absorption by earth’s surface being the heat causing wind (light-to-heat conversion is illustrated by burning paper with a lens focusing the sun’s light, not its heat – this reflects the 1st law of thermodynamics formulated in 1842, a law noting that energy is never destroyed but is converted to other types). The ancient writer couldn’t know this technology, and it would be hidden in ancient days due to night winds from differences in temperature like those existing between land and sea after daytime solar heating. The only way this verse could contain knowledge of modern technology is by God's impression of the words upon the mind of the human writer, so the Hebrew text shows us God is the ultimate writer dictating the text here. Clearly this must be preserved, as it is in the KJV, but not in modern English versions, as we'll see.
Job gives advanced wind-generation technology. By what way is the light parted, in regard to east wind (long-distance wind), notes the manner & direction involved as sunlight is parted (its intensity is partitioned) to produce winds of variant specific force. Sunlight strikes the earth at various angles from the vertical at various latitudes and longitudes due to the curvature of the earth's surface, and earth heating varies with the angle of inclination. Parting of light-intensity causes variant temperatures on the earth's surface, and air flows on the earth’s surface from a cooler higher-pressure area to a warmer lower-pressure one.
Now by what way in terms of the manner of light parting is, by earth’s surface curvature, which Job alludes to, despite a likely lack of knowledge of this matter when the book was written. In terms of the direction, by what way refers to the curved earth paths on which sunlight angular directionality varies earth heating in adjacent regions to create winds of specific force and direction on a rotating earth (east wind signifies an east-to-west direction), despite an obvious lack of knowledge of this when the book was written. This concise modern science in such an ancient Bible book can only originate from the Creator.
The light/wind connection in this ancient book proves God’s dictation of the text, but modern translators break this connection by omitting evidence of God's hand. Hebrew grammar makes parted passive voice (light is acted upon, it is parted) and scattereth active voice (light acts upon, it scatters wind).* The result is two roles of light expressed in one thought. Modern translators alter the grammar to make sense of the verse, evidently not knowing published technology about the light/wind connection. They make both verbs passive, separating the light roles into two thoughts by using or instead of which. Neither word is in the Hebrew, and context & grammar determining the choice verifies which or that. KJV translators preserved evidence of God’s dictation, honoring the grammar, despite lack of knowledge of the technology at their time in history. Likely they doubted the light/wind connection due to simpler 17th-century technology, but had a reverence for God’s Word that controlled their renderings.
*Passive voice here is identified by the Hebrew verb stem, niphal, and active voice by the hiphil.
Modern versions make several mistakes in this verse, in addition to the extreme error of breaking the light/wind connection and removing evidence of God's hand on the text. The NKJV substitutes diffused for parted, and diffused has the sense of scattering, the opposite of the rather precise parting needed to produce east wind of specific force & direction.
The NASV where is the way completely misses the sense of the mechanism of wind generation, and changes the sense of direction to one of location with its term way (we don't say where is the direction that light is divided, so way as a path is indicative of location, which is an incorrect sense). Further, the way speaks of just one path where the light is divided, when there are many paths on which light is divided to produce many east winds (east wind signifies a plurality of winds that flow in an east-to-west direction).
The NIV dispersed, like the NKJV diffused is indicative of light scattering, when rather precise light parting is required to produce east wind of specific force & direction, and it even wrongly renders the term path that totally masks the true sense of direction. And, like the NASV, it has the way & the path, which ignores the fact that there are many paths on which light is parted. More important, this version improperly changes light to lightning, which is totally improper, being a mistranslation of the Hebrew and implying a context of a thunderstorm with wind & lightning, when the context is actually that of normal wind generation, so the translators show no evidence of understanding what the context is all about. Further, they made east wind plural since the Hebrew is plural, but that's just the way Hebrew recognizes the plurality of the term east wind, and in English language convention, the singular term signifies a plurality automatically, and the KJV, NKJV & NASV all recognize this.
In summary, the 17th-18th century KJV renders completely accurate modern technology in this verse, despite a lack of knowledge of it at that time in history, while modern versions fail badly in this matter, despite widespread knowledge of the technology when these versions were produced. Most important of all, the KJV preserves evidence of God's hand on the text in a clear illustration of divine inspiration, while modern versions miss this entirely. Which version is it that shows the best scholarship?
Fish & whales: In recent times, scientists restricted application of the term fish to water dwellers with gills, fins and skeletons of bone or cartilage, but earlier it included all creatures living habitually in water, including lung-breathing whales. The inclusive meaning persists today in the language convention of scientists themselves, for their "jellyfish" & "starfish" are creatures with no skeleton or fins and their "lungfish" has both gills & lungs. Thus the KJV Mt.12:40 correctly refers to the fish as a whale, the specific large water-dweller, and the term in Jonah is the early inclusive one.
Jonah’s fish: Some say a man swallowed by a big fish has no air and can only be a meal, and others say Jonah died and was resurrected. The KJV says, When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord, so his soul nearly parted, but didn't (modern versions are similar here). Some call the account symbolic, but Christ says it was literal, equating Jonah's 3-day hell-like experience in the fish with His own soul's 3-day sojourn in hell where He descended after the Cross to conquer this enemy (Mt.12:40).
The Greek for the KJV Mt.12:40 whale has various possible meanings, the right one being determined by context. Scientific context study shows that use of whale is the basis for Jonah's 3-day survival in the fish, and that the account is literal reality not requiring miracles. Context reveals the fish as a whale in saying it dives to great depths in the sea. Jonah's fish takes him to the bottoms of mountains (and thus the sea), and there are submerged mountain ranges in the Mediterranean Sea, west of the seaport Jonah sailed from. Whales are the only large sea creatures that dive to great depths in the sea. Sperm whales often exceed the average depth of the Mediterranean Sea, ~5000 ft, and have dived much deeper. A sperm whale is the only one that dives to such depths and is big enough to swallow a man, having swallowed giant squid and sharks larger than a man.
Regarding ingestion of Jonah by a sperm whale, the creature’s teeth are limited to the lower jaw, and are for seizing of prey, not for chewing. It swallows its prey and "chews" by crushing contraction of the liner of the first of its multiple stomachs. It eats squid or fish, and a clothing-covered Jonah would have an alien taste, or no taste, and he would not induce the contraction of the digestion process. The first stomach does not produce digestive juices, and the opening to the second is too small to admit Jonah for chemical digestion. Jonah would only give the whale a stomach ache, which is why he was later vomited up (at God’s command). To protect Jonah from crushing contraction in the first stomach, the whale had to fast for three days, and it often fasts in times of food scarcity, living off its own blubber.
While under extreme pressure at great depth in the sea, the body of a sperm whale resists crushing, and stomach functions are maintained since the whale swallows squid while at depth. The whale is protected from filling of its multiple stomachs by seawater while eating because that would prevent all chemical digestion in the second stomach. Actually, entry of seawater under extreme pressure at great depth would be lethal, firing through the stomachs at high velocity to destroy the digestive system and kill the whale. Evidently, just before the whale opens its mouth to swallow prey, the esophagus closes to prevent water entry to the stomachs, and after the mouth closes, it opens up to admit the prey. A function like that of the esophagus would apply to functioning of a topside blowhole that admits air into the respiratory system while the whale is on the surface of the sea, and must be closed off throughout a dive to prevent filling of the lungs with seawater under pressure, and must open up again upon resurfacing. Seawater entering the mouth with the prey would be the source of limited seawater normally present in the first stomach to supply whale body fluid needs. The stomachs must be immune to effects of extreme pressure, as would clearly be the case when the whale wasn't eating. With Jonah in its stomach, it wouldn't eat due to the upset stomach, and Jonah would be protected from effects of extreme pressure.
Breathing air under pressure at great depth results in much nitrogen dissolving in the blood of deep-sea divers, and in a rapid ascent from depth, nitrogen bubbles out in a circulatory system, causing bends sickness and threatening death by a coronary. This potential problem would not affect Jonah, for a sperm whale charges its blood and muscles with oxygen from the air for a dive, and the nitrogen taken in is mostly absorbed in a foam in the sinuses for discharge in the spout upon resurfacing. This effect and collapse of the lungs in a dive greatly limit nitrogen access to a whale's blood stream. Although the whale ascends from depth rapidly, non-availability of nitrogen from air to the stomach, and minimal internal pressure there, would protect Jonah from the bends.
Jonah's biggest problem was getting oxygen to breathe. The whale breathes through the topside blowhole, and the stomach is isolated from the respiratory system, but the creature forces air into its multiple stomachs when breaching head-first out of the water, as it might do in swallowing Jonah, catching him in mid-air (nitrogen in this air should be absorbed by whale oils). This couldn't give Jonah enough oxygen to survive a deep dive, so isolation of the stomach from respiratory-system air somehow had to be bridged, as Jonah 1:17 indicates, saying that God prepared the fish (not the provided or appointed of the NIV & NASV that don't address the needed irregularity in whale anatomy). Oxygen stored in the blood hemoglobin & muscles of the whale during its preparation for a dive had to be tapped. This might involve a birth defect that admitted oxygen from the blood & muscles into the digestive tract when the whale wasn't eating (which would mean God knew all about the Jonah incident long before it occurred). A probable alternative would be bleeding in the first stomach due to contraction in the presence of sharp debris collecting at times in whale stomachs. Carbon dioxide (CO2) increases in whale blood as oxygen is consumed in a dive, and causes release of oxygen from the hemoglobin, thus providing oxygen for Jonah. In the process, oxygen in the muscles might be tapped. CO2 is released too, and eventual build-up of this and that in Jonah’s breath could suffocate him, so time at depth had to be brief, and early exposure to fresh air would be vital. When the whale is at depth, oxygen serves mainly to supply its brain, little being needed by muscles, and Jonah’s use of oxygen would deprive the brain to induce early ascent for air. And a sick whale, though habitually diving for food, wouldn't eat, or stay long at depth, as necessary to protect Jonah. He nearly died, but would recover as the whale resurfaced and swam to land, forcing in new air with periodic breaching due to the stomach ache. If oxygen reached the stomach due to a birth defect, all whale surface breathing would give Jonah a steady supply of oxygen.
The book of Jonah was written ~2800 years ago, yet is written in full accord with whale technology known only in rather recent times, and in some aspects is written in accord with technology known only in modern times. How could the ancient author of Jonah write in agreement with matters such as unique whale digestion processes, prolonged fasting ability, isolation of a whale's respiratory system from its stomach, the need to prepare the whale for Jonah's survival and the deep diving ability of whales known only in later centuries, especially diving to extreme depths on the order of 5000 feet known unto men only by the 20th century with the invention of sonar? Jonah, the likely writer, wasn't even a whaler by trade. And how does Jonah inside the whale know he is on the bottom of the sea, at a locale near to undersea mountains? There is one who knew all about whale technology 2800 years ago, and knew exact details of Jonah's plight. God is the one who put Jonah through this experience, and is the only possible author of words describing Jonah's experience. It's as if God put His signature on this Bible book, imparting words to the human writer, Jonah or an associate. Now indicated knowledge of whale technology in Jonah relates crucially to identification of Jonah's fish as a whale in Mat.12:40, but modern translators don’t apply the term whale here in Matthew, in effect, erasing God's signature from the text!
A Land-Based Giant Reptile: Behemoth in Job 40:15-24
Evolutionists say dinosaurs died out millions of years before man existed, so they think the Bible, written by men, knows nothing of dinosaurs. But the book of Job in the Bible says God made dinosaurs with man (see quote below), refuting the notion of their extinction millions of years earlier. The term dinosaur is modern, so it isn’t in the Bible, but Job, written ~4000 years ago, provides details on dinosaurs unknown to us until modern times; Job was written long before other Bible books since no other book speaks of dinosaurs. The book says the man Job knew of dinosaurs, and He lived in Uz, close to the land later called Israel. Thus dinosaurs lived there in the days before the nation of Israel was established, explaining why Job 40:23 associates them with the Jordan river.
15. Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass…
16…his strength is in his loins…his force is in the navel of his belly
17. He moveth his tail like a cedar…
18. His bones are as strong pieces…his bones are like bars.
19. He is the chief of the ways of God…
21. He lieth under the shady trees…
23. Behold, he drinketh up a river and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24: He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Like behemoth, a giant titanosaur ate grass and was chief of the ways of God, the largest animal in man’s sight on land (as long as 100 ft, as heavy as 100 tons, as tall as a 5-story building and a tail as long as 50 ft.) Like behemoth, such a dinosaur had a tail that moved like a cedar tree in respect of size & force. Behemoth had to be as big as titanosaur to permit figurative language on ingesting a river. Exertion of strength by behemoth was centered in the belly, as it was with dinosaurs to enable them to power their huge tail & legs, judging by facsimiles assembled from bone fossils (dinosaurs didn't have the navels noted in Job, but here that term has the basic dictionary sense of center). Behemoth's description in Job, written ~4000 years ago, proves the existence of dinosaurs millennia before men discovered them, so the Bible is the one true source of expertise on dinosaurs, and it tells us God made dinosaurs and man together (Job 40:15), refuting the evolutionist position.
Dinosaurs existed in our history, as seen by a find of flexible soft tissue (like blood vessels) in Tyrannosaurus bone fossils said to be 68 million years old.* This organic matter decomposes too rapidly in fossilization to endure many thousands, let alone millions, of years. Decomposition is slowed much by burial in flood sediment, but unavoidable moisture and natural radioactivity cause shorter-term decomposition. A flood sediment should be involved, likely that of the Great Flood of ~4400 years ago.
*Schweitzer, M.H. et al. Science. Vol 307. #5717. p1952-55.Mar.05. Follow-up by Schweitzer and a large team verified soft tissue in “80 million-yr. old” dinosaur fossil bone, refuting efforts of evolutionists to disprove soft tissue: Schweitzer et al. Paleontology & Archaeology. Apr.2009
RSV/NIV/NASV footnotes suggest behemoth is a hippopotamus. Verse 40:17 in the RSV says he makes his tail stiff like a cedar, a possibility, but very unlikely. The term stiff isn't in the Hebrew, and the verb (qal stem) indicates simple continuous motion of the tail, not the implied causative sense (hiphil stem) of make stiff, and context would require stiff like a twig for the small hippo tail. In the Hebrew cedar is logically used in the sense of a likeness to a large tree bending by swaying.
The NASV verse 23 says If a river rages, he is not alarmed; he is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth. In like fashion the NIV says, When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure though Jordan should surge against his mouth. Such renderings miss syntax and wording,* ignore the verse sense and poetic style, and miss the verse division into two thoughts, and they mask the size and dinosaur identity of behemoth, being suited to a much smaller hippo.
*Job 40 contrasts God's wisdom with Job's. The first clause and word in 40:23 emphasize the main subject, behemoth, and include a pause, so the interjection Behold with a comma or exclamation point is indicated. The RSV Behold if the river...is supportive of Behold and a pause, but incorrectly adds If to make river a clause subject; it has to be Behold or If, not both, and If doesn't invoke emphasis or a pause. The NRSV Even if the river... removes emphasis and a pause. In verse 40:15, where the first clause opens in a way like that of 40:23, modern versions render Behold or an equivalent, with a pause, as they must, for behemoth is named (NASV, Behold now behemoth,...& NIV, Look at the behemoth, ... but they choose to open verse 40:23 differently.
Passage syntax stresses behemoth’s size in reiterative poetic style (behemoth this & behemoth that), and he, his, him either opens a verse as its subject or subject possessive pronoun, or acts as the object of an opening clause and refers to behemoth. The style makes he, behemoth, the subject of the 4 verse-23 clauses. The NASV & NIV must follow style and make he the subject of the very brief 2nd & 3rd clauses, but they make rivers subjects of longer 1st & 4th clauses, masking behemoth’s size. Verse 23 begins, Behold, stressing he, behemoth, as the verse subject. The poetic style and a transitive verb make river a direct object in the first clause, and NASV/NIV lack of a direct object for the transitive verb proves mistranslation. With river as the subject of the first clause and If /When replacing Behold, the full Hebrew sense is (in NASV language) an absurd, If a river rages, he (a river) is not alarmed and he (a river) is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his (a river’s) mouth.* Ignoring the true poetic style and rendering the incorrect intransitive rages, makes the subject pronoun he, tied to this verb in the Hebrew, refer to river as the clause subject, to relate subsequent he/his pronouns in the verse to river.
*Hebrew-language expert, Gordis, says the verb is transitive and calls the raging-river notion, dubious translation. Robert Gordis. 1978. The Book of Job. Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies. Jewish Theo. Sem. of America. N.Y.C.
Further, he is not alarmed or he is confident isn't justified, for the Hebrew imperfect verb isn’t intransitive stative (verb is in a state of being). The KJV intransitive fientive (action) verb hasteth not (Jamieson, Faussett, Brown trembleth not) is indicated by the grammar.
He as the subject and the transitive drinketh are correct. It’s not that a river rages, but that behemoth drinketh up a river (poetic language), consuming/conquering it in the sense of crossing easily,* so he hasteth not to cross, for it’s no threat, due to his size. This is like the sense of Job 39:24 where he (the horse) swalloweth the ground, or consumes/conquers terrain (context and poetic-style make he a clause subject and ground a direct object).** The Hebrew requires that modern translators follow this syntax, but they vary in 40:23 where language makes it possible to imagine that river is a clause subject. Lamsa’s Peshitta shows river isn’t the subject, saying, Behold, if he plunges into the river, but this too avoids the dinosaur identity of behemoth.
*Jamieson/Fausset/Brown Com (JFB) agrees with a raging-river notion, but
its overwhelm (wrongly made intransitive) reflects conquer, not
**Clarke’s Commentary. N.Y. Abingdon-Cokesbury Press
Modern versions follow poetic style to make behemoth clause subjects in 40:15,19, 21 and make other animals clause subjects in 39:3,7,8,14-16,18,21,22,24,25, but 40:23 is susceptible to variance, as is 40:17. The NIV alters 40:17 as it does 40:23, deviating from poetic style and context to make the tail the subject and stress tail motion over size, further masking the dinosaur identity. Others don’t do this in 40:17, and had no good reason to do so in 40:23.
Another thought arises from that above, that behemoth trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth, which has a dual sense. Figuratively, draw up, like drinketh up, means behemoth conquers Jordan, now traversing its full length, drawing all the way up into Jordan’s (his) mouth (now his refers to Jordan, in a case of behemoth drawing up into Jordan’s mouth, not an impossible rushing of a river to Jordan’s mouth). Draw up also means drink literally (poetic exaggeration; a Heb. athnah at hasteth stipulates a colon, the second thought developing the first to suggest a size great enough to imagine behemoth ingesting a river).
The NASV/NIV miss the second thought, making the two into one, and missing the nature of Jordan’s motion. It’s not that Jordan rushes/surges, for poetic style and a transitive verb make behemoth the subject and Jordan a direct object, and the verb as transitive means bring forth, draw up (NKJV into his mouth and Brenton’s LXX up into his mouth are fine, but their use of verbs similar to rushes/surges distorts verse sense). The total or partial confusion in various modern texts shows modern scholars are uncertain of the proper rendering of Job 40:23.
In missing the second thought, the NASV/NIV reiterate the first in new words to portray Hebrew poetry. But the first isn’t just reiterated, but developed with new added meaning to construct a second, as noted above. He is confident/secure serves only to justify though the Jordan rushes and the inaccurate raging-river concept, making Jordan the subject of a clause unrelated to context on behemoth’s size. The KJV that in that he can draw up Jordan gives proper syntax, linking trusteth to a clause with the object of trust, conquest of Jordan, to construct the second thought by continuing the proper emphasis on behemoth’s size.* Job 40:24 also emphasizes behemoth’s size, saying he takes Jordan with his eyes (owns it) and destroys snares (traps). Clearly a hippopotamus is much too small to justify all the figurative size description, and Jordan is made the 4th clause subject to allow the incorrect notion that this animal is the one spoken of in these verses.
*The Hebrew imperfect verb can be rendered the fientive trusteth or the stative is confident. Grammar suggests either is correct, but trusteth better reflects verse syntax, context and poetic style, while is confident serves only to support the raging-river distortion.
The NASV/NIV lose both verse-23 thoughts by incorrect syntax & word choice that stress rivers twice, but behemoth’s great size is the one emphasis of the verse. Dinosaurs are well known today, but modern scholars hide them in text language. Perhaps they believe evolutionist dogma, or are afraid to defy the evolutionist agenda. Dinosaurs were unknown in 1611, yet the KJV reveals their existence, a mark of a Providentially-ordained version.
A Sea-Going Fire-emitting Dinosaur Relative: Leviathan in Job 41
1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook…
2. Canst thou put a hook into his nose…
10. None is so fierce that dare stir him up…
14. Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible…
17. They (scales) are joined one to another, they stick together...
21. His breath kindleth coals…a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22. In his neck remaineth strength...
26. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold...
27. He esteemeth iron as straw...
31. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot…
Many see Leviathan as mythical due to oral fire-emission and an evolutionist notion that giant reptiles became extinct before man existed. Now giant sea-going dinosaur relatives once existed (sea-going giant plesiosaurs are well-known). The foolishness of fishing for Leviathan with a hook shows he is very large. Verse 31 boiling of the deep is poetic language about an air-bubble wake that he makes in moving upon the sea. Sea-going reptiles would need strong necks, as in verse 22. Verses 10,22,27 show Leviathan is fierce and strong. His scaly flesh in verses 15-17 shows he’s a reptile. In verse 14, he has great teeth like those of a dinosaur. This description in ancient Job agrees with modern facts on giant reptiles unknown until the 19th century A.D. Like all giant reptiles, Leviathan now appears to be extinct.
Leviathan seems mythical since, unlike dinosaurs, it’s been ignored, due to a view of oral fire-emission as mythical, but this is unjustified, for Leviathan could have possessed a physiological feature overlooked by modern scientists. The creature’s body could contain a flammable chemical, and could possess the means of automatic ignition & ejection of the chemical by muscular action before ignition. Such a system exists today in insects, bombardier beetles, that use it for self-defense. The insect’s body has sacs that contain a flammable chemical and an oxidizer. Mixing the two causes an exothermic (heat-generating) reaction & spontaneous combustion, and an explosion can occur. The reaction is slowed until the mixture is ejected by muscular action, and this occurs by means of a third chemical in the insect’s body, an inhibitor that slows reaction until the mixture contacts air. The insect's anatomical chemical system provides a natural self-defense against predators, one similar in operation to a soldier's flame-thrower. Now if such sophisticated self-defense has been provided for a mere insect, why can’t a similar one be provided for a giant reptile?
Men once said flying in the atmosphere was too incredible a notion to take seriously, but in God’s providence the incredible of yesterday becomes the routine of today. It is bias that hinders our knowledge of truth, and God-rejecting evolution is an enemy of truth that forever colors observation with bias. Ancient people would experience matters that relate to science, and what we call legend results from observation colored by primitive imagination. It’s unintelligent to reject reports of fire-emitting dragons common in cultures from America to Europe to Australia to Asia. Job preserves a matter widely reported by early mankind and having definite technical credibility, and the KJV further preserves the matter.
Just how unscientific evolution advocates can be in denying the truth is seen in the liberal New English Bible that renders crocodile for Leviathan, calling it chief of beasts and chief of God's works. It refers to the crocodile, not as eating grass, but eating cattle as if they were grass, and who can imagine such a prodigious appetite in a creature with a stomach smaller than one cow. And what crocodile emits fire from its mouth? This committee indulged in a flight of fancy to avoid the identity of the beast since that contradicts its preferred evolutionism theory.
RSV footnotes call Leviathan a crocodile, which is silly in view of the fire-emission and a size so great it treats iron like straw. And Leviathan's domain isn’t rivers and streams of crocodiles, but the sea, as in Ps.104:25-26. Isa.27:1 calls Leviathan the dragon in the sea, a giant reptile that once traveled the sea.
A final word Among English versions, the KJV alone consistently preserves evidence of God’s hand upon the scripture text, and presents credible renderings in regard to matters of science, and various other Bible passages further support these conclusions. Readers can log onto www.KJVtextualtechnology.com for more examples of this, and for numerous examples of KJV consistent accuracy in all types of textual matters.
It is always encouraging to receive email from those who find the messages helpful, or who have comments.