I have reviewed Revelation 13:1 in 10 different translations, 9 of which are modern translations. Your concern is that the dragon, in some modern translations, is said to be standing on the shore of the sea, whereas the King James does not say that. This is what the King James says:
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
(Revelation 13:1)
Here is what the others say:
View attachment 310256
This is from Young's
Literal Translation, which says exactly what the King James says, although Young vociferously denounced the King James as unreliable (I don't agree or disagree):
View attachment 310263
And this is from Andy Gaus's
The Unvarnished New Testament:
View attachment 310262
Out of the 10 translations I just mentioned, 4, including the King James, say nothing of the dragon standing on the seashore, but implying the dragon's presence before the beast rises from the sea. The other 6 translations above (including the last one which was poorly cropped) all say this, essentially:
"And the dragon took his position on the sands of the sea."
This sentence does
not say that the dragon "owns" the land,
you said that. This sentence does
not replace John, the witness, with the dragon,
you said that. In fact, how can John not be on the seashore if he is witnessing the dragon, who is on the seashore? This is a superfluous statement, and one that the King James translators probably omitted for that reason.
If you want to make your own translation, feel free. Learn Greek and read whichever text you want for your own understanding. I guarantee you will think at some point to use different language, or phrasing, than the King James translators used. That is part of the art and science of translation. There is no 100% accurate translation of any book into a different language. In fact, there is no 100% accurate translation of a story from one person to another; we all "translate," or filter stories based on our own knowledge and experience. There is no perfect translation. If there were, everyone who has ever read the Bible would be saved.
That brings me to my main point:
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(II Corinthians 3:6)
One can read the Bible diligently, memorize it verse for verse, quote from it freely, and yet understand nothing of its simple and perfect truth. The Gospel is simple and perfect, not the letter, but the Gospel... of Christ. Attachment to the letter, as if salvation were some secret formula, implies that intellect is responsible for our salvation. We both know, at least intellectually, this is not true. Now, can we know it spiritually? When we know something spiritually, there is no need to defend it, because it simply
is.