Isa 43 - serious bible question--

It's really not a problem.

a) There is no singular "beast of the field"
b) There are no such things as dragons

Since you live in the 21st Century why not use a modern translation? The KJV is obsolete!

67_Reasons said:

How are we supposed to look at this as conservative Christians?
I do not believe I received this by accident, the top is from my special KJV bible, the bottom from an old NIV bible. Please move this to where ever it fits in, ty.
View attachment 308743

Click to expand...

See Strong's H8577.

67_Reasons said:

How are we supposed to look at this as conservative Christians?
I do not believe I received this by accident, the top is from my special KJV bible, the bottom from an old NIV bible. Please move this to where ever it fits in, ty.
View attachment 308743

Click to expand...

You're looking at the KJV. It is not a good translation. You'll also find "cockatrice" in it. There were Hebrew words the translators did not understand so they substituted something else.

Yes, Strongs is your answer where you see the possibilities of several translations from the original, including Jackel instead of dragon.

I prefer the MKJV 1962 which holds true to the manuscripts used for the KJV. Or the NKJV which is actually more accurate but includes some later discovered manuscripts. Both of these name jackels and ostriches for your passage in question.

Later NIV bibles are bogus as they started to move gender neutral but the early versions are decent.

67_Reasons said:

How are we supposed to look at this as conservative Christians?
I do not believe I received this by accident, the top is from my special KJV bible, the bottom from an old NIV bible. Please move this to where ever it fits in, ty.
View attachment 308743

Click to expand...

The word translated "dragons" - *tannin*

The word translated "jackals" - *tannim* (singular: *tan*)

They differ by one letter.

*Tannin* is the Hebrew form of the loan-word *tunnanu*. It has been mistranslated as what seems to be an Aramaic plural, instead of as a Hebrew singular.

*Tannin* is normally rendered: "dragon, sea-monster" in the OT - the Great Red Dragon in Rev 12 is based on the *tannin*. The GRD is a combo of the "sea-serpent" in Isaiah 27.1, and the monster in Jeremiah 51.34 (the 2 Beasts in Rev 13 seem to be based on the beasts in Daniel, & on Job's Leviathan & Behemoth - *behemoth*, the plural of *behemah*, means "beasts, animals".

Tannin in the OT:

H8577 - tannîn - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (nasb20)

Hope that helps.

67_Reasons said:

How are we supposed to look at this as conservative Christians?
I do not believe I received this by accident, the top is from my special KJV bible, the bottom from an old NIV bible. Please move this to where ever it fits in, ty.
View attachment 308743

Click to expand...

In Ezekiel 32:2 the same Hebrew word is translated as a "whale".

In Exodus 7, it is translated as a "serpent".

So it can mean some type of sea-going creature, like an eel maybe. It just depends on the context of the verse; if the sea is involved it could point to a natural creature of the sea; if land is involved, it could point to a natural creature on land.