In the KJV, Exodus 25:5 says, It is talking about the outer covering of the Tabernacle. The outer covering was made of this leather. Now I am not KJVO, but I really hate it when I hear a preacher read God's word and say something like, "A better word here would have been. . . " It sounds so pompous like we could be better Greek or Hebrew scholars than the entire King James Translation team. Yet at the same time I cannot deny the fact that there are some words in the King James that are confusing. When I read the modern commentaries on this verse they say that the word translated badger here was actually a dolphin or porpoise. Matthew Henry acknowledges that is was probably not badger skin but was a strong but very fine type of leather. The word is the Hebrew word tachash. It occurs 14 times in scripture and each time is translated badger in the King James. The NIV translates this word "sea cow." The NASB translates this word "porpoise." I once preached a series on the typology of the Tabernacle and when I came to this part I told the congregation that these were probably porpoise skins. It makes sense to me, they would be a fine leather and also waterproof. What do you think? Is this an error in the King James? Does this verse need any explanation, or should we just ignore it and ignore the fact that badger skins would have been impossible to come by in the Egyptian and Arabian deserts?