Good translations on the KJV-only view's line disagree concerning how to translate most accurately a Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:30. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther's Bible or both. The 1534 Luther's German Bible has "Igel" [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther's at this verse as can be seen in Haak's rendering "hedgehog." The 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine]. In addition, the 1853 Leeser's Old Testament also has "hedgehog." In his 1981 English translation "based on traditional Jewish sources," Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translated it "hedgehog" ["Anakah in Hebrew; yala in Aramaic (Targum; Bava Bathra)' herison in French (Rashi; Chizzkuni) erizo in Spanish (Ralbag)" (Living Torah, p. 321). Do KJV-only advocates consider this rendering "hedgehog" in their line of good Bibles to be an error or a corruption? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles whose translators failed to translate what the Hebrew says? Is the evidence from their view's good line possibly stronger for this rendering "hedgehog" than it is for the KJV's rendering? Were the KJV translators wrong not to follow the interpretation of several of the old rabbinical writers concerning the meaning of this Hebrew word? On the other hand, the Geneva Bible rendered it as "rat," perhaps through the influence of the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate that rendered it with a word or words meaning "shrew" or "shrew mouse." At his note for this verse, Kaplan asserted that "the Septuagint translates it mugale, a mole, shrew mouse or field mouse" (Living Torah, p. 321). The KJV rendered it as "ferret." What is the source of the KJV's rendering at Leviticus 11:30? That question is the reason for my title for this thread. The KJV translators often seem to have followed the rabbinical writers or otherwise the old translations such as the Peshitta Syraic, Greek LXX, or Latin Vulgate in their identification of animals, but it does not seem to be the case in this example. Having checked many sources, I could find no clear explanation for why the KJV has "ferret" at this verse. I had found only one statement that offered any suggestion for the basis of the KJV's rendering, and it did not seem to be a valid one. Here is that statement. In the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus, Jacob Milgram suggested that the rendering "ferret" came from the Septuagint (p. 671). However, the Septuagint does not seem to support the KJV’s rendering for this Hebrew word. What evidence supports the KJV's rendering? The ferret is a member of the weasel family that was already listed in the twenty-ninth verse of this chapter.