i'm not sure that my reply will be exactly on-topic for this forum, but i feel that discussing the literary aspects of the text is the best to address the "is it science?" question.
Job is the oldest book in the bible as old as 5000 years old according to some,
well, frankly, some people think they've been abducted by space aliens, or that god talks to them through their neighbor's dog. "according to some" is a  kind of comment. according to whom, and why are they making this argument?
in contrast to this line of argumentation, the book of job is generally agreed upon by scholars to have been written after at least the 7th century BCE, and before the end of the 4th century BCE (between 2300 and 2700 years ago). i would place the authorship sometime around the 6th century BCE (and i believe most scholars agree with me), as the themes are particularly relevant to the jewish exile in babylon (586 BCE to 538 BCE). job can easily be read as an allegory for the exile. jeremiah argues that this is a punishment brought on by judah's unfaithfulness to yahweh, and his arguments are extremely similar to that of job's three friends.
if your going to ask me for my source for this i'll ask you for your source that the universe is 13.7 billion years old okay?
i'm actually going to skip over the science question. that's perhaps a topic for another thread.
Question: How can you ignore this scripture as to God's REVEALING His knowledge of the wonders of snow 5000 years before the microscope? AND NOT BE CONSIDERED INTELLECTUALLY IMMORAL for doing so?
so, the question i have here is, what is your argument exactly? what does the book of job say about snow, other than that it is a treasure (to a country that rarely sees it)?
job is not describing the microscopic structure of snowflakes. in fact, it's not say much at all, except that yahweh is claiming this as part of his awesome creative power; a power he has over job.
if you read the bible and come to the conclusion that god wasn't sometimes pretty reprehensible, i'd question your reading comprehension. actually, in the book discussed in the OP, this is the portion where yahweh shows up and begins to lay into job about why job doesn't have the right to question him for his unjust actions. so... yeah. that's kind of the point of the book: making snowflakes is more important to yahweh than insuring justice exists in the world.
Snow and hail are not kept in treasuries ( אֹצְרוֹת ).
there's nothing in the word that necessarily indicates it be translated as "treasuries" a place rather than "treasures", as it is just a simple plural of "treasure". it is the context,
quote:הֲבָאתָ, אֶל-אֹצְרוֹת שָׁלֶג
have you entered the treasures/treasuries of snow?
that indicates the author means a place. but i agree that it's probably a poetic thing, and you shouldn't read too much into it.
have you ever considered that your versions might be some heathen perversion of the text? i mean, your reading it in a language that was first spoken by pagan barbarians centuries later, and half a world away. and that language has change substantially since that time, too. but right there? that's the original text, in the original language.
granted, it doesn't really matter for this particular verse, but it sure can for others.
Even better change the language so no one can read it as if that makes some kind of valid and important point. IT DOESN'T!
nope. i believe i said as much here, and earlier in the thread. the idea that "treasures" means "treasuries" is contextual (the word is used both ways in hebrew) based on the verb.
I am left but with no excuse as to believe the Facts, the KJV is the best version in English we've got and all other English versions are in at least some way erroneous some of them are down write satanic its so obvious.
uh... no. the KJV isn't even close to the best translation in english. did you know that the KJV tends to translate the qere ("spoken") instead of the kethiv ("written")? that is, in places where various jewish scribes thought the original hebrew text was in error and wrote their own interpretations in the margins, the KJV translates their suggested readings instead of what's in the source text.
but i would be interested in discussing this argument, if you'd like to start another thread. i really want to know what translations you're reading that are so obviously "down write [sic] satanic", and why you think that.
Plus we have the Greek and Hebrew concordances of every word, we lack nothing, you don't even need to be a fool and waste years learning Hebrew and Greek thinking this is the only way you are going to know the truth
trust me when i say that you cannot begin to approach a text written in a foreign language through the use of root-usage concordances. the language matters; it is far to easy to get lunacy like time traveling CD-ROMs if you're just looking at the concordance and selecting meanings that fit what you want. i wish that thread was a joke.
But Ive seen atheist say such things as Ive mentioned above as if to imply that because they have learned these languages they are far better qualified to discus scripture with some faith head Christian who hasn't, which is arrogance in the extreme not to mention utter rubbish!
you're reporting what someone told you about an english translation in church. i'm talking about what's actually on the page. why do you think faith makes you qualified to discuss an academic subject like translation, or exegesis, or theology? going to church and actually studying the bible are two very different things.
it's sort of like thinking that because you're pretty good at call of duty, that you're more qualified to comment on the state of our various wars in the middle east than a combat veteran who says that war is hell and we should avoid it. do you see the problem here? your point is arrogance, in the extreme. the people who are familiar with the language and contents of the bible in an academic setting, regardless of their belief or disbelief, are far more qualified to comment on its contents than your average bible-believing church-goer.
Edited by arachnophilia, : reddit's got me using the wrong quote codes.
"The book of Enoch would seem to suggest that said fox (actually a 14 billion year old axolotl) was not at all quick but clever because he in actual fact "darted" (the Greek for this word is darted but the word doesn't exist in Hebrew which makes the bible a lie) UNDER, do you see that UNDER not over the fence, which of course is what not only made him appear quick but also to appear like a fox jumping over a fence.
modulus was establishing a linguistic context for the idiom. it doesn't actually actually matter if all the sources are canon or not; it's just evidence for how the phrase was used.
and it's not reversing what the bible says. at all. in fact, it's clear to see how they all use the idiom in the same manner.
as for what you're reading, i don't know. because even in english, even in your preferred KJV, it doesn't seem to say what you think it says.