The book of Job

[tttallison]

Two things. First, the NKJV is based on the same texts as the KJV, so Webster's is not the sole exception. Second, you say I seem to have misquoted Webster's, but I didn't mention Webster's. If you are thinking of this:

(Job 9:24 WEB) The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. He covers the faces of its judges. If not he, then who is it?

I must tell you that WEB is the World English Bible, not Webster's.

What is important is not what different translations of the Bible say, but what the Hebrew actually means. Perhaps somebody who knows biblical Hebrew can tell us whether the verse actually teaches that Job was saying that he didn't know Who God was.

The problem is that the new translations left out several Hebrew words.

​

Job 9:24



KJB H776 (אֶרֶץ) earth ------------- NASB H776 (אֶרֶץ) earth

KJB H5415 (נָתַן) given ----------- NASB H5415 (נָתַן) given

KJB H3027 (יָד) hand -------------- NASB H3027 (יָד) hand

KJB H7563 ( רָשָׁע) wicked -------------- NASB H7563 ( רָשָׁע) wicked

KJB H3680 (כָּסָה) covereth --------------- NASB H3680 (כָּסָה) covers

KJB H6440 (פָּנִים) faces --------------- NASB H6440 (פָּנִים) faces

KJB H8199 (שָׁפַט) judges ----------- NASB H8199 (שָׁפַט) judges

KJB H518 (אִם) if ---------------- NASB H518 (אִם) if

KJB H3808 (לֹא) not --------------------- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

KJB H645 (אֵפוֹ) where ---------------------- NASB H645 (אֵפוֹ) where

KJB H4310 (מִי) who ---------------------- NASB H4310 (מִי) who

KJB H1931 (הוּא) he ----------------- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WEB The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of its judges; if not, where, and who is he?

Obviously the NKJV is not based on the same text and the KJB even if they claim to be.

 

[DavidLamb]

The problem is that the new translations left out several Hebrew words.

​

Job 9:24



KJB H776 (אֶרֶץ) earth NASB H776 (אֶרֶץ) earth

KJB H5415 (נָתַן) given NASB H5415 (נָתַן) given

KJB H3027 (יָד) hand NASB H3027 (יָד) hand

KJB H7563 ( רָשָׁע) wicked NASB H7563 ( רָשָׁע) wicked

KJB H3680 (כָּסָה) covereth NASB H3680 (כָּסָה) covers

KJB H6440 (פָּנִים) faces NASB H6440 (פָּנִים) faces

KJB H8199 (שָׁפַט) judges NASB H8199 (שָׁפַט) judges

KJB H518 (אִם) if NASB H518 (אִם) if

KJB H3808 (לֹא) not XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

KJB H645 (אֵפוֹ) where NASB H645 (אֵפוֹ) where

KJB H4310 (מִי) who NASB H4310 (מִי) who

KJB H1931 (הוּא) he XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WEB The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of its judges; if not, where, and who is he?

Obviously the NKJV is not based on the same text and the KJB even if they claim to be.

You compare words from the KJV with the NASB, and then say, "Obviously the NKJV is not based on the same text and the KJB even if they claim to be." That just doesn't follow from your NASB examples.

 

[tttallison]

The problem is that the new translations left out several Hebrew words.

​

Job 9:24



KJB H776 (אֶרֶץ) earth ------------- NASB H776 (אֶרֶץ) earth

KJB H5415 (נָתַן) given ----------- NASB H5415 (נָתַן) given

KJB H3027 (יָד) hand -------------- NASB H3027 (יָד) hand

KJB H7563 ( רָשָׁע) wicked -------------- NASB H7563 ( רָשָׁע) wicked

KJB H3680 (כָּסָה) covereth --------------- NASB H3680 (כָּסָה) covers

KJB H6440 (פָּנִים) faces --------------- NASB H6440 (פָּנִים) faces

KJB H8199 (שָׁפַט) judges ----------- NASB H8199 (שָׁפַט) judges

KJB H518 (אִם) if ---------------- NASB H518 (אִם) if

KJB H3808 (לֹא) not --------------------- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

KJB H645 (אֵפוֹ) where ---------------------- NASB H645 (אֵפוֹ) where

KJB H4310 (מִי) who ---------------------- NASB H4310 (מִי) who

KJB H1931 (הוּא) he ----------------- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WEB The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of its judges; if not, where, and who is he?

Obviously the NKJV is not based on the same text as the KJB even if they claim to be.

 

[dkontner]

Obviously the NKJV is not based on the same text as the KJB even if they claim to be.

This is true

 

[tttallison]

You compare words from the KJV with the NASB, and then say, "Obviously the NKJV is not based on the same text and the KJB even if they claim to be." That just doesn't follow from your NASB examples.

The NKJV left out, "H1931 (הוּא) he", just as all the other translations did. The place where the NKJV placed a "He" they acknowledged it was not derived from a Hebrew word by placing it in italics.

 

[tttallison]

This is true

Like your shepherds.

 

[DavidLamb]

The NKJV left out, "H1931 (הוּא) he", just as all the other translations did. The place where the NKJV placed a "He" they acknowledged it was not derived from a Hebrew word by placing it in italics.

I don't know Hebrew, so I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether the NKJV or the KJV is more correct in translating the whole sentence into English.

 

[tttallison]

I don't know Hebrew, so I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether the NKJV or the KJV is more correct in translating the whole sentence into English.

My point in this case isn't whether they translated a word correctly, but rather what manuscript are they using. Their Hebrew words are different, or in this case missing.

 

[ZNP]

My point in this case isn't whether they translated a word correctly, but rather what manuscript are they using. Their Hebrew words are different, or in this case missing.

The debate over manuscripts is primarily a New Testament issue, not an issue with the Old Testament. The only issue with the book of Job is about translating ancient idioms and obscure vocabulary.

 

[tttallison]

The debate over manuscripts is primarily a New Testament issue, not an issue with the Old Testament. The only issue with the book of Job is about translating ancient idioms and obscure vocabulary.

Not true.

 

[ZNP]

Not true.

The Jews had a complete manuscript, the early church had to hide their manuscripts and so we have to collect documents from a thousand sources to put together a whole New Testament. There is consensus that the Septuagint is a a very reliable source that all the Jewish experts agreed on, so we not only have a complete Hebrew manuscript of the OT we also have a translation into Greek that all the experts agreed on two thousand years ago. Those two things eliminate 90% of the issues we have with the New Testament. As a result the main issues are that Job was a very old manuscript which might use obscure terms and idioms.

 

[tttallison]

The Jews had a complete manuscript, the early church had to hide their manuscripts and so we have to collect documents from a thousand sources to put together a whole New Testament. There is consensus that the Septuagint is a a very reliable source that all the Jewish experts agreed on, so we not only have a complete Hebrew manuscript of the OT we also have a translation into Greek that all the experts agreed on two thousand years ago. Those two things eliminate 90% of the issues we have with the New Testament. As a result the main issues are that Job was a very old manuscript which might use obscure terms and idioms.

You do know that the New English Translation of the Septuagint, by the Oxford University Press, in its foreword stated that they kept the term Septuagint only due to tradition, and that which was originally in the Septuagint can no longer be determined?

 

[ZNP]

You do know that the New English Translation of the Septuagint, by the Oxford University Press, in its foreword stated that they kept the term Septuagint only due to tradition, and that which was originally in the Septuagint can no longer be determined?

What is crystal clear and without any dispute is that many of these translations are made because they want to change the word of God. The debate over which manuscript to use is far more relevant to the New Testament than it is to the Old Testament and just because some scholar disagrees doesn't make that any less true.

 

[tttallison]

The debate over manuscripts is primarily a New Testament issue, not an issue with the Old Testament. The only issue with the book of Job is about translating ancient idioms and obscure vocabulary.

There is missing Hebrew words in Job 9:24 in the new translations, and there is many other critical places where essential words are missing.

Take for example Job 33:6. This verse should be one of the most polarizing verses in not only the book of Job, but in the whole bible. Ellihu makes the claim that he stands in the place of God. The only other verse that may relate to this is Genesis 30:2 where Jacob denies to Rachel that he is standing in God's place.

Notice in the following verse the KJB contains 8 Hebrew words while the NASB only contains 5 Hebrew words, and the most critical of these is H6310 "pê" (mouth or wish) and H589 "'ănî" (I or me).

KJB Job 33:6 Behold, H2005 I H589 am according to thy wish H6310 in God's stead: H410 I H589 also H1571 am formed H7169 out of the clay. H2563

NASB95 “Behold, H2005 I belong to God H410 like you;I too H1571 have been [fn]formed H7169 out of the clay. H2563

 

[ZNP]

There is missing Hebrew words in Job 9:24 in the new translations, and there is many other critical places where essential words are missing.

Take for example Job 33:6. This verse should be one of the most polarizing verses in not only the book of Job, but in the whole bible. Ellihu makes the claim that he stands in the place of God. The only other verse that may relate to this is Genesis 30:2 where Jacob denies to Rachel that he is standing in God's place.

Notice in the following verse the KJB contains 8 Hebrew words while the NASB only contains 5 Hebrew words, and the most critical of these is H6310 "pê" (mouth or wish) and H589 "'ănî" (I or me).

KJB Job 33:6 Behold, H2005 I H589 am according to thy wish H6310 in God's stead: H410 I H589 also H1571 am formed H7169 out of the clay. H2563

NASB95 “Behold, H2005 I belong to God H410 like you;I too H1571 have been [fn]formed H7169 out of the clay. H2563

Again, I will repeat, the Jews have had complete Old Testaments for years. They didn't have to rip them into pages and distribute them among everyone to hide their Bibles. The records of the documents are much better and this is probably an even bigger point, we have lots and lots of Rabbinic documents discussing these books and verses.

Any claims anyone has that those things are not true is false. No credible historian can dispute those facts. I'm not saying they don't dispute this, but that they reason they dispute it is because of their desire to change the word of God. Naive students of the Bible assume the problems we have with New Testament manuscripts include Old Testament manuscripts. Two completely different issues.

 

[tttallison]

What is crystal clear and without any dispute is that many of these translations are made because they want to change the word of God. The debate over which manuscript to use is far more relevant to the New Testament than it is to the Old Testament and just because some scholar disagrees doesn't make that any less true.

Look what the Septuagint/Codex Vatincanus 1209 did to Isaiah 9:6

Septuagint Isaiah 9:6 for a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel:* for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Masoretic Text Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

You should be aware that the English translations of the Septuagint have been taken from the Codex Vaticanus 1209, both Thomson’s and Brenton’s. The Masoretic Text matches the DSS Isaiah Scroll. The Isaish Scroll was carbon dated to around 125 BC, while they have been afraid to carbon date the Codex Vaticanus.

 

[tttallison]

Again, I will repeat, the Jews have had complete Old Testaments for years. They didn't have to rip them into pages and distribute them among everyone to hide their Bibles. The records of the documents are much better and this is probably an even bigger point, we have lots and lots of Rabbinic documents discussing these books and verses.

Any claims anyone has that those things are not true is false. No credible historian can dispute those facts. I'm not saying they don't dispute this, but that they reason they dispute it is because of their desire to change the word of God. Naive students of the Bible assume the problems we have with New Testament manuscripts include Old Testament manuscripts. Two completely different issues.

What things are you talking about?

 

[tttallison]

To start, let’s look at the standard for measuring faith that both you and Scripture have provided here. One is saying one has faith, the other is demonstrating one has faith by their works. Let’s apply this to Job, as you seem to aptly suggest.

The question you posed is “Where are Job’s works?” (grammar corrected). Here is a non-exhaustive list of things which indicate his faith, as well as his fear of the Lord:

1. Job blesses the name of the Lord *during his suffering* (1:21)

2. Job refuses to curse God after the prompting to curse God from his wife *during his suffering* (2:9,10)

3. According to Eliphaz, Job instructed many, strengthened weak hands, used words to hold up those who were falling, and strengthened feeble knees (4:3,4)

4. Job did not deny the words of the Holy One [God] (6:10)

5. Job actively prays to God *during his suffering* (7:17-21 is just one example)

6. Job shows his fear of God by being willing to admit he has sinned to incur his suffering (even though he had not sinned to incur his suffering) and pleads with God to grant him forgiveness (7:20,21)

7. Job praises God and shows his fear of God by calling Him [God] wise in heart, mighty in strength, and that no man can harden himself against God and prosper (9:4)

8. Job praises God *during his suffering* by declaring that God does great things past finding out, and that God does wonders without number (9:10)

9. Job has walked in God’s steps, he has kept God’s way and not turned away (23:11)

10. Job has not departed from the commandments of God’s lips, and Job has treasured God’s words more than his food (23:12)

11. Job praises the majesty and magnificence of God (all of chapter 28) and Job even provides the very definition of wisdom in 28:28 (a definition also provided in several other places in Scripture)

12. Job delivered the poor who had no help, and the orphan who had no helper (29:12)

13. Job was eyes for the blind and feet for the lame (29:15)

14. Job was a father to the poor (29:16)

15. Job broke the evil grasp of the wicked and delivered the victims from their grasp (29:17)

16. Job was blessed by one who was dying and made the widow’s heart sing for joy (29:13)

Anyone can find these examples and more while reading the book of Job. All of these things also comport with God’s testimony regarding Job being perfect and blameless, fearing God and shunning evil.

And since we are looking at the epistle of James, let’s see how these examples of Job’s faith compare to what James wrote:

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

See the connection?

Compare this to your conjecture when you *assume* Job must not have had a pension for his workers?? Your examples are complete fabrications. It’s like Job’s friends who were so determined (in their minds) and desperate that Job was guilty that they began inventing sins that Job had committed. Oh, yeah, and God rebuked them in the end.

Apparently Job had A LOT of faith if we are using the metric that both you and James purport, namely:

James 2:18
Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

My guess is that Job had more faith than any one of us here in this little chat, including before, during and after his trial.

You state what Job said about the good things Job had accomplished. But you haven’t considered what his best friend said about him might be true. Who knew Job better than Eliphaz? Suppose they were both true. God said Job was without knowledge. Job said he sat as king. Job decided who received good and who received evil.

Job said, Job 29:17 And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth. Remember when Paul was having Christians killed? Paul thought he was doing God’s work. Job also thought he was doing God’s work, but like Paul, Job’s judgment was flawed because he was without knowledge.

Eliphaz's statement about Job, Job 22:5-10 Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite? For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing. Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry. But as for the mighty man, he had the earth; and the honourable man dwelt in it. Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken. Therefore snares are round about thee, and sudden fear troubleth thee;

You speak of Job’s faith, but I ask you, does the details of that faith matter?

I have a neighbor, and he believes God is going to save him. He believes God is going to save him because his good outweighs his bad. Is he going to heaven? Suppose he accomplished more good than any other man living, is he going to heaven even though he has rejected God’s righteousness in favor of his own?

Job 27:6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

 

[christophernyc]

Why did James mention Job?​

The first thing God said to Job was that Job was without knowledge. Job thought he was doing right, and because Job, in his pride, tried to do the right thing, God showed him mercy. Trying to do right and being right are not the same thing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Here is what James writes of Job in James 5:10,11

Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

The word “patience” is Strong’s #5281 “hupomoné” which means "perseverance, endurance, steadfastness, patient enduring”.

So according to your own independent interpretation, Job is persevering in his pride the whole time he is suffering? Why in the world would James be commending Job for that?? That makes no sense, especially when James is grouping Job with the prophets (verse 10) who also remained faithful to the Lord while suffering.

Actually, James is staying on theme here in chapter 5:10,11 with how he began his epistle. Let’s look at the beginning of his letter in James 1. Right from the start James writes about faith and patience.

James 1:2-4
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
The word here “patience” in James 1 is the same Strong’s #5281 “hupomoné” which means "perseverance, endurance, steadfastness, patient enduring”.

Job is enduring and persevering in his faith in the midst of his suffering.

This is why James mentions Job.

Do you see?

 

[tttallison]

Here is what James writes of Job in James 5:10,11

Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

The word “patience” is Strong’s #5281 “hupomoné” which means "perseverance, endurance, steadfastness, patient enduring”.

So according to your own independent interpretation, Job is persevering in his pride the whole time he is suffering? Why in the world would James be commending Job for that?? That makes no sense, especially when James is grouping Job with the prophets (verse 10) who also remained faithful to the Lord while suffering.

Actually, James is staying on theme here in chapter 5:10,11 with how he began his epistle. Let’s look at the beginning of his letter in James 1. Right from the start James writes about faith and patience.

James 1:2-4
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
The word here “patience” in James 1 is the same Strong’s #5281 “hupomoné” which means "perseverance, endurance, steadfastness, patient enduring”.

Job is enduring and persevering in his faith in the midst of his suffering.

This is why James mentions Job.

Do you see?

You still haven't answered the question, was Job's faith in God's righteousness, or his own righteousness?