Another King James Bible Believer

Book of Job and the Bible Babble Buffet Versions


A Comparative Study of Job.

The purpose of this comparative study of the different Bible versions is to show that not all versions say the same things but with slightly different words. If one naively assumes the NKJV has only updated the "archaic words", I suggest they carefully compare word for word the differences found between the Authorized King James Bible and the NKJV. There are literally hundreds of unnecessary word changes that affect and change the meaning found in the KJB. I will only mention a few of them in this ongoing study.

 

Job 3:8 "raise up THEIR MOURNING" or "raise up LEVIATHAN"? 

Job 3:8 KJB - "Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING." Or "raise up LEVIATHAN."?  

 

NKJV - "May those curse it who curse the day, Those who are ready to arouse LEVIATHAN."  

Also reading "Leviathan" are the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Catholic Douay, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem and Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version reads: “those who are prepared to rouse Leviathan” but then footnotes by way of explanation - “Job employs here the mythological figure Leviathan, the monster of the deep or chaos. Job wishes that SUCH A CREATION OF CHAOS COULD BE SUMMONED BY THE MOURNERS to swallow up that day.”

Here is a case where many modern versions have translated a word literally when it should not be literal but figurative. The literal Hebrew word here is Leviathan. There is no disputing of this. But among those versions that have translated it literally as "Leviathan" have created a contradiction by using the literal sense. Among these are are the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, NET and NASB.

The NKJV says: "May those curse it who curse the day, Those who are ready TO AROUSE LEVIATHAN."

The reason this creates a contradiction is because later in Job chapter 41 when God Himself speaks to Job He mentions the literal animal called Leviathan. There God says: "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?...Behold, the hope of him is in vain; shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? NONE IS SO FIERCE THAT DARE STIR HIM UP: who then is able to stand before me?" (Job 41:1, 9-10)

The same Hebrew word is used for "raise up" in Job 3:8, and "stir up" in Job 41:10. We see the contradiction in the NKJV. In Job 3:8 the NKJV says: "those who are ready to AROUSE Leviathan", but in Job 41:10 it says: "No one is so fierce that he would dare STIR HIM UP." God says nobody would dare arouse Leviathan, but the NKJV says there are those who do, and thus creates a contradiction.

The word "leviathan" should be taken in a figurative sense in Job 3:8, because it speaks of the mourning among men that occurs when such an awesome sight is considered. Other commentators and Bible translators agree.

Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary - The sense of "lamentation," as in our authorised version "to mourn," was generally preferred by the earlier translators, as PISCATOR, MERCER, PAGNINUS, MORUS, MONTANUS, and VATABLUS. MARTIN, in his French version, has: "Who are ready to renew their MOURNING." DIODATI, in his Italian: "Always ready to make new LAMENTATIONS.” According to TOWNSEND, the ideas of mourning and Leviathan are combined,—THE MOURNING AND THAT WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF IT.”

 

John Gill comments on Job 3:8 "who are ready to raise up their mourning".

"Let them ascribe all dreadful calamities and dismal things unto it, as the source and spring of them; WHICH  MAY BE SIGNIFIED by Leviathan (caps are mine), that being a creature most formidable and terrible, of which an account is given in the latter part of this book; but MANY JEWISH WRITERS RENDER IT "MOURNING," AS WE DO.(caps are mine) See Aben Ezram & Gersom in loc. R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 1. 1. Aruch in voce tywl. So the word is used, T. Hieros. Moed Katon, fol. 80. 4."

Matthew Poole comments - "Who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING." Who are brimful of sorrow, and always ready to pour out their cries, and fears, and complaints, and with these curses, as men in great passions frequently do; or, such mourning men, or mourning women, whose common employment it was, and who were hired to mourn, and therefore were always ready to do so upon funeral occasions, of which see 2 Chron.35:25; Jer.9:17,18,20; Eze. 30:2; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:16; Mat. 9:23. AND THIS SENSE SUITS with the use of the last word in Hebrew writers, of which a plain and pertinent instance is given by learned Mercer." 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - “If "mourning" be the right rendering in the latter clause of this verse, these words refer to the hired mourners of the dead… Schuttens renders it by supplying words as follows:—Let those that are ready for anything, call it (the day) the raiser up of leviathan, THAT IS, OF A HOST OF EVILS."

Benson’s Commentary - “who are ready to raise up their mourning — Who are full of sorrow, and always ready to pour out their cries, and tears, and complaints. A late writer paraphrases this verse as follows: “…Let them be produced, and let them apply all their skill in RAISING THEIR MOURNING VOICES to the highest pitch: and let them study to find out proper expressions to load it with the highest and heaviest imprecations.”

Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments - “Hebrew, לויתן Leviathan, which in anger disturbs the seas, DENOTES STORMS OF TROUBLE AND GRIEF.”

John Wesley - “Mourning - Who are full of sorrow, and always ready to pour out their cries, and tears, and complaints.”

Agreeing with the King James Bible, "who are ready to raise up their MOURNING" are the Bishops’ Bible 1568 - "that be redy to rayse vp MOURNING", the Great Bible 1540 "that be ready to rayse vp MOURNING", Matthew's Bible 1549 - "those that be ready to rayse vp MOURNINGE", the Geneva Bible 1599- "readie to renue THEIR MOURNING", The Bill Bible 1671, The Patrick Paraphrase Bible 1822, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, the Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "Let those denounce it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING CRY", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

 

Other English Bibles that have "who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING" in Job 3:8 (or something very similar) are The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, God's First Truth 1999, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 -"raise up THEIR MOURNING", The Conservative Bible 2010 - "those that are READY TO MOURN",  the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "raise up their MOURNING"

This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING”

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Job%203:8

 

Among foreign language Bibles that see the word "leviathan" as being figurative and not literal are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "para levantar SU LLANTO", Cipriano de Valera 1602, Revisada 1865 "su llanto", Reina Valera  1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2010 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible -  "levantar SU LLANTO" = "raise up their MOURNING",  the Italian Diodati 1649 - "apparecchiati a far nuovi LAMENTI", the French Martin 1744 - "à renouveler leur deuil, la maudissent!", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "die bereid zijn hun rouw te verwekken." = "to raise up THEIR MOURNING.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 1681 and the 2009 edition - "que esto prontos para suscitar o seu pranto." = "ready to raise THEIR SORROW.", the Polish Biblia Gdanska 1881 - "wzruszać płacz swój!", the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible -  “Să o blesteme cei ce blestemă ziua, care sunt gata să îşi înalţe jelirea.” = “To curse those who curse the day, who are ready to raise HIS MOURNING.” 

and THE MODERN GREEK BIBLE - "οι ετοιμοι να ανεγειρωσι το πενθος αυτων." = "those who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING."

The King James translators were well aware that the Hebrew word could have been translated “literally” as leviathan.  Previous English versions like Wycliffe 1395 and Coverdale 1535 had done so, but I believe they rightly understood the figurative sense of the passage and translated it accordingly.

Other versions have gone off in different, confusing directions. The so called Greek Septuagint (Brenton) says: "But let him that curses that day curse it, even he that is ready TO ATTACK THE GREAT WHALE."

It should be noted, however, that the Modern Greek Bible actually reads like the King James Bible - "οι ετοιμοι να ανεγειρωσι το πενθος αυτων." = "those who are ready to raise up THEIR MOURNING."

 

The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 renders this verse as: “May those who curse the day, curse it - THOSE DESTINED TO BE CHILDLESS IN THEIR UNION.”

The Contemporary English Version 1995 says: “LET THOSE WITH MAGIC POWERS place a curse on that day.”

The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 has: "even he that is ready to attack THE GREAT WHALE."

The International Standard Version reads: "Let whoever curses days curse it -  those who are ready to awaken MONSTERS."

The Living Bible 1971 has - "Let those who are experts at cursing it." (That's it!)

 

It is absurd and inconsistent for some to insist that a word is limited to only one narrow meaning. I am not using this argument to support the idea that if any meaning can fit, we are free to change the English text and come up with another "reliable translation". I am defending the King James Bible as being without proven error. I firmly believe God in His providence has given us both the correct original language texts and the correct English meaning in all cases, and I would not change a single word.

To illustrate how a single word legitimately has several very different meanings is not at all difficult to do. For example, here in Job the same Hebrew word, barak, is used both for "to bless" Job 1:10, 21; 31:20, and 42:12, and is also translated as "to curse" in Job 1:11, and 2:5, 9.

The word translated as "to sin" in Job 1:5, and 22 (Hebrew # 2398 ghah-tah) is elsewhere translated as "to offend", and also as "to cleanse", to "purify", and to "make reconciliation" - entirely the opposite meanings of the same word.  

 

In Job 1:6 and 2:1 the King James Bible literally translates the Hebrew word Elohim in the phrase "the sons of GOD", but the NIV paraphrases this as "THE ANGELS".  The NIVs complete concordance show that they have translated this same Hebrew word Elohim as “God, gods, JUDGES (4 times), ANGELS (three times, Psalms 8:5 NIV 2011 edition), divine, godly, GREAT, HEAVENLY BEINGS, IDOLS, majestic, MIGHTY, sacred, SHRINE, SPIRIT, and VERY.”  

In Job 3:5 we see another example where, regarding Job's day of birth, the text says: "Let darkness and the shadow of death STAIN it". 

This word "stain" is # 1350 gah-al and is normally translated as "to redeem"  (Exodus 15:13 "the people which thou hast REDEEMED") and "I know that my REDEEMER liveth" (Job 19:25) yet here is translated as "stain" (Bishops', Geneva Bible and others) or "claim it" in some modern ones (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV).

In Job 24:20 the same word abbir # 47, is translated as "mighty (men)", yet in the NASB, NIV, as well as the KJB this same word is also rendered as "angels", "bulls", "mighty men", "stout hearted", "stubborn minded", "valient", and "stallions".

The ESV translates this same single Hebrew word #47 abbeer as "steeds, the chief, the mighty, stallions, angels, the stouthearted, and bulls. Are angels, bulls, mighty men, the stout hearted and stallions synonyms?  Not hardly. They are completely different English words, all derived from a single Hebrew one.  

So anyone claiming the "literal" sense should always be employed simply has no real understanding of how languages work; especially when using the literal "raise up leviathan" in Job 3:8 creates a contradiction with what God says in 41:10 about how nobody dares to raise up this Leviathan.  

Keep in mind the FACT that no one who criticizes the King James Bible has ANY Bible in ANY language they honestly believe IS the complete and 100% true words of God. The KJB critics are an inconsistent lot.  They complain when the KJB is "too figurative" and then they criticize it when it is "too literal".

A good example of this is the literal phrase often found in the King James Bible and others - "him that pisseth against the wall."  Most modern versions completely paraphrase this Hebrew expression.

Each of them wants to be his own "final authority" (subject to change at any moment) and they do NOT believe that God has given us a complete and infallible Bible in any language.

You can see more on this example of the literal "pisseth against the wall" here - 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/pissethagainstthewall.htm

The King James Bible is always right.  Accept no inferior substitutes.

 

Job 4:21 "Doth not their EXCELLENCY which is in them go away? They die, even without wisdom."

"EXCELLENCY", "WEALTH" or "TENT CORD PLUCKED UP"?

Man's "excellency" would speak of his physical strength and beauty, his mental abilities and intellectual accomplishments. All passes away with the onslaught of death. The word is used in Genesis 49:3 "Reuben...the EXCELLENCY of dignity, and the EXCELLENCY of power." and in Proverbs 17:7 "EXCELLENT speech becometh not a fool."

This is the reading found in the KJB, NKJV 1982 - "Does not their own EXCELLENCE go away? They die, even without wisdom.", Jewish 1936 translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company,  Young's - "Hath not their EXCELLENCY been removed with them? They die, and not in wisdom!",  Websters 1833, the Lesser Old Testament - "Behold, their EXCELLENCY which is in them is torn away",  KJV 21st Century 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998. 

Foreign language bible that read the same are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Reina Valera 1960 - "¿Su hermosura, no se pierde con ellos mismos? Mueren, y sin sabiduría.", the 1995 Reina Valera has "Su belleza se pierde con ellos" = "their beauty",  the French Martin Bible 1744 - "L'EXCELLENCE qui était en eux, n'a-t-elle pas été emportée?", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "L’ECCELLENZA ch’era in loro non si diparte ella? Muoiono, ma non con sapienza.",  the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Nu va disparea maretia care este in ei?" = "their magnificence" and the Modern Greek Bible - "Το μεγαλειον αυτων το εν αυτοις δεν παρερχεται;" = "Does not their EXCELLENCY (grandeur) in them pass away?"

The Geneva Bible is pretty close with: "Doeth not their DIGNITIE goe away with them? do they not die, & that without wisdom?" 

The Great Bible is similar, with: "It is not their ROYALTYE gone awaye with them." The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969 is pretty close with: "Is not THEIR PRE-EMINENCE taken away with them? They die and that without wisdom."

And the English Jubilee Bible of 2000 reads: "Does their BEAUTY perish with them? They die and do not know."

However the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV 2001 Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and Holman Standard 2003 all give a very different meaning to this passage. The NASB, ESV, NIV say: "Is not their TENT-CORD PLUCKED UP WITHIN THEM? They die, yet without wisdom."

Not even Dan Wallace and company's NET version agrees with them. Their NET version says: "Is not their EXCESS WEALTH taken away from them? They die, yet without attaining wisdom." 

This is similar to the ISV (International Standard Version 2012) which says: "Their WEALTH perishes with them, doesn't it? They die, and do so without having wisdom, don't they?". 

The Knox Bible 2012 is really weird, with: "EVEN THE STRAGGLER MARCHING ON AT LAST? Will he not die before he learns wisdom?" (Yeah, that sounds pretty close, right?)

The Catholic versions are their usual confused mess. The early Douay-Rheims of 1610 and Douay 1950 read differently than them all, with: "AND THEY THAT SHALL BE LEFT, shall be taken away from them: they shall die, and not in wisdom."But then the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 read like the NASB, ESV, NIV with: "The PEGS OF THEIR TENT are plucked up; they die without knowing wisdom." But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version goes back to what the original Douay said - "But THOSE WHO ARE LEFT BEHIND will be taken away from them; they will die, and not in wisdom."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible comments: "Translators and expositors have been very much divided in opinion as to its meaning; but the sense seems to be, that whatever is excellent in people is torn away or removed. Their excellence does not keep them from death, and they are taken off before they are truly wise. The word "excellency" here refers not only to moral excellency or virtue, but everything in which they excel others. Whatever there is in them of strength, or virtue, or influence, is removed."

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says: "Doth not their excellency - go away! - Personal beauty, corporeal strength, powerful eloquence, and various mental endowments, pass away, or are plucked up by the roots; they are no more seen or heard among men, and their memory soon perisheth." 

John Gill, Matthew Henry and John Wesley are all in agreement with the meaning found in the King James Bible.  John Wesley says: " Excellency - Whatsoever is by common estimation excellent in men, all their natural, and moral, and civil accomplishments, as high birth, great riches, power and wisdom, these are so far from preserving men from perishing, that they perish themselves, together with those houses of clay in which they are lodged."

The King James Bible is always right. Accept no substitutes.

Job 5:24 "And thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace; and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and SHALT NOT SIN."

The verb used here is the one we mentioned before, # 2398 ghah-tah, which usually is translated as "to sin" or "to offend". In fact, a look at the NASB concordance shows they have translated this word as "to sin" 177 times, but only once as "fear loss" and that is here.

The reading of "and shalt not sin" is found in the KJB, KJV 21, TMB, Websters, Young's, Douay, Spanish 1909, Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Luther's German, and even the so-called Greek Septuagint. However, the NKJV joins the NIV is saying: "and shall FIND NOTHING MISSING", while the NASB has: "and FEAR NO LOSS."

Need it be pointed out that all these versions have likewise translated this same word as "to sin" many times, and that "and shalt not sin" is not the same meaning as "and find nothing missing"? Who says the NKJV is the same as the KJB but with only the "archaic" language updated?

Job 6:1-2 "But Job answered and said, Oh that my grief were throughly weighed, and my CALAMITY laid in the balance."

"Calamity" is the reading of the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Young's, and the NIV is at least similar with "my misery". This great calamity had occurred to Job, but he in no wise had yet acknowledged any sin or iniquity on his part. However only the NASB from at least 1972 to 1977 read: "my INIQUITY laid in the balance." Iniquity is not the same as calamity. But now the 1995 NASB Update has again changed their reading, as they do hundreds of others from one NASB to the next, and now says "calamity".

Job 6:3 "For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea; therefore my words ARE SWALLOWED UP." In other words, Job could not find words to express the grief and sorrow he felt. His words were swallowed up, and could not come forth.

"Swallowed up" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva Bible, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible. However the NKJV again joins the NASB, NIV, RSV in reading: "therefore my words HAVE BEEN RASH." Now, the word used here for "swallowed up" is # 3886 and is only found twice in the Hebrew text. The other instance is in Obadiah verse 16, where not only does the KJB translate it as "swallow" but so also do the NKJV, NASB, RSV, and the NIV has "to drink"! But here in Job, these modern versions have changed it to "have been rash". Go figure.

Job 6:6 KJB - "Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? OR IS THERE ANY TASTE IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?"



This is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, the NIV 1984 edition, TEV, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible 1998,  Bishops' Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva bible 1599, Living Bible, New Life Bible 1969,  Darby, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible 1902, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011,  the Common English Bible 2011, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond of 2007 - "trouvera-t-on de la saveur dans le blanc d'un œuf?", Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Si mangia forse un cibo insipido senza sale?, o c'è qualche gusto nel chiaro d'uovo?", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Oder wer mag kosten das Weiße um den Dotter?", and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, NIV Spanish edition 1999 - "¿Por ventura se comerá lo desabrido sin sal? ¿O habrá gusto en la clara del huevo?", the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and NIV Nova Versão Internacional 2000- "Pode se comer sem sal o que é insípido? Ou há gosto na clara do ovo?"  

The various Jewish translations themselves are in disagreement in this verse as well. The 1917 JPS version says: "Or is there any taste in the JUICE OF MALLOWS?".

The Judaica Press Tanach has: Can bland food be eaten without salt, or is there a taste in the SALIVA OF STRONG-TASTING FOOD?"

But the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, version reads just like the KJB's "or is there any taste IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?"

And the Complete Jewish Bible also reads: "Can food without flavor be eaten without salt? DO EGG WHITES HAVE ANY TASTE?"

Hebrew Names Version - "Or is there any taste in the white of an egg? "

Even Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees with the King James reading: "Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?"

Then Mr. Wallace footnotes: "Some commentators are not satisfied with the translation “white of an egg”; they prefer something connected to “slime of purslane” (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 59; cf. NRSV “juice of mallows”). This meaning is based on the Syriac and Arabic version of Sa`adia. The meaning “white of the egg” comes from the rabbinic interpretation of “slime of the yolk.” Others carry the idea further and interpret it to mean “saliva of dreams” or after the LXX “in dream words.” H. H. Rowley does not think that the exact edible object can be identified. The idea of the slimy glaring white around the yolk of an egg seems to fit best"

NOTE - Daniel "Anything but the King James Bible" Wallace is incorrect when he says the LXX reads "in dream words". It doesn't. It says "empty words" - καὶ ἔστιν γεῦμα ἐν ῥήμασιν κενοῖς

The so called Greek Septuagint (LXX)  -εἰ βρωθήσεται ἄρτος ἄνευ ἁλός εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν γεῦμα ἐν ῥήμασιν κενοῖς

"SHALL BREAD BE EATEN WITHOUT SALT? OR AGAIN, IS THERE TASTE IN EMPTY WORDS?" 

But take a look at what other eminent scholars have come up with while translating the same Hebrew texts.

The NIV 1978 and 1984 editions read: "Is tasteless food eaten without salt, OR IS THERE FLAVOR IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?"

NIV Spanish edition Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 - "¿Puede comerse sin sal la comida desabrida? ¿Tiene algún sabor la clara de huevo? = "Is there any taste in the white of an egg?"

NIV Portuguese edition Nova Versão Internacional 2000- "Come-se sem sal uma comida insípida? E a clara do ovo, tem algum sabor?" = "Is there any taste in the white of an egg?"

However the NIV 2011 English "this time we got it right" edition  now reads: "Is tasteless food eaten without salt, OR IS THERE FLAVOR IN THE SAP OF THE MALLOW?"

RSV (Revised Standard Version) 1952 - "Is there any taste IN THE SLIME OF THE PURSLANE?"

NRSV, ESV 2001 - "Is there any taste IN THE JUICE OF THE MALLOW?"

Youngs literal - "Is there ANY SENSE IN THE DRIVEL OF DREAMS?"

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950  "Or can an unsavoury thing be eaten, that is not seasoned with salt? OR CAN MAN TASTE THAT WHICH WHEN TASTED BRINGETH DEATH?"

Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Can a thing insipid be eaten without salt? IS THERE FLAVOR IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?

Bible in Basic English 1961 - "Will a man take food which has no taste without salt? or is there any taste IN THE SOFT SUBSTANCE OF PURSLAIN?"

The 2012 Knox Bible - "Would you have me relish food unseasoned, LICK MY LIPS OVER THE TASTE THAT BRINGS DEATH?"

Lexham English Bible 2011 - "Can tasteless food be eaten without salt, or is there taste IN THE WHITE OF A MARSHMALLOW PLANT?"

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25 King James Holy Bible.

 

Job 6:13 "Is not my help in me? and is WISDOM driven quite from me?

Here the word "wisdom" is found in the KJB, ASV, Green's MKJV, TMB, Websters's, and the Hebrew Names Version. However again we have a wide variety of renderings found in many others. The Revised Version says: "and that EFFECTUAL WORKING is driven quite from me", the NKJV joins the NIV and has "SUCCESS is driven from me", though the NKJV translates this same word as wisdom in several other passages, as well as the NIV, NASB. The NASB has "DELIVERANCE is driven from me", and the RSV, ESV say "RESOURCE is driven from me".

Job 6:17 "WHAT TIME THEY WAX WARM, THEY VANISH: when it is hot, they are consumed out of their place."

This is the reading found in the KJB, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, TMB, KJV 21, and Webster's. However the NKJV paraphrases as: "When it is warm they cease to flow", while the NASB says: "When they become waterless, they are silent."

Job 6:25 "HOW FORCIBLE ARE RIGHT WORDS! but what doth your arguing reprove?"

"How forcible are right words!" would mean that the right words make a sound argument, but Job reproves his friends for their lack of right words. This is also the reading or meaning found in the RV, ASV, Geneva, Bishops' bible, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Spanish Reina Valera, and others, but the NASB and the NIV give us a contradiction.

The NASB says: "HONEST WORDS ARE NOT PAINFUL", while the NIV says the exact opposite with: "HOW PAINFUL ARE HONEST WORDS."

Job 6:27 "Yea, ye OVERWHELM the fatherless, and ye DIG A PIT for your friend."

"Ye OVERWHELM the fatherless" is in the NKJV, Darby, 1936 Jewish translation, Webster's, KJV 21, and the TMB. But the RSV, NASB, NIV say: YOU CAST LOTS FOR the fatherless."

"ye DIG A PIT for your friend" is found in Geneva, 1917 Jewish translation, Darby, Webster's, KJV 21, and TMB. But the NKJV says "you UNDERMINE your friend", while the NASB, NIV say "you BARTER AWAY your friend".

Job 7:1 "Is there not AN APPOINTED TIME to man upon earth?

This verse as well as Job 14:14 ("all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come") teaches that our days are numbered by God. "appointed time" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva Bible, Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, Webster's, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NKJV joins the RSV, and NIV with "Is there not a TIME OF HARD SERVICE for man on earth?." Yet the NKJV translates this same word as "appointed time" in Daniel 10:1, though the NIV does not.

Job 7:12 "Am I a sea, or A WHALE, that thou settest a watch over me?"

"Whale" is the reading found in the KJB, Geneva, 1936 Jewish translation, Douay, Diodati, Spanish 1909, Webster, Green's MKJV, and the TMB. But the NKJV says "A SEA SERPENT", while the NASB has "sea monster", and the NIV "a monster of the deep".

Job 7:20 "I HAVE SINNED; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden TO MYSELF."


There are two major problems with this verse in the modern versions.


The first is that in the KJB we read the statement "I HAVE SINNED".

 

So too in Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, Young's 1898, Green's Literal 2005, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Biblos Bible 2013 and  The Voice 2012.

 

However the NKJV and NASB make this a question and say "HAVE I SINNED?", while the NIV, NET have "IF I have sinned".

The second problem with this verse is the phrase "so that I am a burden TO MYSELF?"

 

This is the reading found in the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, Coverdale 1535 - "and am so heuy a burden vnto myself?, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "so that I am a burden vnto my selfe?", the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907,  the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, Young's 1898, Darby 1870, Bible in Basic English 1969, the Updated Version 2003, the NKJV 1982, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - "why have You made me as a mark for You, so that I have become a burden to myself?", God's Word 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Lexham English Bible 2012, the NASB 1995, Amplified Bible 2015 and the critical text Common English Bible of 2011 - "so that I’m a burden TO MYSELF?"

Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB and follow the same Hebrew texts are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, tghe Reina Valera 1960, 1995 and the 1997 La Biblia de las Américas - "¿Por qué me pones por blanco tuyo, hasta convertirme en una carga para mí mismo?", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "al punto di essere divenuto un peso a me stesso?" = "to the point of becoming a burden to myself?", the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada - "Por que a mim mesmo me tornei pesado?", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and French Ostervald 1996 - "suis-je à charge à moi-même?" -"I have become a burden to myself?",

 

and the Modern Greek Bible - "και ειμαι βαρος εις εμαυτον;" = "and to be a burden TO MYSELF?".

However the NIV unites with the RSV, ESV, Dan Wallace's NET version, the Holman Standard 2009 and the Jehovah Witness New World translaion in rejecting most Hebrew texts and follows the reading found in a few manuscripts and the LXX.

 

The NIV and ESV say: "so that I am a burden TO YOU?", instead of "to myself".

 

The NIV tells you in their footnote that most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text reads like the KJB with "I have become a burden TO MYSELF." but that "a few manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition and Septuagint" have "a burden TO YOU?"

Bible commentators are often all over the board. What one affirms, another categorically denies. But Barnes Notes on the Bible says: "But the Received Text is sustained by all the versions except the Septuagint and by all the Hebrew manuscripts hitherto examined, and is doubtless the true reading. The sense is plain, that life had become a burden to Job."

The ancient Syriac reads differently than both the Hebrew and the so called Greek LXX. Instead of the Hebrew "so that I am a burden to MYSELF" or the LXX's "so that I am a burden TO YOU", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac actually says: "THOU hast become a burden TO ME."!!!

 

Boy, aren't you glad that's cleared up for us so nicely.

Part of the absurdity of versions like the NIV, ESV, NET and Holman in adopting the so called Greek LXX reading of "a burden TO YOU" is that they did NOT follow this same LXX in the same verse where instead of the ESV's "Why have you made me your MARK? (TARGET - NIV, Holman) the LXX actually reads: "Why have you made me your ACCUSER?"

 

THAT part they rejected, but they chose to accept the other part of the same verse. This is how their "science" of textual criticism works.  

 

The Catholic Connection

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay both read like the King James Bible and followed the Hebrew texts reading: "so that I have become a burden TO MYSELF." 

 

But the 1970 St. Joseph NAB just omitted the whole sentence altogether. It completely omits all these words - "why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?" - ALL gone from this Catholic version.

 

The 1969 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible adopted the same reading as the ESV, NIV, Holman and say: "Why should I be a burden TO YOU?". 

 

BUT, there's more. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has come out and so too the Revised Douay-Rheims of 2012 and they go back to the Hebrew reading like the KJB has and say: "I HAVE SINNED: what shall I do to you, O keeper of men? why have you set me opposite to you, and I am become burdensome TO MYSELF?"

 

The NASB also rejects the Hebrew text at least 40 times, but they don't tell you this in their footnotes. You have to look it up in other versions, like the RSV, ESV, and NIV to find this out. We will encounter some examples of the NASB doing this as well in the book of Job.

For a partial list of the many times the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts, see my two part article dealing with the Apostasy of the NASB, NIV at:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm

 

Job 9:9  "Which taketh ARCTURUS, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south."  

NKJV - "He made THE BEAR, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south."

This example is not a major error or any kind, but someone asked me about it, so I will include a few notes.  Many modern versions have changed this to THE BEAR instead of ARCTURUS, but the simple fact is, Arcturus refers to the constellation of the Bear.  

Also reading ARCTURUS are Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster's translation 1833, Douay-Rheims 1899, The Word of YAH 1993, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2008, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010,  the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, 

 The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 and Names of God Bible 2011 say: "URSA MAJOR"

The Contemporary English Version 1995 and the Message 2002 say: "He made THE BIG DIPPER, Orion and Pleiades"

Young’s 1898 is virtually unrecognizable with: “Making OSH, KESIL, and KIMAH, And the inner chambers of the south."

Foreign Language Bibles

Several foreign language bible also translate it as Arcturus.  The Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909 has - “El que hizo el ARCTURO, y el Orión, y las Pléyadas”

and the Modern Greek Bible - "Αυτος καμνει τον Αρκτουρον, τον Ωριωνα και την Πλειαδα και τα ταμεια του νοτου."

Several foreign languuage bible also translate it as Arcturus.  The Spanish Reina Valera 1909 has - “El que hizo el ARCTURO, y el Orión, y las Pléyadas” 

 

Job 9:13 "If God will not withdraw his anger, the PROUD HELPERS do stoop under him."

"the PROUD helpers" is the reading of the KJB, Websters 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Young's literal 1898 - "the PROUD helpers", Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The 21st Century KJV, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the PROUD", Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the PROUD helpers do stoop", Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "the helpers of PRIDE", and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "the PROUD helpers bow down beneath Him."

 

Coverdale 1535 and the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, God's First Truth 1999 all say "THE PROUDEST of all do stoop under him".

The Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible say "the MIGHTY helpers".

 

Other Translations

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "THE MIGHTY shall be humiliated under Him."

The Living Bible  1971 - "THE PRIDE OF MAN collapses before Him."

The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008 says "THE BOASTERS".

The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "the helpers of AUDACITY"

The Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 - "Beneath him the helpers OF A STORMER must bow down."

 The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, and the Catholic Douay version 1950 - "under whose hand they stoop THAT BEAR UP THE WORLD" (?!)

However the NASB joins the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, RSV, ESV and says: "Beneath Him crouch the helpers OF RAHAB", while the NIV has "the cohorts of Rahab". The Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 says: "beneath him RAHAB'S minions still lie prostrate."

 

The Hebrew word in question here is # 7293 rah-hav. It is found 6 times in the O.T. But in the KJB and many other Bible translations, this Hebrew word (as most Hebrew words) has more than one narrow meaning. It can mean Rahab, but it is not the same Hebrew word uses when referring to Rahab the harlot. Rehab the harlot is the Hebrew word # 7343. It is used 5 times; all in Joshua chapters 2 and 6 where it is talking about Rahab the harlot who received the spies.

 

The word used here in Job 9:13 means "PROUD" and is also translated by the KJB and many others as "PROUD" in Job 26:12 - "he smiteth through the PROUD."  It is also translated as "STRENGTH" in Isaiah 30:7 - "Their STRENGTH is to sit still." 

 

The KJB does have this same word as Rahab in Psalms 87:4 and 89:10 and in Isaiah 51:9.  But there are several views about who or what this Rahab is or means. Obviously a whole lot of other Bible translators agree with the meaning found in the KJB.   IF you put something like "sea monster" in most of those verses, it doesn't really make much sense in the context. The only exception might be the one in Isaiah 51:9

 

Individual Hebrew and Greek words can have multiple meanings, just as English words often do.

 

 

Easton's Bible Dictionary

Rahab -  Insolence; pride, a poetical name applied to Egypt in Psalm 87:4; 89:10; Isaiah 51:9 , as "the proud one."

 

Hitchcock's Bible Names

Rahab - Proud; quarrelsome (applied to Egypt)

Morrish Bible Dictionary

Rahab - A poetical name, signifying 'insolence,' given to Egypt. Psalm 87:4; Psalm 89:10; Isaiah 51:9 

 

People's Dictionary of the Bible 

Rahab, pride. An appellation for Egypt, designating the insolence and violence of its princes and inhabitants. Psalms 87:4; Psalms 89:10; Isaiah 51:9.

 

 

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Ra'hab - a poetical name of Egypt, (Psalm 89:10; Isaiah 51:9 ) signifying "fierceness, insolence, pride." Rahab, as a name of Egypt, occurs once only without reference to the exodus: this is in (Psalm 87:4 ) In (Isaiah 30:7 ) the name is alluded to.

 

Job 9:19 "If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong: and if of judgment, who shall set ME a time to plead?".

The little word "ME" is found in the Hebrew texts and is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Young's, Darby, the Bible in Basic English and even the liberal New English Bible.

However the NASB and NIV join the RSV, NRSV, and ESV in rejecting the Hebrew reading of "me" and all but the NASB tell us in their footnote to see the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads "me". The NASB, NIV say: "who can summon HIM?" But if you look it up, not even the LXX reads this way. It says: "who can resist HIS judgment?". What the NASB, NIV have in fact done is to follow the Syriac reading for this verse, rather than the Hebrew or the Greek LXX. Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says: "who can summon him?", just like the RSV, NASB, and NIV.

Job 9:27 "If I say, I will forget my complaint, I WILL LEAVE OFF MY HEAVINESS, AND COMFORT MYSELF."

So read the KJB, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's MKJV, TMB, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, and the French Louis Segond. However the NKJV says: "I WILL PUT OFF MY SAD FACE, AND WEAR A SMILE."

Job 9:30-31 "If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands NEVER SO CLEAN: yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me."

"make my hands NEVER SO CLEAN" is the reading in the KJB, RV, ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, Webster's, Spanish, KJV 21, and Third Millennium Bible 1998.

But the NKJV says: "cleanse my hands with SOAP", the NASB has: "cleanse my hands WITH LYE", and the NIV "my hands with WASHING SODA". The Hebrew word used here means "clean" or "pure"; it does not mean soap, lye or washing soda.

Job 10:1 "My SOUL IS WEARY OF my life."

This again is the reading found in the RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, Douay, Spanish, Diodati, Webster's, and the TMB.

However the NKJV again joins the NASB, NIV and says: "MY SOUL LOATHES my life", while the NASB, NIV don't even correctly have "soul" but say: "I loathe my life."

Job 10:15-16 "I am full of CONFUSION; therefore SEE THOU MINE AFFLICTION; FOR IT INCREASETH. Thou huntest me as a fierce lion; and again thou shewest thyself marvellous upon me."

"I am full of confusion" is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Webster's, KJV 21, and the Third Millennium Bible.

Matthew Henry comments: "he was full of confusion, not only confusion of face for the disgrace he was brought down to and the censures of his friends, but confusion of spirit; his mind was in a constant hurry, and he was almost distracted."

However the NKJV says: "I am full OF DISGRACE. See my MISERY."

The phrase "see thou mine affliction" is in the imperative or command form in the Hebrew, and is also found in Job 35:5, 40:12. The NKJV at least retains the imperative mood with "See my misery", but the NASB changes this to: "I am sated with disgrace AND CONSCIOUS OF MY MISERY." The NIV is different still with: "I am full of shame AND DROWNED IN MY AFFLICTION."

Job 10:15-16 (continued) "I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction; FOR IT INCREASETH. Thou huntest me as a fierce lion."

John Gill remarks: "For it increaseth,.... That is, the affliction increaseth; which is a reason why pity should be shown him, seeing his troubles instead of abating were growing upon him; he had as much, or more, than he could well bear, and yet more was added to it."

"For it increaseth" is the reading or meaning found in the KJB, TMB, KJV 21, Webster's, Geneva, Darby, and Young's. However the NKJV says: "See my misery. IF MY HEAD IS EXALTED, you hunt me like a fierce lion." Then in a footnote tells us that the literal reading is "it", not "my head". The NKJV has changed the meaning of the passage and followed the NASB, NIV which read: "If I hold my head high, you stalk me like a lion."

As we progress through this study, the next time you hear someone tell you the NKJV is the same as the KJB but with updated words, you will know for sure that they don't know what they are talking about.

Job 11:3 "Should thy LIES make men hold their peace?"

"Lies" is the reading of the Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Green's MKJV, Spanish, KJV 21, and the Third Millennium Bible. Webster's 1833 translation has "falsehoods", yet renders it as "lies" and "liars" in other passages. Darby has "fictions", yet renders it as "liars" and "lies" in other places.

The NKJV shows how eager they are to make changes merely for the sake of change. They have to change enough words to get their copyright and make money. Here in Job 11:3 the NKJV says: "Should your EMPTY TALK make men hold their peace?", but translates this same word as "lies" in Isaiah 16:6 "his LIES shall not make it so", and Jeremiah 48:30 "his LIES shall not so effect it".

But in Isaiah 44:25 where the KJB, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV and many others say of God that "He frustrateth the tokens of the LIARS, and maketh diviners mad", the NKJV has " Who frustrates the signs of the BABBLERS", and in Jeremiah 50:36 where the KJB says: "a sword is upon the liars", the NKJV has: "a sword is against the SOOTHSAYERS"!

The NKJV renders this same word as - "lies, empty talk, babblers, soothsayers". They are just updating those nasty "archaic" words, don't ya know.

In Job 11:3 instead of "Should thy LIES make men hold their peace" the NIV has "your idle talk", while the NASB reads: "Shall your BOASTS silence men?", while the ESV has "Should your BABBLE silence men...?"

Job 11:6 "Know therefore that God EXACTETH OF THEE LESS THAN thine iniquity DESERVETH."

So read the KJB, NKJV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and Douay versions.

However the NASB, NIV say: "Know this: God HAS EVEN FORGOTTEN SOME OF YOUR SINS."

Not even the ESV is this bad. It says: "Know then that God EXACTS OF YOU LESS THAN YOUR GUILT DESERVES."

Job 11:7 "Canst thou find out the Almighty UNTO PERFECTION?"

This question asks if we are able to know all there is to know about God perfectly. Of course, the answer is No, we cannot. This is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, Darby, Young, and Geneva Bibles.

But again the NKJV joins the RSV, NASB, and NIV and asks: "Can you find out THE LIMITS of the Almighty?" I understand that the infinite God is beyond our complete understanding, but does He have "limits"?

Job 11:12 "For VAIN MAN WOULD BE wise, THOUGH MAN BE BORN LIKE A WILD ASS'S COLT."

"For vain man would be wise, THOUGH MAN BE BORN LIKE A WILD ASS'S COLT."  The idea is that the natural man, apart from the enlightenment that only God can give us, is as ignorant as a wild ass's colt.

 

"though man be born like a wild ass's colt" is the reading of The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “Yet vayne man would be wyse, though man new borne is lyke a wilde asses coulte.” the Geneva Bible, Webster's 1833, Noyes Translation 1869 - “But vain man is without understanding; Yea, man is born a wild ass’s colt.”, the RV 1885, Darby 1890 - "though man be born like the foal of a wild ass.", the ASV 1901, Green's MKJV, the Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Context Group Version 2007, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011.  

 

The ASV expresses the same thought with "But vain man is void of understanding. Yea, man is born as a wild ass's colt."

However the NKJV reads: "For AN EMPTY-HEADED man WILL BE wise WHEN a wild DONKEY'S COLT IS BORN A MAN." This is basically the reading also of the RSV, NASB, NIV.

The ESV also reads like the NKJV. It says: "But a STUPID man WILL GET UNDERSTANDING WHEN A WILD DONKEY'S COLT IS BORN A MAN!"

Maybe Young's "literal" translation can help. Young's says: "An empty man is BOLD, and the colt of a wild ass man is born". No?

Then how about Lamsa's translation of the Syriac? It says: "For a pure man inspires courage and a mighty man helps others." Still no good?

Shall we try "The Message"? It says: "Hollow men, hollow women, will wise up about the same time mules learn to talk. Reach Out to God."

If all bibles say the same thing, then you should have no problem figuring out what God really said. Right?

Job 11:17 "And thine age shall be clearer than noonday; THOU SHALT SHINE FORTH, thou shalt be as the morning."

Reading like the KJB are the Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587, 1936 Jewish translation, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909 (resplandecerás), the Italian Diodati (tu risplenderai), Webster's 1833, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "YOU WILL SHINE FORTH as the morning", Conservative Bible 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "YOU WILL SHINE FORTH as the morning."

 

Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 and Matthew's Bible 1549 all read: "Then shuld the residue of thy lyfe be as cleare as the noone daye, AND SPRYNGE FORTH  as the mornyng."  

God's First Truth 1999 is similar, with: "Then should your life be as clear as the noon day, AND SPRING FORTH as the morning."

 

However the NKJV says: "And your life would be brighter than noonday, THOUGH YOU WERE DARK, you would be like the morning."

The NIV has: "Life will be brighter than noonday, AND DARKNESS will become like morning."

 

Young’s 1898 is just plain weird, with: “And above the noon doth age rise, THOU FLIEST -- as the morning thou art.”

 

The Ancient Roots Bible 2009 is similar to Young's with "Your age will rise as the midday: YOU WILL BE FLYING in the morning."

 

Job 12:4 Job speaks and says: "I am as one mocked of his NEIGHBOUR, who calleth upon God, and "he" answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn."

The meaning of this verse, as well as the following, are greatly debated. As I understand the King James Bible, which I fully consider to be the final authority of God's true words, it is Job who is like one mocked of his neighbour. Job calls upon God and his neighbour answers him with scorn: it is not God who answers him but his neighbour who answers with scorn. Notice the word "he" in the phrase "and he answereth him" is not capitalized in the KJB. The "he" refers to the neighbour who answers the man who calls upon God. So also read the RV, ASV, NIV, Geneva, and Webster's. The RV, ASV, and Geneva also read "neighbour".

However the NKJV changes the meaning of this verse by reading: "I am one mocked by his FRIENDS, who called on God and "He" (capital H, thus = God) answered him."

Job 12:5 Job continues: "He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease." This is the reading or meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Darby, Webster, TMB, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

John Wesley comments on the meaning of this verse. "Slip with his feet - And fall into trouble; though he had formerly shone as a lamp, he is then looked upon as a lamp going out, as the snuff of a candle, which we throw to the ground and tread upon; and accordingly is despised in the thought of him that is at ease."

However other versions give a completely different meaning to this verse. The NKJV says: "A lamp is despised in the thought of one who is at ease; It is made ready for those whose feet slip."

The NASB, NIV are also completey different. The NIV says: "Men at ease have contempt for misfortune as the fate of those whose feet are slipping."

Job 12:6 This verse also has been given very different meanings in the multitude of conflicting versions. The reading of the KJB, as well as that of the Revised Version, American Standard Version, and both the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations are the same and so is the sense of the Spanish, Darby, and Young's.

The KJB tells of the prosperity of the wicked saying: "The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly." - The phrase "into whose hand" refers to the hand of the robbers who prosper.

However the NKJV changes the meaning slightly by saying: "The tents of robbers prosper, and those who provoke God are secure in what God provides by His hand." - The hand is the hand of God.

But the NIV really changes the meaning by saying: "The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those who provoke God are secure - THOSE WHO CARRY GOD in their hands." Say what?!

The NASB also gives a different meaning but not as wacky as the NIV. It says: "the tents of destroyers prosper, and those who provoke God are secure, whom God BRINGS INTO HIS POWER."

Now, tell me again how all versions say the same thing but with different words.

Job 12:23 "He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them; he enlargeth the nations, AND STRAITENETH THEM AGAIN."

Matthew Henry comments: " He sometimes increases their numbers, and enlarges their bounds, so that they make a figure among the nations and become formidable; but after a while they are destroyed and straitened, made few and poor, cut short and many of them cut off, and so they are rendered despicable among their neighbours, and those that were the head become the tail of the nations."

Agreeing with the KJB either word for word, or in sense, are the ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, Young's, Webster's, TMB, and several others. The NIV says: "he enlarges nations, and disperses them ", while Young's has: "he enlargeth the nations and he destroyeth them."

However the NKJV says: "He makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, AND GUIDES THEM." This is a clear case of Hebrew parallelism, which the NKJV totally misses.

Job 13:12 Job continues to speak to his friends and says: "Your REMEMBRANCES are like unto ashes, your BODIES TO BODIES of clay."

"Your REMEMBRANCES are like unto ashes" is the reading of the 1936 Jewish translation, Geneva Bible, Spanish 1909, Douay, Young's, Webster's, and the KJV 21.

The NKJV says: "Your PLATITUDES are PROVERBS of ashes, your DEFENSES are DEFENSES of clay."

John Gill notes: "Your remembrances are like unto ashes,.... Either of things they put Job in remembrance of, the mementos which they had suggested to him; or the things which they had brought forth out of their memories, the instances they had given of what had been in the world, the arguments, objections, and reasonings, they had made use of in this controversy were of no more moment and importance than ashes, and easily blown away like them."

Again John Gill says: "your bodies to bodies of clay; that is, are like to bodies of clay, to such as are made of clay after the similitude of human bodies; and such are the bodies of men themselves, they are of the earth, earthly, they are houses of clay, which have their foundation in the dust; earthen vessels, and earthly houses of this tabernacle, poor, mean, frail, brittle things, are crushed before the moth, and much more before the Almighty."

Job 13:15 "THOUGH HE SLAY ME, YET WILL I TRUST IN HIM."

A King James Bible critic named Ron Francis writes - “In the KJV, Job 13:15 reads, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.” The English of the KJV basically gives the idea that even though Job can have his life easily taken away by the Lord, he will still trust him. That’s a solidly orthodox understanding of the English text.

There is one problem, however. The words “in him” comes from the qere marginal reading. The KJV translators inserted it into the main Hebrew text when they translated into English. The words “in him” are translated from a little word “lo.” Combined with the Hebrew word for “hope” or “trust” the verse presents the idea of trusting in him, or trusting in God.

The RSV comes closest to translating the actual ketiv text of the written Hebrew, “Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope; yet I will defend my ways to his face.” [End of Bible critic's notes]

What this Bible critic, who himself has NO Bible in any language that he believes is now or ever was the inerrant words of God, is blissfully ignorant of is the fact that ALL Bible translations frequently use the qere (marginal notes) when they translate the Bible. In fact, MANY Hebrew translations themselves agree with the way the King James Bible, and most Bibles read here. 

Does this man believe the RSV is the inerrant words of God?  Of course not!  He doesn't believe that ANY specific Hebrew or Greek text is the complete and inerrant words of God. He is just another variant rummaging bible agnostic who has made his own mind and personal preferences his "final authority" as he pieces together his own, peculiar "bible" as he goes, and nobody else agrees with him all the time either. Everybody seems to think they are some kind of an expert, but not one of them will ever show you a copy of what they really believe is the 100% true and complete words of God in any Bible in print.

Job 13:15 "THOUGH HE SLAY ME, YET WILL I TRUST IN HIM."

So read the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568,  the Geneva Bible 1599, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the NASB 1995, NIV 2011, Holman Standard 2009, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Bible in Basic English 1961, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him; But I will maintain mine own ways before Him.", Douay 1950, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the ESV 2011, Message 2002, the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, 1936 Hebrew Publishing company, Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The New European Version 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.”, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Jubilee Bible 2012, the Voice 2012, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The International Standard Version 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014- "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him".

 

And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him"

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Job%2013:15

 

The Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "Aunque él me mate, en él esperaré.",= "Although He slay me, I will hope in Him."  and the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament.

However, believe it or not, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV 1952, and the NRSV 1989 say: "SEE, HE WILL KILL ME; I HAVE NO HOPE." - the opposite meaning!

The Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text edition) also reads this way. It says: "He will slay me; I'M WITHOUT HOPE."

Green’s “literal” 2005 - “Behold, He will cut me off; I WILL NOT WAIT, BUT I WILL REASON OUT MY WAYS BEFORE HIS FACE.”

The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “Though he does slay me - I WAIT!  BUT I SHOW MY WAYS TO BE RIGHT BEFORE HIM.”

Let's see...Green's -"I WILL NOT WAIT!" versus Koster - "I WAIT!"

World English Bible 2012 - “Behold, he will kill me. I HAVE NO HOPE. Nevertheless, I will maintain my ways before him. “

The New English Bible 1970 - “If he would slay me, I SHOULD NOT HESITATE. I SHOULD STILL ARGUE MY CAUSE TO HIS FACE.”

The Thomson Bible 1808 - “Though the Almighty, AS HE HATH BEGUN, MAY SUBDUE ME: YET I WILL SPEAK AND PLEAD BEFORE HIM.”

 

Complete Apostle’s bible 2003 - “Though the Mighty One SHOULD LAY HIS HAND UPON ME, FORASMUCH AS HE HAS BEGUN, verily I will speak, and plead before Him.”  

 

This version follows the so called Septuagint version.

Though the English NIV editions read: "Though he slay me, YET WILL I HOPE IN HIM." the NIV Spanish edition, La Nueva Versión Internacional  of 1999 reads: - "¡Que me mate! ¡Ya no tengo esperanza!" = LET HIM KILL ME! I NO LONGER HAVE ANY HOPE!"

But the NIV Portuguese reads like the English and not the Spanish NIV - "Embora ele me mate, ainda assim esperarei nele."  = "Although He kill me, still I will hope in Him."

The so called Greek Septuagint further confuses the issue with: "Though the Mighty One should lay hand upon me, FORASMUCH AS HE HAS BEGUN, verily I will speak, and plead before him." It doesn't match the Hebrew at all.

Not to be outdone for novelty, Young's "literal" says: "Lo, He doth slay me -- I wait not!" and Green's goes along with this, saying: "Behold, He will cut me off; I WILL NOT WAIT." 

Anybody who tries to tell you that all bibles basically say the same things, just doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

Job 13:28 KJB - "And HE, as a rotten thing, consumeth, as a garment that is moth eaten."

NKJV 1982 (ESV, NIV, Holman) - "MAN decays like a rotten thing, Like a garment that is moth-eaten."  Footnote: "Literally He".

NASB 1995 (RV, ASV, NET, Names of God bible 2011) - "While "I" am decaying like a rotten thing, Like a garment that is moth eaten."  No Footnote. They just change the text.

Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - “And "IT" is like rot that decays like a moth-eaten garment.”

The Voice 2012 - “THIS IS HOW A PERSON wastes away to nothing, like something rotten, like moth-eaten clothing.”

International Standard Version 2014 - “So I’M A MAN WHO wears out like something rotten, like a garment that has become moth-eaten.” (Not in any texts. No footnotes. They just made it up.)

It is clear that all Hebrew texts read "HE". All bible commentators admit that the Hebrew reads HE, yet most of them (I believe) miss the point here. Most think that Job is suddenly changing pronouns and begins to refer to himself as "he" in this verse.

I believe the text and that it is actually speaking of GOD.  I only found one commentary that mentioned this view. Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - comments on Job 13:28 - "Others, however, interpret the words thus: He, that is, God, consumeth me (understanding the verb יבלה, jiblee, actively) as rottenness consumeth that in which it is, or, as a rotten thing is consumed"  

 

Matthew Henry comments, giving both views as possible. - “He finds himself wasting away apace under the heavy hand of God, Job 13:28. He (that is, man) as a rotten thing, the principle of whose putrefaction is in itself, consumes, even like a moth-eaten garment, which becomes continually worse and worse. Or, He (that is, God) like rottenness, and like a moth, consumes me. Compare this with Hosea 5:12, I will be unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness and see Psalm 39:11. Note, Man, at the best, wears fast but, under God's rebukes especially, he is soon gone.”

 

 

I do not believe Job has changed pronouns here to refer to himself or to "man" at all. Job always refers to himself as "I" or "me".  And when he speaks about what God does (when not addressing God directly) he always refers to Him as "he" or "him".

 

Just go back in the chapter and look at the context. Job describes God as actively doing certain things to men -  "Behold, he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again (12:14), He leadeth princes away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty (12:19), He removeth away the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding of the aged." (12:20), "He weakeneth the strength of the mighty, (12:21) He destroyeth nations" (12:23), "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" (13:15).  

 

Then in Job 16:9 Job says of God - "He dearth me in his wrath, who hateth me: he gnasheth upon me with his teeth; mine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me."

 

Job goest back and forth, speaking about God and what HE does, and then intersperses his speech with supplications directed to God.

 

The King James Bible translators were very much aware of the different readings out there, and they made a deliberate choice to follow the HEBREW text here.  The King James Bible was the first one to get it right.  God was purifying His words and the 7th and final purification was His masterpiece, the King James Holy Bible.

The previous English bibles like Wycliffe 1395, the Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, and the Bishops’ Bible 1568 ALL said “And “I” as a rotten thing do consume away, as a garment that is moth eaten.”

The Geneva bible read: - “SUCH ONE consumeth like a rotten thing, and as a garment that is motheaten.” 

 

So, this was a deliberate decision to depart from the previous English versions and to go with the Hebrew text.

 

But in the context as well as the TEXT of Job 13:28 Job seems to see God Himself as the one who is consuming him.  Following the Hebrew text, which clearly says HE and not "man" or "I", are Webster's 1833, Young's literal 1898, The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Amplified Bible 1987, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Hebraic Roots Bible 2012.

 

Job 14:3 - KJB "And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest ME into judgment with thee?"

NIV 1984 edition, (NASB 1995) - "Do you fix your eyes on such a one? Will you bring HIM before you for judgment?" Footnote - Hebrew "me". 

NIV 2011 edition - "Do you fix your eye on THEM? Will you bring THEM before you for judgment?" Footnote - Septuagint, Vulgate and Syraic; Hebrew "me".

 

"And bringest ME into judgment" is the reading of not only the KJB but also of Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "and bringest me into thy iudgement?", the Geneva Bible 1587, the NKJV 1982, RV 1885, ASV 1901, NRSV 1989, ESV 2011, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Hebrew Names Version, the Holman Standard 2003 and even Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006.

 

Also following the Hebrew text and reading "and bringeth ME into judgment with thee?" are The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, the Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek 2012 (Mebust), World English Bible 2012.

 

Even the Modern Greek Bible has gone back to the Hebrew reading of "ME". It reads: "Και επι τοιουτον ανοιγεις τους οφθαλμους σου, και με φερεις εις κρισιν μετα σου;" = "...and bring ME into judgment with you?"

 

In fact, Dan Wallace footnotes here: "The text clearly has “me” as the accusative; but many wish to emend it to say “him”. But D. J. A. Clines rightly rejects this in view of the way Job is written, often moving back and forth from his own tragedy and others’ tragedies."

However the NASB and the NIV both say: "Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring HIM before you for judgment?" The NASB never tells you when they reject the Hebrew texts, but the NIV does footnote that the Hebrew reads "me", while the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate read "him".

The RSV, NASB 1972 to 1995 editions, Catholic Douay Rheims 1610 and 1950 Douay, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the NIV 1973 and 1984 editions say: "Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring HIM before you for judgment?"

The NIVs keep changing from one edition to the next. The 1973 and 1984 NIV editions read: "Do you fix your eyes on SUCH A ONE? Will you bring HIM before you for judgment?" Then they footnote "Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac; Hebrew ME". 

However now the 2011 NIV edition has come out and it says: "Do you fix your eyes on THEM? Will you bring THEM before you for judgment?", and it has the same footnote: "Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac; Hebrew ME". Well, not even the so called LXX or the Vulgate or the Syriac read "THEM".

The NIVs, when translated into other languages, are not in agreement with each other either. The Spanish NIV, called La Nueva Versión Internacional, of 1999 reads: " ¿Con alguien como YO entrarás en juicio?" = "Will you enter into judgment with someone like ME ? (I)

Perhaps even worse (if that is possible) are the New English Bible of 1970 and the Revised English Bible of 1989. Not only do these two versions change the Hebrew reading of "and bringest ME into judgment with thee?" into "and bring HIM into court before you?" BUT both of these versions completely omit ALL of verse four from the text!  Verse 4 says: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." It is simply gone and replaced by a footnote at the bottom of the page saying: "Others add -" Yet the entire verse IS in the Hebrew Masoretic text as well as the so called Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate!

Another odd ball version is the 1970 Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible. Though it includes verse 4 in the text, it DOES change the Hebrew "me" into "him" from the Vulgate, BUT it also takes verse 13:28 from 4 verses back, and places it in between Job 14:3 and 14:4. The St. Joseph goes Job 14:3; 14:28; 14:4. That is actually how it in numbered. Then in a footnote they simply tell us: "This verse has been transposed from chapter 13." That's it. No reason given as to why they did this.

And these are the "scholars" who are giving you today's modern versions!  No wonder the Majority of present day Christians do NOT believe "the Bible" is the infallible words of God.

Job 14:16-17 Here the NKJV actually gives the opposite meaning to that found in the KJB.

The KJB has Job saying: "For now thou numberest my steps: DOST THOU NOT WATCH OVER MY SIN? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and THOU SEWEST UP mine iniquity."

Matthew Henry comments: "For now thou seemest to me to number my steps, and watch over my sin, and seal it up in a bag, as bills of indictment are kept safely, to be produced against the prisoner.?

The rhetorical question found in the KJB "Dost thou not watch over my sin?" is the reading found in the RV, ASV, Green's MKJV, TMB, Hebrew Names Version, Webster, and Darby. It means simply that God is watching every move Job makes and keeping a growing account of his sins.

But the NKJV joins the RSV, NASB, NIV and makes it say the opposite with: "You number my steps BUT DO NOT WATCH OVER MY SIN."

Then in verse 16 the NKJV again says the opposite of the KJB. In the KJB, as well as Young's, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21 we read: "My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and THOU SEWEST UP mine iniquity." In other words, it seems to Job that God is keeping track of all Job's sins only to call them up later before him. Even the NASB says God "wraps up" his iniquity. However the NKJV joins the NIV and says: "My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and You COVER my iniquity." Now usually the phrase "to cover my sins" would mean to do away with them and forgive them; so the NKJV gives the opposite impression to the meaning found in the KJB.

Job 15:11 "Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there ANY SECRET THING with thee?

Agreeing with the "any secret thing" are the Amplified Version 1987 - "ANY SECRET THING", Webster's translation 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (cosa oculta = HIDDEN THING), the Italian Diodati, The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010 "ANY SECRET THING", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "secret words", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, . Even the 1970 New English Bible basically agrees with the KJB by saying: "a word whispered quietly", which in effect would be a secret.

However the NKJV agrees rather with the NASB, NIV and gives a totally false footnote, as it often does, in an attempt to slander the King James reading.

 

The NKJV says in Job 15:11 - "Are the consolations of God too small for you, And THE WORD SPOKEN GENTLY with you?".  Then it footnotes - "Septuagint reads 'a secret thing'".

 

The NKJV says: "Are the consolations of God too small for you, AND THE WORD SPOKEN GENTLY WITH YOU?" Then in a footnote says: "Septuagint reads a secret thing."

This footnote has two big problems with it. It implies that the Hebrew text cannot possibly have the meaning the KJB assigns to it - "ANY SECRET THING" - which is false.

And most importantly, it is a huge lie. The Greek Septuagint version I have gives a completely different reading than the Hebrew text and says nothing at all about "a secret thing". The LXX actually says: "Thou hast been scourged for but few of thy sins. Thou hast spoken haughtily and extravagantly." (megalws huperballontws lelalnka)

There is absolutely nothing about "a secret thing." The NKJV footnote is an outright lie.

 

 

Job 15:23 "He wandereth abroad FOR BREAD, SAYING WHERE IS IT? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand."

This verse reads the same in the Jewish translations 1917 JPS, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, all based of course on the Hebrew texts.

It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Darby, Youngs, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NASB 1995, NKJV 1982, New Living Translation 2007, Holman Standard 2009, RSV - "He wanders about for bread, saying 'Where is it?' He knows that a day of darkness is ready at his hand.", NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 "He wanders abroad for bread, saying, ‘Where is it?’", the Voice of 2012, Lexham English Bible 2012, the International Standard Version of 2012- "He wanders about for food, saying, "Where is it?", The Voice 2012 and the Modern English Version 2014.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says: "The meaning of the Hebrew is, simply, that he will be reduced to poverty, and will not know where to obtain a supply for his needs."

Adam Clarke's commentary, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and John Wesley all agree with the Hebrew reading and it's sense. Adam Clarke says: "He wandereth abroad for bread - He is reduced to a state of the utmost indigence, he who was once in affluence requires a morsel of bread, and can scarcely by begging procure enough to sustain life."  

 

NIV and NET Madness

The NIV and Dan Wallace and company's LOONY NET version however, go totally off the wall here and the NIV doesn't even tell you in their footnotes how they came up with their unique reading. The NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions say: "He wanders about - FOOD FOR VULTURES."  

 

Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 has: "he wanders about – FOOD FOR VULTURES;48he knows that the day of darkness is at hand."  Wallace at least gives us a footnote.  He says - "The MT has “he wanders about for food – where is it?” The LXX has “he has been appointed for food for vultures”   So, he at least tells us that the Hebrew Text reads as does the KJB and SO many others. He just decided to change it.

But Doktor Dan didn't follow the whole LXX reading for this verse. He just picked out a part of it to give us his "late$t finding$ in P$eudo $cholar$hip"

Other English versions that do this too are the New English Bible 1970 and the Revised English Bible 1989.

Actually, the so called Greek Septuagint reads very differently than both the Hebrew text and the NIVs OR Dan Wallace's goofy NET version. It is much longer and very different in meaning.  

Instead of reading ""He wandereth abroad FOR BREAD, SAYING WHERE IS IT? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand."

The so called Greek Septuagint reads: "AND HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO BE FOOD FOR VULTURES; AND HE KNOWS WITHIN HIMSELF THAT HE IS DOOMED TO BE A CARCASE; AND A DARK DAY SHALL CARRY HIM AWAY AS WITH A WHIRLWIND."

 "Doctor" Dan and his illustrious group of 21st century "scholars" just decided to rummage through and pick out a small part of the LXX and ignore the rest, while dumping the inspired Hebrew text that makes perfect sense and most bibles in history have followed.  And to think that young seminarians are learning from these Clowns and passing on this Goofiness to others.

But there is more.

The new NIV of 2011 has changed once again and it now reads: "HE WANDERS ABOUT FOR FOOD LIKE A VULTURE; he knows the day of darkness is at hand."  

SO, is he "FOOD FOR VULTURES" or Does "he wander about for food LIKE A VULTURE?"

(Actually, it's neither one. Both NIVs are flat out wrong.)

The Modern Greek Bible has rejected the Septuagint reading and has gone back to the Hebrew text. It reads: "Περιπλαναται δια αρτον, και που;" = "HE WANDERS ABOUT FOR BREAT, and where is it?"

 

The Catholic Connection (Just a coincidence, right?)

Neither the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 nor the Douay of 1950 read the way the NIVs do.  The older Catholic versions basically followed the Hebrew text.  The Douay says: "When he moveth himself TO SEEK BREAD, he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready as his hand."

BUT the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem of 1985 DO read like the NIV and Dan Wallace's NET version.

The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 reads: "A wanderer, FOOD FOR THE VULTURES, he knows that his destruction is imminent."  Just like Dan Wallace's NET and the earlier NIVs.

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible has: "MARKED DOWN AS MEAT FOR THE VULTURE. He knows that his ruin is at hand." Then it tells us in a footnote that this reading comes from the LXX and that "the Hebrew is faulty".

However the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has no longer gone with the so called LXX but now reads: "When he moves himself to seek bread, he knows that the day of darkness has been prepared for his hand."

  

Questions for Dan Wallace Types

Well, Mr. Daniel Wallace and company, any reasonable person is left wondering at least three things. #1. WHY did you reject the Hebrew and follow the LXX here? #2. Why didn't you go all the way and put the rest of the verse in as it reads in the LXX?  And #3. Are we really supposed to take "bible scholars" like you seriously?

 

Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick with it. It is the only Bible that is really believed by thousands even today to be the complete and inerrant words of the living God.

 

Job 16:14 Job speaks and says of God: "He breaketh me with BREACH upon BREACH, he runneth upon me like a GIANT."

The NKJV again gives a misleading footnote, as it did in Job 15:11. The NKJV joins the RSV, NASB, NIV in saying "He runs at me like a WARRIOR." Then in a footnote says: "Vulgate reads giant", again implying that the KJB resorted to the Latin Vulgate reading rather than the Hebrew texts. Not only does the KJB read GIANT but so also do the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America version, the Revised Version, the ASV, Geneva Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Douay, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Besides this, the NKJV wrongly translates this verse as: "He breaks me with WOUND upon WOUND; He runs upon me like a warrior." The word is "breach", not "wound", and even the NKJV translates this word as "breach" in Genesis 38:29; Ps. 106:23; Isaiah

Job 16:20 KJB - "MY FRIENDS SCORN ME, but mine eye poureth out tears unto God."

Job 16:20 NIV - "MY INTERCESSOR IS MY FRIEND as my eyes pour out tears to God." 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible of "MY FRIENDS SCORN ME" are Coverdale 1535 - "My frendes laugh me to scorne, but myne eye poureth out teares vnto God.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's translation 1833, Darby, the Revised Version 1881 - "My friends scorn me", the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Green's literal translation, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 - "MY FRIENDS SCORN ME", the NASB 1995 - "My friends are my scoffers", the Holman Standard 2003, New Life Bible 1969, the Updated Bible Version 2004, Context Group Version 2007, New Living Translation 2007, the Voice of 2012 - "My only friends scoff at me; they persist in mocking me", the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the International Standard Version of 2012, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "MY FRIENDS SCORN ME", the Lexham English Bible 2012 - "MY FRIENDS SCORN ME; my eye pours out tears to God.",  The Voice 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2010 (Mebust), World English Bible 2012 - "My friends SCOFF AT ME." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "MY FRIENDS SCORN ME; my eyes pour out tears unto God."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible comments: "My friends scorn me - Margin "are my scorners." That is, his friends had him in derision and mocked him, and he could only appeal with tears to God." 

Adam Clarke, John Gill, Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown all agree with the Hebrew text and the meaning found in the King James Bible.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary - Job 16:20. Hebrew, "are my scorners"; more forcibly, "my mockers-my friends!" A heart-cutting paradox. God alone remains to whom he can look for attestation of his innocence; plaintively with tearful eye, he supplicates for this."

I found 2 English versions that sort of match the NIV.  One is the 2011 critical text edition called the Common English Bible of 2011. It says: "MY GO-BETWEEN, MY FRIEND. While my eyes drip tears to God." 

The other "Evangelical" bible version I found that matches the NIV's absurd "my intercessor is my friend" is Daniel Wallace and company's NET version.  The NET version 2006 reads: "MY INTERCESSOR IS MY FRIEND as my eyes pour out tears to God."

 

And even he admits that the Hebrew reads "scorners"  but he thinks it is "problematic". His footnotes says: "The first two words of this verse are problematic: מְלִיצַי רֵעָי (mÿlitsay re’ay, “my scorners are my friends”)...The idea of “my friends are scorners” is out of place in this section, unless taken as a parenthesis."

[Note: Such are the muddled musings of the typical Bible corrector like Dan Wallace]

Another Goofy Modern Version is the Names of God Bible 2011. It is another Critical text version and it actually reads: “THE SPOKESMAN FOR MY THOUGHTS.   My eyes drip with tears to Eloah.”

Foreign language Bible that also say "My friends scorn me" are the French Martin 1744 - "Mes amis sont des harangueurs" = "My friends are the scorners", the French Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond of 2007 - "Mes amis se moquent de moi" = "My friends mock me"; the Spanish La Biblia de Las Américas - "Mis amigos son mis escarnecedores" = "My friends are my scorners",  and the 2010 Nueva Traducción Viviente - "Mis amigos me desprecian" and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - " Mis amigos me escarnecen", the Modern Greek Bible - "Οι φιλοι μου ειναι οι εμπαιζοντες με·" = "My friends are those who mock me.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Meine Freunde sind meine Spötter" - "My friends are my scoffers", the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 - "Meine Freunde spotten über mich" = "My friends mock me.",  the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada, and O Livro 2000 - "Os meus amigos zombam de mim." = "My friends mock me.", the Italian Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Riveduta 2006 - "I miei amici mi deridono." = "My friends mock me."

 

Job 17:1 "MY BREATH IS CORRUPT, my days are extinct, the graves are ready for me."

"My breath is corrupt" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva, Darby, 1936 Jewish translation, Spanish Reina Valera 1909 (mi aliento esta corrompido), and Webster's 1833 translation.

John Gill remarks: " My breath is corrupt,.... Through the force of his disease, which made it have an ill smell, so that it was strange and disagreeable to his wife (Job 19:17 "My breath is strange to my wife")

But instead of "my breath is corrupt" the NKJV joins the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV in saying: "MY SPIRIT IS BROKEN"

Job 17: 5 "HE THAT SPEAKETH FLATTERY TO HIS FRIENDS, even the eyes of his children shall fail."

"He that speaketh flattery to his friends" is the reading of the KJB, NKJV 1982, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Webster's 1833, The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "HE WHO SPEAKS FLATTERY TO HIS FRIENDS, even the eyes of his children shall fail.", Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "HE WHO SPEAKS FLATTERY TO HIS FRIENDS, even the eyes of his children shall fail."

However the NIV says: "IF A MAN DENOUNCES HIS FRIENDS FOR REWARD, the eyes of his children will fail." The NASB is similar to the NIV.  

So is the ESV. It reads: "HE WHO INFORMS AGAINST HIS FRIENDS TO GET A SHARE OF THEIR PROPERTY - the eyes of their children will fail."

 

Other Versions

Young’s 1898 is more than a little weird with: “FOR A PORTION HE SHEWETH FRIENDSHIP, And the eyes of his sons are consumed.”  

Maybe the so called Greek Septuagint will help us out. Ya think? It says: "HE SHALL PROMISE MISCHIEF TO HIS COMPANIONS: but their eyes have failed for their children."

Complete Jewish Translation 1998 - “SHOULD PEOPLE SHARE WITH THEIR FRIENDS WHEN THEIR OWN CHILDREN’S EYES ARE SO SAD?”

Holman Standard 2009 - “IF A MAN INFORMS ON HIS FRIENDS FOR A PRICE, the eyes of his children will fail.”

Contemporary English Version 1995 - “THEY HAVE CONDEMNED ME, JUST TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES; NOW BLIND THEIR CHILDREN.”

Easy To Read Version 2006 - “YOU KNOW WHAT PEOPLE SAY: “A MAN NEGLECTS HIS OWN CHILDREN TO HELP HIS FRIENDS.” BUT MY FRIENDS HAVE TURNED AGAINST ME.”

 

 

The Catholic Versions

 

The Douay version 1950 reads: "HE PROMISETH A PREY TO HIS COMPANIONS, and the eyes of his children shall fail."

 

The Catholic St. Joseph it totally different. The entire verse of Job 17:5 reads: "MY LOT IS DESCRIBED AS EVIL." That's it!

 

Then the Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 translates this same verse as: "JUST SO IS A MAN WHO INVITES HIS FRIENS TO SHARE HIS PROPERTY while the eyes of his own children languish."

 

Job 17:6 we read: "He hath made me a byword of the people; AND AFORETIME I WAS AS A TABRET."

The meaning of this verse is totallly changed in the NKJV which says: "But He has made me a byword of the people. AND I HAVE BECOME ONE IN WHOSE FACE MEN SPIT."

 

But the King James Bible, as well as the Geneva - "as a tabret before them", is very different. -"He hath made me a byword of the people; AND AFORETIME IS WAS AS A TABRET."

 

Also agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB are Webster's Translation 1833 - "and in former time I WAS AS A TABRET.", The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21st Century 1994 - "and aforetime I WAS AS A DRUM TO BEAT ON.", Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "He hath made me a byword of the people; AND AFORETIME I WAS AS A TABRET.", Bond Slave Version 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010 - " AND BEFORE THEM I HAVE BEEN AS A TAMBOURINE.", Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "a tamborine", Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "and aforetime I was as a tabret", Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "I was FORMERLY AS A TABRET."

 

Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Corregida 1865, Reina Valera 1909 - 1995, Spanish Jubilee bible 2010 - "y delante de ellos he sido como TAMBORIL" = "and before them I had been as a small drum", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Ed io sono pubblicamente menato attorno in sul TAMBURO., the French Martin 1744 - "Il m'a mis pour être la fable des peuples, et je suis comme un TAMBOUR devant eux." and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - şi înainte eram ca o tamburină."

The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 is similar in translation to the KJB, but it changes the meaning by saying: "And it set me up as a byword for peoples, and I will be like A DRUM before them."

Bishops' Bible read: "whereas before I was their joy."

 

The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 says: “He has made me as it were a byword of the people, AND I AM AN EXAMPLE BEFORE THEM.”

I believe the meaning of the verse as it stands in the KJB is that formerly Job was considered a leader among the people. A tabret is a small drum, and others would have, in effect, marched to the tune Job played for them. But now God has made him a byword among the people who now mocked him.

Apparently each man feels free to play with the Hebrew text. Adam Clarke comes up with something no one else has. He says: "Instead of lephanim, I would read liphneghem, and then the clause might be translated thus: I SHALL BE AS A FURNACE, OR A CONSUMING FIRE (Topheth) BEFORE THEM."

Young's "literal" translation reads differently than them all with: "and a wonder before them I am."

The New English Bible 1970 renders the passage as: "A PORTENT FOR ALL TO SEE."

John Gill comments on the passage, and you can also read his additional comments to see how some people come up with at least four wildly different translations of the text. But he starts off saying: "and aforetime I was as a tabret - the delight of the people, who, when he appeared in the public streets, came out and went before him, singing, and dancing, and beating on tabrets, and such like musical instruments, to express their joy upon the sight of him; but now it was otherwise with him, and he whom they could not sufficiently extol and commend, now knew not well what to say bad enough of him; such a change in the sentiments and conduct of men must needs be very chagrining."

This is the meaning found in the King James Bible and others.

 

E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible Notes - “tabret = a drum. Hebrew. topheth. To the sound and warning of which people gave heed.

However the NKJV along with most modern versions like the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 now read something like: "But He has made me a byword of the people, AND I HAVE BECOME ONE IN WHOSE FACE MEN SPIT."

This totally changes the meaning. The word "tabret" #8611 is found only once in the Hebrew text, and, according to Wigram's Hebrew Concordance, comes from the verb #8606 which is found only twice. In Psalms 68:25 we read of "the damsels PLAYING WITH TIMBRELS", and in Nahum 2:7 of those "TABORING upon their breasts" or beating like a drum upon their breasts.

The word for "aforetime" is # 6440 and has many meanings, including "face" but both the NKJV and the NASB and all other versions also translate this word as "aforetime", "previously", "before" or "formerly" - See Job 3:24 "my sighing cometh BEFORE I eat", and Nehemiah 13:5 (aforetime) and 1 Chron. 9:20 (in time past) for examples.

 

It should be obvious that "and aforetime I was as a tabret" does not mean the same things as "I have become one in whose face men spit."

 

Job 18 The New KJV is often radically different in meaning than the King James Holy Bible. I have by no means been showing all the differences that exist between these two versions. Most Christians assume the NKJV is just like the old KJB but with a few "archaic words" updated to "modern English", but such is not the case at all. I will focus more on these differences in this chapter than in most by way of example.

Here are some of the word changes in this chapter, not all of them, that the NKJV makes in its "updated" translation. First I will list the words found in the King James Bible and next to them the words found in the NKJV.

Job 18:2 "MARK" (i.e. "take notice") changed to "GAIN UNDERSTANDING."

Job 18:3 "and REPUTED VILE in your sight" changed to "and REGARDED AS STUPID in your sight"

Job 18:5 "The light of the wicked SHALL BE PUT OUT, and the SPARK of his fire SHALL not shine" changed to " The light of the wicked INDEED GOES OUT, and the FLAME of his fire DOES not shine."

Job 18:7 "The steps of his strength shall be STRAITENED" changed to "shall be SHORTENED"

Job 18:9 "The GIN shall take him by the heel, and THE ROBBER SHALL PREVAIL AGAINST him." changed to "The NET takes him by the heel, and A SNARE LAYS HOLD OF him."

Job 18:10 "snare" and "in the way" changed to "a noose" and "in the road"

Job 18:13 "It devours THE STRENGTH of his skin, even the firstborn of death shall devour HIS STRENGTH." changed to "It devours PATCHES of his skin, the firstborn of death devours his LIMBS."

Job 18:14 "HIS CONFIDENCE shall be rooted out of his TABERNACLE, and IT SHALL BRING HIM TO the king of terrors." changed to "HE is uprooted FROM THE SHELTER of his TENT, and THEY PARADE HIM BEFORE the king of terrors."

Job 18:16 "His roots SHALL BE dried UP BENEATH, and above SHALL his branch BE CUT OFF." changed to "His roots ARE dried OUT BELOW, and his branch WITHERS above."

Job 18:17 HIS REMEMBRANCE shall perish from the earth, and he shall have no name IN THE STREET." changed to "THE MEMORY OF HIM perishes from the earth, and he has no name AMONG THE RENOWNED."

I'll make a couple of comments on these last two verses of 17 and 20. In 17 the phrase "he shall have no name IN THE STREET" is the reading found in the KJB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, HNV, Geneva, Young's, Spanish, and Douay, and others.

The NKJV has changed this to "among the renowned", yet has translated this same word as "street" numerous times, as in Job 31:32. The NASB says: "he shall have no name ABROAD", yet their concordance shows they translate this word as "street" 50 times. Likewise the NIV says: "he has no name in THE LAND", and the NIV concordance shows they translate this word as "street" 51 times, and as "land" only once.

 

Job 18:20  KJB - "THEY THAT COME AFTER HIM shall be astonied at his day, as THEY THAT WENT BEFORE were affrighted."

This is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Websters 1833, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society) - "THEY THAT COME AFTER shall be astonished at his day, as THEY THAT WENT BEFORE are affrighted.", Lama's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Green's interlinear Hebrew-Greek English Bible 1985, Amplified Bible 1987, KJV 21st Century 1994,Third Millennium Bible 1998, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, 1936 Jewish translation, the Hebrew Names Version, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Jubilee Bible 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), World English Bible 2012, and the Modern English Bible 2014.

 

Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are the French Louis Second 2006 - Les générations à venir seront étonnées de son sort et la génération présente sera saisie d’horreur.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Jubilee 2010 and Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Sobre su día se espantarán los por venir, como ocupó el pavor a los que fueron antes.", the Italian Diodati 1991 - " Della sua fine rimangono stupiti quelli che l'hanno seguito e sono spaventati quelli che l'hanno preceduto.", Luther's German bible 1545 - "Die nach ihm kommen, werden sich über seinen Tag entsetzen; und die vor ihm sind, wird eine Furcht ankommen.", and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Do seu dia se espantarão os vindouros, e os antigos serão sobressaltados de horror."

However the NKJV again joins the RSV, NASB, Holman, NIV, ESV, NET, the Jehovah Witness NWT and says: "THOSE IN THE WEST are astonished at his day, as THOSE IN THE EAST are frightened."

The Catholic Connection

The earlier Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 and even the St. Joseph NAB 1970 read like the KJB - "THEY THAT COME AFTER HIM shall be astonished at his day, and horror shall fall upon THEM THAT WENT BEFORE." (Doug 1950)

BUT the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem bible says: "His end appals THE WEST and fills THE EAST with terror."

 

Yet the NKJV translates these same words as "those that come after" in Ecclesiastes 4:16, instead of "those in the west".  And the NKJV translates this same Hebrew word the KJB has as "THEY THAT WENT BEFORE" as "the ancients" in 1 Samuel 24:13 and as "THE FORMER" in Isaiah 43:18 and Malachi 3:4 instead of "THE EAST".

Don't be tricked into thinking the NKJV is just like the KJB, but modernized. It is not. They have to change a certain percentage of the words in order to get a copyright and make money. Accuracy or consistency of translation is not their main concern.

 

Job 19:17 Job continues his complaint saying: "My breath is strange to my wife, THOUGH I INTREATED FOR THE CHILDREN'S SAKE OF MINE OWN BODY."

 Barnes' Notes on the Bible - "Thus, understood, it would refer to his own children, and the appeal to his wife was founded on the relation which they had sustained to them. Though they were now dead, he referred to their former united attachment to them, to the common affliction which they had experienced in their loss; and in view of all their former love to them, and all the sorrow which they had experienced in their death, he made an appeal to his wife to show him kindness, but in vain. "

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible - "Though I entreated for the children's sake of mine own body - This may imply no more than adjuring her by the tenderest ties, by their affectionate intercourse, and consequently by the children which had been the seals of their mutual affection, though these children were no more."

John Gill discusses the various difficulties and interpretations other have had of this passage and then comments: "this may respect not any children then living, but those he had had; and the sense is, that Job entreated his wife..to do some kind deed for him, as the dressing of his ulcers,  or such things which none but a wife could do well for him; and this he entreated for the sake of the children he had had by her, those pledges of their conjugal affection."

Job 19:17 "My breath is strange to my wife, THOUGH I INTREATED FOR THE CHILDREN'S SAKE OF MINE OWN BODY."

This is either the word for word translation or the meaning found in the the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "Myne owne wyfe might not abyde my breath, though I PRAYED HER FOR THE CHILDREN SAKE OF MYNE OWNE BODY.", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "My breath was strange vnto my wife, though I prayed her for the childrens sake of mine owne body.", Webster's translation 1833,  Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, the Douay Rheims 1610, Darby 1870, Douay 1950 - "My wife abhorred my breath, and I entreated the children of my womb.", the Judaica Press Tanach - "My breath is strange to my wife, and I APPEAL TO THE CHILDREN OF MY BODY.", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994,  and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.  

 

Other English Bibles that read like the KJB's "THOUGH I INTREATED FOR THE CHILDREN'S SAKE OF MINE OWN BODY" are The Word of Yah 1993, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 - "although I intreated her for the sons of my own body."

 

Among foreign language translations that have the same meaning are the Spanish Reina Valera 1865,  1909, Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Mi aliento vino á ser extraño á mi mujer, Aunque por los hijos de mis entrañas le rogaba.", the French Martin 1744 - "quoique je la supplie par les enfants de mon ventre." = "though I made supplication to her for the infants of my belly.", Luther's German bible 1545 - "ich muß flehen den Kindern meines Leibes.", The Modern Greek Bible - "και αι παρακλησεις μου εις τα τεκνα της κοιλιας μου." = "and my supplications for the children of my belly.", the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués - "e a minha súplica, aos filhos do meu corpo." and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "tanto que supliquei o interesse dos filhos do meu corpo." = "so much that I begged the interest of children of my body." and the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Benchè io la supplichi per li figliuoli del mio ventre." = though I plead for the sons of my belly."

However, the Holman,  NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV all give totally different meanings to this verse. The NASB, NIV 1984 edition say: "My breath is offensive to my wife, AND I AM LOATHSOME TO MY OWN BROTHERS."  But the NIV 2011 changed again and now reads: "I AM LOATHSOME TO MY OWN FAMILY." The ESV is similar to the NIV.

The NKJV is very different and has: "My breath is offensive to my wife, AND I AM REPULSIVE TO THE CHILDREN OF MY OWN BODY."  So, is it his own brothers or his own children?  The Holman sides with the NKJV but not the NIV or NASB, saying: "My breath is offensive to my wife, and MY OWN CHILDREN FIND ME REPULSIVE." 

But the International Standard Version of 2012 says: My wife says my breath stinks; EVEN MY CHILDREN SAY I SMELL BAD!"

J.P. Green's "literal" is different still, with: "My breath is strange to my wife, and I MUST BEG TO THE SONS OF MY MOTHER'S WOMB."

Young's is very strange with: "My SPIRIT is strange to my wife, And MY FAVOURS TO THE SONS OF MY MOTHER'S WOMB." (Say what?!)

A simple look at the NASB concordance shows that the word used here is # 2603 ghah-nan, and 80 times they translated it as "to make supplication, to plead, to be gracious, to implore", and only one time as "to be loathsome"!!

While the Greek LXX says: "And I besought my wife and earnestly intreated the sons of MY CONCUBINE."

 

Job 19:25-26 "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the later day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet IN MY FLESH shall I see God."

Obviously this beautiful verse speaks of the resurrection of the body. IN MY FLESH refers to this new body, and is the reading of the NIV, NKJV, Geneva Bible, and the NRSV.

However, believe it or not, the ASV, RSV and the NASB 1972 and 1973 editions  say: "yet WITHOUT MY FLESH, shall I see God"!! But then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB changed their reading to "yet FROM MY FLESH shall I see God."

 

Job 19:27 "Whom I shall se for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; THOUGH MY REINS BE CONSUMED WITHIN ME."

The word is literally "kidneys" or "reins" and means the seat of affections and emotions. It is not archaic and is found in the RV, Young's, Darby, 1936 Jewish translation, and Third Millenium Bible. "CONSUMED WITHIN ME" is the reading of the RV, ASV, Darby, Young's, TMB and several others.

Matthew Henry comments This body which we now take such care about, and make such provision for, will in a little time be destroyed. Even my reins (says Job) shall be consumed within me (v. 27); the innermost part of the body, which perhaps putrefies first.

However the NKJV sides with the NIV and again changes the meaning of the KJB by saying: "and my eyes shall behold and not another. HOW MY HEART YEARNS within me."

The NKJV has changed the idea from the dissolution of the inner workings of the seat of emotions, to a desire for the resurrection to happen. The NKJV has frequently translated this verb as "consume" but only once as to "yearn". The NASB gives yet a different meaning with: "My heart faints within me".

Job 19:28 Here Job says to his friends: "But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in ME?"

There is much variety of opinion as to what this verse means, but my present understanding is that Job had just said things like: "These ten times ye have reproached me...And be it indeed that I have erred, mine error remaineth with myself....Why do you persecute me as God?....But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in ME? Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment." Job 19:3,4, 22,28-29.

I think what he is saying in effect is that each of his friends should recognize that they too are sinners, and deserving of the judgment of God that they think Job is rightfully receiving - "the root of the matter is found in ME". Essentially, this is much like what our Lord said in Matthew 7:4 "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

In any event, the Masoretic Hebrew text reads "the root of the matter is found in ME", and so read the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Version, the Geneva Bible, Bishops' bible, the NKJV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Darby, Young's, KJV 21st Century, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Likewise the Spanish Reina Valera also reads as does the KJB saying: "Mas debierais decir: ¿Por qué lo perseguimos? Ya que la raíz del negocio EN MI se halla."  

However beginning with the liberal RSV and now found in many other modern English versions is the reading: "'The root of the matter is found in HIM." (not ME). So read the NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard.

The NIV has: ""If you say, 'How we will hound him, since the root of the trouble lies in HIM,"; then it footnotes: "Many Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Vulgate; MOST Hebrew manuscripts ME."

Daniel Wallace's ever changing NET version reads: "If you say, ‘How we will pursue him, since the root of the trouble is found in him!". Then he footnotes "The MT reads “in me.”, but he goes on to tell us that over 100 mss. read "in him", and that the verse is hard to understand.

Not to be outdone, the NASB alone comes up with a unique reading not found in any manuscripts I am aware of. It says: "If you say, `How shall we persecute him?' And `WHAT PRETEXT FOR A CASE AGAINST HIM CAN WE FIND?"

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac further adds to the total confusion saying: "For you will say, Why did we persecute him? For a good report will follow me and vindicate me. "

If you are relying on the capriciousness of "the scholars" to give you a perfect Bible, forget about it. It's not going to happen this way.  

Job 20:2 Zophar answers Job and says: "Therefore do my THOUGHTS cause me to answer, AND FOR THIS I MAKE HASTE."

He simply says he has something to say and he hastens to say it. This is the reading of Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, Darby, Spanish, RSV, Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, and the TMB.

John Gill comments: "he seems desirous of having it understood that his answer proceeded from thought; that he did not speak without thinking, but had well weighed things in his mind; and what he was about to say was the fruit of close thinking and mature deliberation: "and for this I make haste" - because his thoughts crowded in upon him, he had a fulness of matter, an impulse of mind, promptitude and readiness to speak on this occasion, and for fear of losing what was suggested to him, he made haste to give in his answer, perhaps observing some other of his friends rising up before him."

But again the NKJV changes the meaning by saying: "Therefore my ANXIOUS THOUGHTS make me answer, BECAUSE OF THE TURMOIL within me." The NKJV has frequently translated this same word as "haste" or "hasten", yet only once as "turmoil". The NASB, NIV give a similar sense to the NKJV, thus departing from the previous English versions.

Job 20:3 "I have heard THE CHECK OF MY REPROACH, and the spirit of my understanding causeth me to answer."

Commentators as well as versions differ radically over what this phrase means and how to render it. For me, the meaning is clear in the King James Bible. Zophar had previously reproached Job in chapter 11 for what he considered to be Job's lies and iniquity, and Job in turn had rebuffed Zophar's reproach. A check is defined as a stop or a restraint. In other words Job had moved to stop the reproach made by Zophar against him.

Webster's translation, the Geneva Bible and the Spanish Reina Valera agree with the KJB. The Third Millenium Bible says essentially the same with "I have heard the rebuke of my reproach."

However the NKJV joins with the NIV in making a verb out of a noun and changes the meaning by saying: "I have heard THE REPROOF THAT REPROACHES ME."

Job 20:6 "Though HIS EXCELLENCY mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; Yet he shall perish for ever like his own DUNG."

This is the reading found in the RV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Geneva, Lamsa, Webster, TMB, and others. Man's excellency would speak of his great accomplishments both materially and intellectually. The NASB says: "his loftiness".

But the NKJV says: "Though HIS HAUGHTINESS mounts up to the heavens, yet he will perish for ever like his own REFUSE."

The word "dung" is obviously not archaic and is even found here in the NIV, but the NKJV calls it "refuse". Refuse is just trash in general, but dung is specifically quite another thing, and this is what God said. The same word is used in Ezekiel 4:12, 15 where God told the prophet to bake his food with cow's dung.

Job 20:17 "He shall not see the rivers, the floods, the brooks of honey and BUTTER."

Butter is the reading of the RV, ASV, Darby, Geneva, Spanish 1909, Hebrew Names Version, TMB, and several others. The word is found 10 times in Hebrew and is always translated as "butter" in the KJB.

However the NKJV joins the NIV here and says "with honey and CREAM." The NASB says CURDS.

However when we consult their concordances we see that the NKJV correctly has "butter" in Gen. 18:8, and Proverbs 30:33, but also "curds" in Isaiah 7:15, 22. Butter, curds, cream - Hey, it's all the same thing, right?

So which do you put on your toast? The NASB has "curds" twice and "butter" 8 times, while the NIV diversifies even more with "cream" twice, "curds" 6 times, "butter" once, and "curdled milk" once, for good measure.

Job 20:22 "In the fulness of his sufficiency he shall be in straits; every hand OF THE WICKED shall come upon him."

This word is related to a word that has many meanings, as most words do. The word can mean "wicked, mischief, trouble, pain, labour, or misery". Every "hand of the wicked" is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Lamsa, Spanish, Webster, KJV 21, TMB, and Young's.

But again the NKJV changes the meaning and joins the NASB, NIV by saying: "every hand OF MISERY will come against him."

Job 21:4 Job continues: "As for me, is my complaint to man? and if it were so, why should not MY SPIRIT BE TROUBLED?"

The word used here is clearly "my spirit" and is even so translated by the NKJV in Job 6:4; 7:11, and 10:12, but here the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV again and says: "why should I NOT BE IMPATIENT?".

Even the NKJV elsewhere translates this word as "his soul was VEXED" (Judges 16:16), and "the soul of the people was DISCOURAGED" (Num. 21:4), but here follows the NASB, NIV instead. The reading of "my spirit be troubled" is found in the Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Lamsa, Webster's, TMB, and the Spanish.

Job 21:23-24 "One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet. His BREASTS are full of MILK, and his bones are moistened with marrow."

The expression "his breasts are full of milk" can be understood in a couple of ways that I know of. It may be looked at as being a poetic expression of robust health and prosperity. This is how some commentators see it.  

Compare Isaiah 60:16 KJB - "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and SHALT SUCK THE BREAST OF KINGS: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob." (ESV, NASB, NKJV, Holman, etc.)

 

But it may also mean that those who are his who dies in his full strength and at ease, as members of his family like his daughters, daughters-in-law, and granddaughters have breasts that are literally full of milk.

The Hebrew word here for MILK is clearly "milk"; not "fat" and not "health". The Hebrew word is very common, #2461 "milk", and is used in the expression 'a land flowing with MILK and honey' (Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; Deut. 6:3; 11:9 etc.), "thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's MILK" (Exodus 34:26), "He asked water and she gave him MILK" (Judges 5:25) etc.

 

Matthew Henry comments: "his breasts are full of milk and his bones moistened with marrow (v. 24), that is, he is healthful and vigorous, and of a good constitution (like a milch cow that is fat and in good liking), he counts upon nothing but to live many years in mirth and pleasure. Thus fair does he bid for life, and yet he is cut off in a moment by the stroke of death."

Whedon’s Commentary discusses the many ways this verse has been translated - “inwards, veins, loins” -  and then closes with these words: “Our Authorized Version adopts the version of the Targum, than which Tayler Lewis thinks there is nothing better.”

"His breasts are full of milk" is the reading of the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster's 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Revised Version 1885, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Holy Scriptures 1936 (Hebrew Publishing Company), The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "HIS BREASTS are filled with MILK"

 

Foreign Language Bibles that read like the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Spanish Jubilee bible 2010 - " Sus senos están llenos de leche" = "His BREASTS are full of MILK", and the Cipriano de Valera  Revisada y Corregida 1865 - "sus PECHOS ESTAN LLENOS DE LECHE" and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - "Sânii lui sunt plini de lapte" = "HIS BREASTS ARE FULL OF MILK"

 

This Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “His breasts are full of milk”

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Job%2021:24

 

Other Versions -

Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "HIS VESSELS being full OF HEALTHY FLUID"

However the NKJV, ASV 1901 say: "His PAILS are full of milk"  

Common English Bible 2011, ISV - "their BUCKETS are full of milk"

Douay-Rheims 1610 - "his BOWELS ARE FULL OF FAT"

NASB, Darby say: "His SIDES are filled out with FAT"

New English Bible 1970 - "HIS LOINS are filled with VIGOUR."

St. Joseph NAB 1970 - "HIS FIGURE is full AND NOURISHED."

New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "THIGHS PADDED WITH FAT." 

Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 - "his own THIGHS HAVE BECOME FULL OF FAT."

The NIV has: "His BODY WELL NOURISHED". Then it has a footnote: "The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain." And now it's REALLY uncertain in English too!

But the NIV Spanish version - La Nueva Version Internacional 1999 - says: "sus caderas, llenas de grasa" = "HIS HIPS, FULL OF FAT."

God's Word Translation 1995 - "HIS STOMACH is full of milk."

Holman Standard - “His body is well-fed.” Ft. "literally -'is full of milk'"

Green’s ‘literal’ 2005 has: - “His SIDES are full of milk” (Say what?!)

RSV - “His BODY full of fat” (there is a lot of that going around today)

NRSV 1989 - “His LOINS full of milk”

ESV 2011 - and then the revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, has not gone back to the old ASV reading of “His PAILS are full of milk”.

Rotherham’s 1902 Emphasized bible has: “His VEINS are filled with nourishment”

The New Living Translation 1996 has: “the very picture of health”

Petersons The Message 2002 is super hip and simply reads: “FAT AND SASSY”

Ancient Roots Translinear bible 2008 - "UDDERS filled with milk"

Lexham Bible 2012 - "His VATS are full with milk"  

Names of God Bible 2011 - "His STOMACH is full of milk."

The Voice 2012  - "His BODY IS VIGOROUS AND WELL FED."

The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "HIS TROUGHS are full of CHOLOV" 

The New International Version 2014 - "THEY ARE WELL FED."

The New English Septuagint Translation 2014 - "AND HIS INWARDS ARE FULL OF FAT."

Yep, it looks like the Bible Agnostics are right again. By comparing various versions we can get a better idea of what God REALLY said.  Don't ya think?

 

 

Job 21:32 "Yet shall he be brought down to the grave, and SHALL REMAIN in the tomb."

So read the Geneva Bible, 1936 translation, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible. But again the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV and says: "Yet he shall be brought to the grave, and A VIGIL KEPT OVER the tomb."

Job 22:4 Eliphaz asks Job: "WILL HE REPROVE THEE FOR FEAR OF THEE? Will he enter with thee into judgment?"

This is the reading of the KJB, 1936 Jewish translation, Spanish 1909, Geneva Bible, Webster, and TMB. John Gill and Adam Clarke both comment: "Will he reprove thee for fear of thee?.... That is, chastise, correct, and afflict, for fear that hurt should be done unto him; no, he will not."

However the NKJV says: "IS IT BECAUSE OF YOUR FEAR OF HIM that He reproves you?" The words "of Him" are not in any text and they reverse the meaning of the verse. The NIV says: "Is it FOR YOUR PIETY that he rebukes you?"

Job 22:9 "Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the ARMS of the fatherless HAVE BEEN BROKEN."

This is the literal reading of the Hebrew and that of the RV, ASV, Jewish translations, Geneva, Lamsa, Darby, Douay, Webster, and TMB.

But the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV and paraphrases as: "the STRENGTH of the fatherless WAS CRUSHED." The NKJV rendering is more like a commentary than a translation.

Job 22:15 "HAST THOU MARKED the old way which wicked men have trodden?"

This merely asks if Job has noticed or observed the way of wicked men, and is the reading of the Geneva Bible, 1936, Young's, Lamsa, Webster, and the TMB.

But again the NKJV agrees with the NASB, NIV by saying: " WILL YOU KEEP TO the old way which wicked men have trod?", implying that Job had walked in that way rather than just having observed it. The meaning is changed.

Job 22:17 Again the NIV, RSV, and ESV depart from the Hebrew texts. The KJB, as well as the NKJV, NASB say: "Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for THEM."

The NKJV footnote says the Hebrew reads "them", but the Syriac and LXX read "us", and so read the NIV, ESV saying: "what can the Almighty do for US?"

Job 22:20 "Whereas our SUBSTANCE is NOT cut down, but the remnant of them the fire consumeth." Here is another case where the NKJV tries to discredit the King James Bible with a misleading footnote. The NKJV follows the NASB, NIV, RSV and says: "SURELY OUR ADVERSARIES ARE cut down..." Then in a footnote says: "The Septuagint reads 'substance'", as though the KJB followed the LXX rather than the Hebrew texts.

The word used here for "substance" is found only once and it comes from the verb "to establish, to stand, to rise up, to continue, to confirm." "Whereas our SUBSTANCE IS NOT cut down" is the reading of both the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva Bible, Young's, Spanish 1909, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Job 22:21 "ACQUAINT NOW THYSELF with him and be at peace."

So read the RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Young's, and the NKJV.

However the NASB says: "YIELD NOW and be at peace with Him", while the NIV reads: "SUBMIT TO GOD and be at peace with him." Yet both of these versions render the same verb as "to be acquainted" or "to be familiar with" in Psalms 139:3 where we read: "Thou...art acquainted with all my ways."

Job 22:25 "Yea, the Almighty shall be thy DEFENCE, and thou shalt have plenty of silver."

So read the Geneva Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Lamsa, and Webster's.

But the NKJV, NASB, NIV say: "the Almighty will be YOUR GOLD and YOUR PRECIOUS SILVER."

Job 22:29 "WHEN MEN ARE CAST DOWN, THEN THOU SHALT SAY, THERE IS LIFTING UP; and he shall save the humble person."

The meaning is quite clear as it stands in the KJB. When others are cast down for their sins, you will say in effect, God is lifting me up. So read the Jewish translation of the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "When others are cast downe, then shalt thou say, I am lifted vp: and God shall saue the humble person.", Spanish Reina Valera 1569, 1909, 1960 - "Cuando fueren abatidos, dirás tú: Enaltecimiento habrá" , Webster's 1833 translation, the 21st Century KJV 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.  

 

Other English Bibles that read the same way as the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, the Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The English Jubilee Bible 2010 - "When OTHERS ARE CAST DOWN, THEN THOU SHALT SAY, THERE IS LIFTING UP: AND HE SHALL SAVE THE HUMBLE PERSON.", Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Modern English Version 2014.

 

 

John Gill remarks: "When men are cast down,.... Wicked men are brought down from a state of prosperity to a state of adversity, are in low circumstances, great straits and difficulties: then thou shall say, there is lifting up; that is, for himself and his; when others are in adversity, he should be in prosperity; when others are cast down into a very low estate and distressed condition, he should be exalted to a very high estate."

 

Matthew Henry comments: “That even in times of common calamity and danger he should have abundance of joy and hope (v. 29): "When men are cast down round about thee, cast down in their affairs, cast down in their spirits, sinking, desponding, and ready to despair, then shalt thou say, There is lifting up. Thou shalt find that in thyself which will not only bear thee up under thy troubles, and keep thee from fainting, but lift thee up above thy troubles and enable thee to rejoice evermore." 

However in the case of the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB all four give different meanings even from each other.

The NKJV says: "When THEY cast YOU down, AND you say "EXALTATION WILL COME". Then He will save the humble person."

The NASB has: "When YOU are cut down, YOU WILL SPEAK WITH CONFIDENCE", And the humble person He will save."

The NIV reads: "When MEN are brought low and you say "LIFT THEM UP, then he will save the downcast."  

 

ESV - "For when THEY ARE HUMBLED YOU SAY, 'IT IS BECAUSE OF PRIDE'; BUT HE SAVES THE LOWLY."

 

The Holman Standard is different still. It says: "When OTHERS are humiliated and you say, “Lift them up,” GOD will save the humble." 

 

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 is once again totally different than them all. It says:

"FOR HE THAT HAS BEEN HUMBLED, SHALL BE IN GLORY: AND HE THAT SHALL BOW DOWN HIS EYES, HE SHALL BE SAVED." 

If you are looking to "the scholars" to "go to the Hebrew" to find out what it REALLY SAYS, then your faith is in the wrong place. God Himself has already acted in history to give us His perfect and inerrant words in the King James Bible.

 

 

Job 22:30 "He shall deliver THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT; and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands."

According to Strong's and Wigram's concordances the word for island is # 336 and is used numerous times meaning "island".

Agreeing with the KJB reading are  the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, New English Bible, 1970 - "He will deliver the innocent",  Douay 1950,  Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909-1995 "El libertará la isla del inocente; Y por la limpieza de tus manos será librada.", the Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Él libertará la isla del inocente; y por la pureza de tus manos será librada." = "HE WILL DELIVER THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Und der Unschuldige wird errettet werden" = "And the innocent will be saved", Webster's 1833 translation, the 1992 Today's English Version - "He will rescue you if you are innocent", the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.  

 

Also saying that the innocent are delivered are the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) - "He delivereth him that is innocent", the so called Greek Septuagint - "ῥύσεται ἀθῷον", the Wycliffe updated version of 2001 - "An innocent shall be saved.", the Douay-Rheims  1610 - "The innocent shall be saved", Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 - "He shall deliver the innocent" , Lamsa's translation of the Syriac - "The innocent man shall be spared wherever he is", the Bible in Basic English 1961 - "He makes safe the man who is free from sin", the Modern Greek - "Θελει σωσει και τον μη αθωον·", the RSV (Revised Standard Version)- "He delivers the innocent man", the Revised English Bible 1989 - "He will deliver the innocent", and the Knox Bible of 2012 - "But the innocent shall be kept safe".  

 

Other English Bibles that read "He shall deliver the island of the innocent" are Good News Translation 1992, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, the Bond Slave Version 2009, English Jubilee Bible 2010 "HE SHALL DELIVER THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT", Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "HE WILL DELIVER THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT", Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust)

 

The Geneva Bible notes read: "HE SHALL DELIVER THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. God will deliver a whole country from peril, even for the just man's sake."  (End of quote)

However once again the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV and many others and says the opposite with: "He will deliver EVEN one who is NOT INNOCENT."!!  

Even though the English NIV says "He will even deliver one WHO IS NOT INNOCENT", yet the Spanish NIV, La Nueva Versión International 1999 has the direct opposite meaning and says: "Él salva al que es inocente" = "HE SAVES HIM WHO IS INNOCENT."!

The Holman Standard 2009 reads: "HE WILL EVEN RESCUE THE GUILTY ONE" 

The Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version) says: "HE WILL DELIVER THE GUILTY" !!!

The Expanded Bible 2011, by Thomas Nelson Inc. gives us both, saying: “ Even a guilty person will escape [or He rescues the innocent]”

Bible commentators are all over the board on this one as are the Bible translations, and even though Dan Wallace and company side with the ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB - "He will deliver even someone who is NOT innocent" yet he footnotes: "The Hebrew has אִי־נָקִי (’i naqi), which could be taken as “island of the innocent” (so Ibn-Ezra), or “him that is not innocent” (so Rashi)."

 

Job 23:2  "Even to day is my complaint bitter: MY STROKE IS HEAVIER THAN MY GROANING."

Job is referring to the stroke or the hand of God which has smitten him with such travails, and he says it is heavier than he is able to express with his grief. 

John Gill - "The hand of God upon him, his afflicting hand, which had touched him and pressed hard upon him, and lay heavy, and was heavier than his groanings showed; though he groaned much, he did not groan more, nor so much, as his afflictions called for"

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - my stroke — the hand of God on me, heavier than — is so heavy that I cannot relieve myself adequately by groaning."

Whedon’s Commentary - my stroke,  that is, God’s hand. Job 19:21  had spoken before of the hand of God as the source of his affliction. 

Mark Dunagan’s Commentary on the Bible - “God’s hand is still heavy on Job even though Job is crying out for relief.”

 

Very simple, and "MY STROKE IS HEAVIER THAN MY GROANING." is the reading found in the Bishops' bible "my plague is greater than my groaning", Geneva Bible, RV 1885, Darby - "MY STROKE IS HEAVIER THAN MY GROANING.", ASV 1901 - "My stroke is heavier than my groaning.", 1936 Hebrew Publication Company translation, and the Spanish.

However the NKJV says: "MY HAND IS LISTLESS BECAUSE OF my groaning",

The NASB, NIV state: "HIS hand is heavy IN SPITE OF my groaning."

And the ESV says: "Today also my complaint is bitter, MY HAND IS HEAVY ON ACCOUNT OF MY GROANING."

Oh, so now it is all cleared up for us, huh?

 

Job 23:8-9 "Behold, I go FORWARD, but he is not there; and BACKWARD, but I cannot perceive him. On the LEFT HAND, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him; he hideth himself on THE RIGHT HAND, that I cannot see him."

Forward, backward, on the left hand, on the right hand - so read the RV, ASV 1901, NASB, NKJV, and many others, but the NIV says: "I go TO THE EAST...I go TO THE WEST...IN THE NORTH...TO THE SOUTH, I catch no glimpse of him."

Job 23:13 "But he is IN ONE MIND, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth."

This verse speaks of the sovereignty of God and that He does what He wills. This is also the reading of the RV, ASV, 1936, Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The NKJV, on the other hand, says: "But He IS UNIQUE, and who can make Him change?

The NASB, NIV have: "But he STANDS ALONE, and who can oppose him?, while the RSV, ESV say: "But he is unchangeable,...."

Job 24 John Gill comments: "This chapter contains the second part of Job's answer to the last discourse of Eliphaz, in which he shows that wicked men, those of the worst characters, prosper in the world, and go through it with impunity; he lays down this as a certain truth, that though no time is hid from God, yet they that are most familiar with him, and know most of him, do not see, and cannot observe, any days of his for judging and punishing wicked men in, this life, and instances in men guilty of injustice, violence, oppression, cruelty, and inhumanity, to their neighbours, and yet God lays not folly to them, or charges them with sin, and punishes them for it,

Verse 7. They cause the naked to lodge without clothing,.... That is, such as are poorly clothed, thinly arrayed, have scarce anything but rags, and yet so cruel the wicked men above described, that they take these away from the poor, and even their bed clothes, which seem chiefly designed; so that they are obliged to lodge or lie all night without anything upon them that they have no covering in the cold."

Job 24:7 "THEY CAUSE THE NAKED TO LODGE without clothing, THAT THEY HAVE no covering in the cold."

So read the KJB, Geneva, Young's, 1936 Jewish translation, Webster's, Spanish Reina Valera, Douay, Lamsa, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV and says: "THEY SPEND THE NIGHT NAKED, WITHOUT CLOTHING, AND HAVE no covering in the cold." The fact that the wicked men cause this is lost in these versions.

Job 24:16 "In the dark they dig through houses, WHICH THEY HAD MARKED FOR THEMSELVES IN THE DAYTIME: they know not the light."

In this verse the NKJV reads as does the KJB, and also the Geneva Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Lamsa, Douay, Webster, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NASB, NIV, RSV read: "In the dark, men break into houses, BUT BY DAY THEY SHUT THEMSELVES IN; they want nothing to do with the light." (NIV).

Job 24:22 "He draweth also the mighty with his power: he riseth up, and no man is sure of life."

John Gill comments: "He draweth also the mighty with his power,.... Such a wicked man not only maltreats the weak, the helpless, and the defenceless, but even attacks the mighty and powerful; such as are in great power and authority, and abound in wealth and riches, only somewhat inferior in both to himself:."

Likewise Matthew Henry notes: ""He draws the mighty into a snare with his power; even the greatest are not able to stand before him when he is in his mad fits: he rises up in his passion, and lays about him with so much fury that no man is sure of his life."

Anyone who studies the Bible in depth will soon discover that commentators and scholars often disagree with each other. There are as many opinions out there as there are different bible versions. It is a mass of confusion and contradiction. That is why we need one standard of Final Authority and the Holy Ghost, through His grace, to open our understanding.

The word "he" in this verse refers to the wicked man who assaults even the mighty. Agreeing with the KJB reading are the Revised Version, the 1936 Jewish translation, Darby, Spanish versions, Geneva Bible, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NKJV and NIV have added a word not found in any Hebrew text, and totally changed the meaning of the verse. The NKJV says: "BUT GOD draws the mighty away with His power; He rises up, but no man is sure of life." Then in a footnote tells us that "God" is literally "he". The NASB essentially does the same thing by capitalizing the word 'he' and makes it refer to God rather than the wicked man. It says: "But He drags off the valient by His power..."  

 

Job 26:5 "DEAD THINGS ARE FORMED FROM UNDER the waters, and the inhabitants thereof."

This verse and its meaning have been rendered and explained in so many different ways as to make it impossible to sort out the mess created by the multiplicity of versions. The context of chapter 26 is Job marveling at the wonders of how God has created and continues to sustain and control the earth.

John Gill also offers this one of many possible explanations: " Dead things are formed from under the waters,.... It is difficult to say what things are here meant; it may be understood of "lifeless" things that never had any life, things inanimate, that never had at least an animal life;... to which may be added, corals, and other sea plants, formed from under the waters; metals and minerals may be intended."

I don't think the verse is speaking of metals and minerals, since this is addressed in chapter 28:2-6 where it speaks of the earth saying: Iron is taken out of the earth, and brass is molten out of the stone... and under it is turned up as it were fire; the stones of it are the place of sapphires: and it hath dust of gold." I personally think the verse "Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof " simply refers to the fact that fish, and other living things that inhabit the sea naturally die, then sink to the bottom and decompose. This is a simple explanation and it fits the context.

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading are the Geneva Bible, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, and the KJV 21st Century. "Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." However there are a multitude of conflicting renderings found in other versioins, as we shall see in the following list.

NKJV: "The dead TREMBLE, THOSE under the waters and those inhabiting them."

RV, ASV: "They that are deceased tremble beneath the waters, and the inhabitants thereof."

Douay-Rheims " Behold THE GIANTS GROAN under the waters, and they that dwell with them."

Young's: "The REPHAIM are formed, beneath the waters, also their inhabitants."

NASB: "The departed spirits tremble under the waters and their inhabitants."

NIV: "The dead are in deep anguish, those beneath the waters and all that live in them."

RSV, NRSV: "The SHADES BELOW TREMBLE, the waters and their inhabitants."

Bible in Basic English: "The shades in the underworld are shaking; the waters and those living in them."

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta: "Behold, the mighty men shall be slain and they shall lie down quieter than the still waters."

Spanish 1602, 1909 (translated) "Inanimate things are formed under the waters"

Spanish 1960 (translated) "the shadows tremble in the deep"

Spanish 1999 (translated) "Dead things are formed under the waters"

French Louis Segond (translated) "Before God the men tremble."

Job 26:9 KJB - "He holdeth back the face of HIS THRONE, and spreadeth his cloud upon it."

 

ESV  (RSV, NRSV, New English bible 1970, NASB 1972-1995, NET, ISV 2012, Modern English bible 2014 and NIV) say: "He covers the face OF THE FULL MOON, and spreads over it his cloud." 

This verse, as it stands in the Hebrew text and the KJB teaches that God seems to hide Himself - His throne -, and to this idea agrees Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hideth thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

 

He holdeth back the face of HIS THRONE, is the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "He holdeth backe the face of HIS THRONE: and spreadeth his cloude vpon it.", Douay Rheims 1610, Webster bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation,  Douay 1950, Bible in Basic English 1961, The Living Bible 1971, the NKJV 1982, God's Word 1995, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, the Updated Bible Version 2004, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, Green's Literal 2005, the 2009 Holman Standard Version, the 2012 Knox Bible, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, the 2012 The Voice - "He conceals the sight of HIS THRONE."  

Other English Bibles that read "He holds back the face of HIS THRONE" are The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "He holds back the face of HIS THRONE", Interlinear Hebrew-Greek 2010 (Mebust), Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, World English Bible 2012, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The New English Septuagint Translation 2012.    

 

Foreign language Bible that correctly read "He holdeth back the face of HIS THRONE" are the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991 and Nuova Riveduta 2006 - "Copre la vista del SUO TRONO",  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Contemporánea 2011 and R.V. Gómez 2012 - "El encubre la faz de SU TRONO", Luther's German bible 1545 - "Er hält seinen Stuhl", the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, La Bible du Semeur 1999 and French Louis Segond 2007 - "Il recouvre son trône", and the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and O Livro of 2000 - "Encobre a face do SEU TRONO.",

the Modern Greek Bible and even the so called Greek Septuagint - "ὁ κρατῶν πρόσωπον θρόνου ἐκπετάζων ἐπ' αὐτὸν νέφος αὐτοῦ"

Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley and Jamison, Faussett and Brown all agree with the King James Bible and Hebrew reading of "HIS THRONE". 

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown comment: "God makes the clouds a veil to screen the glory not only of His person, but even of the exterior of His throne from profane eyes. His agency is everywhere, yet He Himself is invisible."

However, the RSV, ESV, New English bible 1970, NASB 1972-1995, NET, ISV 2012, Modern English bible 2014 and NIV actually say: "He obscures the face OF THE FULL MOON, and spreads His cloud over it."

At least the RSV and ESV are kind enough to footnote: "or His throne". The Hebrew word is #3678 kis-seh and it always "throne" or "seat" and NEVER "moon".

The Lexham Bible 2012 also says: "He covers the face of THE FULL MOON; [1] he spreads his cloud over it."

But then it Footnotes: [1] : TEXT READS "THRONE"; "full moon" is based on a change of the vowels."   

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both read "He withholdeth the face of his THRONE".

But the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem read like the NIV, ESV, NASB and say "He holds back the appearance of THE FULL MOON." 

But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has now gone back to the Hebrew reading - "He holds back the face of HIS THRONE, and he stretches his cloud over it."

 

 

Job 26:10 "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." This merely means God has set a limit on the waters of the oceans that will last forever.

So read the Geneva Bible, Webster's, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, but the NKJV says: "He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness." Not quite the same is it?

Job 26:12 "He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding HE SMITETH THROUGH THE PROUD."

This is the reading found in the Geneva Bible, Young's, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Translation, Douay, Green's interlinear, Webster's, and the Third Millennium Bible. However again the multiple versions are all over the map.

Instead of "by his understanding he SMITETH THROUGH THE PROUD" the NKJV says: "by His understanding HE BREAKS UP THE STORM". Yet the NKJV rendered this same word as "proud" in Job 9:13, but here as "storm"! The NASB, NIV say: "by his wisdom HE CUT RAHAB TO PIECES", while Lamsa's translation has: "by His wisdom He SAVES MANY." And if you don't like any of these, you can always go with The Message which says: "by His wisdom HE TAMES SEA MONSTERS."

Job 26:13 "By his SPIRIT HE HATH GARNISHED the heavens, his hand hath FORMED THE CROOKED SERPENT."

This is the reading of the KJB, the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "His spirite hath garnished the heauens, & his hand hath made the crooked serpent.", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "His Spirite hath garnished the heauens, & his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.", 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, Webster's 1833, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

There are many interpretations, but I think it describes the creative hand of God who not only garnishes or adorns the heavens, but also forms and creates the lowest of creatures on earth, that is, the crooked serpent.  

John Gill comments: "By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens, The visible heavens, with the sun, moon, and stars, with which they are studded and bespangled, and look exceeding beautiful...Some have observed the trinity of persons in these words, and who doubtless were concerned in the creation of all things; here is "Jehovah", of whom the whole context is; and "his Spirit", who, as he moved upon the face of the waters at the first creation, is here said to beautify and adorn the heavens; "and his hand"; his Son, the power and wisdom of God, by whom he made all things."

Foreign language Bibles that have the meaning found in the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera  1909 and R.V. Gómez of 2012 -" Su Espíritu adornó los cielos; su mano creó la serpiente tortuosa.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Egli ha col suo Spirito adorni i cieli; La sua mano ha formato il serpente guizzante.", the French Martin 1744 - "Il a orné les cieux par son Esprit, et sa main a formé le serpent traversant.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel  - "Pelo seu Espírito ornou os céus; a sua mão formou a serpente enroscadiça." and the Modern Greek Bible - "Δια του πνευματος αυτου εκοσμησε τους ουρανους· η χειρ αυτου εσχηματισε τον συστρεφομενον οφιν."

The NKJV says: "By His Spirit He adorned the heavens; His hand PIERCED THE FLEEING serpent." Yet the NKJV has translated this same word as "formed" or "made" in Job 15:7 "were you MADE before the hills?", Pro. 26:10 "God who FORMED all things", and Psalm 90:2 "Or ever You had FORMED the earth and the world".

Young's 'literal' and Darby are both very close to the KJB meaning with: "By his Spirit the heavens are adorned; his hand hath FORMED the fleeing serpent." The "crooked serpent" would be the serpent in motion as it moves along, so it can also be described perhaps as "fleeing". In any case, it is the heavens that have been beautified by His Spirit and His hand that formed this lowly creature.

Also having the idea of beautifying the heavens by His Spirit are the Hebrew Names Version - "By his Spirit the heavens are garnished.", Coverdale 1535 - "With his sprete hath he garnished the heaues", the Revised Version 1881 and the ASV 1901 - "By his spirit the heavens are garnished", Green's literal - "By His Spirit the heavens were beautiful." 

However several modern versions like the NIV, along with the NASB, gives us yet a very different meaning to this verse. The NIV says: "By his BREATH THE SKY BECOMES CLEAR, his hand pierced the gliding serpent." This is similar to Dan Wallace's NET version which says: "BY HIS BREATH THE SKIES BECOME FAIR; HIS HAND PIERCED THE FLEEING SERPENT." The ESV has: "By his WIND the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced  the fleeing serpent."

As usual, among the Catholic versions we have a wide variety of meanings for this single verse.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 are a lot closer to the KJB than are the modern ones.  Both Douay Bibles say: "HIS SPIRIT HATH ADORNED THE HEAVENS, AND HIS OBSTRETIC HAND (?) BROUGHT FORTH THE WINDING SERPENT."  Apart from the "obstretic" part, it reads like the KJB.

The Catholic St. Joseph New American bible of 1970  is virtually unrecognizable while it ADDS a whole lot more to the verse with: "WITH HIS ANGRY BREATH HE SCATTERS THE WATER, AND HE HURLS THE LIGNTNING AGAINST IT RELENTLESSLY;  His hand PIERCES THE FUGITIVE DRAGON AS FROM HIS HAND IT STRIVES TO FLEE."

Then the 1985 New Jerusalem became more similar to the NIV, NASB with: "His BREATH has made the heavens LUMINOUS, HIS HAND TRANSFIXED THE FLEEING SERPENT." But the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has now gone back to a meaning very similar to the KJB, reading: "HIS SPIRIT HAS ADORNED THE HEAVENS, AND HIS BIRTHING HAND HAS BROUGHT FORTH THE WINDING SERPENT."

If you don't like these, you can always go with the LXX which says: "AND THE BARRIERS OF HEAVEN FEAR HIM, AND BY HIS COMMAND HE HAS SLAIN THE APOSTATE DRAGON."  Hey, whatever. It's all the same message, right?

Job 27:8 "For what is the hope of the hypocrite, THOUGH HE HATH GAINED, when God taketh away his soul?"

"though he hath gained" is the reading or meaning of Coverdale 1535 - "What hope hath ye Ypocrite, THOUGH HE HAVE GREATE GOOD", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible - "For what hope hath the hypocrite WHEN HE HATH HEAPED UP RICHES, if God take away his soule?",  the RV 1881 - "THOUGH HE GET HIM GAIN" ASV 1901 - "THOUGH HE GET HIM GAIN", Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 - "though he graspeth with greed",  NKJV,  the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Amplified Bible 1987 - "EVEN THOUGH HE HAS GAINED in this world", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac - "thought he has accumulated riches", the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the  Updated Bible Version 2004 and the Knox Bible 2012 - "AFTER ALL HIS GREEDY GETTING". 

However Young's, the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Green's translation, the Holman say: "What is the hope of the godless WHEN HE IS CUT OFF, when God requires his soul?" The ISV has "when he is eliminated".

Scholars are such a funny bunch. What one affirms another absolutely denies. Dan Wallace says the word means "to cut off" and  it can mean that as in Isaiah 38:12 "he will cut me off with pining", yet he doesn't mention that it can also mean other things and he himself translates the word in other places as "TO GET dishonest gain" (Eze.22:12, 27); "he THAT IS GREEDY OF GAIN" (Proverbs 1:19; 15:27) "he GETS WHAT HE WANTS" (Ps. 10:3)

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary goes as far as to actually criticize the meaning versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET have made of the text.  They write:  8. "What hope hath the hypocrite, notwithstanding all his gains, - "Gained" is antithetic to "taketh away." Umbreit's translation is an unmeaning tautology. "When God cuts off, when He taketh away his life." 

Adam Clarke and John Gill both agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible.  John Gill comments: "his outward substance, fancying, that because God prospers him in this world, he is highly in his favour, and shall enjoy the happiness of the world to come; and upon his external profession of religion, and found of duties performed by him, but he will find himself mistaken: though he hath gained; great wealth and riches under a guise of religion...yet all will not stand him in any stead, or be of any advantage to him when God taketh away his soul." 

The King James Bible is right, as always.

Job 27:18 KJB -  "He buildeth his house as a MOTH, and as a booth that the keeper maketh."

NASB 1995 (RSV, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He has built his house like THE SPIDER'S WEB, or as a hut which the watchman has made."

Here we have another blunder found in the NASB and several other modern "Vatican Versions". All Hebrew texts as well as  Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible, the  Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, 1917 Jewish Publication Society, NKJV 1982, God's Word Translation 1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, World English Bible 2000, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The New European Version 2010, Lexham Bible 2012,  the ESV 2011, Modern English Version 2014 read like the King James Bible -  "He buildeth his house as a MOTH, and as a booth that the keeper maketh."

The word is clearly "moth" (# 6211 gahsh) and is found 7 times in the Hebrew texts, as in Job 4:19 "are crushed before the MOTH", and 13:28 "as a garment that is MOTH eaten". It is also found in Psalm 39:11 "thou makest his beauty to consume away like a MOTH"; Isaiah 50:9 and 51:8 "the MOTH shall eat them up" and Hosea 5:12 "I will be unto Ephraim as a MOTH."

 Barnes' Notes on the Bible - "He buildeth his house as a moth - The house which the moth builds is the slight fabric which it makes for its own dwelling in the garment which it consumes. On this verse compare Job 8:14. The dwelling of the moth is composed of the materials of the garment on which it feeds, and there may be an allusion here not only to the fact that the house which the wicked reared for themselves would be temporary, and that it would soon pass away like the dwelling of the moth, but that it was obtained - like the dwelling of the moth - at the expense of others. The idea of frailty, however, and of its being only a very temporary habitation, is probably the main thought in the passage." 

Adam Clarke, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown all agree with the Hebrew/KJB reading of "AS A MOTH" and explain it in a similar way.

However the RSV and the NASB read: "He has built his house like A SPIDER'S WEB."

If you look at the NASB complete concordance you will see there is no number by their listing of "spider's web". That is because there is no such word in the Hebrew text. The NASB does not tell you when they depart from the Hebrew texts, but the RSV has a footnote telling us to compare the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but the Hebrew reads "moth".

Other modern versions that also reject the Hebrew text's "a moth" and instead take a reading from the so called Greek Septuagint's "A SPIDER'S WEB" are the Bible in Basic English 1961, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Easy to Read Version 2001, the New Century Version 2005, the New Living Translation 1996 and 2007 - "as fragile as a spider's web" and the 2011 Expanded Bible by Thomas Nelson (who also put out the NKJV) - "The houses the wicked build are like A SPIDER'S WEB."

The Amplified Bible of 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB) includes BOTH readings in it and says: "He builds his house like A MOTH OR A SPIDER, like a booth which a watchman makes."

Some critical text versions just make up their own readings out of pure imagination and read like no others.

The New English Bible of 1970 and the Revised English Bible of 1989 say: "The house he builds is FLIMSY AS A BIRD'S NEST." The new critical text Common English Bible of 2011 has: "They build their houses LIKE NESTS." They just made this up!

The LXX and the Syriac are interesting. The Greek LXX reads: "And his house IS GONE LIKE MOTHS, AND LIKE A SPIDER'S WEB", (Notice BOTH readings!) while Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has: "The wicked has built his house upon a spider's web." You will notice that neither the so called Greek Septuagint nor the Syriac reads like the NASB, RSV.

These fake bible versions  (RSV, NASB, modern Catholic versions and a few others) just rejected the clear Hebrew reading and then picked a single word out of these two corrupt Greek and Syriac texts without using the rest of the conflicting verses they got it from.

And they call this sleight of hand corruption of God's words "the SCIENCE of textual criticism". I think God has a different word in mind for what they are doing to His Book.

 

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic versions give us their typical contradictory mess.  The Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the Hebrew text and read just like the King James Bible with "He hath built his house AS A MOTH." 

However the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 says: "He builds his house AS OF COBWEBS" and the Catholic New Jerusalem of 1985 has: "All he has built himself is A SPIDER'S WEB." It then footnotes that "spider's web" comes from the Greek LXX, but that the Hebrew text reads "MOTH".

BUT, once again the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has gone back to the Hebrew and reads: "He has built his house like A MOTH."

It is also of interest that the RSV has "SPIDER'S WEB", while the NRSV 1989 says: "he builds his house LIKE A NEST", and then the ESV, which is a revision of the previous two, goes back to "LIKE A MOTH'S".

The NIV 2011, ISV 2012, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, and Holman Standard all add a word not found in any text but are still similar to the KJB reading with: "The house he builds is like A MOTH'S COCOON."

Not even Dan Wallace agrees with the NASB here. His NET version says “The house he builds is like A MOTH’S COCOON” He added the word “cocoon” to the text, and admits that he did. But then he footnotes: Heb כָעָשׁ (kha’ash, “like a moth”), but this leaves room for clarification. Some commentators wanted to change it to “bird’s nest” or just “nest” (cf. NRSV) to make the parallelism; see Job 4:14. But the word is not found. The LXX has a double expression, “as moths, as a spider.” So several take it as the spider’s web, which is certainly unsubstantial (NAB, NASB, NLT)”  

 

When not even Dan Wallace agrees with it, you know is has to be bad!

 

Job 28:4

In Job 28 the immediate context is that of mining the earth. "Surely there is a vein for the silver, and a place for gold where they fine it. Iron is taken out of the earth, and brass is molten out of the stone. Then in verse 4 we read in the KJB "THE FLOOD BREAKETH OUT FROM THE INHABITANT; EVEN THE WATERS FORGOTTEN OF THE FOOT: THEY ARE DRIED UP, THEY ARE GONE AWAY FROM MEN."

So read the Geneva Bible, Spanish of 1909, Young's, Webster's and the Third Millenium Bible.

John Gill comments on verse 4: "The flood breaketh out from the inhabitant of the mine, as the miner may be said to be, who lives there continually; and, when a flood of water arises, which is an usual thing in mines, he is obliged to flee, and make haste to save his life: even the waters forgotten of the foot; such as never any foot of man touched, or was acquainted with, being subterraneous water, and never seen with the eye of man before, and who before knew not there were such floods underground, they are dried up, they are gone away from men; yet they are not discouraged, but by means of engines, pumps, and buckets, and such like things, draw up the waters, and clear the mines of them; and they are gone from the workmen, who return to their work again, and go on with their mining."

However the NKJV says: "HE BREAKS OPEN A SHAFT AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE; THE PLACES FORGOTTEN BY FEET. THEY HANG FAR AWAY FROM MEN; THEY SWING TO AND FRO." Say what? The NKJV is very similar to the NASB, NIV, yet a look at the NASB concordance shows they have translated the word for "flood" as streams, torrents, rivers, and brooks 83 times, and only once as "shaft".

Job 28:18 "No mention shall be made of CORAL, or of PEARLS: for the price of wisdom is above RUBIES."

Instead of "coral, pearls, rubies" the NKJV has: "coral, QUARTZ, rubies"; the NIV has "coral, JASPER, rubies", while the NASB mentions: "coral, CRYSTAL, PEARLS." The word for "rubies" # 6443 is used 6 times and always translated as "rubies" in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, but the NASB has rendered this word as "corals" once; "jewels" 4 times, and "pearls" one time, as here. Rubies instead of pearls is also found in the RV, ASV, and the Jewish translations.

Job 29:14 "my judgment was as a robe and a DIADEM." A diadem is a crown, and is the reading of the RV, ASV, Jewish translations, Young's, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, but the NKJV joins the RSV, NASB, NIV with TURBAN, instead of diadem.

Job 29:17 "And I brake the JAWS of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth." So read the RV, ASV,Geneva Bible, and the NASB, but the NKJV joins the RSV and NIV and says: "I broke the FANGS of the wicked."

 

Job 33:16 KJB - "Then he openeth the ears of men, and SEALETH THEIR INSTRUCTION."

NIV (RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, NET, Catholic St. Joseph NAB) - "He may speak in their ears and TERRIFY THEM WITH WARNINGS."

"Then he openeth the ears of men, AND SEALETH THEIR INSTRUCTION" is the reading found in Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901 - "AND SEALETH THEIR INSTRUCTION", NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, The Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic Old Testament 1985 (Jay Green), Hebrew Names Version, The Word of Yah 1993, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The World English Bible 2012 - "and SEALS THEIR INSTRUCTION", Modern English Version 2014 - "and SEALS THEIR INSTRUCTION." 

The International Standard Version 2014 reads: “That’s when he opens the ear of mankind, authenticating his messages[a] to them”  Footnotes:  [a] Job 33:16 Lit. sealing his instruction 

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 has: "Then he opens the ears of men, and teaching instructs them in what they are to learn."

The Catholic Connection  

The previous Douai-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both read like the KJB with: "Then he openeth the ears of men, TEACHING INSTRUCTETH THEM IN WHAT THEY ARE TO LEARN."  

BUT then the Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 reads like the ESV, NIV with: "then he opens the ears of men and AS A WARNING TO THEM, TERRIFIES THEM".

BUT then the New Jerusalem bible 1985 chose to go with the Greek Septuagint version and it reads: "he speaks in someone's ears, FRIGHTENS THEM WITH APPARITIONS." Footnote - "following the Greek".

 

Job 33:18 KJB - "He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life FROM PERISHING BY THE SWORD."

 "FROM PERISHING BY THE SWORD." so read the Bishops' Bible, Geneva bible, ASV 1901,  Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917 - "from perishing BY THE SWORD", New Life Version 1969, RSV 1971, Amplified Bible 1987, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, Green's Literal 2005, Context Group Version 2007, the ESV 2011, the NIV 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011,  Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2010 (Mebust), World English Bible 2012, and the Modern English Version 2014 - "and his life FROM PERISHING BY THE SWORD." 

NASB - "He keeps back his soul from the pit, And his life FROM PASSING OVER INTO SHEOL."

How in the world the NASB came up with this reading is a mystery. The Hebrew word used here is #7973 sheh'lagh, and even the NASB translates it as "SWORD" in Job 36:12 -"they shall perish by THE SWORD."

Dan Wallace’s NET version actually reads: “He spares a person’s life from corruption, his very life FROM CROSSING OVER THE RIVER (of death).” 

So also reads the NRSV 1989, Holman Standard 2009, the Names of God Bible and the New Living Translation. The earlier RSV had "from perishing by the sword" and the ESV also went back to “from perishing by the sword.”  

The Catholic Connection The earlier Douay-Rheims bible 1610 as well as the 1950 Douay both read like the KJB with: "and his life FROM PASSING TO THE SWORD."  

But the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible reads like the NASB and has "He withholds his soul from the pit and his life from PASSING TO THE GRAVE."

But now the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 changed this to read much like Dan Wallace's NET, the Holman and the NRSV. It reads: "And thus he preserves his soul from the abyss, his life from PASSING DOWN THE CANAL."

 

Job 34:29 KJB-  "WHEN HE GIVETH QUIETNESS, WHO THEN CAN MAKE TROUBLE? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? WHETHER IT BE DONE AGAINST a nation, or against a man only."

Job 34:29 NIV (ESV, NASB) - "BUT IF HE REMAINS SILENT, WHO CAN CONDEMN HIM? If he hides his face, who can see him? YET IS HE OVER individual and nation alike."

Obviously these two verses do NOT mean the same thing at all when compared with each other. The following Bible commentators are in agreement with the sense found in the King James Bible reading.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible - "When he giveth quietness - That is, when God designs to give rest, comfort, ease, or prosperity in any way to a man. The Hebrew word used here may refer to any kind of ease, rest, or peace. The idea which Elihu intends to convey is, that God has all things under his control, and that he can bring prosperity or adversity upon an individual or a nation at his own pleasure."

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible - "When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? - How beautiful is this sentiment, and how true! He ever acts as a sovereign, but his actions are all wise and just. If he give quietness, who dares to give trouble? "

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - "When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble?.... Quietness or peace is of God; external peace to bodies of men, to communities, civil and religious, and to particular persons; quietness and contentment in outward enjoyments, peace and safety at home, and from enemies abroad; inward spiritual peace, this is of God, is in Christ, and from him;... though there are always some inclined to be troublers of the Israel of God; nor the peace of particular persons, not their outward peace and quietness, when God sets an hedge of providence about them; nor their inward peace, not by all the afflictions and persecutions they meet with in the world; nor by all the temptations of Satan, and the corruptions of their own hearts."

Matthew Henry Comments on this verse saying:  "God has an uncontrollable dominion in all the affairs of the children of men, and so guides and governs whatever concerns both communities and particular persons, that, as what he designs cannot be defeated, so what he does cannot be changed, v. 29. Observe, (1.) The frowns of all the world cannot trouble those whom God quiets with his smiles. When he gives quietness who then can make trouble? v. 29. This is a challenge to all the powers of hell and earth to disquiet those to whom God speaks peace, and for whom he creates it. If God give outward peace to a nation, he can secure what he gives, and disable the enemies of it to give it any disturbance. If God give inward peace to a man only, the quietness and everlasting assurance which are the effect of righteousness, neither the accusations of Satan nor the afflictions of this present time, no, nor the arrests of death itself, can give trouble. What can make those uneasy whose souls dwell at ease in God? See Phil. 4:7."

Agreeing with the sense of meaning found in the King James Bible are the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "When he geueth quietnesse, who can make trouble?", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "And when he giueth quietnesse, who can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who can beholde him, whether it be vpon nations, or vpon a man onely?", Darby 1890 - "When He giveth quietness, who then will disturb?", Websters 1833 translation - "When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble?", Noyes Translation 1869 - "When he giveth rest, who can cause trouble?", the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.  

 

Other English Bibles that read like the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010 - “ When he gives rest, who then can make trouble? If he hides his face, who then can behold him? This applies to a nation and the same to a man”, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "When HE GIVES QUIETNESS, WHO THEN CAN MAKE TROUBLE, when he hides his face, who then can behold him?  whether it be done against a nation or a man only?", the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "When he GIVES QUIETNESS, WHO THEN CAN MAKE TROUBLE?, And when he hides his face, who then can see Him, Whether it is against a nation or a man alone?", and the Modern English Version 2014 - "When He gives quietness, who then can make trouble?" 

 

The Judaica Press Tanach is similar to the KJB with: "When He quiets them, who will deal wickedly? When He hides His face, who will see Him? - whether it be done to a nation or to a man, alike."

Young's 1898 is similar to the KJB with: "And He giveth rest, and who maketh wrong? And hideth the face, and who beholdeth it? And in reference to a nation and to a man, It is the same.”

 

Foreign language Bibles that have the same meaning as found in the KJB are the French  Matine of 1744 - "Que s'il donne du repos, qui est-ce qui causera du trouble?" and Louis Segond 1910 - "S'il donne le repos, qui répandra le trouble?" = "If he gives peace, who then will spread trouble?", the Romanian Cornilescu - "Dacă dă El pace, cine poate s'o turbure?", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and the R.V. Gómez Bible 2010 - "Y si él diere reposo, ¿quién inquietará?" = "If he gives rest, who will cause trouble?", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Se ele aquietar, quem, então, inquietará? Se encobrir o rosto, quem, então, o poderá contemplar, seja para com um povo, seja para com um homem só?"

and the Modern Greek Bible - "Και οταν αυτος διδη ησυχιαν, τις θελει διαταραξει αυτην;" = "If he gives quietness, who will trouble it?"

However this meaning is completely lost and changed into something quite different in the NIV and other modern versions.

Also agreeing with the NIV are the NASB, and the ESV - "WHEN HE IS QUIET, WHO CAN CONDEMN?, the Holman Standard - "WHEN GOD IS QUIET, WHO CAN DECLARE HIM GUILTY?" and Dan Wallace's NET version - "But if God is quiet, who can condemn him?" 

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta is very different from them all. It reads: "WHEN HE FORGIVES, WHO THEN CAN CONDEMN? AND WHEN HE TURNS HIS FACE AWAY, WHO CAN FORGIVE THE PEOPLE, OR MANKIND ALTOGETHER?"

 

All bible versions do NOT have the same meanings in literally hundreds of verses. 

Job 35:2 KJB -"Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou sayest, MY RIGHTEOUSNESS IS MORE THAN GOD'S?"

Job 35:2 NIV 1984 - “Do you think this is just? You say, ‘I WILL BE CLEARED BY GOD.”

Job 35:2 NIV 2011 - “Do you think this is just? You say, ‘I AM IN THE RIGHT, NOT GOD.” (Yep, pretty much the same;-)

 Job 35:2 KJB -"Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou sayest, MY RIGHTEOUSNESS IS MORE THAN GOD'S?"  Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of "My righteousness is more than God's" are Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Thinkest thou this right, that thou hast said, I am more righteous then God?", the English Revised Version 1881 and ASV of 1901 - "Do you say, `My righteousness is more than God's'?", Darby, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the NASB 1963-1995 - ""Do you think this is according to justice? Do you say, `MY RIGHTEOUSNESS IS MORE THAN GOD'S?", the Judaica Press Tanach - "'My righteousness is greater than that of God'?", the Voice 2012 and the Common English Bible 2011 - "Do you think it right? You say, “I’m more just than God.”, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Other Errant Versions:

Dan Wallace's NET version is a bit confusing with: "Do you think this to be just: when you say, ‘MY RIGHT BEFORE GOD."

The RSV has: ""Do you think this to be just? Do you say, 'IT IS MY RIGHT BEFORE GOD."

The NRSV of 1989 reads: ""Do you think this to be just? You say, "I AM IN THE RIGHT BEFORE GOD."

And then the ESV revision of 2001 went back to the old RSV reading - "Do you say, IT IS MY RIGHT BEFORE GOD."

The Holman Standard of 2003 reads: "Do you think it is just when you say, "I AM RIGHTEOUS BEFORE GOD?"

Job 36:18 KJB, here Elihu is speaking on behalf of God and says to Job  - "BECAUSE THERE IS WRATH, BEWARE LEST HE TAKE THEE AWAY WITH HIS STROKE: THEN A GREAT RANSOM CANNOT DELIVER THEE."

However this verse is totally unrecognizable in the NIV which says: "BE CAREFUL THAT NO ONE ENTICES YOU BY RICHES; DO NOT LET A LARGE BRIBE TURN YOU ASIDE."

These verses from two different Bible versions are not even remotely close to meaning the same thing!

Agreeing with the sense found in the King James Bible are the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "And seeing there is wrath with God, beware lest he take thee away in thy wealth, & all that thou hast to redeeme thee can not deliuer thee.", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "For Gods wrath is, least hee should take that away in thine abundance: for no multitude of giftes can deliuer thee.", Webster's 1833 translation - "Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee., Darby - "Because there is wrath, beware lest it take thee away through chastisement: then a great ransom could not avail thee." the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "Because there is chemah, beware lest He take thee away with His stroke; then a rav kopher (great ransom) cannot deliver thee.", the KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

Foreign language bibles that agree with the sense found in the King James Bible and others are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995 - "Por lo cual teme que en su ira no te quite con golpe, El cual no puedas apartar de ti con gran rescate." and the RV Gómez of 2010 - " Por lo cual teme que en su ira no te quite con golpe, el cual no puedas apartar de ti con gran rescate.", the French Martin of 1744 - "Certainement [Dieu] est irrité; prends garde qu'il ne te plonge dans l'affliction, car il n'y aura point alors de rançon si grande, qu'elle puisse te délivrer.", and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Porquanto há furor, guarda-te de que näo sejas atingido pelo castigo violento, pois nem com resgate algum te livrarias dele.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Perciocchè egli è in ira, guarda che talora egli non ti atterri con battiture; E con niun riscatto, benchè grande, non ti possa scampare. and the Modern Greek Bible - "Επειδη υπαρχει θυμος, προσεχε μη σε εξαφανιση δια της προσβολης αυτου· τοτε ουδε μεγα λυτρον ηθελε σε λυτρωσει." = "Since there is wrath, take heed that he not take thee away with his casting down, then not even a great ransom will deliver thee."   

Matthew Henry comments on this verse - "Because there is wrath" (that is, "because God is a righteous governor, who resents all the affronts given to his government, because he has revealed his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, and because thou hast reason to fear that thou art under God's displeasure) therefore beware lest he take thee away suddenly with his stroke, and be so wise as to make thy peace with him quickly and get his anger turned away from thee.  Let him not promise himself that, if God's wrath should kindle against him, he could find out ways to escape the strokes of it. (1.) There is no escaping by money, no purchasing a pardon with silver, or gold, and such corruptible things: "Even a great ransom cannot deliver thee when God enters into judgment with thee. His justice cannot be bribed, nor any of the ministers of his justice." 

John Gill comments: "wrath in God, which is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. His vindictive and punitive justice, to revenge and punish wickedness, the effects of which are sometimes awful judgments on men in this life; and eternal vengeance hereafter, called wrath to come... Beware lest he take thee away with [his] stroke; out of the world by death, which is the stroke of his hand; and is sometimes given suddenly, and in an awful manner, in wrath and vengeance...then a great ransom cannot deliver thee: there is no ransom on earth equal to the life or soul of man; "what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26; see Psalm 49:6. The great ransom of all is the ransom of Christ, which Elihu had made mention of before, Job 33:24; and what else could he have in his mind now?" 

John Wesley tersely comments: "Wrath - Conceived by God against thee. Then - If once God's wrath take hold of thee, no ransom will be accepted for thee." 

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says: "Because there is wrath - That is, the wrath of God is to be dreaded. The meaning is, that if Job persevered in the spirit which he had manifested, he had every reason to expect that God would suddenly cut him off. With his stroke - With his smiting or chastisement. Then a great ransom cannot deliver thee -  The meaning is, that a great ransom could not prevent him from being cut off. On the meaning of the word ransom, see the notes at Job 33:24. The idea here is, not that a great ransom could not deliver him "after" he was cut off and consigned to hell - which would be true; but that when he had manifested a spirit of insubmission a little longer, nothing could save him from being cut off from the land of the living. God would not spare him on account; of wealth, or rank, or age, or wisdom. None of these things would be a "ransom" in virtue of which his forfeited life would be preserved."

However Today's Bible Babble Buffet versions present us with utter confusion. They don't even agree with each other. Let's compare a few of them to see how wildly different they are.

The ASV of 1901 says: " For let not wrath STIR THEE UP AGAINST CHASTISEMENTS; Neither let the greatness of the ransom turn thee aside."

NASB 1995, ESV 2011 - "Beware that WRATH DOES NOT ENTICE YOU TO SCOFFING, AND DO NOT LET THE GREATNESS OF THE RANSOM TURN YOU ASIDE."

Young's is a bit confusing with: "Lest He move thee with a stroke [of fury] And the abundance of an atonement turn thee not aside." (Huh?!)

The so called Greek Septuagint disagrees with them all, saying: "BUT THERE SHALL BE WRATH UPON THE UNGODLY, BY REASON OF THE UNGODLINESS OF THE BRIBES WHICH THEY RECEIVED FOR INIQUITIES."

The Holman Standard 2009 and the NET version and the ISV all basically agree with the NIV and say: Holman Christian Standard Bible - "BE CAREFUL THAT NO ONE LURES YOU WITH RICHES; DO NOT LET A LARGE RANSOM LEAD YOU ASTRAY."   

But the NKJV 1982 is far more like the King James Bible with: "BECAUSE THERE IS WRATH, BEWARE LEST HE TAKE YOU AWAY WITH ONE BLOW; FOR A LARGE RANSOM WOULD NOT HELP YOU AVOID IT."  

The Voice of 2012 (a new critical text version) is totally different still with: "BEWARE THAT YOUR ANGER AT HOW YOU ARE BEING JUDGED DOES NOT SEDUCE YOU INTO SCORNING. DO NOT LET THE HIGH RANSOM YOU ARE PAYING THROUGH YOUR SUFFERING STEER YOU OFF GOD'S PATH."

(Yep, that sound's about right, huh?. Hey, just pick one you personally like and go for it.)

Among the Catholic versions we see the same confusion. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 say: "Therefore LET NOT ANGER OVERCOME THEE TO OPPRESS ANY MAN;  neither let multitude of gifts turn thee aside."

But the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible simply omits all of verses 16 through 20 and then footnotes that "the Hebrew text here is in disorder" and then it quotes the verses in the footnote from the Latin Vulgate.

Then the 1985 New Jerusalem bible reads very much like today's modern Vatican Versions (ESV, NIV, NET, Holman) and says: "BEWARE OF BEING LED ASTRAY BY ABUNDANCE, OF BEING CORRUPTED BY EXPENSIVE PRESENTS."  

What a shocker. The Vatican and the United Bible Society have made a formal agreement to produce a common "interconfessional" text, and violá, all these modern versions are suddenly in agreement with each other. Surprise! 

May I remind you at this point that there is NOBODY who seriously believes that ANY of these modern bible versions is the infallible words of God. The only Christians I have met who really believe in an infallible Bible are the King James Bible believers.

Job 39:13 "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"

 

This is another verse that is so mixed up in the Bible Babel versions that it is virtually unrecognizable.

The KJB as well as the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the 1999 edition equal the KJB word for word saying: "Diste las hermosas alas al pavo real, o alas y plumas al avestruz?".

The reading of the King James Bible is also that found in the Italian Diodati, Bishop's bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's translation 1833, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?", the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, and The Modern English Version 2014 - “Did you give the beautiful wings to the peacocks?  Or wings and feathers to the ostrich”

 

This Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament -

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Job%2039:13

 

Now for a list of various translations, all of which wildly disagree with each other.

NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"

NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."

NIV 2011 : "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."

Young's "literal" 1898: "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."

Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - “The wing of the RENANIM REJOICED, OR THE WINGED STORK OR THE NOZAH.”

RSV 1974- “"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT ARE THEY the pinions and plumage OF LOVE?”

NRSV 1989: "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."

Lamsa's 1933: "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY,THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."

LXX "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."

New English Bible 1970: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."

Bible in Basic English 1961: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"

The Message 2002 - “"The OSTRICH flaps her wings FUTILELY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!”

The Thomson Translation 1808 - Why is the wing of the OSTRICH THAT OF THE SPORTIVE? FOR THOUGH IT COMPREHENDETH THAT OF THE STORK AND FALXCON."  (Huh?)

Complete Apostle’s Bible 2003 - “The peacock has a beautiful wing: IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE, IT IS WORTHY OF NOTICE”

The Context Group Version 2007 - "The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT IS IT A PIOUS PLUMAGE AND DOWN?  

 

Yep, it looks like James White and all the other bible agnostics are right. By comparing several versions and learning Hebrew we can then know what God REALLY said. 

 

 

Job 40:15-17 KJB -  “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in THE NAVEL of his belly.  He moveth his tail like like a cedar: the sinews of HIS STONES are wrapped together.“

ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NIV - "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.  What strength he has in his loins, what power in the MUSCLES of his belly!  He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of HIS THIGHS are knit together."

NKJV - "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.  See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in HIS STOMACH MUSCLES.  He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of HIS THIGHS are tightly knit.”

 

Some bible critics complain about the word “navel” and tell us that this is an error in the King James Bible. They say that IF Behemoth is some sort of a dinosaur, then it cannot have a “navel” because Dinosaurs were hatched from eggs.  They tell us that the Hebrew word really means sinew or muscle. And that “modern scholars contend that the term merely means ‘the muscles of his belly’.”

 

And these bible critics, none of whom will EVER show you a copy of what they honestly believe is the inerrant words of God, go on to tell us that the word translated as “STONES” in Job 40:17 should be “THIGHS”.

 

RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem Job 40:17 - “sinews of his THIGHS are knit together” 

 

The KJB says in Job 40:17 - “He moveth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of HIS STONES are wrapped together.”  

 

First of all, it should be pointed out that the Hebrew word for “thighs” is an entirely different word than the one used here in Job 40:17. Secondly, many commentators tell us that the “stones” refers to the testicles of this animal and they DO have a muscular structure by which they are wrapped together and attached to the body.

Bible scholars are all over the map when it comes to identifying what this behemoth animal really was and they are at variance on how to translate the passage.  The various opinions range from an elephant, a water ox, a bull or a hippopotamus, or a crocodile but none of these animals fits the description given to us here in Scripture.  Others, like myself, believe behemoth was a type of living dinosaur.

However if we are right about it being a dinosaur, then some raise an objection to the King James Bible by pointing out that the KJB says “his force is in the NAVEL of his belly” and they tell us that dinosaurs, which as far as we know were hatched from eggs, did not have a belly button.  Of  course neither do elephants, water oxen nor hippos.  So they assume that the KJB is wrong for having the word “navel of his belly” and tell us it should be something like “muscles of his belly”.

So how do I as a King James Bible believer defend the use of this word, regardless of what kind of animal is being described?  Well, two things should be pointed out.  First, the King James Bible is by no means the only Bible to translate the Hebrew word used here as “navel” and secondly, the word navel has two primary meanings, only one of which refers to a literal belly button; the other meaning is that of the center or middle part of anything.

 

Thus the idea would be that behemoth's great strength comes from the center of his belly. In fact, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version translates the phrase this way - "his power is in the center of his abdomen."

Not only does the King James Bible translate this section of Scripture as “his force is in THE NAVEL of his belly” but so also do the following Bible translations: Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “his strength is in his loynes, and his force is in the nauil of his belly.”, Webster’s bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, the Douay-Rheims 1899, the Jewish translation of 1936 by the Hebrew Publishing Comany, New York, the Douay 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2003,  The Revised Geneva Bible 2005,  the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version, , the Jewish translation called The Complete Tanach 2004 - “Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in THE NAVEL of his belly.”, the Knox Bible ‘You’ Version 2009 - “yet what strength in his loins, what lustihood in THE NAVEL of his belly!”, the Old Testament According to the Septuagint 2009 - “his force is in THE NAVEL of his belly.”, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - “navel muscles”, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011 and The New Brenton Translation 2012, “the NAVEL of his belly” 

 

 

And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “the NAVEL of his belly”

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Job%2040:16

Foreign language translations that have it the same way as the KJB are the so called Greek Septuagint,  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602,  the Reina-Valera 1865, the 1909 Reina Valera, La Reina Valera Gómez 2014 - “Y su fortaleza en EL OMBLIGO de su vientre.” = the NAVEL of his belly, “Y los nervios de SUS GENITALES son entretejidos.” = “HIS GENITALS”,  the French Martin 1744 - “et sa vertu est dans le nombril de son ventre.” and the Modern Greek translation - "και η ισχυς αυτου εν τω ομφαλω της κοιλιας αυτου."

 

 

American Heritage Dictionary (2 definitions)

1. –noun

2. The mark on the surface of the abdomen of mammals where the umbilical cord was attached during gestation. Also called umbilicus.

3. A central point; a middle.

 

Century Dictionary (4 definitions)

1. –noun

2. In anatomy, a mark or scar in the middle of the belly where the umbilical cord was attached in the fetus; the umbilieus; the omphalos.

3. The central point or part of anything; the middle.

4. The nave of a wheel.

 

Webster’s New World College Dictionary 4th edition

 

na·vel noun

1. the small scar, usually a depression in the middle of the abdomen, marking the place where the umbilical cord was attached to the fetus; umbilicus

2. any centrally located point, part, or place

 

Wordsmyth English Dictionary

 

noun definition 1: the place on the abdomen of a mammal where the umbilical cord of the fetus was attached; umbilicus.

definition 2: the center or middle. related words: nucleus

 

Webster’s Dictionary 1913 - 1. (Anat.) A mark or depression in the middle of the abdomen; the umbilicus. See Umbilicus.<-- called also belly button in humans -->

 

2. The central part or point of anything; the middle.

 

Within the navel of this hideous wood, Immured in cypress shades, a sorcerer dwells. Milton. 

 

Job 40:17 “the sinews of HIS STONES are wrapped together” -  so also read Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1587 - ‘STONES’, Douay-Rheims 1610 (his TESTICLES), Webster’s Bible 1833 - “HIS MALE ORGANS”, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “the sinews of HIS STONES are wrapped together.”, Douay 1950 “testicles”, The Word of Yah 1993, The Third Millennium Bible 1998 - “the sinews of his STONES”, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - “the sinews of HIS STONES”   

 

and this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “the sinews OF HIS STONES are wrapped together.” 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Job%2040:17

 

Foreign Language Bibles that agree with the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2010 and La Reina Valera Gómez 2014 - “Y su fortaleza en EL OMBLIGO de su vientre.” = the NAVEL of his belly, “Y los nervios de SUS GENITALES son entretejidos.” = “HIS GENITALS”

 

 

 

Job 40:23 Speaking of behemoth - “Behold, he drinketh up a river and hasteth not.”

So read either exactly or have the same meaning are the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible -”Beholde, he drinketh vp whole ryuers and feareth not”, Coverdale, Wycliffe 1390 - “He schal soupe vp the flood, and he schal not wondre”, the Great Bible 1540 and Matthew’s Bible 1549 -”Lo, without any labour myght he drincke out of the whoale floude”, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998. The French Martin 1744 “Voilà, il engloutit une rivière [en buvant], et il ne s'en retire pas vite”, the Spanish Reina of 1569, and the Reina Valera of 1909 -”He aquí que él tomará el río sin inmutarse”, and the Modern Greek translation.

However the NKJV says: “Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed”.  The NASB, NIV, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and ESV are all similar with "If a river rage, he is not alarmed”, “Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened” (ESV).

Job 42:2 “I know that thou canst do everything, AND THAT NO THOUGHT CAN BE WITHHOLDEN FROM THEE.”

So read the Bishops’ Bible 1568 “and that there is no thought hid vnto thee.”, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Geneva Bible 1587, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, Youngs translation, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1936, Webster’s 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - “y que no hay pensamiento que te sea oculto.”

However the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman say basically the same thing with: “I know that You can do everything, AND THAT NO PURPOSE OF YOURS CAN BE WITHHELD FROM YOU.” NKJV

Job 42:6 After having God speak to him Job confesses: “Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF, and repent in dust and ashes.”

 

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says: "Wherefore I abhor myself - I see that I am a sinner to be loathed and abhorred. Job, though he did not claim to be perfect, had yet unquestionably been unduly exalted with the conception of his own righteousness, and in the zeal of his argument, and under the excitement of his feelings when reproached by his friends, had indulged in indefensible language respecting his own integrity. He now saw the error and folly of this, and desired to take the lowest place of humiliation. Compared with a pure and holy God, he saw that he was utterly vile and loathsome, and was not unwilling now to confess it."

Matthew Henry - “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. Observe, (1.) It concerns us to be deeply humbled for the sins we are convinced of, and not to rest in a slight superficial displeasure against ourselves for them. Even good people, that have no gross enormities to repent of, must be greatly afflicted in soul for the workings and breakings out of pride, passion, peevishness, and discontent, and all their hasty unadvised speeches; for these we must be pricked to the heart and be in bitterness…Self-loathing is evermore the companion of true repentance. Eze. 6:9, THEY SHALL LOATHE THEMSELVES for the evils which they have committed. We must no only angry at ourselves for the wrong and damage we have by sin done to our own souls, but must ABHOR OURSELVES, as having by sin made ourselves odious to the pure and holy God, who cannot endure to look upon iniquity. If sin be truly an abomination to us, sin in ourselves will especially be so; the nearer it is to us the more loathsome it will be. (4.) The more we see of the glory and majesty of God, and the more we see of the vileness and odiousness of sin and of ourselves because of sin, the more we shall abase and ABHOR OURSELVES  for it.”

"Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF" is also the reading of the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Therefore I abhorre my selfe, and repent in dust and ashes.", the RV 1881- "I abhor myself", the  ASV 1901 - "I abhor myself", Darby "I abhor myself",  World English Bible - "I abhor myself", NKJV 1982, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011 - "I despise myself and repent",  NET version 2006, the NIV 1984, 2011, Hebrew Names Version, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "Therefore I abhor myself", the Lexham English Bible 2012, and the 2012 ISV (International Standard Version) - “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."

 

Other English Bibles that read "Therefore I ABHOR MYSELF (despise myself) and repent in dust and ashes." are The Word of Yah 1993, Green's Literal 2005, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes.", Modern English Version 2014 - "Therefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes."

 

 

Among foreign language Bible that also read "I ABHOR MYSELF" or its equivalent are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and the Reina Valera Gómez 2010 -  “Por tanto  ME ABORREZCO, y me arrepiento En el polvo y en la ceniza.”  = "I HATE  (ABHOR) MYSELF), the Portuguese de Almeida Actualizada and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués “Por isso ME ABOMINO e me arrependo no pó e na cinza.” = "I ABHOR MYSELF", the so called Greek Septuagint has "διὸ ἐφαύλισα ἐμαυτὸν" = "I have counted myself vile", and the Modern Greek Bible has "δια τουτο βδελυττομαι εμαυτον" = "Therefore I ABHOR myself", the French Ostervald 1998 and Louis Segond 2007 - "C'est pourquoi JE ME CONDAMNE et je me repens, sur la poussière et sur la cendre.", the Italain Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Perciò provo disgusto nei miei confronti" = "Therefore I feel disgust towards myself"

 

The NASB

But believe it or not, the NASB actually says: “Therefore I RETRACT, And I repent in dust and ashes."  Ooops. “I take it back”.  Not quite the same as “I abhor myself” is it?

 

The NASB concordance shows that they have translated this same Hebrew word as "abhorred" in Psalm 78:59 and as "despise" some 13 times, but only once as "retract".

 

The Holman Standard does the same thing: “Therefore I TAKE BACK MY WORDS and repent in dust and ashes.”,

 

and the new Common English Bible 2011 (another critical text edtion) is really weird with: "Therefore, I RELENT AND FIND COMFORT ON DUST AND ASHES."?!?

 

Peterson's the Message of 2002 totally paraphrases the verse as: "I'M SORRY --FORGIVE ME. I'LL NEVER DO THAT AGAIN, I PROMISE! I'LL NEVER AGAIN LIVE ON CRUSTS OF HEARSAY, CRUMBS OF RUMOR."

 

And the latest critical text version put out by Thomas Nelson called The Voice of 2012 also goes along with this errant meaning and ADDS words not found in any text, saying: "THEREFORE I REALIZE THE TRUTH; I DISAVOW AND MOURN ALL I HAVE SAID and repent in dust and ash."

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Guess which other ones do the same thing? You got it!  The Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says:  “I RETRACT WHAT I SAID, and repent in dust and ashes.” and the St. Joseph NAB has: "I DISAVOW WHAT I HAVE SAID."

 

AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation says: "That is why I MAKE A RETRACTION, and I do repent in dust and ashes."

 

There is a definite difference in meaning from having Job say "I ABHOR MYSELF", which is the right spirit to have when we recognize our sin before a holy God, and "I RETRACT what I said", which basically means "Ooops, I made a mistake in what I said and I take it back."


Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm