Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Book of Job and the Bible Babble Buffet Versions

Job Bible Babble - Part One.

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,  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 - "wzrusza? p?acz swój!", the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible -  ?S? o blesteme cei ce blestem? ziua, care sunt gata s? î?i înal?e jelirea.? = ?To curse those who curse the day, who are ready to raise HIS MOURNING.? 

and THE MODERN GREEK BIBLE - "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 - " = "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 -  = "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 ?uf?", 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" - 

The so called Greek Septuagint (LXX)  -Shall bread be eaten without salt? or again, is there taste in empty words? - ει δε και εστιν γευμα εν ρημασιν κενοις


http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Job/index.htm



"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 -  = "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:



NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 1 


NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 2 


NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 3


NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 4



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 - 


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, 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:" = "...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 = "HE WANDERS ABOUT FOR BREAD, 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: (mÿlitsay reay, 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 - " = "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 - ?i înainte eram ca o tamburin?."


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 Millennium 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 - = "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 Millennium 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.  


Be sure to see Job Bible Babble - Part Two

https://brandplucked.webs.com/bible-babble-in-job-part-two



Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm