Job 24:22 Revisited

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Keith M, Aug 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question of whether God or man is the subject of Job 24:22 has arisen twice in this forum and also over in the Baptist Theology & Bible Study forum. After asking this question of a friend from another board who is very well versed in Hebrew, I posted the following in answer to the question in the BT/BS forum this morning:

    I finally heard back from a guy I know from another board. He is very knowledgeable of Hebrew. His comments are that basically it boils down to the translators' understanding of the context.


    Quote:
    So much of Hebrew meaning depends on the context, and so the translation of who the "he" is dependant upon what the translator understands to be the context.

    Even in the original Hebrew there is no clear indication of whether this passage is speaking of God or of man. My friend's conclusion is this: "I guess we can say that "good translators differ" on how to interpret this."

    There is no pat answer to your question, Salamander. The KJV translators and translators of early English Bible's left the subject unspecified as "he" probably because of their own uncertainty. Translators of modern versions often include God as the subject, and there is no concrete evidence that they are wrong. Even in the original Hebrew the subject of Job 24:22 is not clear.

    I don't see this as a major doctrinal issue. This is just one of the things about the Bible (any version) that we will not know for certain in this lifetime. When we get to those pearly gates and enter the New Jerusalem then we will understand everything. Until then there are just some things we will never understand completely and we just have to leave it to the Lord to guide our interpretatin and our understanding.

    Apparently when one says that God cannot possibly be the subject of v. 22 one is taking a stance for which there is no firm foundation. Taking such a stance could be construed as taking sides in the KJVO debate, which I will not go into here.
     
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grammartically the subject for Mashak is he, I believe as there is no Elohim or Eloha there.
    The subject in the context could mean God, but that is up to the commentators or readers.
    From verse 18, He appears. Is he God? Not necessarily. v 22 should be understood as the continuation thence.

    But what I am uncertain is Abirim because it is plural but KJV translated it as the mighty. I would think about it.
    So, he the subject seems to be OK.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    My take is that "He" (mashak) is the personification of sin as in...

    Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

    HankD​
     
  4. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    It can be a possible alternative.
    Literally the subject is "He".
    When we check the context of the chapter, it might be "shadow of death in v 17 or some angel of God who punish the wicked.
    There is no word for God in that sentence, but many translations start with God:

    Good News Bible, NIV, ASV, RSV, New Living Translation, NRSV, ESV, even NKJV all created a new word " God" in that sentence.

    Again this confirms KJV is accurate, and NASB is an accurate translation as well even though it is based on the wrong texts for New Testament.
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    The preceding verses is speaking of unpunished wickedness. Verse Job 24:21 He evil entreateth the barren that beareth not: and doeth not good to the widow. I take it 22 is speaking of the same he.
     
  6. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then just as I said that the other versions superimpose "God" into the context and was ATTACKED by many and psycho-scrutinzed from thereon.:love2: :sleep:
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite, Salamander. You originally attacked the MVs that use God as the subject of the verse, stating that God could not be the subject. The truths that were presented were merely to show the untruth of your blanket condemnation of the MVs. :thumbs:
     
  8. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the modern versions that superimpose "God" in the subject line are WRONG!

    That's your problem, you have a version that makes no distinction in this case and leaves too much left as guesswork, when the passage is very clear, well, except in certain versions.

    The Hebrew DOES NOT support the conjecture that "God" is the subject of verse 22.

    Live with it.

    The best anyone can come up with is the Hebrew word "yiteen" which most of the time speaks of Elohim, BUT! the context tells us all differently. The best anyone can determine is that the subject continues from verse 21, duh.

    Yall have introduced a dog into the field that won't hunt. The best he can do is run rabbit trails when there are not even any rabbits in the meadow.:laugh:
     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know Hebrew, Salamander? If not, you really shouldn't argue against those who do. It destroys your credibility.

    I consulted with someone I know on another board who is very fluent in Hebrew. He said that even in the Hebrew the subject is not so easily understood. So here you make a claim that can only be substantiated if the English corrects the Hebrew. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one making such an unfounded claim if I were you. :laugh: :laugh:

     
    #9 Keith M, Sep 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2006
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not too much difficult to discern who is the subject of the sentence in Job 24:22. Apparently the verb Mashak םשך indicates it is QAL, then it is third person singular, masculine. Then it is hooh ( He) unless there is no other specific person mentioned. You can find this in Hebrew Verb 501 as well.

    If you read from 23:1, Job is responding and God is mentioned in 23:16, then turns to Almighty (Shadai), then I, they, murderer, the womb, etc.
    The sentence itself indicates Hooh ( He) and therefore the translator should leave it as He, then commentators may interpret he as Almighty or sin, or the morning or the worm, etc. There is no word of El or Elohim in verse 22. Inserting God in that verse is a Creation of a Word(God) in the sentence by the translators.

    In this case it proves that the Word-to-Word translation as the principle of translation is correct, which can be found in KJV and in NASB, while even NKJV states it as God.
     
    #10 Eliyahu, Sep 1, 2006
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2006
  11. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know some one who knows some one who knows me!:tongue3:

    How many more posts before you believe the Bible is precise?

    The context refuses "God" in the verse. The Hebrew doesn't support "God" in the verse. I suppose you'd have people still guessing?

    God has NEVER risen up to leave "no man" sure of life, it's not in His Nature.

    Everytime God has risen up to the point of leaving men in the dilemma of near death, he has always preserved life for a least a few.

    "God" in the verse goes diametrically against God.

    Do I know Hebrew? I have the lexicons, so do you. Prove that "God" is the correct rendering. I have, and others have as wel PROVEN that "God" is NOT the right translation.:sleep:
     
  12. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    So now you presume to know what I believe Salamander. I wouldn't be so hasty to tell others what they believe if I were you. You really don't do a very good job at guessing, Salamander, so why don;t you stop putting words in the moths of others, huh?

    The Bible is precise, Salamander. But it is impossible to have translations that are absolutely precise to the original. You seem to advocate an erroneous belief that an English translation can be more precise than the Hebrew, the Aramaic or the Greek, but that is absolutely impossible. There can be no translation in English, French, Spanish or any other language that is 100% accurate with the original languages. We can come close with our translations, but none of them are perfect due to the differences in languages.

    The Bibles we have are all accurate in that they convey to us the things God wants to convey - no translation I know of (with possibly the exceptions of the JST, the CWT and the NWT) deny the deiy of Christ or fail to teach us the plan of salvation and the importance of Christ's shed blood.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Above is a quote from the 1611 King James Version translation commitee who plainly admitted that there were passages in the Hebrew which were "no so clear".

    And in fact the KJV First Edition for Job 24:22 has a marginal note:

    || Or he trusteth not his own life


    HankD
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    The subject he may mean the Shadow of Death in verse 17.
    Grammatically, the subject is 3rd person, singular, masculine, which means he.
    The shadow of death is swift, draws the mighty with its power, and no one can be sure of life when it comes.
     
  15. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, Keith, show me just one instance where God ever rose up and poured out His wrath that left no man sure of life?

    The Flood of Noah? No, God left him, his wife, his three sons and their wives sure of life.

    Sodom and Gomorrah? No, God sent two angels to Lot and he and his two daughters left sure of life.

    The Great Tribulation? Nope, God will save Israel in a day.

    To place "God" into the sentence is diametrically opposed to the context AND oppopses the Character of God, and He does NOT change.:thumbsup:
     
  17. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0


    A definite statement on what you merely think I believe, Salamander.



    If you had asked what I believe I would not have said you were putting words in my mouth, Salamander. But you didn't ask. You made a foolish and unsubstantiated statement about my belief (and you were absolutely wrong about it, too).



    More guesswork, Salamander. I do not believe God to be less than God in preserving His word. I believe God has the strength to preserve His word in the various English translations that have been read and enjoyed by English-speaking people down through the centuries. God has the strength and the power to provide various English translations that will be understood by those reading their Bibles. It is those who deny the validity of the modern versions who deem God to be less than God in preserving His word. Those who deny the modern versions believe God had tha power to deliver only a single English translation, and that this single translation, although antiquated, is the only standard for English-speaking people.



    That's priceless, Salamander. It was you who sought to turn this into one of your KJVO jokes when you issued a blanket denial that the MVs cannot possibly be correct. You really need to stop accusing others of doing the very things you are doing yourself, Salamander. It destroys your credibility even more than you have destroyed it already.

    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
  18. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    From a friend who is quite familiar with the Hebrew:

     
  19. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, Phillip or Roger, you can go ahead and close this thread any time. It seems meaningful communication has been lost.
     
  20. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone of your posts proves what you believe.



    I already know what you believe on this particular subject. I asked you a question and you think I made a statement.




    We're not discussing translations, you are. I am providing that "God" does not fit the context, nor does "God" facilitate the Hebrew, though it does surmount to only some Rabbinic ideals.


    I find no "problems" with those versions leading up to the KJB that are of the Masoretic and Byzantine persuasion. I have found many discrepencies and omissions in many of the "MV's".

    You obviously do not understand eloquence in regard to the Elizabethan style of English, but why am I surprised? You think "God" could be the right translation, or you think it might not be.:sleep:

    All the while you cannot prove that "God" fits the verse while I have proven by sound doctrine that "God" cannot fit the verse.

    I have found that many of your "persuasion" have a few doctrinal "issues"


    If I "destroy" my credibility with those who are still guessing what the Word of God is, then, THANK YOU!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...