Job 24 II

If all you are going to do is bash the moderators this thread will be closed immediately.

You failed to notice others posts being snipped.

I closed the thread because you said "Bye", I assumed you were gone.

This thread will not bash ANY version, the KJV, the NKJV, or any other. I am not going to tolerate attacks on versions of the Bible. Any posts not on the precise topic will be snipped and the thread closed.

 

Sal, is your controversy over the rendering of verse 22? If so, let's take a little closer look.

As I said earlier, only GOD'S rising up would make every man unsure of his life.

Verse 23 says HIS eyes are upon them. In other words, God sees all the deeds of evildoers. Just as He doesn't now act upon evil immediately, He didn't do it in Job's day too often either.

Just whom else could the antecedent of "he" in V22 be?

 

Not everyone disagrees with you.
For whatever it's worth, the text of "The Message" :love2: agrees with the KJV :laugh:

Rob

 

Re: Job 24:22

I know a couple guys on another discussion board who are very knowledgeable in Hebrew, so I asked the question of them just now. Hopefully, I will have their answers soon and they can shed a little light on the subject.

At this point in time, and with my almost non-existent knowledge of the Hebrew, I can see both sides of this discussion. It is not absolutely clear to me at this point, and I am not going to jump on one side or the other just yet.

Salamander, I am not going to comment on the rest of your OP at this time except to ask why you expect no one will comment on the rest of your OP when a major part of it is your own private and unfounded tirade against BB moderators, especially Roger? No one will be off topic if they address your comments as these comments are part of your OP. You really have no grounds to go there in your OP and then expect everyone else to completely ignore what you said.

 

Rob, in the case of The Message I reserve comment. However, did you realize that in many of the early English versions the subject of Job 24:22 is just as questionable and undefined as it is in the KJV? While it is true that many of the modern versions make God the subject of verse 22, the older versions leave the subject somewhat in question.

 

Sal,

You ever thought of opening your own board? What makes you think you have the right to come in here and tell the moderators how to do their job? They put in their time here voluntarily and do a great job of being unbiased. All of us who have gotten into heated debates have been "snipped" or warned. I bring this up publically because you have been public in your attacks against those who serve here. If you have a problem with any moderator in the future might I suggest sending them a private message.

Finally, just because you don't like the response to your questions or comments, does not mean they are not valid. Your opinion or my opinion on any subject does not make it so. The Word is the final authority here and it seems that you are the one claiming that the Word of God is incorrect because it doesn't square with your opinion.

Bro Tony

 

Job 24:1 in the KJV
Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty

Job 24:12c
yet God layeth not folly to them.

Job 24:23 in 1395 Wycliffe's Bible [old spelling]
God yaf to hym place of penaunce, and he mysusith that in to pride; for the iyen of God ben in the weies of that man

Job 24:23 in 1853 English Old Testament by a Jew, Issac Leeser
To such (God) granteth to be in safety, that he may find
support: and His eyes are upon their ways.

Job 24:23 in 1985 TANAKH by Jews
Yet [God] gives him the security on which he relies,
And keeps watch over his affairs.

 

Patently untrue - I deleted nothing about the passage.

This thread has been more about handling of the old thread than the passage. If we can't discuss the passage this thread will be closed as well.

You opened the thread with off topic comments about your opinion of me, others responded to those off topic comments with their own off topic comments.

Last warning - get back to the point or have closure will be immediate.

 

Roger,

You can't reason with the unreasonable. This thread serves no productive purpose. Might I suggest you close it.

Bro Tony

 

At the request its author, this thread is closed.