Did Job say he would see God "in his flesh"?

[Joseph Antley]

A scripture mastery for LDS seminary students is Job 19:26:

"And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (KJV).

I'm told that this is a mistranslation, but a professor at BYU mentioned it the other day and reminded me about it.

I'm sure those versed in Hebrew can clarify this (Maklelan? Bokovoy?). Was Job saying that he would see God as a resurrected being? Or was he saying the opposite?

If this is a mistranslation, is it okay that we still trump it as OT evidence of the belief in a resurrection?

[jadams_4242]

A scripture mastery for LDS seminary students is Job 19:26:

"And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (KJV).

I'm told that this is a mistranslation, but a professor at BYU mentioned it the other day and reminded me about it.

I'm sure those versed in Hebrew can clarify this (Maklelan? Bokovoy?). Was Job saying that he would see God as a resurrected being? Or was he saying the opposite?

If this is a mistranslation, is it okay that we still trump it as OT evidence of the belief in a resurrection?

It says he "shall" see God , not i "have" seen God; and unless one has access to origanil scripture in which to translate differant; I dont see any problem with it whatsoever.

I;E... if the word "shall" in hebrew, greek does not mean shall in english; its always possible the word "shall" turns out to be in hebrew,greek possibly not the right translation from the beggining. SSSooo unless we have the origanil.?

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Joseph,

The Hebrew in Job 19:26 is extremely awkward, which is not surprising considering what book weâ??re talking about, and over the years, scholars have suggested a variety of textual emendations for the passage.

Unfortunately, no one can say with any degree of certainty what this verse and the surrounding passages literally mean. Iâ??m just grateful that it didnâ??t turn up on my Comprehensive Hebrew Bible exam.

As a whole, Job is by far the most challenging book in the entire OT to translate and interpret. Isaiah is a walk in the park compared to Job.

I suppose what youâ??re asking about is specifically the second half of the verse, â??yet in my flesh shall I see Godâ??

[Joseph Antley]

I suppose what youâ??re asking about is specifically the second half of the verse, â??yet in my flesh shall I see Godâ??

Right, that's the part I'm told was mistranslated. Some translations of the Bible say "in my flesh" and some say "without my flesh". It was actually Cory Crawford who reminded me of that last semester, and IIRC it was he who said that LDS trumpeting this verse as OT evidence of the resurrection was "problematic" (later in the semester, whenever he said things like that he would always add little disclaimers because I think most of the class started getting the feeling he was an apostate ).

[smac97]

Right, that's the part I'm told was mistranslated. Some translations of the Bible say "in my flesh" and some say "without my flesh". It was actually Cory Crawford who reminded me of that last semester, and IIRC it was he who said that LDS trumpeting this verse as OT evidence of the resurrection was "problematic" (later in the semester, whenever he said things like that he would always add little disclaimers because I think most of the class started getting the feeling he was an apostate ).

Here are several translations of this verse (I've bolded those that seem to contradict the "in my flesh" concept):

Job 19:26 (New International Version): 26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;

Job 19:26 (New American Standard Bible): 26 "Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall (A)see God;

Job 19:26 (The Message): And I'll see himâ??even though I get skinned alive!â?? see God myself, with my very own eyes.

Job 19:26 (Amplified Bible): 26 And after my skin, even this body, has been destroyed, then from my flesh

or without it

I shall see God,

Job 19:26 (New Living Translation): 26 And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!

Job 19:26 (English Standard Version) 26And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God,

Job 19:26 (Contemporary English Version): 26 My flesh may be destroyed, yet from this body I will see God.

Job 19:26 (New King James Version): 26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, That in my flesh I shall see God,

Job 19:26 (New Century Version): 26 Even after my skin has been destroyed, in my flesh I will see God.

Job 19:26 (21st Century King James Version): 26 and though after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God,

Job 19:26 (American Standard Version): 26 And after my skin, even this body , is destroyed,

Then without my flesh shall I see God

;

Job 19:26 (Young's Literal Translation): 26 And after my skin hath compassed this [body], Then from my flesh I see God:

Job 19:26 (Darby Translation): 26 And [if] after my skin this shall be destroyed,

yet from out of my flesh shall I see God

;

Job 19:26 (Holman Christian Standard Bible): 26 Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet I will see God in

my flesh.[a]

Footnotes:

1. Job 19:26 Lit skin which they destroyed, or skin they destroyed in this way

2. Job 19:26 Or apart from

Job 19:26 (New International Reader's Version): 26 After my skin has been destroyed, in my body I'll still see God.

Job 19:26 (New International Version - UK): 26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;

Job 19:26 (Today's New International Version): 26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet [a] in

my flesh I will see God;

Footnotes:

1. Job 19:26 Or And after I awake, / though this [body] has been destroyed, / then

2. Job 19:26 Or destroyed, / apart from

-Smac

[Nevo]

Right, that's the part I'm told was mistranslated. Some translations of the Bible say "in my flesh" and some say "without my flesh". It was actually Cory Crawford who reminded me of that last semester, and IIRC it was he who said that LDS trumpeting this verse as OT evidence of the resurrection was "problematic" (later in the semester, whenever he said things like that he would always add little disclaimers because I think most of the class started getting the feeling he was an apostate ).

According to D. J. A Clines, writing for an Evangelical commentary series no less (!):

"Against any view of bodily resurrection it need only be noted that it contradicts everything the book has said previously about the finality of death (7:9; 10:21; 14:10, 12) and, in case it should be argued that this is some kind of new revelation of an existence beyond death, it needs to be noted that it is totally ignored in the remainder of the book (cf. 21:23-26; 30:23). Among the early fathers, Chrysostom already refuted the resurrectionist interpretation by quoting 14:12 (PG, 57:396)."

(David J. A. Clines, Job 1-20 [WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1989], 464.)

[David Bokovoy]

Got to go with Cory on this issue. Latter-day Saints typically misrepresent the passage.

Aside from the fact that I freely acknowledge that I have no idea what is going on contextually in this portion of Job, from a strict grammatical perspective, I would have a hard time justifying the KJ translation, â??in my flesh shall I see God.â?

The KJ phrase translated as â??in my fleshâ? derives from the preposition min, followed by the masculine singular noun basar â??fleshâ? with the first person common singular pronominal suffix.

So, â??my fleshâ? is clearly correct. The challenge derives from a proper interpretation of the preposition min, which the KJV renders as â??in.â?

This preposition can be locational, meaning a description of the place where something originates, as in the English, â??fromâ? however, the more basic sense appears as an ablative nuance which refers to a movement away from a specified beginning point, for example Exodus 12:42: â??bring them out of (min) the land of Egyptâ? (Exodus 12:42).

Hence, Job 19:26 appears to suggest that when he dies, Job will have his skin removed and yet â??out of the fleshâ? he will see God.

The preposition min can also serve as a privative marker, meaning it specifies that which is missing: â??In the shadow of Heshbon the fugitives stand without (min) strengthâ? (Jer. 48:45).

In other words, Job is presumably â??withoutâ? his flesh when he sees God.

Clearly the correct understanding does not present any challenges for LDS theology, however, I would agree with Cory that it probably means the exact opposite from the way Latter-day Saints typically interpret the passage, i.e. after Job is without his flesh, he will see God.

Alright, so now you've got to reveal who holds a different view.

[LeSellers]

Here are several translations of this verse (I've bolded those that seem to contradict the "in my flesh" concept):

...

Job 19:26 (Amplified Bible): 26 And after my skin, even this body, has been destroyed, then from my flesh

or without it

I shall see God,

...

Job 19:26 (American Standard Version): 26 And after my skin, even this body , is destroyed,

Then without my flesh shall I see God

;

...

Job 19:26 (Darby Translation): 26 And [if] after my skin this shall be destroyed,

yet from out of my flesh shall I see God

;

...

Job 19:26 (Today's New International Version): 26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet [a] in

my flesh I will see God

;

In French, we have

26 Quand ma peau sera d

[smac97]

In other words, Job is presumably â??withoutâ? his flesh when he sees God.

Clearly the correct understanding does not present any challenges for LDS theology, however, I would agree with Cory that it probably means the exact opposite from the way Latter-day Saints typically interpret the passage, i.e. after Job is without his flesh, he will see God.

Alright, so now you've got to reveal who holds a different view.

President Hinckley:

Of all the victories in human history, none is so great, none so universal in its effect, none so everlasting in its consequences as the victory of the crucified Lord, who came forth in the Resurrection that first Easter morning.

I have seen statues and paintings of the great men and women of history, many hundreds of them. But great and important as are all of these heroes of the past, none can compare with the victory of the lonely, pain-wracked figure on Calvaryâ??s cross who triumphed over death and brought the gift of eternal life to all mankind.

He it was who answered Jobâ??s question, â??If a man die, shall he live again?â? (Job 14:14.) It was of Him that Job spoke in eloquent testimony:

â??For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

â??And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

â??Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.â? (Job 19:25â??27.)

More from Pres. Hinckley here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

President Kimball:

The question asked by Job has been asked by millions who have stood at the open bier of a loved one: â??If a man die, shall he live again?â? (Job 14:14.)

And the question has been answered acceptably to numerous of them as a great, sweet peace settles down upon them like the dews of heaven. And innumerable times hearts that were weary in agonizing suffering have felt the kiss of that peace which knows not understanding.

And when a deep tranquility of soul has brought a new warm assurance to minds that were troubled and hearts that were torn, those numerous people could repeat with beloved Job:

â??For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

â??And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

â??Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.â? (Job 19:25â??27.)

President Harold B. Lee:

Remember the story of Job. After his torment his wife came to him and said: â??[Why donâ??t you] curse God, and die.â? (Job 2:9.) And in the majesty of his faith, Job said, â??â?¦ I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

â??And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

â??Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.â? (Job 19:25â??27.)

So to you who have lost loved ones, to you who know the pangs of loneliness, some of us have also gone through the fire and understand what it means. We say to you that faith can lift you beyond the sordid trials of the day and point you to the glorious tomorrow that can be yours if you too, like the prophet Job, can say, â??I know that my redeemer lives.â?

I leave you my blessing, to bring you the peace that can come only from this knowledge and from the witness that you can receive if you will put your trust in your Heavenly Father.

I know that God lives. I know that he has opened the doors to the glorious resurrection. He is biding the time when he shall come again, when the trump shall sound, and those who are ready to come forth in the morning of the resurrection shall come forth to be caught up in the clouds of heaven to meet him.

Elder Nelson:

Nature of the Resurrection

Yes, compounds derived from dustâ??elements of the earthâ??are combined to make each living cell in our bodies. The miracle of the Resurrection is matched only by the miracle of our creation in the first place.

No one knows precisely how two germ cells unite to make one. Nor do we know how that resulting cell multiplies and divides to make othersâ??some to become eyes that see, ears that hear, or fingers that feel glorious things about us. Each cell contains chromosomes with thousands of genes, chemically insuring identity and independence of each individual. Our bodies undergo constant rebuilding according to genetic recipes that are uniquely ours. Each time we take a bath, we lose not only dirt, but cells dead and dying, as they are replaced by a newer crop. This process of regeneration and renewal is but prelude to the promised phenomenon and future fact of our resurrection.

â??If a man die, shall he live again?â? asked Job (Job 14:14). In faith, he answered his own question:

â??For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

â??And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see Godâ? (Job 19:25â??26).

J. Reuben Clark:

He was raised from the tomb a resurrected being, a perfect being, the Firstfruits of the Resurrection; that He later ascended to the Father; and that because of His death and by and through His Resurrection every man born into the world since the beginning will be likewise literally resurrected. This doctrine is as old as the world. Job declared:

â??And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

â??Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not anotherâ? (Job 19:26â??27).

The resurrected body is a body of flesh and bones and spirit, and Job was uttering a great and everlasting truth. These positive facts, and all other facts necessarily implied therein, must all be honestly believed, in full faith, by every member of the Church.

There is an interesting explanation of this apparent discrepancy in The Old Testament Manual (pp. 29-30):

In the King James Version, this verse affirms Job's faith in a physical resurrection. In many other versions of the Bible, however, this verse does not affirm such a belief; in fact, in these versions Job says he will see God but not in his flesh. How is it possible that two completely contradictory translations could come from the same text? Meservy explained:

"We might note parenthetically that the great testimony of Job in 19:26 has been interpreted in two ways: 'Yet in my flesh shall I see God' (King James Version) and 'Then without my flesh shall I see God.' (Jewish Publication Society Version, 1917). The first of these implies the literal resurrection, the other does not. The Hebrew text says, 'from my flesh,' and this can be interpreted in either sense. The same ambiguity applies to English usage. If I say, 'from the house I saw him coming,' I could have been inside the house or just outside the house when I saw him coming. Thus, one's theology determines how one translates this passage.

"Latter-day Saints do not depend upon this passage to establish their belief in a literal resurrection, but point to it as one more glorious affirmation of it." ("Job: 'Yet Will I Trust in Him,'" p. 158.)

-Smac

[smac97]

In French, we have

Lehi

Here's the Chinese (romanization): Wǒ zh

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks Smac,

For the record, the fact that all of those men are/were fallible and that none of them was a biblical scholar does not affect my testimony that they were prophets, seers, and revelators.

The only portion of Meservy's comments in the manual that are correct is that "Latter-day Saints do not depend upon this passage to establish their belief in a literal resurrection."

best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

I would also add that I believe that the statement from the book of Job may reflect an older theological view that is more consistent with the somewhat limited understanding concerning this issue given Alma in the BofM than with current LDS theology:

"As soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life" (Alma 40:11).

[e=mc2]

I know I am late jumping in with this, yet I looked up the form in the Hebrew for this

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Friend Kerry,

I know I am late jumping in with this, yet I looked up the form in the Hebrew for this

[e=mc2]

Hey Friend Kerry,

Thatâ??s true, however, if we extend the search to simply the preposition min followed by basar, i.e. â??flesh,â? with or without the pronominal suffix, the grammatical form appears 17 times in the Bible.

The meaning could not be any clearer:

â??A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.â? (Ezekiel 36:26).

In the Bible, the expression clearly means "without or out of the flesh."

best,

--DB

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you are a sharp cookie! But, I only found 10 forms and not all of them mean "out of the flesh." I searched under this form מִבְּשַׂר Which 17 forms did you find? I mean, the nun assimilates in the preposition as it attatches right? Or are you truly keeping the preposition full and the word basar in the qal form and then searching? That would be positively ***weird*** Can you reference them here for me? Thanks man yer the best!

[Joseph Antley]

Got to go with Cory on this issue. Latter-day Saints typically misrepresent the passage.

Aside from the fact that I freely acknowledge that I have no idea what is going on contextually in this portion of Job, from a strict grammatical perspective, I would have a hard time justifying the KJ translation, â??in my flesh shall I see God.â?

The KJ phrase translated as â??in my fleshâ? derives from the preposition min, followed by the masculine singular noun basar â??fleshâ? with the first person common singular pronominal suffix.

So, â??my fleshâ? is clearly correct. The challenge derives from a proper interpretation of the preposition min, which the KJV renders as â??in.â?

This preposition can be locational, meaning a description of the place where something originates, as in the English, â??fromâ? however, the more basic sense appears as an ablative nuance which refers to a movement away from a specified beginning point, for example Exodus 12:42: â??bring them out of (min) the land of Egyptâ? (Exodus 12:42).

Hence, Job 19:26 appears to suggest that when he dies, Job will have his skin removed and yet â??out of the fleshâ? he will see God.

The preposition min can also serve as a privative marker, meaning it specifies that which is missing: â??In the shadow of Heshbon the fugitives stand without (min) strengthâ? (Jer. 48:45).

In other words, Job is presumably â??withoutâ? his flesh when he sees God.

Clearly the correct understanding does not present any challenges for LDS theology, however, I would agree with Cory that it probably means the exact opposite from the way Latter-day Saints typically interpret the passage, i.e. after Job is without his flesh, he will see God.

Alright, so now you've got to reveal who holds a different view.

Thanks for the response and explanation David. It helped clear this up for me.

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Kerry,

You're the best. Thanks for carrying on a fascinating conversation and issue. Love chatting Hebrew with you.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you are a sharp cookie!

No, not really. I've just spent the last ten years or so being grilled over how to identify and justify a proper interpretation of Hebrew prepositions. As we can see from this thread, this small grammatical issue caries major implications and the professors I studied under would never let you forget it.

But, I only found 10 forms and not all of them mean "out of the flesh." I searched under this form מִבְּשַׂר Which 17 forms did you find?

In the Bible, the Hebrew expression min plus basar appears 17 times (again with or without a pronominal suffix).

Gen. 2:23

Ex. 29:34

Lev. 7:17

Lev. 7:18

Lev. 7:21

Lev. 11:8

Lev. 11:11

Lev. 15:2

Deut. 14:8

Deut. 28:55

Is. 58:7

Ezek. 11:19

Ezek. 36:26

Job 19:22

Job 19:26

Job 31:31

Eccl. 11:10

I mean, the nun assimilates in the preposition as it attatches right? Or are you truly keeping the preposition full and the word basar in the qal form and then searching? That would be positively ***weird*** Can you reference them here for me? Thanks man yer the best!

The preposition min is a closed syllable and ends with the letter nun. As a result, it is relatively unusual to encounter the word written as min in the Bible. Instead, the preposition typically appears as bound prefix mi, followed by a dagesh hazaq (dagesh forte) that signifies the doubling of the consonant in which it appears. Technically, the only time the entire preposition min should appear is prior to the definite article, followed by the dash or line known as a maqqeph. So none of these references appear with the full preposition. Also, basar is a noun, whereas the term qal refers to a verbal structure.

But, I only found 10 forms and not all of them mean "out of the flesh." I searched under this form מִבְּשַׂר Which 17 forms did you find?

Of course, youâ??re correct, according to context, the expression can mean either â??from the flesh,â? or â??without/out of the flesh.â? Again, in Hebrew, the preposition min can function locational, meaning a description of the place where something originates, as in the English, â??fromâ? however, the more basic sense appears as an ablative nuance which refers to a movement away from a specified beginning point, for example Exodus 12:42: â??bring them out of (min) the land of Egyptâ? (Exodus 12:42).

In accordance with the KJV, it is clear from context that we should render the expression min (out of) plus basar (flesh) in Ezekiel 36:26 as â??I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh.â? One could hardly take away the stony heart from your flesh, and besides, the beginning of the verse establishes the fact that God is working within the human body.

Likewise, Job appears describing the fact that his flesh/skin will be removed and then, when he is out of his flesh, he will see God. Again, this is the most basic sense of the preposition min, i.e. as an ablative, which refers to a movement away from a specified beginning point, i.e. â??out of.â? Any effort to interpret the meaning as something beyond its most basic sense is going to require some serious justification and textual manipulation.

I simply believe that as Latter-day Saints, we need to recognize that any attempt on our part to interpret Job 19:36 as proof for resurrection is going to understandably meet with serious opposition.

I canâ??t see anyway to justify an argument that the author meant that Job will see God in his flesh.

When someone like Cory points this fact out, heâ??s hardly assuming the role of critic. In reality, Cory is a defender of the faith, since in this day of information accessibility, inevitably believing members are going to encounter how fundamentally at odds the standard LDS interpretation of the passage is from its actual, literal meaning.

From what I've witnessed, itâ??s far better to acknowledge these points, rather than to attempt to cover them up with weak arguments. Especially something like this, which presents no challenges whatsoever for LDS theology and in fact works well with the perspective witnessed in Alma 40:11.

Just my thoughts.

Love ya!

--DB

[e=mc2]

Hey Kerry,

You're the best. Thanks for carrying on a fascinating conversation and issue. Love chatting Hebrew with you.

No, not really. I've just spent the last ten years or so being grilled over how to identify and justify a proper interpretation of Hebrew prepositions. As we can see from this thread, this small grammatical issue caries major implications and the professors I studied under would never let you forget it.

In the Bible, the Hebrew expression min plus basar appears 17 times (again with or without a pronominal suffix).

Gen. 2:23

Ex. 29:34

Lev. 7:17

Lev. 7:18

Lev. 7:21

Lev. 11:8

Lev. 11:11

Lev. 15:2

Deut. 14:8

Deut. 28:55

Is. 58:7

Ezek. 11:19

Ezek. 36:26

Job 19:22

Job 19:26

Job 31:31

Eccl. 11:10

The preposition min is a closed syllable and ends with the letter nun. As a result, it is relatively unusual to encounter the word written as min in the Bible. Instead, the preposition typically appears as bound prefix mi, followed by a dagesh hazaq (dagesh forte) that signifies the doubling of the consonant in which it appears. Technically, the only time the entire preposition min should appear is prior to the definite article, followed by the dash or line known as a maqqeph. So none of these references appear with the full preposition. Also, basar is a noun, whereas the term qal refers to a verbal structure.

Of course, youâ??re correct, according to context, the expression can mean either â??from the flesh,â? or â??without/out of the flesh.â? Again, in Hebrew, the preposition min can function locational, meaning a description of the place where something originates, as in the English, â??fromâ? however, the more basic sense appears as an ablative nuance which refers to a movement away from a specified beginning point, for example Exodus 12:42: â??bring them out of (min) the land of Egyptâ? (Exodus 12:42).

In accordance with the KJV, it is clear from context that we should render the expression min (out of) plus basar (flesh) in Ezekiel 36:26 as â??I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh.â? One could hardly take away the stony heart from your flesh, and besides, the beginning of the verse establishes the fact that God is working within the human body.

Likewise, Job appears describing the fact that his flesh/skin will be removed and then, when he is out of his flesh, he will see God. Again, this is the most basic sense of the preposition min, i.e. as an ablative, which refers to a movement away from a specified beginning point, i.e. â??out of.â? Any effort to interpret the meaning as something beyond its most basic sense is going to require some serious justification and textual manipulation.

I simply believe that as Latter-day Saints, we need to recognize that any attempt on our part to interpret Job 19:36 as proof for resurrection is going to understandably meet with serious opposition.

I canâ??t see anyway to justify an argument that the author meant that Job will see God in his flesh.

When someone like Cory points this fact out, heâ??s hardly assuming the role of critic. In reality, Cory is a defender of the faith, since in this day of information accessibility, inevitably believing members are going to encounter how fundamentally at odds the standard LDS interpretation of the passage is from its actual, literal meaning.

From what I've witnessed, itâ??s far better to acknowledge these points, rather than to attempt to cover them up with weak arguments. Especially something like this, which presents no challenges whatsoever for LDS theology and in fact works well with the perspective witnessed in Alma 40:11.

Just my thoughts.

Love ya!

--DB

THANK YOU! What a terrific mini-Hebrew lesson for me to study! Heh, I won't ever be making the rookie error of ascribing Qal to a noun again either! LOL! Talk about silly on my part. I have been working into studying the verbs more, and now I see I really need to. YOU ARE A good teacher. Once again, this has just be truly valuable for me. Thanks for your time. I hope you don't mind if'n I pick yer brains on more Hebrew items as I come across them. Just so ya know, I am agreeing with you about all this incidentally. I was just trying to add to the conversation and practice some Hebrew with you. It has absolutely paid off well for me.

[David Bokovoy]

THANK YOU! What a terrific mini-Hebrew lesson for me to study! Heh, I won't ever be making the rookie error of ascribing Qal to a noun again either! LOL! Talk about silly on my part. I have been working into studying the verbs more, and now I see I really need to. YOU ARE A good teacher. Once again, this has just be truly valuable for me. Thanks for your time. I hope you don't mind if'n I pick yer brains on more Hebrew items as I come across them. Just so ya know, I am agreeing with you about all this incidentally. I was just trying to add to the conversation and practice some Hebrew with you. It has absolutely paid off well for me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've been learning lessons from the Backyard Professor since I was a wee lad, and internet apologetics was only in it's infancy. I've been sending people to your broadcast like crazy. You're a local legend out here in the East (and not simply because you do apologetics while carrying a gun).

As always, my Brother, fun to chat Hebrew with you. That offer still stands to come out and get some cheap books with me via CBD.

[volgadon]

The trouble with the resurection interpretation of this passage in Job isn't grammatical. As someone noted, it is the rest of the book which doesn't seem to indicate a belief in the afterlife which poses a problem. The prefix mi doesn't necesarily imply movement from the subject. Mibsari works grammatically. From or through my flesh I shall see.

One interpretation is that Job is saying that he sees God in his illness.