JOB 11:2 Parallel Verse View

Note: This view shows ‘verses’ which are not natural language units and hence sometimes only part of a sentence will be visible. This view is only designed for doing comparisons of different translations. Click on any Bible version abbreviation to see the verse in more of its context. The OET segments on this page are still very early looks into the unfinished texts of the Open English Translation of the Bible. Please double-check these texts in advance before using in public.

Key: yellow:verbs, red:negative.
Note: Automatic aligning of the OET-RV to the LV is done by some temporary software, hence the OET-RV alignments are incomplete (and may occasionally be wrong).

ULT “The multitude of words, will it not be answered?
⇔ Or if a man of lips will be justified?

UST “I would like to respond to the long speech that you have just given.
⇔ You talk a lot about how innocent you are, but that does not mean that you truly are innocent.

BSB  ⇔ “Should this stream of words go unanswered
⇔ and such a speaker be vindicated?

OEB No OEB JOB 11:2 verse available

WEB “Shouldn’t the multitude of words be answered?
⇔ Should a man full of talk be justified?

NET “Should not this abundance of words be answered,
 ⇔ or should this talkative man
 ⇔ be vindicated?

LSV “Is a multitude of words not answered? And is a man of lips justified?

FBV “So many words be answered, shouldn't they? Or is a person proved right by doing a lot of talking?

T4T “◄Should no one answer all that you have said?/Someone should certainly answer all that you have said.► [RHQ]
⇔ Just because you talk a lot, ◄should that cause us to declare that you ?/that should not cause us to declare that you .► [RHQ]

LEB • or[fn] be vindicated?[fn]

?:? Literally “a man of lips”

?:? Hebrew “should he be vindicated”

BBE Are all these words to go unanswered? and is a man seen to be right because he is full of talk?

MOF No MOF JOB book available

JPS Should not the multitude of words be answered? And should a man full of talk be accounted right?

ASV Should not the multitude of words be answered?
 ⇔ And should a man full of talk be justified?

DRA Shall not he that speaketh much, hear also? or shall a man full of talk be justified?

YLT Is a multitude of words not answered? And is a man of lips justified?

DBY Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man of much talk be justified?

RV Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?

WBS Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?

KJB Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?[fn]
(Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?)

11.2 full…: Heb. of lips

BB Shoulde not he that maketh many wordes be aunswered? Shoulde he that bableth much be commended therin?
(Shoulde not he that maketh many words be answered? Shoulde he that bableth much be commended therin?)

GNV Should not the multitude of wordes be answered? or should a great talker be iustified?
(Should not the multitude of words be answered? or should a great talker be iustified? )

CB Shulde not he that maketh many wordes, be answered? Shulde he that bableth moch, be commended therin?
(Shulde not he that maketh many words, be answered? Shulde he that bableth much, be commended therin?)

WYC Whether he, that spekith many thingis, schal not also here? ether whethir a man ful of wordis schal be maad iust?
(Whether he, that speakth/speaks many things, shall not also here? ether whether a man full of words shall be made iust?)

LUT Wenn einer lange geredet, muß er nicht auch hören? Muß denn ein Wäscher immer recht haben?
(Wenn einer lange geredet, must he not also listenn? Muß because a Wäscher immer recht have?)

CLV [Numquid qui multa loquitur, non et audiet? aut vir verbosus justificabitur?[fn]
([Numquid who multa loquitur, not/no and audiet? aut man verbosus justificabitur?)

11.2 Nunquid qui multa. Greg. in Job. lib. 10. A contumeliis incipit, etc., usque ad qui nihil putant rectum, nisi quod sentiunt. Aut vir verbosus. Vera sententia, quia legitur, cultus justitiæ silentium, sed non pro loco dicta. Qui nequit recta pati, negligens corrigi, accingit se responsioni.

11.2 Nunquid who multa. Greg. in Yob. lib. 10. A contumeliis incipit, etc., usque to who nihil putant rectum, nisi that sentiunt. Aut man verbosus. Vera sententia, because legitur, cultus justitiæ silentium, but not/no pro instead dicta. Who nequit recta pati, negligens corrigi, accingit se responsioni.

BRN He that speaks much, should also hear on the other side: or does the fluent speaker think himself to be righteous? blessed is the short-lived offspring of woman.

BrLXX Ὁ τὰ πολλὰ λέγων, καὶ ἀντακούσεται· ἢ καὶ ὁ εὔλαλος οἴεται εἶναι δίκαιος;
(Ho ta polla legōn, kai antakousetai; aʸ kai ho eulalos oietai einai dikaios? )

UTN uW Translation Notes:

Note 1 topic: figures-of-speech / activepassive

הֲ⁠רֹ֣ב דְּ֭בָרִים לֹ֣א יֵעָנֶ֑ה וְ⁠אִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק

?,multitude words not he_is_answered and=if (a)_man full_of_talk vindicated

If your language does not use these passive forms, you could express the ideas in active form or in another way that is natural in your language. Alternate translation: “Will no one answer the multitude of words? Or will anyone justify a man of lips?”

Note 2 topic: figures-of-speech / rquestion

הֲ⁠רֹ֣ב דְּ֭בָרִים לֹ֣א יֵעָנֶ֑ה וְ⁠אִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק

?,multitude words not he_is_answered and=if (a)_man full_of_talk vindicated

Job is using the question form for emphasis. If you would not use the question form for that purpose in your language, you could translate these questions as statements or as exclamations. Alternate translation: “The multitude of words must be answered! A man of lips will not be justified!”

Note 3 topic: figures-of-speech / metonymy

הֲ⁠רֹ֣ב דְּ֭בָרִים לֹ֣א יֵעָנֶ֑ה

?,multitude words not he_is_answered

Zophar is using the term words by association to mean what Job has just said by using words. If it would be helpful in your language, you could state the meaning plainly. Alternate translation: “I must respond to the many things that you have just said”

Note 4 topic: figures-of-speech / idiom

וְ⁠אִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק

and=if (a)_man full_of_talk vindicated

Zophar is using the word if to introduce a question that anticipates a negative answer. If it would be helpful to your readers, you could indicate this in your translation. Alternate translation: “A man of lips will not be justified, will he”

Note 5 topic: figures-of-speech / metonymy

וְ⁠אִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק

and=if (a)_man full_of_talk vindicated

Zophar is using the term lips by association to mean talking, since people use their lips when they talk. If it would be helpful in your language, you could state the meaning plainly. Alternate translation: “Or is a man justified because he talks so much about being righteous” or “A man will not be justified because he talks so much about being righteous, will he”

Note 6 topic: figures-of-speech / 123person

וְ⁠אִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק

and=if (a)_man full_of_talk vindicated

In this speech, Zophar is responding to Job, and he will address him directly as “you” in the rest of the speech. But here at the start he is speaking about Job in the third person, even though he is actually speaking to Job. If it would be helpful in your language, you could translate this in the second person. Alternate translation: “Or will you be justified by talking so much about being righteous”

Parallel JOB 11:2