Job 9:22

NETBible

“It is all one! 1  That is why I say, 2  ‘He destroys the blameless and the guilty.’

NIV ©

It is all the same; that is why I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’

NASB ©

"It is all one; therefore I say, ‘He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.’

NLT ©

Innocent or wicked, it is all the same to him. That is why I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’

MSG ©

Since either way it ends up the same, I can only conclude that God destroys the good right along with the bad.

BBE ©

It is all the same to me; so I say, He puts an end to the sinner and to him who has done no wrong together.

NRSV ©

It is all one; therefore I say, he destroys both the blameless and the wicked.

NKJV ©

It is all one thing ; Therefore I say, ‘He destroys the blameless and the wicked.’

KJV
This [is] one
<0259>
[thing], therefore I said
<0559> (8804)
[it], He destroyeth
<03615> (8764)
the perfect
<08535>
and the wicked
<07563>_.
NASB ©
"It is
all
one
<259>
; therefore
<5921>
<3651> I say
<559>
, 'He destroys
<3615>
the guiltless
<8535>
and the wicked
<7563>
.'
LXXM
dio {CONJ} eipon {V-AAI-1S} megan
<3173> 
A-ASM
kai
<2532> 
CONJ
dunasthn
<1413> 
N-ASM
apolluei {V-PAI-3S} orgh
<3709> 
N-NSF
NET [draft] ITL
“It
<01931>
is all one
<0259>
! That is why
<03651>
I say
<0559>
, ‘He
<01931>
destroys
<03615>
the blameless
<08535>
and the guilty
<07563>
.’
HEBREW
hlkm
<03615>
awh
<01931>
esrw
<07563>
Mt
<08535>
ytrma
<0559>
Nk
<03651>
le
<05921>
ayh
<01931>
txa (9:22)
<0259>
NETBible

“It is all one! 1  That is why I say, 2  ‘He destroys the blameless and the guilty.’

NET Notes

1 tc The LXX omits the phrase “It is all one.” Modern scholars either omit it or transpose it for clarity.

1 sn The expression “it is one” means that God’s dealings with people is undiscriminating. The number “one” could also be taken to mean “the same” – “it is all the same.” The implication is that it does not matter if Job is good or evil, if he lives or dies. This is the conclusion of the preceding section.

2 tn The relationships of these clauses is in some question. Some think that the poet has inverted the first two, and so they should read, “That is why I have said: ‘It is all one.’” Others would take the third clause to be what was said.