If someone wishes 1 to contend 2 with him, he cannot answer 3 him one time in a thousand.
Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand.
"If one wished to dispute with Him, He could not answer Him once in a thousand times.
If someone wanted to take God to court, would it be possible to answer him even once in a thousand times?
If we wanted to bring our case before him, what chance would we have? Not one in a thousand!
If a man was desiring to go to law with him, he would not be able to give him an answer to one out of a thousand questions.
If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand.
If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.
If he will
with him, he cannot answer
of a thousand
|NET © [draft] ITL|
him, he cannot
time in a thousand.
|NET © Notes||
1 tn Some commentators take God to be the subject of this verb, but it is more likely that it refers to the mortal who tries to challenge God in a controversy. The verb is used of Job in 13:3.
2 tn The verb רִיב (riv) is a common one; it has the idea of “contention; dispute; legal dispute or controversy; go to law.” With the preposition אִם (’im) the idea must be “to contend with” or “to dispute with.” The preposition reflects the prepositional phrase “with God” in v. 2, supporting the view that man is the subject.
3 tn This use of the imperfect as potential imperfect assumes that the human is the subject, that in a dispute with God he could not answer one of God’s questions (for which see the conclusion of the book when God questions Job). On the other hand, if the interpretation were that God does not answer the demands of mortals, then a simple progressive imperfect would be required. In support of this is the frustration of Job that God does not answer him.