Dr. E.W. Bullinger (Companion Bible) Error on Job

[stovebolts]

If Job was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), he would have gone down to Egypt with his father.

ISSACHAR was forty at “the going down to Egypt “. (See Appendix 50, III, p. 52 Companion Bible).

If JOB was the third son (Gen 46:13), he would have been about twenty at that time (1706 BC).

We are told that he lived 140 years after his “double†blessing (Job 42:10). If that “double†blessing included length of years, then his age would have been 70 + 140 = 210 (i.e. three seventies of years). His lifetime would be from 1726-1516 BC.

According to this, he was born the year after JOSEPH was sold, and died 119 years after the death of JOSEPH (in 1635 BC). When JOSEPH died, Job was ninety-one. If his "double" blessing did include length of years, then his affliction took place twenty-one years previously, when he was seventy. His removal from EGYPT to UZ must therefore have taken place earlier still.

When Job died (1516 BC) Moses was fifty-five, and had been in MIDIAN fifteen years (twenty-five years before the Exodus).

This quote was taken from WBSG (WATCHMEN BIBLE STUDY GROUP) and is a direct quote from the Companion Bible.

Glancing across Dr. Bullinger's work, I see numerous errors, but the one that is easiest to address, even for the unread Christian is the birth and death of Job as it relates to Joseph and Moses.

Please note above that Dr. Bullinger states that Joseph was just sold into slavery when Job was born, and Dr. Bullinger states that Moses was 55 when Job died. In total, Dr. Bullinger states that Job was 210 years old.

Let's look a bit at this, and the error should become very clear.

First, who is Joseph? We've all read about his coat of many colors (Genesis 37) and how he was sold into slavery (Genesis 37), but do we also not know that Joseph is the son of Jacob who was given his new name Israel (Genesis 32:28)? And Jacob is the son of Isaac, and Isaac is the son of Abraham.

And do we recall what God told Abraham?
Genesis 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

So we see that God told Abraham that his seed would be a stranger in a land for four hundred years. That land was Egypt.

Exodus 1:1-6 Now these are the names of the sons of Israel, who came into Egypt (every man and his household came with Jacob): Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin, Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: and Joseph was in Egypt already. And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

So we see that sons of Isreal (Jacob) went into the land, just as God had told Abraham (Genesis 15:13), and as scripture also states, they were in Egypt 430 years.

Exodus 12:40-41 Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of Jehovah went out from the land of Egypt.

So clearly, we see that what Dr. Bullinger writes in the Companion Bible is in gross error, for if Job was born when Joseph went into slaverly and died when Moses was 55, then Job would have been well over 400 years old.

Again, this is the clearest error in Dr. Bullinger's work that can be found within the Companion Bible.... and there are many such errors.

 

[Prince]

I have given the full version for the readers.

In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek, there is a long subscription. A similar subscription is found in the Arabic Version. It professes to be taken out of "the Syriac book"; but there is nothing to be found of it in the Syriac Version as published in Walton's Polyglot. It was doubtless written B.C. It is interesting, especially when compared with the notes on p. 666, but what authority there is for it is not stated. The last verse of Job (42:17), "And Job died, an old man, and full of days," reads on as follows:

"And it is written that he will rise up again with those whom the Lord raises up.
​

"This man is described in the Syriac book as dwelling in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia; and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begat a son whose name was Ennon. He himself was the son of his father Zara, a son of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth (*1) from Abraham. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over. First Balak the son of Beor, (*2) and the name of his city was Dennaba. After Balak, Jobab, who is called Job: and after him, Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman; and after him Adad, the son of Barad, that destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And the friends that came to him were Eliphaz of the sons of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign of the Sauchaens, Sophar, king of the Minaeans".

[FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+2]This Is The preface To The Book Of Job From The Companion Bible (page 666).[/SIZE][/FONT]​

A lengthened account of the discussion of these questions would be without profit.
But, if Job was the son of Issachar {Gen 46:13}, then we have a clue that may help us to a decision of both.
It is better to keep within the Bible itself for the settlement of its problems; and to treat the whole Book as the context ofall its parts.
There is no reason why Job should not be the son of Issachar, and no better evidence is forthcoming for a different view.
The three friends of Job were descendants of Esau; they would therefore be contemporaries.

ELIPHAZ,. of Teman, in Idumea, was a son of Esau, and had a son called Teman, from whom his country took its name {Gen 36:10-11}. It was noted for its "wise men" {Jer 49:7}; and is mentioned with Edom {Amos 1:11-12}. Compare {Jer 25:23}, where both are connected with Buz, the brother of Uz {Gen 22:21}.
BILDAD the Shuhite. Shuah was the sixth son of Abraham by Keturah {Gen 25:2}; and is mentioned in connection with Esau, Edom, and Teman {Jer 49:8}.
ZOPHAR the Naamathite. Naamah (now Nã*aneh , six miles south of Lod, in the lowlands of Judah).
​

If Job was the son of Issachar {Gen 46:13}, he would have gone down to Egypt with his father.
Issachar was forty at "the going down to Egypt". (See Ap. 50. III, p. 52.)
If Job was the third son {Gen 46:13}, he would have been about twenty at that time (1706 b.c.).
We are told that he lived 140 years after his "double" blessing {Job 42:10}. If that "double" blessing included length of years, then his age would have been 70+ 140=210 (i.e. three seventies of years). His lifetime would be from 1726-1516 b.c.
According to this, he was born the year after Joseph was sold, and died 119 years after the death of Joseph (in 1635 B. c.). When Joseph died, Job was ninety-one. If his "double" blessing did include length of years, then his affliction took place twenty-one years previously, when he was seventy. His removal from Egypt to Uz must therefore have taken place earlier still.
When Job died (1516 b.c.) Moses was fifty-five, and had been in Midian fifteen years (twenty-five years before the Exodus).
This would account for Job being a worshipper of the God of Abraham, and explains how Moses could have been the author of the book, and perhaps an eye- and ear-witness of the events it records in Midian. If so, the time has come (as Dr. Stier foretold and hoped in The Words of the Lord Jesus. Vol. iv, p. 406.) when this book would be regarded as "the Porch of the Sanctuary"; and when this "fundamental wisdom of original revelation will cease to be ascribed, as it now is by some of the best, to a later poet in Israel".

 

[Prince]

Indeed Bullinger has made errors "rapture" and "eth-ha-adam occurance" but he is still one of the best scholars to date if not the best. He is also the only christian scholar allowed by Ginsberg to proof read the Massorah, thats an unmatched accolade.

Anyhow I guess Bullinger said it best

"None are more cognizant of imperfection and failure than ourselves; and, after all we have done, there is still much left for others to do.

We do not exhaust the book; and may, after all, have only laid out a road on which others may follow with far greater success. We claim only one thing - an earnest desire to believe God; and to receive what He has said, regardless alike of the praise of man or the fear of man; and quite apart from all traditional beliefs or interpretations.

May the Lord own and use and bless our efforts for His own Glory and the good of His people."


-- E.W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, pg. xii (as quoted in E.W. Bullinger, A Biography, ppg. 233-234).

 

[stovebolts]

I do not claim to be a scholar and I do not hold the title of Dr. Yet to make such an erroneous error one has to wonder if ones theology isn't overcoming the basic written word. As far as Christian Scholars, I have not even seen NT Wright make such an obvious error. BTW, NT Wright is one of the best Theologians around IMO.

But to the point, do you believe Bullinger is in error on the dates of Job? Or do you believe the Hebrew texts are in error in relation to the 430 years between Joseph and the Exodus?

In Short, Job is a Mashal, that is as the greeks would say, a Parable. Yet the word Parable does not do justice to it's hebrew counterpart Mashal as Mashal is so much broader than its greek counterpart, "The Parable".

Within the book of Job there are pointers that would indicate Job lived anywhere between Noah and Solomon... and btw, Job was a gentile as the texts also indicate.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Asyncritus]

As far as I can tell. there is no real biblical evidence that Job was the son of anybody named.

Ge 46:13 And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron

is no proof of anything except the fact that Bullinger probably had a concordance.

That being so, Bullinger may have been up a gum tree - or not, as the case may be - and it's a waste of time chastising him because of his speculation.

Your time would be far better spent trying to figure out what the book itself is all about. I for one would be glad of the help.

 

[Prince]

I do not claim to be a scholar and I do not hold the title of Dr. Yet to make such an erroneous error one has to wonder if ones theology isn't overcoming the basic written word. As far as Christian Scholars, I have not even seen NT Wright make such an obvious error. BTW, NT Wright is one of the best Theologians around IMO.

But to the point, do you believe Bullinger is in error on the dates of Job? Or do you believe the Hebrew texts are in error in relation to the 430 years between Joseph and the Exodus?

In Short, Job is a Mashal, that is as the greeks would say, a Parable. Yet the word Parable does not do justice to it's hebrew counterpart Mashal as Mashal is so much broader than its greek counterpart, "The Parable".

Within the book of Job there are pointers that would indicate Job lived anywhere between Noah and Solomon... and btw, Job was a gentile as the texts also indicate.

Grace and Peace.

Job is a tricky book, of course I have Bullingers work on this - and I do not agree with everything concerning.

As far has questioning Bullinger, I leave that in the mind of the reader to render so at due time, but keep in mind Bullinger workks are still yet to be matched, sometimes the smartest minds make the simple errors, perhaps over thinking, at any rate.

You would be hard pressed to match this

De twee naturen in het kind van God door Dr. E.W. Bullinger

IF one wants to be the best guitar player in the world, one might have to put down the violin the drums and the bass...

 

[Prince]

As far as I can tell. there is no real biblical evidence that Job was the son of anybody named.

Ge 46:13 And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron

is no proof of anything except the fact that Bullinger probably had a concordance.

That being so, Bullinger may have been up a gum tree - or not, as the case may be - and it's a waste of time chastising him because of his speculation.

Your time would be far better spent trying to figure out what the book itself is all about. I for one would be glad of the help.

Well Just so you know Bullinger was a Greek/Hebrew scholar - to say Bullinger had a concordance is like saying Tom Brady has a play book.

You seem to be pretty direct so allow me also,

There isnt a person on this forum that can match Bullinger, he was man, so he made his mistakes as we all do but with a couple of clicks I could start topics from Bullinger that would go unresponded to, due the the scholarship and knowledge within.

Bullinger also understood that his works were not completed and he really wanted people of later to conclude and correct him....

 

[Asyncritus]

Well Just so you know Bullinger was a Greek/Hebrew scholar - to say Bullinger had a concordance is like saying Tom Brady has a play book.

You seem to be pretty direct so allow me also,

There isnt a person on this forum that can match Bullinger, he was man, so he made his mistakes as we all do but with a couple of clicks I could start topics from Bullinger that would go unresponded to, due the the scholarship and knowledge within.

Bullinger also understood that his works were not completed and he really wanted people of later to conclude and correct him....

I do know Bullinger was a Greek and Hebrew scholar.

I also know that Greek and Hebrew scholars are among the most savage enemies of the Word of God.

I don't think Bullinger was one of them, but please disabuse yourself of the idea that because someone is a Greek and/or Hebrew scholar, their opinions are necessarily worth hearing.

You'd be far better off putting your time into thinking about what the Word itself says, rather than reading what theologians say about it, however eminent and learned they may be.

I point out to you that Jesus never quoted any one of the 'scholars' of His day, and the only times He refers to them is to denounce them.

Paul, Peter and John never did either.

What do you think the reason for that may be?

 

[Prince]

I do know Bullinger was a Greek and Hebrew scholar.

I also know that Greek and Hebrew scholars are among the most savage enemies of the Word of God.

I don't think Bullinger was one of them, but please disabuse yourself of the idea that because someone is a Greek and/or Hebrew scholar, their opinions are necessarily worth hearing.

You'd be far better off putting your time into thinking about what the Word itself says, rather than reading theologians, however eminent and learned.

but please disabuse yourself of the idea that because someone is a Greek and/or Hebrew scholar, their opinions are necessarily worth hearing.

If you think I read Bullinger because he carrys a title of scholar and Dr, you are mistaken...

You'd be far better off putting your time into thinking about what the Word itself says, rather than reading theologians, however eminent and learned

And that sir is what I have done.... But I give credit where credit is due... And Bullinger did a great job in most cases...

 

[Asyncritus]

And that sir is what I have done.... But I give credit where credit is due... And Bullinger did a great job in most cases...

How do you know Bullinger did a great job in most cases if you haven't read him in most cases, rather than doing your own homework?

Tell me something.

These guys who write vast numbers of books, with hundreds of pages in each, have they really given a lot of thought to what they write?

Or are they merely parrotting the opinions of a multitude of others whose opinions they have collected?

 

[Prince]

How do you know Bullinger did a great job in most cases if you haven't read him in most cases, rather than doing your own homework?

Tell me something.

These guys who write vast numbers of books, with hundreds of pages in each, have they really given a lot of thought to what they write?

Or are they merely parrotting the opinions of a multitude of others whose opinions they have collected?

How do you know Bullinger did a great job in most cases if you haven't read him in most cases, rather than doing your own homework?

I have been through most of Bullingers work. Once again great job, and unmatched to this day, even with his errors.

These guys who write vast numbers of books, with hundreds of pages in each, have they really given a lot of thought to what they write?

These guys? Sorry but everyone is different, and Bullinger gave alot of thought to what he wrote, have you ever read any of his works?

• The Companion Bible
• The Foundations of Dispensational Truth
• The Church Epistles
• Number in Scripture
• Word Studies on the Holy Spirit
• The Witness of the Stars
• The Book of Job
• Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
• Great Cloud of Witnesses
• The Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testaments
• How To Enjoy the Bible
• Commentary On Revelation
• De Twee Naturen in het Kind van God
• The Two Natures in the Child of God
• The Christian's Greatest Need

 

[Asyncritus]

I have been through most of Bullingers work. Once again great job, and unmatched to this day, even with his errors.

Just as I thought. How many hours of Bible study did you miss out on while reading through that lot listed below?

These guys? Sorry but everyone is different, and Bullinger gave alot of thought to what he wrote, have you ever read any of his works?

I practice what I preach Prince. Many years ago, I did come across The Two Natures in The Child of God, which I liked very much. But that's about it, really. I have a copy of the Companion Bible here, but its only real use is as a door stop.

Why should I (and you) spend ages reading his (or anybody else's stuff for that matter) and miss out on so many acres of wonderful scripture which we could have been exploring in the same amount of time?

That's my question.

But I did ask you about the practice of Jesus and His disciples. Why didn't they quote the 'scholars' of the day rather than castigate them?

 

[cyberjosh]

I like E.W. Bullinger's work overall. He certainly showed a lot of attention to detail in the original languages but he also was heavily interpretive in places and he drew several theological conclusions and interpretations from passages that I find strange (let's say unique), and also that I find were just sometimes down-right wrong. Nonetheless, no one can scour the Scriptures so carefully and miss out on some of its deeper treasures, and it is in those cases where Bullinger had some great insights into the text that I find redeems his work overall. I've found his notes in the Companion Bible very revealing as to the original text and also careful to detail in the historical books. I have Bullinger's Companion Bible and his Figures of Speech in the Bible. They are good study references but not authoritative sources of interpretation for me, but I certainly appreciate his depth of work. I have no doubt that he was wrong in several of his interpretive points (like trying to find Biblical meaning in the Zodiac symbols) but I respect his scholarly efforts. I prefer others in the 1800s for a better source of theology though.

I have a copy of the Companion Bible here, but its only real use is as a door stop.

That's too bad, it is a very handy reference. You should use it like one uses a concordance. You don't need to spend all your time in it (as you seem to be concerned about - spending more time in Scripture than secondary sources is obviously always better) you just may want to consult its pages for specific study topics to get a better grasp of the text. Then make up your own mind as to its value in shedding light on the text on a case by case basis depending on the passage you are examining. But to each his own. It is certainly more valuable than a doorstop though - you have to give it that.

P.S. I just used the Companion Bible again for the first time in a few months just this morning to help me find a few titles, attributes, and references of God that are plural in the Hebrew (the plural of majesty) but that are translated as singular in English (just like Elohim) which you would never know or notice unless you read the Hebrew, and it proved its worth in pointing me to other Scriptures that had the same feature (the plural of majesty) as the one I was studying.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Asyncritus]

... you just may want to consult its pages for specific study topics to get a better grasp of the text. Then make up your own mind as to its value in shedding light on the text on a case by case basis depending on the passage you are examining. But to each his own. It is certainly more valuable than a doorstop though - you have to give it that.

This is one of my real concerns, Josh, and you've put your finger neatly on it.

Most people who are not good Bible students, and that is the vast majority of the world's population - and the Christian world's too - are incapable of doing this.

They will come across interpretation X, think - Hey, that's a good idea - and run off with it. They are simply NOT in a position to make any judgment, really.

I know I wasn't when I first started studying the Bible.

Reading and learning other people's opinions made me look and sound good; as if I knew what I was talking about.

But as time went on, and I became increasingly independent of the 'scholars', I came to see that many of the opinions I had so laboriously swallowed, were totally mistaken - and so was I for expressing them.

The really great value of not going into the books is that your mind is uncluttered - and something which is really there in the text, waiting eagerly to leap into your mind, doesn't get deflected and obscured by the clutter.

Take a simple point. John 2.1 says 'on the third day' there was this wedding in Cana of Galilee.

The third day starting from when?

Well, you look at the books, and they count three days from somewhere in ch 1, or the 3 days of creation, or any of the other third days in scripture and elsewhere.

All of which may be total, irrelevant rubbish, and completely unintended by John.

So which 'third day' was it? I don't know, and nobody else does either - but you get so many opinions it's a crying shame.

What doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody, and maybe it has occurred to me because of my uncluttered-ness, is that it was simply the 3rd day of the wedding feast. These things went on for a week or more.

I was appalled to find (on google, where else?) that some guy actually wrote a PhD thesis on the location of Cana! Fancy that! A whole 3 years of study, of collecting other people's wrong opinions, then producing his own guesswork which may be completely wrong too. For what?

If it was THAT important, wouldn't John have told us exactly? But he didn't.

As Solomon said so wisely - of the making of many books there is no end - and then adds the highly significant words: and much study [presumably of those said books] is a weariness of flesh.

So true. Especially in the theological world.

So stay away from them. They may be blind, leading the blind - and you certainly don't want to fall into the canal. Not theirs any way. Your own is far better.

 

[stovebolts]

Asyncritus,

I think you make some very valuable comments, and I especially agree with your example of the Third Day, and how we can over look the obvious in so many cases. Pehaps it's simply not enough to understand, or be a scholar in Greek or Hebrew. Perhaps it's better to simply understand the culture.

As far as this OP is concerned, it is point in case of your example. Bullinger went on a tangent trying to cross every t and dot every i with such an abundance of knowledge that he over looked the obvious, which in this case was 430 years and by doing so, overlooked that Job is a parable. By way of the very simplicity of the Story told in Genesis and Exodus, it takes a scholar to impose his theological view over and beyond the importance of the simplistic narrative.

Not to side track, but we see this often done within the parables of Jesus...

 

[Prince]

Just as I thought. How many hours of Bible study did you miss out on while reading through that lot listed below?



I practice what I preach Prince. Many years ago, I did come across The Two Natures in The Child of God, which I liked very much. But that's about it, really. I have a copy of the Companion Bible here, but its only real use is as a door stop.

Why should I (and you) spend ages reading his (or anybody else's stuff for that matter) and miss out on so many acres of wonderful scripture which we could have been exploring in the same amount of time?

That's my question.

But I did ask you about the practice of Jesus and His disciples. Why didn't they quote the 'scholars' of the day rather than castigate them?

Just as I thought

No just AS you assumed...

How many hours of Bible study did you miss out on while reading through that lot listed below?

None you assume my bible is not out while I read other works, every time a man speaks concerning the bible my bible is out, (or on its way out) the words of man do not make my beliefs shall I blast you with pure scripture to prove so...

Ἀγαπητοί, μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα εἰ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον

I practice what I preach Prince. Many years ago, I did come across The Two Natures in The Child of God, which I liked very much. But that's about it, really. I have a copy of the Companion Bible here, but its only real use is as a door stop.

And that is fine, but there are many truth, some trapped within falsehood it is our job to search out

כְּבֹ֣ד אֱ֭לֹהִים הַסְתֵּ֣ר דָּבָ֑ר וּכְבֹ֥ד מְ֝לָכִ֗ים חֲקֹ֣ר דָּבָֽר׃

Why should I (and you) spend ages reading his (or anybody else's stuff for that matter) and miss out on so many acres of wonderful scripture which we could have been exploring in the same amount of time?

Well I dont spend ages, but I see what your saying, we are all different, God has different plans for us all.....The path of knowledge God sends you down might differ from mine....

But I assure you I am not missing out on the wondeful scriptures.......

 

[reba]

A author's study book will by design draw the reader to the conclusions of the author.

Just take a good look at what Scofield has done to Scripture.

 

[Prince]

A author's study book will by design draw the reader to the conclusions of the author.

Just take a good look at what Scofield has done to Scripture.

Not in all cases,, I disagree with Bullinger in many cases I just agree with him on much more... Also by me being alive right now I have a better chance to render end-time prophecy, as much has unfolded since Bullingers death...

 

[stovebolts]

The point to this OP is to show how we are all prone to being too smart for our britches at times, and how we can miss the obvious when we draw to tight into a topic.

I have used the case of Job to show this, and if I recall, Esau had a son name Reuel.. (Gen 36:17). again, 400 plus years before Moses.

It has been said in the past by others that the son of Esau named Reuel was the Reuel spoken of in Exodus... This is in gross error to believe the two are the same individual and shows ones total lack of understanding the story in which Scriptures tell as a whole from a very basic level.

When statements like these are made, it shows ones theology interpreting scripture through that lens and by doing so, totally voids the story, and grossly misinterprets the intent.

Scripture where applicable should be read first and foremost as a story, and then proceed with theology. What becomes apparent, is that Bullinger fell into the trap of interpreting scripture through his theological lens and as a result, made a blundering error.

 

[Prince]

The point to this OP is to show how we are all prone to being too smart for our britches at times, and how we can miss the obvious when we draw to tight into a topic.

I have used the case of Job to show this, and if I recall, Esau had a son name Reuel.. (Gen 36:17). again, 400 plus years before Moses.

It has been said in the past by others that the son of Esau named Reuel was the Reuel spoken of in Exodus... This is also in error.

When statements like these are made, it shows ones theology interpreting scripture through that lens and by doing so, totally voids the story, and grossly misinterprets the intent.

Scripture where applicable should be read first and foremost as a story, and then proceed with theology. What becomes apparent, is that Bullinger fell into the trap of interpreting scripture through his theological lens and as a result, made a blundering error.

What can I say,, I agree, but I hope this does not detour readers from at least looking into Bullinger, take what you will from him (a grain of salt of you will) and continue on the narrow path.