If you can read Hebrew word for word, which so far you have not affirmed, then that source would be OK for you, and if not, you need to do as i did. But the issue was whether my statement on "the" not being in the Hebrew was my "own opinion/interjection in the middle of another reference and you made a mistake in transcribing the thought? It is unclear what you intended by posting this, since the Hebrew does have the definite article in that phrase."
Therefore i needed to ascertain if your reading and source was correct, for as explained, the KJV text with Strong's numbers that i had originally used did not show (via a number) a Hebrew word for word for "the." Yet your source did not show me what each Hebrew word meant in Gn. 3:15, and i found out that its English translation did not distinguish btwn their English equivalents and supplied words.
Therefore your source was not sufficient for me, who needed to ascertain if you were correct, but i found one that very easily showed me the meaning for each Hebrew word, and also distinguished btwn their English equivalents and supplied words, which confirmed your correction, and i thanked you for your query.
However, rather than understanding this and being satisfied, you failed to understand the problem (thus your question about Job), and the need to see what is in the original language, and went on about how there was nothing wrong with your source, as if that was sufficient for me to ascertain if your correction was true. And you even presented me of "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation of the Bible by pointing to some other verse's translation!"
I am sorry if you could not understand what i said, but i hope the issue is settled by now.