Job

[ash]

I was going through old posts, and found that someone on here said they believed Job was a mythical story. Umm... what are some thoughts along that subject now? Why would God put a mythical "story" in the Bible? Umm...I'm rather confused at this point.

[Josh]

Why would God put a mythical "story" in the Bible?

Actually, there are a lot of stories in the Bible. Examples: The parables of Jesus Christ.

Not that I agree with the idea that Job is a myth. I think it really happened just as the Bible says it does. But, even if it was a myth, it would still have just as much value and importance to us, I think.

[ash]

Before school let out I was going to ask a couple teachers about how exactly the Bible came to be in their opinion or from the research they've done. I think it was taught differently in two separate classes (Bible and English).

1) Oral tradition - including things left out or things exaggerated (a change in the story from the original)

2) Oral tradition and divine inspiration - because humans wrote down what God was telling them to and what they remembered, there are some humanness (or wrong-ness) in the scriptures as well

I was taught (in church) that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God - it's perfect. No flaws. But, maybe that's not true?

Josh - you probably remember better how Mrs. S taught this than I do. Help?

It's just such a crazy/troubling thought to think that Job may have been a mythical story. I want to get the origins of the Bible understood correctly before I ask anything more about Job.
 

[Josh]

I was taught (in church) that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God - it's perfect. No flaws. But, maybe that's not true?

On the contrary, ash, it IS true. Entirely true. And anyone who tells you otherwise is blasphemous.

Yes, the Bible was written by mere men, but entirely under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who did not allow even the slightest flaw or inaccuracy. So the Bible is simultaneously the work of man and the flawless, inspired Word of the Almighty.

[Jrodder]

I was taught (in church) that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God - it's perfect. No flaws. But, maybe that's not true?

On the contrary, ash, it IS true. Entirely true. And anyone who tells you otherwise is blasphemous.

Yes, the Bible was written by mere men, but entirely under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who did not allow even the slightest flaw or inaccuracy. So the Bible is simultaneously the work of man and the flawless, inspired Word of the Almighty.

Nicely put, Josh.

Ash, the funny thing about those theories is that they can't be backed up. If the Bible was formed either of those ways, there would be numerous provable inaccuracies. There aren't.

[ash]

Nicely put, Josh.

Ash, the funny thing about those theories is that they can't be backed up. If the Bible was formed either of those ways, there would be numerous provable inaccuracies. There aren't.

That's a relief! So, what was I reading earlier about Job being a myth? What?

[standmanelsr]

Back in the old'n days of the phorum there was not agreement on many important issues. Those were the days of daily debate. And in those days we had people who did not believe fully in the Bible posting daily. You can imagine the debate that ensued. I was always one of the first to be like "what in the world are you saying!" It did not just include theology; the debate included Americanism. These were the days of the infamous WAR TOPIC. Pages upon pages of debate. And the conclusion? Those who disagreed finally just left - and I cannot tell you why.

PM to Ash: Sorry about not making last practice meeting. My mom ended up using the car to go to a doctor's appointment. Call about next meeting and I'll give it the chance I said I would. Sorry for not calling!

[bloop]

Nicely put, yes, but I don't really believe it.  Just because the people tell me something is flawless doesn't make it so.  

The one time I tried to work out the little apparent inaccuracies or contradictions that myself and others have observed in the Bible, people explained it away in such a flippant, circular, and thoughtless way that you could use to protect the perfection of anything using their logic.  It was a tad ridiculous, so I gave up needing the issues resolved.  So, saying no one has found these apparent inaccuracies isn't true - it's just that they are generally brushed aside so people are free to not think.

I don't need to believe all of what science has to offer to believe that animals are composed of cells, so I don't need to believe that the Bible is perfect to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

[-ash-]

I don't need to believe all of what science has to offer to believe that animals are composed of cells, so I don't need to believe that the Bible is perfect to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

I think that's true, if I understood you correctly. But I'm just thinking about how and why someone would say job was a myth... or why Jonah, David and Goliath... were myths as well...?

[leinad]

But I'm just thinking about how and why someone would say job was a myth... or why Jonah, David and Goliath... were myths as well...?

As I recall, it was Vlad who originally suggested (in the phorum) that Job might be mythological, so perhaps if he ever comes back (where is he, anyway?), he can answer that.  One argument for Job being a myth is that it seems rather strange in Job 1-2 for Satan to be appearing among the angels (or "sons of God") to present himself before God.  Vlad and I discussed this in the original thread where this came up.

[Vlad!]

I was on a three-day vacation due to Reagan's death (us government workers take every opportunity to not work, hehe). And leinad is correct: it was me who was suggesting this interpretation.

The story of Job bothers me for several reasons. The first is that it appears to be written by two different authors. I'm no linguistic analyst, but the middle section (which appears to be written in verse and is a dialogue of long speeches) differs from the beginning and last (which are prose and is mostly the unknown narrator discussing or describing the events.

The second is that it mentions a beast, the leviathan, that we don't really know of. Some have suggested it to be the crocodile (perhaps a larger version thereof), but I am a little suspicious of accounts that mention apparently mythical creatures.

The third is the purely human aspect: God kills the guy's freaking family. We're supposed to believe that this is alright because he gets more children in the end. Pshaw. If my family died I would be heartbroken. I'm neither married nor a father, but I imagine that if I was and my sons were killed, having more sons wouldn't make it OK. I would love them just as much, but they wouldn't replace the ones who were lost. It seems to be an extremely callous act on God's part to allow this to happen merely as a test. It's as thought God will go to any length to be proven right, even killing off the family of the man who loves Him most.

Fourth, the intro doesn't really make sense. Presumably God knows everything. Conventional belief says that He knows the future, at least in the broadest terms and many will argue that God knows everything that will ever happen. If this were so, Satan would know it. Therefore, he wouldn't make this 'bet' with God, knowing that God already knew the outcome. I am aware that the word Satan in this case is considered by some to mean an angel who 'tests' the righteous rather than the devil himself, but the point still stands that it's a silly thing to do.

And finally, the whole story smacks of oral tradition or a cultural myth. Indeterminite time period, little supporting details, a suggestion that the author knows what's going on in heaven as well as on earth, and a definite moral.

I think that bloop put it very well, but I want to take it further: belief that Job is an illustrative story neither erodes faith in the Bible nor faith in Christ. Some argue that it is the first step down a 'slippery slope' that eventually leads to a distrust of the entire Bible, and although such wild extrapolation could result, those who choose to actually apply their brains will not arrive at that conclusion.

In closing, I will say this: all scripture is inspired by God and is profitible for teaching, correction, reproof, and training in righteousness. It does not say that all scripture actually happened.

[Rachel]

Fourth, the intro doesn't really make sense. Presumably God knows everything. Conventional belief says that He knows the future, at least in the broadest terms and many will argue that God knows everything that will ever happen. If this were so, Satan would know it.

Why would Satan also know the future if God knew it?

[Vlad!]

Why would Satan also know the future if God knew it?

Sorry, poor antecedent. What I meant was: Satan would know that God knew the future. Not that he would know the future itself. If that still doesn't make sense, think about it this way: God knows the future. Satan is aware of the fact that God knows the future. Satan still makes a bet with God (bet may not be the right word given that the story doesn't mention anything being wagered), even though he knows that God knows what the outcome will be. This means that either
1. Satan is extremely stupid, which is possible
2. God really doesn't know the outcomes of our individual actions, which I think is possible but probably a good number of you will disagree with this
3. The celestial events recounted by the story didn't happen or happened in a much different way and were corrupted through oral tradition.

[Rachel]

Oh I see what you meant, thanks.

 

[ash]

[ash]

So, I guess I deserved to be laughed at as the fool. How do these verses work with debates such as this?

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools [ 1:7 The Hebrew words rendered [ fool ] in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient. ] despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 1:22
"How long will you simple ones [ 1:22 The Hebrew word rendered [ simple ] in Proverbs generally denotes one without moral direction and inclined to evil. ] love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 10:14
Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

Proverbs 12:23
A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.

Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

Proverbs 14:7
Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.

Proverbs 15:7
The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so the hearts of fools.

Proverbs 15:14
The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
 

[Vlad!]

[ash]

I understood what you said. Thanks.

[oneafroboy]

This is quite the interesting discussion.

Vlad!, I agree with you that Christians should not be afraid of brain work. However, I think Christians too often reconcile science/logic (and it is often our perception of reality, which is not necessarily true) and the Scriptures by submitting the Bible to science--we try to fit the Bible to the science. I think this is a bit of a fallacy. If the Bible is God's Word (and it really isn't that much of a science book), then we should hold science up to Light of the Bible.

Now, I understand things like the "sun standing still"  or the sun "rising" or "setting" as the perception of real events from a terrestrial reference frame. I do not however see how the creation story and Adam and Eve's removal from the Garden of Eden as simply a myth, a story just to make a point. You don't have to disagree with evolution to be a Christian (where is evolution vs creation in the Apostle's Creed?), but I really do think God created human beings as separate creatures out of the dust, and not through the evolution of species. I think the Bible is pretty clear about this--and so much biblical theology rests on the Fall--and so I refuse to reconcile the two.

Alnd all that to not even mention the book of Job except in this final sentence.    

[ash]

This is quite the interesting discussion.

Vlad!, I agree with you that Christians should not be afraid of brain work. However, I think Christians too often reconcile science/logic (and it is often our perception of reality, which is not necessarily true) and the Scriptures by submitting the Bible to science--we try to fit the Bible to the science. I think this is a bit of a fallacy. If the Bible is God's Word (and it really isn't that much of a science book), then we should hold science up to Light of the Bible.

Now, I understand things like the "sun standing still" or the sun "rising" or "setting" as the perception of real events from a terrestrial reference frame. I do not however see how the creation story and Adam and Eve's removal from the Garden of Eden as simply a myth, a story just to make a point. You don't have to disagree with evolution to be a Christian (where is evolution vs creation in the Apostle's Creed?), but I really do think God created human beings as separate creatures out of the dust, and not through the evolution of species. I think the Bible is pretty clear about this--and so much biblical theology rests on the Fall--and so I refuse to reconcile the two.

Alnd all that to not even mention the book of Job except in this final sentence. 

Well said, brother.  

[Vlad!]

Vlad!, I agree with you that Christians should not be afraid of brain work. However, I think Christians too often reconcile science/logic (and it is often our perception of reality, which is not necessarily true) and the Scriptures by submitting the Bible to science--we try to fit the Bible to the science. I think this is a bit of a fallacy. If the Bible is God's Word (and it really isn't that much of a science book), then we should hold science up to Light of the Bible.

As you say, the Bible is not a science book. It's really a history book. You say this, and then in the very next statement you say that we should reconcile science with the Bible rather than the other way around. I'm not exactly sure how we got onto this topic given that the discussion so far has been about history, NOT science, but attempting to derive science from or interpret science by a nonscientific history book, even one of such distinguished character as the Bible, can lead to some pretty absurd ideas, as you go on to mention.

I kinda lose track of your point around your second large paragraph. Are you merely railing in an off-topic manner against modern science, or are you also taking exception to my suggestion that Genesis could be oral history instead of direct inspiration? I am not one of those people who believes in Christianity but also macroevolution, so I'm not particularly trying to undermine the creation story in order to promote my own agenda here. In fact, I mentioned it as sort of a side note since this discussion lost its focus a bit and ash started talking about oral history and the origins of the Bible, something that is, as I said before, another topic altogether.

I myself would be interested in hearing people's comments about Job. The last time we had this discussion and I presented much the same argument, I got a lot of attacks from people who claimed that I was denying scriptural integrity and damaging the Christian faith, but little actual attempted refutation of my points. I think that it's a topic worth considering.
 

[oneafroboy]

One, I said that the Bible was not a science book, because I wanted to get across that I think the Bible rarely deals with things in the realm of science. Two, I used creation/evolution simply as an example (as I did with the sun setting and rising) of submitting either the Bible to science, or science (although in the case of evolution, science becomes less of a science and more a theory of history) to the Bible when the Bible touches scientific areas--which is rare. Another example would be miracles. Logically and scientifically speaking, miracles don't happen. So either Jesus' miracles are just symbolic stories or some were weird coincidences. I think it's dangerous, if we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, to submit the Bible to other things in this world. Some of it isn't going to make sense logically, but that doesn't mean it's not true. (Whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is whole nother topic.)

I thought I was clear, but I hope this makes what I was trying to say clearer. I said this as kind of a sidenote to the whole Job discussion.

The reason I didn't really say anything related to Job (but here at the phorum, threads usually go off topic--the nature of human discussion), was because I didn't have much to say. I believe it to be true, but I don't find your belief that it is just a story to be offensive. But I'll respond to your points.

Two authors: well, I'll have to look at that. I hadn't really before now. Interesting point, though.

Leviathan: Creatures go extinct all the time (okay, not all the time, but you know what I mean). It's very possible that the leviathan went extinct, like say the do-do bird. I don't see this as much of a problem.

God kills Job's family: God gives life and He can take it away. I mean, God's God, He does what He wills. I think sometimes maybe God does take children away from their parents. It seems awful through our human eyes, but it's God. (I don't know how Job felt about having more kids. I doubt he felt they totally replaced the ones who had died, but maybe his feelings were left out of the text?) I don't see it as a callous act. It's God's creation. He can choose to do with it what He wills.

Satan's knowledge of God's omniscience: First, I think there are several examples in the Bible where God is shown to know the future. I still really don't see how this can be questioned, but we'll move right along. Maybe the devil/Satan didn't believe God knew the future and so he made this bet with Him. It's a good point to bring up, but just as people may question what God knows, maybe fallen angels do too.

The story sounds like oral tradition: I don't think the fact that it's an indeterminate time really suggests that it's a myth. If it were God-inspired, then perhaps God gave the writer knowledge of what happened in the spiritual realm. This is actually probably your best point, and other than what I just said, I don't know how to answer. I'll have to think about this some more. And about the moral... Well, we can always learn from the interaction of God and man, and a story of a person's faith. Real stories can have "morals" that just occur because things that happen in reality usually occur more than once.

As I said, your view Vlad! isn't offensive to me. But I figured I'd help get this topic back on track and address some of the points you made. Some things I hadn't really thought about, so I'm glad you mentioned them so I can think about them. (Though nowadays, when do I have time to sit dow and think about anything?) Anyone else have something to add?

 

[Vlad!]

One, I said that the Bible was not a science book, because I wanted to get across that I think the Bible rarely deals with things in the realm of science. Two, I used creation/evolution simply as an example (as I did with the sun setting and rising) of submitting either the Bible to science, or science (although in the case of evolution, science becomes less of a science and more a theory of history) to the Bible when the Bible touches scientific areas--which is rare. Another example would be miracles. Logically and scientifically speaking, miracles don't happen. So either Jesus' miracles are just symbolic stories or some were weird coincidences. I think it's dangerous, if we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, to submit the Bible to other things in this world. Some of it isn't going to make sense logically, but that doesn't mean it's not true. (Whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is whole nother topic.)

Sure, I agree that it's not a science book. I was just saying that these are two different things, and trying to force one to fit the other may be wrongheaded. And just to clarify, logic does not deny the existence of miracles. If you accept as given a God who is powerful and capable of performing miracles, it logically follows that miracles can occur. So even if we submit the Bible to logic rather than logic to the Bible there is no reason why the two should be irreconcilable.

Leviathan: Creatures go extinct all the time (okay, not all the time, but you know what I mean). It's very possible that the leviathan went extinct, like say the do-do bird. I don't see this as much of a problem.

It's not the extinction of the creature as much as the fact that we know nothing of it. We know of the dodo and that it once existed. Perhaps the term refers to a beast that we know by a different name, or perhaps it's hyperbole.

God kills Job's family: God gives life and He can take it away. I mean, God's God, He does what He wills. I think sometimes maybe God does take children away from their parents. It seems awful through our human eyes, but it's God. (I don't know how Job felt about having more kids. I doubt he felt they totally replaced the ones who had died, but maybe his feelings were left out of the text?) I don't see it as a callous act. It's God's creation. He can choose to do with it what He wills.

Yes, we are all taught that God can do whatever he wants without having to answer to us. What of it if he performs a heinous act, because he's God, right? But I raise this point for two reasons:
-To allow such a callous thing merely to prove a point seems to be inconsistent with some of the other things we are taught about God's character.
-The story is presented with a moral: the benefits of righteousness. Though an additional moral is indeed God's soverignty, the idea that he might just allow the satan to kill my entire family to test my faith (especially if, as you say, he knows everything, including the future, and already KNOWS what my response would be) does not exactly inspire devotion.

[oneafroboy]

It's not the extinction of the creature as much as the fact that we know nothing of it. We know of the dodo and that it once existed. Perhaps the term refers to a beast that we know by a different name, or perhaps it's hyperbole.

It's possible that the creature became extinct, and the connection between name and beast was lost. And the dodo bird went extinct much more recently than perhaps the levianthan did. Or, as you said, we may know it by a different name. Some suggest that this is in fact a reference to dinosaurs, but that's up for speculation.

Yes, we are all taught that God can do whatever he wants without having to answer to us. What of it if he performs a heinous act, because he's God, right? But I raise this point for two reasons:
-To allow such a callous thing merely to prove a point seems to be inconsistent with some of the other things we are taught about God's character.
-The story is presented with a moral: the benefits of righteousness. Though an additional moral is indeed God's soverignty, the idea that he might just allow the satan to kill my entire family to test my faith (especially if, as you say, he knows everything, including the future, and already KNOWS what my response would be) does not exactly inspire devotion.

I don't see it as inconsistent, but maybe if you gave some specifics, we could discuss them.

What can I say? God is God. But I'll stop before I begin repeating myself.