A Job worth doing over

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Wed, 2011-08-03 12:40

In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.

His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

One day when Job’s sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, and the Sabeans attacked and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”

While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”

While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”

While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”

At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
and naked I will depart.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised.”

In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.


( categories: )

The Grim Repo Man

Richard Goode's picture

Point taken.

It's Father's Day, by the way. ;‐)

Thank God for Goode

reed's picture

No, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "take it personally."

If you were lent a million dollars would you take it personally when the lender ended the loan?
Shouldn't you just be thankful for the loan?

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

If you were (about to be) killed by an "act of God", would you take it personally?

Ontological primacy

Richard Goode's picture

From your perspective is God not what it takes to underpin the natural?

No. From my perspective, the physical world is ontologically primary. It doesn't need underpinning.

Objectivism has a similar view. It assigns ontological primacy to mind-independent reality. That's the Axiom of (the Primacy of) Existence ("existence exists") in a nutshell.

The chemical, the biological, the psychological? These are not ontologically primary. They do need underpinning. From my perspective, they are underpinned, ultimately, by the physical.

Objectivism denies the Primacy of Consciousness. (And what underpins human "free will"? Blank out.)

From my perspective, morality is not ontologically primary. It needs underpinning. Natural facts (e.g., facts about human happiness and what is conducive to it) alone are insufficient to underpin the moral facts. My conception of God is whatever else it takes to underpin the moral facts.

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

natural causes?

reed's picture

From your perspective is God not what it takes to underpin the natural?

Supernatural causes

Richard Goode's picture

I don't think there is anything special about these deaths.

I think being killed by Satan is a bit out of the ordinary, even in a Biblical context.

Does contemplating your own mortality lead you to think that God is an amoral monster? If not, what's the difference?

No. I expect to die by natural causes.

That's the difference.

Did being crushed to death

reed's picture

Did being crushed to death turn out to be good for Job's children?
I don't think there is anything special about these deaths.

Does contemplating your own mortality lead you to think that God is an amoral monster?
If not, what's the difference?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"The Bible is not a book. It's an anthology consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament"

Cannot see how it's relevant. The current canonized version of Bible is a foundation of Christian Cannon and Christian religion. Never mind the books of Maccabies or Judith, there are 5 books of Moses which included in any mainstream Christian Bible and they describe God in great details. These books are inseparable part of Christianity and to deny this is to undermine the very foundation of this religion. BTW, the book of Judith is also essential for understanding of the Christ’ origin. Judith was a great-grand mother of David who was allegedly Christ forefather and that what makes his Messianic claim legitimate. Remove OT from Christianity and see that not much left of it.

The Bible is not a book

Richard Goode's picture

The Protestant version of the Old Testament has 39 books, whereas the Catholic version has 46. Do Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch belong in the Christian Biblical canon?

I think that whatever is included in Christian Bible belongs to the Christian Biblical canon.

This is the answer of someone who neither knows nor cares.

The Bible is not a book. It's an anthology consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament, each of which is itself an anthology. The Bible is a collection of books, by disparate authors, written over a period of 800 years or more.

Many Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired; nonetheless, the process of canonisation was long and difficult. The Book of Revelation, for example, was not accepted into the New Testament canon until the Council of Carthage of 397 AD. Today, the New Testament is an agreed-upon (by the major Christian denominations) set of 27 books, but there is no consensus on which books belong in the Old Testament canon.

Richard

Leonid's picture

""What rule do you apply to determine what does and what does not belong in the Christian Biblical canon?"

I think that whatever is included in Christian Bible belongs to the Christian Biblical canon. Since OT included it is part of the canon. Moreover, NT story is completely depends on OT. NT is OT's sequel.

"If our sense of right and wrong is God-given, why does mine insist that the God of the Old Testament is an amoral monster?"

Because the sense of right and wrong is not God-given. If it were you wouldn't be able to judge God as an immoral monster. If God is a source of morality then any moral judgment of God is circular and meaningless. He is the one who makes the rules of the game.

You cannot say that OT and NT God is not the same because God is not featuring in NT. It's only Jesus and Jesus never said that he is God. His students and others referred to him as rabbi, a theacher. This is true, however that Jesus called God his father, which makes him son of God. So we went the full circle now from OT Genesis, book of Job and NT.This is true that in OT God behaves as a woman with PMS and has an inclination to infanticide. In NT the only God's action is a crucifixion of his own son. As you can see ,his attitudes never changed. The same God.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Yes, this is a principal answer which reflects the context of my knowledge on this issue.

You haven't understood my question. I'll rephrase it. What rule do you apply to determine what does and what does not belong in the Christian Biblical canon?

If your premises lead to contradiction, check your premises.

That's good advice. However, my premises don't lead to contradiction.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"If the God to whom Jesus referred and the God of the Old Testament are one and the same, how is it possible to keep the first and greatest commandment?"

You're quite right-it's impossible.

"If our sense of right and wrong is God-given, why does mine insist that the God of the Old Testament is an amoral monster?"

If your premises lead to contradiction, check your premises.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Yes, this is a principal answer which reflects the context of my knowledge on this issue. OT belongs to the Christian Biblical Canon, at least to the Catholic and Orthodox. However there is a legion of Christian denominations and I'm unfamiliar with the most of them.

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Did being crushed to death turn out to be good for Job's children?

If our sense of right and wrong is God-given, why does mine insist that the God of the Old Testament is an amoral monster?

If the God to whom Jesus referred and the God of the Old Testament are one and the same, how is it possible to keep the first and greatest commandment?

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

As far as I know OT as a whole as well as NT belongs to the Christian Biblical canon.

Do you have a principled answer to the question? ("As far as I know" doesn't cut it.)

Richard

Leonid's picture

As far as I know OT as a whole as well as NT belongs to the Christian Biblical canon.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

What belongs in the Christian Biblical canon and what doesn't? Do you have a principled answer to this question?

Genesis 32:24-30

Richard Goode's picture

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak... Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” ... Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.” ... So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

"Same God?"-some God,

Leonid's picture

"Same God?"-some God, different times. Besides, there was the only one like Moses.

"The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. (Exodus 33:11.)
Whereas, Jesus says
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (John 6:46.)"
God also said "I will surely hide my face from you on that day."
(Deuteronomy 31:18,). You see-the same God.

" Leonid is militant atheist"-did I ever advocate to ban churches, mosques, synagogues or Buddhist temples?

Reflections On The Christchurch Earthquake

Richard Goode's picture

Is P1 true if the suffering turns out to be good for the sufferer?

You ask the hard questions.

God gave Satan carte blanche to murder Job's children. Satan collapsed their house, crushing them to death. Did this turn out to be good for Job? Did being crushed to death turn out to be good for Job's children?

P1 is true if the suffering turns out to be bad for the sufferer.

Bible contradictions, LOL

Richard Goode's picture

Reed, the hardcore Christian, is pointing them out.

Leonid, the militant atheist, is trying to explain them away.

Ex:33:20 - God speaking to Moses...

reed's picture

“... you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

It is written

Richard Goode's picture

NT constantly refers to OT, quotes it and makes to understand that God-Father is OT God.

Jesus constantly refers to the Old Testament, and quotes it. "It is written," he said to them...

But in the Old Testament it is written that

The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. (Exodus 33:11.)

Whereas, Jesus says

No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (John 6:46.)

Same God? On the face of it, no. It is not the case that Jesus gives us to understand "that God-Father is OT God."

"On what evidence do you base

Leonid's picture

"On what evidence do you base your understanding?"

NT constantly refers to OT, quotes it and makes to understand that God-Father is OT God. Quran does the same. I don't know about Mormons.

A is A

Richard Goode's picture

My understanding that NT God is OT God.

On what evidence do you base your understanding?

Is it your understanding that the God of the New Testament is the God of the Book of Mormon?

Is it your understanding that the God of the New Testament is Allah of the Quran?

Is it your understanding that the God of the New Testament is Chiang of Jonathan Livingston Seagull?

Is it your understanding that Harry Potter of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is Harry Potter of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality?

Who is John Galt?

Divine intervention [updated]

Richard Goode's picture

If there's no evidence that Gobby exists, what is the evidence for your claim he is the source of morality?

If there's no evidence that miracles occur, what is the evidence for your claim that a miracle is an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs?

(On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" If you find the practice of answering a question with another question irksome, you'd have found Jesus to be downright rude!)

A miracle is an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. It is so by definition. The evidence, or absence of evidence, that miracles occur is irrelevant to the claim.

Likewise, the evidence, or lack thereof, of God's existence is irrelevant to my claim that God is the source of morality.

The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Are there any values? It is an empirical question. To answer it, one must go and look. Seek and you will find, but you must know what it is you're looking for. If you don't know what it is you're looking for, how will you know if you've found it?

We must define morality. Or, rather, do some conceptual analysis. And, it turns out, the nature of morality is such that it can exist only if God exists to underpin it.

The evidence for my claim that God is the source of morality is given in my doctoral dissertation.

God is good

reed's picture

Is P1 true if the suffering turns out to be good for the sufferer?

Morality doesn't stand a chance

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Baade:

There is no evidence that God exists.
God is the source of morality.

If there's no evidence that Gobby exists, what is the evidence for your claim he is the source of morality?

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

My understanding that NT God is OT God. In NT God doesn't act by himself, only by proxy of his son in the human form. The only God's action in NT is a sacrifice of his own son on the cross. How it makes him better than God which is described in the Book of Job? Morality is a code of values accepted by choice. The only choice which is possible within religion is a choice to believe and even this choice is predetermined by God. Choice of an agent which is granted or enforced by another agent is contradiction in terms. There is no choice and no morality in any religion. What is good?-whatever God says is good. As long as one follows God's commandments, everything goes. Every possible horrid crime could be justified by His sacred will.

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?

Indeed, we shall.

God is whatever it takes to underpin the moral facts.

The God of the Old Testament hasn't got what it takes to underpin the moral facts. If God exists, and He is as the Book of Job describes Him, then there is no morality. There is only "might makes right", which is no morality at all.

Marcion's demiurge

Richard Goode's picture

Marcion's demiurge

Not quite

Richard Goode's picture

Is this your argument...

Not quite. My argument is as follows.

P1. God would never incite undeserved suffering.
P2. The OT God incited Job's undeserved sufferings.

C1. Therefore, God is not the OT God.

No

Richard Goode's picture

Could you please give me some evidence of this almighty creator?

No. There is no evidence that God exists.

God is the source of morality. Therefore, if there is no God, there is no morality.

Is this your argument...

reed's picture

Is this your argument...

P1. The NT God would never incite undeserved suffering.
P2. The OT God incited Job's undeserved sufferings.

C1. Therefore, the NT God is not the OT God.

No Goode

gregster's picture

God is the source of morality and, therefore, beyond right and wrong.

Could you please give me some evidence of this almighty creator? He sounds cool.

... is worth doing over well

Richard Goode's picture

On another day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. And the LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”

“Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”

So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head. Then Job took a piece of broken pottery and scraped himself with it as he sat among the ashes.

His wife said to him, “Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!”

He replied, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”

In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

When Job’s three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, heard about all the troubles that had come upon him, they set out from their homes and met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him. When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly recognize him; they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads. Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.

You speak as one of the foolish women speaks.

reed's picture

Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?

Trick question

Richard Goode's picture

What do you think is wrong with God's actions regarding Job?

Nothing. It's a trick question. God is the source of morality and, therefore, beyond right and wrong.

But God is also loving and just. Giving Satan carte blanche to murder Job's children, just to make a point, is the antithesis of both love and justice. It wasn't even Satan's idea to murder Job's children. God put him up to it. Satan was happily minding his own business, roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it, until God popped the chilling question, "Have you considered my servant Job?"

There are only two possible conclusions (for a theist) to draw from this.

The first conclusion is that the God of the Book of Job is an imposter.

The second conclusion is the familiar theodicy that Leonid has already identified.

The usual simplified answer " He moves in mysterious ways" .

It's the same conclusion we find at the end of Christ Trotter's blog post.

Was God present in Christchurch on 22 February? Oh yes, He was there. And He is with us always. Beyond our questions; beyond our understanding; beyond our judgement.

It's the same conclusion that all apologists for the God of the Old Testament sooner or later arrive at, such as this 1 of 144,000.

This is a problem of definitions. In order to understand this problem we must understand who God is and what his definitions of good, evil, and love really are. The apparent hypocrisy stems from a faulty, anthropocentric view of the difference between right and wrong. In other words, we look at things from a distinctly human point of view... We ignore the true God in favor of a god of our own design. The true God is the God of the Bible, and he is above and beyond our imaginations. God is not human, and he does not share our limited viewpoint... God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. In fact, they are much higher and much deeper... We do not judge him, he judges us.

The second conclusion is fatally flawed. Therefore, the God of the Book of Job is an imposter.

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Even the most evil man in mankind's history adhered to this maxim.

God hasn't changed since

reed's picture

God hasn't changed since Job's experience of God.

Surprisingly, I agree with Chris Trotter's God blog entry Reflections On The Christchurch Earthquake.

What do you think is wrong with God's actions regarding Job?
Is it wrong for you to suffer loss?

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

... so you were only recently born again?

I'm a Christian.

Oh...

Jameson's picture

... so you were only recently born again?

Luke 8:16

Richard Goode's picture

I liked it much better when you were in the closet.

No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light.

The God of the Old Testament

Richard Goode's picture

Dawkins refers to "the God of the Old Testament". Why not refer, simply, to "God"? Because the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different characters. Wikipedia says,

From its earliest days, Christianity has been challenged to reconcile the scriptures known as the "Old Testament" with the scriptures known as the "New Testament".

Christian apologist Robin Schumacher says,

Non-Christians sometimes assert that God is portrayed in the Old Testament as a cruel and ruthless deity that indiscriminately orders the execution of seemingly innocent men, women, and children, or directly carries out their deaths by various means. Such a God, the argument goes, in no way represents the loving Creator or Father figure that the New Testament offers, and should in no way be worshipped or venerated.

Schumacher's disingenuity is on show here. Christians, too, sometimes assert that the God of the Old Testament should in no way be worshipped or venerated. 20th century theologian Charles Raven, for example, argued that the Church should repudiate the Old Testament as an unChristian book. The idea that Christians should reject the Old Testament goes all the way back to 2nd century Christian bishop Marcion of Sinope, who was the first to formulate a Christian canon.

Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism... He rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, and declared that the God of the Hebrew Bible was a lesser demiurge, who had created the earth, but was (de facto) the source of evil.

Marcionites held maltheistic views of the God of the Hebrew Bible... that he was inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal, and that the material world he created was defective, a place of suffering; the God who made such a world is a bungling or malicious demiurge.

Suffice it to say, I agree with Dawkins, Raven and Marcion. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are not the same person. And that's another reason I posted the first chapter of the Book of Job. To answer Linz's question here.

I liked it much better

Jameson's picture

... when you were in the closet.

The Wonderful Wizard of Uz

Richard Goode's picture

Richard Dawkins says,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

The first chapter of the Book of Job nicely illustrates Dawkins' contention. That's one reason I posted it.

I'm a bit perturbed by Leonid's contention that

His story is a fictional framework ( the only officially recognized fiction in the whole Bible)

but I think he's wrong (that the Book of Job is "officially recognised" as a fiction).

Sitting and waiting...

reed's picture

Smiling

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

I made my assumptions.

To assume is to make an ASS of U and ME.

If I'm wrong why don't you explain ?

Sit and wait, all will be revealed. :‐)

By codifiers of Bible.

By official codifiers of the Bible?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"It's no joke."

" I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said."

And that exactly what I mean. You are right-this is not a joke but an irony that millions of believers rely on the text adapted to the current religious needs. Learn Hebrew.

"I posted only the first half of the prologue to the Book of Job. You don't know why I posted it"
I made my assumptions. If I'm wrong why don't you explain ?

"Officially recognised by whom?"

By codifiers of Bible.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

The joke is that people not just translate Bible but adjust the meaning to the current religious trend.

It's no joke.

you posted only the foreword of the Job's story in order to demonstrate how righteous he was.

I posted only the first half of the prologue to the Book of Job. You don't know why I posted it.

His story is a fictional framework ( the only officially recognized fiction in the whole Bible)

Officially recognised by whom?

Richard

Leonid's picture

The joke is that people not just translate Bible but adjust the meaning to the current religious trend. In accordance to the Christian doctrine God cannot have many sons. He begot the only one son whom he loved so much that he sacrificed him on the cross. Therefore sons of God in the book of Job became angels. I obviously joked when I said that translators are politically correct, but in a sense it is true.

The point you missed-you posted only the foreword of the Job's story in order to demonstrate how righteous he was. But the book is not about Job's righteousness. His story is a fictional framework ( the only officially recognized fiction in the whole Bible), a stage created in order to conduct a long philosophical discussion between his three friends about God's justice. They try to resolve a question why the sinner is rewarded and the righteous is punished and how to explain it from the point of view of an absolute divine justice. They failed to find an answer and for a good reason-their premises are wrong.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

you obviously don't appreciate my sense of humor.

Damn, I completely missed your joke as well. What was it?

By the way, I think you completely missed mine, too.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

What was the point you say I completely missed?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"It's too far away."-but he doesn't know that and cannot comprehend this fact,because his premises are as wrong as the premise that God rewards the righteous and punishes the sinner, not to mention that 'God" is arbitrary concept.

It's neither obvious nor true that the translators "took a politically correct poetic license in order not to offend the believers."-you obviously don't appreciate my sense of humor.

"you're a Biblical literalist"-literalist or not , but it is quite difficult to deny that sons of God and angels (malachim, the messengers) are not exactly the same. Besides, nowhere in Bible is mentioned that angels, unlike sons of God slept with earthly women. The status of Satan however is not clear. Some consider him as a fallen angel. I, however incline to think that he is also one of the God's sons, otherwise what did he do in that jolly family gathering which book of Job describes?
His attempt to seduce Eve also qualifies him as son of God ( see below) rather than an angel.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

But you completely missed the point.

Oh.

The book of Job is well known philosophical thesis which discusses the problem as ancient as recorded time itself: why the righteous is suffering and the sinner is prosperous and well? The usual simplified answer " He moves in mysterious ways" . The question cannot be answered in logic because the premise is wrong.

The premise is correct.

It is like to try to answer the question of the best ancient archer why he cannot hit the moon with his arrow.

It's too far away.

Small correction: the angels who came to visit god in original Hebrew text are b'nei elohim, that is-sons of God. The translator obviously took a politically correct poetic license in order not to offend the believers.

The Bible translation is the New International Version, 2011.

It's neither obvious nor true that the translators "took a politically correct poetic license in order not to offend the believers." What is both obvious and true, however, is that you're a Biblical literalist.

Richard

Leonid's picture

" Job did not sin ..."

But you completely missed the point. The book of Job is well known philosophical thesis which discusses the problem as ancient as recorded time itself: why the righteous is suffering and the sinner is prosperous and well? The usual simplified answer " He moves in mysterious ways" . The question cannot be answered in logic because the premise is wrong. It is like to try to answer the question of the best ancient archer why he cannot hit the moon with his arrow. Small correction: the angels who came to visit god in original Hebrew text are b'nei elohim, that is-sons of God. The translator obviously took a politically correct poetic license in order not to offend the believers. The other mention of God's sons is in Genesis-sons of God took earthly women who after 9 months delivered nefilim-giants. Such a story also exists ( with variations) in the Greek and our modern UFO mythology

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.