The book of Job

[JayWalker]

As God knows everything from the begining to the end , I imagine that He knew that Job would stick with Him

Yes, He knows the end from the beginning

But the calvinists claim God actually causes anything that happens to happen meaning it's God's will for evil to happen to people and they claim He is causing evil to happen to people. They have God confused with the devil and assume it's the same entity

Yes. God is morally free, but He chooses to be perfectly loving

God couldn't possibly do evil. It'll never happen because there is no evil in Him whatsoever.

Choosing to view Him as hateful toward the non-elect is monstrous,
and refusing to repent of such heresy warrants a just consequence.

He's not choosing to be hateful towards unbelievers. He loves all people, but He can't accept all people because most people reject Him. He's trying to save them and they are rejecting Him and refusing to submit to the Lord, get born again, and live for Him.

They reject Him and in doing so they have set themselves in agreement with the devil.
The devil has already been judged and those that belong to the devil will get the devil's judgement

This is because of seedtime and harvest. God's Kingdom is built on this according to God's Word.

He has given every human being opportunity to accept Him because He is just and it would be unjust to send someone to hell without them having had opportunity to accept the Lord.

Revelation Ch 21 , verses 7+8 .

Yes, it's always good to be mindful of Revelation 21:7,8 and be an overcomer!

Revelation 21:7,8
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[GWH]

Yes, He knows the end from the beginning

But the calvinists claim God actually causes anything that happens to happen meaning it's God's will for evil to happen to people and they claim He is causing evil to happen to people. They have God confused with the devil and assume it's the same entity

God couldn't possibly do evil. It'll never happen because there is no evil in Him whatsoever.

He's not choosing to be hateful towards unbelievers. He loves all people, but He can't accept all people because most people reject Him. He's trying to save them and they are rejecting Him and refusing to submit to the Lord, get born again, and live for Him.

They reject Him and in doing so they have set themselves in agreement with the devil.
The devil has already been judged and those that belong to the devil will get the devil's judgement

This is because of seedtime and harvest. God's Kingdom is built on this according to God's Word.

He has given every human being opportunity to accept Him because He is just and it would be unjust to send someone to hell without them having had opportunity to accept the Lord.

Yes, it's always good to be mindful of Revelation 21:7,8 and be an overcomer!

Revelation 21:7,8
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

JW, please address questions your reply begs, such as:

1. "If God is not free to do evil, then why is He worthy of praise?"
2. "How can those created in God's image be more free than He?"
3. "Does God freely determine what is good and evil, or is He forced to do good?"

I am glad we agree regarding MFW.

 

[JayWalker]

Avoid foolish and unlearned questions - 2 Timothy 2:23

 

[GWH]

Avoid foolish and unlearned questions - 2 Timothy 2:23

Avoid foolish and unlearned questions - 2 Timothy 2:23

Also avoid believing God is not free to do evil and so is unworthy of praise for doing good,
being robotic or less free than those created in His image who have MFW, and
forced to do good by some super-God power rather than being the One who determines
and freely chooses what is good. IOW, God's good/loving nature is His free will; nothing
forces God to do anything. Thus, we should praise Him for choosing to love everyone eternally.
(Gen. 1:1, Job 38:2, Psa. 136:6, Rom. 9:15-18, Eph. 1:9, 1Tim. 2:3-4)

 

[tttallison]

As God knows everything from the begining to the end , I imagine that He knew that Job would stick with Him . This was a kick in the teeth for satan and most importantly a lesson to us , that is after all the whole point of the Bible , to help us to grow in faith and understanding of God and His plan and purpose with His creation . Job isn't just a narrative of something that happened ( though some believe it to be a parable not an account of actual events ) it's there to teach us something , wether or not it really happened is irrelevant , it's part of God's Word to us .

How can you say it is irrelevant whether it really happened? Was James confused? We are given Elihu's father and ancestry. Was that a lie?

When you say it is irrelevant you support people like Bruce Metzger and George May, who gave us The New Oxford Annotated Bible. In the introduction to the Old Testament on page xxv it is stated, "Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from creation to the conquest of the promised land, an account which later in modified form became a part of scripture."

Bruce Metzger was instrumental in helping supply the Greek for all modern translations.

 

[tttallison]

Yes. Thank you for that

The calvinists are really messed up. They make God in to a complete monster. It's crazy.





Job was already with the Lord and was loyal so this is not true.

Was salvation different in the Old Testament than in the New Testament, and if so, how?

Job did not know how to be just with God, Job did not know who God was, or where God was, and Job said God was unjust. Job also said he was without hope. These are all the words of Job. If you can summarily dismiss these words out of hand, then you are in effect creating your own bible.

 

[Suze]

How can you say it is irrelevant whether it really happened? Was James confused? We are given Elihu's father and ancestry. Was that a lie?

When you say it is irrelevant you support people like Bruce Metzger and George May, who gave us The New Oxford Annotated Bible. In the introduction to the Old Testament on page xxv it is stated, "Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from creation to the conquest of the promised land, an account which later in modified form became a part of scripture."

Bruce Metzger was instrumental in helping supply the Greek for all modern translations.

I never said anything was a lie so don't put words in my mouth . I said that the point of the book of Job was and is , to teach us something . If u r looking for an argument you have picked the wrong person . If u r looking for someone to belittle / embarrass , u have picked the wrong one again . If u r not looking for either of those things , I apologize for suspecting u of both . Me ? I'm just looking for some polite , respectful chat about the Bible , if u r not , then leave me alone please and thank you .

 

[Suze]

How can you say it is irrelevant whether it really happened? Was James confused? We are given Elihu's father and ancestry. Was that a lie?

When you say it is irrelevant you support people like Bruce Metzger and George May, who gave us The New Oxford Annotated Bible. In the introduction to the Old Testament on page xxv it is stated, "Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from creation to the conquest of the promised land, an account which later in modified form became a part of scripture."

Bruce Metzger was instrumental in helping supply the Greek for all modern translations.

I cannot support people that I've never heard of .

 

[GWH]

Also avoid believing God is not free to do evil and so is unworthy of praise for doing good,
being robotic or less free than those created in His image who have MFW, and
forced to do good by some super-God power rather than being the One who determines
and freely chooses what is good. IOW, God's good/loving nature is His free will; nothing
forces God to do anything. Thus, we should praise Him for choosing to love everyone eternally.
(Gen. 1:1, Job 38:2, Psa. 136:6, Rom. 9:15-18, Eph. 1:9, 1Tim. 2:3-4)

The verse in Psalms should have been Psa. 135:6. Again, if God cannot do what He has decreed/willed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in Rom. 9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as "love everyone" and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. IOW, God's good nature is His loving will; God is good because He wills to love (Psa. 135:6, etc.).

The cliche "might makes right" is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God's acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (Rom. 3:22-26). God's is free because God could have chosen to anoint Satan to embody evil logic/lies rather than Jesus to manifest love and truth (John 1:14, Phil. 2:9-11), and this earthly existence would be hell (Rev. 19:11-13, 20:7-10 & 21:6-8).

If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce. This is why we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (Mal. 3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psalm 66:1: "Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!"

 

[tttallison]

I never said anything was a lie so don't put words in my mouth . I said that the point of the book of Job was and is , to teach us something . If u r looking for an argument you have picked the wrong person . If u r looking for someone to belittle / embarrass , u have picked the wrong one again . If u r not looking for either of those things , I apologize for suspecting u of both . Me ? I'm just looking for some polite , respectful chat about the Bible , if u r not , then leave me alone please and thank you .

I apologize for offending you. Your point was that the book of Job contained many truths and was a beautiful book, regardless of whether it was true or not, and I understand that.

 

[tttallison]

I cannot support people that I've never heard of .

It is a shame that the leaders of the seminaries have not kept us better informed. If that had been the case there would not be all the variations of text in so many bibles.

 

[christophernyc]

And then if you keep reading you'll see Job REPENTING in Job 42:4-6 and you'll see Job's friends saying God allowed this to come on him and God comes in and says Job's friends have spoken in error about God because He did not put this on Job.

It's good to take the entire Book of Job in to account as well as the entire Word of God in to account for those wanting to understand what really happened to Job.

Otherwise we are left with the idea that Job's friends had that God was responsible for Job being attacked and it was God's will for this to happen which it was not actually God's will.




I accept the entire Book of Job, you obviously do not.

Like many I have encountered you apparently believe God caused this when God clearly says He did not.

I've posted scripture proving Job was living in fear and scriptures showing fear is sinful behavior so feel free to ignore the whole counsel of God if you really want to be God is evil and is putting evil on people and enjoys making people suffer like the false teachers in calvinism teach.




Seminaries and bible colleges are where people go to be educated in false doctrine, primarily reformed theology which is demonic containing many lies by scripture twisting and cherry picking.

OK so I did not see a response to my reply in post #152 regarding the "cause" of Job's suffering (among other questions). Suffice it to say, your belief then that Job's suffering is due to him be "fearful" as you claim, falls apart. God's own testimony in Scripture is that Job's suffering was "without cause" --- so your premise does not fit, does it? Unless you have a further explanation, this particular interpretation can be ruled out.

 

[christophernyc]

I can understand your skepticism, because what I am saying is different from what you have ever heard about Job. Our opinions get cemented in stone.

Have you wondered why the two tests are word for word except for where there was an actual difference. If the translators had used the actual meaning of the Hebrew words "barak" and "lo" it would be much easier to understand. "Barak" always means "bless", and "lo" is always a negative, or "not". Why the translators chose the dysphemistic word curse I do not know, especially since there is 7 different Hebrew words that actually mean curse. Job used one of them in
Job 3:1 After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day. Strong's H7043 - qālal There is also Job 5:3 I have seen the foolish taking root: but suddenly I cursed his habitation. Strong's H6895 - qāḇaḇ There is also
Job 24:18 He is swift as the waters; their portion is cursed in the earth: he beholdeth not the way of the vineyards. Strong's H7043 - qālal

בָרֲכֶךָּבָּרַךְbāraḵ h3808 Bless

​

לֹאלֹאlō' h1288 Not

In the first test Job blessed God, and in the second test Job did not bless God. It is undeniable.

​

Can you share which English translation shares your opinion of interpreting Job 2:5 as passive where "Job will not bless You to Your face", rather than an active "Job will curse You to Your face"? Can you share which English version interprets it this way?

 

[tttallison]

Can you share which English translation shares your opinion of interpreting Job 2:5 as passive where "Job will not bless You to Your face", rather than an active "Job will curse You to Your face"? Can you share which English version interprets it this way?

It is not the version, but rather Strong's Concordance. It is the concordance that has "barak" "lo". If you are going to convert "barak" to the English word "curse" then you still have "not", therefore Satan is saying, "He will not curse you," and that does not work.

The book of Job is in Hebrew, and the Hebrew says bless not.

 

[tttallison]

OK so I did not see a response to my reply in post #152 regarding the "cause" of Job's suffering (among other questions). Suffice it to say, your belief then that Job's suffering is due to him be "fearful" as you claim, falls apart. God's own testimony in Scripture is that Job's suffering was "without cause" --- so your premise does not fit, does it? Unless you have a further explanation, this particular interpretation can be ruled out.

I realize you didn't direct this to me, so I apologize, but I can't let it go.

There was two causes and two tests. There was God's cause for allowing the test, and there was Satan's cause for wanting the test. God's cause was to save Job, and Satan's cause was that he would win Job's soul.

After the second test God did not say Job's suffering was without cause.

 

[christophernyc]

It is not the version, but rather Strong's Concordance. It is the concordance that has "barak" "lo". If you are going to convert "barak" to the English word "curse" then you still have "not", therefore Satan is saying, "He will not curse you," and that does not work.

The book of Job is in Hebrew, and the Hebrew says bless not.

The full word in Hebrew is actually "yə·ḇā·ră·ḵe·kā" and only appears twice in Scripture. Can you explain why the word in Job 2:5 is not just simply "barak"?

But, yes, the closest word is Strong's #1288 "barak" which means, KJV: X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still.

In referencing the Strong's, did you happen to notice the other definitions of this word? It's not only and always "bless". Did you see that? So it stands to reason that context and meaning are important factors when looking at these words.

Yes, it is already understood the book was written in Hebrew. Nobody here should need to point that out. The question posed was to find out if any English translations had your particular spin on interpreting this verse, i.e., "not bless" instead of "curse". Since you did not provide any reference at all, it seems the answer then is "no". Is that right? There are no English translations that support your claim? If so, I wonder why that would be.

So it would appear that you and you alone are the only one who interprets this verse in this way. Have you considered that your particular interpretation might be missing the overall *meaning* of this verse instead of using a paint-by-numbers reading of it?

 

[christophernyc]

I realize you didn't direct this to me, so I apologize, but I can't let it go.

There was two causes and two tests. There was God's cause for allowing the test, and there was Satan's cause for wanting the test. God's cause was to save Job, and Satan's cause was that he would win Job's soul.

After the second test God did not say Job's suffering was without cause.

It's all good. I understand we are both passionate about this book, so I don't fault you for jumping back in again

Again, if there was no cause for the first test --- which Job passed with flying colors --- then there was no cause for the second test. It does not have to be restated. That fact was already established by God and is built into the context.

Job had a relationship with God prior to his ordeal. We know this by what is written in the text. Job admits that God always points out his sin to him (10:14), which is why Job is struggling to understand what is happening to him.

Job had faith --- and his faith was being *tested*. That's the story. Will he endure or not? The apostle James gives us that answer in chapter 5.

There is none righteous, no not one. Believers know this truth. It means nobody is righteous in and of themselves. When others quote this verse in light of Job's story it sounds like they intend it to mean that nobody can ever be righteous either. The meaning is that nobody is righteous apart from Christ Jesus our Lord. Yet in Him, we can be made righteous, as was pointed out earlier in this thread "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Before Job suffered his ordeal, he had already established is faith and belief in God. The story is about a testing of that faith. In the end, satan is proved to be the liar that he is, and God's relationship with His creation is proven to be something that's not simply transactional.

 

[tttallison]

The full word in Hebrew is actually "yə·ḇā·ră·ḵe·kā" and only appears twice in Scripture. Can you explain why the word in Job 2:5 is not just simply "barak"?

But, yes, the closest word is Strong's #1288 "barak" which means, KJV: X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still.

In referencing the Strong's, did you happen to notice the other definitions of this word? It's not only and always "bless". Did you see that? So it stands to reason that context and meaning are important factors when looking at these words.

Yes, it is already understood the book was written in Hebrew. Nobody here should need to point that out. The question posed was to find out if any English translations had your particular spin on interpreting this verse, i.e., "not bless" instead of "curse". Since you did not provide any reference at all, it seems the answer then is "no". Is that right? There are no English translations that support your claim? If so, I wonder why that would be.

So it would appear that you and you alone are the only one who interprets this verse in this way. Have you considered that your particular interpretation might be missing the overall *meaning* of this verse instead of using a paint-by-numbers reading of it?

I am not a Hebrew scholar, and have never claimed to have been, but I do fairly well with logic. Can you tell me what Hebrew biblical manuscript you find the word "yə·ḇā·ră·ḵe·kā" in, and the century it was written?

 

[tttallison]

It's all good. I understand we are both passionate about this book, so I don't fault you for jumping back in again

Again, if there was no cause for the first test --- which Job passed with flying colors --- then there was no cause for the second test. It does not have to be restated. That fact was already established by God and is built into the context.

Job had a relationship with God prior to his ordeal. We know this by what is written in the text. Job admits that God always points out his sin to him (10:14), which is why Job is struggling to understand what is happening to him.

Job had faith --- and his faith was being *tested*. That's the story. Will he endure or not? The apostle James gives us that answer in chapter 5.

There is none righteous, no not one. Believers know this truth. It means nobody is righteous in and of themselves. When others quote this verse in light of Job's story it sounds like they intend it to mean that nobody can ever be righteous either. The meaning is that nobody is righteous apart from Christ Jesus our Lord. Yet in Him, we can be made righteous, as was pointed out earlier in this thread "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Before Job suffered his ordeal, he had already established is faith and belief in God. The story is about a testing of that faith. In the end, satan is proved to be the liar that he is, and God's relationship with His creation is proven to be something that's not simply transactional.

God said to Satan after the first test that Satan's cause was unjust. God never states what God's cause is for allowing the test. Satan's cause was unjust because Job blessed God after the first test. After the second test Job does not bless God. Where is Job's heart at this point? After the second test God does not state that Job is blameless and upright, nor does God state that Job retains his integrity after the second test.

Have you ever known anyone who tries to do good, but isn't saved? They believe they are going to heaven because of their good works. They believe they are going to heaven because they are good, but they are without knowledge. Job had zeal for God, but it was without knowledge, and going about to establish his own righteousness had not submitted himself to the righteousness of God. This is the picture Paul gives us in Romans 10 of Israel. And Paul said his heart's desire is that they might be saved.

There are many reasons to be found in the book of Job why Job wasn't saved in the beginning. First, God never said Job was saved. What God said was that Job was self-righteous, and perhaps the most self-righteous person that ever lived. God asked Job if he could do the things that only God can do, and if he could, then God told Job he could be his own saviour.

You are proclaiming Job's faith, but wasn't that faith in Job's own righteousness. Job 27:6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

Job declared God to be an unjust judge. Job 9:23 If the scourge slay suddenly, he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.

I could go on and on.

 

[tttallison]

The full word in Hebrew is actually "yə·ḇā·ră·ḵe·kā" and only appears twice in Scripture. Can you explain why the word in Job 2:5 is not just simply "barak"?

But, yes, the closest word is Strong's #1288 "barak" which means, KJV: X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still.

In referencing the Strong's, did you happen to notice the other definitions of this word? It's not only and always "bless". Did you see that? So it stands to reason that context and meaning are important factors when looking at these words.

Yes, it is already understood the book was written in Hebrew. Nobody here should need to point that out. The question posed was to find out if any English translations had your particular spin on interpreting this verse, i.e., "not bless" instead of "curse". Since you did not provide any reference at all, it seems the answer then is "no". Is that right? There are no English translations that support your claim? If so, I wonder why that would be.

So it would appear that you and you alone are the only one who interprets this verse in this way. Have you considered that your particular interpretation might be missing the overall *meaning* of this verse instead of using a paint-by-numbers reading of it?

In my bible the Hebrew word 'barak" occurs 330 times. It has a negative connotation 6 times. Of those six times, it is translated curse 4 times, and then only in the book of Job. It is translated blaspheme 2 times in 1Kings 21. Of the 330 times it is translated, it is translated bless 302 times.

There are five other Hebrew words, besides "barak" that are translated curse in the book of Job, and Satan could have used any one of them in place of "bless".

Job 3:1 cursed Strong's H7043 qālal his day-----Job 3:8 Let them curse Strong's H5344 nāqaḇ it that curse the day, Strong's H779 'ārar Job 5:3 I cursed Strong's H6895 qāḇaḇ his habitation----Job 31:30 Neither have I suffered my mouth to sin by wishing a curse Strong's H423 'ālâ to his soul. Strong's H423 'ālâ is translated curse (18x), oath (14x), execration (2x), swearing (2x).

We are still left with Job blessing God after the first test, and then not blessing God after the second.

​

​