A Case for Not Reading The Bible Literally

[RWRiley]

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect the desire to strip away religious baggage and let readers see the structure of the Greek.
My concern would simply be whether an etymological rendering communicates what the word means in actual usage.
Compound words often drift beyond the sum of their parts.
For example, while καταλλάσσω may be analyzed as something like "change" or "exchange" with a prefixed intensifier, Paul's usage seems consistently relational.
In Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5, the emphasis is not merely that an exchange has occurred, but that a state of alienation has been replaced by a state of peace and restored relationship.

So when I read "down-another-exchange," I can see the pieces of the Greek compound, but I am not sure a modern English reader would naturally arrive at the idea Paul is expressing.
A translation's task is not only to show how a word was built but also how the word functioned in the author's argument.
In that sense, "reconciliation" may carry some theological baggage, but it also immediately communicates the restoration of a broken relationship, which appears to be exactly Paul's point.

That said, you've raised a valuable question.
Every translator must decide whether to prioritize transparency to the Greek form or clarity of meaning in the target language.
My instinct is that Paul cared more about his readers understanding the reality being described than about preserving the visible components of a compound word.
So if I were evaluating your method, I'd ask: does "down-another-exchange" communicate Paul's intended meaning more clearly than "reconciliation," or does it mainly communicate how the Greek word was constructed?
To me, those are related but not necessarily identical goals.

(OMC)
So if I were evaluating your method, I'd ask: does "down-another-exchange" communicate Paul's intended meaning more clearly than "reconciliation," or does it mainly communicate how the Greek word was constructed?

(Robin)
Granted ... and yet, as with Figures ... one does not just skip over such a compound words reading, if it sounds a little garbled to the English ear ... WHAT? ... Whats is that babbler saying? (They ask Paul the very same question on Mars Hill in Athens) ... i've sat o the rock, and watched the sun set over the city ... What did he just say? Makes you pause and think about it, if you are really interested ... doesn't it? Andwhen you think about it .... it DOES make sense, you just have to chew on it for awhile.

 

[RWRiley]

That is exactly why I find these word studies interesting.
Looking at your list, I can see why you've gravitated toward "correct," "correction," and "corrected" as the core idea of the δικ- word family.
It gives the family a very consistent English backbone.
My only hesitation is that "correct" in modern English often suggests fixing an error, whereas Paul's usage frequently seems to operate in the spheres of justice, legal standing, vindication, and right relationship.
For example, when Paul says God "justifies the ungodly" in Romans 4:5, "God corrects the ungodly" feels narrower to my ear than what Paul may be conveying.
That said, I think you've touched on a real translation challenge.
"Righteousness" is traditional, but many readers don't know what it means. "Justice" works in some contexts but not all.
"Correctness" or "correction" highlights conformity to a standard, which is certainly part of the semantic range.
So if I were evaluating your approach, my question would not be whether "correction" is possible, but whether it can carry the full weight of passages where Paul appears to be speaking of acquittal, vindication, covenant standing, or moral rectitude all at once.
In other words, you've solved one problem by making the word family transparent in English, but I'd be curious whether any meaning gets lost when all the δικ- terms are funneled through the idea of "correct."
That would make for a fascinating passage-by-passage discussion, especially in Romans, where Paul seems to squeeze every possible nuance out of that word family.

First of all the word has to fit in all its occurances ... fit ... not be perfectly tailored ... if it does not fit in all cases, then you discard it and try again. However, you can have more than one word for a single Greek word ... I call it the stable of ords that a Greek word rides on, depending upon the context. I am only 30 years into this project, and for some Greek words, I have only gotten so far with ... first i find the "fit" word .. and then, god willing, and the damn dont break, I get to go back and fine tune ... For instance, I'm up to ten different word for the Greek kai (and) ... that is, there are way more than 1000 instances in the 13 epistles that are my sample universe ... I've got them all first fitted with the conjunction "and" and the adverb "also" ... but then I finally tumbled to the other eight applications ... this takes a lot or work ... but sometimes the results are amazing!

 

[OMC]

(OMC)
So if I were evaluating your method, I'd ask: does "down-another-exchange" communicate Paul's intended meaning more clearly than "reconciliation," or does it mainly communicate how the Greek word was constructed?

(Robin)
Granted ... and yet, as with Figures ... one does not just skip over such a compound words reading, if it sounds a little garbled to the English ear ... WHAT? ... Whats is that babbler saying? (They ask Paul the very same question on Mars Hill in Athens) ... i've sat o the rock, and watched the sun set over the city ... What did he just say? Makes you pause and think about it, if you are really interested ... doesn't it? Andwhen you think about it .... it DOES make sense, you just have to chew on it for awhile.

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

 

[RWRiley]

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

All translators are liars!

Yep!

(OMC)
....any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."

(Robin)
Ahhh ... that was a tough one ....
4920 GK5317 sunEsousin 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] they will together-understand V-FAI-3P.5692

4920 GK5317 *suniasin *GCT, spelling difference they together-understand V-PAI-3P.5719

4920 GK5317 suniousin 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] they together-understand V-PAI-3P.5719

4920 GK5317 *suniete *GCT, parsing and declension difference be you together-understanding V-PAM-2P.5720

4920 GK5317 suniOn 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] together-understanding V-PAP-NSM.5723

4920 GK5317 sunientes 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] together-understanding V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunestEsate 4862 + 2476 you had together-stood V-AAI-2P.5656

4921 GK5318 *sunistanO *GCT, spelling difference I together-stand V-PAI-1S.5719

4921 GK5318 sunistEmi 4862 + 2476 I together-stand V-PAI-1S.5719

4921 GK5319 sunistanomen 4862 + 2476 we together-stand V-PAI-1P.5719

4921 GK5318 sunistEsin 4862 + 2476 she/ He together-stands V-PAI-3S.5719

4921 GK5319 sunistanein 4862 + 2476 to together-stand V-PAN.5721

4921 GK5319 *sunistanOn *GCT, spelling difference together-standing V-PAP-NSM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistOn 4862 + 2476 together-standing V-PAP-NSM.5723

4921 GK5319 *sunistanontes *GCT, spelling difference together-standing V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 *sunistantes *GCT, spelling difference together-standing V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistOntes 4862 + 2476 together-standing V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistanontOn 4862 + 2476 of~together-standing V-PAP-GPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistasthai 4862 + 2476 to be together-stood V-PPN.5745

4921 GK5318 sunestEken 4862 + 2476 there has had together-stood V-RAI-3S.5758

4923a GK5323 sunoida was 4894 4862 + 3609a I have had together-perceived V-RAI-1S.5758

4925 GK5325 sunoikodomeisthe 4862 + 3618 you being together-edified V-PPI-2P.5743

 

[RWRiley]

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

(OMC)
any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."

(Robin)
Not that I got into that particular rabbit hole, but think about it ... to understand .. to stand under ... you are under the facts and the facts are coming down on your thoughts, covering you mind with an outside insight ... standing under the cloud of data, the vibes of wisdom, as it covers you mentally ... I could go with just a simple understand, becuase I am standing under it and grasping what is being told to me ...

 

[biblestudent78]

Hello Bible Student78, I've never seen or heard of such a "requirement" (before I read your OP today, that is). So, please link us to some examples of these requirements (that are found in all of our denominations and/or churches) so that we can,

1. see what you're talking about and then,​

2. compare/contrast the "unique brands" of literal Bible reading from our various churches and/or denominations.​

Thanks

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy:
I will give it a shot. While not exclusively Baptist, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (and its companion statement on Hermeneutics) heavily shapes conservative Baptist doctrine. Article XIII explicitly asserts that literary categories like myth or poetry cannot be used to deny the factuality of biblical events presented as history. This standard mandates treating narratives like the creation account in Genesis or the account of Jonah as literal, historical truth.

A monumental figure in Baptist history, Criswell pastored the First Baptist Church of Dallas and served as SBC president. His highly influential 1969 book, Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True, became a cornerstone text defending literalism and inerrancy against progressive theology and any other approach to understanding the bible because it is literally true.

Progressive and Mainline Baptists (such as the American Baptist Churches USA or Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) reject mandatory literalism, opting to view many ancient narratives contextually or allegorically while still upholding the spiritual authority of Scripture.

Many independent non-denominational, Bible-believing, or pentecostal churches emphasize strict literalism and biblical inerrancy (the belief that the Bible is without error in history, science, and faith).

Seventh-day Adventists: Hold a high view of scripture that includes a literal six-day creation account.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Apply a distinct, direct interpretation to prophecy and scriptural commands.
Churches of Christ: Emphasize a restorationist view, attempting to follow New Testament patterns and commands literally

A literal interpretation that separates Christian is consubstantiation (or a physical real presence), believing Christ's true body and blood are present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine for all who receive it. About 1.45 Billion Christians hold this literal view.

Some Christians interpret Genesis literally. Everything that exists in the universe was made in 6 days. Sexually mature male angels came down from heaven to breed with human women. God destroyed all life on earth but for one small family and from 2 to 7 kinds of animals, birds and thing that crawl on the ground. The earth and the universe is between 6,000-10,000 years old. God made the world by speaking it into existance rather than a a step-by-step scientific or journalistic timeline.

Building on John Darby's 1830 inspiration, many literally interpret apocalyptic imagery, numbers, and visions in Revelation and Daniel as a strict blueprint for future, blow-by-blow geopolitical and end-times events. Symbolic/Genre View: Others view apocalyptic literature as highly stylized, symbolic Hebrew or Hellenistic writing meant to encourage persecuted early-century Christians through metaphorical imagery rather than a literal calendar of the future.

Some bible literalist groups attempt to apply ancient cultural commands (such as head coverings, specific gender roles, or silence in church) as timeless, literal rules. Contextual/Historical Application: Other Christians argue those commands were bound to specific ancient Mediterranean cultures and should be translated via underlying principles (like love or mutual respect) rather than followed as rigid literal laws.

Literal interpretations must be taught. Teachers in church supported seminaries are required by contract to teach exactly in alignment with their denominations statement of faith. For those churches that believe the bible must be viewed as literal truth their teachers may not suggest any other perspective or detial of approved hermeneutics.

I'm sure if i thought more about it I could come with a few more examples of literalists vs Non-literalists.

 

[Dino246]

It's all about not reading the scriptures for themselves.
Acts 17:11 tells us it is best to study for ourselves DAILY to make sure what we are being taught is the truth.

While studying Scripture daily is of course beneficial, Acts -7:11 doesn’t tell us to do so. Nor does it say anything about daily study being a “best” practice.

 

[CS1]

Too often congregants are required to read the bible literally, at least in all the “places that count.” Often this requirement is the fundamental means of “group faith” indoctrination, protection and border policing. Each denomination, creed, statement of faith and catechism is based on a “unique and literal” methodology of reading the Bible where it supports the groups predetermined and unique “faith” i.e. Dogmas. This is not reading the Bible literally. It is reading the Bible conformationally.

There are between 200 – 1,500 separate Christian religions in North America. All require that their unique brand of literal reading of the Bible “proof text” supports their belief that they alone legitimately understand of the Bible. Thus, taking the Bible literally is failing to take the Bible seriously. Reading it literally and seriously are two different things.

The very nature of the Bible’s comprehensive literary genres making literal reading a barrier to Biblical value.

• Historical Narrative: Stories and records of past events, making up more than half of the Bible (e.g., Genesis through Esther, and Acts). All are written through ancient human eyes.

• Poetry: Creative, imagery-rich writing that expresses human emotion (e.g., Psalms and Song of Solomon).

• Law (Covenant Law): Legal codes and religious rules given to ancient Israel (e.g., parts of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy).

• Wisdom Literature: Practical advice and principles for everyday life (e.g., Proverbs and Ecclesiastes).

• Prophecy: Messages, warnings, and visions delivered from God through a prophet (e.g., Isaiah Jeremiah and the minor prophets).

• Gospels: Unique biographical narratives focusing on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).

• Epistles (Letters): Correspondence written by apostles to early churches or individuals to provide doctrine and instruction to the people of his time about the issues of his time.

• Apocalyptic Literature: Highly symbolic and visionary writings regarding the struggles against evil forces and future restoration (e.g., Revelation and parts of Daniel).

• Parables: Short stories or analogies used to teach a spiritual or moral lesson, common in Jesus' ministry.

These various literary genres each take a serious approach but not necessarily a literal approach. Each must be understood differently. When in Psalms it says "Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy" before the Lord. Then later, “Let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together." To read this literally, you would have to believe that trees can sing and rivers have hands. Jesus said, “I am the vine…” but we do not expect grapes from Jesus.

It is very strange that those who demand a literal meaning of every word in the New Testament also work very hard to deny something they don’t like is true. In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus encounters a religiously righteous young man who passes Jesus’s test of being “righteous” but fails when Jesus tells him he must sell everything he has, give it to the poor and follow him. The young man goes away sorrowful because he was rich. Today millions of Christians believe their faith will make them rich, if they give what they have to the church…Large Christian churches have multi-million-dollar annual budgets which provides little money for the needy in their community.

Reading the Bible seriously means we must turn off our filters, assumptions and ancient doctrines. It has been my experience in reading and rereading the bible, that if I do not find discomfort, exposure and humility in every book, I may be slipping into confirmation

Contextually can be Literal, descriptive or a normative. There is also the prophetic word that has come and will come to be fullfilled.

 

[biblestudent78]

Yeah, I believe that is one statement on which all Christians can agree, if not on the details. Everyone else is errorant.

Din

Job may have been a real person, or he may be a person in an OT parable/play representing all real people.
Here is my take re Job:

Job appears to be a dramatic allegory that teaches one main lesson: We should be patient or persevere in our faith in God. God allowed Satan to test Job in ways we may be tested: by destroying his material possessions, his health and his family relationships, leaving only his wife, which was the worst part of the trial. (That’s a joke, but she did tempt Job to curse God.) Job also still had some friends, who tried to help him see what God wanted to teach him through this painful experience.

Job 5:17. Blessed is the man whom God corrects. This teaching may be cited as key, because it is also found in Pro. 3:11-12 (using slightly different words), which is quoted in Heb. 12:5-6: The Lord disciplines [corrects] those He loves [blesses].

Job 8:3. “Does God pervert justice?” No, God is perfectly just. (See the commentary on Josh. 6:17-21, 8:2, 10:28 & 11:20.)

Job 9:2. “How can a mortal be righteous before God?” He/she cannot. Psa. 14:3 says, “There is no one who does good, not even one,” and Jesus said in Matt. 19:17, “There is only One who is good.”

Heb. 4:15 teaches that “we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet was without sin,” referring to Jesus. And Paul wrote (in Phil. 3:9) that he did not claim righteousness of his own, “but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith”, which echoes what he said in Rom. 3:22&26: “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe; [God] justifies [considers righteous] the man [person] who has faith in Jesus.” This righteousness is sometimes called positional or imputed righteousness.

Job 10:18. “Why then did [God] bring me out of the womb?” What is the purpose of this earthly existence? Once we are saved, why are we not immediately taken to heaven? Why do we have to waste time being here on earth?

The answer is that we are not supposed to waste the time but rather we should redeem the time by becoming like God morally, or as Paul says, we should be imitators of God and “live a life of love, just as Christ loved us.” (Eph. 5:1-2) Paul calls this goal the “fullness” of God/Christ (Eph. 3:19, 4:13, see Lesson 4), becoming more like Him morally or in loving attitudes and actions (Phil. 3:7-9, Eph. 5:1-3) until the day we die. This is our calling, our mission, our stewardship, and our goal (1John 1:3-4).

Job 19:25-29. This speaks of life and judgment beyond this earthly lifetime. Paul writes about this prophetic word by Job in 1Cor. 15:20&42, “Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. So it will be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable.” And Heb. 9:27 says “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

Job 21:7. “Why do the wicked live on, growing old and increasing in power?” More generally, the question is why does God allow evil, pain and suffering?

Job 24:12. “I have treasured the words of [God’s] mouth more than my daily bread.” This verse foreshadows the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 4:4: “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” There is a mystical union of God’s Spirit or Word and the mind of a man who understands and hungers for God’s words, as implied by Job 32:8: “It is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.”

John 1:14 says that Jesus is God’s Word in human form, and Paul said 1Cor. 2:16 that we have the mind of Christ. We gain the mind of Christ as we learn “the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation.” (2Tim. 3:15) If we do not hunger for God’s Word, then we will die spiritually. God gives each normal human being the gift of reason, so that He can invite us to reason together (Isa. 1:18), or logical ability so that we can “test everything [and] hold on to the good” (1Thes. 5:21), or in the words of Job 34:3, “The ear tests words as the tongue tastes food.”

Groovy:
Well done, as usual. It is also a testimony that one does not have to accept literal history as a setting for scripture. The lessons and links you identified are equally valid whether one reads it as allegory or history. The insights and revelations are the same.

Historicity has something to offer as well. Many biblical scholars place the composition of Job in the post-exile period, perhaps in the mid- 500's BC. The language used by the author combines classical Hebrew with distinct Aramaic and post-Babylonian influences, which places its writing during or shortly after the Jewish exile in Babylon. Having suffered several waves of exile from Judea and after seeing the Temple destroyed and living among their captors for 70+ years, a writing about how man can suffer extreme injustice and still retain a trust of God makes the story more poinient.

 

[Churchgoer]

Din

Groovy:
Well done, as usual. It is also a testimony that one does not have to accept literal history as a setting for scripture. The lessons and links you identified are equally valid whether one reads it as allegory or history. The insights and revelations are the same.

Historicity has something to offer as well. Many biblical scholars place the composition of Job in the post-exile period, perhaps in the mid- 500's BC. The language used by the author combines classical Hebrew with distinct Aramaic and post-Babylonian influences, which places its writing during or shortly after the Jewish exile in Babylon. Having suffered several waves of exile from Judea and after seeing the Temple destroyed and living among their captors for 70+ years, a writing about how man can suffer extreme injustice and still retain a trust of God makes the story more poinient.

So job is a gentile who is a child of YHVH?

 

[biblestudent78]

So job is a gentile who is a child of YHVH?

Yes, Job was a non-Jew thus a gentile. He is never identified as a child of YHWH. The phrase "sons of God" (bene ha-elohim) appears in the book, specifically in Job 1:6, 2:1, and Job 38:7 but does not refer to Job. In mainstream biblical scholarship and traditional interpretation, these "sons of God" refer to heavenly beings or angels in God’s court—not human beings. While Job is described as a "blameless and upright" man who feared God, the narrative treats him strictly as a human servant and creation of God rather than a member of the heavenly "sons of God" council. Genesis 6:2, 4: The "sons of God" saw that human women were attractive and married them before the great flood. The divine council (often called the assembly of gods, heavenly host, or council in heaven) appears throughout the Hebrew Bible to describe God presiding over a heavenly assembly of supernatural beings or lesser "gods" (elohim or sons of God)

The oldest section of the Hebrew Bible invision YHWH being given Israel as His portion of the lands divided up to the gods of the divine council. In ancient Northwest Semitic mythology and reconstructions of early Israelite religion, El (Elyon) did not historically "give" the land to YHWH at a specific calendar date, but rather allotted nations to his divine council (bene elohim). Deuteronomy 32:8–9: In the oldest textual traditions (reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint), the Most High (Elyon/El) divides the nations among the sons of God, assigning YHWH his portion as Jacob/Israel. In Canaanite and early Israelite polytheism, El was the head of the pantheon, and YHWH was originally understood as one of the regional or tribal deities (or bene elohim) under El's authority. Over time—particularly during the early monarchic period (around the 9th to 10th centuries BCE)—El and YHWH merged into a single supreme deity in Israelite theology, collapsing the distinction between the high god El who distributes territories and YHWH the national god of Israel. This concept of regional gods is seen in the story of David when he is running from the vengeance of Saul. In 1 Samuel 26:19 David is lamenting being driven out of Israel and thus being forced to worship the god of another country.

Thus the early Psalms describe this arrangement
The divine council (the heavenly assembly of spiritual or angelic beings serving under Yahweh) appears explicitly or allusively in several key Psalms:
• Psalm 82:1 — God's judgment in the assembly: States that “God takes His stand in the divine assembly [council]; He renders judgment in the midst of the gods [elohim].” It depicts God holding accountable the corrupt spiritual beings or rulers assigned over the nations.
• Psalm 89:5–7 — Praise in the heavenly court: Declares that the heavens praise God's wonders “in the assembly of the holy ones” and asks, “Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; He is more awesome than all who surround Him.”
• Psalm 29:1–2 — Ascription of glory by heavenly beings: Opens with a direct call to the “sons of God” or “heavenly beings” (b'nei elim / b'nei elohim) to ascribe glory, strength, and worship to Yahweh in His holy temple or court.
• Psalm 148:1–2 — Summons of the heavenly host: Calls upon the heights of creation to praise the Lord, specifically commanding “All his angels” and “all his host” to join in universal worship of the Creator.

 

[Churchgoer]

Yes, Job was a non-Jew thus a gentile. He is never identified as a child of YHWH. The phrase "sons of God" (bene ha-elohim) appears in the book, specifically in Job 1:6, 2:1, and Job 38:7 but does not refer to Job. In mainstream biblical scholarship and traditional interpretation, these "sons of God" refer to heavenly beings or angels in God’s court—not human beings. While Job is described as a "blameless and upright" man who feared God, the narrative treats him strictly as a human servant and creation of God rather than a member of the heavenly "sons of God" council. Genesis 6:2, 4: The "sons of God" saw that human women were attractive and married them before the great flood. The divine council (often called the assembly of gods, heavenly host, or council in heaven) appears throughout the Hebrew Bible to describe God presiding over a heavenly assembly of supernatural beings or lesser "gods" (elohim or sons of God)

The oldest section of the Hebrew Bible invision YHWH being given Israel as His portion of the lands divided up to the gods of the divine council. In ancient Northwest Semitic mythology and reconstructions of early Israelite religion, El (Elyon) did not historically "give" the land to YHWH at a specific calendar date, but rather allotted nations to his divine council (bene elohim). Deuteronomy 32:8–9: In the oldest textual traditions (reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint), the Most High (Elyon/El) divides the nations among the sons of God, assigning YHWH his portion as Jacob/Israel. In Canaanite and early Israelite polytheism, El was the head of the pantheon, and YHWH was originally understood as one of the regional or tribal deities (or bene elohim) under El's authority.

Interesting. But YHVH or YHWH, the Hebrew writing, behold nail, behold hand, is God s very personal name. While El, elohim are a general term. Such as a man s name is George, his title is captain. George is personal name. Captain is general title.

Over time—particularly during the early monarchic period (around the 9th to 10th centuries BCE)—El and YHWH merged into a single supreme deity in Israelite theology, collapsing the distinction between the high god El who distributes territories and YHWH the national god of Israel. This concept of regional gods is seen in the story of David when he is running from the vengeance of Saul. In 1 Samuel 26:19 David is lamenting being driven out of Israel and thus being forced to worship the god of another country.

Thus the early Psalms describe this arrangement
The divine council (the heavenly assembly of spiritual or angelic beings serving under Yahweh) appears explicitly or allusively in several key Psalms:
• Psalm 82:1 — God's judgment in the assembly: States that “God takes His stand in the divine assembly [council]; He renders judgment in the midst of the gods [elohim].” It depicts God holding accountable the corrupt spiritual beings or rulers assigned over the nations.
• Psalm 89:5–7 — Praise in the heavenly court: Declares that the heavens praise God's wonders “in the assembly of the holy ones” and asks, “Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; He is more awesome than all who surround Him.”
• Psalm 29:1–2 — Ascription of glory by heavenly beings: Opens with a direct call to the “sons of God” or “heavenly beings” (b'nei elim / b'nei elohim) to ascribe glory, strength, and worship to Yahweh in His holy temple or court.
• Psalm 148:1–2 — Summons of the heavenly host: Calls upon the heights of creation to praise the Lord, specifically commanding “All his angels” and “all his host” to join in universal worship of the Creator.

In Hebrew Bible, usually refer God to YHVH.

thank you.
My original question meant to ask if job is a believer? In heaven as Abraham.

 

[biblestudent78]

Interesting. But YHVH or YHWH, the Hebrew writing, behold nail, behold hand, is God s very personal name. While El, elohim are a general term. Such as a man s name is George, his title is captain. George is personal name. Captain is general title.

In Hebrew Bible, usually refer God to YHVH.

thank you.
My original question meant to ask if job is a believer? In heaven as Abraham.

Churchgoer:
Let's start by recognizing that the Jews do no use any direct name for God out of respect. However, for the rest of us..
YHWH (Tetragrammaton): The four-letter biblical and personal name of God (represented in Hebrew as יהוה). Observant Jews do not pronounce it aloud out of deep reverence, but the 4 letters used are YHWH. Vav or Waw (ו): The sixth letter, functioning as a "V" or "W" sound.

I don't know who if anyone is yet in heaven. According to the Hebrew Bible and traditional biblical interpretation, Enoch and Elijah are the primary figures said to have been taken directly to heaven without experiencing physical death, but that was told from a human perspective of later writers. IMHO, the story of Job is not a heaven an hell account and does not fall easily into heaven/hell theology. In the book of Job the objective of the game between God and his satan (accuser) was to test if Job would deny God or not. The question of did Job "believe in God" is not centric to the story. On the other hand God and Job have several "conversations." Thus one might assume that one must believe in the existence of the one who is talking with you.

God speaks to Job across two main dialogues (Job 38–41), challenging Job's understanding of the universe, creation (such as laying the earth's foundations), and creatures like Behemoth and Leviathan.
Job's replies: Job listens and responds directly to God, eventually humbling himself and acknowledging his limited perspective (Job 40:3–5 and Job 42:1–6).

 

[Churchgoer]

Churchgoer:
Let's start by recognizing that the Jews do no use any direct name for God out of respect.

I understand this tradition. However that is not a requirement from. Scripture. The commandment is telling us not to use God's name in vain.

However, for the rest of us..
YHWH (Tetragrammaton): The four-letter biblical and personal name of God (represented in Hebrew as יהוה). Observant Jews do not pronounce it aloud out of deep reverence, but the 4 letters used are YHWH. Vav or Waw (ו): The sixth letter, functioning as a "V" or "W" sound.

True .

I don't know who if anyone is yet in heaven.

??? Man and woman go to heaven if they are saved by Jesus.

According to the Hebrew Bible and traditional biblical interpretation, Enoch and Elijah are the primary figures said to have been taken directly to heaven without experiencing physical death, but that was told from a human perspective of later writers. IMHO, the story of Job is not a heaven an hell account and does not fall easily into heaven/hell theology. In the book of Job the objective of the game between God and his satan (accuser) was to test if Job would deny God or not. The question of did Job "believe in God" is not centric to the story. On the other hand God and Job have several "conversations." Thus one might assume that one must believe in the existence of the one who is talking with you.

God speaks to Job across two main dialogues (Job 38–41), challenging Job's understanding of the universe, creation (such as laying the earth's foundations), and creatures like Behemoth and Leviathan.
Job's replies: Job listens and responds directly to God, eventually humbling himself and acknowledging his limited perspective (Job 40:3–5 and Job 42:1–6).

Job was considered righteousness in the eyes of the Lord, according to scripture. That's the reason I think he is in heaven , as Moses, Abraham....

 

[tttallison]

It is very strange that those who demand a literal meaning of every word in the New Testament also work very hard to deny something they don’t like is true. In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus encounters a religiously righteous young man who passes Jesus’s test of being “righteous” but fails when Jesus tells him he must sell everything he has, give it to the poor and follow him. The young man goes away sorrowful because he was rich. Today millions of Christians believe their faith will make them rich, if they give what they have to the church…Large Christian churches have multi-million-dollar annual budgets which provides little money for the needy in their community.

This is off target of your thread but you made a mis-statement and I couldn't let it go. The young man did not pass Jesus' test of being righteous. The young man wanted to know what to do to be saved and Jesus gave him the chance to confess Jesus, and the young man did not. We are saved when we confess and except Jesus as Lord. Jesus asked him, Why callest me good, there is none good save God? That was his opportunity to confess Jesus as God, and he did not do it.

 

[Davidstarr]

I understand this tradition. However that is not a requirement from. Scripture. The commandment is telling us not to use God's name in vain.

True .

??? Man and woman go to heaven if they are saved by Jesus.

Job was considered righteousness in the eyes of the Lord, according to scripture. That's the reason I think he is in heaven , as Moses, Abraham....

Job is not in heaven today. He admitted this:

Job 19:25-27. Perhaps you should read it for yourself.

He knew there would be a physical resurrection from the grave before he could see Jesus when He comes.

Paul knew the same thing II Tim 4:6-8

King David has not yet ascended into heaven (Acts 2:29 & 34).

 

[ScooterJackson]

We are saved when we confess and except Jesus as Lord.

Yes and if a person dies two minutes later they would go to Heaven but few die that quickly.
As people who get saved live their lives some backslide (possibly most) and do not abide in Christ bearing fruit and Jesus said the Father takes them away, cutting them off of the vine which belongs to the Father.

John 15:1,2 - I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

John 15:5 - IF A MAN ABIDE NOT IN ME, he is branch that is cut off, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Those who do not continue in the Lord are cut off.

Romans 11:21,22 - For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

A warning to the wise should be sufficient but rarely is since few are wise enough to accept all the Lord says in His Word.

 

[Churchgoer]

Job is not in heaven today. He admitted this:

Job 19:25-27. Perhaps you should read it for yourself.

He knew there would be a physical resurrection from the grave before he could see Jesus when He comes.

Paul knew the same thing II Tim 4:6-8

King David has not yet ascended into heaven (Acts 2:29 & 34).

So are they all in paradise?
Where are they?

 

[OMC]

Job is not in heaven today. He admitted this:

Job 19:25-27. Perhaps you should read it for yourself.

He knew there would be a physical resurrection from the grave before he could see Jesus when He comes.

Paul knew the same thing II Tim 4:6-8

King David has not yet ascended into heaven (Acts 2:29 & 34).

2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

In the context, Paul contrasts his present earthly existence in the body with being in the Lord's presence.
He says that while believers are "at home in the body," they are "absent from the Lord" (v. 6),
and that being "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" (v. 8).
If the Lord is currently reigning on His throne in heaven then all who die in him go to him awaiting the day that we are all given new bodies.

 

[Churchgoer]

2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

In the context, Paul contrasts his present earthly existence in the body with being in the Lord's presence.
He says that while believers are "at home in the body," they are "absent from the Lord" (v. 6),
and that being "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" (v. 8).
If the Lord is currently reigning on His throne in heaven then all who die in him go to him awaiting the day that we are all given new bodies.

Love it. As long as together with Jesus, God almighty, it is good.
There is no goodness outside of God.