Search results

Are you able to address the substance of my post? I realize it challenges the view you have of Elihu, but what say you regarding the facts and context of his statements about Job?

I stated at the end of the post you are responding to here: "I realize you are committed to your interpretation and will likely not consider any alternative. However, a clear, legible, legitimate alternative has been provided for you to consider nonetheless." This statement still stands.

How did you conclude Job is speaking of his own servants? The context is Job speaking about young people who are mocking him while he is suffering. He describes them as base and whose fathers he would not hire even for menial tasks. It is clear these are people who do *not* work for him.

Romans 3:10-12 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Paul appears to be quoting...

Yes, I can see your point how the picture Elihu paints has some semblance of being born again. At the same time, look at the context. Look at how Elihu posits this notion in the verses that follow: Job 33:25-28 25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his...

Reread my post. I was referring to Saul before he became Paul. So there is no need to distort the fact I do believe "Paul's" words are trustworthy. We can stick to the discussion at hand without introducing unrelated remarks. But more to the point, I thought your post was referring to another...

The word is translated as curse is used to follow the narrative that satan is challenging Job's faithfulness --- because that is the narrative, as previously proven. Also, since you seem to hang a significant portion of your interpretation on the word "lo" used in Job 1:11, here is more...

So can you point to another character from the Old Testament where God said they were "saved"? If that is your standard, do you have examples from the Old Testament to support it? Please share. God does not say Job is "self-righteous". God says the opposite, which means you are contradicting...

Yeah, you've made this point before, comparing Job to Saul. However, Saul was actively responsible for murdering Christians. Did you forget that part? Not exactly "blameless and upright" was he? This is yet another instance where you have taken contexts from other passages and tried to force...

Yeah because satan did not show up a third time for God to converse with again. There was nothing left to take away from Job anyway. He was completely decimated, and as we know from the text, Job believes he will be dying soon. However, I believe God's appearance is what saves Job's life, and as...

Go to biblehub.com. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/yevaracheka_1288.htm yə·ḇā·ră·ḵe·kā — 2 Occurrences Job 1:11 HEB: עַל־ פָּנֶ֖יךָ יְבָרֲכֶֽךָּ׃ NAS: that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face. KJV: now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. INT: and to your...

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...

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...

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?

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...

This question was not directed to you. But also, as explained before, your assessment of Job being "lost" is blatantly false as anyone can discover by reading the text. Your viewpoint is to accuse and condemn Job and malign his character, which is the same viewpoint as satan.

Hm. I did not really see an answer to the question posed. It was more of a "yes" or "no". Can you say either way that Job suffered "without cause" or "with cause"? Can you say yes or no? Have you ever looked up the word "repent" in chapter 42? The word also means "relent" and to "comfort"...

I would not call it cherry-picking. The verse in 2:3 is a very clear indication of how the entire premise of the story begins. Scripture says that Job suffered "without cause", according to God's own testimony about Job. So, do you agree or disagree with this basic factual premise of the...

In Job 2:3 God says: And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him...

So can you explain how your particular interpretation comports with the epistle of James and what he says of Job in chapter 5? And can you explain how your particular interpretation also comports with what the Lord Himself says about Job in Ezekiel 14?