Why do so many defend Job over God?

[rejoice44]

The comparison is between living under duress in "the mouth of distress", and the opposite, living at peace in a place with lots of space as in "a broad place." God granted Job the second instead of the first.

Your point has been that nobody can understand the words of the KJB; but I am asking you, how can you understand the structural makeup of verse 36:16 as found in the NASB? I may be at the bottom of my class in English, but even I know that there is a problem here with this verse in the NASB.
NASB Job 36:16 "Then indeed, He enticed you from the mouth of distress, Instead of it, a broad place with no constraint; And that which was set on your table was full of fatness.

This verse in the present form says, God enticed Job from the mouth of distress, and God would have placed him in a broad way with no constraint. They are not opposites. They would have been opposites if God had put Job in the mouth of distress, but this verse says God took him away from distress.

Notice also the past tense of “was full of fatness”, it should have been future tense, as the translators of the KJB put it, “should be full of fatness”.

As to the question of which is more understandable, I'll take your word for it. As I say, I don't understand 17th century English. But if you pressed me, I would say that the KJV is saying the opposite of the NASB. The KJV has Elihu saying that God didn't remove Job out of "the strait"; while the NASB has Elihu saying that God did. Which one is right?

Yes, the KJV is saying the opposite, and is consistent with what Elihu has been saying all along. At the time of Elihu’s speech, Job was in the mouth of distress. It would seem the NASB translators wanted to straiten Elihu out by changing his words.

I think the context gives us the answer. The set up is that Job was a very wealthy man who lived comfortably on his own land, having many happy children who liked each other's company. The author of Job is sure to let us know that until Satan came along to destroy him, God had blessed Job with many of the things people desire to make them happy. Given this set up, it would be difficult to accept Elihu's statement that God didn't remove Job out of the strait as genuine.

I guess Job’s children were happy, for they sounded like party animals to me.

It appears we have a paradox here. Isn’t it your opinion that Elihu got it wrong about Job? Isn’t it also your opinion that the KJB got it wrong, when it seems to be agreeing with Elihu. If the KJB expresses Elihu’s thoughts properly, then the KJB has to be right in its translation. The NASB gives the appearance of trying to right this wrong of Elihu’s, through its translation.

I don't see your point though. We can admit that the NASB translation says something different than the NIV and KJV, but it does not follow, therefore, that the NASB is in error. Once more, we look to the beginning of the book to remember that God allowed Satan to bring calamity on Job, not as one deserving judgment but as a test of Job's integrity at the occasion of Satan's accusations. The KJV has Elihu suggesting that Job deserved punishment, when in fact the set up is that Job was righteous and he continued to maintain his integrity.

So you maintain that the NIV is also in error. Isn’t this the offense of the NASB translators; that they tried to make their translation fit their beliefs?

But herein lies your problem; Job was no longer righteous after the second test. After the second test, Job cursed his day, and strived with his Maker.

Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

Job 2:8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.

Isaiah 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Job 29:11 When the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me it gave witness to me:

Job 29:22 After my words they spake not again; and my speech dropped upon them.

[rejoice44]

I understand it, I think. Elihu exhorts Job to avoid being disrespectful to God, while being justifiably angry at being made to suffer without apparent cause. Even if Job has good reason to be angry, he should not allow that anger to result in disrespect.

But there was cause for Job’s suffering. Elihu explained it in chapter 33, when Elihu said God tried to get Job’s attention through visions in the night, to hide pride from Job. Job didn’t get it, and God had to use more extreme measures, which was extreme pain in Job’s bones. God was trying to keep Job from the pit. It is all there in chapter 33.

Maybe they are two thoughts. Let's not assume that the KJV is always right in our comparison of the two. But let's consider the translation "Because there is wrath . . ." What does that mean exactly?

1. Because there is such a thing as wrath?
2. Because Job is angry?
3. Because God is angry?
4. Because Job objectified his anger through wrath?
5. Because God might objectify his anger through wrath?

This confusion only comes into play if you are reading the NASB, and this is my point. You are complaining about not understanding the KJB, when it is the NASB that introduces confusion. If you are reading the KJB you know for sure that “wrath” pertains to God’s wrath, and that Job has to be careful of God’s wrath, lest God takes Job away with one stroke. This is what Elihu has already explained to Job in chapter 33.

Elihu said, In verse 33:24 Elihu says, pertaining to God’s wrath, “Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.” And then in 36:18 Elihu says, “Then a great ransom cannot deliver you.”

The difference between these two verses is that in chapter 33 Elihu is explaining to Job that if there is a messenger that can interpret to Job his uprightness then God will be gracious, and say, deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. And in Job 36:18 this hasn’t happened yet, Elihu is still trying to interpret to Job. Job is still without knowledge.

It's a funny thing. I don't see any possible way for me to convince you that you don't understand King James English, when my claim is that I don't understand it. If I don't understand it, how could I prove you wrong?

My contention is that no one understands the King James English because no one has spoken the King's English for over 400 years. Your contention is that you understand the Kings English better than Modern English. But while I find that hard to believe, who am I to say what you do or don't understand? All I can say is that I don't understand it, and express my incredulity of the claims of those who say they do.

You keep saying King James English is hard to understand. In the three verses presented, Job 36:16-18, can you present the King James English that is hard to understand?

[BroRog]

Your point has been that nobody can understand the words of the KJB; but I am asking you, how can you understand the structural makeup of verse 36:16 as found in the NASB? I may be at the bottom of my class in English, but even I know that there is a problem here with this verse in the NASB.
NASB Job 36:16 "Then indeed, He enticed you from the mouth of distress, Instead of it, a broad place with no constraint; And that which was set on your table was full of fatness.

This verse in the present form says, God enticed Job from the mouth of distress, and God would have placed him in a broad way with no constraint. They are not opposites. They would have been opposites if God had put Job in the mouth of distress, but this verse says God took him away from distress.

I'm not seeing the conditional "would have placed" in the NASB. As I read the NASB God DID give Job a "broad place", which Job received instead of the "mouth of distress."

Notice also the past tense of “was full of fatness”, it should have been future tense, as the translators of the KJB put it, “should be full of fatness”.

The reason for the past tense is the fact that prior to Satan's attack on Job, his table was full of fatness. But remember, after Satan attacked him twice, he took away Job's possessions, his family, and his health. Everything was gone except Job and his wife.

I guess Job’s children were happy, for they sounded like party animals to me.

I believe the author of Job included this detail in order to stand as an irony with Job's statement that he wished he had never been born. In other words, in the first chapter of Job we learn that the custom of his children was the celebration of each other's birthday, which stands in high contrast to Job's regret that he was born. This kind of contrast shows up in the Old Testament more often than I realized until after one of our teachers took us through the OT narratives.

It appears we have a paradox here. Isn’t it your opinion that Elihu got it wrong about Job?

It's complicated, but on the whole, I think Elihu got it wrong, yeah.

Isn’t it also your opinion that the KJB got it wrong, when it seems to be agreeing with Elihu.

I don't know. As I say, I don't understand the KJB.

If the KJB expresses Elihu’s thoughts properly, then the KJB has to be right in its translation.

Granted. But how could I know if the kJB got it right or whether it got it wrong if I don't understand it?

The NASB gives the appearance of trying to right this wrong of Elihu’s, through its translation.

Okay, but maybe the NASB is simply trying to convey what was written, without attempting to correct something. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the NASB always gets it right. All I'm saying is that I understand the English of the NASB, whether wrong or right.

So you maintain that the NIV is also in error. Isn’t this the offense of the NASB translators; that they tried to make their translation fit their beliefs?

I don't yet see any evidence that the KJV, NASB, or the NIV have attempted to insert their own beliefs into the text. My opinion is that each of these translations was made by honorable Christians who were doing their best to give me, the reader, a window into the original language.

But herein lies your problem; Job was no longer righteous after the second test. After the second test, Job cursed his day, and strived with his Maker.

I see where Job cursed his day, but I don't see where Job strives with his maker. I think Job goes out of his way to say that he neither has the wisdom or the power to fight with God. In fact, much of his anguish comes over his frustration that he finds himself unable to ask God personally why he allowed him to suffer.

[rejoice44]

I'm not seeing the conditional "would have placed" in the NASB. As I read the NASB God DID give Job a "broad place", which Job received instead of the "mouth of distress."

In the time and place that we find Elihu speaking; isn’t Job in a strait, or distress? Job has not yet been removed from his calamity, and if Job hadn’t repented, Job’s soul would have ended up in the pit, just as Elihu described.

The reason for the past tense is the fact that prior to Satan's attack on Job, his table was full of fatness. But remember, after Satan attacked him twice, he took away Job's possessions, his family, and his health. Everything was gone except Job and his wife.

That has to be a contortion. You need to give a timeline for when Job was lured out of distress, a timeline for “a broad space with no constraint”, and a timeline for “that which was set on your table was full of fatness”, otherwise I cannot follow you.

I believe the author of Job included this detail in order to stand as an irony with Job's statement that he wished he had never been born. In other words, in the first chapter of Job we learn that the custom of his children was the celebration of each other's birthday, which stands in high contrast to Job's regret that he was born. This kind of contrast shows up in the Old Testament more often than I realized until after one of our teachers took us through the OT narratives.

Well if it was their birthdays they must have celebrated all year, because it says, “when they days of feasting had completed their cycle.” One would hardly think that all their birthdays ran concurrent. Where did you read they were celebrating their birthdays?

It's complicated, but on the whole, I think Elihu got it wrong, yeah.

Its amazing how someone who was rewarded with six chapters, solely to himself, in the bible, could get it so wrong. Was God trying to confuse us?

I don't know. As I say, I don't understand the KJB.

Perhaps the reason you don’t understand it lies in the reasoning of your professors, and the commentaries you have been reading.

Granted. But how could I know if the kJB got it right or whether it got it wrong if I don't understand it?

Perhaps faith that God is able to protect his Word. That translation was the sole English source for the people for several hundred years, according to J. C. Philpot, who wrote about what would happen if they brought out another bible. This he wrote in 1857. “3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal.”

Okay, but maybe the NASB is simply trying to convey what was written, without attempting to correct something. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the NASB always gets it right. All I'm saying is that I understand the English of the NASB, whether wrong or right.

What English do you see as different, comparing the three verses found in Job 36:16-18?

I don't yet see any evidence that the KJV, NASB, or the NIV have attempted to insert their own beliefs into the text. My opinion is that each of these translations was made by honorable Christians who were doing their best to give me, the reader, a window into the original language.

OK. I have no knowledge of their hearts in the matter. It would seem that one would take a certain measure of pride in being on a translation committee that was correcting an errant bible.

I see where Job cursed his day, but I don't see where Job strives with his maker. I think Job goes out of his way to say that he neither has the wisdom or the power to fight with God. In fact, much of his anguish comes over his frustration that he finds himself unable to ask God personally why he allowed him to suffer.

But Job did get his day, and God answered him.

What do you call this, if not striving with God?


Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

And what about this?

Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

[BroRog]

In the time and place that we find Elihu speaking; isn’t Job in a strait, or distress? Job has not yet been removed from his calamity, and if Job hadn’t repented, Job’s soul would have ended up in the pit, just as Elihu described.

Yes. Job was in distress at the time. But if I understand the course of his argument to Job, Elihu's statement at 36:16 is meant to be positive, not negative. He knows that his elders were unable to convict Job of his evil or bring a charge against him. Therefore, Elihu concerns himself with Job's future. Elihu is basically telling Job, "okay, let's assume for the moment that you are right. Given that God has seemingly afflicted you without cause, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to long for the night because you prefer the darkness over the affliction? That is, are you going to lose hope?" This seems to be the concern of Elihu at that point in the passage. He is worried that Job will lose all hope and give up in despair.

That has to be a contortion. You need to give a timeline for when Job was lured out of distress, a timeline for “a broad space with no constraint”, and a timeline for “that which was set on your table was full of fatness”, otherwise I cannot follow you.

I'm not sure what I can give you other than what the author gives the reader as the set up. The facts were given and established at the beginning of the book, especially the first three verses.

Well if it was their birthdays they must have celebrated all year, because it says, “when they days of feasting had completed their cycle.” One would hardly think that all their birthdays ran concurrent. Where did you read they were celebrating their birthdays?

1:4 And his sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them.

As I understand it, a man's "day" is his birthday.

Its amazing how someone who was rewarded with six chapters, solely to himself, in the bible, could get it so wrong. Was God trying to confuse us?

I certainly didn't mean to say that Elihu got everything wrong. When the Lord actually speaks, he rebukes the elders because their opinion about God was wrong. At the same time, however, the Lord does not rebuke Elihu. Apparently, Elihu was right in what he said about the Lord. But, while Elihu was right about the Lord, I think he was wrong about Job at times. That's why I say it was complicated.

Perhaps the reason you don’t understand it lies in the reasoning of your professors, and the commentaries you have been reading.

No, I have no professors and I don't read commentaries.

Perhaps faith that God is able to protect his Word.

No doubt. But remember, the KJV is a translation of his word into English, which was very understandable to those living in the 17th century. One could argue that God protects his word by sending translators to make it understandable to people in the common language of the time.

That translation was the sole English source for the people for several hundred years, according to J. C. Philpot, who wrote about what would happen if they brought out another bible. This he wrote in 1857. “3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal.”

No offense intended to Mr. Philpot, but this is a little naive. First off, most people, I think, understand that a Bible translated in English and another one translated into, say, Spanish isn't "another Bible." A different translation isn't another Bible, it's simply the same Bible translated into a different language. In addition, his statement reveals his lack of understanding about language and especially how language changes over time. My objection to the KJV is that it is full of errors or that it was a bad translation. My contention is simply that most (if not all) of us don't speak or understand the language in which it was written. We might think we do, because the King's English is remotely familiar, but we don't understand it, really.

What English do you see as different, comparing the three verses found in Job 36:16-18?

I see differences in the sentence structure and the vocabulary.

OK. I have no knowledge of their hearts in the matter. It would seem that one would take a certain measure of pride in being on a translation committee that was correcting an errant bible.

Well, I've never been on a translating committee and so I can't speak as if I have direct knowledge. However, I am willing to grant my fellow believers the benefit of my assumption that a follower of Christ would not purposely damage the scriptures. So, until I have evidence to the contrary, I assume good motives for all who attempt to make a translation of the Bible. And I don't see their role as one of correcting an errant Bible. I believe the KJV has a few "errors", yes. But the NASB translators were simply attempting to make a translation from the original text into the common language, which wasn't 17th century English.

The reason I say that the KJV had "errors" is because Biblical archaeologists have made new discoveries, which shed new light on certain obscure Hebrew words. I can't think of an example at the moment, but I think I could find an example of a word we better understand today due to the efforts of archaeologists. New information about the past gives us a clearer window into the text at times. I'm sure this was part of the thinking of the NKJV translators.

But Job did get his day, and God answered him.

Yes. I agree. Job got to have an audience with the Lord, eventually. Not all of us get that opportunity I reckon.

What do you call this, if not striving with God?


Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

In the Lord's opening remarks, he sets out to establish Job's reason for his request to have an audience with the Lord. The Lord wants to know if Job wants to give God the benefit of his wisdom or whether Job has another reason for asking to see the Lord. Did Job call on the Lord to instruct him?

I think it's evil to think that we can argue with the Lord. We shouldn't quarrel, fight, dispute, or strive against the Lord. But it isn't evil to question the Lord, especially when we are locked in a struggle for our existence. I think Job wanted to know the reason for his suffering as any of us would. The question we face, when we struggle, is whether we are willing to accept the Lord's reasons or whether we are willing to trust the Lord when reasons aren't forthcoming.

And what about this?

Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Well, I'm not confident in my translation of 17th century English. But if the NASB has got it right, I'm not sure how 41:4, or 41:34 contribute to the point you are making.

But let me say, since you cited verses from the Lord's response, that one significant aspect of his response is what he didn't say. If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that Job was actually unrighteous and that his suffering was due retribution for his behavior, then it seems curious that the Lord never raises that issue with Job. I mean, had this been the case, all the Lord needed to do is simply provide Job with evidence of his guilt. All the Lord needed to do was tell Job that his suffering was justly deserved and give the reasons why. But instead, the Lord spends the greater portion of his time with Job defending his great wisdom and insight.

[rejoice44]

Yes. Job was in distress at the time. But if I understand the course of his argument to Job, Elihu's statement at 36:16 is meant to be positive, not negative. He knows that his elders were unable to convict Job of his evil or bring a charge against him. Therefore, Elihu concerns himself with Job's future. Elihu is basically telling Job, "okay, let's assume for the moment that you are right. Given that God has seemingly afflicted you without cause, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to long for the night because you prefer the darkness over the affliction? That is, are you going to lose hope?" This seems to be the concern of Elihu at that point in the passage. He is worried that Job will lose all hope and give up in despair.

None of the translations have Elihu asking Job; “Are you going to long for the night?” (Job was already longing for the night, because the last half of verse 20 states that Job preferred evil to correction.) They all have Elihu saying, do not desire the night in Job 36:20. As you look at the words of the NASB, they seem to be trying to protect Job from any charges of wrong.

Look at Job 36:21 NASB "Be careful, do not turn to evil, For you have preferred this to affliction.”

In contrast the New Living Translation says, “Be on guard! Turn back from evil, for God sent this suffering to keep you from a life of evil.” (The NASB is saying do not turn to evil, while the NLT is saying Job already has turned to evil, and that he needs to turn back.


The NASB, and you as well, wish to assign as little evil as possible to Job. But the following verses are one occasion where the NASB did assign evil to Job.

Elihu said, NASB Job 34:36-37 'Job ought to be tried to the limit, Because he answers like wicked men. 'For he adds rebellion to his sin; He claps his hands among us, And multiplies his words against God."

[rejoice44]

In the Lord's opening remarks, he sets out to establish Job's reason for his request to have an audience with the Lord. The Lord wants to know if Job wants to give God the benefit of his wisdom or whether Job has another reason for asking to see the Lord. Did Job call on the Lord to instruct him?

This seems like a rather naïve perspective on the book of Job. Job has been shouting over and over again that God is unjust. That God has driven his arrows into Job without cause. And that God will laugh at the trial of the innocent. Job contended with God, and that is the same as striving with God. Job reproved God.

Let me ask you why God inflicted Job. Was it unjustified?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short outline of the book of Job

JOB DECLARED PERFECT AND UPRIGHT.

This means Job’s heart was right toward God. It does not mean all of Job’s actions were right, only that Job thought they were right before God. Job was without knowledge, therefore it was impossible for him to have correct judgment. God desired to correct Job’s lack of knowledge.

God had spoken to Job in visions in the night to correct his lack of knowledge. The visions only put fear into Job, for they did not correct the problem. How could Job make correct decisions without knowledge? We only need to look at Paul and see how a lack of knowledge can cause a righteous man to do wrong things.

GOD TESTS JOB.

God presents Job to Satan for the purpose of correction. God presents Job to Satan as perfect and upright. In Satan’s eyes pride is not a fault.

God knows what the testing of Job will reveal. God’s purpose is to prod Job away from the pit. The battle is for the soul of Job, and the decision as to who wins Job’s soul is entirely up to Job.

The first test Job passes without fault. Job doesn’t even ask God why, when all his children are killed. But in the second test we see a different result. It is now Job’s own life that is at risk, and Job curses the day he was born, and charges God foolishly.

THE THREE FRIENDS.

What do they say, friends of a feather, flock together. The three friends are in the same state as Job, for they are without knowledge. They have no answers for Job. Were it not for the introduction of the three friends there would be no story. Almost all of Job’s dialogue is with the three friends. The speech of Job, outside of the three friends, was to bless God after the first test, and after the second test, to attribute both good and evil to God when replying to his wife. Job spoke not a word to Elihu, and the words to God were, I am vile, I abhor myself, I repent, I now know that no thought can be hidden from you, I spoke things too wonderful for me, that I did not understand, and before I only heard of you, but now I know you. Many people have heard of God, but only those that know God are saved. “My sheep know my voice.”

ELIHU’S ROLE.

As both Job’s mediator and judge, Elihu witnessed to Job of God’s goodness, and warned Job that he was heading for the pit if he didn’t repent.

The only charges leveled against Job by Elihu were charges attributed to Job, against God.

God charged Job with contemplating taking Satan for a servant forever. Job was guilty of pride because he placed his own righteousness above that of God’s.

Job was a righteous man that did not have a personal relationship with God, and when tested, charged God foolishly.

The book of Job is about Job’s salvation, and not about God acting unjustly.

[BroRog]

The NASB, and you as well, wish to assign as little evil as possible to Job.

Not only I and the NASB, but the author of Job does the same thing. As I say, we are taking our cues from the set up in the first two chapters. The book of Job explores the issue of suffering and seeks to help the reader understand that not all suffering is deserved, though it may have a good purpose. While Job's three friends accuse him of evil, they do not present any evidence to prove the case. They simply make accusations based on their unfounded assumption that had Job been righteous, God would not have caused him to suffer. The book of Job seeks to answer that question: is it really true that all suffering is punitive and recompense for evil? Why would I take the side of Job's friends against Job when the Lord sided with Job against his friends? And why would I seek to find Job guilty, when the author of Job establishes Job's innocence from the beginning?

[BroRog]

This seems like a rather naïve perspective on the book of Job. Job has been shouting over and over again that God is unjust. That God has driven his arrows into Job without cause. And that God will laugh at the trial of the innocent. Job contended with God, and that is the same as striving with God. Job reproved God.

Let me ask you why God inflicted Job. Was it unjustified?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short outline of the book of Job

JOB DECLARED PERFECT AND UPRIGHT.

This means Job’s heart was right toward God. It does not mean all of Job’s actions were right, only that Job thought they were right before God. Job was without knowledge, therefore it was impossible for him to have correct judgment. God desired to correct Job’s lack of knowledge.

God had spoken to Job in visions in the night to correct his lack of knowledge. The visions only put fear into Job, for they did not correct the problem. How could Job make correct decisions without knowledge? We only need to look at Paul and see how a lack of knowledge can cause a righteous man to do wrong things.

GOD TESTS JOB.

God presents Job to Satan for the purpose of correction. God presents Job to Satan as perfect and upright. In Satan’s eyes pride is not a fault.

God knows what the testing of Job will reveal. God’s purpose is to prod Job away from the pit. The battle is for the soul of Job, and the decision as to who wins Job’s soul is entirely up to Job.

The first test Job passes without fault. Job doesn’t even ask God why, when all his children are killed. But in the second test we see a different result. It is now Job’s own life that is at risk, and Job curses the day he was born, and charges God foolishly.

THE THREE FRIENDS.

What do they say, friends of a feather, flock together. The three friends are in the same state as Job, for they are without knowledge. They have no answers for Job. Were it not for the introduction of the three friends there would be no story. Almost all of Job’s dialogue is with the three friends. The speech of Job, outside of the three friends, was to bless God after the first test, and after the second test, to attribute both good and evil to God when replying to his wife. Job spoke not a word to Elihu, and the words to God were, I am vile, I abhor myself, I repent, I now know that no thought can be hidden from you, I spoke things too wonderful for me, that I did not understand, and before I only heard of you, but now I know you. Many people have heard of God, but only those that know God are saved. “My sheep know my voice.”

ELIHU’S ROLE.

As both Job’s mediator and judge, Elihu witnessed to Job of God’s goodness, and warned Job that he was heading for the pit if he didn’t repent.

The only charges leveled against Job by Elihu were charges attributed to Job, against God.

God charged Job with contemplating taking Satan for a servant forever. Job was guilty of pride because he placed his own righteousness above that of God’s.

Job was a righteous man that did not have a personal relationship with God, and when tested, charged God foolishly.

The book of Job is about Job’s salvation, and not about God acting unjustly.

I think we are reading two different books.

[rejoice44]

Not only I and the NASB, but the author of Job does the same thing. As I say, we are taking our cues from the set up in the first two chapters.

The author is God and Elihu is most likely the writer. The setup in the first two chapters is similar to Satan’s set up, isn’t it? Job was perfect in his ways. Ezekiel 28:15 Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee.

What was Satan’s iniquity? Ezekiel 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom BY REASON OF THY BRIGHTNESS: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. PRIDE Satan exalted himself above God.

What was Job’s iniquity? 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. Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Job 29:14 I put on righteousness and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. Job 29:18-25 Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand. My root was spread out by the waters, and the dew lay all night upon my branch. My glory was fresh in me, and my bow was renewed in my hand. Job 29:21 Unto me men gave ear, and waited, and kept silence at my counsel. After my words they spake not again; and my speech dropped upon them. And they waited for me as for the rain; and they opened their mouth wide as for the latter rain. If I laughed on them, they believed it not; and THE LIGHT OF MY COUNTENANCE THEY CAST NOT DOWN. I chose out their way, and sat chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth the mourners. PRIDE Job exalted himself above God. Please explain away these words of Job, and tell me they are not pride.


God said, “Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.” God said, “Will you disannul my judgment? Will you condemn me that you may be righteous?”

The book of Job explores the issue of suffering and seeks to help the reader understand that not all suffering is deserved, though it may have a good purpose.

It is Job that explores the issues of suffering, his suffering, and in Job’s case it is the result of pride.

Hosea 4:4-6 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest. Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

If it is not alright for Israel to strive and reprove a priest, how much less for Job to reprove God?

Job 39:2 Shall he the contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

[BroRog]

The author is God and Elihu is most likely the writer.

Based on what? Where does it say that Elihu was the writer?

The setup in the first two chapters is similar to Satan’s set up, isn’t it?

I don't think they are the same at all, no. First of all, I am not yet convinced, as others seem to be, that God is talking about Satan in Ezekiel 28. The Chapter names the leader of Tyre, whom God calls "a man and not a God." I don't think I could successfully argue that Satan was a man. And in the opening set up of the chapter, the leader of Tyre is pictured as an arrogant man who thinks of himself as a god, sitting in the seat of gods. Contrast this with the testimony concerning Job, who lived a life of devotion to God. The two are completely different pictures.

What was Satan’s iniquity? Ezekiel 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom BY REASON OF THY BRIGHTNESS: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. PRIDE Satan exalted himself above God.

What was Job’s iniquity? 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.

This is not the same thing at all. The Lord says that the king of Tyre was wise, but because of his beauty he corrupted his wisdom. By contrast, Job maintains his righteousness and holds it fast.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Job 29:14 I put on righteousness and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. Job 29:18-25 Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand. My root was spread out by the waters, and the dew lay all night upon my branch. My glory was fresh in me, and my bow was renewed in my hand. Job 29:21 Unto me men gave ear, and waited, and kept silence at my counsel. After my words they spake not again; and my speech dropped upon them. And they waited for me as for the rain; and they opened their mouth wide as for the latter rain. If I laughed on them, they believed it not; and THE LIGHT OF MY COUNTENANCE THEY CAST NOT DOWN. I chose out their way, and sat chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth the mourners. PRIDE Job exalted himself above God. Please explain away these words of Job, and tell me they are not pride.

I see no evidence at all in the passages you cited where Job exalts himself above God. He just doesn't. Rather, he proclaims his righteousness and he expresses his commitment to righteousness.

We Christians get the wrong idea about boasting. We think that all boasting is wrong and evil, but this is not so. A boast is only evil if it isn't true. But if a man is saying something true about himself, this boast is not prideful sin. I'll give you a good example. Notice what Paul says here in Romans 5.

5:1 Therefore , having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Another word for "exult" in this context is "boast". Paul suggests that those who have been justified by faith have a legitimate reason to boast. Our boast doesn't lead to pride because we acknowledge that our justification is the result of what Christ did on the cross and God's mercy, not the result of our own accomplishments. We don't merit justification, but the fact that we have justification is something true about us, of which we can agree. Job is doing the same thing. His boast is that even during his suffering, he has not given up his integrity and he exalts in that fact about himself. To agree with the truth is not evil; to admit the truth about ourselves, especially when it is a good thing, is not prideful or arrogant.

God said, “Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.” God said, “Will you disannul my judgment? Will you condemn me that you may be righteous?”

Would it have helped if Job was recorded as saying, "No, that was not my intent?" I realize that accusations can take the form of a question, but I don't think God was accusing Job of instructing the almighty. Job had already admitted to his friends earlier that no man could instruct the almighty.

It is Job that explores the issues of suffering, his suffering, and in Job’s case it is the result of pride.

Not according to the first two chapters. That's what I mean. If we follow the lead of the book, having established that the root cause of Job's suffering is NOT based on anything Job did, good or bad, but on a wager Satan made with God. Since the book of Job wishes to explore and critically examine the root causes of suffering and whether the suffering of good people is unnecessary suffering, the author of Job purposefully sets up the scenario in which a good and righteous man is caused to suffer. The fact that the author establishes Job as a good and righteous man is what makes the book of Job both interesting and compelling. A book about a suffering man who deserves to suffer isn't that interesting nor revealing of God's true character.

The story about a man who gets what he deserves might be a little interesting, especially if the story involves car chases and martial arts moves. But Solomon, in the book of Ecclesiastics, marvels at the inexplicable reality that evil men seem to prosper in this world and good men seem to suffer, especially at the hands of evil men. I believe that the book of Job explores that idea in greater depth and detail in order to give the reader an insight into God's thoughts concerning the issue.

[rejoice44]

Based on what? Where does it say that Elihu was the writer?

I will give three reasons why Elihu is most likely the writer.

1. Only Elihu speaks in the first person, present tense. Notice that in Job 32:15 there is a disruption in the continuity of the speech. (It is sad that we must read from two different books. Whenever I attempt to reply, I must first check out what you are reading, because our books do not say the same thing.) The King James has Elihu speaking in the first person present tense in verses 16 and 17. Your version has a halt in the flow of Elihu’s speech in verse 15, and when Elihu resumes his speech there is no “Elihu said” given, as there should be if the writer interjected into Elihu’s speech in verse 15.

2. If any character from the book is the writer it would most likely be Elihu, since more information is given about his identity than anyone else in the book. We know nothing of who Job was, and only that he lived in the land of Uz.

3. The fact that no speech is directed toward him.

[rejoice44]

I don't think they are the same at all, no. First of all, I am not yet convinced, as others seem to be, that God is talking about Satan in Ezekiel 28. The Chapter names the leader of Tyre, whom God calls "a man and not a God." I don't think I could successfully argue that Satan was a man. And in the opening set up of the chapter, the leader of Tyre is pictured as an arrogant man who thinks of himself as a god, sitting in the seat of gods.

You need to read the chapter a little closer. There are two individuals spoken of in this book. One is a prince, and the other is a king. One is a man, and the other is an anointed cherub. One was in Eden, the garden of God, the other was not.

Behind every nation sits Satan, waiting to be king over the children of pride. Didn’t Satan offer all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus? Consider that Job was considering taking Satan for a servant forever.

Contrast this with the testimony concerning Job, who lived a life of devotion to God. The two are completely different pictures.

You need to get past “perfect and upright”, and look at Job after he fell.

Cursed the day he was born.

Wished he was free from his master.

Declared God to be unrighteous by saying God would laugh at the trial of the innocent.

Job accused God of shining upon the counsel of the wicked.

Job said he was unforgiven.

Job said he was without hope.

Job said he didn’t know God.

Job no longer blessed God, so how does that relate to a life of devotion to God?

[rejoice44]

This is not the same thing at all. The Lord says that the king of Tyre was wise, but because of his beauty he corrupted his wisdom. By contrast, Job maintains his righteousness and holds it fast.

Job confessed that he was not righteous when he said he was vile. You cannot be both righteous and vile. It does not compute.

Job had only thought he was righteous. Job could not see beyond his own pride.

Ezekiel 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

[BroRog]

Job confessed that he was not righteous when he said he was vile. You cannot be both righteous and vile. It does not compute.

Why not? What definition of vile are you using? The English word "vile" can mean "morally bad", but it can also mean "extremely unpleasant." Without looking up the passage to be sure, my initial guess would be that Job thought of himself as being extremely unpleasant, given that he was covered in boils.

If we are talking about Job 40:3, I think the KJV translation "vile", is better understood as "trivial." That is, Job admits he has nothing significant to say as compared to what the Lord might say, which is why he covers his mouth. What he might say in that situation would be of little value or importance as compared with what the Lord is about to say. And for this reason, Job is willing to keep his mouth shut. This doesn't sound like a prideful man; he sounds like a humble man.