Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Job

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Job

    I am doing yet another analysis of Job but have a couple of rather elementary questions to begin with-- mostly background.

    1) When was Job (the man)?
    2) When was Job written (the book)?
    3) Who wrote Job (the book)?
    4) Where was Uz?

    Note: idk these answers.

    please cite your source. comments welcome

  • #2
    Re: Job

    I have an answer to question number 4.

    Location

    Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, roughly in the area of modern-day southwestern Jordan and southern Israel.[3] Lamentations 4:21 reads, "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz."[4]

    Other locations proposed for Uz include more probably southern Arabia most especially Dhofar home of the original Arabs [5] Bashan in modern-day southern Syria/western Jordan, Arabia east of Petra,[6] or even modern-day Uzbekistan . [7]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Uz

    Love you,
    Mieke

    PS there is a map on the site too.......
    Glorious Day
    Living He loved me
    Dying He saved me
    Buried He carried my sins far away
    Risen He justified
    Freely forever
    One day He's coming
    Oh Glorious Day!

    Casting Crowns

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Job

      Originally posted by ConsumeMe View Post
      I am doing yet another analysis of Job but have a couple of rather elementary questions to begin with-- mostly background.

      1) When was Job (the man)?
      2) When was Job written (the book)?
      3) Who wrote Job (the book)?
      4) Where was Uz?

      Note: idk these answers.

      please cite your source. comments welcome
      The author is unknown. The date of writing is unknown. Ezek 14:14,20 and Jas 5:11 refer to Job as an historic person. It is inferred that he lived in the parriarchal period from his great age, various geographical references and lack of mention of the law, the tabernacle, or the temple. It is believed that Job is the earliest of the bible books ever written predating Genesis and the pentatuch.

      For the cause of Christ
      Roger

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Job

        1. Details in Job seem to place him before the Israelites entered into Egypt, but sometime after the flood. That is, of course, if you believe Job to be an actual historical figure. I believe the book of Job is strictly a theological parable.

        2. It's almost impossible to know exactly when it was written, because the author says nothing about his own time period. He could have been writing anytime between the Patriarch era (beginning roughly 3000 BC) and the Pre-Exile era (ending roughly 600 BC). I believe, regardless of when it was originally written, certain additions were made sometime between 700-500 BC.

        3. We don't know. See the above point.

        4. Uz was a land to the northeast of Egypt, south of Israel, and northwest of Arabia. Basically, it's right there in the middle where those other three regions meet. Job himself seems to be placed on the side of Uz more familiar to Egypt, for he describes several animals that live along the Nile River region.
        To This Day

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Job

          Originally posted by markedward View Post
          1. Details in Job seem to place him before the Israelites entered into Egypt, but sometime after the flood. That is, of course, if you believe Job to be an actual historical figure. I believe the book of Job is strictly a theological parable.
          It's not a theological parable. In the book of Job itself there is no indication whatsoever that it's anything but a historical account. Also, other parts of scripture speak of Job as a historical figure. If Job was a fictional person then Daniel and Noah would be, too.

          Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

          Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

          James portrayed Job as a historical figure who showed patience in suffering just as the prophets did:

          James 5:10Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. 11Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

          4. Uz was a land to the northeast of Egypt, south of Israel, and northwest of Arabia. Basically, it's right there in the middle where those other three regions meet. Job himself seems to be placed on the side of Uz more familiar to Egypt, for he describes several animals that live along the Nile River region.
          You acknowledge that Uz was a real place, so why would a real place like Uz be referenced in a supposedly fictional story? If Job is fictional why would the land of Uz not also be fictional? The book of Job is also very specific about the places where Job's friends were from, which also were real places. Again, why would it refer to real places if it's a parable? A parable is a fictional story meant to teach a specific lesson, so with that being the case isn't there a lot of unnecessary details included that would not be typically included in a parable, such as how long Job lived after all the trouble he went through (140 years) and that he "saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations" (Job 42:16). I don't believe a parable would include so much specific extraneous information, but I can easily see that being the case in a story about a real person.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Job

            Originally posted by John146
            It's not a theologi-
            Let me cut you off right there.

            We've been down this road before. I explicitly provided both the historical perspective and my personal perspective. (Nevermind the fact that believing that the book of Job is a theological parable doesn't detract one bit from the primary message of the book. You can't say it does, because I'm the one who believes it's a parable and I'm the one that believes it's primary message is the same as even if it is interpreted historically.) It's up to the OP to decide which he finds to be more plausible; this isn't the place to debate this sort of thing, and I'm not interested in doing so. Understand? Fantastic.

            But if Job was a fictional person then Dani-
            Logical fallacy.

            But you acknowledge that Uz was a real pla-
            I guess Samaritans are a fictional people since Jesus refers to them in a parable. Oh, right... that argument doesn't hold up when applied consistently.

            /end debate. We have more important things to worry about than if the book of Job is historical or theological.
            To This Day

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Job

              Originally posted by markedward View Post
              Let me cut you off right there.

              We've been down this road before. I explicitly provided both the historical perspective and my personal perspective. (Nevermind the fact that believing that the book of Job is a theological parable doesn't detract one bit from the primary message of the book. You can't say it does, because I'm the one who believes it's a parable and I'm the one that believes it's primary message is the same as even if it is interpreted historically.) It's up to the OP to decide which he finds to be more plausible; this isn't the place to debate this sort of thing, and I'm not interested in doing so. Understand? Fantastic.
              And I provided evidence for the historical perspective. Why is that a problem? Are we not allowed to disagree with you?

              Logical fallacy.
              How so? Ezekiel groups Noah, Daniel and Job together so they are either all fictional characters or all historical figures. I believe it is very logical to draw that conclusion.

              I guess Samaritans are a fictional people since Jesus refers to them in a parable. Oh, right... that argument doesn't hold up when applied consistently.
              Which parable are you referring to?

              /end debate. We have more important things to worry about than if the book of Job is historical or theological.
              You're not obligated to debate the issue but I have the right to share my opinion on it and there's no reason to be offended by that. The reason I believe it is important is because as soon as we start saying the book of Job is a fictional parable and the first part of the book of Genesis is figurative that can lead to someone questioning whether or not the entire Bible is fictional.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Job

                Originally posted by John146
                Are we not allowed to disagree with you?
                Why was it necessary to disagree with me? Again, I expressed my personal opinion, but I also provided the historical perspective. Since you're essentially reiterating the historical perspective I provided, there's no reason to "disagree" with my post. You're free to disagree, but the situation simply didn't call for it.

                How so? Ezekiel groups Noah, Daniel and Job together so they are either all fictional characters or all historical figures. I believe it is very logical to draw that conclusion.
                And I don't. From your perspective it works. Because you assume the entire Bible must be absolutely literal. From my perspective it doesn't work, because I don't require the entire Bible to be absolutely literal; I require it be true, but "true" doesn't equate to "historically literal". That's not hard to understand; your "logical conclusion" doesn't work when applied through the perspective of the other side.

                Which parable are you referring to?
                The parable of (guess) the Samaritan. Maybe you don't believe it's a parable. I do. What a surprise, something else to disagree on despite the fact that interpreting it as a parable or an actual story doesn't detract from the theology it presents. Just like Job.

                You're not obligated to debate the issue but I have the right to share my opinion on it and there's no reason to be offended by that.
                I'm not offended by your "sharing your opinion". I'm tired of the fact that anytime I make a point, you have to go right after me and debate it. Why can't you just address the OP with your opinion? Why did you have to specifically go through mine point-by-point? Because you're not merely interesting in "sharing your opinion", you just want to argue against any opposing interpretations. Using faulty arguments that don't flow, because, guess what, the other side doesn't look at it the same way you do, and hence, your arguments just don't work when applied from their perspective.

                The reason I believe it is important is because as soon as we start saying the book of Job is a fictional parable and the first part of the book of Genesis is figurative that can lead to someone questioning whether or not the entire Bible is fictional.
                Another logical fallacy. Since you're not the one who believes X is parable, you don't have to right to tell me (or anyone else) that "that can lead to someone questioning whether or not the entire Bible is fictional". I believe Job is a parable. I don't believe the entire Bible is fiction. Hence, stop using this argument, because it just don't work in real-life application.

                You can keep this up if you want, but I'm not going to.
                To This Day

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Job

                  For I know my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my heart be consumed within me. Job 19:25-27

                  Literal? Surely true. Interesting.

                  For the cause of Christ
                  Roger

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Job

                    Originally posted by notuptome View Post
                    For I know my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my heart be consumed within me. Job 19:25-27

                    Literal? Surely true. Interesting.

                    For the cause of Christ
                    Roger
                    Good point. I really don't think that a supposed parable would describe a fictional character as looking forward to being resurrected from the dead and seeing God.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Job

                      Originally posted by John146 View Post
                      It's not a theological parable. In the book of Job itself there is no indication whatsoever that it's anything but a historical account. Also, other parts of scripture speak of Job as a historical figure. If Job was a fictional person then Daniel and Noah would be, too.
                      The whole setup of the discussion between God and Satan makes this readily apparent to me that it is not a literal historical story. Most of the text is poetic in nature as well. I have read that it is much like a theodicy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

                      As MarkEdward points out, truth != fact
                      Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
                      Ecc 7:10

                      John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Job

                        Originally posted by teddyv View Post
                        The whole setup of the discussion between God and Satan makes this readily apparent to me that it is not a literal historical story. Most of the text is poetic in nature as well. I have read that it is much like a theodicy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

                        As MarkEdward points out, truth != fact
                        So God and Satan are having a chat with a fictional character? How does that work, in reality?

                        If the book was merely a gigantic metaphor, it would still be a lie..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Job

                          Originally posted by teddyv View Post
                          The whole setup of the discussion between God and Satan makes this readily apparent to me that it is not a literal historical story. Most of the text is poetic in nature as well. I have read that it is much like a theodicy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

                          As MarkEdward points out, truth != fact
                          Yet other scripture such as Ezekiel 14:14,20 and James 5:11 refers to Job as a historical figure. What do you do with those passages? Also, it doesn't seem to me that a parable would include actual names of people as the book of Job does. If it was a parable why wouldn't it just refer to a man from Uz and his friends, the Temanite, the Shuhite and the Naamathite? Instead, it gives actual names which is strong evidence that it's referring to actual historical people.

                          Also, the amount of detail given in the book is not at all what would be typical of a parable. A parable is typically much shorter than the book of Job and includes only things that are relevant to the message of the story. If the book of Job was a parable then it would have by far the most extraneous information included in it of any parable ever told or written.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Job

                            Also, Job lived in the land of Uz which was not a fictional land: 21Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked. (Lam. 4:21)

                            Was he a fictional character living in a real, physical land?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Job

                              Originally posted by John146 View Post
                              Yet other scripture such as Ezekiel 14:14,20 and James 5:11 refers to Job as a historical figure. What do you do with those passages? Also, it doesn't seem to me that a parable would include actual names of people as the book of Job does. If it was a parable why wouldn't it just refer to a man from Uz and his friends, the Temanite, the Shuhite and the Naamathite? Instead, it gives actual names which is strong evidence that it's referring to actual historical people.
                              Why could one not refer to a character from a Charles Dickins novel to make a point? That person never existed, but the character of that person may offer an excellent example (and well known) of whatever the current writer may want to bring out (I'm not sure I worded that well).

                              Also, the amount of detail given in the book is not at all what would be typical of a parable. A parable is typically much shorter than the book of Job and includes only things that are relevant to the message of the story. If the book of Job was a parable then it would have by far the most extraneous information included in it of any parable ever told or written.
                              We may end up bandying semantics, i.e. essay, short story, novel, treatise, whatever you want to call it. My point, and I think Mark's, is that the truths revealed through Job do not change whether or not the character(s) are real or not.
                              Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
                              Ecc 7:10

                              John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X