I read it literally now

[Calminian]

This is the kind of rhetoric that I find surprising on this issue. It is one thing to argue for a nonstandard interpretation. It is quite another thing to do so with guns blazing and no trace of humility as to the possibility that one may be personally in error. As I said, I don't consider your reading impossible (though after further study, I do find it extremely implausible).

I don't know exactly what you mean by "that kind of rhetoric" or "guns blazing." Sounds way hyper-senstive for a forum like this. We're all just talking here. I do wonder why you're coming in with such condescending rhetoric, especially being upset that someone has taken a non-standard view? What's so appalling about that? I did chuckle when I heard that.

Since you didn't provide a link,

More condescension. I actually did provide a link. You're so quick to judge.

I'm just going by your summary here. Three problems:
1. One who "darkens counsel" need not be the same one who presents counsel.
2. Modern, technical definitions of the English translation do not determine the meaning. The Hebrew word is not limited to counselor/counselee situations (eg. Job 5:13; 10:3; 12:13; 18:7; 21:16, 18).
3. Counsel is not only used within a therapist vs. patient metaphor, but also a legal counselor vs. accused metaphor. Both are present in the book of Job.


Job himself believed that God was speaking about him:

Then Job answered the LORD:
“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you declare to me.’
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1-6, NRSV)

I don't think this argument flies. Job does not say, you asked "me if I was the one darkening counsel....." If you check the hebrew I think you'll agree it's not there either. He merely says, you asked who darkens council? He then concedes that also has been speaking without knowledge just as his counselors were.

But this is the key, and I hope you get this. I'm hoping your ego will allow for an open mind. Because you are actually wrong about this passage even with your expert knowledge of the hebrew.

Job 42:7 And so it was, after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. ......​

Did you catch that?? Let me quote it again.

Job 42:7 ...... “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. ......​

Now did you catch it? One more time.

Job 42:7 ....for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. ......​

You see, Job actually was speaking rightly about God. According to God he was not darkening counsel. This was the point of the commentator I cited. I suggest you click on the link I provided and read and try to understand the whole argument.

While your miles ahead of me in your theological intellectualism, my prediction is, when you really study this issue, you're actually going to agree with me, and go against the masses. Just a prediction. Just a prediction.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I do wonder why you're coming in with such condescending rhetoric, especially being upset that someone has taken a non-standard view?

I'm not at all upset that you've taken a nonstandard view. The reason I commented was because you ridiculed TEs for not accepting your view. Remember, this is what I quoted and responded to:

Oy! TE's are still quoting Elihu whom God rebuked. In fact, God seems to rebuke Elihu more than the rest my immediately talking to Job about cosmology and the creation. "who is this guy, Job, who darkens council...." This is the guy you're using as a proof text?

---

More condescension. I actually did provide a link.

Sorry, I still can't see it. Can you link it again? When I view the post, there are no links in the words, "I dealt with that common mistake a few threads ago. Look at the response carefully." I was not trying to be condescending, but was pointing out that my response was just based on what you said in this thread, since I could not see a link to that earlier thread.

Because you are actually wrong about this passage even with your expert knowledge of the hebrew.

Whether or not I'm wrong about this passage, I don't have expert knowledge -- or even basic knowledge -- of Hebrew. All I can do is use the tools.

You see, Job actually was speaking rightly about God.

The reason your interpretation of that verse doesn't change my mind is that it is based on a binary view: each speaker is either right or wrong in what they said about God. But it's not that simple. Job said some things that were right, but other things that God took him to task for. Elihu said some things that were right too, as did Job's other three friends. We can't reduce literature, even inspired literature, to a math equation!

This was the point of the commentator I cited. I suggest you click on the link I provided and read and try to understand the whole argument.

I do think I get their argument; parts I agree with and parts I disagree with. I also see that it is not the same as your argument. For instance, they acknowledge that Job is also included in those who darken counsel without knowledge. They think Job isn't as bad as the others, but they don't reduce this to a binary right/wrong. They don't think that God declaring Job to have spoken rightly rules out that he also darkened counsel without knowledge. And, neither do I!

Now, the biggest problem I see with their whole view is that it is based primarily on the silences in the text about Elihu. They see these silences as evidence that God is judging him even more than the other three (not even willing to speak his name). But, there are other interpretations for the silences (including but not limited to the hypothesis that the book of Job was originally written without the Elihu speeches, explaining why Elihu pops in and out without mention elsewhere). But, regardless of the answer, basing a view primarily on what the text doesn't include is a risky proposition.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not at all upset that you've taken a nonstandard view. The reason I commented was because you ridiculed TEs for not accepting your view. Remember, this is what I quoted and responded to:

Yeah, but honestly, in all fairness, quoting Elihu to prove biblical solid-domism is kind of dumb, don't you think? God never endorsed Elihu about anything he said, and Elihu merely parroted the other condemned counselors. It's a dumb thing to quote and an overall bad argument. Most, when this is brought to their attention, stop quoting it, while others persist. It's very difficult to understand why. But you can understand that's it's a difficult thing to address kindly and yet honestly at the same time.

Sorry, I still can't see it. Can you link it again?

It's at the very bottom of the post and says Source.

Whether or not I'm wrong about this passage, I don't have expert knowledge -- or even basic knowledge -- of Hebrew. All I can do is use the tools.

I'm a little confused. You made an argument and claimed it was based on the hebrew. I didn't think you were actually an expert, but figured you at least had a pretty good grasp of it.

The reason your interpretation of that verse doesn't change my mind is that it is based on a binary view: each speaker is either right or wrong in what they said about God. But it's not that simple. Job said some things that were right, but other things that God took him to task for. Elihu said some things that were right too, as did Job's other three friends. We can't reduce literature, even inspired literature, to a math equation!

I think you're making this way more complicated than it is. God never endorsed Elihu's statements. God did endorse Job's statements.

Look at the construct of Job as a whole, after the illnesses and misfortunes hit Job, counselors came to him and began lecturing him by asking him multiple questions. Job denied their accusations that he was being punished for sin. Then, after the last counselor finished with his diatribe, God then broke in and said, "who is this that darkens my counsel? Now I'm going to do some counseling. I'm going to ask some questions, and you can now answer me. You answer them pretty good, but now let's see how you fair." A bit of a licentious paraphrase, but it's taking a lot of context into account. He then bombarded Job with divine questions that left Job speechless, to the point where he merely could tell God he had no answers to His questions.

You see, Job only had answers for his human counselors. He didn't have answers for God. So does it really make sense, God was commended him only on refusing to answer God?

Let me know if I've persuaded you.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Yeah, but honestly, in all fairness, quoting Elihu to prove biblical solid-domism is kind of dumb, don't you think?

It might be "dumb" if the person in question accepted your interpretation of the passage, but odds are they don't. It might also be "dumb" if the person only quoted from Elihu, since his words are contentious and open to many different interpretations. But, the person also cited other passages (including God's speech in Job 38). So no, I don't think they were dumb.

It's at the very bottom of the post and says Source.

No, that goes to your commentary source that I saw, read and responded to. What I said I didn't see was a link for the other recent thread where you "dealt with this common mistake" and which you asked me to look at carefully.

You made an argument and claimed it was based on the hebrew. I didn't think you were actually an expert, but figured you at least had a pretty good grasp of it.

My claim was that the Hebrew word translated "counsel" is not as limited as you were trying to make it in English. You can't narrow it down to the idea of a counselor and counselee, much like a therapy session. To support this, I gave references to other verses where the same Hebrew word is used within the book of Job. (This is quite similar to how you connected the use of "waters" in Genesis 1:2 with a euphemism for urine. I didn't read into this that you were or weren't a Hebrew expert, since non-experts are still quite capable of using a concordance.)

I think you're making this way more complicated than it is. God never endorsed Elihu's statements. God did endorse Job's statements.

One could also say God never rebuked Elihu's statements. God did rebuke Job's statements. This is why arguments from silence are less compelling: they can be used to point in different directions.

Look at the construct of Job as a whole, after the illnesses and misfortunes hit Job, counselors came to him and began lecturing him by asking him multiple questions. Job denied their accusations that he was being punished for sin. Then, after the last counselor finished with his diatribe, God then broke in and said, "who is this that darkens my counsel? Now I'm going to do some counseling. I'm going to ask some questions, and you can now answer me. You answer them pretty good, but now let's see how you fair." A bit of a licentious paraphrase, but it's taking a lot of context into account. He then bombarded Job with divine questions that left Job speechless, to the point where he merely could tell God he had no answers to His questions.

One thing I often overlook is that Job's friends didn't come to him and begin lecturing. They actually wept and commiserated with him for a full week (Job 2:11-13). I find that passage humbling. Even these friends who did end up falsely attacking Job and saying a bunch of nasty things about him (and God) did start out right. They got it right for one week. Sadly, I often fail to comfort others who are suffering for anywhere near a week before I jump into apologetics/defense mode. Even the bad example of Job's three friends is enough to sometimes shame me. But, that's a bit of an aside.

I understand how you read this passage, but I don't think it's a simple reading, nor a clear reading, nor a likely reading. We agree that God confronts Job, questions him, leaves him speechless. That part is not the issue. The question is whether God indirectly addresses Elihu in the middle of his words to Job. I don't think so while you do, but the only parts of your paraphrase that favour your reading are the parts that add things not actually in the text (what you called the "licentious" bits).

 

[Calminian]

I understand how you read this passage, but I don't think it's a simple reading, nor a clear reading, nor a likely reading.....

Had a feel'n you were going to stick to your guns. Once you defend something it's very difficult to back off.

 

[Papias]

Sorry for the delay - I've been busy with work on a new playground at church.

First off, by not responding to the many points about scholars (such as Alter and Waltke) in my post #205, it seems that you admit now that many scholars have recognized the poetic elements in Genesis, placing it clearly on the poetic spectrum. That also goes for the Jewish source I mentioned that refers to the poetic elements in Genesis, showing again that the text need not be 100% poetry to free of narrative text - because the two are not exclusive of each other.


Benalchi wrote:

Papias wrote:

G. d'Eichthal, a Catholic, first undertook in his "Texte prim. du premier recit de la Creation" (1875) to show that Genesis, i, was a poem. The same contention was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure. Of late, other critics would perceive in the song of Lamech, in the story of the flood and of Babel, fragments of lost heroic poems.

Papias
​

I noticed that you left out the conclusion I.e. "But of this no feature seems really discernible in the Hebrew Genesis (consult Gunkel, "Genesis", and "Schoepfung und Chaos")."

Of course I did, because that section you quoted only applies to whether or not Genesis has a 4 verse meter, which of course it doesn't. Here is the whole section, including the part you skipped:

The same contention (that Genesis contains poetic elements, my add) was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure. Of late, other critics would perceive in the song of Lamech, in the story of the flood and of Babel, fragments of lost heroic poems. It is common knowledge that the so-called "creation-epic" of Assurbanipal is written in four-line stanzas with a caesura to each line. But of this no feature seems really discernible in the Hebrew Genesis (consult Gunkel, "Genesis", and "Schoepfung und Chaos"). There is no distinct metre except an occasional couplet or quatrain in Genesis 1-10.
​

So your "conclusion" is only saying that there isn't a 4 line stanza structure, while in the same breath pointing out that there are poetic elements (occaisional couplets or quatrains) scatted in Gen 1-10. Exactly as I've been saying.

The reality is that in Gen. 1-3 there are only four verses that are even debatably poetic and scholars don't even agree on the poetic nature of these two verses.

That's the same claim you made before, which I pointed out in post #205 was shown to be wrong by the same scholars you asked for in the first place, not to mention the Jewish source I gave. If you have a source that there are only those four verses in Genesis that have any poetic nature, then please produce it. Otherwise, stop repeating claims without evidence.

Other books have larger poetic sections I.e. the songs of Moses and Miriam in Exodus. For example the phrase

מי כמוך באלים יהוה מי כמוך נאדר בקודש

Comes from a lengthy poetic passage in Ex. 15; note the clear parallel structure.

Well, sure. I've always agreed that there are other books with more poetic elements. Just because some have more, doesn't mean that Genesis doesn't have poetic elements. That's like saying that because I can't jump as high as Michael Jordan, then I must be paralyzed.

If you want to go on believing the fairytale that this poetic structure exists in significant portions Genesis 1-3 them I am not going to put any more effort in trying to explain the truth. You can choose to believe the lie if you want.

Whoa, so much for civility! Did I ever call your view a "fairytale" or a "lie"? I pointed out that Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish sources are all writing extensively about the many poetic elements in Genesis. If all that writing and focus isn't "signficant", then maybe you and I have different ideas of time use.

Papias

*********************************

Cal, all that was discussed long ago on this thread, including that fact that the text itself says that God is talking to Job, and that God himself reaffirms the dome/flat earth view in the same chapter. It's clear that Elihu has some things right and some wrong, and God clarifies that simply enough. If you'd like to cover that again, perhaps first go back over all those points already covered, since it sounds like you are jumping in here without reading the past posts.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

The interesting conclusion I draw from this is that the YEC view isn't literal, it's actually concordism.

Using YEC rules for interpretation, I've come to the same conclusion.
Methodical numerologists have declared a particular date for Creation
week, but the scriptures have not.

 

[SkyWriting]

First off, by not responding to the many points about scholars (such as Alter and Waltke) in my post #205, it seems that you admit now that many scholars have recognized the poetic elements in Genesis, placing it clearly on the poetic spectrum.

There was morning and evening, the first day.
It's a poetic line intended to tell truth. I don't feel a hard and solid explanation can be impressed onto it. The strongest truth therefore is to read it and accept it at face value. Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with how people understood it in His day.

 

[Rev Randy]

There was morning and evening, the first day.
It's a poetic line intended to tell truth. I don't feel a hard and solid explanation can be impressed onto it. The strongest truth therefore is to read it and accept it at face value. Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with how people understood it in His day.

If the word "poetic" was removed from that quote I'd agree with it completely and as it was intended I do agree with it completely. Poetic seems to be a word used by some as to why science and the Bible do not jive at certian points in time.I know some literary think their pretty big hats see poetry in Genesis but it's not proven. Psalms and Song of Songs are indeed poetic and still can be taken literally as long as we read the word "as" or 'like" in proper context. Poetry need not change meaning. That has never been a rule of poetry as there are no rules to poetry.
As long as we understand that the Bible is from a spiritual God and that the spiritual is indeed very real, taking your Bible literally is always the best option. We are never told we must understand the how's and why's of the Bible. We are told to believe it is so. It's a simple thing requiring no great amount of knowledge. Knoweledge only confuses us when reading scripture. Reading scripture innocently (as a child) produces the greatest fruit. We cannot solve mysteries. God reveals. My God needs no excuses.