The Golden Rule of the Creationist

[gluadys]

Well, be VERY careful how you interpret the Bible. If one can assert that just a single part is exxagerated or historically wrong (kinda like deceit), that thats the end of Christianity, the Bible is no longer fully truth.

Nonsense. It is far from the end of Christianity. Did you know that during medieval times students of the bible prized non-literal interpretations over literal ones? It was not that they doubted the literal validity of Jonah and the whale or Noah's flood. But they did not consider it important. What they considered to be important was what they called the allegorical or spiritual truth of the story and they developed all sorts of ways of determining a host of allegorical meanings. And they never considered that this denied the truth of scripture. They believed allegorical interpretations revealed the deeper meanings of scripture.

Also, emotions are irrelevant when interpreting the Bible. The correct way to read the Bible for fact is to not let any former beliefs or emotions cloud your judgement. However, do not go to far and not let your emotions flow when you are reading the Bible already knowing the true doctrine. Good luck!

Oh I think emotions can be quite relevant in some situations, though there are times to be "just the facts, ma'am" hard-headed too.

But the point that I was making to Mark is that his attachment to understanding a book like Job as an accurate historical account is emotional. There is no sound reason why it must be history rather than fiction. Either way it is true for its intended purpose, which as you suggest, is doctrine. The teaching of the book of Job about God and ourselves is true It makes no difference whether Job is a fictional character or an historical person.

Maybe you feel that it does make a difference. In that case you also have an emotional attitude on the issue.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, those are your feelings about the issue. No one can argue with your emotions.

Well I do appreciate the sentiment but I was not refering to my emotional impulses but reasons for faith. You need not worry about my emotions since I am anything but emotional about this sort of thing.

I don't find it to be the case that the account loses vigour if it is fiction or fictionalized history. To me it makes perfect sense that the biblical story of Job relates to a real Job (if there was one) in much the same manner as Shakespeare's Macbeth relates to the historical Macbeth.

I could accept that if you were comparing Pilgrims Progress to The Acts of the Apostles. Then you are comparing an obvious fiction that dramatizes theological principles to historically relavant accounts. Furthermore I think Job has been considered far too metaphorical anyway as has the Song of Solomon but thats a topic for another discussion. The point is that just as there is a danger of being too literal there are limits to how much can be dismissed as metaphor.

Nor do I think that anyone would dispute that Shakespeare's dramatic account of the rise and fall of Macbeth has a great deal more vigour than the plain facts of Macbeth's history. I mean, no one today would hear of Macbeth if it weren't for Shakespeare. Many people are not even aware that there was a real, historical Macbeth. And if there were not, it wouldn't matter. Shakespeare's Macbeth has become Macbeth.

Shakespeare wrote drama based on history and elaborted finely crafted verbage that he could not possible have recieved first hand. We have a very different thing in the Bible because God spoke directly to various individules. Moses being one of the most important and the other authors respectively.

I don't feel that viewing the biblical story of Job as a parable constitutes a dismissal. (To be precise, the book of Job is a drama and the rich man and Lazarus is a parable--not a metaphor.) I feel that acknowledging the genre in which a story has been preserved says nothing one way or the other about its power and importance and spiritual value. The first time I read Job in the conscious understanding that it is a drama, and began looking for how the author used dramatic effects, I became aware of the powerful message of this story as I never had before.

I strongly disagree, Lazarus cannot be a parable or a metaphor because Jesus allways prefaced his parables with 'like' or 'as'. Just as an interesting exercise I would like you to do me a favor if its not too much to ask. Take a look at Job 37 and just browse through it and tell me, is it a description of an approaching storm or a metaphor? If its a metaphor then tell me how 38:1 is supposed to make sense, just a suggestion and I will understand if you think its not worth the trouble.

Now those are my feelings. And no one can argue with my emotions either.

off-topic:

Could you please put a little effort into learning how to spell "necessary"? The constant misspelling is getting more than a little annoying. At the very least you could use the spell-checker.

First of all my spelling is awfull and I will make every effort to correct that discrepency in my posts since you find it annoying. Now as far as Job being some kind of a drama it loses real world effect when it is reduced to a dramatic play. It does lose its spiritual value when it is just a dramatic farce and the message is that our dialouges are without a real world context. The events described in Job are necessarily true or the dialogue is pointless.

Now as to the emotions you have on the subject, I have a wife and three daughters, I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

But the point that I was making to Mark is that his attachment to understanding a book like Job as an accurate historical account is emotional. There is no sound reason why it must be history rather than fiction. Either way it is true for its intended purpose, which as you suggest, is doctrine. The teaching of the book of Job about God and ourselves is true It makes no difference whether Job is a fictional character or an historical person.

Maybe you feel that it does make a difference. In that case you also have an emotional attitude on the issue.

I would contend that the historical context described is absolutly essential. It is extremly important that you realize the context Job and his friends were discussing things in for it to have any meaning at all. That is not an emotional statement it is in my own carefull estimation an obvious fact.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

It is simple logic. If a character is fictional in one place, events in another, then there are usually more places fiction can be found. Only in a document without ficticious stories can one be assured of its complete truth.

Also note in Job 1:

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD , and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD , "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

What is the relevance of this? Simple: If this was simply a novel, this dialogue could not be real, only assumed. If it was, it puts words into God's mouth, which is blasphemy. This had to be the direct word of God, and so everything else recorded in dialogue must be correct (God hears all conversations)Everything in here can be recorded as accurate, and must be, or it is blasphemy and cannot be in the Bible.

 

[Sinai]

Mark:

Your original post was excellent until the final paragraph. I have read the comments that have been posted since then, and think the initial post by gluadys may bear repeating at this point (though with a caveat):

Good post up to this sentence.

So another suggestion.

Remember when you are posting in the Christians Only forum, that the presumption is that all participants are Christian. So no one is "hostile to the Christian faith".

I have certainly seen, in other environments, those who are hostile to the Christian faith and use whatever knowledge they have of history or science or logic as a weapon against it. But in this forum we debate different Christian understandings of the faith.

I would also add that the Christian theistic evolutionist is not hostile to the Genesis account of creation. Rather, she is open to a variety of non-literal interpretations of that account.

It might be noted that Christians can accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation without being a young earth creationist or rejecting the evidence and conclusions of mainstream science. I have listed some of the principal positions of Christians regarding the age of the universe in a poll located here: http://www.christianforums.com/t93563&page=1.

 

[gluadys]

Well I do appreciate the sentiment but I was not refering to my emotional impulses but reasons for faith. You need not worry about my emotions since I am anything but emotional about this sort of thing.

Not worrying. I didn't say the emotion was negative or to be regretted. Just making the observation that the historicity of Job (and other parts of the bible) is emotionally important to you, such that you feel it is not possible to accept Job as scripture unless the story is historical.

I could accept that if you were comparing Pilgrims Progress to The Acts of the Apostles.

Not a good comparison. Pilgrim's Progress is wholly fictional and an allegory to boot. Acts of the Apostles is one of the most historical books in the New Testament. They are almost wholly opposites.

Macbeth, on the other hand, is a dramatized version of the later years in the life of a genuine historical King of Scotland. There was a real Macbeth. He did come to the throne in questionable circumstances and he was overthrown by an army in the service of those loyal to the heirs of the former king. That's the bare bone of fact. Shakespeare turns that into a drama in which all the conversations are his creation, some events added (e.g the 3 witches and their prophecies; the use of branches to camouflage the attacking rebels), the character of Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and other persons in the story are wholly his invention, and the train of events manipulated to serve his dramatic purposes.

As such, the play is Shakespeare's invention, not history. He could have written the same play if there had never been a real Macbeth.

We don't know if Job was an historical person or not. But it matters no more than whether or not Macbeth was. For even if Job was an historical person and the bare bones outline of his tribulations is true, the author of the book of Job used that bare bones outline much as Shakespeare used the bare bones outline of the life of the real Macbeth.

In short, whether or not there was a real Job, that Job is no more the character in the book than the real Macbeth is the character of the same name in Shakespeare's play. The Job in the book of Job is the author's invention, even if that invention was inspired by a real-life story.

The point is that just as there is a danger of being too literal there are limits to how much can be dismissed as metaphor.

I would agree with this if you replaced the word "dismissed" by the word "expressed". There are indeed limits to how much can be expressed as metaphor. [I am not sure if you are using the word "metaphor" in its technical sense or just loosely to mean "not literal".]

"expressed", however, is an emotionally neutral term. "dismissed" is an emotionally loaded term. When you speak of dismissing something as metaphor you are making a value judgment about metaphor itself.

Why, in your mind, is identifying a metaphor in a passage equivalent to "dismissing" it? Logically "dismissal" is not an obvious consequence of metaphorical expression.

We have a very different thing in the Bible because God spoke directly to various individules. Moses being one of the most important and the other authors respectively.

We don't know that at all. We know it is a claim made by some biblical writers and generalized to all the writers by the rabbinic interpreters of the post-exilic period. As for Moses being one of the most important authors we have every reason to believe that nothing in the scripture we have today was written by Moses personally. Whatever Moses did write (if he wrote anything at all) has been lost to us, except where it may have been incorporated into the works of later writers.

I strongly disagree, Lazarus cannot be a parable or a metaphor because Jesus allways prefaced his parables with 'like' or 'as'.

Not true, and irrelevant in any case. In Matthew 13 there are a group of eight parables told by Jesus--all of them kingdom parables. In 6 of them he uses "like" or "as" and in one he says the kingdom "may be compared to". But in the first he simply begins "A sower went out to sow." No verbal clue that it is a comparison. Again in Matthew 18 the parable of the lost sheep is told simply as a story with no comparative word or phrase. I could probably find many more if I took the time to look.

But what if Jesus had used "like" or "as" with all his other parables? The absence of such terms in one case would not disqualify it from being a parable. No more than one black swan in a flock of 100 white swans disqualifies it from being a swan.

The fallacy of such technical arguments for determining whether or not a given passage is a parable or not is that they founder on the most universal and enduring of all rules of composition: "For every rule there is an exception to the rule." (I didn't teach language and literature without learning something about it. )

Take a look at Job 37 and just browse through it and tell me, is it a description of an approaching storm or a metaphor?

Well the chapter as a whole is not a metaphor. Nor can I find any metaphor in it; but there is a simile in v. 18.

When you ask if it is a description of an approaching storm are you suggesting that a storm is approaching even as Elihu is speaking and he is describing what he is literally seeing? I had never thought of that before. It would be an interesting dramatic touch.

However, it could also be a description based on general knowledge and not right-at-this-moment experience. This would seem more likely as he continues the description right through to the storm being cleared away (vv. 21-22). So it is not apparently a lead up to the mention of the whirlwind in 38:1.

Is that what you were driving at with this question?--

If its a metaphor then tell me how 38:1 is supposed to make sense, just a suggestion and I will understand if you think its not worth the trouble.

If not, then, frankly I don't understand the question. So can you explain what led you to ask this question? Maybe if I understood its source in your thinking I could venture a response to it.

Now as far as Job being some kind of a drama it loses real world effect when it is reduced to a dramatic play. It does lose its spiritual value when it is just a dramatic farce and the message is that our dialouges are without a real world context. The events described in Job are necessarily true or the dialogue is pointless.

Again, you are using emotion-laden words which seem to me to be overly dramatic. Why "reduced" to a dramatic play? What is "reducing" about being written up as a play? In my experience, literature tends to enlarge life, not reduce it.

And why "dramatic farce"? Job is not a farce. And for that matter "dramatic farce" is an oxymoron. A play may be a drama or it may be a farce. It cannot be both at the same time. The tone of the these different styles of writing and acting is too far removed from each other. So either you don't understand the words you are using, or you do understand them quite well and have chosen them for their emotional effect.

I suggest you chose the word "farce" because of its demeaning connotation. it suggests the level of The Three Stooges as opposed to the level of Hamlet. But as it is your choice of words, it is you who are saying that dramatic writing is by nature demeaning. Clearly I hold a different opinion.

And clearly I don't agree that dialogue is pointless if the characters speaking were not real and the words not really said by them. In the parable of the Prodigal Son the fictional father says of the fictional son: "for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!" Are these words pointless?!?!?!

I would contend that the historical context described is absolutly essential. It is extremly important that you realize the context Job and his friends were discussing things in for it to have any meaning at all. That is not an emotional statement it is in my own carefull estimation an obvious fact.

Of course it is essential. It is also determined by the writer. Remember, although the story is set in the days of Abraham if not earlier, the book was written in the 5th century BCE. That historical context is equally important.

And it is an emotional statement because there is no obvious fact to make a careful estimate of. The reality is that you have an emotional need for the historicity of the book to be an obvious fact. But your emotional need doesn't make it so.

 

[gluadys]

It is simple logic. If a character is fictional in one place, events in another, then there are usually more places fiction can be found. Only in a document without ficticious stories can one be assured of its complete truth.

You are confusing "fiction" with "falsehood". Not the same thing.

(snipped scriptural passage from Job 1)
What is the relevance of this? Simple: If this was simply a novel, this dialogue could not be real, only assumed.

That's correct. The dialogue was composed by the writer.

If it was, it puts words into God's mouth, which is blasphemy.

In that case, every time in the bible God is quoted directly, the bible is committing blasphemy, for all such quotes are composed by the writers.

This had to be the direct word of God, and so everything else recorded in dialogue must be correct (God hears all conversations)Everything in here can be recorded as accurate, and must be, or it is blasphemy and cannot be in the Bible.

Not so. You are assuming that the bible must be a direct dictation of God with the writers acting as stenographers taking down the dictation. That has never been the understanding of the Christian church on the nature of inspiration.

It is, in fact, a Muslim idea about the Qur'an, which, regrettably, many Christians have imported from Islam and applied to the bible---often without being aware of the source of this idea.

Muslims believe the Qur'an was brought into being by God before creation and that the content of the Qur'an was dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. Since Muhammad himself did not read or write, Gabriel fixed it firmly in his mind and told him to recite it. This Muhammad did, and those of his disciples who were literate wrote down these messages from heaven. That, according to Islam, is how the Qur'an---the dictated word of God--was brought from heaven to earth.

Christians have always held that the Word of God was revealed only once on earth, not as a book, but as a person: Jesus of Nazareth. As for the bible, it is our primary witness to that Word of God. God inspired his prophets, psalmists, and evangelists to write. But God did not dictate to them. He called them to be writers not stenographers. The human writers composed every word in the scriptures, including the words they put in the mouth of God.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well, be VERY careful how you interpret the Bible. If one can assert that just a single part is exxagerated or historically wrong (kinda like deceit), that thats the end of Christianity, the Bible is no longer fully truth.

We're already stuffed then. Jesus used exaggeration throughout His ministry - camels and needle eyes anyone?

Besides, when did Christianity equate to the Bible being fully historically and to pinpoint accuracy "true"? It doesn't.

Also, emotions are irrelevant when interpreting the Bible. The correct way to read the Bible for fact is to not let any former beliefs or emotions cloud your judgement.

Here I have to disagree. The Bible is the vehicle of the living revelation of the Spirit of God. We have to let it interract with our entire being, including our emotions. It is not a simple propositional theological treatise; if it were, it would contain more propositions and fewer obscure stories.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Karl-Metaphors, stories, sure. He specificaly said he was speaking in stories. But taking a book and saying it is a novel is far from that.

Gluadys-If you believe that the Bible is somehow different from what God actually said, well, you need to take a look at some scripture. Indeed, many times God didnt just appear and satart talking, but everything God wanted in the Bible is there, in the way he wanted it put in.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys-If you believe that the Bible is somehow different from what God actually said, well, you need to take a look at some scripture. Indeed, many times God didnt just appear and satart talking, but everything God wanted in the Bible is there, in the way he wanted it put in.

God did not actually "say" anything in the bible. All the words of the bible are the words of the writers. Nevertheless, I agree that everything God wanted in the bible is there in the way God wanted it. But it was never dictated to the writers. (except when a scribe took dicatation from the author as Baruch took dictation from Jeremiah, and Paul dictated his letters to scribes--but then the person doing the dictation is the real writer.) They were writers not stenographers.

Karl-Metaphors, stories, sure. He specificaly said he was speaking in stories. But taking a book and saying it is a novel is far from that.

You think a story can't be a full book long? Why not? Why can't God inspire someone to write a novel?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thing is, it does not require Job to have existed for the dialogues to be about real events. Things like what happened to Job happen to people all the time. The book is of little worth if it is merely a discourse about what happened to Job thousands of years ago. If, on the other hand, it is an attempt to address the topic of undeserved suffering, which is a problem common to all times and places, then it is an immensely valuable tome.

If the book is meant as such a teaching fable, then the fact that it puts words into the mouth of God is no issue at all - the very nature of the book means that no-one is dishonestly claiming that God said something He didn't. If this is blasphemy, as you allege, then little things like the Footprints whatsit you see on everything from tea-towels to paperweights (and which, by the by, I loathe on account of its horrible tweeness rather than its theological content, such as it is) would also be blasphemous. Are they?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

You must remember English is somewhat of a dead language from where I am, not sure what you mean by the footprint thing. Anyhow, using stories to describe God is a useful tool, and even in Psalms, many metaphors are used. However, directly saying "God said..." in such a context as Job would be blasphemous if it were not the true dialogue.

Gluadys-

Job 1:
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job.

Now note-
Genesis 3:
12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom.

Genesis 32:
3 Jacob sent messengers ahead of him to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom.

Genesis 35:
6 Jacob and all the people with him came to Luz (that is, Bethel) in the land of Canaan.

Joshua 12:
7 These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan...

These are some random verses from the OT. If you noticed, they begin in similar ways. I have yet to see them questioned as fact.

Also-

Ezekiel 14:
13 "Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its men and their animals, 14 even if these three men-Noah, Daniel and Job-were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.

19 "Or if I send a plague into that land and pour out my wrath upon it through bloodshed, killing its men and their animals, 20 as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.

James 5:
11As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

Not only does the first-century church consider Job a real person, but God does as well.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not worrying. I didn't say the emotion was negative or to be regretted. Just making the observation that the historicity of Job (and other parts of the bible) is emotionally important to you, such that you feel it is not possible to accept Job as scripture unless the story is historical.

What you are saying is true, the historicity of Job is essential but there is nothing emotional about it, its theological. The book of Job is not ambiguous about this, For example events are described as anything other then a metaphor:

1.Job lived in Uz had had seven sons and three daughters.
2.Job had 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 she asses...etc.
3.Job made sacrifices as an intercessory prayer for his children in case they cursed God.
4.Satan comes to the courts of heaven and God asks him about Job.
5.Satan questions Job's loyalty and is given permission to test Job's faith.
6.All of Job's substance is destroyed including his children and finally his own flesh is struck with a horrible skin disease.

This is not an appeal to or from emotional considerations these are presented as material facts and the discussions with his friends make no sense if this did not indeed happen as described.

Not a good comparison. Pilgrim's Progress is wholly fictional and an allegory to boot. Acts of the Apostles is one of the most historical books in the New Testament. They are almost wholly opposites.

Agreed! They are indeed very different because one is an elaborate analogy and the other is an historical account of God's redemptive 'Acts', like Job.

Macbeth, on the other hand, is a dramatized version of the later years in the life of a genuine historical King of Scotland. There was a real Macbeth. He did come to the throne in questionable circumstances and he was overthrown by an army in the service of those loyal to the heirs of the former king. That's the bare bone of fact. Shakespeare turns that into a drama in which all the conversations are his creation, some events added (e.g the 3 witches and their prophecies; the use of branches to camouflage the attacking rebels), the character of Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and other persons in the story are wholly his invention, and the train of events manipulated to serve his dramatic purposes.

As such, the play is Shakespeare's invention, not history. He could have written the same play if there had never been a real Macbeth.

All that is well and good but we are drifting in the relevance of metaphor dispite its historical accuracy. Historians don't spend a lot of time trying to understand past events based on Shakespeare. Theologians on the other hand put a lot of stock in the historical importance of Job and Acts.

We don't know if Job was an historical person or not. But it matters no more than whether or not Macbeth was. For even if Job was an historical person and the bare bones outline of his tribulations is true, the author of the book of Job used that bare bones outline much as Shakespeare used the bare bones outline of the life of the real Macbeth.

Again this is incomprehensible with regards to God's redemtive history. The historicity of Job is non-negotiable with regards to Job and it is either historically accurate or it is an elaborate myth. It is far more curcial then Macbeth and our theology is reduced to metaphor and analogy and this is poor science, divine science (aka theology) has rules and principles just as natural science and reasoning from analogy makes interesting stories but not systematic theology.

In short, whether or not there was a real Job, that Job is no more the character in the book than the real Macbeth is the character of the same name in Shakespeare's play. The Job in the book of Job is the author's invention, even if that invention was inspired by a real-life story.

I strongly disagree on the grounds previously explained and the comparison does a great disservice to the large body of work Christian theism has produced. I do not find it offensive in the least just indefensible and incomprehensible given the overall message of the Gospel throughout the Old and New Testement.

I would agree with this if you replaced the word "dismissed" by the word "expressed". There are indeed limits to how much can be expressed as metaphor. [I am not sure if you are using the word "metaphor" in its technical sense or just loosely to mean "not literal".]

I once questioned the Pastor of a church I attended for several years. I suggested to him once that I was supprised that no systematic theology has been developed on the premise that humility was the source of virtue while selfish pride was the source of evil. He suggest I read a book by a German theologian who attempted to do just that and it was interesting up to a point. When discussing the Garden of Eden he described it as a myth, I looked up the word in Websters and found that it was synonymous with legend and the opposite of a fact. When I asked the Pastor about this what the author would say if asked the answer came back, "He wouldn't think it mattered". This was my first introduction to liberal theology and it compromises entirely too much with natural science. I find it incompatable with Christian theism but that is just my opinion based on the overall testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(IIPeter 1:20,21)

"expressed", however, is an emotionally neutral term. "dismissed" is an emotionally loaded term. When you speak of dismissing something as metaphor you are making a value judgment about metaphor itself.

Why, in your mind, is identifying a metaphor in a passage equivalent to "dismissing" it? Logically "dismissal" is not an obvious consequence of metaphorical expression.

If it is intended to be a metaphor then it can be understood in that context. However, Job has no resemblance to this kind of an analogy. To say that it doesn't matter one way or another is to reduce it to private interpretation and that, as I have allready said, is something I strongly disagree with.

We don't know that at all. We know it is a claim made by some biblical writers and generalized to all the writers by the rabbinic interpreters of the post-exilic period. As for Moses being one of the most important authors we have every reason to believe that nothing in the scripture we have today was written by Moses personally. Whatever Moses did write (if he wrote anything at all) has been lost to us, except where it may have been incorporated into the works of later writers.

The Pentateuch is attributed to Moses in both the OT (Ex. 17:14; Num. 33.2; Josh. 8:31; I Kings 2:3; IIKings 14:6; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Dan. 9:11, 13; Mal. 4:4) and the NT (Matt. 8:4; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:29; 24:27, 44; Jn 5:46; 7:22; Acts 15:1; Rom. 10:19; ICor. 9:9; IICor.3:15). For a more indepth exposition of these texts you need only ask.

Not true, and irrelevant in any case. In Matthew 13 there are a group of eight parables told by Jesus--all of them kingdom parables. In 6 of them he uses "like" or "as" and in one he says the kingdom "may be compared to". But in the first he simply begins "A sower went out to sow." No verbal clue that it is a comparison.

First off the original is Koine Greek and when it starts out, "He spoke to them in parables" (13:3) then it is implied throughout the passage. Another example of this would be Ephesians 5:21, "...submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord". Now, in the passage that follows when Paul addresses the wives it just says in the original 'Wives to the husbands', thus the translation that wives should submit to their husbands but mutual submission is the context. See the point?

Again in Matthew 18 the parable of the lost sheep is told simply as a story with no comparative word or phrase. I could probably find many more if I took the time to look.

The passage isn't a parable exactly, its a conditional. He starts out, "What do you think?", so this is a literary device and the principle of a parable being premised by 'like' or 'as' is a rule of thumb not withstanding the context. A text without a context is a pretext (aka private interpretation)

But what if Jesus had used "like" or "as" with all his other parables? The absence of such terms in one case would not disqualify it from being a parable. No more than one black swan in a flock of 100 white swans disqualifies it from being a swan.

The fallacy of such technical arguments for determining whether or not a given passage is a parable or not is that they founder on the most universal and enduring of all rules of composition: "For every rule there is an exception to the rule." (I didn't teach language and literature without learning something about it. )

Nice try but I have allready demonstrated I know something about the language and literature. In Koine Greek, context is king.

When you ask if it is a description of an approaching storm are you suggesting that a storm is approaching even as Elihu is speaking and he is describing what he is literally seeing? I had never thought of that before. It would be an interesting dramatic touch.

However, it could also be a description based on general knowledge and not right-at-this-moment experience. This would seem more likely as he continues the description right through to the storm being cleared away (vv. 21-22). So it is not apparently a lead up to the mention of the whirlwind in 38:1.

Is that what you were driving at with this question?--

The description is rather graphic, I appreciate your willingness to examine the text and I just have one more thing I would like you to consider. If this can be taken literally does it have any bearing on the book of Job as an historical narrative as well as an instructional discussion?

"For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man." (Job 36:24-28)

This is as much a description of an approaching storm as Psalm 22 is a prophecy of the crucifiction.

If not, then, frankly I don't understand the question. So can you explain what led you to ask this question? Maybe if I understood its source in your thinking I could venture a response to it.

Again, you are using emotion-laden words which seem to me to be overly dramatic. Why "reduced" to a dramatic play? What is "reducing" about being written up as a play? In my experience, literature tends to enlarge life, not reduce it.

Some things in Scripture are meant to be taken quite literally even though the description is laced with metaphor you must discern the discription from the hyperbole. Like I said there are limits to what can be dismissed as metaphor. This is especially true with the Genesis account of creation. It is the Genesis account of creation that I had in mind when starting this thread. Again I assure you that I am anything but emotional about this, its as matter of fact as biology for me.

And why "dramatic farce"? Job is not a farce. And for that matter "dramatic farce" is an oxymoron. A play may be a drama or it may be a farce. It cannot be both at the same time. The tone of the these different styles of writing and acting is too far removed from each other. So either you don't understand the words you are using, or you do understand them quite well and have chosen them for their emotional effect.

When it is being literal it should be accepted as a literal account or rejected as a farce (aka myth). The dramatic effect only underscores the intensity with which it is being presented and when presenting God speaking from a whirlwind or Satan having a discussion concerning Job in the courts of heaven is either true or false.

I suggest you chose the word "farce" because of its demeaning connotation. it suggests the level of The Three Stooges as opposed to the level of Hamlet. But as it is your choice of words, it is you who are saying that dramatic writing is by nature demeaning. Clearly I hold a different opinion.

And clearly I don't agree that dialogue is pointless if the characters speaking were not real and the words not really said by them. In the parable of the Prodigal Son the fictional father says of the fictional son: "for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!" Are these words pointless?!?!?!

The context is critical here and when describing something in the context of a parable a little hyperbole is fine. To describe things as actual events without this critical context is a farce, a fiction, a lie. If all we had was the discussions of Job and his friends then I could agree that these are just elaborate metaphors that can be attributed to natural disastors. However, we have a great deal more then this and we are not talking about a metaphor in Job's opening verse or the final chapters, we are looking at things being describe as literal events. This is either a fact or a farce, the context demands it.

Of course it is essential. It is also determined by the writer. Remember, although the story is set in the days of Abraham if not earlier, the book was written in the 5th century BCE. That historical context is equally important.

And it is an emotional statement because there is no obvious fact to make a careful estimate of. The reality is that you have an emotional need for the historicity of the book to be an obvious fact. But your emotional need doesn't make it so.

It is not an emotional need my friend, its a theological one. Theology is as much a science as evolution. In both inquiries you must discern the facts from the analogies. Suppose I suggest that facts of science are irrelevant to Darwin's 'Descent or Man' and 'Origin of Species' because his homology and morphology are just analogies? Are the factual details important then or irrelavent?

Grace and Peace,
Mark

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I've heard it said both by Mark and by Bizzlebin that the discourses in Job make no sense if the book is not historical.

Neither has actually explained why.

Thing is, they make perfect sense to me. Why am I too stupid to realise that they can't make sense?

I also would suggest that the definition of "myth" you got from Websters is not that that the writer of a book on theology would mean. It most certainly is not the opposite of fact - indeed, a myth, in theology, is the vehicle of fact, whilst not being factual in literal terms itself. The point of comparison with the parables is not to prove that Job was a parable, but to show that this method of conveying truth is valid - equating "myth" with "farce" or "falsehood" implies it is not, which rather makes Jesus' parables pointless, whether He starts them with "This is a parable:" or not.

Some other definitions of myth:

www.dictonary.com - A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

Wikipedia's article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth - is also very good.

Please understand - it will do your blood pressure no end of good to understand that when I say that Genesis is a myth I do not mean it is untrue. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I don't believe either of us are saying myths are all untrue, however we do say that these are not myths.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've heard it said both by Mark and by Bizzlebin that the discourses in Job make no sense if the book is not historical.

Neither has actually explained why.

Perhaps Websters is not the best place to understand mythology as a pursuit of wisdom. Mythology is an attempt to escape ignorance but it is not pure fiction, it is just an analogy to express an inescapable fact. Try this on for size and maybe you can understand a little better why I don't consider Job a myth. The most direct reason is because its not an analogy, its a revelation.

"the first principles and the causes are most knowable; for by reason of these, and from these, all other things come to be known, and not these by means of the things subordinate to them. And the science which knows to what end each thing must be done is the most authoritative of the sciences, and more authoritative than any ancillary science; and this end is the good of that thing, and in general the supreme good in the whole of nature...For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders); therefore since they philosophized order to escape from ignorance, "

(Aristotle's Metaphysics)

Thing is, they make perfect sense to me. Why am I too stupid to realise that they can't make sense?

Because there is a distinction made between a fact and a myth, just as there is a distinction between a parable and a material fact. Job presents material facts that must be so or they are lies, there is nothing in the context to suggest otherwise.

I also would suggest that the definition of "myth" you got from Websters is not that that the writer of a book on theology would mean. It most certainly is not the opposite of fact - indeed, a myth, in theology, is the vehicle of fact, whilst not being factual in literal terms itself. The point of comparison with the parables is not to prove that Job was a parable, but to show that this method of conveying truth is valid - equating "myth" with "farce" or "falsehood" implies it is not, which rather makes Jesus' parables pointless, whether He starts them with "This is a parable:" or not.

No it doesn't make the parables meaningless just because they are analogies unless they are presented as material fact. A myth is a farce even if there is a moral to the story it cannot be presented as a factual account and be considered an analogy. I really don't see why it is so hard to discern between the two.

Please understand - it will do your blood pressure no end of good to understand that when I say that Genesis is a myth I do not mean it is untrue. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Its written in a kind of poetic prose that is highly general. When it is specific it does not lend itself to be dismissed as poetic drama, in fact, it is clear that God creating the entire world through the speaking of words in 6 days is intended to be taken literally. In fact, it probably did not take him all day. I believe in the big bang, God spoke and BANG there it was. Sorry if that doesn't help with your blood presure but that is Christian theism as I understand it.

Just to clarify for a minute, do you equate a myth with a metaphor?

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys-

Job 1:
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job.

Now note-
Genesis 3:
12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom.

Genesis 32:
3 Jacob sent messengers ahead of him to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom.

Genesis 35:
6 Jacob and all the people with him came to Luz (that is, Bethel) in the land of Canaan.

Joshua 12:
7 These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan...

These are some random verses from the OT. If you noticed, they begin in similar ways. I have yet to see them questioned as fact.

You have yet to see them verified as fact too.

Note as well that I am not questioning that Job may have lived. I am just saying that the biblical story about Job is not history. Just as Shakespeare's play about Macbeth is not about the historical Macbeth.

In fact, I have heard that Job appears in several documents of Mesopotamian literature outside of the bible as a proverbial figure of someone facing sudden disaster.

Also-

Ezekiel 14:
13 "Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its men and their animals, 14 even if these three men-Noah, Daniel and Job-were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.

19 "Or if I send a plague into that land and pour out my wrath upon it through bloodshed, killing its men and their animals, 20 as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.

James 5:
11As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

How would the speakers have rephrased their thought if Job was not an historical person?

It is not uncommon to reference a well-known fictional character to make a point. Consider how we refer to Rip van Winkle if we want to make the point that someone has been "out of the loop" for a long while. Or how we use Hercules as a model of great strength, even though we consider him to be a mythological rather than an historical character. James' reference to Job's perseverance is perfectly sensible whether Job is historical or fictional. Same goes for the passages from Ezekiel.

You cannot tell from a reference whether the speaker is referencing a real person or a fictional character unless they tell you explicitly. And most of the time they don't.

 

[gluadys]

What you are saying is true, the historicity of Job is essential but there is nothing emotional about it, its theological.

It's both. You are emotionally attached to a theology which requires the book of Job to be actual history. I have a different theology.

The book of Job is not ambiguous about this, For example events are described as anything other then a metaphor:

Well you have convinced me that when you throw around literary terms you are not using them according to their standard meanings. You just jumble together terms like metaphor, myth, analogy, farce as if they all meant the same thing and that same thing is "not fact, therefore false".

In fact, you asked Karl:"do you equate a myth with a metaphor?"

I hope Karl has the sense to say "no". A myth is not a metaphor. It may contain a metaphor, but so may a prosaic description of a factual occurrence. The presence of metaphor does not decide whether a text is fact or fiction.

Poetry is not a metaphor, though poetry often contains metaphors, and we expect poetry to be enriched by metaphors. But you can have sustained passages of poetry with no metaphors. That doesn't make the poetry fact.

Similes, metaphors, analogies, parables and allegories all make comparisons of some kind, but they are all different sorts of comparisons. Analogies tend to be used a lot in logical, philosophical discussion. Allegories, on the other hand, are stories in which all major characters and events are symbolic figures. In parables, the focus is on one symbolic connection and there is not necessarily a symbolic connection for other characters, objects or events in the story.

With the possible exception of allegory, all the above can be used in both factual and fictional texts.

On the other hand, there are a number of ways in which fiction can be presented: novel, poetry of various sorts, myth and legend, drama of various sorts, essay, tale, fable, and so on. One of the things you are doing is confusing figures of speech, like metaphor, which can be found in factual or fictional writing, with various genres of literary composition which are fictional.

Then, of course, we also have the common occurrence of blending historical fact and literary invention as in the historical novel or play or the poetic ode about an historical event. All of this blurs the line between straight-forward factual reportage and literary licence.

Throwing around these terms as if they had identical meanings shows either that you are ignorant of their meanings or that you simply use them as a compendium of derogatory terms.

1.Job lived in Uz had had seven sons and three daughters.
2.Job had 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 she asses...etc.
3.Job made sacrifices as an intercessory prayer for his children in case they cursed God.
4.Satan comes to the courts of heaven and God asks him about Job.
5.Satan questions Job's loyalty and is given permission to test Job's faith.
6.All of Job's substance is destroyed including his children and finally his own flesh is struck with a horrible skin disease.

This is not an appeal to or from emotional considerations these are presented as material facts and the discussions with his friends make no sense if this did not indeed happen as described.

Yes, they are presented as material facts within the context of the story. All writers of fiction strive to maintain an illusion of reality which can include detailed descriptions of scenery, charactes, and "historical" events. Sometimes the illusion of reality is so strong some people become convinced it is reality. So one has tourists in London going to Baker Street to find the residence of Sherlock Holmes and flooding to Prince Edward Island in Canada to visit Green Gables as if Anne Shirley had been a real person instead of a character in a novel. There is no reason to be surprised at the appearance of a background of material facts in a fictional story. It's done all the time.

And indeed, these "material facts" are presented in the prologue to the story so that the dialogues make sense. They are part of the overall structure of the story.

Agreed! They are indeed very different because one is an elaborate analogy and the other is an historical account of God's redemptive 'Acts', like Job.

Not an analogy. An allegory. There is quite a difference between these two. And just because Acts does contain history, it does not follow that it is only history.

Theologians on the other hand put a lot of stock in the historical importance of Job and Acts.

Actually they don't. They are much more interested in the theology of the writers. Like the German theologian you mention below, whether Job is actual history or not is a question that "doesn't matter" to them. Most of what I have been saying I have learned from theologians.

Here are some more references:

Was Job a real person?
Most Jews hold that Job was not a real historical figure. For instance, Rabbi
Simeon ben Laquish said that Job never existed (Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII; Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 15a.) In this view Job was a literary creation by a prophet who used this form of writing to convey a divine message. In this view, the book was written under divine inspiration in order to teach theological truths, but was never meant to be taken as literally true in a historical sense.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Book of Job

From this you can see that the non-literalness of Job is an idea that did not spring up with modern liberal theology, but has deep roots in rabbinic theology.

Taken from Nelson's New Illustrated Bibkle [sic] Dictionary

The book of Job is written in the form of a dramatic poem, that deals with several age old questions, among them the question of why the righteous suffer. [snip]
This prologue-body-epilogue format was often used in writings in the ancient world. The author of Job was a literary craftsman who knew how to bring words together in dramatic fashion to drive home his message. [snip]
The Book of Job teaches us to trust in God for all circumstances. When we suffer, it usually is a fruitless effort to try to understand the reasons for the difficulty. Sometimes the righteous must suffer without knowing the reason why; that is why it is important to learn to trust God in everything. [snip]
The dialogue sections of the book are written in poetry. Great truths are often expressed in such poetic language. These great truths are worth the slow, reflective reading it sometimes takes to grasp their meaning. Great art like that in this book often challenges our understanding. That is why we need to come back to it again and again.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/outlinesofbooks/Job.html

Check this link for a defence of the idea that Job may have been written not merely as a dramatic poem, but as a script for a staged drama.

http://www.intermix.org/JOB/jobtitle.htm

Historical Background of Job: The question has been raised whether Job was a historical person and all that is described in this book really happened as described. Ezekiel 14:14 and 20 mention a man named Job along with Noah and either Daniel or Danel. Whether this reference to Job speaks of the same person found in the book of Job is not known. A few Bible scholars believe that character of Job of the Book of Job was an actual historical person described in the prologue and epilogue and who spoke all the words attributed to him in the dialogues. Some Bible scholars believe all the references to Job are literary or parabolic. That is, they believe the author of Job created a character to teach spiritual lessons as Jesus did in the parables.

Most Bible scholars believe that there was a historical person named Job who is reflected in the prologue and perhaps epilogue. This man must have had some spiritual reputation for righteousness and perhaps patience as reflected in Ezekiel and James. However, most scholars believe that the author of Job composed the dialogues to show the different theological positions used in Israel to explain suffering. The final dialogue between God and Job then reflects the way the author believes a personal encounter with God will move one past logical explanations of suffering.

In fact, the message of Job is not dependent on which position a person takes regarding whether Job was a historical person or not. The book is not about Job’s history but about Job’s life and the way we relate to God as a result.

http://www.cresourcei.org/books/job.html

When you deal with any ancient artistic creation, do not suppose that it is anything against it that it grew gradually. The book of Job may have grown gradually just as Westminster Abbey grew gradually. But the people who made the old folk poetry, like the people who made Westminster Abbey, did not attach that importance to the actual date and the actual author, that importance which is entirely the creation of the almost insane individualism of modern times. [snip] The creation of the tribal epic was to some extent regarded as a tribal work, like the building of the tribal temple. Believe then, if you will, that the prologue of Job and the epilogue and the speech of Elihu are things inserted after the original work was composed. But do not suppose that such insertions have that obvious and spurious character which would belong to any insertions in a modern, individualistic book . . .

http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/job.htm

This whole commentary by G. K. Chesterton is well worth the read.

Again this is incomprehensible with regards to God's redemtive history. The historicity of Job is non-negotiable with regards to Job and it is either historically accurate or it is an elaborate myth.

Obviously it is incomprehensible and non-negotiable to YOU. It is part of YOUR theology that Job must be an accurate reportage of actual events. But as you see, this is not a position that has unanimous theological support. And btw, Job is not myth. It is a drama or dramatic poem. It does not have the literary features of myth.

our theology is reduced to metaphor and analogy

Again, the emotionally-laden term "reduced". You have not established that a non-literal theology reduces the book of Job in any way.

and this is poor science, divine science (aka theology) has rules and principles just as natural science and reasoning from analogy makes interesting stories but not systematic theology.

Systematic theology is perfectly capable of reasoning from non-literal sources. The point for systematic theology is the theological presentation of the issues, not their historicity. ps Job is not an analogy. It is a drama or dramatic poem. (except for the prose preface and epilogue).

There is a lot I haven't covered yet, but it is getting very late and I have to work tomorrow. So, I'll be back again later.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[aol]What gluadys said[/aol]

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I say again, if Job is not history, then the dialogue between God and Satan is false, untrue, and blasphemous. Only if Job is a real person and this book is a record of what really happened can this book be anything but detestable. And, most places I have seen parables clearly state that they are stories, as opposed to Job, in which no such distinction is made. It goes right into the life of Job as any factual book would. And, anyone in my circle who quotes myth specifies "In the myth/story of xxxxxx, ....." without referring to the person as an actual, historical figure. The lingual customs you follow today did not stand for the entire history of the earth.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Also, gluadys, please take your debate to debate and not an inquisition into the person with which you are speaking. No one is here, I hope, to debate against a person, as we are all sinners, but we are here to find truth in scripture. Make your point, but make sure not to cross to far over the line. Thanks