It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It doesn't actually say in the Bible that Jesus "paid for sins".
When he came to earth and gained a mortal body who became Jesus Christ, his atonement in the garden of Gethsemane paid for all the sins committed in the past, present and future, because God loves us so much, he doesn't want us to suffer for any sins not our own and even then he is very merciful.
The Bible mentions "fallen" angels in Jude and Second Peter.
… but for free will Laws to work, we had to have a choice…
let's back up a minute and consider: when satan and other fallen angels rebelled, God could have destroyed them. They were, after-all, creations who consciously chose to disobey their Creator. What do you do with a song that sounds horrible or a painting that is not working out? I know what I do: I try to make it better or destroy it.
So God chose to use satan to provide a free will catalyst here for his other, newer free will creations, ones closer to Him in many respects: humans. You see this in Genesis and you see it in Job. God allows satan to test us. To separate the wheat from the weeds. This reality is about harvest.
That is a theory, Jesus being like an attorney for the defense. The Bible says that Jesus himself is judge.
God chose to allow the entire creation to fall here, with us, having a plan in mind to save those who would learn humility and choose Jesus Christ: our legal Advocate at judgement.
Text Job himself was not an actual historical person, but was the character in this metaphorical tale representing the lost kingdoms of Judah and Israel, destroyed by Marduk, the god of the Babylonians. It wasn't exactly a test, so much as a spiritual explanation for how a supposedly godly nation, the favorite of the "father" in this fictional pantheon, could find themselves in such a low and desperate situation.
That is my interpretation.
And you got all of that from the bible?
Feel free to submit your own theory as to where this book came from and how it wound up being in the Bible.
Or so you say.
The regular Bible, it is just a matter of reading it and understanding it.
What bible tells you all of this?
According to what? Not actual biblical scholarship, which would give it a later date.
Must also be prophecy being that Job is much older than Israel and Judah.
TextFeel free to submit your own theory as to where this book came from and how it wound up being in the Bible.
Are you talking about Talmudic writers?
. . .it is accepted by Hebrew scholars as being between . . .
. . . margin of accepted dates being that some senior scholars . . .
So if anyone writes a book and it has enough cross references to established books, then it gets canonized?
The reason Job was accepted in the Hebrew bible was for the reason that it has 23 cross references in the Psalms literature alone.
TextAre you talking about Talmudic writers? These are the keepers of the faith, or whatever, not actual historians in the modern sense.
I had no idea, and why I asked.
No I am not talking about Talmudic writers when I reference Hebrew scholars and I believe you know that very well.
Based on his not being "religious" enough?
He is not considered a true biblical scholar.
Based on what evidence?
The literature of Job precedes all other literature except Torah in the Tanakh .
You just got through saying that Job predates the rest of the Bible, so how much "biblical" teaching would you expect from the Bible's predecessor?
By this I can see that you have not understood what the bible teaches.
If he is the allegorical representation of the nation himself, where he lives is irrelevant to the story, and why it would be very vague about where he lived or what country it was.
Job was not living in a Godly nation.
That would be important in the allegory, that the god who is the protector of Israel would be a character in the story. The purpose of the allegory would be to find out what His rationalization would be, and it would be useless to delve into the thinking of an irrelevant god in terms of what would be of concern to the members of the former Israelite nation.
He was a believer in the God of Abraham but at that time he was a nation unto himself.
Here you are going off into a flight of fancy.
Secularist history will show that Israel now stands (Abraham’s God) while the Babylonian God Marduk is in the dustpan of theology.
Are you still talking about from a secular point of view? From the point of view of the Babylonians back at that time, it would have been believed that the imperial success was attributable to their almighty god Marduk.
The other fact is that Marduk had nothing to do with the fall of Israel or Judah.
The later successors to Nebuchadnezzar, according to Daniel, were punished for forgetting about Daniel's importance, so were defeated in war by the Persians.
Both were punished by the God of Abraham as is plainly shown in most biblical literature.
That would, according to your wording, be implying that I was for some reason lying about how I really feel.
That is the most disingenuous statement that I have heard from you.
He goes on to mention other reasons to arrive at a late date, but this is the one pertinent to the current discussion. I should mention that he believes in an early date and a real ancient person Job, so why he tells this fact in a negative light. What is important now is that here is a bone fide expert on Job admitting that other experts would disagree completely with him.
The subject matter is another basis for making a judgment on the date of Job. This too can be very slippery. Some scholars would connect the trials of Job with the trials of the nation during the exile.
And . . so?
I gave you one reference as to Genesis 36:33 as one cross reference that proves that Job is not a metaphorical tale and there are at least 23 more cross references just in the literature of Psalms alone.
According to what logic?
Yet you insist that Job represented the nations of Israel and Judah who did not exist till at the very least 600 years later.
Do you understand the concept of allegory and can you identify it when you see it?
I cannot even fathom to identify the related comparison that you are trying to sell Verum1quaere. It is an incoherent thought.
So then, by "literature", do you mean something that is exactly as it seems on its face, vs. let's say for example, fiction, or something written later but made to look as if it was older?
You have missed the point entirely. The literature of Psalms which does include some of King David’s writings which is some 600 to 700 years after the literature of Job does have at least 23 cross references between the two literatures.
Which could also mean a simple influence from the writer of Job reading the Psalms.
That means that both literatures agree on certain specific points or are married in thought.
Fist off, you haven't established the fact of Job being older.
Now being that Job is the older literature that means that the authors of the Psalms have understood that, to them, Job is not metaphorical but factual.
Let me quote another commentary, The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) by John E. Hartley
The scholars who do this investigative comparative work are not necessarily genetically Hebrew stock. Some are even of the Christian faith but the decision makers are not secularists such as Goldstein seems to teach.
Here are the verses (below) that he mentioned in the quoted section.
A sixth-century date has two points in its favor. The Babylonian captivity, a trauma for Judah, certainly could have provided the milieu for this work on suffering.
This position is strengthened by its close affinity to Isa. 40-55, which many scholars believe was written ca. 550 BC.
In addition, the few points of contact between Job and Jeremiah, particularly Job 3:3-13 with Jer. 20:14-18, may support a sixth-century date.
Text There is an interesting article on this subject of the age of the Book of Job, The Date of Composition of the Book of Job in the Context of S. D. Luzzatto's Attitude to Biblical Criticism from The Jewish Quarterly Review, that is on the JSTOR site, that you can read for free if you register with them and read it off the web page rather than downloading it as a PDF.
Text How this pertains to the current discussion here is that there are interpretations similar to my own out there, and there has been for the last 150 years. That is not how I arrived at my current opinion though, which was just by thinking about how the real purpose of the Old Testament was to explain why the Babylonian captivity happened in the first place, then applying that principle towards whatever I might be studying, and seeing if it fits.
I'm not aware of any of that.
I am familiar with the opinions of Luzzatto and some of his rabbinic rebels of the Conservative movement and have little regard for their trying to rewrite orthodoxy.
I don't have a "premise", I have an opinion, as I have earlier mentioned.
I understand your premise and while I respect your choice of being secular I cannot agree with your sources.
I don't see how a chronology is dependent on dating the writing of the Book of Job. I think that it was written specifically to not interfere with being able to try to create a chronology for Israel.
You do not seem to have a zero (beginning) in order to work from its conception.
I think you just invented your own definition for "secular".
Secular professors and teachers will have their own set of dates and many are very confused among themselves while Orthodoxy will always have one set of dates and all subject matter fit those dates.
Do you mean my own set of dates?
That is the reason I gave you my source but have never heard that from you.
That is, only if your assumption that the chronicled Jobab was the same person who is the character in the story in the book of Job, and also assuming that somehow when the book was written can skew the calculations trying to date the chronicles.
Over one thousand years after Job is where you are at with Babylonian theology.
OK, supposing that you are right, that "Job" in the book of Job story is a reference to the Jobab of the chronicle, then the next step is to say that the writer of this book just pulled out that name because it fits the story, so the fact that the book was written a thousand years after that person who the writer borrowed the name from is irrelevant to the chronicle itself.
How you can fit your Babylonian concept into Job is well beyond my comprehension.
You were not a Jew who had to live in Babylon as a captive and listen to the remarks by the people who worshiped Marduk.
The Babylonian captivity of Judah and Benjamin came about over a period of natural circumstances and not a battle between two gods as far as I am concerned.
I think that you are confusing a world consensus of opinion with the official opinion of a private club called the United Nations.
As any who are not blind can see, Israel is a recognized nation by the united nations of the world.
Well, have you ever heard Jews say that the expulsion of Jews from Palestine by Emperor Hadrian was something that they deserved because they as a nation was too sinful to continue to exist on the land.
Now whether they assume that their absence as a recognized nation was due to their forefathers disobedience to the God of Abraham is not mine to decide.
originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
Why is it that god (christian god of the old testament) commits such evils while lucifer/satan does nothing but "tempt"?
lets see a few examples of the horrible things god does and see if anyone can find something the devil did that is even on par.
Isaiah 13:15-18: Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children
wow! pretty sick and twisted for a divine being!!!
originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare2 Kings 2:23-24: The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. - 2 Kings 2:23-24
originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouareExodus 12:29: God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?
originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare1 Kings 20:35-36: Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.
What did God get bored or something?