Hot answers tagged

6

Mark Edward did a fantastic job of covering the Biblical link between the serpent and Satan, so I will not re-hash that, but I would like to directly address the second part of the OPs question: was John the first to link these two figures together? Or had the two already been connected in Jewish thought at the time? If not, is there any way to explain ...


6

Reference is to Improper Blessing The word ברך in the piel, when God is the object, typically means to actively "praise God" for something, and in the pual, to refer passively to "God being praised" for something. I do not think there is reason to have that meaning changed in these instances, nor to conjecture that it is a euphemism, as many have.1 Rather,...


5

@Joseph's reference document (positing this statement as "euphemism"; mentioned in his comment above) is most compelling to me. Here are some similar suggestions from scholarly commentaries: From John Hartley, NICOT (p. 65, n.7): The word translated "curse", barak (also in 2:5. 9), which usually means "bless," is used euphemistically. Many consider it a ...


5

OP poses three very different questions, a couple couched in different terms at various points. 1. What did Job believe? Which appears in a variant form as: How did he believe one could be right with God? This latter wording is, of course, simply to restate Job's own question in Job 9:2b (as the NASB has it, "But how can a man be in the right before ...


4

Presuppositions Reign As with any Biblical studies, presuppositions tend to rule conclusions from the data. To illustrate this, let me quote significantly from Dick Harfield's answer, as I can agree with the much of it, but with my set of presuppositions filtering the data, rather than those used there, for some of the conclusions. The Book of Job is ...


4

The Book of Job is conveyed by a third-party narrator with unlimited omniscience. This narrator knows what happens everywhere, even in heaven. He is not bound by time or space, and can even depict private conversations and events. He understands the inner feelings of characters and can explain why people do things. The knowledge of the omniscient narrator ...


4

Why then would this more common, collective word for "hair" not appear instead of the former word (considering that both words are "singular" in form)? I think the why question is probably unanswerable as such. OP describes this odd situation very clearly so there is no need, then, to rehearse again the details provided in the question. There have been ...


3

I like your question (and I am very curious about it too), but I'm not sure if there can ever be a definitive answer. There doesn't appear to be enough information to say for sure. I find it equally interesting that, not only were they named, but the subsequent verse describes their beauty, and the inordinate value that Job placed upon them (elevating them ...


3

A Range of Possibilities There is certainly some versatile grammar here for the phrase in question: כִּ֧י אִם־פָּנָ֣יו אֶשָּׂ֗א לְבִלְתִּ֞י עֲשׂ֤וֹת עִמָּכֶם֙ נְבָלָ֔ה And while you state... I am primarily not concerned with the semantic range of the word נְבָלָ֔ה, or the potential implications of God doing נְבָלָ֔ה, although these issues ...


3

The general consensus, according to my research, is that the sons of God are angels in Job 1:6. John Gill's exposition explains this better than I could. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord,.... This is generally understood of the angels, as in Job 38:7 who may be thought to be so called, because of their ...


3

I think this is basically a question about English usage. The Hebrew original has בָּאָרֶץ which you could translate in modern English either as “on the earth” or as “in the land”. It depends really on how you want to understand the word אָרֶץ . In pre-modern English the preposition “in” is not rarely used where in modern English you would have to say “on”. ...


2

It is obvious that Satan's greatest test of Job was brought to bear through the three friends. The over-arching chiastic structure begins and ends with a storm; what happens between is thus of most importance. If the Accuser's attack is viewed as complete before chapter 3, how is one to make any sense of the book? Chapters 1 and 2 set the stage; with ...


2

The answer to your question would seem quite simple. Since Job 4:1 identifies the speaker whose statement is found at Job 4:18, as Eliphaz: Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said, and Job 15:1 identifies the speaker whose statement appears at job 15:15, as the same: Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said, and God says to that man at ...


2

My persuasion is that the Masoret (with mitigated revision due from Dead Sea Scrolls) is the only biblically authoritative text for the books Genesis to Malakhi. It is a mistake and even pointless to think about English/Latin grammatical concepts in order to accurately resolve the actual intention of the Hebrew text. To map Hebrew grammatical elements to ...


1

There is no suggestion that the ancient Hebrews believed in the fire-breathing dragons of medieval lore, but they did believe in supernatural monsters loosely described as 'chaos monsters'. These were mythological creatures that inhabit creation stories and had to be defeated in order to bring order to the world. Behemoth literally means 'great beast' and ...


1

The Idea in Brief The best reading for this verse would accept the qere as suggested by the Masoretic editors. That is, the following translation would capture the full essence of this verse: Job 13:15 15 Look, he is going to kill me: I wait for him [to strike]; in the meantime, I am going to argue [my case] before Him. Why does the ketiv or qere ...


1

If you would have quotes the specific Bible version then it would have helped. For instance I always prefer NKJV, Job 2:2 NKJV reads as 'And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?" Satan answered the Lord and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."' Other few common versions may read Satan's reply as: "......


1

According to biblical scholars who include James Glentworth Butler, The Bible-Work: Old Testament, Vol. 4- Job suffered approximately 60-80 years- the equivalent of our contemporary lifespan. Susequently, that time, added to 140 yrs referenced in the scripture, excluding his tribulation yrs, would mean that Job lived to be about 200 yrs old.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible