Hot answers tagged

26

No Certain Answer to Give Disclaimer and Explanation of Citations and Notations: The evidence here is largely gleaned from Protestant source material (my tradition), and is presented in a way that argues toward Job being an ancient composition (my view); but the evidence also mentions there are numerous other views on this. A bibliography of all referenced ...


20

That's not feminine; that's masculine. These are "pausal forms", so when the preposition lamed plus 2 msc sg suffix would normally be lĕkā, in "pause" it is lāk -- which is the same form as the 2 fem sg, and thus the confusion. See Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (2nd edn; Clarendon Press, 1910), at § 29n, p. 97 (last line of that ...


14

Your question had me as perplexed as Habakkuk! Not knowing the answer I found an article on the subject, the essence of which goes something like this: When Habakkuk says that God’s “eyes are too pure to look on evil” we have to read it in the context of the larger discussion. Habakkuk understands the righteous character of God. He also knows that the ...


12

It is commonly believed that Job's original 10 children are in Heaven. The texts do say that Job received a "twice as much", and that he had "more": Job 42:10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Job 42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than ...


10

The Hebrew text of Job 6:14 runs as follows: לַמָּ֣ס מֵרֵעֵ֣הוּ חָ֑סֶד וְיִרְאַ֖ת שַׁדַּ֣י יַעֲזֽוֹב׃ lammās mērēʿēhû ḥāsed, wəyirʾat šadday yaʿăzôb Ambiguity has long been recognized as one of the "features" of the Hebrew of the book of Job.1 That enters into the picture here, although there are other issues, too. Context The book of Job has a "...


8

It's not a feminine pronoun (although it looks like one)! Lakh (לָךְ) in this case is a form of the male pronoun lekha known as "pausal," which because of its position as the final word of the verse. Pausal forms generally expand a shva or e-vowel into a qamatz; for example, at the end of Genesis 1:1 eretz becomes aretz. See for example the chart here, or ...


8

@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 ...


7

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 ...


7

Yes, this is an expression. For example in the law, when you can't afford, say, a goat, then you are allowed to bring a dove for sacrifice. The expression which is translated "can't afford" or "too poor" is literally "your hand can't reach". When your hand can't reach something, or something is outside your grasp, then it is ...


6

Differentiating between "Purpose" and "Grounds" You ask: Why would The Lord allow Satan to have the power to take other lives just for the purpose of proving that Job is a loyal servant? The short answer is that God's "grounds" for having those people die is their own sin, not Job's testing. God allowed it to happen when and how it did for the "...


6

Job lived 140 years (Job 42:16), a long life, similar to the patriarchs. For that reason it is said that he lived during the period of the patriarchs. During the patriarchal age, the head of the family also covered the function of offering sacrifices. In other words, he was the priest of his family. (1) So Job, conceived by the writer as living in ...


6

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


5

The Context of God's answer to Job is confrontational: Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: 2 Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? 3 Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. Job 38:1-3 Job is demanding an answer from God: Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, ...


5

Short Answer No, the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. Authorial Intent If we want to understand what the Bible teaches, we have to start by asking what the authors were trying to communicate to their original intended audiences. We can not start with our own questions and try to "see what the Bible says about it". This is something you learn ...


5

The Idea in Brief The margin notes of the Masoretic Text (Masorah Parva) as annotated in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia provide amplified understanding of the text. That is, the Masoretic editors had understood that Job would see God both within his body (verse 26), and without his body (verse 27). Discussion The Masoretic Text has margin notes, which ...


5

Contributor sbunny is on the right track, I believe. The "sons of God" are angelic beings. Satan himself was an angel who was cast out of heaven when he rebelled against God. Whether the sons of God are fallen or unfallen angels, I will not speculate. Notice in the account of God's meeting with the sons of God and Satan we find the words "...


5

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”. ...


5

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 ...


4

Yes, God is being sarcastic with Job. Sarcasm is a rhetorical trope which gets its name from the verb "to tear the flesh from." In other words, "biting sarcasm" is a redundant expression. As with most tropes, sarcasm is best used judiciously and in moderation, since it tends to paint its user as possibly bitter, vengeful, hateful, merciless, and so on. ...


4

The Hebrew word that's translated as ring/earring is נֶזֶם (Nezem). It can mean either ring, earring, nose ring, or generic ornament. I believe that the last translations translations are more correct, since there are places like Exodus 35:22 where נֶזֶם and טַבַּעַת (ring worn on a finger) are used in a single verse. It seems that these nose/ear rings are ...


4

The Idea in Brief There are three words in the verse which provide ambiguous meaning, however, the Masorah Parva of the Masoretic Text helps to shed light to the verse. In spite of these difficulties, the MT can be seen to yield good sense. Discussion The first and most significant problem in the verse is the word for "friend." If the Hebrew word is רֵעַ, ...


4

Since Satan, the accuser, does not want to believe in Job's blamelessness, he seeks to depreciate or impugn Job's character by saying in effect, "Job's so-called blamelessness is attributable to a bargain he made with you, God. It's an even exchange: He'll be blameless if you give him the lifestyle to which he's become accustomed." In other words, Satan ...


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 ...


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