Is the Job narrative evidence of human construction?

[marco]

To many the story of Job is an embarrassment in its artificiality and the ludicrous collusion between heaven and hell. The chorus line that follows each of the disasters that initially beset the man is "and I only am escaped alone to tell thee." Would an author today get off with what seems such a silly scenario?

We can say the story illustrates the goodness and patience of a splendid individual but what can we say about the divinity who presided over Job's tribulations?

Have the writers of the story gone too far this time in trying to illustrate God can do what he likes?

Can we find anything good to say about the God in this story?

Satan turned up at what seems to have been an absurd AGM of angels and their master and instead of being turned away he was listened to and his challenge accepted - to torture a good human being for being good.

Does this suggest the Bible sometimes wanders into nonsensical tales?

Or can we find any good in the God-Satan plot?

[Talishi]

It is absurd to suppose that borrowed tales, however instructive, are rendered true in the hands of biblical writers.

Naturally, Bible believers hold forth that tales such as the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh are a garbled version of the Noah story we have intact and pristine in the Torah, and not the other way around.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Of course it has a different meaning!

Great! Then we agree on more than one thing. It is not complete plagiarism but there is something new being presented through biblical texts.

So you claim that re-purposed stories have a different meaning than their originals, but these new meanings are true.

I never claimed that. When did I claim that those "new meanings are true"? Please, citation...

I said, in fact, that I make no historical claims or claims about reality. Only claims about the meaning of the text.

Stop putting strawman arguments in my mouth.

This statement is interesting:
Pray
tell
how
recycled stories meanings are more true than the originals.

Pray tell how they are more false.

My point is not so much that they are true, but that your argument has a viable, opposite alternative. One that you have failed to discount (and I believe, for one who is making the case that biblical stories are theft, must discount).

Actually, you've shown such lines are pointless, no amount of pointing at the "Tower of Babylon" children's fable, that the SUMERIANS made up and didn't believe! will show you that the proto-Jews stole it and made it into a hideous story, that is somehow better, and somehow TRUE! Ho-hum.

Woah. I make a point that maybe, just maybe, iteration on a story can improve it. Just as iteration on anything can improve it. Product. Science. Theology. Story. That's it. Again, a solid, empirical basis on which I propose a viable, opposite alternative.

But again, arguments keep being put in my mouth that I'm not trying to make! By yourself and Marco:

Marco quoted:

It is absurd to suppose that borrowed tales, however instructive, are rendered true in the hands of biblical writers.

I never said that. There is no "rendering true" of the borrowed tale. When or where did I say that? FACT CHECKERS!!!

I am at a loss how someone can read tales that were obviously, maybe deliberately copied, and adapted to the OT, and still believe it is a divine work.

I NEVER CLAIMED THAT EITHER! Please, SHOW ME WHERE I SAID IT IS A "DIVINE WORK."

I was, in fact, on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, clear that it is THE WORK OF HUMAN HANDS>

Jesus Christ...

Or in any way valid.

I never claimed that either. I said I am interested in the meaning. Not that it is "valid." Whatever that means. That is a whole other argument.

This is not rocket science people. Let's read what people are actually saying and respond to that.

If one can read the Greek comedy about the flood, how can one then think it is a true and holy story?

If you want to talk about truth, that's a whole other question that I haven't even debated yet. Your argument has been that biblical stories are theft, not that they are true. Those are two different questions.

Stop jumping to refute claims that were never made.

If one can see the Greek creation, fall of angels from the Greek Titans, and so on, why would one think some other people were in somehow contacted directly with the "truth?" They are getting the second hand version, at best.

When you cite "truth" here, is that me or you that you are citing? Because I sure never said it.

Anything?

Yeah, learn to read before responding. All I hear from you is arguments against claims I never made. If you want to have those conversations, sure, but let's be clear about what we're talking about.

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

Sorry, if you are going to agree with TrueScott, you have got to agree with TrueScott, or make your distinct position clear.

As to the rest, seems like you are just waffling and evading. I can't make heads or tales OF your point.

I mean we've been going to-and-for for a few pages, I was willing to give up when you started putting up rabbit holes and deflections, pretty soon those rabbit holes and deflections became the topic of the conversation, particularly denying that you ever made them - rather like the previous post.

I wonder if, like so many other conversations - do you feel like you have won when you have dragged the conversation down a rabbit hole, redefined something incorrectly, then declared victory?

"So it's not a complete plagiarism!"

Ah, but WHAT do you call when someone steals someone else's work to aggrandize themselves?

That's plagiarism.
What? you were thinking I said they stole Ramses works and declared Ra the all-father? I am pretty sure I didn't say that. (Snort.)


Here's what you said:

Sometimes, they took a story and made slight modifications to it - such as the flood story, because it is a good story worth preserving, and in the spirit of the bible. Sometimes, as is the case with Job, they took an earlier, far simpler tale, and produced a revamped, massively ramped-up version of it. Sometimes, as is the case with Paul's letters or Revelation, they created something new entirely.

Paul's uniqueness would have been a fictitious narrative of the chronicles of Dionysus, renamed Jesus. This is conclusion is puzzling, just to be polite.

As to the rest.
A false story about: creation, an epic flood describing terracide, a god empowered psychopath, a tower of arrogance, and the hits just keep on coming, is worth preserving in the spirit of the Bible.

I am sorry, you'd be right if HP Lovecraft wrote the Bible, but otherwise, that interpretation is disturbing.

Is that the interpretation you're going for?

I am afraid your conclusions do not appear logical or humane to me: This might be a good place to start: Make me understand how copied atrocities are in the spirit of the Bible.

Here, I am guessing at the point you were trying to make, because I certainly can't understand what you are trying to say based on what you said. It's non-sequitur, at best. Help me out.

[marco]

Great! Then we agree on more than one thing. It is not complete plagiarism but there is something new being presented through biblical texts.

I am sorry to bring disappointment, theophile, but you are agreeing with Willum, not with me.

Your divine anger, directed at poor Marco, addresses nothing I have written. It wasn't me what did it, but Willum. Inadvertently it may illustrate the injustice done to Job. Clever.

[tokutter]

I concur with Truscott:

I'm not talking about changing words on the surface. I'm talking about the meaning of the texts.

I'm saying that Genesis 1-3 has a different meaning than the Enuma Elish. Not that it just changed some words on the surface.

This isn't that hard if you think of it as a "product" being sold.

I look at the competitions mini van...........hmmmmmm....how about I add more cup holders and a beefier engine.

Waaaalaaaaah........I'm outselling the other guy...and on and on and on.

I don't have the depth of knowledge most have on this forum....but didn't Paul make it easier to be a Christian (hey!!! you don't have to hack away at you "manhood" over here on "our team")...............and it just keeps getting easier it seems......20 years from now all Christian churches will be having same sex marriages....................tweak.......tweak .......tweak.......tweak the product.......keep selling...keep promoting.......tweak......tweak.....tweak.



.

[ttruscott]

We learn that Satan is willing to monster the most holy old man in humanity just because GOD thinks he is blameless and upright! The depth of his evil is exposed to the whole world.

One calls to mind such things as God is my rock, my strength, none shall I fear; the righteous walk in God's favour... Alas, not so. God permits the very, very righteous to be brutalised.

Yes indeed. My personal take on this from my pce perspective is that Job probably accepted this job as Job before his conception. If so, it was a tough job and I will shake his hand when we meet.

If blamelessness isn't good enough, we need a new God, one endowed with reason

Blameless is not full blamelessness but only blameless on earth. Since no one is saved by our good deeds on earth, a blameless life has no value for a sinner in relation to his salvation.

Where is the unreason to not accepting our good deeds as part of salvation IF THOSE GOOD DEEDS HAVE NO SALVATORY EFFECT?? The evil within the good deeds of men is hidden but it is there. Christian doctrine is pretty well agreed only GOD's grace has salvatory power without which a lack of bad deeds in meaningless.

...and the ability to see that when one creates imperfection one cannot demand perfection.

Who created imperfection? What do you base this conclusion upon? If you are referring to the often repeated fact that we are evil which seems to suggest to many people it must have been an imperfection in our creation that allowed us to become evil then I will rebut with the often repeated claim that giving us a will free to choose to become perfectly righteous or to choose to become perfectly eternally evil was HIS crowning achievement because by our free will HE allowed us to create all love, all righteous holiness and all marriage within HIS creation which HE can share with us forever in the heavenly state.

No free will = no allowance of evil and no love, no righteousness, no holiness and especially no true marriage for a forced marriage is a rape, not true marriage at all.

[marco]

My personal take on this from my pce perspective is that Job probably accepted this job as Job before his conception. If so, it was a tough job and I will shake his hand when we meet.

In my world this makes little sense.

The evil within the good deeds of men is hidden but it is there. Christian doctrine is pretty well agreed only GOD's grace has salvatory power without which a lack of bad deeds in meaningless.

Again, in my world the good deed is defined by its intention. There is no culpability for what was never intended.

No free will = no allowance of evil and no love, no righteousness, no holiness and especially no true marriage for a forced marriage is a rape, not true marriage at all.

I have seen people arguing in this convoluted way and it is intriguing. Basically God is responsible for what he planned. His toy soldiers did not come with the ability to create disasters and tragedies. He made these things. The evil that results from wrong decisions was made by God - or at least the being in that designated role.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Yes, my mistake, I knew it was Willum I was responding to. But didn't initiate the post correctly.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 45 by tokutter]

This isn't that hard if you think of it as a "product" being sold.

That's why I called it an iterative process, just like product development. I fully agree.

As you evolve the product though, it changes. It becomes something different (contrary to what Willum wants to accept). Sure, original kernel may exist. Inspiration may be taken from elsewhere, but it is a highly creative process.

Where I might differ from you is that it is not just a promotion and sales game.

Some people genuinely believe in their products and want to make them better. In this case, since dealing with a literary product, this means more artfully conveying the message. Or having a more refined message. Not just to drive "belief" metrics but for the same reason anyone pursues truth and knowledge and wants to share it with the world.

[marco]

Some people genuinely believe in their products and want to make them better. In this case, since dealing with a literary product, this means more artfully conveying the message. Or having a more refined message. Not just to drive "belief" metrics but for the same reason anyone pursues truth and knowledge and wants to share it with the world.

You have perfectly conveyed what modern minds do with an old message: they read sophistication into it. As it becomes harder to accept old stories, in the light of advancement, they are retold as metaphors and old discrepancies are ingeniously explained away.

The story of Job, like the story of the Beatles, is raised from a simple tale to the stuff of academic research. Where there's a will there's a PhD.