Re: [asa] On Job

Vernon should take more care when reading 2Tim.3.16 and not read into
it more than it says. Not only is it vague about what is meant by
scripture and inspiration of God, but all it says is that it is
*profitable* (another vague term) for certain particular things relating
to righteous behaviour, and that has to be seen in the light of the
other instruction that Timothy is being given in this chapter. This
passage is saying nothing about what is history and what is not history.
I am close to my limit for messages to this forum in one day!
Don N

> John Burgeson writes, " The most reasonable interpretation of Job is
> that it is a morality play. To consider it as sober factual history is
> ludicrous. Sort of like believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND."
>
> Michael concurs: "Absolutely , there is no historicity in Job..."
>
> But as Phil points out: "The belief that Job actually existed and the
> historicity of Job is authentic are common beliefs among Southern
> Baptist ministers, as well as church members."
>
> Clearly, I am one with the Southern Baptists in believing the Apostle
> Paul's teaching, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
> in righteousness..." (2Tm.3:16). How then can I accept the bland
> assurances of John and Michael that Job is more a character of fairy
> tale than of sober history? And while I can understand why they make
> such claims - whence their authority?
>
> The Apostle's statement surely implies that the J-C Scriptures
> establish _a standard_ - a _source of light_ against which that which
> is _true_ may be established, and that which is _false_, rejected. If
> the Book of Job is, as John believes, an 'Alice in Wonderland'
> production, how can it properly fulfil this function?
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol or John Burgeson"
> <burgytwo@juno.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:37 PM
> Subject: [asa] On Job
>
>
>> Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
>> and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their =
>> account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual consequences?
>> =
>> And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events, what might we
>> =
>> usefully glean from them?"
>>
>> The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a morality play.
>> To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort of like
>> believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
>>
>> Burgy
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 4 19:37:54 2006