Gods will vs mans free will

[Magenta]

Yep, must be across the pond from you Magenta, posted the last comment 11.23 pm my time. Been a bit under the weather but perking up today and it's lovely to chat with you again, we seem to have a lot in common.

Semi-retired? Thought you might be 40ish but sounds like you might be closer to my age, i'm actually much happier being older, was a real worrier when younger. Much more confident than i was when young too, think we get really cosy being ourselves in late life. Will still take it easy this eve, don't want to make myself poorly again but sure i'll be back to usual in a day or two. Blessings and hugs to you for now and see you soon

It struck me with some force a year ago summer time that I was almost seventy. Heh, it sounded so old! I was not yet 69 then, but that has come and gone, now, too. I was laid off with the COVID closures mid March of '20, after turning 65 and getting a cancer diagnosis, went through all my treatments: chemo, radiation, surgery, more chemo, another surgery, months and months and months of wound care, then a hernia repair... when my boss called me back to work! I said yes because otherwise I sit in my chair tinkering with my designs and am not nearly active enough... Hugs to you too and I hope you are feeling much better very soon! Have a cuppa with lemon and honey...

 

[Magenta]

Since Job has come up again, I think it's only right that I dispel the argument by Mr,. PT that Job cannot be trusted because Job did not speak rightly of God. And since Job cannot be trusted, then that means the entire book must be suspect in terms of its veracity. The keynote passage that forms the basis to PT's complaint against Job is this one:

Job 38:1-2
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
NIV

In other words, Job had no real spiritual knowledge -- according to PT. But is this the right conclusion to draw from this one passage? Or did PT lift this verse out of context, as he is prone to do? Let's see for ourselves. God again speaks to Job:

Job 40:1-8
40:1 The LORD said to Job:

2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"

3 Then Job answered the LORD:

4 "I am unworthy — how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer —
twice, but I will say no more."

6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
NIV

The bolded verse above provides us with a big clue as to how Job specifically "darkened God's counsel with words without knowledge".
Job's sin, throughout all his discourses, was that he waxed self-righteous, thinking that he did not deserve what God brought upon him. Job wanted to confront God with his complaint precisely to plead his own righteousness before his Creator! But this sin on Job's part doesn't mean that everything Job spoke throughout the book was in error. And now I will prove this point. First Job acknowledges his sin!

Job 42:1-6
42:1 Then Job replied to the LORD:

2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3[You asked,] 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

4["You said,] 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
NIV

It's extremely noteworthy that, unlike some here on this thread, Job ultimately acknowledged and recognized that all the troubles that came upon him were ultimately part of God's plan for his life. Job did not blame the devil for his afflictions! Job clearly understood who is running the show on the world stage.

Secondly, Job humbled himself by acknowledging and recognizing his own sin -- his sin of self-righteousness (v. 6). This was the specific sin that "darkened the counsel of God". Job thought of himself as being unworthy of the troubles that God had planned for him.

But then God vindicates Job's words twice over before his three friends -- words that had noting to do with Job's opinion about his own righteousness.

Job 42:7, 8c
7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has....:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
NIV

It's also noteworthy that three times in this passage (vv. 7-9) God refers to Job as his "servant". It's also important to note that God considered Job to be his servant from the very beginning (1:8; 2:3) and Job was still considered to be his servant at the end of his trials. This could hardly be true if Job was this stupid, foolish man who had virtually no true spiritual knowledge of God, which is how PT portrays Job. He implicitly characterized Job as such because Job did not speak in flattering terms about the human race, so Mr. PT lifts a passage totally out of context (38:1-2) in order to discredit virtually everything God's servant said.

Job 38:36 - Job 32:8 - Job 12:13
Thank you for the inspiration! I hope you and yours are well .

 

[Rufus]

It struck me with some force a year ago summer time that I was almost seventy. Heh, it sounded so old! I was not yet 69 then, but that has come and gone, now, too. I was laid off with the COVID closures mid March of '20, after turning 65 and getting a cancer diagnosis, went through all my treatments: chemo, radiation, surgery, more chemo, another surgery, months and months and months of wound care, then a hernia repair... when my boss called me back to work! I said yes because otherwise I sit in my chair tinkering with my designs and am not nearly active enough... Hugs to you too and I hope you are feeling much better very soon! Have a cuppa with lemon and honey...

Thanks so much for sharing some of your personal life with us. I have to say: You're one interesting saint! Will be keeping you in my prayers.

 

[Magenta]

Thanks so much for sharing some of your personal life with us. I have to say: You're one interesting saint! Will be keeping you in my prayers.

Thank you Rufus and I do appreciate that...

 

[PaulThomson]

Since Job has come up again, I think it's only right that I dispel the argument by Mr,. PT that Job cannot be trusted because Job did not speak rightly of God. And since Job cannot be trusted, then that means the entire book must be suspect in terms of its veracity. The keynote passage that forms the basis to PT's complaint against Job is this one:

Job 38:1-2
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
NIV

In other words, Job had no real spiritual knowledge -- according to PT. But is this the right conclusion to draw from this one passage? Or did PT lift this verse out of context, as he is prone to do? Let's see for ourselves.

I did not say that Job spoke no truth anywhere in the book. After He was confronted by God, He came to his senses and acknowledged the truth. But before that He was speaking a mixture of flesh and tradition, which it is not wise to assume is spiritually correct.

God again speaks to Job:

Job 40:1-8
40:1 The LORD said to Job:

2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"

3 Then Job answered the LORD:

4 "I am unworthy — how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer —
twice, but I will say no more."

6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
NIV

The bolded verse above provides us with a big clue as to how Job specifically "darkened God's counsel with words without knowledge".
Job's sin, throughout all his discourses, was that he waxed self-righteous, thinking that he did not deserve what God brought upon him. Job wanted to confront God with his complaint precisely to plead his own righteousness before his Creator! But this sin on Job's part doesn't mean that everything Job spoke throughout the book was in error. And now I will prove this point. First Job acknowledges his sin!

No. Not everything Job says in the book is in error. What Job said AFTER his direct encounter with God was commended by God as spoken rightly. But nothing Job said before that is reliable and worthy of our building doctrine on it. During his complaining, he accused God of being the cause of his suffering, discrediting God's justice and condemning God to justify himself.

Job 42:1-6
42:1 Then Job replied to the LORD:

2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3[You asked,] 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

4["You said,] 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
NIV

It's extremely noteworthy that, unlike some here on this thread, Job ultimately acknowledged and recognized that all the troubles that came upon him were ultimately part of God's plan for his life. Job did not blame the devil for his afflictions! Job clearly understood who is running the show on the world stage.

Job does not say after his encounter with God that God does all things, including afflicting Job. Job is responding to the list of things God asks Job whether he can do, which Job could not do, but which God can to. God can do all things God wants to do. God did not want to afflict Job, and HE didn't do it. Nevertheless He did allow Satan to afflict Job.

Secondly, Job humbled himself by acknowledging and recognizing his own sin -- his sin of self-righteousness (v. 6). This was the specific sin that "darkened the counsel of God". Job thought of himself as being unworthy of the troubles that God had planned for him.

But then God vindicates Job's words twice over before his three friends -- words that had noting to do with Job's opinion about his own righteousness.

Job 42:7, 8c
7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has....:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
NIV

God vindicatingbJob after his repentance does not authenticqte the truth of Job's words before his repentance.

It's also noteworthy that three times in this passage (vv. 7-9) God refers to Job as his "servant". It's also important to note that God considered Job to be his servant from the very beginning (1:8; 2:3) and Job was still considered to be his servant at the end of his trials. This could hardly be true if Job was this stupid, foolish man who had virtually no true spiritual knowledge of God, which is how PT portrays Job. He implicitly characterized Job as such because Job did not speak in flattering terms about the human race, so Mr. PT lifts a passage totally out of context (38:1-2) in order to discredit virtually everything God's servant said.

God called Cyrus His servant. Job had done a lot of godly works out of the fear of God as his Lord. Certainly Job was God's "servant". But being a servant of God does not make one infallible in one's theology. If that were the case, there could be only ONE servant of God on the planet at any one time. The context warns us not to take anything Job said during his complaining as correct, unless it corresponds with what God had said ti Jon when he confronted him. So, you snatching at a straw from Job's complaining mouth to support your LOUPI Doctrines of Grease, is a silly thing to do and is an act of desperation.

 

[PaulThomson]

Job was brought to whose attention by whom?

You are assuming that Satan had not noticed Job, and God's question was God putting Satan's focus onto Job. However, another possibility is that God was well aware that Satan had been obsessed with Job, and had been looking for some way to get through the hedge of protection God had erected around Job and his family because of his godly lifestyle. It is possible that God's question was intended to point out to Satan that God was well aware of what Satan had unsuccessfully been scheming to do to Job. So, your presuppositions in this case may be amiss.

 

[Lafftur]

Yes, I believe that you are right, in that, those that Christ died for on the cross have eternal and everlasting life in heaven, but that was God's choice, and not our choice.

Choosing life here on earth is a choice that is made by only those that have been born again.

Yes, it is God’s choice to save us or not to save us…

God has chosen to save all of us but…

He will not save us unless we also choose Him (Jesus Christ) as Savior Lord and King…

God is Love… He loves us and desires us to love Him too. However, love MUST have a choice. If there is NO CHOICE then, there is NO LOVE.

 

[JohnRH]

Yes, it is God’s choice to save us or not to save us…

God has chosen to save all of us but…

He will not save us unless we also choose Him (Jesus Christ) as Savior Lord and King…

God is Love… He loves us and desires us to love Him too. However, love MUST have a choice. If there is NO CHOICE then, there is NO LOVE.

Amen.

 

[Rufus]

I did not say that Job spoke no truth anywhere in the book. After He was confronted by God, He came to his senses and acknowledged the truth. But before that He was speaking a mixture of flesh and tradition, which it is not wise to assume is spiritually correct.



No. Not everything Job says in the book is in error. What Job said AFTER his direct encounter with God was commended by God as spoken rightly. But nothing Job said before that is reliable and worthy of our building doctrine on it. During his complaining, he accused God of being the cause of his suffering, discrediting God's justice and condemning God to justify himself.



Job does not say after his encounter with God that God does all things, including afflicting Job. Job is responding to the list of things God asks Job whether he can do, which Job could not do, but which God can to. God can do all things God wants to do. God did not want to afflict Job, and HE didn't do it. Nevertheless He did allow Satan to afflict Job.



God vindicatingbJob after his repentance does not authenticqte the truth of Job's words before his repentance.



God called Cyrus His servant. Job had done a lot of godly works out of the fear of God as his Lord. Certainly Job was God's "servant". But being a servant of God does not make one infallible in one's theology. If that were the case, there could be only ONE servant of God on the planet at any one time. The context warns us not to take anything Job said during his complaining as correct, unless it corresponds with what God had said ti Jon when he confronted him. So, you snatching at a straw from Job's complaining mouth to support your LOUPI Doctrines of Grease, is a silly thing to do and is an act of desperation.

Well, I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me. Job's words without knowledge was precisely what I said earlier and you now agree with: Job was self-righteous in his own eyes, feeling totally unworthy of his troubles...AND because of this he wanted to confront God about the justice of it all! (Again, see Job 40:8). Job did bring into question God's justice.

However, 40:2 should be understood in its immediate context. Job explains what he means in the following verses. Job is not referring to God's plan for creation, rather Job is acknowledging that God had a plan for Job that included his afflictions. And Job admits that he spoke wrongly about God and his justice out of his desire to justify himself. But all this is a very far cry from discrediting the entire book of Job (which by the way was inspired by God!), which essentially is what you want to do because you don't like Job's brand of anthropology. And you continue to overlook the fact that God did tell Job's three friends that they did not speak rightly of Him "the way my servant Job has". Obviously, God did not view Job in the same way you do.

As far as Job's servanthood is concerned, he was a believing servant; whereas Cyrus was not. Cyrus is called a "servant" of God because this godless king actually did serve God's purpose in terms of freeing Israel from their captivity. But Cyrus never acknowledged God. Job, conversely, was a godly saint who feared God and shunned evil. But now you're going to put him and Cyrus on equal footing in terms of their service to God? What Cyrus proves is that God can and does work through anyone (regardless of spiritual status) to accomplish his purpose. God demonstrated this truth through Balaam, as well!

 

[HeIsHere]

Here are a few scripture that point me to man being fallen from birth.
Genesis 8:21
And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Romans 5:19
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

1 John 1:10
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

So now let us see the case for us not being sinners from birth, from you. Please.

Pulling verses out of context does not really make a case.
Maybe you could choose your strongest verse in support of your theory and exegete it.
You theory is born or conceived with an inherent sin nature/original sin correct?

 

[Rufus]

You are assuming that Satan had not noticed Job, and God's question was God putting Satan's focus onto Job. However, another possibility is that God was well aware that Satan had been obsessed with Job, and had been looking for some way to get through the hedge of protection God had erected around Job and his family because of his godly lifestyle. It is possible that God's question was intended to point out to Satan that God was well aware of what Satan had unsuccessfully been scheming to do to Job. So, your presuppositions in this case may be amiss.

And you're assuming that God really didn't call Job to Satan's attention, so now you're all set to perform magical feats of eisegesis?

And pray tell, what was God's intention behind this:

Job 1:8-12
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
NIV

Would Satan been able to afflict Job apart from seeking God's permission (v.11)? Or was the devil just being courteous to God and deferring to his Lordship?

And why did God grant Satan his request (v.12)? Why did God suddenly lift his protective hedge from around Job (vv. 9-10)?

 

[Rufus]

Pulling verses out of context does not really make a case.
Maybe you could choose your strongest verse in support of your theory and exegete it.
You theory is born or conceived with an inherent sin nature/original sin correct?

Well...how 'bout this for a novel idea: Instead of summarily dismissing Jimbone's verses on your theory that they were all lifted out of context, why don't you choose a few of his verses and exegete them for us? This would be your opportunity to advance your criticism from a theoretical state to a factual one. And you might actually convince someone that your theology is biblical.

 

[HeIsHere]

Well...how 'bout this for a novel idea: Instead of summarily dismissing Jimbone's verses on your theory that they were all lifted out of context, why don't you choose a few of his verses and exegete them for us? This would be your opportunity to advance your criticism from a theoretical state to a factual one. And you might actually convince someone that your theology is biblical.

If a "concept" exists he can prove it.
I cannot prove what does not exist.

 

[Rufus]

Yes, it is God’s choice to save us or not to save us…

God has chosen to save all of us but…

He will not save us unless we also choose Him (Jesus Christ) as Savior Lord and King…

God is Love… He loves us and desires us to love Him too. However, love MUST have a choice. If there is NO CHOICE then, there is NO LOVE.

But what happens in the real world when we run into people who are incompetent to make choices on their own? Don't family members or close friends usually step up to help such helpless people out of their unenviable situation? And when such people do help, are they not manifesting love with their compassionate choice? Isn't it loving to help those who are incapable of making right, rational choices?

The ancient descendants of Abraham in Egypt for the most part had no love for God; for over the four centuries that they had been held captive by various Pharaohs, they evidently turned as pagan as their captors and became idol worshipers. Yet, God loved them and rescued them in spite of their sins and lack of love for him. God took that initiative on behalf of his covenant people -- a people who, again for the most part, had no love for God.

Yes, God greatly desires that his love be reciprocated but what if that could only be accomplished by the power of God's sovereign, effectual grace? Look what Paul wrote for example:

1 Tim 1:14
14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
NIV

And this is the same apostle who also wrote:

Rom 5:-5
5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
NIV

Or as John put it:

1 John 4:19
19 We love because he first loved us.
NIV

What if fallen mankind, who has no heart for God, can only love God through the gift of his Holy Spirit who himself is love? And when God gives this precious gift to his chosen people who are powerless to love him due to their evil hearts, should we unjustly accuse God of forcing us to love him? Or accuse Him of making mere robots out of us? Or should we be eternally thankful that he has given his people new hearts that enables us to make those right, loving choices?

Just my 2-1/2 cents worth...

 

[Rufus]

If a "concept" exists he can prove it.
I cannot prove what does not exist.

In other words you cannot support your unsubstantiated accusation that Jimbone quoted all those out of context? You don't have to prove that Mr. JB's "concept" exists; rather, you need to prove that your opposing concept does! And the way you do that is by exegeting those passages JB quoted.

 

[HeIsHere]

In other words you cannot support your unsubstantiated accusation that Jimbone quoted all those out of context? You don't have to prove that Mr. JB's "concept" exists; rather, you need to prove that your opposing concept does! And the way you do that is by exegeting those passages JB quoted.

There is no accusation that is the very basics of hermeneutics for all text not just scripture.
Seems so common place now a days to just juxtapose one scripture against another and may the bigger font win.

He can elaborate if he so chooses, I see no point until he makes a case for why he thinks the specific scripture supports his interpretation.

 

[Rufus]

There is no accusation that is the very basics of hermeneutics for all text not just scripture.
Seems so common place now a days to just juxtapose one scripture against another and may the bigger font win.

He can elaborate if he so chooses, I see no point until he makes a case for why he thinks the specific scripture supports his interpretation.

But you did accuse him without offering any evidence. And since you, evidently, deem yourself to be incapable of supporting your own opposing position to JB's by using his proof texts, then I can only conclude you're chasing the wind. You're just like PT: He doesn't like Job's anthropology, so he uses one text of scripture to discredit virtually everything Job said. Likewise, you don't like the scriptures JB posted, so you discredit him with the accusation of quoting them all out of context, which clearly implies that YOU know the proper interpretation because you have the context of all those verses nailed down, don't you?

 

[HeIsHere]

But you did accuse him without offering any evidence. And since you, evidently, deem yourself to be incapable of supporting your own opposing position to JB's by using his proof texts, then I can only conclude you're chasing the wind. You're just like PT: He doesn't like Job's anthropology, so he uses one text of scripture to discredit virtually everything Job said. Likewise, you don't like the scriptures JB posted, so you discredit him with the accusation of quoting them all out of context, which clearly implies that YOU know the proper interpretation because you have the context of all those verses nailed down, don't you?

 

[Rufus]

I'll take that as a resounding, "NO" answer to the last question I asked in my last post to you.

 

[PaulThomson]

Well, I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me. Job's words without knowledge was precisely what I said earlier and you now agree with: Job was self-righteous in his own eyes, feeling totally unworthy of his troubles...AND because of this he wanted to confront God about the justice of it all! (Again, see Job 40:8). Job did bring into question God's justice.

However, 40:2 should be understood in its immediate context. Job explains what he means in the following verses. Job is not referring to God's plan for creation, rather Job is acknowledging that God had a plan for Job that included his afflictions. And Job admits that he spoke wrongly about God and his justice out of his desire to justify himself. But all this is a very far cry from discrediting the entire book of Job (which by the way was inspired by God!), which essentially is what you want to do because you don't like Job's brand of anthropology. And you continue to overlook the fact that God did tell Job's three friends that they did not speak rightly of Him "the way my servant Job has". Obviously, God did not view Job in the same way you do.

As far as Job's servanthood is concerned, he was a believing servant; whereas Cyrus was not. Cyrus is called a "servant" of God because this godless king actually did serve God's purpose in terms of freeing Israel from their captivity. But Cyrus never acknowledged God. Job, conversely, was a godly saint who feared God and shunned evil. But now you're going to put him and Cyrus on equal footing in terms of their service to God? What Cyrus proves is that God can and does work through anyone (regardless of spiritual status) to accomplish his purpose. God demonstrated this truth through Balaam, as well!

You're ignoring chapter 38 and 39, 71 verses of immediate context, which catalogues the extensive ignorance and impotence of Job on many issues, to which God then invites Job to respond in v. 40:1 saying: "Shall he that contends with the Almighty instruct Him? He that reproves God, let Him answer it." What is the "it" referred to here? It can only be the 71 verses where God asks Job a series of questions.

38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge. Gird up now your lions like a man. For I will demand of you, and you answer Me.
Where were you...? Who has laid...? Or who has stretched out...? Who has laid...? Or who has stretched...? Whereupon are...? Or who laid...? Or who shut up ...? Have you commanded... and caused....? Have you entered...? Or have you walked...? etc. etc. Question after question.

But you ignore all of these questions which God has said in 38:1 that He will ask and will demand Job answer. Instead you frame the response of Job by taking his two verse response, ""Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer You? I will lay my hand on my mouth. Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; yes twice, but I will proceed no further," and reading into it a confession of LOUPI Omni-faceted Imperfection.

However, God continues on to ask Job questions, to plumb the depths of his ignorance and impotence, not the depth of his moral degeneration.

40: 6 Then answered the LORD to Job out of the whirlwind, and said, "Gird up your loins now like a man. I will demand of you, and you declare to me. Will you also disannul (i.e. absolutely deny) My justice? Will you condemn Me that you may be righteous? Have you an arm like God? Or can you thunder with a voice like Him? Deck yourself now in with majesty and excellency, and array yoiurself with glory and beauty... And continues on for another 48 verses challenging Job's ignorance and impotence.

So the immediate context of the 71 preceding verses and the 58 subsequent verses are God challenging Job's ignorance and impotence, you ignore and latch on to a few words in Job's embarrassed response, as if those are what God was aiming to elicit from Job, and they prove all men suffer from Omni-faceted Imperfection. You are clutching at what look to you like two LOUPI straws in a sea of verses that are about Job's folly in judging God from Job's position of abject ignorance and impotence.

Job was commended for having spoken rightly AFTER his humble confession of chapters 40 and 42. That in no way validates the ignorant professions he had been spouting PREVIOUSLY in chapters 3-31, for which God reproved him in chapters 38-41, and which you are leaning on because they sound compatible with LOUPI.