Why the story of Job occurred in the 6th century.

[tttallison]

Interesting, but speculative, and if I had to guess, I'd say incorrect.

I agree with the posters that have said Job predates Moses and the Law.
Also, it seems unlikely to me that the writer, if he were contemporary to Jeremiah, wouldn't have simply identified Job as an Edomite.

Jeremiah did not identify Job as an Edomite. Jeremiah was merely the writer and not the author.

Eliphaz was a Temanite, a descendant of Teman, who was the grandson of Esau and a duke of Edom

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It was the blue letter bible which referenced the Gesenius. It connected buzite meaning from buz between Elihu's father and Ezekiel's father.

בּוּזִי Strongs 940

בּוּזִי Strongs 941

They're not the same words in Ezekiel and Job. In Ezekiel it's the proper name Buzi. In Job it's haBuzi, or the Buzi, ie an inhabitant of a region.

Also, Ezekiel's father, Buzi, was a priest, ie, the tribe of Aaron. It's inconceivable that Elihu, the Buzi, was of the lineage of Aaron

 

[PennEd]

Jeremiah did not identify Job as an Edomite. Jeremiah was merely the writer and not the author.

I did not identify Jeremiah as the author.

Eliphaz was a Temanite, a descendant of Teman, who was the grandson of Esau and a duke of Edom

Yep, he was.

That in no way makes Job an Edomite.

The AUTHOR could have simply referred to Job as an Edomite if he were one.

 

[posthuman]

If Job was an Edomite, as was Eliphaz, they would not mention a law that they were not under.

if they worship the God of the Hebrews in the days of the Law they would be proselyte.

so is your suggestion that the God of the book of Job isn't the same God of Jacob?

 

[tttallison]

They're not the same words in Ezekiel and Job. In Ezekiel it's the proper name Buzi. In Job it's haBuzi, or the Buzi, ie an inhabitant of a region.

Also, Ezekiel's father, Buzi, was a priest, ie, the tribe of Aaron. It's inconceivable that Elihu, the Buzi, was of the lineage of Aaron

You are right they are not the same word. H941 Buzi is the father of Ezekiel. H940 Buzite means sprung from Buzi. Elihu is a descendant of Buzi. Maybe Ezekiel is an uncle to Elihu?

Why is it impossible that Elihu might be in the lineage of Aaron?

Elihu said, Job 33:6 Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: Didn't Aaron stand in the place of God for the Israelites?

 

[tttallison]

I did not identify Jeremiah as the author.

Sorry about that. The confusion was mine. I was thinking of the book of Lamentations instead of Job.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Why is it impossible that Elihu might be in the lineage of Aaron?

Elihu said, Job 33:6 Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: Didn't Aaron stand in the place of God for the Israelites?

Aaronic priests would have had nothing to do with outsiders. It's inconceivable that they would have interceded on gentiles' behalf, gone to another country to be around them, or even mingled with them. They would have never defiled themselves in that way

 

[tttallison]

Yep, he was.

That in no way makes Job an Edomite.

The AUTHOR could have simply referred to Job as an Edomite if he were one.

No, it does not make Job an Edomite, but perhaps it is one of those small puzzle pieces that when all pieced together brings clarity.

Perhaps the author wants to see if we care enough to put a little effort out.

You said, Eliphaz was a Temanite. That makes the book no earlier than the 17th century, and possible as late as the 6th century.

 

[tttallison]

if they worship the God of the Hebrews in the days of the Law they would be proselyte.

so is your suggestion that the God of the book of Job isn't the same God of Jacob?

Nebuchadnezzar was a servant of God, but he wasn't under the law. Cyrus was the Anointed of God, but he wasn't under the law.

 

[tttallison]

Aaronic priests would have had nothing to do with outsiders. It's inconceivable that they would have interceded on gentiles' behalf, gone to another country to be around them, or even mingled with them. They would have never defiled themselves in that way

Elihu was also from the family line of Judah. Peter wasn't a priest, but he would not have anything to do with outsiders. But when Peter was sent to an outsider by God, what did he do?

 

[posthuman]

Nebuchadnezzar was a servant of God, but he wasn't under the law. Cyrus was the Anointed of God, but he wasn't under the law.

there is no record of the king of babylon having prolonged discussions about sin, righteousness, and the requirements of God from man.
but Nebuchadnezzar does not give indication that he is saved until the end of Daniel 4, when he recognizes that YHVH is the only true God. before this while he recognizes God, there are indications in the narrative that he remains pantheist. and from after the point of his declaration? we hear nothing, his story is over - so it remains open that he very much may have a from this time become proselyte.

Cyrus is only the appointed hand of God in judgement. God sets kings in place and removes them.

Job is altogether different - here God is not called the. God of Jacob or of the Hebrews or any specific Jew: He is called God, just as in the time of Abraham. And there is deep, lengthy discussion of His dealings with men, unlike with the few people in the OT after the Law of which we have a narrative of their having come to know Him.

it is very strange for 40 chapters devoted to such discussion to never once mention Israel or the Law if it is in the time of Jeremiah, but entirely in keeping if it is at the time of Melchizedek and Abraham, or even previous.

 

[tttallison]

there is no record of the king of babylon having prolonged discussions about sin, righteousness, and the requirements of God from man.
but Nebuchadnezzar does not give indication that he is saved until the end of Daniel 4, when he recognizes that YHVH is the only true God. before this while he recognizes God, there are indications in the narrative that he remains pantheist. and from after the point of his declaration? we hear nothing, his story is over - so it remains open that he very much may have a from this time become proselyte.

Cyrus is only the appointed hand of God in judgement. God sets kings in place and removes them.

Job is altogether different - here God is not called the. God of Jacob or of the Hebrews or any specific Jew: He is called God, just as in the time of Abraham. And there is deep, lengthy discussion of His dealings with men, unlike with the few people in the OT after the Law of which we have a narrative of their having come to know Him.

it is very strange for 40 chapters devoted to such discussion to never once mention Israel or the Law if it is in the time of Jeremiah, but entirely in keeping if it is at the time of Melchizedek and Abraham, or even previous.

The law was not given to the Edomites. The Jews were their enemies.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Is it strange to have a whole book of the bible and never to mention God?

 

[posthuman]

The law was not given to the Edomites. The Jews were their enemies.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Is it strange to have a whole book of the bible and never to mention God?

the Law was not till hundreds of years after Abraham.

it's pretty strange for someone to worship the God of Jacob and talk about doing so for 40 chapters, yet pretend the whole time there is no such thing as Jacob... if it is in a time period after Jacob. but not at all, if it is long before Jacob was even born.

these facts, the language it is written in, the and many other details of the internal evidence of Job fit a time period around 2100-1900 BC way better than 600 BC

 

[posthuman]

God does not put idle words in his letters to us. The bible is like a very complex puzzle with thousands of very small pieces. The pieces are scattered within the 66 books. The bible is its own dictionary. Without putting all the pieces together we will never have a clear picture.

God says those that seek me early shall find me. Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

In the first clause of the very first verse of the book of Job we are presented with two major clues for understanding who Job is.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz,----------------.

The only places the name of Uz is mentioned in the Bible is in the book job, and then by Jeremiah twice. Jeremiah mentions the land of Uz in Jeremiah 25:20 and in Lamentations 4:21. The only group mentioned in respect to the land of Uz is the Edomites.

Job 1:1 -----------------------------------------, whose name was Job;--------------------------------.

Job’s name means hated. God said Esau have I hated.

It is my opinion that Job represents the Edomites as Jacob represents the Israelites. Job represents the twin who lost his birthright but obtained a blessing.

List of clues that point to Job representing the Edomites.​

• Job was the greatest man in the Land of the Edomites.
• Job's best friend was an Edomite.
• Job's name means hated.
• Job received the blessing of Esau.
• Job received the cup of woe that was promised to the daughter of Edom.

Job 34:29 When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only:

The cup of woe was first received by Israel in the 6th century at the destruction of Jerusalem. The cup of woe was then to be passed to the daughter of Edom.

this is honestly a really flimsy argument.

you might as well claim Revelation was written in the 6th century BC since it has to do with Israel and prophecies made around that time.

 

[posthuman]

Job 34:29 When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only:

The cup of woe was first received by Israel in the 6th century at the destruction of Jerusalem. The cup of woe was then to be passed to the daughter of Edom.

the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Israel was a judgement for sin.
the troubles of Job are emphatically not in judgement of Job's sin. that's kind of the whole theme; dunno if you've read it?

so, this is a very flimsy argument on your part, and has essentially no weight.
just because one person has woe doesn't make him the object of every prophecy concerning woe.

 

[posthuman]

Job's name means hated.

from what i am reading, that is inaccurate.

Job may mean 'water carrier' or, stretching the theme, 'he who weeps'
it is also related to 'father' and the stem for 'persecuted' or 'one with whom there is enmity'

even 'enmity' is not equivalent to 'hated'

looking into your claim, it's immediately apparent that there difficulty in understanding Job's name. just like the whole book - which is written in either a very ancient form or proto-Hebrew mixed with Aramaic, or is intentionally written in an archaic style mixing Aramaic and Hebrew, or is perhaps an incomplete translation from an ancient Aramaic original into Hebrew, the language is not quite like normal Hebrew, and difficult to translate -- same case with the name Job. it is similar to Hebrew words, but it is not a Hebrew word.

 

[posthuman]

from what i am reading, that is inaccurate.

Job may mean 'water carrier' or, stretching the theme, 'he who weeps'
it is also related to 'father' and the stem for 'persecuted' or 'one with whom there is enmity'

even 'enmity' is not equivalent to 'hated'

looking into your claim, it's immediately apparent that there difficulty in understanding Job's name. just like the whole book - which is written in either a very ancient form or proto-Hebrew mixed with Aramaic, or is intentionally written in an archaic style mixing Aramaic and Hebrew, or is perhaps an incomplete translation from an ancient Aramaic original into Hebrew, the language is not quite like normal Hebrew, and difficult to translate -- same case with the name Job. it is similar to Hebrew words, but it is not a Hebrew word.

The noun איבה ('eba), meaning enmity occurs a mere four times in the Bible, but perhaps most notably in God's decree to the serpent: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel" (Genesis 3:15). This implies that as long as there is enmity in the world, the head of the snake is bound to the heel of man, and the two might even be thought of as occupying the same space, or the same symbol: that of the moon. If our name Job indeed comes from the word for enmity, it should be noted that from the word for heel, namely עקב ('aqeb) comes the name Jacob. From the word for seed, namely זרע (zara'), comes the name Nazareth (or so we here at Abarim Publications propose). From the word for head, namely ראש (ro'sh), comes our English word "race" or kind or species.​

​

Alfred Jones indeed derives the name Job from this verb איב ('ayab) and is convinced that the name Job is a passive form and thus means The Persecuted. Renowned theologian Gesenius agrees with Jones (or rather: Jones agrees with Gesenius) and reads Object Of Enmity.​

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Job.html​

​

note that the name Job is not equivalent to 'eba -- the word 'eba is just a Hebrew word similar to the name Job, which is not actually an Hebrew word and the quote above is accordingly, pure scholarly speculation.

 

[tttallison]

the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Israel was a judgement for sin.
the troubles of Job are emphatically not in judgement of Job's sin. that's kind of the whole theme; dunno if you've read it?

so, this is a very flimsy argument on your part, and has essentially no weight.
just because one person has woe doesn't make him the object of every prophecy concerning woe.

Exalting yourself above God and condemning God for being unjust is not sin?

Making a covenant with Satan, and taking Satan as a servant is not sin?

Would God shoot arrows into Job if it was not for sin?

Deu 32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.
Deu 32:28 For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.


Psa 38:2 For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.
Psa 38:3There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.


Lam 3:13 He hath caused the arrows of his quiver to enter into my reins.
Lam 3:39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?

Job 6:4 For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.
Job 16:17 Not for any injustice in mine hands: also my prayer is pure.
Job 27:6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

Job 40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
Job 40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Job 35:2 Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness is more than God's?

Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

 

[posthuman]

Would God shoot arrows into Job if it was not for sin?

maybe it's been a while since you've read Job; you must have forgotten the account..

Job 1:9-12​

So Satan answered the LORD and said, ​

"Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!" ​

And the LORD said to Satan, ​

"Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person." ​

So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.​

​

​

Job 2:4-7 ​

So Satan answered the LORD and said, ​

"Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!" ​

And the LORD said to Satan, ​

"Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life." ​

So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Would God shoot arrows into Job if it was not for sin?

You really don't read with much discernment, do you? It's explicitly stated why God allowed Job to be afflicted: he did it to prove to satan that his accusations against Job were false. And Job proved him right. It wasn't until his "friends" came and accused him of sin, like you're doing, that he was pushed to the point that he lost it and found fault with God for afflicting him. And he was right, God did afflict him because he allowed it to happen. But the whole point of the story is that man, no matter how righteous (which Job was), is not in the place to judge, condemn or find fault with God for anything.