Book of Job

[MAGSolo]

Is the book of Job literal or metaphorical? In other words did Job literally go through all those things or was it just a fable to teach us about patience and long-suffering?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

It's literal.

If you want to imagine it's metaphorical, you can stuff it with any meaning that suits your fancy. That could be a great advantage for you, if you have some ax to grind.

FL

[MAGSolo]

okay thats one vote for literal. a lot of people dont seem confident enough to answer.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I don't think it's a lack of confindance, but more of a lack of knowing what your intentions are.

People don't engage when they are constantly insulted all the time.

Dan

[neo-x]

MAGSolo » Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:49 pm

okay thats one vote for literal. a lot of people dont seem confident enough to answer.

I have seen plenty of Christians who don't even know if there is a book of Job in the Bible...but to your point, yes if you are pointing towards the events described in the book as to have actually happened then my answer would be yes, it is a literal piece of work, though I would caution as to not confuse it with the poetic - metaphoric language that can be used to allude to certain things but are not actually literal. For instance Job 1:19 is a small example:

...when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"

Now one can pretty well argue that unless its a straight box, a house may have more than four corners, but it can be easily deduced that the expression here to confirm that the entire house fell, that nothing was left standing. So while the event is literal the language at times could be metaphorical. Hope this clears it up for you.

[Silvertusk]

Is the book of Job literal or metaphorical? In other words did Job literally go through all those things or was it just a fable to teach us about patience and long-suffering?

Literal.

Although I am sure the author as had some fun with the language.

Silvertusk,

[PaulSacramento]

It is as literal as any other parable.
There is no evidence that Job existed per say, though there is also no reason to believe he didn't.
But to focus on that, kind of goes against what the Book of Job is teaching in its Genre and in its totality.
First we need to take into account ancient story telling and how they worded things to their audience, then realize what is the POINT of the story.
The book of Job has the obvious theme: Job is cursed by Satan, with God's permission, because he is so upright and honourable- point being that he is such because he is blessed. The story goes to show that Job is righteous because of his faith in God, even when that faith is tested, hence Satan is WRONG.
God always has know this ( never bet against an omnipotent being) and knows that Job will be rewarded in the end for his faith.
Job of course questions God on why all this is happening to Him and God reminds him that it is NOT his place to question, simply to accept that God is far above his understanding and, while God can accommodate Himself to US, God does so at HIS choosing, not ours.
Of course that is the surface "moral" of the story.
Theologically it goes deeper.

[Reactionary]

Of course that is the surface "moral" of the story.
Theologically it goes deeper.

[PaulSacramento]

Of course that is the surface "moral" of the story.
Theologically it goes deeper.

He looks like a svelt Steven Seagal.

[Katabole]

I believe the book is literal as well, however, it is considered one of the books of poetry which include Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

There is no evidence that Job existed per say, though there is also no reason to believe he didn't.

Some believe he is a direct descendant of Shem, Noah's son, named Jobab; Job for short:

Gen 10:29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.

[PaulSacramento]

I believe the book is literal as well, however, it is considered one of the books of poetry which include Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

There is no evidence that Job existed per say, though there is also no reason to believe he didn't.

Some believe he is a direct descendant of Shem, Noah's son, named Jobab; Job for short:

Gen 10:29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.

Perhaps, we don't know and, to be honest, it doesn't matter nor take away ( or add) to the purpose of the book.

[B. W.]

Is the book of Job literal or metaphorical? In other words did Job literally go through all those things or was it just a fable to teach us about patience and long-suffering?

Let me take a guess at what Magsolo is implying – God was so very unjust and cruel for casuing Job to suffer and cause all suffering and not a good God at all or even a god at all.

Correct Mag?

Please note Job 41:34 NKJV and Job 42:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10c.

Also note Job 33:14-33…

When one gives self over to the one mentioned in Job 41:34 they come under whose rule?

Then please note what John 12:31 says...

The mediator came…

God could have made people robotic in nature as you desire, but how could that really be absolutely just to the robot?

God is just in all his ways. He provided the mediator mentioned in Job 33:23, 24, 25, 26

Do you know him, Magsolo, or the king of pride?
-
-
-

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

[Job] is as literal as any other parable.

Jas 5:11 indicates that Job was a real person. Ditto for Eze 14:14, 20. Also, people in parables do not have names; Job is named and his history is given.

FL

[PaulSacramento]

[Job] is as literal as any other parable.

Jas 5:11 indicates that Job was a real person. Ditto for Eze 14:14, 20. Also, people in parables do not have names; Job is named and his history is given.

FL

Sure, not everyone agrees with that view of course.
My point is that whether Job was a real person or not was irrelevant to why the writer of Job wrote the book.
Jesus parable of Lazarus and the rich man was a parable too and he used names.
Granted there are some views in regards to that to not being "just" a parable or even a parable at all but a statement of what was to happen to Lazarus.
Either way, whether they were real people or not doesn't lend anymore credibility to the theology of the Book of Job.

[MAGSolo]

Is the book of Job literal or metaphorical? In other words did Job literally go through all those things or was it just a fable to teach us about patience and long-suffering?

Let me take a guess at what Magsolo is implying – God was so very unjust and cruel for casuing Job to suffer and cause all suffering and not a good God at all or even a god at all.

Correct Mag?

Please note Job 41:34 NKJV and Job 42:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10c.

Also note Job 33:14-33…

When one gives self over to the one mentioned in Job 41:34 they come under whose rule?

Then please note what John 12:31 says...

The mediator came…

God could have made people robotic in nature as you desire, but how could that really be absolutely just to the robot?

God is just in all his ways. He provided the mediator mentioned in Job 33:23, 24, 25, 26

Do you know him, Magsolo, or the king of pride?
-
-
-

God didnt cause Job to suffer, he allowed him to suffer to prove a point to Satan. Thats not the same thing as causing him to suffer. The argument would be was it good and just by human standards for God to allow Job to suffer to prove a point to the devil. Who is Satan that God should be concerned with proving anything to him?