Hugh Ross: Job is more important than Genesis?

[Philip]

I came across some fascinating comments by Reasons To Believe's Hugh Ross:

"I really look at The Book of Job as the foundational text for creation theology ... of all the books in the Bible, the Book of Job has more to say about science and creation than any other Bible book."

Was the Book of Job written BEFORE Genesis?

"There is plenty of textual evidence that the book of Job dates about 500 - 600 years before Genesis, " as it has "the patriarchs doing the animal sacrifices in the Book of Job, which means the priestly system was not yet set up. So this would have to pre-date the time of Moses."

" ... atheist scientists love to ridicule Genesis for everything Moses left out ... (but) the stuff that's left out is in the Book of Job, so Moses didn't have to repeat it."

See the video (parts 1 - 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp2iYqjQN8k

Here's his book ("Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job"): http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Treasures- ... ion+in+Job

And there are some truly thought-provoking comments in its reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Treasures- ... ewpoints=1 And lots of interesting YEC / OEC comments related to the subject are included in the reviews.

[Philip]

Has anyone else had the understanding or knowledge that some scholars consider the Book of Job to be older than Genesis?

[Byblos]

Has anyone else had the understanding or knowledge that some scholars consider the Book of Job to be older than Genesis?

What difference does it make? If a history book about the civil war was written before a history book about the revolutionary war, does that say anything about the actual timeline of the events?

[Philip]

What difference does it make?

It makes a difference because, if true, it gives more understandings to the Creation accounts found in Genesis.

[PaulSacramento]

Talmudic tradition states that Job was written by Moses.
Scholars tend to date it between 6th and 4th century BC.
Some suggest that some elements of the text existed in different forms before the whole of it was put together in the form we have now.
Some suggest that the beginning and end were put together over the core to make a book as opposed to what may have been an original poem of sorts.
I don't think we can make a case for it either way and to suggest that Job is more important then Genesis is based on what?

[Philip]

Job is more important then Genesis is based on what?

Ross isn't saying Job is more important than Genesis, but that as it relates to creation theology, its text is "foundational" and that it "has more to say about science than any other book of the Bible." And that the creation accounts in Genesis make more sense when viewed per The Book of Job.

[RickD]

Looks like I found the next book on my list.

[Philip]

Looks like I found the next book on my list.

Ditto, Rick!

[PaulSacramento]

Job is more important then Genesis is based on what?

Ross isn't saying Job is more important than Genesis, but that as it relates to creation theology, its text is "foundational" and that it "has more to say about science than any other book of the Bible." And that the creation accounts in Genesis make more sense when viewed per The Book of Job.

I think Ross is grasping at straws here.
Where does the Book of Job comment on science?

[Philip]

I think Ross is grasping at straws here. Where does the Book of Job comment on science?

I've not yet read Ross' book, but did want to draw people's attention to it. To get some idea of what he relates about science and The Book of Job, read some of the comments written by some of those who have read it: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Treasures- ... ewpoints=1

[PaulSacramento]

This may be an interesting read.
I always have reservations when people go looking for things in the bible that the original authors had no reason to "put in there".
Still, I am open to his hypothesis and may get the book.

[Philip]

Paul wrote: I always have reservations when people go looking for things in the bible that the original authors had no reason to "put in there".

Paul, very much agree that we have to be very wary of people cherry picking Scripture bits to fit their already formed conclusions. All of the various end times scenarios pre/mid/post trib rapture, what is Israel doing THIS week, or no - the related prophecy's were fulfilled in ancient times, etc, etc. So often people's conjecture turns on unknowable things. God didn't tell us everything, nor did He make perfectly clear even some of what He DID tell us. But it will make sense at some point, but the question is, do we know enough to apply various portions of Scripture in the present? And some things will likely not be apparent until AFTER certain events. Scripture talks of the limits of the knowledge of man. And so I'm always wary whenever someone has neatly packaged, nuanced assertions about things either ancient or in the future. But that said, I will read Ross' book, and in general, I see much I find compelling in his past conclusions.

[Philip]

Rick, did you ever get Ross' book on Job?

[bippy123]

Rick, did you ever get Ross' book on Job?

Philip, I've been trying to find a free copy online but no such luck

[RickD]

Rick, did you ever get Ross' book on Job?

No, not yet. I got another book I'm trying to get through first. I'm having a difficult time with this one keeping my attention though. Maybe I have add.
It's funny. There are certain books that I can pick up, and just about read from cover to cover at one time. And then, there are other books that I start to read, and I have to consciously keep my mind from wandering while reading.