Does Job reveal how God builds a man?

[ZNPaaneah]

In our recent discussion on Psalms there has been a dispute as to whether the sentiments expressed are "non Christian" and portrays a vengeful God that is contrary to the God who loved the world and gave His son for our salvation. It seems that Witness Lee held to this feeling, teaching that some Psalms were spiritual and some were the natural concept of the writer.
Igzy made a valid point that the issue isn't the writer. As Aron pointed out the Psalms portray our journey. He quoted Psalm 119:67 "Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word." Showing how our journey includes failure, affliction, repentance, restoration, and obedience. It is through these experiences that we come to appreciate the word of the Bible more. For example, we can look at our experience with the LRC in this way.
So then, it seems the real issue should be addressed in the book of Job. This book, more than any other, gets to the heart of whether God is a righteous and loving God that is portrayed in the NT. Once again, Witness Lee fails to see "the divine revelation" in this book of the Bible. "In the divine unveilings to Job, there was nothing concerning the purpose of God in dealing with Job. Thus, the adequate knowledge of this matter is not found in this book. The revelation regarding the purpose of God's dealing with Job had to wait until Christ came and until the apostle Paul was produced." (chapter 29, Sect 3, Life Study of Job). To be fair to Witness Lee I thought his ministry on the epistles of Paul and also on the Pentateuch were very good. However, I also felt he mangled Psalms, Job, Proverbs and James. Reading his ministry on these books you get the impression of a blind man fumbling around in the dark. For example, this quote that I just gave of Witness Lee refers directly to these verses:
Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This is the first question God asks Job and it succinctly covers the entire book to this point. God is saying that He is "building a man", job is complaining about how He is doing it, so God presents his credentials saying He built the Earth. Since Job has found all these "errors" in what God is doing in building a man God wants to see if he understands anything about how He built the Earth. Where were you when I laid the foundation? Do you understand?

Likewise I think this goes straight to the heart of the recent discussion. Is the OT God different from the NT God, or is this the God who is laying the foundation for the one new man? It it is the latter then the book of Job clearly did reveal "the purpose of God" which puts a very big question mark on Witness Lee as a Bible expositor.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is the OT God different from the NT God

Yes but if I explain how I'll get kicked off this website again.

[UntoHim]

zeek, my man, you don't believe in the God of the OT or the NT....so what's it to you either way? There are TONS of forums out there for guys like you. I can guaranty you that you won't have a problem over at one of those forums. Why come here and have to expend so much energy whining and crying about being moderated? Heck, if you're so hell bent on duking it out with LCers then you know that your welcome over at the Bereans forum. Plus there is the extra benefit of you being able to whine and cry about being moderated over here.... it's a win-win for you my man!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

zeek, my man, you don't believe in the God of the OT or the NT....so what's it to you either way? There are TONS of forums out there for guys like you. I can guaranty you that you won't have a problem over at one of those forums. Why come here and have to expend so much energy whining and crying about being moderated? Heck, if you're so hell bent on duking it out with LCers then you know that your welcome over at the Bereans forum. Plus there is the extra benefit of you being able to whine and cry about being moderated over here.... it's a win-win for you my man!

You don't know what I believe and you don't want to know. It might shake up your complacent little world. I come here because the site claims to be a for ex-local churchers and I was in the Local Church for 13 years. I'm not whining and crying, I'm stating facts. You can't handle the truth.

[OBW]

zeek,

Quite a disingenuous reply.

The forum is for ex LCers . . . and for others. But that is not the definition of the purpose of the forum. It is for the discussion of the LRC and also its problems.

And when Unto and Igzy point out that it is not for the determination that the OT is about a different God, or inconsistent with the NT, or something else, they are entirely correct.

There is an accepted premise that this is a discussion within Christian thinking about the problems with a group that is inside of Christian thinking (well, mostly inside). The purpose is not to decide that accepting the God of the OT is problematic or questionable. There are probably places elsewhere to discuss that.

So you can stop with the simplistic declaration that (in so many words says) "the forum is for ex-LCers, I am an ex-LCer, so I can talk about anything I #$&@-well please." That has never been the truth.

And it is entirely fine (even really good) that it is not simply the Wild-West.

That is some truth that you need to handle.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the first question God asks Job and it succinctly covers the entire book to this point. God is saying that He is "building a man", Job is complaining about how He is doing it, so God presents his credentials saying He built the Earth.

I am constantly baffled by the starting point of some threads. We read the opening verses from Chapter 38 — the first place that God speaks to Job — and he talks about what he did in forming the earth. He is challenging the four men sitting and speaking (including Job).

There is nothing in this about "building a man." Maybe it is somewhere else. But right here, it says no such thing. To make a point about "building a man," you need to find a passage that speaks about building a man.

When I read this particular passage, its seems clear to me that God is challenging the empty suppositions of Job and his companions about what God is thinking/doing concerning either inflicting Job or allowing it to happen. He makes it clear that whatever he is doing or allowing is entirely his prerogative. He made it all in all of its glory. His reasons are beyond their petty complaints or imaginations.

But where is "building a man" defined as the question God is asking? At least through the verses you quote . . . and on through the next chapter and into chapter 40. You just put it out there as if it is obviously so. And then move on as if it is settled.

It is not. It is the question that you asked. If you want to move on as if it is simply true, then why start a thread?

[awareness]

Don't get me on the book of Job. I'll just get my tit in the wringer again.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

zeek,

Quite a disingenuous reply.

The forum is for ex LCers . . . and for others. But that is not the definition of the purpose of the forum. It is for the discussion of the LRC and also its problems.

And when Unto and Igzy point out that it is not for the determination that the OT is about a different God, or inconsistent with the NT, or something else, they are entirely correct.

There is an accepted premise that this is a discussion within Christian thinking about the problems with a group that is inside of Christian thinking (well, mostly inside). The purpose is not to decide that accepting the God of the OT is problematic or questionable.

I didn't raise the question ZNP did. He asked, "Is the OT God different from the NT God, or is this the God who is laying the foundation for the one new man?" So, you have misdirected your rebuke toward me.

So you can stop with the simplistic declaration that (in so many words says) "the forum is for ex-LCers, I am an ex-LCer, so I can talk about anything I #$&@-well please." That has never been the truth.

Here you intentionally misquote me. Anyone can read my post and see that I did not say that. Why did you find it necessary to change my words to make your point? Was that a righteous thing to do?

I am aware that this is a strictly moderated site where I am not free to talk about anything I please. It is out of respect for the rules of the forum that I refrained from saying more about how God seems to change from the OT to the NT.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am constantly baffled by the starting point of some threads. We read the opening verses from Chapter 38 — the first place that God speaks to Job — and he talks about what he did in forming the earth. He is challenging the four men sitting and speaking (including Job).

There is nothing in this about "building a man." Maybe it is somewhere else. But right here, it says no such thing. To make a point about "building a man," you need to find a passage that speaks about building a man.

When I read this particular passage, its seems clear to me that God is challenging the empty suppositions of Job and his companions about what God is thinking/doing concerning either inflicting Job or allowing it to happen. He makes it clear that whatever he is doing or allowing is entirely his prerogative. He made it all in all of its glory. His reasons are beyond their petty complaints or imaginations.

But where is "building a man" defined as the question God is asking? At least through the verses you quote . . . and on through the next chapter and into chapter 40. You just put it out there as if it is obviously so. And then move on as if it is settled.

It is not. It is the question that you asked. If you want to move on as if it is simply true, then why start a thread?

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth" is about building the Earth. No one can dispute that. So then, what does that question have to do with the preceding 37 chapters and why isn't it a non sequitor? Because it is very clear from the context that Job feels it is relevant and he has no way to answer.

Now the previous 37 chapters did not seem to be a geological treatise on the creation, but rather a complaint and various justifications for how God was treating a man, Job.

I feel that this directly relates to what has gone before because God is saying that He is the one that built the Earth, and therefore He knows how to build a man. Since Man is made of Earth this is a reasonable analogy. This interpretation is also much more in line with the Bible which is concerned with God getting the One New Man.

The question that I am asking is "Does Job reveal how God builds a man?" I am making a very clear claim that it does. This is a basic argumentative style essay, you state the question, you make a claim. The thread was started because it is clear from previous discussion that many disagree and feel that Job (the OT) reveals something very different.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't get me on the book of Job. I'll just get my tit in the wringer again.

Gird up your loins like a man (and your man boobs) and answer the question.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I am aware that this is a strictly moderated site where I am not free to talk about anything I please. It is out of respect for the rules of the forum that I refrained from saying more about how God seems to change from the OT to the NT.

Well this thread should be a lay up for you. It is focused tightly on Witness Lee's ministry and perceived error. It also presents an OT view of God that should support your thesis. So stop hemming and hawing. Do you really think your perceived slights are anything compared to what God allowed to happen to Job? Along these lines I appreciate what Lebron James was quoted as saying, he thanked the media for "motivating him".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Along these lines I appreciate what Lebron James was quoted as saying, he thanked the media for "motivating him".

Motivating him? That big crybaby whined after every call. He was gloating at all his "detractors" while hugging and kissing those trophies. What a rotten winner. The Spurs were all class, LeBron had nearly none.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't raise the question ZNP did. He asked, "Is the OT God different from the NT God, or is this the God who is laying the foundation for the one new man?" So, you have misdirected your rebuke toward me.

. . . .

Here you intentionally misquote me. Anyone can read my post and see that I did not say that. Why did you find it necessary to change my words to make your point? Was that a righteous thing to do?

I am aware that this is a strictly moderated site where I am not free to talk about anything I please. It is out of respect for the rules of the forum that I refrained from saying more about how God seems to change from the OT to the NT.

Yes. ZNP did raise the question. And a rather weird one at that. So you tack onto an off-the-wall question with he response you gave to Unto. It does not relate to answering ZNP's question, but to griping about the limits being put on the out-of-bounds discussions you tend toward.

In that context, my read of your "you don't know what I believe and you don't want to know" is an attempt to "allow" the off-topic discussion because you meet the criteria of being ex-LCer and believe something different.

We don't want discussions about the belief in some different god. Even one that is a complained-away "different" God of the Bible. It is one thing to discuss how it is hard to reconcile the two sides when looked at through a lens of "God is love" or something like that. But to take on the kind postmodern argument that requires a completely new "read" after 2,000+ years of understanding to the contrary. . . . Let's just say that the position is one that makes us God and the God of the Bible into a naughty student. No sense that it is impossible to have righteous indignation at the actions of the God that defines righteousness.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth" is about building the Earth. No one can dispute that. So then, what does that question have to do with the preceding 37 chapters and why isn't it a non sequitor? Because it is very clear from the context that Job feels it is relevant and he has no way to answer.

Now the previous 37 chapters did not seem to be a geological treatise on the creation, but rather a complaint and various justifications for how God was treating a man, Job.

God's response in chapter 38 and following is not viewed as a non sequitur just because Job did not talk about the creation of the earth. To suggest that it is indicates someone with no understanding.

But just because Job is complaining about how he has been treated — whether his complaint should be directed at God, Satan, or the "luck of the draw" — it was about how it is justified. He paints himself as unworthy of receiving what he got. And his friends question whether he did deserve it.

God says their sense of why is irrelevant. They have no right to question the one that put everything in place, including their very lives.

While it might make a decent sermon to suggest that all things build character (and that this time of suffering helped to strengthen Job's) the evidence as of the time that God appears to answer them all does not suggest that he was improving in character in any way. We are not presented with a "new and improved" Job. Just one who was granted more than he had before — something very different that a change on the inside.

To the very end of the book, God speaks about the things of creation and not of building man, or developing him. There is nothing that points to "building a man." And the most common understanding of this book is that "life happens" and you can't always figure it out or blame someone else.

Another novel view from another non-theologian is hard to accept on an "it is so" basis. You say that 'God is saying that He is "building a man" ' yet you supply nothing that suggests that is the case other than your declaration. It is so because you say it is and that this the thing we are going to look into? You could at least have provided something that hints at the premise besides your own words.

If that is your premise, then the response is "nonsense." If you can build a relevant premise to think about, I will give it more consideration.

I will be reading here to find a renewed basis for the discussion. Mere griping about my complaint will be ignored.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Gird up your loins like a man (and your man boobs) and answer the question.

But if I gird up to my boobs my loins will be exposed.

The short and sweet answer to, "Does Job reveal how God builds a man?" is :

NO!

But Witness Lee could show from Genesis to Revelation that, the "Building" was the eternal purpose of God.

So sounds like something Witness Lee would claim.

But to me it sounds like an extreme attempt to wrap the Bible around a premise that's a presupposition.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes. ZNP did raise the question. And a rather weird one at that. So you tack onto an off-the-wall question with he response you gave to Unto. It does not relate to answering ZNP's question, but to griping about the limits being put on the out-of-bounds discussions you tend toward.

In that context, my read of your "you don't know what I believe and you don't want to know" is an attempt to "allow" the off-topic discussion because you meet the criteria of being ex-LCer and believe something different.

We don't want discussions about the belief in some different god. Even one that is a complained-away "different" God of the Bible. It is one thing to discuss how it is hard to reconcile the two sides when looked at through a lens of "God is love" or something like that. But to take on the kind postmodern argument that requires a completely new "read" after 2,000+ years of understanding to the contrary. . . . Let's just say that the position is one that makes us God and the God of the Bible into a naughty student. No sense that it is impossible to have righteous indignation at the actions of the God that defines righteousness.

Keep in mind you have made this statement without knowing what I have to say. That's called prejudice. You have mischaracterized what I might say without even knowing what it is. You're just guessing.

You seem to think that history of the church is 2000 years of coherent cohesive unified understanding? You apparently never heard of the anabaptists or the reformation, the inquisition, or the Enlightenment.

History has always been a crucible of ideas. The 21st century is no exception.

You just want to pull the covers over your head and comfort yourself with your old school fundamentalism. Since you left the LRC it seems you have gone backwards.

Don't worry, I'm playing by the rules here. I won't push the envelope. I'll stick strictly to the rules. I know how to be a fundamentalist. No one kicked me out of the Local Church. I walked the straight and narrow the whole time I was there and walked away by my own choice. I will follow the rules here to the letter. That's what I intend to do here.

ZNP shared this idea about Job before and got little support then as he probably will now. I don't see what he sees there myself, but kudos to him for sticking to his guns about what he sees there. As far as I can tell he hasn't broken any of the LCD rules, so he is free to hold his interpretation. Right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You just want to pull the covers over your head and comfort yourself with your old school fundamentalism. Since you left the LRC it seems you have gone backwards.

Keep in mind you have made this statement without really knowing what OBW has to say. That's called prejudice. You have mischaracterized what he might say without even knowing what it is. You're just guessing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Keep in mind you have made this statement without really knowing what OBW has to say. That's called prejudice. You have mischaracterized what he might say without even knowing what it is. You're just guessing.

So now bro Ohio is not just a nooooob, he's a backslider. Can you keep up with all the things your are out here bro Ohio.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Motivating him? That big crybaby whined after every call. He was gloating at all his "detractors" while hugging and kissing those trophies. What a rotten winner. The Spurs were all class, LeBron had nearly none.

Sorry Cleveland.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

We don't want discussions about the belief in some different god. Even one that is a complained-away "different" God of the Bible. It is one thing to discuss how it is hard to reconcile the two sides when looked at through a lens of "God is love" or something like that. But to take on the kind postmodern argument that requires a completely new "read" after 2,000+ years of understanding to the contrary. . . . Let's just say that the position is one that makes us God and the God of the Bible into a naughty student. No sense that it is impossible to have righteous indignation at the actions of the God that defines righteousness.

I disagree. I think Witness Lee opened the door to this when he decided to reconcile the issues with his "I am the MOTA I'll tell you which verses are inspired and which aren't".

To me the Bible is like a filter, ultimately it will filter out all aberrant views of God until you see the one true God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Keep in mind you have made this statement without really knowing what OBW has to say. That's called prejudice. You have mischaracterized what he might say without even knowing what it is. You're just guessing.

OBW has had unrestricted freedom to share his thoughts here. He has never been denied access or asked to leave because someone did not like what he says. I've read many of his posts here and on other forums. You're just making a reactionary tit for tat comeback. That's rather unbecoming from you Ohio, you're capable of better. I've seen it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I disagree. I think Witness Lee opened the door to this when he decided to reconcile the issues with his "I am the MOTA I'll tell you which verses are inspired and which aren't".

To me the Bible is like a filter, ultimately it will filter out all aberrant views of God until you see the one true God.

The Bible has had that effect. It is a great foiler of doctrinal systemization. Dogmatists hate that. Jesus exposed that in his discussions with the religionists of his day. One thing I like about you ZNP is that whereas I may disagree with you about things, you haven't stopped thinking.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

God's response in chapter 38 and following is not viewed as a non sequitur just because Job did not talk about the creation of the earth. To suggest that it is indicates someone with no understanding.

I did not say it was, what I said is that any understanding of God's response is going to have to present it in context and not as a non sequitor.

Originally Posted by OBW

But just because Job is complaining about how he has been treated — whether his complaint should be directed at God, Satan, or the "luck of the draw" — it was about how it is justified. He paints himself as unworthy of receiving what he got. And his friends question whether he did deserve it.

God says their sense of why is irrelevant. They have no right to question the one that put everything in place, including their very lives.

Yes, I must have missed that part. Remind me again the verse where God says their complaints are irrelevant and that they have no right to question.

Originally Posted by OBW

While it might make a decent sermon to suggest that all things build character (and that this time of suffering helped to strengthen Job's) the evidence as of the time that God appears to answer them all does not suggest that he was improving in character in any way. We are not presented with a "new and improved" Job. Just one who was granted more than he had before — something very different that a change on the inside.

Sure we are. We are presented with a Job who has a new and improved revelation of God, since we walk by faith and His faith is improved, so is his walk and expression.

42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
42:4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

and this book began with God saying 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" God asked Satan to consider Job, hence all the calamities. When all is said and done Job has a deeper and richer revelation of God and a stronger faith.

Originally Posted by OBW

To the very end of the book, God speaks about the things of creation and not of building man, or developing him. There is nothing that points to "building a man."

Sure there is.

40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
40:10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
40:11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
40:12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
40:13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Man is made in the image of God and with His likeness. Therefore, to say that a man in God's image would have an arm like God or a voice like God is in line with the divine revelation. Since Jesus was such a man with an arm like God and a voice like God it stands to reason that this book is revealing Jesus. Since it was necessary for Jesus to be crucified before ascending to the throne it also stands to reason the cross as a foundation for such a life is necessary.

The book begins with God asking Satan to "consider" His servant Job (1:8). Satan then tears down everything Job has built (1:13-19). The book ends with Job being completely rebuilt so that he was more blessed in the latter end (42:12).

Originally Posted by OBW

And the most common understanding of this book is that "life happens" and you can't always figure it out or blame someone else.

There is nothing "common" about our God, a Holy God is an uncommon God. How is the "most common" understanding relevant to the discussion. The common understanding is that "three" kings gave presents to the new born Jesus, and that Eve ate an apple which resulted in the fall.

Originally Posted by OBW

Another novel view from another non-theologian is hard to accept on an "it is so" basis. You say that 'God is saying that He is "building a man" ' yet you supply nothing that suggests that is the case other than your declaration. It is so because you say it is and that this the thing we are going to look into? You could at least have provided something that hints at the premise besides your own words.

If that is your premise, then the response is "nonsense." If you can build a relevant premise to think about, I will give it more consideration.

I will be reading here to find a renewed basis for the discussion. Mere griping about my complaint will be ignored.

Excellent reasoning. You provided no verses to support your premise, hence by your own admission they are nonsense. I on the other hand have provided a Biblical basis for all of my claims, as requested.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

One thing I like about you ZNP is that whereas I may disagree with you about things, you haven't stopped thinking.

He's playing you, as if the rest of us are brain dead.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

OBW has had unrestricted freedom to share his thoughts here. He has never been denied access or asked to leave because someone did not like what he says. I've read many of his posts here and on other forums. You're just making a reactionary tit for tat comeback. That's rather unbecoming from you Ohio, you're capable of better. I've seen it.

Don't patronize me. You went after OBW for exposing your twisted words, and I used your words to expose your hypocrisy.

How about signing your posts, "sincerely yours," because you're capable of better.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry Cleveland.

Thank you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He's playing you, as if the rest of us are brain dead.

So if I have a favorable impression of something someone says, you infer that I must think negatively of you? Why not go by what I say instead of imagining bad stuff? I'll do the same for you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't patronize me. You went after OBW for exposing your twisted words, and I used your words to expose your hypocrisy.

How about signing your posts, "sincerely yours," because you're capable of better.

You haven't persuaded me that my words were twisted or that I exhibited hypocrisy. This accusatory side of you is new to me. I hadn't seen that before. It seems having someone disagree with you comes as a shock. You guys are so well blended. I'm going to have to work hard to blend in with the rest of you. Hopefully you'll give me another chance. I wasn't on this site that long before I got kicked off last time. It might take me awhile to get the hang of it again. I'm working on it though. Sincerely yours,

[OBW]

I will acknowledge that God mentions the creation of man in his rather lengthy description of the creation of all things, from earth to beasts of magnificence, and including man. But it does not make the book about "building a man." A verse or two buried in chapters does not "wag the dog."

Same thing for the character of Job. Job was already described as righteous and fearing God. two verses are not very revelatory concerning some significant change in that character.

Then there is this particular little jab.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Excellent reasoning. You provided no verses to support your premise, hence by your own admission they are nonsense. I on the other hand have provided a Biblical basis for all of my claims, as requested.

Response?

Poor reasoning on your part.

You seem to conclude that if you throw enough numbers separated by colons onto the page, you have a "Biblical basis." The obvious lack of actual scriptural support for a claim of major purpose is not made right by attaching a list of verses that do not support that claim. And seeing through the ruse does not require a verse. To suggest otherwise is something that only the very weak-minded would accept as reasonable.

Last. I have never said that God did not build a man. Or that Job was not changed in character. Rather, that the account provided in the 42 chapters that is the book of Job is not seen as providing support for such a major premise. Now, if you meant that God created man, then God clearly said that in Job. But it was not his primary statement. It was one of many describing the totality of his creation. But when you say "God builds a man" you are making a statement in the lexicon of LRC usage which would be referring to something more like the "one new man." God is clearly building that. But it isn't found in Job. Some might take liberty to argue that it typifies the one new man, but it wouldn't be based on the primary thrust of the book.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will acknowledge that God mentions the creation of man in his rather lengthy description of the creation of all things, from earth to beasts of magnificence, and including man. But it does not make the book about "building a man." A verse or two buried in chapters does not "wag the dog."

Same thing for the character of Job. Job was already described as righteous and fearing God. two verses are not very revelatory concerning some significant change in that character.

Then there is this particular little jab.
Response?

Poor reasoning on your part.

You seem to conclude that if you throw enough numbers separated by colons onto the page, you have a "Biblical basis." The obvious lack of actual scriptural support for a claim of major purpose is not made right by attaching a list of verses that do not support that claim. And seeing through the ruse does not require a verse. To suggest otherwise is something that only the very weak-minded would accept as reasonable.

Last. I have never said that God did not build a man. Or that Job was not changed in character. Rather, that the account provided in the 42 chapters that is the book of Job is not seen as providing support for such a major premise. Now, if you meant that God created man, then God clearly said that in Job. But it was not his primary statement. It was one of many describing the totality of his creation. But when you say "God builds a man" you are making a statement in the lexicon of LRC usage which would be referring to something more like the "one new man." God is clearly building that. But it isn't found in Job. Some might take liberty to argue that it typifies the one new man, but it wouldn't be based on the primary thrust of the book.

You provided the "most common understanding" is that "Life happens" you can't understand it and you can't blame others for it.

You didn't provide any biblical basis or verse references from Job to substantiate this.

On the contrary, the account makes it very, very clear that what happened to Job was not random, it wasn't happenstance, on the contrary it was an attack by Satan provoked by God. It was God that pointed out that there "was not another man on Earth like Job" and that provoked an attack by Satan to prove that Job's righteousness was a result of God's blessing. If God removed the blessing for a curse, then Job would curse God.

Now it is ridiculous and utter nonsense to ignore this introduction. To say the lesson is that "life happens" is nonsense, the book of Job does not say this at all.

2nd, the Basic outline from God's point of view cannot be disputed

1. God says that there is none like Job and provokes Satan to attack him.
2. Satan destroys everything that Job has built up in his life.
3. Everyone then spends the next 36 chapters asking why? The consensus view is that these calamities are a result of Job sinning. God rebukes this and requires those who accused Job of sinning to repent.
4. God then comes in and asks "who is this that darkens counsel with words without knowledge". He is not rebuking them for having counsel, He is not saying they can't ask, He is saying they are ignorant and proceeds to educate them.
5. Job states that his revelation of God and understanding of God have grown immensely through this process.
6. Job is restored so that his latter end is greater than his state prior to this event.

This outline does not in any way support your premise that "life happens" or that it is "random" or that we are not to question or understand. That is nonsense, there is no biblical basis to say it, and unless you can provide a Biblical basis then accept your own logic that without a Biblical basis it is nonsense.

[OBW]

I will admit that the "life happens" is too simplistic.

But, while I like your synopsis of the book, let's take a slightly different look at it. The following represents a more modern version of how the discussion between God and Satan might have gone (you need a kind of Bill Cosby thinking for it):

SATAN: Hey dude. I note that you've got all these people worshiping you by giving them lots of stuff and protecting them from problems. I bet they wouldn't be so loving and loyal if you took away their protection and they lost it all.
GOD: First, stop with the "dude" stuff. That you rebelled and I didn't just terminate you should be enough. . . . You are probably right about some of them. But I'm confident that Job would not do that.
SATAN: Really? He's one of the richest men around. I bet it wouldn't take very much for him to sing a different tune.
GOD: You're on. His life must be spared.

NARRATOR: Time passes and Job loses a bunch of his stuff. But he remains faithful.

GOD: See what I told you?
SATAN: Double or nothin'. We didn't make it hard enough. Take away everything . . . except his wife. She'll nag the Hell into him. And we should give him some really horrible disease.
GOD. Done.

If we think that Job learned more about God, that is a terribly safe statement. But outside of the little bit that Job says on his own part, this is not a major thing.

So it is hard to insist that "Job reveals" what is virtually hidden in the closet. The account does not really comment on that or point at it. It is not like Job spent a bunch of time developing character. Rather, he managed not to break character and still managed to get a bit of a chewing on. Of course he would respond positively to God's words. He was the most righteous man in the vicinity. And any of us would be impressed if God actually came and spoke directly to us. Not belittling his response.

Besides, if Job reveals how God "builds" a man, then there aren't too many "built" men. ("If that is your definition of an accomplished woman, I daresay that I'm surprised at your knowing any such women." Elizabeth Bennet, Pride and Prejudice.) Few of us ever have the pleasure of receiving 1/4 of the circumstances that Job did, therefore could never hope for much building if that is the way it happens. I think Paul discussed it much better in more than one place. "All things work for good" is only one possible source of such a teaching. Those are much more recognizable to the ordinary person. We really don't have any idea how to comprehend losing your children, servants, animals, and production from your land, followed by a round of leprosy that would spell the end for most. It is too far beyond our experience to be of much meaning. The more likely result of taking Job as the revelation of God building man would be "I like myself the way I am, thank you." I think Job would agree if given the opportunity to chime-in about what was about to befall him prior to it happening. Or even after for that matter.

But you still have not provided what I see as a basis for accepting that God reveals how he builds man (a man?) in Job. You have covered a lot of stuff. But not really dealt with the question. I'm not saying that you can't read it any way you want. Or that it is not possible that it could be used as an example of God using circumstances. But the "build" part is so obscure that I find it difficult to impossible to see.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will admit that the "life happens" is too simplistic.

But, while I like your synopsis of the book, let's take a slightly different look at it. The following represents a more modern version of how the discussion between God and Satan might have gone (you need a kind of Bill Cosby thinking for it):

SATAN: Hey dude. I note that you've got all these people worshiping you by giving them lots of stuff and protecting them from problems. I bet they wouldn't be so loving and loyal if you took away their protection and they lost it all.
GOD: First, stop with the "dude" stuff. That you rebelled and I didn't just terminate you should be enough. . . . You are probably right about some of them. But I'm confident that Job would not do that.
SATAN: Really? He's one of the richest men around. I bet it wouldn't take very much for him to sing a different tune.
GOD: You're on. His life must be spared.

NARRATOR: Time passes and Job loses a bunch of his stuff. But he remains faithful.

GOD: See what I told you?
SATAN: Double or nothin'. We didn't make it hard enough. Take away everything . . . except his wife. She'll nag the Hell into him. And we should give him some really horrible disease.
GOD. Done.

If we think that Job learned more about God, that is a terribly safe statement. But outside of the little bit that Job says on his own part, this is not a major thing.

So far so good, but this only covers the first couple of chapters.

Originally Posted by OBW

So it is hard to insist that "Job reveals" what is virtually hidden in the closet. The account does not really comment on that or point at it. It is not like Job spent a bunch of time developing character. Rather, he managed not to break character and still managed to get a bit of a chewing on. Of course he would respond positively to God's words. He was the most righteous man in the vicinity. And any of us would be impressed if God actually came and spoke directly to us. Not belittling his response.

Besides, if Job reveals how God "builds" a man, then there aren't too many "built" men.

Precisely. When God says "have you seen my servant Job..." it is hard to imagine that anyone could measure up other than Jesus. So Job is about the best man can do, kind of like Lebron James, but Jesus is the fulfillment of what is being discussed.

Originally Posted by OBW

("If that is your definition of an accomplished woman, I daresay that I'm surprised at your knowing any such women." Elizabeth Bennet, Pride and Prejudice.) Few of us ever have the pleasure of receiving 1/4 of the circumstances that Job did, therefore could never hope for much building if that is the way it happens.

This is the way it always happens. The minute you proclaim that this person or that person is the best in the whole world then all the scrutiny, attack, accusations, etc. will begin to fly. Once again, my example of Lebron James.

Originally Posted by OBW

I think Paul discussed it much better in more than one place. "All things work for good" is only one possible source of such a teaching.

How about Jesus word that if you want to follow Him you need to bear your own cross.

Originally Posted by OBW

Those are much more recognizable to the ordinary person. We really don't have any idea how to comprehend losing your children, servants, animals, and production from your land, followed by a round of leprosy that would spell the end for most. It is too far beyond our experience to be of much meaning. The more likely result of taking Job as the revelation of God building man would be "I like myself the way I am, thank you." I think Job would agree if given the opportunity to chime-in about what was about to befall him prior to it happening. Or even after for that matter.

He did chime in after. We all die, if you are not ready for that then you are in for a big shock. Also the Bible is very clear that no one is promised a certain number of years. You are given this moment, no guarantees about anything more than that.

Originally Posted by OBW

But you still have not provided what I see as a basis for accepting that God reveals how he builds man (a man?) in Job. You have covered a lot of stuff. But not really dealt with the question. I'm not saying that you can't read it any way you want. Or that it is not possible that it could be used as an example of God using circumstances. But the "build" part is so obscure that I find it difficult to impossible to see.

Surely it is not impossible to see in the NT, with Jesus, with Paul, in the Epistles, with Peter. I don't think the book reveals much about the details, but rather the purpose. When I read all of God's words it seems He is saying that we can trust that He knows what He is doing. When I read all of Job's friends words and Job's words it appears that these are the backseat drivers, the proverbial "too many cooks in the kitchen".

But there is a wonderful fit with Jesus. If we consider that the book of Job is talking about Jesus then we can all see very clearly that it was necessary that all this evil befall Jesus for our salvation. We can see that in resurrection and Ascension Jesus latter end was greater than the beginning. And we can see that everything that befell Jesus was at the hands of Satan, yet it worked out according to God's plan to get a man after His own image and likeness. A man with an arm like God and a voice like God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But you still have not provided what I see as a basis for accepting that God reveals how he builds man (a man?) in Job. You have covered a lot of stuff. But not really dealt with the question. I'm not saying that you can't read it any way you want. Or that it is not possible that it could be used as an example of God using circumstances. But the "build" part is so obscure that I find it difficult to impossible to see.

God has discussed His creation and the various creatures. This story is played out many times. For example, the polynesians discover Hawaii, a paradise and become rich and settled. Then the English and Captain Cook visit. 90% of the polynesians die from the mumps and other diseases. But once again, the latter end is greater than it was at the first. This is how it has always been when people are exposed to modern civilization that lives in cities and is exposed to many more diseases.

A similar story takes place on Hawaii with the fruit fly. Because of its remote location there are very few insects originally on the island (study of the fruit fly found that they were all descended from a single mother). Since there were no predators the fruit fly multiplied unchecked. Then an inch worm that is vegetarian everywhere else in the world became carnivorous and began eating fruit flies, behavior only seen on Hawaii.

So you can use Job to look at the story of Jesus. You can also use Job to look at the story of natural selection. And you can use Job to look at human history. Civilization is built in this way, speciation is built in this way, and the One New Man is built in this way.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The minute you proclaim that this person or that person is the best in the whole world then all the scrutiny, attack, accusations, etc. will begin to fly. Once again, my example of Lebron James.

No one in their right mind would suggest that Lebron James is the best in this world or any other.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

No one in their right mind would suggest that Lebron James is the best in this world or any other.

Well then. That settles it. There are a lot of people in Miami including LeBron who are not in their right mind for to them he was/is the greatest player in the planet.

But when he stands before Almighty God, if his sins are not washed in the Blood of the Lamb, his personal accomplishments & trophies, are not going impress ihis Creator.

[countmeworthy]

.....oops...in any case...God bless the San Antonio SPURS!!! They are a role model for the NBA to emulate!

[countmeworthy]

Delete double reply.

[countmeworthy]

Bless you Ohio!!! I have come to love and appreciate "LOS" SPURS over the years. I prayed they would win a 5th title. I was sad they did not. I prayed for the Lord to comfort them especially Manu Ginoblie. It then came to me. It was a blessing in disguise the Spurs did not win the championship title. Only God knows what it is. I also prayed/pray each Spurs player, their families, the entire SPURS organization come to know, love and live unto their Creator, their Maker and Savior Jesus.

Long live the San Antonio Spurs,!!, GO SPURS GO!!!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Motivating him? That big crybaby whined after every call. He was gloating at all his "detractors" while hugging and kissing those trophies. What a rotten winner. The Spurs were all class, LeBron had nearly none.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

.....oops...in any case...God bless the San Antonio SPURS!!! They are a role model for the NBA to emulate!

Amen to that!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you can use Job to look at the story of Jesus. You can also use Job to look at the story of natural selection. And you can use Job to look at human history. Civilization is built in this way, speciation is built in this way, and the One New Man is built in this way.

As it turns out fractal mathematics shows how if you take a single principle (algorithm) and apply it to an infinite set of numbers you will get a pattern that does something very strange. Regardless of whether you look at this pattern in great detail, focusing on a "tree" or if you take a step back and look at the entire pattern, focusing on the "forest", it has the same pattern.

I think this is what we see God saying in Job. The principle He is applying to Job is the same that He applied to all of creation, and it is the same that is applied to mankind, human history, etc.

Even the human lungs are a great example of fractal geometry. This explains the math behind OT types and shadows. How can Abraham sacrificing his son apply to so many things in human history. How can we look at the cross of Christ and then apply it to billions of different situations over thousands of years.

And, another point concerning this book. What makes the book of Job so interesting, and what causes so much discussion and debate over the book is that it does not seem to give us a neat little answer. If it did, then we would say, Oh that is the reason, and that would be that. What Job tells us is that these things happened as a result of God's prodding, even if it is carried out at the hand of Satan, and that the end result is that we will have grown and our faith in God will increase. Other than that you are left to wonder, though you could argue that this is in line with how God has created many different things too wonderful for us to understand. So then you are left to figure it out in your own life. You can look at all of creation as a guide. Perhaps our experience in the LRC is similar to a T cell coming into contact with a virus. Sure there is some damage to the Body, but now that we have identified the virus we study it and are ready to attack it if it shows up again. As a result the Body of Christ is now immune to the WL virus.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

So it is hard to insist that "Job reveals" what is virtually hidden in the closet.

Last night we had a discussion on Climate Change. I think Job reveals a lot about how this will play out and this theory is supported by how countless other man made catastrophes played out in human history.

Jesus said that you can't plunder the strong man's house until the strong man is bound. With that principle in mind doing something about climate change is going to plunder the Oil Industries house. This will not happen until the Oil industry is bound. Since the Oil industry is fully linked to the stock market this suggests that the stock market must first collapse in order to "bind" the powers that be, which then allows for the significant revolution involved in "plundering" this oil based economy. So then, instead of people concluding "hey we need to change" and having the world's economy make an elegant leap to a sustainable economy with little or no collateral damage what is much more likely is that it will be an extremely catastrophic change.

However, this is a good thing and that is what the book of Job reveals. Consider this idea that man incorporates in a way that trades the geochemical health of the atmosphere for personal gain is similar to a "virus". So, just as other viruses wiped out indigenous Indians and polynesians when they were first exposed, it didn't kill 100%, rather the numbers were somewhere in the 90% range. Seems horrific, but then the survivors are now immune to this disease and they confer this immunity to their offspring. Now this process has occurred repeatedly through human history, each time leaving the horror of a plague where "we all fall down". Even so, today is anyone lamenting the shortage of humans? Lack of human population does not seem to be a problem that I am aware of anywhere on this planet.

So yes, the results of Climate change may be horrific, perhaps 90% of the population in the developed world may be wiped out, but the benefit is that we may come through this experience immune to this virus of the modern corporation and their profit motive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps our experience in the LRC is similar to a T cell coming into contact with a virus. Sure there is some damage to the Body, but now that we have identified the virus we study it and are ready to attack it if it shows up again. As a result the Body of Christ is now immune to the WL virus.

Reminds me of a great testimony of our former moderator, Matt A. He had a giant cell tumor that broke his arm playing tennis, and likened that to the activity of Witness Lee in the body of Christ. That was a pretty incredible story.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of a great testimony of our former moderator, Matt A.

I didn't know Matt moderated LCD. When?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I didn't know Matt moderated LCD. When?

Bereans 2006

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of a great testimony of our former moderator, Matt A. He had a giant cell tumor that broke his arm playing tennis, and likened that to the activity of Witness Lee in the body of Christ. That was a pretty incredible story.

I would like to see this testimony if possible.

Whenever our body encounters a virus there is an immune response, even in those that are killed. This is how mankind deals with physical attacks and there is no reason to think that the spiritual reality is any different, which is how I understand God's response to Job.

I am reminded of Peter, Paul and Mary during the Vietnam war. It was as though their songs were an immune response to the abusiveness of that war.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would like to see this testimony if possible.

Not sure how to find this. Prolly a post or two on that old Bereans Public Square site.