God is the true DEVIL. Lucifer, not so much...

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

You are confused about scripture, those people who perished were punished for their sins, as far as the bear killing the kids, who nows if it is true or just an anecdotal story to get kids to respect their elders. The God of the Old Testament is the premortal Christ known as Jehovah at the time. When he came to earth and gained a mortal body who became Jesus Christ, his atonement in the garden of Gethsemane paid for all the sins committed in the past, present and future, because God loves us so much, he doesn't want us to suffer for any sins not our own and even then he is very merciful. The Devil is our adversary for sure because he tries to trick into being miserable like him, which is to say cutoff from God's love. Its true that human beings are capable of much evil on their own through their selfish behaviors, but he surely was involved stirring up some of the worst genocides of human kind.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You are spot on, it really is common sense.

so far I can see not a lot of people have actually read the Bible from the beginning… cherry-picking for what you want to believe…

with all the profound intelligence of the design here, from Fibonacci to DNA complexity, it is obvious there is an intelligent Designer behind things here, imo…

now, reading the Bible from the beginning, we can see that God creates free will beings in His image and did not want them to experience evil--you know: killing, stealing, lying, disease, etc… but for free will Laws to work, we had to have a choice…

let's back up a minute and consider: when satan and other fallen angels rebelled, God could have destroyed them. They were, after-all, creations who consciously chose to disobey their Creator. What do you do with a song that sounds horrible or a painting that is not working out? I know what I do: I try to make it better or destroy it.

So God chose to use satan to provide a free will catalyst here for his other, newer free will creations, ones closer to Him in many respects: humans. You see this in Genesis and you see it in Job. God allows satan to test us. To separate the wheat from the weeds. This reality is about harvest.

God chose to allow the entire creation to fall here, with us, having a plan in mind to save those who would learn humility and choose Jesus Christ: our legal Advocate at judgement.

Meanwhile, those who choose "rebellion" and service to self, "do what thou wilt" inevitably become enslaved by evil systems that cause them to sacrifice their own children, innocents, cannibalism, etc… to their supposed "gods"… this is why there is so much evil in the world: all the leaders of babylon are making deals with the "powers and principalities of darkness" headed by the fallen angels for power and bling… and they have to do blood sacrifice for this. This is what wars are: ritualized blood sacrifices. That's why all the armies of the world use the 5-pointed pentagram star. It is occult and used to access the other realm.

It is also why there are witches right now claiming they have a right to abort their babies as part of their religion.

There are spiritual laws here just as their are material ones. Just because you have been too dumbed down to know them doesn't mean everyone has. God told his chosen people to destroy the corruption of these peoples because he had a better plan in mind for them and us: no evil.

a reply to: mayajohn

When he came to earth and gained a mortal body who became Jesus Christ, his atonement in the garden of Gethsemane paid for all the sins committed in the past, present and future, because God loves us so much, he doesn't want us to suffer for any sins not our own and even then he is very merciful.

It doesn't actually say in the Bible that Jesus "paid for sins".
That is a particular theory that some people believe in for one reason or another, but it comes from ancient philosophy created by a former trained pagan priest known generally as Saint Augustine.

a reply to: Verum1quaere

… but for free will Laws to work, we had to have a choice…

let's back up a minute and consider: when satan and other fallen angels rebelled, God could have destroyed them. They were, after-all, creations who consciously chose to disobey their Creator. What do you do with a song that sounds horrible or a painting that is not working out? I know what I do: I try to make it better or destroy it.

So God chose to use satan to provide a free will catalyst here for his other, newer free will creations, ones closer to Him in many respects: humans. You see this in Genesis and you see it in Job. God allows satan to test us. To separate the wheat from the weeds. This reality is about harvest.

The Bible mentions "fallen" angels in Jude and Second Peter.
But in both cases it has them as being bound in prison, so they are not roaming about the earth wrecking havoc.
The Bible doesn't mention them being used to create opportunities for making bad choices.
In the Garden of Eden, it was a "beast of the field" that gave Eve ideas.
The character in the Book of Job was not "Satan" as we understand that person today, but was an individual of the group of gods in this imaginary heavenly scenario.
Job himself was not an actual historical person, but was the character in this metaphorical tale representing the lost kingdoms of Judah and Israel, destroyed by Marduk, the god of the Babylonians.
It wasn't exactly a test, so much as a spiritual explanation for how a supposedly godly nation, the favorite of the "father" in this fictional pantheon, could find themselves in such a low and desperate situation.

God chose to allow the entire creation to fall here, with us, having a plan in mind to save those who would learn humility and choose Jesus Christ: our legal Advocate at judgement.

That is a theory, Jesus being like an attorney for the defense. The Bible says that Jesus himself is judge.
I realize that The English versions have the word "Advocate" in there in 1 John 2:1 but it really means that we have someone to help us to not sin, by the context.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Text Job himself was not an actual historical person, but was the character in this metaphorical tale representing the lost kingdoms of Judah and Israel, destroyed by Marduk, the god of the Babylonians. It wasn't exactly a test, so much as a spiritual explanation for how a supposedly godly nation, the favorite of the "father" in this fictional pantheon, could find themselves in such a low and desperate situation.

And you got all of that from the bible? Right? Or so you say. What bible tells you all of this? Must also be prophecy being that Job is much older than Israel and Judah.

a reply to: Seede

And you got all of that from the bible?

That is my interpretation.
It does not include in the Book of Job a disclaimer that "this is metaphorical", but I think it should be seen that way, if you didn't already have it planted in your mind since early childhood that it was factual, about just this one person who God took the time from His busy schedule to address, and this evil entity, Satan, who concentrated all of his efforts to get this one person to say a curse.

Or so you say.

Feel free to submit your own theory as to where this book came from and how it wound up being in the Bible.

What bible tells you all of this?

The regular Bible, it is just a matter of reading it and understanding it.

Must also be prophecy being that Job is much older than Israel and Judah.

According to what? Not actual biblical scholarship, which would give it a later date.

a reply to: jmdewey60

TextFeel free to submit your own theory as to where this book came from and how it wound up being in the Bible.

The literature called the book of Job is a factual account of five main characters who are buffeted by Satan. When I say factual, I am only referencing that it is factual in the theological biblical realm and not the secular realm. Each of these characters do have biblical accounts such as Bildad from Shuah and Abram. - Job (Jobab) being from Zerah, Reuel, Esau. - Eliphaz being from Alamek. - Zophar being from Naaman, Bela, Benjamin, Jacob. - Elihu being from Barachel, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah. –

Job or Jobab is commonly pronounced Yov or Yovav. The biblical Job was awarded the kingship of the land of Bela (Gen. 36:33)—In the biblical literature this is not parabolic or metaphorical by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as the date of this account, it is accepted by Hebrew scholars as being between 600 to 700 years after the flood of Noah. The flood of Noah being in the year 1656 after Adam (2105 B.C.E.) The reason in a wide margin of accepted dates being that some senior scholars are now looking at a six month calendar year instead of the twelve month calendar year that is commonly accepted today. This along with the study of the height and strength of antediluvians brings a whole new aspect to the ancient world.

Jewish Timeline Encyclopedia
Flood --------1656 After Adam
Abram -------1948 After Adam
Jacob & Esau 2108 After Adam
Job ----------- 2256 to 2257 After Adam
Nation Israel –2882 After Adam (King Saul)
Nation Judah 2964 After Adam

This would place the birth of Job at about 150 years after the births of Jacob and Esau but does not account as to nation Israel being anointed with King Saul in 2882 AA. When I said that Job was older than Israel and Judah my meaning was that Israel was not a nation till 2882 AA and Judah was formed in 2964 AA. So with all due respect Job is far older than Israel and Judah by over 700 years. This does not pin point the actual happening in the biblical sense because the dates of maturity are not calculated as yet.

The reason Job was accepted in the Hebrew bible was for the reason that it has 23 cross references in the Psalms literature alone. The actual date the literature was recognized and canonized as fixed is debatable. Perhaps in the 2nd century or as early as the Hasmonean era. Not sure.

a reply to: Seede

. . .it is accepted by Hebrew scholars as being between . . .
. . . margin of accepted dates being that some senior scholars . . .

Are you talking about Talmudic writers?
These are the keepers of the faith, or whatever, not actual historians in the modern sense.

The reason Job was accepted in the Hebrew bible was for the reason that it has 23 cross references in the Psalms literature alone.

So if anyone writes a book and it has enough cross references to established books, then it gets canonized?

What I was getting at earlier was what was its theological significance?
According to the theory of Jonathan Goldstein the writer of Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient World (Anchor Bible Reference Library), there would be a reason to write books like this, to explain why a godly nation, dedicated to the "Almighty" God, could be done in by a country of a lesser god.

a reply to: jmdewey60

TextAre you talking about Talmudic writers? These are the keepers of the faith, or whatever, not actual historians in the modern sense.

No I am not talking about Talmudic writers when I reference Hebrew scholars and I believe you know that very well. The Talmud is a closed and fixed issue with opinions of many rabbinic authors of which some may or may not be scholars. Biblical scholars are naturally theological and so is our discussion here. Goldstein is an opinionated writer and writes with a secularist slant of history mixed with just enough theological opinions as to give his picture. He is not considered a true biblical scholar. The literature of Job precedes all other literature except Torah in the Tanakh .

You wrote that - “there would be a reason to write books like this, to explain why a godly nation, dedicated to the Almighty" God, could be done in by a country of a lesser god.”.

By this I can see that you have not understood what the bible teaches. Job was not living in a Godly nation. He was a believer in the God of Abraham but at that time he was a nation unto himself. Insofar as the Babylonian sky god Marduk being the stronger mythical god is ridiculous to say the least. Secularist history will show that Israel now stands (Abraham’s God) while the Babylonian God Marduk is in the dustpan of theology. The other fact is that Marduk had nothing to do with the fall of Israel or Judah. Both were punished by the God of Abraham as is plainly shown in most biblical literature. Goldstein missed the mark completely.

You said to Verum1quaere the following:
“Job himself was not an actual historical person, but was the character in this metaphorical tale representing the lost kingdoms of Judah and Israel, destroyed by Marduk, the god of the Babylonians.”

That is the most disingenuous statement that I have heard from you. I gave you one reference as to Genesis 36:33 as one cross reference that proves that Job is not a metaphorical tale and there are at least 23 more cross references just in the literature of Psalms alone. Yet you insist that Job represented the nations of Israel and Judah who did not exist till at the very least 600 years later. I cannot even fathom to identify the related comparison that you are trying to sell Verum1quaere. It is an incoherent thought.

You wrote:
“So if anyone writes a book and it has enough cross references to established books, then it gets canonized?”

You have missed the point entirely. The literature of Psalms which does include some of King David’s writings which is some 600 to 700 years after the literature of Job does have at least 23 cross references between the two literatures. That means that both literatures agree on certain specific points or are married in thought. Now being that Job is the older literature that means that the authors of the Psalms have understood that, to them, Job is not metaphorical but factual. The scholars who do this investigative comparative work are not necessarily genetically Hebrew stock. Some are even of the Christian faith but the decision makers are not secularists such as Goldstein seems to teach.

Canonization is far removed from simply comparative literature. If the only requisite was comparative literature then the Hebrew literature would be comingled with the Greek literature which has to this date been kept separate. Whether by necessity or preference the OT and NT have been threaded together by only the Gentiles and not the Hebrews. Least we all forget that we Gentiles are the adopted and not the authors of Abraham’s God.

a reply to: Seede

No I am not talking about Talmudic writers when I reference Hebrew scholars and I believe you know that very well.

I had no idea, and why I asked.
I quoted your terms, "Hebrew scholars" and "senior scholars" because it sounds like you are talking about rabbinical elders.

He is not considered a true biblical scholar.

Based on his not being "religious" enough?

The literature of Job precedes all other literature except Torah in the Tanakh .

Based on what evidence?
And why is everything to you "literature"? That seems a bit weird to me.

By this I can see that you have not understood what the bible teaches.

You just got through saying that Job predates the rest of the Bible, so how much "biblical" teaching would you expect from the Bible's predecessor?

Job was not living in a Godly nation.

If he is the allegorical representation of the nation himself, where he lives is irrelevant to the story, and why it would be very vague about where he lived or what country it was.

He was a believer in the God of Abraham but at that time he was a nation unto himself.

That would be important in the allegory, that the god who is the protector of Israel would be a character in the story. The purpose of the allegory would be to find out what His rationalization would be, and it would be useless to delve into the thinking of an irrelevant god in terms of what would be of concern to the members of the former Israelite nation.
And his being a nation unto himself, as you pointed out goes right along with the story being allegorical, exactly like I said, that Job allegorically is Jacob, otherwise known as Israel.

Secularist history will show that Israel now stands (Abraham’s God) while the Babylonian God Marduk is in the dustpan of theology.

Here you are going off into a flight of fancy.
A "secular" view would be that a group of pretenders coopted the name Israel to apply to their own creation, in order to lend legitimacy to what amounts to bloody robbery. Only religious fanatics of the highest order would believe that the modern military regime currently illegally occupying Palestine is the same thing as the imaginary kingdom of the legendary King David.

The other fact is that Marduk had nothing to do with the fall of Israel or Judah.

Are you still talking about from a secular point of view? From the point of view of the Babylonians back at that time, it would have been believed that the imperial success was attributable to their almighty god Marduk.

Both were punished by the God of Abraham as is plainly shown in most biblical literature.

The later successors to Nebuchadnezzar, according to Daniel, were punished for forgetting about Daniel's importance, so were defeated in war by the Persians.

That is the most disingenuous statement that I have heard from you.

That would, according to your wording, be implying that I was for some reason lying about how I really feel.
Let me reassure you that I actually do believe that, that the story is an allegory, and not a straightforward history of an actual person.
If you think it is odd to think so let me quote from Job: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary) by Robert Alden.

The subject matter is another basis for making a judgment on the date of Job. This too can be very slippery. Some scholars would connect the trials of Job with the trials of the nation during the exile.

He goes on to mention other reasons to arrive at a late date, but this is the one pertinent to the current discussion. I should mention that he believes in an early date and a real ancient person Job, so why he tells this fact in a negative light. What is important now is that here is a bone fide expert on Job admitting that other experts would disagree completely with him.
Probably because they are not "religious" enough, as if being a believer means taking everything literally.

a reply to: Seede

I gave you one reference as to Genesis 36:33 as one cross reference that proves that Job is not a metaphorical tale and there are at least 23 more cross references just in the literature of Psalms alone.

And . . so?
You pointed out a name, Jobab.
You really didn't give a reason why we should think this is the same person as Job.
The rest of your argument was that because the other characters are given names in Job, then they have to be real historical persons.
That is common in fiction, that important characters are given names so the reader can follow along and identify more easily how different people in the story have different points of view.
The more references to other books, the more it adds to the feeling of the lateness of the book's writing.

Yet you insist that Job represented the nations of Israel and Judah who did not exist till at the very least 600 years later.

According to what logic?
You are completely skipping the thought process necessary to arrive at that conclusion.

I cannot even fathom to identify the related comparison that you are trying to sell Verum1quaere. It is an incoherent thought.

Do you understand the concept of allegory and can you identify it when you see it?
This is a serious question. I believe that all the posters on this forum that I get into arguments with have a lack of ability to even get metaphor, and not just what I identify from the Bible as being metaphorical, but any metaphor, anywhere.

You have missed the point entirely. The literature of Psalms which does include some of King David’s writings which is some 600 to 700 years after the literature of Job does have at least 23 cross references between the two literatures.

So then, by "literature", do you mean something that is exactly as it seems on its face, vs. let's say for example, fiction, or something written later but made to look as if it was older?
What you are doing is taking a lot of assumptions and treating them as if they were prove facts, and then reacting with dismay when someone else does not do the same thing.

That means that both literatures agree on certain specific points or are married in thought.

Which could also mean a simple influence from the writer of Job reading the Psalms.

Now being that Job is the older literature that means that the authors of the Psalms have understood that, to them, Job is not metaphorical but factual.

Fist off, you haven't established the fact of Job being older.
Second, how does what you just said pass as logic?
Do you really not understand the metaphorical nature of almost all of Psalms?
If you don't, then this discredits you as being a judge of whether Job is metaphorical or not.

My enemies surround me like a herd of bulls;
fierce bulls of Bashan have hemmed me in!
13 Like lions they open their jaws against me,
roaring and tearing into their prey.
14 My life is poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart is like wax,
melting within me.
15 My strength has dried up like sunbaked clay.
My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth.
You have laid me in the dust and left me for dead.
16 My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs;
an evil gang closes in on me.
They have pierced my hands and feet.

Here, is David factually describing a medical case history of how he became like sunbaked clay?
Did fierce bulls of Bashan hem him in?

a reply to: Seede

The scholars who do this investigative comparative work are not necessarily genetically Hebrew stock. Some are even of the Christian faith but the decision makers are not secularists such as Goldstein seems to teach.

Let me quote another commentary, The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) by John E. Hartley

A sixth-century date has two points in its favor. The Babylonian captivity, a trauma for Judah, certainly could have provided the milieu for this work on suffering.
This position is strengthened by its close affinity to Isa. 40-55, which many scholars believe was written ca. 550 BC.
In addition, the few points of contact between Job and Jeremiah, particularly Job 3:3-13 with Jer. 20:14-18, may support a sixth-century date.

Here are the verses (below) that he mentioned in the quoted section.
Job 3
3“May the day of my birth perish,
and the night that said, ‘A boy is conceived!’
4That day—may it turn to darkness;
may God above not care about it;
may no light shine on it.
5May gloom and utter darkness claim it once more;
may a cloud settle over it;
may blackness overwhelm it.
6That night—may thick darkness seize it;
may it not be included among the days of the year
nor be entered in any of the months.
7May that night be barren;
may no shout of joy be heard in it.
8May those who curse daysa curse that day,
those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.
9May its morning stars become dark;
may it wait for daylight in vain
and not see the first rays of dawn,
10for it did not shut the doors of the womb on me
to hide trouble from my eyes.
11“Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?
12Why were there knees to receive me
and breasts that I might be nursed?
13For now I would be lying down in peace;
I would be asleep and at rest

Jeremiah 20
14Cursed be the day I was born!
May the day my mother bore me not be blessed!
15Cursed be the man who brought my father the news,
who made him very glad, saying,
“A child is born to you—a son!”
16May that man be like the towns
the Lord overthrew without pity.
May he hear wailing in the morning,
a battle cry at noon.
17For he did not kill me in the womb,
with my mother as my grave,
her womb enlarged forever.
18Why did I ever come out of the womb
to see trouble and sorrow
and to end my days in shame?

There is an interesting article on this subject of the age of the Book of Job,
The Date of Composition of the Book of Job in the Context of S. D. Luzzatto's Attitude to Biblical Criticism
from The Jewish Quarterly Review, that is on the JSTOR site, that you can read for free if you register with them and read it off the web page rather than downloading it as a PDF.
I recommend registering with them anyway, because you can have three articles in your bookshelf, and replace one of them every 13 days, so you can cycle through a lot of them over time. Just saying, since this site seems to be the major clearing house for a lot of the articles of interest concerning biblical studies.
This article is concerning events in the late nineteenth century when a new commentary on Job came out dating it to the time of the Babylonian captivity, and the objections to it by this person Luzzatto who was the expert on the Hebrew and Chaldean languages at that time.

How this pertains to the current discussion here is that there are interpretations similar to my own out there, and there has been for the last 150 years. That is not how I arrived at my current opinion though, which was just by thinking about how the real purpose of the Old Testament was to explain why the Babylonian captivity happened in the first place, then applying that principle towards whatever I might be studying, and seeing if it fits.

But, my point here is that apparently a lot of biblical scholars have come to that same conclusion, and it is really hard to argue against it, and forces one trying to, to fall back on old traditional ideas like Moses writing the first five books of the Bible, to create a false sense of established fact to have a platform to then make their arguments from. And other assumptions like Ecclesiastes being written by Solomon, and Psalms being written by David, and there only being one writer of Isaiah.
These are things not established by facts but by a sort of traditional understanding that never questions anything beyond what is presented on its face, or has just been established as a simple way to fix the Bible geographically in the mind's imagination.

How this fits into the bigger topic, of the thread here, on the question of Theodicy, of whether God is right or wrong, is that saying that God is evil based on the Book of Job, is not a good argument because it is not a historical account of what God did to, or allowed to have happen to, an actual person, but is an allegorical tale, set in a pre-Israel-kingdom time, with someone as the main character representing this isolated outpost of true and righteous belief in God, having a calamity befall him, and having the opportunity to air all the possible explanations for that, then being able to confront God himself to verify his conclusions and then to be able to set a course for future actions.
To reiterate, the purpose for this tale is to be a sort of catharsis for the suffering caused by having their world destroyed by what they would have perceived as a godless evil empire (the demise of the earlier kingdoms of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and the Babylonians).
The main argument against that interpretation would be, it seems by the review of opinions I have made over the last couple of days, is that the Israelites "knew they deserved it".
To that I say, "Hah!", and "Get a grip!".
Do you think that the people over there in Palestine today calling themselves "Israel" think that they were not there for 1900 years because they deserved to be punished? If you do, you need to wake up to reality.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Text There is an interesting article on this subject of the age of the Book of Job, The Date of Composition of the Book of Job in the Context of S. D. Luzzatto's Attitude to Biblical Criticism from The Jewish Quarterly Review, that is on the JSTOR site, that you can read for free if you register with them and read it off the web page rather than downloading it as a PDF.

I am familiar with the opinions of Luzzatto and some of his rabbinic rebels of the Conservative movement and have little regard for their trying to rewrite orthodoxy. Thanks for the thought.

Text How this pertains to the current discussion here is that there are interpretations similar to my own out there, and there has been for the last 150 years. That is not how I arrived at my current opinion though, which was just by thinking about how the real purpose of the Old Testament was to explain why the Babylonian captivity happened in the first place, then applying that principle towards whatever I might be studying, and seeing if it fits.

I understand your premise and while I respect your choice of being secular I cannot agree with your sources. You do not seem to have a zero (beginning) in order to work from its conception. To me that is like one mathematician accepting 0 as the base and another accepting 1 as a base. Neither could agree in any of their thoughts. Secular professors and teachers will have their own set of dates and many are very confused among themselves while Orthodoxy will always have one set of dates and all subject matter fit those dates. That is the reason I gave you my source but have never heard that from you.

Job ------------------------ 2256 -2257 After Adam
Gad, Reuben expelled -- ------- 3187 After Adam - 930 years later
Zebulun, Naphtali expelled -----3195 After Adam - ---8 years later
Last six of Israel expelled ------ 3205 After Adam ----10 years later
Babylonia took control ---------- 3319 After Adam --114 years later - (442 B.C.E.)
Judah, Benjamin expelled ----- 3338 After Adam -- 19 years later - (423 B.C.E.)

Now I can not see a great mystery in this time frame at all. Over one thousand years after Job is where you are at with Babylonian theology. How you can fit your Babylonian concept into Job is well beyond my comprehension. The Babylonian captivity of Judah and Benjamin came about over a period of natural circumstances and not a battle between two gods as far as I am concerned. The nation of Israel was formed against the will of God and their destruction came about through the insistence of unrighteous self government. The conquerors of Israel were also decimated in like fashion. Nothing new here as far as I can understand. In fact you can see the same picture of self destruction today throughout the world.

As any who are not blind can see, Israel is a recognized nation by the united nations of the world. Now whether they assume that their absence as a recognized nation was due to their forefathers disobedience to the God of Abraham is not mine to decide. Assyria and Babylon has fallen and their gods have perished and shall never rise again but Israel has been restore as a nation, as was prophesied, and the God of Abraham has flourished to this day.

a reply to: Seede

I am familiar with the opinions of Luzzatto and some of his rabbinic rebels of the Conservative movement and have little regard for their trying to rewrite orthodoxy.

I'm not aware of any of that.
What the article mentions is that there are different rabbinical opinions on the dating of Job being written.
Maybe you would like to define what you call orthodoxy yourself.

I understand your premise and while I respect your choice of being secular I cannot agree with your sources.

I don't have a "premise", I have an opinion, as I have earlier mentioned.
My opinion came about as I explained, just from reading the Bible.
My "sources" are just things that I found after you questioned the validity of my opinion, acting as if I am some sort of unbeliever if I don't go along with the same tradition as the one that you subscribe to, concerning the dating of the writing of the OT books.

You do not seem to have a zero (beginning) in order to work from its conception.

I don't see how a chronology is dependent on dating the writing of the Book of Job. I think that it was written specifically to not interfere with being able to try to create a chronology for Israel.

Secular professors and teachers will have their own set of dates and many are very confused among themselves while Orthodoxy will always have one set of dates and all subject matter fit those dates.

I think you just invented your own definition for "secular".
And now that I think about it, I think you also invented your own definition for "orthodoxy".
I think you may have a problem accepting anyone who does not share your opinion of how everything fits together.

That is the reason I gave you my source but have never heard that from you.

Do you mean my own set of dates?
I think that is a bit too academic even for me.
The most that I have ever done along those lines is to figure out that Shem would have been still alive when Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, so could have been Melchizedek.

Over one thousand years after Job is where you are at with Babylonian theology.

That is, only if your assumption that the chronicled Jobab was the same person who is the character in the story in the book of Job, and also assuming that somehow when the book was written can skew the calculations trying to date the chronicles.

How you can fit your Babylonian concept into Job is well beyond my comprehension.

OK, supposing that you are right, that "Job" in the book of Job story is a reference to the Jobab of the chronicle, then the next step is to say that the writer of this book just pulled out that name because it fits the story, so the fact that the book was written a thousand years after that person who the writer borrowed the name from is irrelevant to the chronicle itself.

The Babylonian captivity of Judah and Benjamin came about over a period of natural circumstances and not a battle between two gods as far as I am concerned.

You were not a Jew who had to live in Babylon as a captive and listen to the remarks by the people who worshiped Marduk.

a reply to: Seede

As any who are not blind can see, Israel is a recognized nation by the united nations of the world.

I think that you are confusing a world consensus of opinion with the official opinion of a private club called the United Nations.

Now whether they assume that their absence as a recognized nation was due to their forefathers disobedience to the God of Abraham is not mine to decide.

Well, have you ever heard Jews say that the expulsion of Jews from Palestine by Emperor Hadrian was something that they deserved because they as a nation was too sinful to continue to exist on the land.
What I would say to that question is, no.
I am further asserting that I doubt that the Jews during the exile under the Babylonians were any more inclined to that kind of opinion as would the more modern version of Jews would about their own past circumstances.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Your father is the devil and you are spreading his lies.

Repent while you are able. God will not be mocked.

Is it true, at 1000ac Masoretes with jews and the catholic church, agreed to re-write the bible and add the word of YHVH inside?


The name Yahweh-YHVH was injected in the text of the Old Testament by the Pharisees and others who practiced Babylonian Satanism with. www.biblebelievers.org.au...

also that the famous Kabalist and Satanist Aleister Crowley wrote: There are "72 angels" .... these names come from "big name of God" ... The "name of" is Tetragrammaton: IHVH, which means Jehovah. O Sovereign Lord the entire universe ... ("Book of Thoth," 43).


The purpose of Lucifer is to deceive the whole world (Rev. 12:09) is transformed into an angel of light (2Co 11:04). The best example of us-so the Freemasons. Their motto is «making good men better-making from good to better" «how to become demon-possessed in 33-easy-steps-how to become possessed in 33-easy steps." The Jews and the Freemasons worship the same God.

The saying of the Jew Rotchild that is known: "We are amazed by the stupidity of Christians in making our teachings and use them as their own."

Here is some pictures and I will end up the comment with a canibal article, also with a "hidden" from the today public, where the canibals resided during the dark ages... link

The carnibal, halloween you celebrating comes from that and thats why you should stop celebrating such things. Carn BAAL= Carnival = halloween.

ps: And a coockie, this is a poster from Ukraine almost 100years ago, they warned the people to hide their children inside the houses, its time jews celebrated their easter... link Maybe that is why they kidnapping little children in Gaza today? They also have their blood moons? sacrifices.

And from my knowledge, its not only jews, I mean, I dont even know how the naming jew popped up.. Its the blood type A they consider themselves as the ancient atlantians, its the ones who got corrupted from the hybrid race and turn into a blood race...
The mixture with the bloods is from the hybrids and the corrupted atlantians and maybe that is why later on, they called themselves jews... who knows. Also after Atlantis, they moved them into today USA, corrupted atlantians and hybrid race, they lived there for a few thousands of years, that is why some indian tribes developed praising into blood magick, they killed and drink blood, sacrificies.

And here is why they pay allot of attention to their DNA,

In order to be original A your parents must always be blood type A, if it mixed with B, its not considered original, even if you blood type A. And it must always come from the father, the father must always be blood type A. If the mother and the child is blood type A and the father is B or O, then its not considered pure blood... Must always be from the father. This blood type is a creation by Kronos forces during Kronos rebeling and rulership in the LOCAL (not universe) LOCAL skies...

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
Why is it that god (christian god of the old testament) commits such evils while lucifer/satan does nothing but "tempt"?

lets see a few examples of the horrible things god does and see if anyone can find something the devil did that is even on par.


Isaiah 13:15-18: Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children

wow! pretty sick and twisted for a divine being!!!

You know, I usually don't waste my time responding to most threads on here as most of them are so full of crap that I don't consider addressing them even worth my time. Everything the OP wrote is a shining example of a Bible scoffer robbing scripture of its context to give it a negative impression, twisting scripture for the convenience of your worldview. Mr. "theyknowwhoyouare", how about you quote the entire chapter of Isiah 13 so that everyone can get a clear understating of what its actually saying. You obviously didn't even read it yourself, and if you did, you clearly have reading comprehension problems. The entire chapter is dealing with the day of the lord and his wrath poured out in the end times. If you have a problem with God's methods in punishing the wicked, then that is your problem. So if you are going to quote scripture to make a case that God is a mass murdering tyrant, then I suggest you actually read it and actually understand the context of what its even referring to first so that you don't make yourself look foolish.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare2 Kings 2:23-24: The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. - 2 Kings 2:23-24

First of all, lets analyze what is meant by the word "go up". This event occurs after his father Elijah was taken into heaven by a whirlwind. After Elisha is finished mourning the fact that his father will no longer be with him, he travels about his business to the city of Bethel and runs into an aggressive group of bandits, a mob of young men that surrounded him, mocking him and his fathers ascension to heaven. They despised him so much that they wanted Elisha gone as well, or to "go up" with his father as it says, implying malicious intent, a threat. They were not mocking him for having a bald head but were insulting him by demanding that he repeat his fathers ascension into heaven. To insult a prophet is to insult the Lord himself, "touch not my anointed and do my prophets no harm". So God was entirely justified in his actions, and nor did he violate his own law not to murder, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouareExodus 12:29: God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

Heathens like you always fail to mention the fact that this is in fact Gods response to the Pharaoh's attempt to kill the first born of every Hebrew male child. And God made it very clear that whoever curses the children of Israel shall also be cursed. You don't declare war on Gods chosen and expect God to sit idly by. The Egyptians, in fact, got exactly what they deserved, not just for their attempted genocide, but for the abject slavery and tyranny imposed on God's chosen as well.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare1 Kings 20:35-36: Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.

What did God get bored or something?

Whatever point you were trying to make by citing this scripture, you failed in doing so. Looks like you are just grasping at straws. When a member of the sons of the prophets disobeys Gods direct order, he should expect to be reprimanded, its as simple as that.