volgadon Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 A person reading the Bible today would not have that information available to him unless he was also educated in HebrewSo my knowing Hebrew is information not contained in the Bible yet you knowing English is?
volgadon Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 At best, even after a lot of effort spent on educating ourselves, his is just an educated guess. We do not possess the originals, and Volgadon was not an eye witness; he can only speculate.Why pretend that you are not speculating here?
jo1952 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Why pretend that you are not speculating here?I am not pretending anything. I am very careful to choose words which incorporate that I am expressing my beliefs, as opposed to presenting proof of anything. Regards,jo
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) We do not possess the originals, and Volgadon was not an eye witness; he can only speculate.How does that approach not invalidate all the scriptures? You were not an eye witness and you can only speculate and we don't have the originals. We can apply that to every last word in the scriptures.Volgadon grew up in Israel, btw, learned Hebrew just as you learned English. How is this not a double standard? It seems extraordinarily strange to me to favour the KJV where the names are translated in Anglicized versions over what is found in the older Hebrew texts where the names are spelled differently. Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah
jo1952 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 How does that approach not invalidate all the scriptures? You were not an eye witness and you can only speculate and we don't have the originals. We can apply that to every last word in the scriptures.Volgadon grew up in Israel, btw, learned Hebrew just as you learned English. How is this not a double standard? It seems extraordinarily strange to me to favour the KJV where the names are translated in Anglicized versions over what is found in the older Hebrew texts where the names are spelled differently.This is why Father has not left us alone. We have the Holy Ghost to guide and direct us. Man is fallible. We walk in faith; not proof. If for no other reason than that one alone (that we do NOT walk in proof) for any man to claim he has physical proof that his interpretation of scripture is the correct one is thus making a false statement. Therefore, the best man can do IS speculate about the physical world. He cannot KNOW Truth about either the physical or the spirit worlds without spiritual guidance from the Holy Ghost; and that knowledge cannot be discerned or proven physically. For those who believe in Christ, Canon becomes scripture. Until they believe, Canon is only a collection of books.Regards,jo
jo1952 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Yes it is.Here is the Genesis verse. וּבְנֵי, יִשָּׂשכָר--תּוֹלָע וּפֻוָה, וְיוֹב וְשִׁמְרֹןHere is Job in the book of Job.אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ, אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹI've bolded both names. If you want to claim that both n ames are the same then you would need to advance a convincing argument for it.Genesis, which you claim was written after the book of Job contains information which was known before Job, so?It does change your interpretation though!Actually it does not change my interpretation of scripture. The story of the Book of Job remains the same story -- nothing about its meaning changes. It merely offers a different order of historicity. Information I have presented is convincing enough for me to believe (NOT prove) that the Job who is the son of Issachar is the same Job of the Book of Job. Regardless of whether they are the same person does not cause me to change my belief that the Book of Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah. Historically, it has been believed to be the more ancient writing due to the various reasons presented in the last link (which is one of the same links Franktalk used). The comment about Job having lived BEFORE Moses was born is meant to help establish support for my belief that the Book of Job was written before Moses ever showed up. The links provided offered more studies done on this subject which also support this theory. It is believed that one of the participants in the Book of Job is the one who wrote the book. Since the time lines indicate these individuals lived at least a few hundred years before Moses was born, I do not think the author wrote the book posthumously. Also, since the Book of Job has been subject to the same translation errors as any other book of Canon, who can say that by the time the Hebrews made the Book of Job canon, that the spellings you have shown as being different, are accurate? At any rate, the entire point of presenting my belief that the Book of Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah is not a new belief. Indeed, the purpose for presenting this information is to give readers something to think about who may not have previously been aware that this possibility even existed.Regards,jo
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Historically, it has been believed to be the more ancient writing due to the various reasons presented in the last link (which is one of the same links Franktalk used).....At any rate, the entire point of presenting my belief that the Book of Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah is not a new belief. Indeed, the purpose for presenting this information is to give readers something to think about who may not have previously been aware that this possibility even existed.If it is only the Spirit that can reveal to us the truth, why even bother appealing to history as you do above? Why even bother presenting ideas for people to think about? Isn't that the Spirit's work to guide and direct?
jo1952 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 If it is only the Spirit that can reveal to us the truth, why even bother appealing to history as you do above? Why even bother presenting ideas for people to think about? Isn't that the Spirit's work to guide and direct?Here is part of my post to Volgadon which already answers your question (see post #43 in this thread):Now, if you are confusing secular education with spiritual knowledge, I have already said on more than one occasion that I DO study and place high regard upon education. However, I do not just take one view point into consideration. I try to understand and learn about many view points and interpretations of whatever it is I am studying; thus educating myself with well-rounded information before I decide where I will place my trust. Whenever man's secular education causes him to interpret scripture differently from what the Holy Ghost has already confirmed Truth to me, then I will abandon man's "knowledge". The same thing goes with any additional knowledge revealed to me by the Holy Ghost. If the world's take on a particular view point contradicts what has been revealed personally to me, it is the Holy Ghost's Truth which I will hold to. Thus, I will then reject man's interpretation of what he is observing. The more that is revealed to me by the Holy Ghost, the easier it has become for me to see the physical world and the education it can provide through spiritual eyes. In this way, it is not necessary for me to step completely into the physical world and wind up abandoning God's camp. The more spiritual knowledge I have obtained, the more clearly I see what is going on in the physical world and how much influence Satan has had on what man will believe about the Creation.Unfortunately, man would rather accuse me of being uneducated if I happen to not agree with their interpretation of secular education. This is very much a misconception on their part."The glory of God is intelligence" is a well-known belief for the LDS. Additionally, we believe that Truth is everywhere. We eagerly seek to continually educate ourselves. If we are not seeking, we will not learn. Now, when we wish to know if what we are learning is Truth, we need the direction of the Holy Ghost. The world cannot confirm to us what IS true; which is why Father sent the Holy Ghost to us. When man seeks knowledge while leaving God out of the picture, then what they will find and what they will interpret from the world will be godless. Here is a portion of a verse which I love; its application to today's way of thinking whereby man more and more excludes God, needs to be remembered:Helaman 4:13 And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength............Also,Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness..........With the adversary working 24/7 to disrupt God's purposes, it is all too easy to be led into believing false teachings. When man purposely leaves God out of his pursuit of worldly knowledge, then it will be man's and Satan's worldly version of knowledge he will find.Regards,jo
volgadon Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 <p></p><p> </p><p>Actually it does not change my interpretation of scripture. The story of the Book of Job remains the same story -- nothing about its meaning changes. It merely offers a different order of historicity.</p><p> </p><p>The implications you draw from it do revolve around the date you support for its composition.</p><p> </p><p> </p><div> Information I have presented is convincing enough for me to believe (NOT prove) that the Job who is the son of Issachar is the same Job of the Book of Job. </div><div> </div><div>The information you have presented is extremely slim. It boils down to a superficial similarity in names. That is being generous. The main piece of evidence you had was Job being listed as one of the sons of Issachar. This is nowhere to be found in the Bible! Even if the name was the same it doesn't mean that the people were. The Bible has more than one Manaseh and more than one Ishmael. The book of Job says nothing of Job's line, let alone that he is the son of Issachar. Living in the land of Uz doesn't necesitate that one be a contemporary of Uz anymore than living in the land of Canaan would mean that you hobnobbed with Ham's son. This is laying aside the fact that there are two lands of Uz mentioned in the Bible, the southern one fitting better into the millieu of Job. If you consider all of this convincing evidence then colour me unimpressed.</div><div> </div><p> </p><div>Regardless of whether they are the same person does not cause me to change my belief that the Book of Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah. Historically, it has been believed to be the more ancient writing due to the various reasons presented in the last link (which is one of the same links Franktalk used).</div><div> </div><div>Historically there were many different theories, including his being fictional! I didn't ask for historical interpretations, I asked for evidence from the Bible itself. Personally, I love discussing historical interpretations, yet you two go on and on about how we must only interpret the Bible through the spirit, not by anything secular, or by "man's wisdom." I am holding you to that standard. </div>
jo1952 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 The implications you draw from it do revolve around the date you support for its composition.None of which changes the meaning of the scripture.The information you have presented is extremely slim. It boils down to a superficial similarity in names. That is being generous. The main piece of evidence you had was Job being listed as one of the sons of Issachar. This is nowhere to be found in the Bible! Even if the name was the same it doesn't mean that the people were. The Bible has more than one Manaseh and more than one Ishmael. The book of Job says nothing of Job's line, let alone that he is the son of Issachar. Living in the land of Uz doesn't necesitate that one be a contemporary of Uz anymore than living in the land of Canaan would mean that you hobnobbed with Ham's son. This is laying aside the fact that there are two lands of Uz mentioned in the Bible, the southern one fitting better into the millieu of Job. If you consider all of this convincing evidence then colour me unimpressed.meh --- so far, I haven't been very impressed with your evidence either.Historically there were many different theories, including his being fictional! I didn't ask for historical interpretations, I asked for evidence from the Bible itself. Personally, I love discussing historical interpretations, yet you two go on and on about how we must only interpret the Bible through the spirit, not by anything secular, or by "man's wisdom." I am holding you to that standard.I am equally unimpressed by your ability to interpret my posts, as the above has already been addressed. You are misrepresenting me now, to which I take offense. In fact, you are making a mountain out of mole hill. I have presented my view point with support for my beliefs. You obviously disagree. We're just going to need to agree to disagree.Regards,jo
volgadon Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 None of which changes the meaning of the scripture.If you say so. Post #4, however, paints a different picture.meh --- so far, I haven't been very impressed with your evidence either.At least I've stated why, you merely dismissed mine with a lofty wave. You are misrepresenting me now, to which I take offense.How so? Are you saying that you don't insist that scripture be interpreted solely by the spirit and not by "man's wisdom" or that you aren't frequently posting on the subject? In fact, you are making a mountain out of mole hill. I have presented my view point with support for my beliefs. You obviously disagree. We're just going to need to agree to disagree.Goes without saying that we disagree or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Recommended Posts