Hi everyone,
Patman: Do you assume everything you believe about the bible based on what wasn't said?
Well, no, for we also have a clear statement where God speaks of “the trouble the Lord brought on him.”
What specifically is difficult about this phrase, or this argument? I take the verse to mean what it says, the Lord brought the trouble on him.
No, no "agency" involved at all, I don't even know how you made that stretch.
So then the Lord removed the hedge without realizing what the devil would do?
Surely God knew that removing the hedge meant the devil would attack, so indeed, even
according to the Open Theists, God had agency in what happened to Job.
Job said God did it, Job was wrong, while not sinning. It is easy, no?
Unless unwitting blasphemy is a sin, and indeed, it is (1 Tim. 1:12, Paul had to be forgiven, for this sin).
This was that figure of speech we all told you about...
And I ask again and again which grammar points this out as a known phrase people would understand in another way, as in “it’s raining buckets.” We can’t just say “it’s a figure of speech” without grammatical warrant.
I could just as well say “Satan struck Job” is a figure of speech, and put another meaning there…
The context all around everything shows this, go back and read our responses to this and address them if you disagree.
And yet even Elihu spoke of God doing this, the context in fact supports the claim that God was the primary agent here, from first to last, Scripture says Job said this without sinning, Scripture says this at the end, everyone agrees that this is ultimately God’s hand, and God does not contradict this.
Deuteronomy 28:27-28 The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.
Philetus: Does your view say that the Lord afflicts with sickness that He cannot cure?
Certainly this would mean that they cannot bring healing in their own power, and this also speaks of “sin unto death,” does it not? So then these afflictions would be part of a capital punishment:
The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish (Dt. 28:22).
And this and many other verses clearly say God afflicts people.
Clete: When your points are responded to you simply repeat the same point again as though no one had said anything.
The reason might be because people continue to raise points addressed earlier: “And I ask again and again which grammar points this out as a known phrase people would understand in another way…”
But you don't do that because you aren't trying to respond but because you refuse to poke your nose out from under your settled view tent long enough to understand what is being said to you.
I think I understand well enough, the claim is that God does not afflict people, especially innocent people, and this was just the argument of Job’s friends, who were worse off than Job, for their error was more serious.
They said God afflicted Job for his sin, and we read that 1) Job was righteous and 2) God brought this trouble on him.
So their sin was saying that God does not afflict innocent people, and Scripture clearly speaks of this, and to deny this, is unconscionable.
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I [note: “I”] will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The Lord is our God.'
Blessings,
Lee
