jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

Im not sure but maybe it is the last OT book chronologically

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

Isn't it typically placed before the flood?

-Lily_Elanor- wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

Isn't it typically placed before the flood?

Actually that makes sense (wait were you always here I was just a idiot and didnt notice)

Ryasis wrote:

-Lily_Elanor- wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

Isn't it typically placed before the flood?

Actually that makes sense (wait were you always here I was just a idiot and didnt notice)

Yup, been following for a while.

-Lily_Elanor- wrote:

Ryasis wrote:

-Lily_Elanor- wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

Isn't it typically placed before the flood?

Actually that makes sense (wait were you always here I was just a idiot and didnt notice)

Yup, been following for a while.

Me not noticing people from COS are in places I am has happened twice with you and once with Mac. Why?

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

He likely lived around Abraham's time. He may have been a bit before a bit after.

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

I very much like it as a work of poetry, it's probably one of the most “literary” parts of The Bible. It does have a lot of interesting ideas and themes, but I don't really agree with them on a moral level. Job is entirely within the right to believe that God is unjust, considering that he ruins his and many other people's lives just so he can prove a point to Satan. That's just my view, feel free to debate me on it if you like.

petsounds wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

I very much like it as a work of poetry, it's probably one of the most “literary” parts of The Bible. It does have a lot of interesting ideas and themes, but I don't really agree with them on a moral level. Job is entirely within the right to believe that God is unjust, considering that he ruins his and many other people's lives just so he can prove a point to Satan. That's just my view, feel free to debate me on it if you like.

God puts people through fiery trials to test us and to strengthen us.
Job is poetry, so as far as we know, on of his many sheep could have just gotten a scratch and he made a book out of it.

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

petsounds wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

I very much like it as a work of poetry, it's probably one of the most “literary” parts of The Bible. It does have a lot of interesting ideas and themes, but I don't really agree with them on a moral level. Job is entirely within the right to believe that God is unjust, considering that he ruins his and many other people's lives just so he can prove a point to Satan. That's just my view, feel free to debate me on it if you like.

God puts people through fiery trials to test us and to strengthen us.
Job is poetry, so as far as we know, on of his many sheep could have just gotten a scratch and he made a book out of it.

I, personally, think the events in Job came after Creation but before the Flood.

CJKB wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

petsounds wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

I very much like it as a work of poetry, it's probably one of the most “literary” parts of The Bible. It does have a lot of interesting ideas and themes, but I don't really agree with them on a moral level. Job is entirely within the right to believe that God is unjust, considering that he ruins his and many other people's lives just so he can prove a point to Satan. That's just my view, feel free to debate me on it if you like.

God puts people through fiery trials to test us and to strengthen us.
Job is poetry, so as far as we know, on of his many sheep could have just gotten a scratch and he made a book out of it.

I, personally, think the events in Job came after Creation but before the Flood.

Same here.

jromagnoli wrote:

CJKB wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

petsounds wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

I very much like it as a work of poetry, it's probably one of the most “literary” parts of The Bible. It does have a lot of interesting ideas and themes, but I don't really agree with them on a moral level. Job is entirely within the right to believe that God is unjust, considering that he ruins his and many other people's lives just so he can prove a point to Satan. That's just my view, feel free to debate me on it if you like.

God puts people through fiery trials to test us and to strengthen us.
Job is poetry, so as far as we know, on of his many sheep could have just gotten a scratch and he made a book out of it.

I, personally, think the events in Job came after Creation but before the Flood.

Same here.

Maybe. That is interesting. I haven't heard that before.

I have just finished my 90 day reading plan through the Bible! In reality it took about 110 days though.

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

The Book of Job has to be set after the time of Abraham, because one of Job's three ‘comforters’ is called ‘Bildad the Shuhite’, which is a term meaning a descendant of Shuah, one of Abraham's sons. So Bildad was a descendant of this particular son of Abraham, meaning that the story must be set some time after Abraham's lifetime.

However, Jewish and Christian tradition claims that the writer of Job was Moses, which would mean that it took place some time between Abraham's lifetime and Moses' lifetime.

But also, the Bible describes him like this: “There is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.” It's very unlikely that he would have been described this way while any of the faithful individuals focused on in Genesis were still alive, like Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. For the same reason, it must be set before Moses became a particularly notable faithful worshipper of God.

So, it was most likely set between the time of Joseph's death and Moses showing himself to be ‘blameless and upright’.

calebxy wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

What do you all think of job? Where do you think it should be placed chronologically?

The Book of Job has to be set after the time of Abraham, because one of Job's three ‘comforters’ is called ‘Bildad the Shuhite’, which is a term meaning a descendant of Shuah, one of Abraham's sons. So Bildad was a descendant of this particular son of Abraham, meaning that the story must be set some time after Abraham's lifetime.

However, Jewish and Christian tradition claims that the writer of Job was Moses, which would mean that it took place some time between Abraham's lifetime and Moses' lifetime.

But also, the Bible describes him like this: “There is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.” It's very unlikely that he would have been described this way while any of the faithful individuals focused on in Genesis were still alive, like Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. For the same reason, it must be set before Moses became a particularly notable faithful worshipper of God.

So, it was most likely set between the time of Joseph's death and Moses showing himself to be ‘blameless and upright’.

That's a really good point

calebxy wrote:

But also, the Bible describes him like this: “There is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.” It's very unlikely that he would have been described this way while any of the faithful individuals focused on in Genesis were still alive, like Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. For the same reason, it must be set before Moses became a particularly notable faithful worshipper of God.

So, it was most likely set between the time of Joseph's death and Moses showing himself to be ‘blameless and upright’.

I disagree with this notion. We are all blameless and upright through Jesus.

MasterOfTheTiger wrote:

calebxy wrote:

But also, the Bible describes him like this: “There is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.” It's very unlikely that he would have been described this way while any of the faithful individuals focused on in Genesis were still alive, like Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. For the same reason, it must be set before Moses became a particularly notable faithful worshipper of God.

So, it was most likely set between the time of Joseph's death and Moses showing himself to be ‘blameless and upright’.

I disagree with this notion. We are all blameless and upright through Jesus.

Well, I'm just explaining what the Bible itself says about the issue. If it says that at that time there was no one like him, being blameless and upright, then - when establishing the Bible's own internal chronology - we simply have to accept it.

calebxy wrote:

MasterOfTheTiger wrote:

calebxy wrote:

But also, the Bible describes him like this: “There is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.” It's very unlikely that he would have been described this way while any of the faithful individuals focused on in Genesis were still alive, like Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. For the same reason, it must be set before Moses became a particularly notable faithful worshipper of God.

So, it was most likely set between the time of Joseph's death and Moses showing himself to be ‘blameless and upright’.

I disagree with this notion. We are all blameless and upright through Jesus.

Well, I'm just explaining what the Bible itself says about the issue. If it says that at that time there was no one like him, being blameless and upright, then - when establishing the Bible's own internal chronology - we simply have to accept it.

Yep. Okay. So I think that we just can't be biased either way. It is likely that he lived in that time.

I take back what I said earlier, it is definitely after the flood. Probably before Moses.
Reasons:

1. Job sacrifices to God as head of his family (a practice of patriarchal times that stopped with Moses) Job 1:5
   
2. Job's daughters received an inheritance along with his sons Job 42:15 a patriarchal practice that also stopped with Moses
   
3. Job's wealth is determined by flocks rather than money that is also consistent with patriarchal times Job 1:3, 42:12
   
4. The kesitah or piece of money mentioned belongs to patriarchal times
   
5. Job lived long enough to birth two families of ten children and raise them to adulthood then lived another 140 years. He lived at least 200 years and possibly longer. This is consistent with the ages of patriarchs prior to Abraham.
   

jromagnoli wrote:

I take back what I said earlier, it is definitely after the flood. Probably before Moses.
Reasons:

1. Job sacrifices to God as head of his family (a practice of patriarchal times that stopped with Moses) Job 1:5
   
2. Job's daughters received an inheritance along with his sons Job 42:15 a patriarchal practice that also stopped with Moses
   
3. Job's wealth is determined by flocks rather than money that is also consistent with patriarchal times Job 1:3, 42:12
   
4. The kesitah or piece of money mentioned belongs to patriarchal times
   
5. Job lived long enough to birth two families of ten children and raise them to adulthood then lived another 140 years. He lived at least 200 years and possibly longer. This is consistent with the ages of patriarchs prior to Abraham.
   

Interesting.

What do you all think of film adaptations of Bible stories? In my opinion, there haven't been enough good ones. Though I'm agnostic, I feel that The Bible is the most important work of literature of all time, and that there's plenty of material for great film versions of the stories. Unfortunately, they don't make a lot of good ones, as auteur directors tend to be agnostic/athiest most of the time, so they usually hire some no-name director to make the movie for them. Here are some adaptations that I recommend:

The Prince of Egypt - 1998 animated musical version of the Book of Exodus. Though there are obviously liberties taken to make it work as a film, it is surprisingly accurate and respectful to the source material. One thing that I really like is how it pulls no punches. Nothing is lightened up to be kid friendly, every disturbing event in Exodus is right there. While there's still some humour, the tone is pretty serious and somber throughout. The best part of the film is Rameses, they turn his character into a really complex and sympathetic villain, and it just works wonderfully. Fantastic music and animation, particularly in the opening scene. Great stuff.

The Gospel According To St Matthew - Exactly what it sounds like based on the title. This is the most accurate adaptation, not just of a Bible story, but of any work of literature. It follows the text extremely closely and every line of dialogue comes straight from the Gospel itself. There are no changes or dramatization and it tries to remain as unbiased as possible. Some may find this style dry, but I found it to be fairly engaging, and I liked how the accuracy allows the viewer to interpret everything however they want.

The Last Temptation of Christ - Extremely controversial for the great amount of liberties taken from the Bible. Less of an adaptation and more an interpretation. Jesus is portrayed less as the Son of God and more as a normal and flawed human being. The film also portrays Judas in something of a sympathetic light. As someone who has interest in The Bible for literary more than religious reasons, I personally love this interpretation and the way the film portrays it, but I do understand why it'd be considered offensive for many. I still feel that the uproar during the film's release was completely unjustified and that artists should feel free to portray Bible stories however they want to. I recommend seeing this if it sounds interesting to you.