Jump to content
The World News Media

Job and S*tan; David and Census and Sat*n


TrueTomHarley

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Seeing there is a lot of energy here, let me mention a translation issue. Still working on a commentary of Job here, and by extension, all theodicies. 

The last chapter of Job reads, “All his brothers and sisters and all his former friends came to him and ate a meal with him in his house. They sympathized with him and comforted him over all the calamity that Jehovah had allowed to come upon him. Each of them gave him a piece of money and a gold ring.”

Only the NWT, so far as I can see, says Jehovah allowed the calamity. Every other one I see says that he brought it about. I have no problem with us believing he allowed it. Job 1 & 2 all but demands that interpretation, but the final verse says it differently. Anyone with insight as to where this unique translation comes from?

No problem here if JWI shuffles this away to some other category. But if he bans me for bringing it up, it will be truly sad, indeed puzzling, and he will miss the crucial fact that I can respond with the words of Paul to Elymas, “O man full of every sort of fraud and every sort of villainy . . .  you enemy of everything righteous, will you not quit distorting [my] right ways?" It is essential that he realize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 248
  • Replies 17
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Please refrain from trying to deflect the conversation with wordplay. My criticism was not directed at the Governing Body or the Watchtower's interpretation of scripture using their own concordance an

Given Tom and JWI's desire to keep their criticism here, I believe it's best to start a fresh conversation that prioritizes intelligent discussion. Personally, I fail to comprehend the purpose of inte

When God grants wisdom and understanding through the Holy Spirit, it is never a trial. Job got it, so why haven't all of you understood that you must find your own meaningful purpose.

  • Member

I've come across the term "allowed" in various Bible passages, but it fails to address instances where one gets upset and prohibits those who challenge with their own words and hostility. Silencing has never been effective and never will be.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 1%3A6-22&version=ESV

The composition he created about the topic he started showcases his authentic character. He takes ownership of addressing the repetitive and tiresome portrayal of a dormant matter concerning Bible Students. This issue holds no relevance to the present-day Watchtower and its genuine members. Nevertheless, even modern day Bible Students recognize the importance of defending themselves against misleading information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Only the NWT, so far as I can see, says Jehovah allowed the calamity. Every other one I see says that he brought it about. I have no problem with us believing he allowed it. Job 1 & 2 all but demands that interpretation, but the final verse says it differently. Anyone with insight as to where this unique translation comes from?

I might just shuffle this away to another topic because it is a very interesting one. And a huge topic, imo. There are literally dozens of examples in the Hebrew Scriptures that touch on the topic. And some of them are related to a progressive understanding of Satan himself within the Hebrew Scriptures. I would start with this: [all taken from Watchtower Online Library]

(1 Chronicles 21:1) 21 Then Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

(2 Samuel 24:1, Byington) 24 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.
(2 Samuel 24:1, Rotherham) 24 And again was the anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel,—so that he suffered David to be moved against them, saying, Go, count Israel and Judah.
(2 Samuel 24:1, King James) 24 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
 

The NWT gets rid of the apparent contradiction by changing "he" (Jehovah) to "one" to try to make it align with 1 Chronicles. It might work here, but does not work for other cases that are similar.

(2 Samuel 24:1, NWT) 24 The anger of Jehovah again blazed against Israel when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.” ... (2 Samuel 24:15, 16) 15 Then Jehovah sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the designated time, so that 70,000 of the people from Dan to Beʹer-sheʹba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, Jehovah felt regret over the calamity, and he said to the angel bringing destruction among the people: “It is enough! Now let your hand drop.” Jehovah’s angel was close to the threshing floor of A·rauʹnah the Jebʹu·site.

In fact, there have been persons who treat the opening two chapters of Job as a later addition just to explain away that very ending. Personally I don't think this is necessary. And there have been some attempts to differentiate passages that can attribute certain anthropomorphic characteristics when God is referred to as Jehovah but not when he is referred to as El or Elohim in the original language. (Such as "regret" etc.) The full discussion should take many pages.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Another strategic maneuver to divert attention to a separate issue.

Visitors, we caution the public against misrepresentations of scripture. It is evident that some individuals lack the diligence to interpret scripture accurately, as demonstrated by this particular example.
 
God, in fact, incited David to take action. When we try to attribute this action to someone else, we fail to understand the true nature of God's intent. The Watchtower's goal is not to hide God's intentions and depict Him as a negative and wrathful deity, as some may suggest. On the contrary, it aims to shed light on His true intentions, which involve taking action. In this particular case, it pertains to understanding the reasons behind God's anger residing within human nature.
 
Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon
 
[Fri] ὀργή, ῆς, ἡ as a vigorous upsurge of one's nature against someone or something anger, wrath, indignation; (1) as a human emotion anger, wrath (JA 1.20); (2) as the divine reaction against evil, bringing judgment and punishment both historically and in the future wrath, indignation (MT 3.7; RO 9.22); as a future culmination of judgment in an outpouring of the stored-up anger of God (ἡ) ἡμέρα (τῆς) ὀργῆς (the) day of wrath (RO 2.5; RV 6.17)
ὀργή N-NF-S ὀργή 
 
In some other translations, "it" is employed to obfuscate the intended meaning as a replacement.
 
NAS  2 Samuel 24:1 Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." (2 Sam. 24:1 NAS)
 
Did the actions of David, Israel, and Judah provoke God's anger while they were waging war against the Philistines? Why did God become angry with them? It is better to learn the right way through thorough research or by speaking to a local Elder rather than accepting a misguided interpretation from just anyone here who has no clue on how to interpret scripture.
 
God does not find the use of these types of arguments, which aim to create conflict and discord among His people, acceptable.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

God, in fact, incited David to take action. When we try to attribute this action to someone else, we fail to understand the true nature of God's intent. The Watchtower's goal is not to hide God's intentions and depict Him as a negative and wrathful deity, as some may suggest. On the contrary, it aims to shed light on His true intentions, which involve taking action. In this particular case, it pertains to understanding the reasons behind God's anger residing within human nature.

Indirectly, at least, by allowing it, God "incited" David. Because Jehovah is the Universal Sovereign and can intercede if he chooses to, his allowance of anything is by his own purpose and will.

But just because I happen to suggest an explanation, don't be so trigger-happy to counter it that you end up criticizing the explanation of the Governing Body, only because you didn't realize that I was simply agreeing with the Governing Body's explanation.

*** it-1 p. 219 Attitudes and Gestures ***
Satan is described as standing up against Israel when he incited David to take a census of them.—1Ch 21:1.

*** it-1 p. 445 Chronicles, the Books of ***
David is incited by Satan to take a census of Israel; 70,000 die

*** it-1 p. 590 David ***
Another instance when David humbly confessed his sins was when Satan incited him to take a census of the men qualified for the military forces.

*** it-2 p. 79 Joab ***
At another time David was incited by Satan to take an illegal census of the people. Joab remonstrated with David, to no avail.

A more complete explanation that includes the ideas alluded to previously is here:


*** it-2 p. 765 Registration ***
David’s Calamitous Registration. A registration taken toward the end of King David’s reign is also recorded, one that brought calamity. The account at 2 Samuel 24:1 reads: “And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: ‘Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.’” The “one” who did the inciting is not there identified. Was it some human counselor? Was it Satan? Or even God? First Chronicles 21:1 helps to answer the question, saying: “Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.” That rendering in the New World Translation agrees with the Hebrew text and with translations into Greek, Syriac, and Latin. It is also consistent with the renderings in other translations.—AT, NE, RS, JB, Mo.
However, as the footnote at 1 Chronicles 21:1 points out, the Hebrew word sa·tanʹ can also be rendered “a resister.” Byington translates it “a Satan”; Young’s translation reads, “an adversary.” So it is possible that the “one” moving David to decide on the calamitous course was a bad human counselor.
Interestingly, a footnote at 2 Samuel 24:1 shows that this text could be rendered: “And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when he incited David against them.” The translation in The Bible in Basic English reads: “Again the wrath of the Lord was burning against Israel, and moving David against them, he said, Go, take the number of Israel and Judah.” Hence, some commentators consider that the “one” or “he” who incited David to take the census was Jehovah. His ‘anger against Israel,’ according to this view, predated the census and was due to their recent rebellions against Jehovah and his appointed king, David, when they followed first ambitious Absalom and then the good-for-nothing Sheba, the son of Bichri, in opposition to David. (2Sa 15:10-12; 20:1, 2) Such a viewpoint could be harmonized with the view that Satan or some bad human counselor incited David if the incitement is viewed as something that Jehovah purposely allowed, as by removing his protection or restraining hand.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Indirectly, at least, by allowing it, God "incited" David. Because Jehovah is the Universal Sovereign and can intercede if he chooses to, his allowance of anything is by his own purpose and will.

That's why comparing the NWT is worthless in your case. The emphasis on its completeness serves a righteous purpose as the Universal Sovereign, who can determine where His creation has erred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But just because I happen to suggest an explanation, don't be so trigger-happy to counter it that you end up criticizing the explanation of the Governing Body, only because you didn't realize that I was simply agreeing with the Governing Body's explanation.

Please refrain from trying to deflect the conversation with wordplay. My criticism was not directed at the Governing Body or the Watchtower's interpretation of scripture using their own concordance and lexicon. They do not use the same one as you do. I was actually critiquing your choice of words in criticizing the NWT, especially since you may not possess adequate linguistic skills for such an endeavor.

These belong to your responsibilities, not mine, nor the Watchtowers' if Its understood correctly.

"he NWT gets rid of the apparent contradiction by changing "he" (Jehovah) to "one" to try to make it align with 1 Chronicles. It might work here, but does not work for other cases that are similar."

The Watchtower is not contradictory in its tone. It's all coming from you.

"In fact, there have been persons who treat the opening two chapters of Job as a later addition just to explain away that very ending. Personally I don't think this is necessary. And there have been some attempts to differentiate passages that can attribute certain anthropomorphic characteristics when God is referred to as Jehovah but not when he is referred to as El or Elohim in the original language. (Such as "regret" etc.) The full discussion should take many pages."

There is nothing regrettable about simplifying passages in order to enhance understanding. The NWT has an "excellent" format in its linguistic application. No one is obliged to use the NWT, just as no one is obliged to be a witness. The choice is entirely up to the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In fact, there have been persons who treat the opening two chapters of Job as a later addition just to explain away that very ending.

They almost all do it in today’s world of theology.

Long ago, in answer to the question of where did we originate our explanation of suffering & evil, you pointed to a Great Courses lecture series by a Professor Hall. Our theodicy was there, you had heard, and the prof said it was the only theodicy that made sense.

In fact, it is only the fact that the theodicy involves Satan that makes it logical from his point of view. All other theodicies he considers do not. He confines his entire exploration, save for this renegade theology, to what he calls ‘ethical monotheism’—that is, one God unopposed. Since he himself comes from an evangelical Lutheran background, it surprised me that he has shoved Satan into such a tiny footnote, a player only in his last theodicy considered.

I think he has done it to join the world of contemporary scholars, who are thoroughly embarrassed by the thought of a Devil. It makes all their progressive efforts to repair the world and improve mankind pointless if there is a devil you can pin all the bad things to. Several times in his lecture, Hall points out this theodicy involving the devil is extremely unpopular today, to the point where he seems to assume that his audience may not even have heard of it! 

Consistent with this modern understanding from the scholars, the Book of Job is separated into 1) an ancient Jewish ‘fable’ consisting of chapters 1,2, and 42, and the poetic portion, consisting of all that remains. Frankly, I think the intellectual appeal of this approach is that, by separating the book into two portions, it puts you into position to understand neither, thus ensuring modern theologians will have a job till the end of time. You can debate the meaning of the poetic portion forever, with no one able to call your bluff. But the moment you integrate the ‘fable,’ it all resolves fairly quickly. But it resolves in a way repugnant to today’s theologians, so they don’t go there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Given Tom and JWI's desire to keep their criticism here, I believe it's best to start a fresh conversation that prioritizes intelligent discussion. Personally, I fail to comprehend the purpose of intertwining various topics and subsequently gripping about others' inability to stay on point, especially when the individuals leading the discourse are unable to do so themselves.
 
Job questions why the wicked go unpunished, and the current discussion appears to lack significance in its present state. As a result, Satan's initial argument does not establish a conclusive connection with the subsequent expression. No dictionary can fully interpret God's guidance, and that is the crucial element missing in this mundane analogy. It is what God has given us to understand by means of his Holy Spirit.
 
Meantime, for the latter, I'll give you a hint, "of judgement" literal "time" which is "hide/store up" if you are a linguistic expert, you'd understand.
 
Perhaps you will find the solution amongst yourselves. Having a command of grammar simply isn't enough.
 
Therefore, @nkboswellIf you would like to engage in a more in-depth conversation, I kindly request that you wait until I initiate a new thread. Hopefully, this one will remain devoid of disruptive discord and unwarranted criticism towards the Watchtower, Governing Body, or Elders, and our Bible NWT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

When God grants wisdom and understanding through the Holy Spirit, it is never a trial. Job got it, so why haven't all of you understood that you must find your own meaningful purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.