Ben Stanhope addresses AiG positions

(Christy Hemphill) #21

Reggie’s point is a legitimate one though. The book of Job contains numerous speeches by characters that God later tells Job are wrong. Context matters.

(George Brooks) #22


The firmament is the upper limit of the sky for any bird or human you could consider.

Considering Stanhope has provided us a real parallel to the biblical imagery … and a physical representation of the same … in Babylonian literature, I really don’t think there’s any more grounds for you to invent ways to discount what the Bible appears to be saying.

As per @Christy’s comment about other speakers in the book of Job, is Elihu one of those who is criticized by Yahweh?

(Chris Falter) #23

But Elihu is not one of those characters.

(Christy Hemphill) #24

He is not one of the three friends specifically called out, but he basically comes to the same wrong conclusion as they do, that Job is being punished for his sin. Instead of focusing on why Job is there in the ash heap like the other friends, he focuses on how Job might have sinned since the trouble began. He is more interested in vindicating Job than the other three. God reinforces one point Elihu makes, that we are not in a position to question God.

(George Brooks) #25


So, Elihu is not challenged for his interpretations of nature… in fact, his descriptions are magnificent, are they not?

Here is some more details on the Stanhope image of Shamash…

(Christy Hemphill) #26

All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t take different characters’ lines out of a drama and say “God’s word says…”

If that’s the case, God’s word says “every man should be the ruler of his own home and should say whatever he pleases.” (Esther 1:22)

(George Brooks) #27

I think what you say is a good rule of thumb, @Christy.

But we should look for indications of what the Editor’s point appears to be.

Otherwise, Melchizedek loses his place… as well as Balaam, and anyone else other than God, Jesus and Paul.

(Christy Hemphill) #28

Agreed. All the characters are contributing to the truth of the story in some way.

(RiderOnTheClouds) #29

@gbrooks9 @Christy Actually God interrupts Elihu’s speach then claims he:

obscures my plans with words without knowledge?

Safe to say Elihu IS repudiated.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #30

It is interesting, though, isn’t it? – how eager we are to try to “rescue” some of the sentiments promoted by Job’s friends. I had heard too of others (Chris didn’t just pull that out of thin air I don’t think) trying to get Elihu exempted from God’s criticisms. They had their own song and dance about why he supposedly was “getting it right” after all the wrong friends had spoken their piece.

But I think it is revealing that even after their big smackdown by none other than God himself, so many still want to go beyond where Job himself would go and answer God back with a "but, … but … " and then proceed to correct God by rescuing our favorite bits and pieces from out of the friends’ mouths. But it was Job who showcased for us the more proper response before God: silence and submission.

(Chris Falter) #31

In God’s answers I do not see Him chastising anyone for incorrect geophysics. Did I miss something?

(Mervin Bitikofer) #32

You probably didn’t miss anything (so far as I would know) … I just probably wasn’t paying attention to a larger context of what you were addressing. If you were merely addressing incidental geophysics brought up by Job’s friends, then have at it. I was just jumping on board here thinking mainly of the theodicy and theology that we try to derive from Job – and therein lies my critique of what so many extract (or ignore) from that book. Whether or not their geophysics happens to be technically correct / incorrect / laudible / lamentable is not a hill I’ll be planting any flags on – in either direction, since I don’t see that as being the point of the book.

(Chris Falter) #33

It seems to me like the geophysics are the subject of the thread. But then again, I’ve been writing Python scripts to analyze graph datasets when I’m not doing my day job, so I might have missed something.

Always enjoy your comments, Merv. Have a great day!

(Wookin Panub) #34

(((shaking head)))…I always have to chuckle when people attach these symbols ONLY to the book of Genesis. No believer says…well except for liberal Christians, that Jesus really did not die a real physical death. It was actually a symbolic death. Jonah in the fish for 3 days? Does 3 days really mean 3 days? Was there really a wall and did the wall of Jericho really collapse after they marched around the city 7 times on the 7th day (there’s that number 7 again) Wow!..the sheer arrogance. I do not know why some people just can’t read the bible and accept what is written. This reminds me of the story of Job. Say what you want, but there is ONE glaring difference between AIG vs others, and that is, right or wrong AIG are consistent in their interpretation of all scripture. So sad :frowning:

(RiderOnTheClouds) #35

Ignorance is not an argument. There IS a cosmic significant to the number seven in the Near East, period. And as Ben Stanhope says, it is mathematically impossible for Genesis 5 to be a natural genealogy.

(Wookin Panub) #36

Never said it was. My argument is why don’t you apply that argument that Ben makes to the rest of the bible? You don’t. You make these type of arguments, because it falls in line with your presupposition. God bless :slight_smile:

(RiderOnTheClouds) #37

There’s a false equivalence there though, there is no evidence for ‘symbolism’ in the examples you gave.

(Wookin Panub) #38

If 6 days are not actual days, then would it not be symbolic of something else?

(RiderOnTheClouds) #39

There are seven days in the narrative, Genesis 2:3 contains a pretty explicit reference to the ‘seventh day’.

(Wookin Panub) #40

I know. It’s the Sabbath