weinhold
Puritan Board Freshman
Joe, thanks for your response. Hopefully we can engage in a fruitful dialogue here that will exhibit both Christian charity and strident faithfulness to the text. In other words, I appreciate your willingness to refute my argument, and look forward to a friendly sparring session with you here.
That said, our basic disagreement seems to center upon two issues: 1) Joe asserts humanity's basic expendability, meaning that the deaths of Job's children were nothing out of the ordinary. Alternatively, I assert humanity's basic worth as the reason why the deaths of Job's children strike me as so disturbing. Humans, I believe, should not be treated as if they are expendable. 2) Joe seeks to contextualize Job by incorporating passages from the New Testament into his interpretation. On the other hand, I seek after Job's reading of Job. As I have stated before, reading the New Testament into Job appears to be a problematic hermeneutical principle. How would Job have known of these interpretations?
All other stated disagreements, to me at least, seem ancillary and distract from these main issues. Allow me now to interact with one of Joe's statements:
I hope Joe will expand upon this statement. It seems evident from it that he believes Job 19:25 mandates Job's confidence of a resurrection with such clarity that alternate readings do not allow God's Word to speak. I welcome textual evidence from Job that speaks with Joe's degree of certainty, especially evidence from the original language.
That said, our basic disagreement seems to center upon two issues: 1) Joe asserts humanity's basic expendability, meaning that the deaths of Job's children were nothing out of the ordinary. Alternatively, I assert humanity's basic worth as the reason why the deaths of Job's children strike me as so disturbing. Humans, I believe, should not be treated as if they are expendable. 2) Joe seeks to contextualize Job by incorporating passages from the New Testament into his interpretation. On the other hand, I seek after Job's reading of Job. As I have stated before, reading the New Testament into Job appears to be a problematic hermeneutical principle. How would Job have known of these interpretations?
All other stated disagreements, to me at least, seem ancillary and distract from these main issues. Allow me now to interact with one of Joe's statements:
Ginny's referent to Job's confidence in the resurrection was right on, and showed a clear example of the hermeneutical principle of letting God's Word speak.
I hope Joe will expand upon this statement. It seems evident from it that he believes Job 19:25 mandates Job's confidence of a resurrection with such clarity that alternate readings do not allow God's Word to speak. I welcome textual evidence from Job that speaks with Joe's degree of certainty, especially evidence from the original language.