God's Conversation with Job

by under_believer 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  ATJ,

  I didn't remember the WT typology on Job at all. I suppose Gilead instructors are drawing on very old WT literature inasmuch as it contents have not been overruled by some "new light" since. This reminded me of one episode when I was a (very young) pioneer. I had conducted a "Bible Study" with a rather smart guy for many months but he never came to meetings. Back then we were instructed not to pursue Bible studies too long if the student didn't "progress" towards becoming a JW (and the first step was meeting attendance). So I told him I would have to stop if he didn't come at least once. Well, the first time he came there was a public talk on some old outline I had never seen or heard, about the book of Judges -- and it was all fancy typology (one detail I remember is that the lion Samson killed typified... Protestantism!). I was terribly embarrassed about this guy hearing that kind of stuff... I discussed with him next time (in the spirit of "don't bother too much about that"). Well, this guy and his family became JWs after I moved. Years after I met him incidentally and he gave me the perfect shun. :(

  I am not convinced that Job 1:4 refers to birthdays though (although it can't be ruled out): "(on) his day" (yomo) alone could have this meaning, but the full expression 'ish yomo corresponds to a very frequent distributive structure in Biblical Hebrew which may mean simply "in turn".
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I am not convinced that Job 1:4 refers to birthdays though (although it can't be ruled out): "(on) his day" (yomo) alone could have this meaning, but the full expression 'ish yomo corresponds to a very frequent distributive structure in Biblical Hebrew which may mean simply "in turn".

  Thats interesting. So due to the distributive form, this passage could simply refer to the children of Job taking their turn as to when and where the next banquet would take place?

  In other words, Job's kids worked out amongst themselves where to meet for these banquets? Interesting.....
• 

  sweet pea

  I was talking to my son the other day about whose birthday came first in the year -

  Daddy's

  Bertie's

  Archie's

  Mummy's

  So we all take our turns in an order during the year - these days are still our birthdays, however you spin it!

  (I always thought that the book of Job supported birthdays.....)
• 

  Narkissos

  The "day of one's birth" (not exactly a yearly birthday) can be referred to as "his day" (yomo alone), cf. 3:1. But the same yomo can have other meanings, cf. 14:6 (the laborer enjoying his day = daily wages), 15:32 ("his day" = the normal term of death, dying out of one's day = before one's "time"), 18:20 ("his day" = the day of one's death or disaster = fate).

  However in 1:4 yomo is part of an expression ('ish yomo) the structure of which suggests a distributive sense: 'ish + X + 3rd ps. possessive = "each one his/her X" -- ex. 'ish 'achyw, lit. "a man his brother" = "one another" (Genesis 9:5 etc.); similar constructions in 10:5, (each one his language), 11:3,7 (one another), etc. (it's a very frequent structure for a distributive and/or reciprocal sense). Moreover a number of other adverbial locutions include yom + 3rd ps. possessive, e.g. debar yom beyomo, "daily," Exodus 5:13 etc., beyomo alone, Deuteronomy 24:15.

  So while a reference to "birthdays" is not impossible it does not seem necessary (since the expression is understood more simply as "in turn"). The usual semantical application of Occam's razor applies imo. If you mean something more than the "simpler" or "weaker" sense you have to make it explicit.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  The semantical application of Occam's razor applies imo. If you mean something more than the "simpler" or "weaker" sense you have to make it explicit.

  Excellent! This makes total sense, and actually opens up a lot of doors in the area of biblical exegesis for me to consider.

  Thank you for sharing this.....