WHY GB DISTORTS THE STORY OF JOB

by raymond frantz 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  raymond frantz

  https://youtu.be/LpwUSXk8CKc?si=D4nb1CIWCCqL8doX

  A man, like new GB member Jody Jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 Rolex, Freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate New York—pontificating about Job’s suffering. It’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.

  For Job, the cultural and theological framework of his time likely pointed to a direct cause-and-effect relationship between righteousness and blessing, or sin and suffering. This is why his friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—are so insistent that he must have sinned to deserve such calamity (e.g., Job 4:7-8). Job, however, maintains his integrity, refusing to accept their logic (Job 27:5-6), yet he still assumes God is the sole orchestrator of his misery (Job 9:16-17). He can’t fathom an alternative explanation—like an adversarial figure like Satan—because that piece of the puzzle hasn’t been revealed to him or his contemporaries. The prologue (Job 1-2) shows us, the readers, Satan challenging Job’s righteousness and God permitting the test, but Job never gets that memo. His cries of “Why?” (Job 3:11-12, 10:18) reflect a man wrestling with a partial picture, unable to consider that his suffering might stem from a cosmic wager rather than divine punishment.

  This is precisely the narrative genius of Job: it pulls back the curtain for us, revealing Satan as the adversary, while Job himself remains a case study in faithfulness under ignorance. The book’s purpose isn’t just to showcase Job’s endurance but to introduce this unseen reality—Satan’s role as the accuser—setting the stage for later biblical theology.

  The idea that Jodele portrays God as a “nasty, vindictive, exacting” deity, akin to the “JW [Jehovah’s Witness] version” or the false comforters’ view, eagerly waiting to test Job or any righteous man, is one ,one can not ignore.

  In Job 1:6-12, Satan, not God, initiates the challenge. God’s response—“Have you considered my servant Job?”—isn’t a gleeful setup for a torture session but a recognition of Job’s existing faithfulness (Job 1:8). God isn’t itching to test someone; He’s responding to Satan’s accusation that Job’s righteousness is merely a byproduct of his prosperity (Job 1:9-10). God’s permission for the test (Job 1:12, 2:6) comes with limits—first sparing Job’s life, then his body (initially)—showing restraint, not relish. The idea that God “couldn’t wait until Moses” to test someone misreads the narrative’s flow. Job’s story isn’t about God’s impatience; it’s about Satan’s provocation meeting God’s confidence in Job’s integrity.
• 

  Journeyman

  In Job 1:6-12, Satan, not God, initiates the challenge. God’s response—“Have you considered my servant Job?”—isn’t a gleeful setup for a torture session but a recognition of Job’s existing faithfulness (Job 1:8). God isn’t itching to test someone; He’s responding to Satan’s accusation that Job’s righteousness is merely a byproduct of his prosperity (Job 1:9-10). God’s permission for the test (Job 1:12, 2:6) comes with limits—first sparing Job’s life, then his body (initially)—showing restraint, not relish.

  To be fair, that's always how the JWs historically taught the account, at least back in the far-off days before Herd, Lett and the rest of GB2.0/2,5 anyway!

  I hadn't watched the full Jody Jedele talk but my curiousity was piqued so just now I checked it out. I didn't detect at all that Jelene's talk "portrays God as a 'nasty, vindictive, exacting' deity" or that Job should've suffered more or anything like that.

  However, I did note he made one glaring error about Job at about 0:50, which in doing so undermines Job's faithful example.

  Job did not "blame" or "criticise" Jehovah as Jedele claims. The account at Job 2:10 clearly says Job did not sin with his lips in saying what he did - including the statement that he believed God was the source of his suffering - so that proves that Job wasn't "blaming" God in his heart, he simply didn't understand the full picture, as raymond frantz pointed out (and the JWs have always traditionally taught).

  Job's error that needed correcting was over-defending himself NOT "criticising" Jehovah.

  Jedele even contradicts himself in this point when he admits around the 2:30 mark that Job "loved Jehovah and didn't want to break his integrity".

  I've noticed this a lot in recent talks by GB members. They make direct statements about Bible characters or events that are contradicted by scriptures and even by their own comments later on, betraying a shallowness of thought, preparation and research that the older generation of speakers never demonstrated.

  The speculatory bit near the end about how and why Jehovah used Job's name rather than waiting until Moses(? Not sure even of what the relevance of that is supposed to be) is odd too and - in line with what I mentioned above - completely out of kilter with the account in Job as far as I can see - but the end result point about letting Jehovah train us as humans and to counter Satan's attacks is still broadly a valid one, it could just have been made in a much more scripturally consistent way in line with the actual account.

  It really does seem these days that the current crop of GB like to add their own pet ideas and comments or illustrations even when they don't fit the scriptures at all. Seems symptomatic of a greater or lesser form of egotism to me. Obviously, Splane is one of the worst for this kind of Biblical "ad-libbing", but Lett has often been guilty of flights of fancy too, and others. They've all clearly forgotten (or disregarded) the admonition at Revelation 22:18, 19 about not adding to, or taking away, anything in scripture!
• 

  TTWSYF

  Why the GB distorts the whole Bible…
• 

  Touchofgrey

  Can you provide archaeological and historical and external scholarly evidence that job was a real person and not just a mythical person and that the events took place in the time scale that the bible claims it did .
• 

  raymond frantz

  Can I prove my great grandmother was a real person? No photographs no records ...therefore she is mythological. See how that works? In any case see below:

  The challenge here is that direct evidence for Job as an individual is sparse—unlike figures like King David or Hezekiah, who left tangible traces like the Tel Dan Stele or royal seals.

  First, the biblical text itself places Job in a patriarchal-like setting, reminiscent of the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—roughly 2000 BCE or earlier, based on traditional biblical chronology. Job’s wealth is measured in livestock (Job 1:3), he acts as his own priest (Job 1:5), and there’s no mention of the Mosaic Law or Israelite institutions, suggesting a pre-Exodus timeframe. The text also names Uz as his homeland (Job 1:1), which some link to a region in Edom or northern Arabia, areas inhabited during the early 2nd millennium BCE. This fits a broad Bronze Age context, but it’s circumstantial—Uz isn’t precisely mapped, and the lifestyle could span centuries.

  Archaeologically, there’s no smoking gun—no inscription saying “Job lived here” or a tomb with his name. This isn’t surprising, though. Most individuals from antiquity, especially non-rulers, left no physical trace. The absence of evidence doesn’t disprove Job’s existence; it just highlights the limits of what archaeology can confirm for a private figure from such an early period. However, the cultural backdrop of Job’s story—nomadic wealth, family-based religion—matches what we know of pastoral societies in the Middle East around 2000 BCE. Excavations at sites like Mari and Nuzi, dating to the early 2nd millennium BCE, reveal similar customs: patriarchal households, animal-based economies, and personal priestly roles. These parallels don’t prove Job was real, but they show his story fits a plausible historical setting.

  Historically, external texts offer some intriguing comparisons. The Sumerian tale *Ludlul bēl nēmeqi* (circa 1300 BCE), often dubbed the “Babylonian Job,” describes a righteous man suffering unjustly, pleading with his god, and eventually being restored. Found in cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia, it predates most estimates of when Job was written (scholars debate 1200–400 BCE for its composition). Another text, the *Dialogue Between a Man and His God* (circa 2000 BCE), also from Mesopotamia, echoes Job’s themes of suffering and divine questioning. These don’t mention Job by name, but they suggest his story reflects a real cultural phenomenon—people grappling with suffering in a way that transcends myth. Scholars like Samuel Noah Kramer have noted these parallels, arguing they root Job in a historical tradition of existential struggle, not just a fictional trope.

  The Bible itself provides internal evidence for Job’s historicity. Ezekiel 14:14 and 20 list Job alongside Noah and Daniel as righteous men, implying he was seen as a real figure by the prophet’s audience around 600 BCE. James 5:11 in the New Testament also treats Job’s endurance as factual. .
• 

  raymond frantz

  Journeyman, 💯

  Job's error that needed correcting was over-defending himself NOT "criticising" Jehovah.
• 

  Touchofgrey

  https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2020/08/05/the-historical-context-of-the-book-of-job/
• 

  LongHairGal

  RAYMOND FRANTZ:

  I have no problem believing Job or somebody like him existed in antiquity - even if there is no grave marker…

  The reason I believe the JW religion likes to distort the story of Job is that his story is about extreme suffering.. In fact, suffering so horrendous that most people wouldn’t want to live through it.. The JW religion knows its members have suffered (maybe not exactly like Job) and it doesn’t want to hear complaints. Imagine that? It knows its predictions didn’t happen and many are suffering with poverty because of bad advice to not plan decades earlier for their senior years.

  The religion wants to instill guilt so its members will just shut up.. Just my opinion about it all.
• 

  TonusOH

  A point of clarification: Jehovah lectured Job because Job had expressed the expectation that God would explain to him why he had been made to suffer. When the false friends told Job that he was suffering because Jehovah was a strict and harsh god, Job disagreed. He was confident that God would explain himself at some point.

  Jehovah's response to this was to remind Job that he had no right to expect such an explanation, as he was a mere human and God was, well... God. Job's defense of God was not an issue, as such praise and recognition are what Jehovah always demanded from people. Expecting him to explain himself to a human was akin to placing an obligation on him, and humans are... not the boss of him, to coin a phrase.

  I suppose I should also note that the story does not state (or even imply) that Jehovah explained that Job was subjected to this treatment because of a disagreement between himself and Satan. Thus, Job's expectation of an explanation was sufficiently offensive to God that he chewed him out and left the matter at that.
• 

  peacefulpete

  The 'book' of Job is an anthology of story and poem, utilizing the common character Job to express philosophical concepts of the authors. "Job" is a cue name meaning 'persecuted', some have also suggested "where is Father(God)". It's possible both ideas were in mind when legends about the figure were written.