Job: Non-exhaustive on Zoom Bible Study I

The image, from Facebook, seems appropriate. 

Prelude

I was asked to join a Zoom bible study on Job, which began last evening. It is not from our church, but a very good study from a friend and fellow scholar that presented. 

Background

Browning explains the book of Job is a major text of wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible. Browning (1997: 204)

The authorship is reasoned to not be certain and was likely written after the exile. Browning (204). The presenter in our study, (paraphrased) agreed that the author, as far as name was concerned, was unknown. I can agree with the presenter that the author was however, significantly authoritative in the Hebrew Bible, historical, religious, context. 

Clines states that the story of Job was present many centuries before the Old Testament book was completed. Clines (1986: 521). This would include oral form, I reason. The story goes back to the second millennium BC and the book written between the seventh and third centuries BC. Clines (1986: 521). 

La Sor and company state Job is referenced in ancient texts circa 2000 BC (Egypt) and Amarna (Egypt) 1350 BC, meaning the story may very well be of an actual sufferer who was later documented in a setting by a poet. (p. 560). However, the academic text reasons the story still has Biblical value regardless of historical setting and that it was not seriously questioned in the Hebrew Bible canon. (pp. 560-561). Acceptance in Hebrew Bible canon strongly suggests historicity and relevant historical value. 

My short term academic adviser (1999) at Manchester University, Professor David Pailin, informed me that because of these issues with Job, that the book was basically mythology, but I do not think that conclusion was or is warranted. He was attempting to demerit the book in regard to its use with my theodicy and problem of evil research. It is according to various sources an ancient historical story documented in the Hebrew Bible at a deduced significantly later date. 

An authorship date of between (paraphrased) 1000-500 BC was estimated by my friend, the study presenter that has done significant scholarly work on the Book of Job, and wisdom literature, in general.

I have also come across statements, including pastoral, in my academic career from those that study scholarship that speculate Job may have been written much closer to the occurrence of events.

The Three Levels of Wisdom 

This is paraphrased from the course notes and lecture.

Level 1: Human skill, including philosophy was noted

Level 2: Life wisdom

Level 3: God's wisdom, in particular from the Scripture, in this context it would be Hebrew Bible extant at the time of when a) Job occurred b) Job was written

In other words, God's purposes in the existence of human suffering are divinely revelatory, under Level 3.

Quoting Clines:

'Every reader of this magnificent and timeless book realizes that its purposes is to deal, in dramatic form, with the problem of suffering.' (520).

But it is God's purposes that are key here, not Job's understanding of why he has suffered. (Paraphrased in-part based on 520). Job's suffering remains a mystery. (520).

But, God's sovereignty and perfectly good purposes are made clear.

I would opine that God can use Scriptural revelation, along with life experience and human skill in philosophy to assist certain persons to better understand problems of suffering and problems of evil. In that sense, I reason the three types of wisdom listed do overlap at times.

Referencing-Saturday, April 12, 2014, Brief On Job 38:3, from my archives 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MCDONALD, H.D. (1996) ‘Bible, Authority of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

 

Pailin, David A. (David Arthur) 1936- Worldcat.org

Brief Bullet Saturday

• Many thanks to my good friend 007, for that image. 

• With his vast Metro Vancouver dining experience, he should know. 

• From psychology, one of the suggestions I have heard is that a person that is rude to a food server or like, should be disqualified as a romantic prospect. 

• Rudeness is in general a red flag. 

• In Christ, we are to love our neighbour as self, Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10, Galatians 5. 

• God's love for humanity and the Church, and the need for Christians to love one another is highlighted in the Gospel of John and in John's epistles, for example.

• 1 Peter 3: 14-16 (English Standard Version/ESV) 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BROWING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) '2 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

POLKINGHORNE, G.J. (1986) '1 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem

Trekearth photo: Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales 

Monday, September 22, 2008 The Phantom

Tuesday, October 20, 2015 Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Tuesday, April 04, 2017 Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial

Saturday, August 19, 2017 Tu quoque

Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). 

In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Blackburn

Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments. 

Pirie

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). 

Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124).

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. 

In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). 

Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies.

Tu quoque

A type of ad hominem.

Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York,  Shelter Harbour Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS (2010) Revised Standard Version, Edited by Kurt Aland, American Bible Society, New York.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Eternal versus Everlasting IV

Eternal versus Everlasting IV

Photo: Zeta Ophiuchi, NASA , July 29, 2022

Preface

Previously from the archives

Sunday, June 27, 2021 Eternal versus Everlasting III in my 40 degrees plus Celsius condominium loft

Sunday, June 01, 2008: Everlasting vs. Eternal Reprised

Friday, November 03, 2006: Eternal vs. Everlasting 

New Testament Greek

Blue Letter Bible: αἰώνιος

Cited

(Strong’s Definitions Legend) αἰώνιος aiṓnios, ahee-o'-nee-os; from G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):—eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began). Lexicon: Strong's G166 

Cited

Greek Inflections of αἰώνιος 

αἰώνια — 1x 

αἰωνίαν — 2x 

αἰωνίοις — 1x 

αἰώνιον — 45x 

αἰώνιός — 1x 

αἰώνιος — 2x

αἶώνιος — 1x 

αἰωνίου — 14x 

αἰωνιόυ — 1x

αἰωνίους — 1x 

αἰωνίων — 2x 

Cited

KJV Translation Count — Total: 71x 

The KJV translates Strong's G166 in the following manner: eternal (42x), everlasting (25x), the world began (with G5550) (2x), since the world began (with G5550) (1x), for ever (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage 

1 without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be (eternal, my add)

2 without beginning (eternal, my add)

3 without end, never to cease, everlasting (everlasting, my add)

Cited

Thayer's Greek Lexicon quotes STRONGS NT 166: αἰώνιος αἰώνιος, -ον, and (in 2 Thessalonians 2:16; Hebrews 9:12; Numbers 25:13; Plato, Tim., p. 38 b. [see below]; Diodorus 1:1; [cf. WHs Appendix, p. 157; Winers Grammar, 69 (67); Buttmann, 26 (23)]) -ος, -α, -ον, (αἰών); 

1. without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be: θεός, Romans 16:26 (ὁ μόνος αἰώνιος, 2 Macc. 1:25); πνεῦμα, Hebrews 9:14. 

2. without beginning: χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, Romans 16:25; πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; εὐαγγέλιον, a gospel whose subject-matter is eternal, i. e., the saving purpose of God adopted from eternity, Revelation 14:6. 

3. without end, never to cease, everlasting: 2 Corinthians 4:18. 

Bible Hub: 2 Corinthians 4: 18 

Based on this Greek translation, this below might be a better rendering than most...

Amplified Bible 

So we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are unseen; for the things which are visible are temporal [just brief and fleeting], but the things which are invisible are everlasting and imperishable.

In other words, everlasting (eternal) life for those in the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22).

My default most used English version is the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

...while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 

This translation does not bother me, as in context I view 'eternal' as 'everlasting'.

Theology and Philosophy of Religion

From the New Testament Greek according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament. 

Walter Bauer notes that in Romans 16: 25, a form of the word is used to describe a mystery of long ages ago without beginning. Bauer (1979: 28). In Hebrews 9: 14, a form of the word is used to describe the eternal Spirit and is mentioned as existing without beginning or end. Bauer (1979: 28). In Mathew 19: 29, Jesus discusses those that shall inherit everlasting life, and the word is used in a form that describes life existing without end. Bauer (1979: 28). 

The first verse appears to be describing a mystery that always existed with God, and in the second verse it mentions the Spirit of God that has always existed, and did not begin and will not cease. In the third verse the life Jesus discusses did not always exist, but everlasting life shall be given to some by God. There is a clear philosophical difference between the first two meanings and the last one. 

The first two examples, in my view, are describing aspects of the eternal God. Something which is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas the third example in light of Blackburn's definition is describing something that is everlasting and running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). 

In the first two usages of the word the idea being put across is that the mystery existed within the mind of the eternal God, and that God’s Spirit was eternal. God is eternal, as in without beginning or end and is beyond time. Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 47). The third verse is not describing eternal life, but everlasting life which has a beginning but no ending. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. 

This philosophical difference is why in my writings I only use the term eternal in the context of God and use the terms everlasting life, everlasting existence, or everlasting punishment when mentioning God’s created beings which exist in time. I am not trying to split hairs here, but rather wish to attempt to define my terms as properly as possible in order to avoid related theological and philosophical difficulties through the use of terminology in the future.  

This is not to deny some of the theological concepts which scholars and students use with the concept of eternal life. One student mentioned to me, while I lived in England, that we as Christians will share in the eternal life of God in the culminated Kingdom of God. I agree that we shall exist with God and experience his existence, but technically speaking he has eternal life, and we shall have everlasting life. God alone has always existed and therefore has eternal life. J.F. Walvoord notes that eternal life in Scripture is contrasted with physical life, and I completely agree. Walvoord (1996: 369). 

Whether the term is translated as eternal or everlasting life, I agree that it is the life that is opposed to physical temporal life from a Scriptural perspective. I would also add that it is contrasted with everlasting punishment for unbelievers. Whether we call it eternal or everlasting life it can only be found through Christ according to the Biblical account. 

Vicious Regress

Philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress. In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). 

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835). If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy. 

Vicious Regress from archives 

If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy. 

My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot fully understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, space, matter, the universe and all that is finite within that physical realm. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created. 

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. http://www.jonathanedwards.com

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm 

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org 

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

WALVOORD, J. F. (1996) ‘Eternal Life’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

---

Eternal = No beginning & No end. Everlasting = A beginning & No end.