Boro Nut

Of course. But I don't think we should risk throwing the baby out with the dishwasher. We should make allowance for a little hyperbole and embellishment, which was the norm of the day. In reality it was probably no larger than a sturgeon. I think it was a sturgeon.

Anyway, I don't recall that Job's size is ever specifically mentioned. Have you considered the possibility that he was a midget? It doesn't say he wasn't, so he probably was, or they wouldn't have gone to such lengths to avoid embarrassing him by not mentioning it. It could have even been a small sturgeon.

Boro Nut

Boro Nut

Shush Peter. I was just getting going.

Boro Nut

Clouseau

?

Is intended as allegory.

This word should be translated 'proud, arrogant men'. Imv, of course.

Also intended as allegory.

Plurals in Hebrew were quite often used as intensifiers, in this case to emphasise power and majesty, and therefore to exclude happenstance from the creation of man.

spin

How do you know? Divine revelation?

Clouseau

In the first case, the story must be allegory because of the figurative use of trees and a snake, and an angel flashing a sword. A literal deluge as detailed is impossible, so the account must be mythical.

spin

This all might seem so to you writing in May 2007, but what makes you think that your views about a text written over 2000 years ago are relevant to views of over 2000 years ago?

Just because you can't bring yourself to take for real events involving the use of trees and snakes and angels, does that mean that the people for whom the narrative was written couldn't?

And just because science might tell you that a literal deluge is impossible does that mean that the author of a passage written before the development of the science you use must see things the same way as you?

My question to you was "How do you know?", ie how do you know the intentions of the writers involved? (Remember your words were "Is intended as allegory... Also intended as allegory.") You've apparently given me your perceptions of the world, not those of the writers you believe you can divine.


spin

Clouseau

It matters not one whit what the original readers believed (and no assumptions should be made in that regard, anyway). It matters not at all whether early Genesis has a literal or allegoric meaning, though it may be advantageous if allegorical meaning is taken as it may focus minds on deeper messages within it. Nowhere does the Bible set out to be a science textbook, or even an historical one, except insofar as its spiritual message relies upon historicity. The ancients were generally less concerned about science facts and actual origins than we, with our pragmatic use of science, often are; they were much more concerned about moral and political realities, which were the context of all ancient myths. So even if these particular early myths were taken literally, it is of very little consequence. For people today, who may therefore be missing the wood for the trees by focusing on science, science can provide a factually correct interpretation. It does not really matter whether one is a literalist or not about early Genesis, unless one's personal occupation requires that allegory is accepted.

spin

All that matters is that when you talk through your hat about matters you have no way of knowing about -- such as whether or not this or that is intended to be allegorical --, people should trust you.

Clouseau

So were you there, spin? Can you confirm that the ancients were as familiar with talking snakes as we are with computer monitors? That when John wrote in Rev 20:2 of 'that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan', he was taking unwonted liberties with the ancient text?

Had I been talking through my hat, I'm sure it would have been pointed out, with alacrity, by someone who was there.

spin

Talking through one's hat is what one does when one doesn't know what they are talking about. Ironically, what they say may at times even be correct, but they have no way of knowing. I don't need to have been there to know that you were not, or that you have no apparent way of knowing what you claimed to know.