Origin of Sin, Part Deux

[DHK]

Did Job sin with his lips? No. That is stated in the text and it is explicit.

Did job speak "only according to his understanding? Facts not in evidence as there are no specific statements to this in scripture, therefore this is an assumption on your part.

Not much of an assumption. We all speak according to our own understanding. This is no new revelation.

Did job understand what was happening in heaven? Facts not in evidence as there are no specific statements to this in scripture, therefore this is an assumption on your part.

This can be backed up by plenty of other Scripture. How many have seen heaven. Paul said:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)
Paul did not know what heaven was like.

Job himself said:
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: (Job 19:25)
--He did not know exactly what this latter day would be like. But he knew there would be a redeemer.
None of us know what heaven is like.
The facts are in evidence.

The narrator records both sets of words for us, therefore they are both equally accurate. You are trying to create a false dichotomy between God's words and Job's words and the only way to do this is to do violence to the text and to throw out the doctrine of inspiration.

God's words are recorded. They are God's very words.
Job's words are recorded. They are Job's words. That puts them along the line of opinion, not absolute truth. This does justice to inspiration. It upholds it. It gives credence to whose words are whose and how much weight we should attribute to each. Later Job's "friends" will come and falsely accuse him. How much weight will we assign to their words? They will be accurately recorded as they were spoken. But were they true in content?

This is not correct. While it is true that lies are recorded (like Rahab's lies) and those lies are lies, it is not true that those words are any less accurate.

That is what I said, so why are you saying it is incorrect?

There is a purpose in the inspired writers of scripture recording such things as the serve to bolster the main point.

I realize that.

You are incorrect. Satan's statement was a true statement. The fulfillment was not immediate, but Adam and Eve did die.

Read more carefully my post, and what Satan said.
He said: "Thou shalt NOT surely die." That was a lie. They did die. They died immediately albeit, a spiritual death. We discussed this in another thread. Young's literal translation: "Dying thou shalt die". In other words the degenerative process began immediately.

Again, you are doing violence to the text to suggest God's words are at odds with the author/narrator of any given text.

How am I doing that? The narrator simply records that which is being said. Satan spoke a lie and it was recorded as a lie. Where is your confusion? It was accurately recorded.

The problem here--as it has been all along--is that the words to which you are referring to are observations by the same narrator who records God's words and Satan's words.

Further, when Job said the Lord has taken away, etc. the narrator affirms that Job is correct. So, while Job may not be accurate in every word he utters, the words in Job 1-2 that I have already posted are accurate, not because Job said them, but because the narrator has attested to their accuracy.

The narrator simply narrates. He is telling the story, recording what happened, who said what, etc. You have unwittingly made my point. While Job may not be accurate in every word he utters...
If the narrator is simply narrating how does he make Job's words any more or less accurate than they already are? He is objective, simply telling a story.

As for attributing evil to God...when you see Ch 42 (and Ch 1, 2) is it not the narrator's words attesting to the fact that God had brought the evil (or calamity) on Job? Certainly. These facts are without dispute. The narrator actually says that very thing.

The narrator is attributing those words to the relatives of Job. He is narrating what happened. If he isn't, then why does he use the pronoun "they" so many times? It was "they" who accused God of bringing evil upon Job, not the narrator.

You are simply wrong because you are making assumptions of the text that simply are not there. Those assumptions are inline with your presuppositions and they do not accurately reflect the text.

The Archangel

I do not differentiate between a "narrator" and the actual individuals involved. "They" means "they," not a narrator. How do you get out of that? I take the story literally.