Bhutanese

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

Noun

1. A person from Bhutan or of Bhutanese descent.

   Translations

   • German: Bhutaner m, Bhutanerin f

Adjective

1. Of, from, or pertaining to Bhutan, the Bhutanese people or the Bhutanese language.

   Translations

   • German: bhutanisch

Matthew Johnson:

1. You write: "I do NOT see "God is the author of evil (undeserved or
any other) in these verses. I do see the innocence and even very great
righteousness of Job in them. I even see the undeserved evil. But NOT
"God the author". It was Satan who was the _author_ of the evils Job
suffered."

(a) In morality and law, both and modern, we distinguish between
principals and parties to the offence (also known as accessories).
God is not a mere observer and therefore without any legal
involvement. He is participant and authorizes the actions of Satan.

(b) I neglected to mention Job 40:15,19 on the subject of God's
authorship of evil. Behemoth/Leviathan is a chaos monster. It is a
moral metaphor for the evil/chaos that is part of the nature of
things. God acknowledges that he created that.

2. You write: "But let's not forget where these words are placed in
the book: they are placed immediately after Job's own defence of
himself against the unjust accusations of Bildad, who has arrogantly
made himself a 'helper' to the Almighty, on the false grounds that it
is the Almighty who is attacking Job with these sufferings. So the
real function of these words in this place is to deny the false
accusations of Bildad -- accusations that were false both in regard to
Job (who is innocent) and in regard to God (who is also innocent)."

(a) If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Oath of
Innocence is solely a defense against and accusation against Job's
three friends and in particular Bildad.

(b) I would disagree. I acknowledge it certainly contains that
defense and accusation, but is primarily directed as a defense and
accusation against God. He calls on God to answer him. (Job 31:35-37)

3. You write: "But claiming that God is Himself the _author_ of this
evil would NOT be an act of great faith."

(a) It didn't seem to be a problem for either Moses (Deuteronomy
32:39) or Isaiah (Isaiah 45:7)

4. You write: "Does it really now? Then why did neither the near
native speakers of Hebrew who did the LXX, nor the Hebrew scholars who
did the JPS translate it this way? Both use far milder expressions,
such as: Far be it from me that I should justify you; till I die I
will not put away mine integrity from me.(Job 27:5 JPS)"

(a) You would have to ask them for a definitive answer.

(b) I note that Edwin Good and Walter Michel both read it in that
stronger sense. I do cite them on the website
http://www.bookofjob.org They do so in part because of the clear
parallels to the Northwest Semitic language of the Ras Shamra texts.

5. You write: "And did you notice the difference between this 'demand'
and the 'demand' of a lawsuit? Job is not demanding that God make
right a wrong; he is _only_ demanding that God answer the question,
"why are you doing this to me"? The difference is very important."

(a) I do note the difference, and I agree with its importance.

6. You write: "The Hebrew word "kuwn" there means "established
>with certainty". Why, oh why, are you so certain of this? I see
nothing in either Strong's or BDB that backs you up here."

(a) I thought I indicated that all the footnotes were on the website
http://www.bookofjob.org.

(b) That particular interpretation is a direct quotation from Harris,
R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament: Volume 1 (Moody, Chicago, 1980) p.433-434.

7. You write: "Certainly the _reader_ of Job never sees this "right to
know" in the book, because even after reading it, we _still_ don't
know. Nor do we see it revealed to Job, either. Instead, Job hears God
say something quite different. Yet Job is more than content with teh
answer he received."

(a) We do know the outlines of the defense/answer. (Job 1:9-11)

(b) We don't know the details. We don't know that selfless love is the
highest good. It might be. We don't know that the achievement of
selfless love cannot be achieved without undeserved evil. It might be.
All these details require further from God than that which he gives.
I read Satan's trial of God in a way that precludes God from giving
those details here and now.

(c) Job and the reader shouldn't be satified with the answer God gives
in his first and second speeches to Job. They dodge the central moral
issue.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))