In article ,
sutherlandrobert{at}shaw.ca
says...

>Matthew Johnson:
>
>>You wrote in consideration of Job 2:10: "It is also of interest to
>note
>>that even if "at the hand of" _did_ imply authorship, Job did _not_
>say
>>"shall we not receive evil at the hand of God". The
_departure_ from
>>parallelism looks deliberate. It could very well be to deny that God
>is
>>the author of evil."
>
>>How would you reconcile your interpretation with Job 12:9 "Who among
>>all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?"
>
>'Reconcile'? No 'reconciliation' is necessary. I think you would have
>understood
>this if you had not passed over the James citation in such suspicious
>silence.
>
>The James passage is completely irrelevant.

No, it is NOT "completely irrelevant. How could you say this? And you accuse
_me_ of ignoring the text?

But again, I suppose I should not be surprised that you are so easily confused,
seeing that you STILL do not understand basic netiquette. You have messed up the
attributions even worse in this post than in your preceding one.

>  In the Book of Job, God
>does evil not to tempt but to test.

Wrong. The preface alone makes it clear how wrong you are. It is Satan who does
these evils to Job, he is _permitted_ to do so by God. Stop ignoring this vital
difference.

> The difference is in the
>"intention" not the "act".

No, that is not the difference.

>  God intends that Job passes the trial,
>hence the trial is a test.  If God had intended that Job fail the test,
>then it would be a temptation.

Nonsense. You are applying a late an fanciful distinction, one that is neither
in the text of Job nor in James. Why, in the James quote you persist in
ignorantly ignoring, the very same verb is used for both.

>The question remains: Job says the evil he endures comes from the hand
>of God (Job 2:10; 12:9) and God says Job is right in what he says about
>God (Job 42:7-8)

And once again, "comes from the hand of" does NOT imply causation. If you
actually _read_ any theodicy, this idea would not surprise you.


>I reconcile that through the distinction between causal responsibility
>and moral blameworthiness that is at the heart of the notion of
>necessity.

Some 'reconciliation'.

>You merely deny that Job said what he said.  I still don't see how you
>can do that from the text itself.

And you never will see, as long as you insist on ignoring the obvious and
denying the relevance of the James citation. When you do see, you will realize
it is YOU who deny what Job said, because you interpret poetry as if it were
prose and ignore the general cultural context, _despite_ your
pseudo-intellectual allusions to "NWS".


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 5:34:37 PM ---