Bible proves Job existed.

[Wildy]

I'm having a discussion with someone on another forum about the book of Job. Specifically whether someone called Job existed and that the stuff that happened to him actually happened.

Now essentially the evidence presented for his existence is that he's in the Bible so he must have existed.

I can see some circular reasoning in it, but could such "proof" be given for other books?

Would I be using the same logic to say, prove that Eigil Skallagrimsson exists because the saga says that he exists? And would that be as logically sound as the "Bible proves Job" argument?

 

[Wowbagger]

I believe there is a faction of Biblical literists who are willing to concede that the Book of Job, at least, was meant to be poetic tale. (Though everything else, to them, is history.)

I don't remember who they were, though.

 

[madurobob]

Would I be using the same logic to say, prove that Eigil Skallagrimsson exists because the saga says that he exists? And would that be as logically sound as the "Bible proves Job" argument?

Um, exactly as logically sound, no?

ETA: crikey - how did I get over here in the Education sub-forum?

 

[Vortigern99]

There are also books about Winnie the Pooh, Conan the Cimmerian, Tarzan of the Apes, Luke Skywalker and Mickey Mouse.

Do these works "prove" the existence of their characters?

By what mechanism would we expect a work of literature to provide evidence for the existence of personages for whom we have no other data?

If I write a book about a man named Captain Slugsucker, does he suddenly spring into existence based on my writing about him?

Or do thousands of years have to pass before some future society can claim with confidence that Captain Slugsucker definitely existed?

Can we just agree that the Bible is poetry and myth, and move ahead as a culture and a species?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Actually economics proves job existed before recession too.

 

[Marduk]

I'm having a discussion with someone on another forum about the book of Job. Specifically whether someone called Job existed and that the stuff that happened to him actually happened.

Now essentially the evidence presented for his existence is that he's in the Bible so he must have existed.

I can see some circular reasoning in it, but could such "proof" be given for other books?

Would I be using the same logic to say, prove that Eigil Skallagrimsson exists because the saga says that he exists? And would that be as logically sound as the "Bible proves Job" argument?

then I take it you are both unaware of Ludlul Bel Nimeqi, Tabu-utul-Bel. the Babylonian text upon which the biblical story of Job is based
http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html
so you can tell your friend he doesn't know what hes talking about
thanks



P.S Noah wasn't real either

 

[Almo]

I believe there is a faction of Biblical literists who are willing to concede that the Book of Job, at least, was meant to be poetic tale. (Though everything else, to them, is history.)

I don't remember who they were, though.

What is it about the book of Job that makes it exempt from Bible = fact?!? I haven't read enough of the Bible to answer this.

 

[Wowbagger]

What is it about the book of Job that makes it exempt from Bible = fact?!? I haven't read enough of the Bible to answer this.

I remember some vague idea about God and Satan being written more like chariactures, than real entities, or something.

And, it sometimes opens as if it were a fairy tale.

 

[Ryokan]

What is it about the book of Job that makes it exempt from Bible = fact?!? I haven't read enough of the Bible to answer this.

It doesn't exactly portray God as a nice guy. He and Satan has a wager over whether the god loving Job would still love God if his life was made totally miserable. So God kills all his family, gives him horrible diseases and ruins him. When Job seems to waver a bit from his God loving, God makes a personal appearance and shouts in Job's face until Job returns to be a true godfearing devout worshipper.

But it's all okay. After God wins his wager with Satan, he cures Job of his diseases and gives him a new family. How nice of him. I'm sure the new family was just as good as the old one was.

 

[jasonpatterson]

How nice of him. I'm sure the new family was just as good as the old one was.

As I recall, it was better!

There is a teacher I used to work with who wanted students to think more carefully about the information they accepted. One thing he did was ask them whether Abraham Lincoln was real or not. After all, nobody living ever met him. They usually come up with pictures and writings by him and about him, that sort of thing. It's an interesting exercise, and though he's a devout christian, it's a pretty straight line to "We don't really know whether most ancient individuals were real or not." Job, even a normal guy named Job from whom the whole story might have sprung, has no real historical evidence to support his existence.

 

[Marduk]

Job, even a normal guy named Job from whom the whole story might have sprung, has no real historical evidence to support his existence.

trying to prove a possible negative isn't good science. Examining all the evidence and then drawing a conclusion is better.

I have already posted a link to the mesopotamian text that Job is based on, unless someone wants to claim that Job was originally called something else and was over 1000 years old by the time he appears in the bible then whats to discuss ?

 

[lightfire22000]

trying to prove a possible negative isn't good science. Examining all the evidence and then drawing a conclusion is better.

I have already posted a link to the mesopotamian text that Job is based on, unless someone wants to claim that Job was originally called something else and was over 1000 years old by the time he appears in the bible then whats to discuss ?

If anybody has had a run of really bad luck and hasn't lost it, they're Job.

 

[Snixtor]

By what mechanism would we expect a work of literature to provide evidence for the existence of personages for whom we have no other data?

If I write a book about a man named Captain Slugsucker, does he suddenly spring into existence based on my writing about him?

Or do thousands of years have to pass before some future society can claim with confidence that Captain Slugsucker definitely existed?

This is a matter that continues to confound me.

It's true because it's in a book? No that doesn't work, there's lots of other books they don't believe.

It's true because the book is really old? No, there's lots of other religions with really old texts, maybe even some that claim to be older than the bible? I don't know. And even then, how does one prove the age of the text? Carbon-dating? Oops, no, believe in that and you believe the Earth is a few billion years old, that doesn't work for them either.

It's true because it's full of verifiable evidence? Er, nope, wrong again.

The only reason I can see to believe any of these old religious texts is "truth by authority". It's true because since they were 2 years old they were told it's true. It's true because they said so. It really is "faith" in the simplest definition, belief without proof.

 

[Lucian]

I'm having a discussion with someone on another forum about the book of Job. Specifically whether someone called Job existed and that the stuff that happened to him actually happened.

Now essentially the evidence presented for his existence is that he's in the Bible so he must have existed.

I can see some circular reasoning in it, but could such "proof" be given for other books?

Would I be using the same logic to say, prove that Eigil Skallagrimsson exists because the saga says that he exists? And would that be as logically sound as the "Bible proves Job" argument?

I don't think Egill is a good comparison. However exaggerated and fictionalized Egils saga may be, I don't think that there is any question that he existed. Heck, serious scholars have suggested the possibility that he suffered from Paget's Disease (http://www.viking.ucla.edu/Scientific_American/Egils_Bones.htm)

 

[CatOfGrey]

Back to the initial question here..."Because it's in the Bible" is not a proof. A religious person's belief in the Bible as infallible or sacred isn't enough to make it so. That said, the Bible does hold up much better than, say, the Koran or the Upanishads.

We have plenty of separate, non-Biblical records that verify the existence of other Biblical characters, ranging from King David to Pontius Pilate. Differing sources mentioning the same 'characters in a story' is more concrete evidence that a Biblical character was real living person.

It's my understanding (see also Marduk, above) from my study that the book of Job is more allegorical story than historical record. There aren't separate archeological records that verify whether or not Job existed.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Pure personal opinion here, but I'd say Egil's claim to reality is far, far higher than Job's.
Sturlusson, (who is surely the writer), lived in the area of Borgarfjord where Egil is supposed to have lived. There is nothing in the saga that is not consistent with reality, including the politics of the 10th century. Besides, the man jumps off the page and grabs you by the throat! If he never lived, then he is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time. Job has experiences which are flatly impossible and still emerges as one dimensional as Tiny Tim.

 

[gnome]

If someone isn't willing to go past considering the bible itself proof, then discussing it in that context is probably pointless. Then you need to move on to why they believe the Bible proves what's in it just by it being in there.

 

[jasonpatterson]

trying to prove a possible negative isn't good science. Examining all the evidence and then drawing a conclusion is better.

Huh? In what way was I trying to prove a negative possible? I just said that there was no evidence for an actual man from whom the story of Job came (pointing out a lack of evidence,) NOT that there was no man from whom the story came (attempting to prove a negative.) If you're going to pick nits, read carefully. In any case, the thread really isn't about Job in particular, so your reference to an ancient text, while certainly worthwhile and interesting, doesn't end the discussion.

I was recently confronted with this argument (that because X is in the bible it's historical fact, basically) somewhere on the internet (sorry, can't recall where.) I replied that using that same logic I could argue that there is an evil alien clown monster living underneath Derry, Maine. Both are in books, after all. In any case, to a believer the bible can be sufficient proof. It's a crappy standard of evidence, but that seems to be the way a good many people think.

 

[Wildy]

I don't think Egill is a good comparison. However exaggerated and fictionalized Egils saga may be, I don't think that there is any question that he existed. Heck, serious scholars have suggested the possibility that he suffered from Paget's Disease (http://www.viking.ucla.edu/Scientific_American/Egils_Bones.htm)

Now that I re-read the OP in the cold light of day I can see that I screwed up there. However to pretend to make myself infallible I'll just say that I meant in the absence of any other evidence.

 

[Almo]

It doesn't exactly portray God as a nice guy. He and Satan has a wager over whether the god loving Job would still love God if his life was made totally miserable. So God kills all his family, gives him horrible diseases and ruins him. When Job seems to waver a bit from his God loving, God makes a personal appearance and shouts in Job's face until Job returns to be a true godfearing devout worshipper.

But it's all okay. After God wins his wager with Satan, he cures Job of his diseases and gives him a new family. How nice of him. I'm sure the new family was just as good as the old one was.

Wow. That's really nasty. Like the Abraham/Issac thing.