The name Job apparently means "object of hostility." From the Bible book of Job, we know that Satan poured out much hostility on a man of integrity who was blameless and upright (Job 1:1). Satan took away his wealth, his beloved children, he attacked Job's health and three companions of Job told him that he was suffering because of some sin that he had committed. Furthermore, Job's wife told him to curse God and die.
[use the picture here]
How do you think Job felt after this vicious attack? Quite frankly, he became consumed with his own problems and the unfair criticism he received from his "comforters." However, notice what Jehovah said in Job 37:14
" Listen to this, Job; Stop and consider carefully the wonderful works of God."
What did Job need to do to regain his spiritual balance?
Allow the audience to comment.
Afterwards:
When we feel overwhelmed by our trials, observing creation can help us to remember Jehovah’s greatness; it can strengthen our desire cleave to him and build our confidence in God's ability to care for us. See Matthew 6:26.
Show the video
Then ask the audience:
How did this video strengthen your trust in Jehovah?
Conclude
Friday, August 02, 2024
Job and the Creation of Jehovah (Modified Talk)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Footnotes
*
Possibly meaning “Object of Hostility.”
*
Or “a blameless and upright man.”
References please?
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Job.html
Unconvincing.
https://www.ancestry.com/first-name-meaning/job#:~:text=The%20name%20Job%20has%20its,found%20in%20the%20Old%20Testament.
Duncan, Job 1:1 calls Job a man who is blameless and upright.
As for the meaning of his name, please note the use of the word "apparently."
See https://nameberry.com/b/boy-baby-name-job
Some suggest "persecuted" or "object of enmity." See https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/job/
https://www.behindthename.com/name/job
See also BDB here: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/347.htm
Did you pick up on the - all dubious ?
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%95%D7%91
It's whatever you want it to mean, we have no solid data and I don't know what is supposed to be apparent?
Yes I did, but I don't think it means whatever one wants it to mean. Object of enmity or hostility is a possible or apparent meaning and I never meant to be dogmatic about the point. I can also post more info later about the name.
Job also uses an apparent exclusive term “ there is no one like him”
https://mnemonicdictionary.com/word/apparent
NO, that's an apparent theme in the text, NOT an apparent meaning of the name. Is not the same thing and this trick seems to be played over and over with Hebrew.
There was a time when I thought Benner might have been correct about Genesis 5 and the meanings of names, but not any more. I have learned much more about these dubious claims and it appears I am not the only one - https://youtu.be/nN4PQTFHvDs?si=jPFJfg_Vb9k3uzjB
According to Oxford languages, ap·par·ent·ly
adverb
as far as one knows or can see.
"the child nodded, apparently content with the promise"
According to BDB and other sources I've consulted, it's possible that Job means object of hostility or enmity. We can't say for sure, but scholars say it's a possible meaning, not just a theme of the text.
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
What scholars SAY does not cut it for me, it's what they can SHOW that matters and I have seen nothing to back up claims like these for many name MEANINGS.
Well, Duncan, scholars are fallible like the entire lot of humankind. However, they usually have some basis for their claims, even if the claim is wrong. But in the case of what names potentially mean in Hebrew, I don't see scholars being dogmatic they usually suggest or point out what a name might mean. In the large scheme of things, it's a minor issue to me.
Depends how a supposed meaning is utilised. The trouble is that in cases like these, one scholar quotes another scholar and on and on. There are many instances in papers where they even put a reference but the references conclusion imply something contrary to what the paper claims, even when peer reviewed. So it a little more than error or imperfection.
I'm not saying that error or imperfection is the total explanation: there is likely more than one reason why these things happen. At any rate, citing a source is not always for support. Sometimes, a scholar uses a source to show a contrasting view.
An thew would state the contrast?
Not always
Well, as someone coming from a background of writing technical papers and also being a qualified quality auditor I find that to be very odd indeed. I would expect that to cite a paper with data I want to use that has a different conclusion to mine I would have to argue against the validity of their conclusion or state something about it. Not just drop it into a paragraph arguing a different conclusion. It would be classed as misrepresentation. I just find it odd.
Post a Comment