Job is the oldest book in the bible as old as 5000 years old according to some
That would conflict with the usual creationist dogma, since it would put Job pre-Flood, Job mentions rain, and most fundies seem to think that there was no rain before the Flood.
I propose this Post for the Intelligent Design threads. For what is more intelligent and creative than the wonder and beauty EACH INDIVIDUAL:Y CREATED SNOW FLAKE?
Wait, you think God spends his time personally making each snowflake?
Doesn't he have something better to do?
Also, he's not very good at it, is he? Most snowflakes are asymmetric. The symmetric snowflakes you see in photos are just the 1 in 1000 good ones that get selected by photographers. So if they're made by God, he screws up 999 times out of 1000, not a very good score for an omnipotent being.
Question: How can you ignore this scripture as to God's REVEALING His knowledge of the wonders of snow 5000 years before the microscope? AND NOT BE CONSIDERED INTELLECTUALLY IMMORAL for doing so?
Er ... 'cos there isn't any scientific knowledge revealed in the quote?
But there is some scientific ignorance on display. Snow and hail are not kept in treasuries ( אֹצְרוֹת ). One could excuse this as poetic license, but to hold it up as scientific knowledge is ridiculous. Oh, and thunder isn't God shouting either.
That's mans fault not Gods, how much money do you give a month to help the starving you creepy freak? Not a brass razoo I bet. Waiting for God to do it are you. Jerk.
I give to charity; if I waited for God to do something useful I'd be waiting a long time. And now, thanks to you, I know why --- it's because he's busy making microscopic works of art, 99.9% of which he botches completely, and 99.999999999% of which melt before anyone sees them. The Big Dude's got his priorities, y'see, and helping people isn't high on the list.
But how can my "interpretation" be an "interpretation" per say, when a plain surface reading of the text confirm it's meaning?
But it doesn't.
To start with, a plain surface reading of the text shows that the text is saying exactly the same thing about hail as it does about snow. Are we meant to believe that the author used exactly the same word ( אֹצְרוֹת ) in the same verse in a classic example of Hebrew literary parallelism, and yet was using it to mean something completely different in the two halves of the same sentence?
By analogy, if I were to say "Abraham Lincoln was an impressive President; James Madison was an impressive President also", is it a "plain surface reading of the text" that I mean that Madison was a good President and that Abraham Lincoln was a tall one?
Why is every one resorting to perversions of scripture and every form heathen gnostic text to wash over the plain reading of the text in my OP.
If you don't like the book of Enoch, how about Psalms 135:7? "He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries ( אֹצְרוֹת )."
1. it doesn't say EXACTLY the same thing, it doesn't say ENTER IN to hail, because as my learned friend said, one can observe the pattern in hail without a microscope not so with snow.
So ... what are you saying? The "plain surface reading" of "entered into" ( הֲבָאתָ ) is "observed"? And the "plain surface reading" of "treasury" ( אֹצְרוֹת ) is "pattern"?
And what do you understand by the words "plain" and "surface"? Only there again you seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition.
Me "The quick brown fox jumped over the fence."
"The book of Enoch would seem to suggest that said fox (actually a 14 billion year old axolotl) was not at all quick but clever because he in actual fact "darted" (the Greek for this word is darted but the word doesn't exist in Hebrew which makes the bible a lie) UNDER, do you see that UNDER not over the fence, which of course is what not only made him appear quick but also to appear like a fox jumping over a fence.
Editors note, it helps to take a large skull of peyote or mescaline before joining the forum.
Am I right?
No. Especially not about the mescalin, that may be where you're going wrong.
"Hast thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow? You are ignoring ENTERED INTO, may I bring that to your attention please and thank you? Can you address these particular two words please
Certainly. They mean "entered into". They do not mean "observed". This is appropriate to the context, since one may indeed enter into a storehouse ( אֹצְרוֹת ). They do not imply that the author of Job knew anything about the microscopic structure of snow, because of not saying anything remotely like that.
... except when the Bible uses the same word for hail. And the wind. And the sea.
If snow wasn't so microscopically beautiful you guys would have an argument
The boot is on the other foot. What has happened is that because you happen to know that snow looks pretty under a microscope, you've decided that in this particular half-sentence (but not in the other half of the same sentence, or anywhere else in the Bible, or anywhere else in the entire corpus of Hebrew literature) the word אֹצְרוֹת should mean "microscopic beauty".
This is entirely ad hoc. You don't point to the other half of the sentence and say: "Look, the Bible is wrong, it says that hail has microscopic beauty!" do you? No, it means "microscopic beauty" when you want it to and doesn't when you don't.
Except that, y'know, you do not have powers to change the meaning of Hebrew words. The Bible says what it says.