Hast Thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow?

What is obvious is that you took one word out of context and jumped to conclusions about what it meant - conclusions that the text does not support.It is also obvious that the "storehouses" translation fits the text much better.And the only person who seems to want to ignore or erase those obvious facts is you.

Hi Jaf,When you return, any type of participation that is not constructive and on-topic will be met with an immediate permanent suspension. We encourage members to express their opinions, but their participation must conform to the Forum Guidelines.

My NRSV version says something like this: I interpret this not as a reference to storehouses of snow and hail, but to storehouses against "the time of distress," like bad weather or war.--Percy

By understanding it.I like your poetic interpretation of the verse. It just doesn't seem to be what the verse is actually saying.

Fair enough Sir, I'm sorry for being a bit of a hooligan chaps and chapess's.

But how can my "interpretation" be an "interpretation" per say, when a plain surface reading of the text confirms it's meaning?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.I trust this view point is valid and on topic because it is my sincere desire to be so. Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.

Are you saying the plain surface text reading is that God knows scientific truths about ice crystals that Job doesn't? The book of Enoch is not a heathen gnostic text but a Jewish text that was eventually excluded from the canon. It's inclusion in the discussion, along with other canon references serves to show what these people generally meant when they referred to 'treasures of the snow' and how one might 'enter into it'.

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? 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 )."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Job 38:22 calls both snow and hail "treasures", so it is clearly not about the wonderful crystal structure. Verse 23 explains that God can use both snow and hail as weapons in wartime. That's the "plain surface reading".As I said, I like your interpretation but it's only useful as a secondary interpretation. It doesn't suggest that the author of Job had any scientific knowledge. I, for one, am not. I know nothing about gnostic texts and I haven't mentioned them.

Because the text doesn't mention crystals, or the uniqueness of each snowflake, you are interpreting " treasures" to mean these things.

There isn't really any knowledge revealed, its just a metaphor.And if you look to the context of the passsage, you can see that the Lord was questioning Job's ability to question the Lord, because, as the Lord asserts, Job doesn't have enough knowledge of the world to qualify him for questioning the Lord.I'll just use the NIV version of the Bible, as that's the default for the website I'm using, if you prefer a different version, let me know.

quote:

---

Job 38

​

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

​

2 Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
8 Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,

​

...

​

19 What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?

---

The author is simply employing poetic license. The "father" of the rain, the "storehouses" (or treasures) of the snow, the sea bursting forth from the "womb", etc.The passage you quoted is not saying that a snowflake is a "treasure" because of the microscopic beauty it contains. It isn't really a plain surface reading of the text, though. You think the "treasures" are referring to microscopic beauty, but that's not really indicated by the context.And plain surface readings can often miss the point. Do you think the Lord is actually saying that there is a "womb" for the sea?And wouldn't a plain surface reading indicate that Jesus, the Lamb of God, if God's pet baby sheep?

hang on a second there, jaf. here's what my copy says:

quote:

---

הֲבָאתָ, אֶל-אֹצְרוֹת שָׁלֶג; וְאוֹצְרוֹת בָּרָד תִּרְאֶה.

---

have you ever considered that your versions might be some heathen perversion of the text? i mean, your reading it in a language that was first spoken by pagan barbarians centuries later, and half a world away. and that language has change substantially since that time, too. but right there? that's the original text, in the original language.granted, it doesn't really matter for this particular verse, but it sure can for others.

My dear modulous, yes that is precisely what I am saying, did I not clearly convey this position in my OP? Phew, are you a little slow on the uptake or is this your way of being petulant and pedantic within forum guidelines? I'm just seeking the truth.Enoch, cannon? Etc, I don't follow. The 66 books is Scripture not a fable that depicts fallen angels teaching women kind to put on make up. Have a titter of wit man.

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.This is what you chaps are doingMe "The quick brown fox jumped over the fence."You Guys"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? Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.

Good one mate, that gave me good laugh. Put's into perspective what everyone's form is here. CHANGE WHATS BEEN SAID OR WRITTEN INTO SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT SAID OR WRITTEN! Even better change the language so no one can read it as if that makes some kind of valid and important point. IT DOESN'T! Although it was witty.Your second point is off topic, but yes obviously I have considered it. I am left but with no excuse as to believe the Facts, the KJV is the best version in English we've got and all other English versions are in at least some way erroneous some of them are down write satanic its so obvious. Plus we have the Greek and Hebrew concordances of every word, we lack nothing, you don't even need to be a fool and waste years learning Hebrew and Greek thinking this is the only way you are going to know the truth.I don't mean it foolish to learn either of these wonderful languages by the way. But Ive seen atheist say such things as Ive mentioned above as if to imply that because they have learned these languages they are far better qualified to discus scripture with some faith head Christian who hasn't, which is arrogance in the extreme not to mention utter rubbish!. Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.