Job 1:11

  • Thread starter Thread starter worldwideweary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

worldwideweary

Guest
In reading Job 1:11 -
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot originally based on the Codex Vaticanus utilizes ευλογησει.
The Nova Vulgata utilizes benedixerit. Even the Masoretic text uses a word with barak as the base יְבָרֲכֶֽךָּ׃ (yə·ḇā·ră·ḵe·kā). So far understood, all of these words are literally translated into English as “bless”, yet in most bibles besides the D.R. you will find the word “curse” used when Satan speaks to LORD and says that Job will “curse you to your face”.

The question for the thread then is, why is this translated as “bless” in the older English, but in all the other newer English translations is the word “curse”? With that in mind, how does a reader know whether when seeing “bless” or “curse” that there’s not an intermingled correlation some how in other passages?
 
The question for the thread then is, why is this translated as “bless” in the older English, but in all the other newer English translations is the word “curse”?
Satan says to God, “you know… you’ve blessed Job with all sorts of blessings. And oh, what a God-fearing man he is! But I’ll tell ya what: take away his possessions and, well… then let’s see how he blesses you!”

The text says, “if he blesses you”; the meaning is “he’ll curse you.”
With that in mind, how does a reader know whether when seeing “bless” or “curse” that there’s not an intermingled correlation some how in other passages?
It’s a good question.

The answer is simple: those who say “the Bible is written simply, and meant to be interpreted by every reader simply” are introducing a rule of exegesis that had never been part of the Church’s living tradition. Rather, the rule of exegesis is “God has given the Scriptures to the Church, and the Church is tasked with properly interpreting it.”

So, a reader knows… by listening to the Church’s interpretation and her translation of Scripture.
 
Bless you 😉

P.S. Aside, one wonders whether the blessing upon Jacob which was had through deceit has anything to do with a lingual curse/blessing correlation as demonstrated here, but that’s just a passing thought.

I’ll leave this be with a Pentecostal Maranatha.
 
P.S. Aside, one wonders whether the blessing upon Jacob which was had through deceit has anything to do with a lingual curse/blessing correlation as demonstrated here, but that’s just a passing thought.
No, that’s a different dynamic. Jacob was scheming for the birthright and for his father’s inheritance blessing. In Job, the issue is whether Job would love God if he weren’t so successful in this life. Two distinctly different issues.
I’ll leave this be with a Pentecostal Maranatha.
Umm… ok. 🤷
 
Bless you 😉

P.S. Aside, one wonders whether the blessing upon Jacob which was had through deceit has anything to do with a lingual curse/blessing correlation as demonstrated here, but that’s just a passing thought.
No, that’s a different dynamic. Jacob was scheming for the birthright and for his father’s inheritance blessing. In Job, the issue is whether Job would love God if he weren’t so successful in this life. Two distinctly different issues.
Woah! Hold the phone, remember the story of Esau and Jacob was rich in typology. It is not so much that of deceit or scheming but that of what is to come.

Rebecca is the symbol of the Blessed Mother, Jacob, is the symbol of the elect and of Christ, while Esau is of the condemned.

The Blessed Mother loves those who love her. She loves them because she is really their mother. She loves them because God loves them “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Also she loves them because they have consecrated themselves entirely to her. They are her portion, her inheritance, “Have Israel for thine inheritance.”

What does she do, what any good mother does. Just what Rebecca did of old with the two little goats Jacob brought to her: she kills them, makes them die to the life of the old Adam. She flays and strips them of their natural skin, their natural inclinations, their self love, their own will and all attachments to creatures. She dresses them to the taste of God, and for His greatest glory; and as it is Mary alone who knows perfectly what the divine taste is, and what the greatest glory of the Most High is, it is Mary alone who, without making any mistake, can adapt and dress our body and soul for that taste infinitely exalted.

As Rebecca covered the neck and hands of Jacob with the skins of the little goats, Mary covers her children with the merits and values of her own works.

She leads each one in his new clothes, his face shining, close to the Father. The Father hears the voice, and knows it, the voice of a sinner. However, He feels the hands covered with the skins put there by Mary. He inhales the aroma of the garments and He accepts with joy the dish prepared by Mary. Then, being aware of the merits of His Son and of His favorite daughter in the sinner, He gives him a double blessing.

Like Rebecca, Mary protects her children by her ingenuity and constant care. Esau would certainly have killed Jacob, had it not been for Rebecca’s resourcefulness and love. Esau roars in anger accusing his brother, and this is when Esau became a symbol of those who seek to serve both God and the world, who want the joys of heaven, and the pleasures of earth as well.

Lets look at the Esau’s of the world:
-strong, sturdy, loved to hunt, had confidence only in his own strength and skill.
-never stayed home, was always out in the world.
-fond of his own mouth, or of food, so much so he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
-envious of his brother.
-cared little for his mother, probably they (the Esau’s of the world) don’t hate her, formally, but they do not love her.
-sell their birthright (the joys of heaven) for the pleasures of the earth.
-they hate the Jacob’s, persecute them, mimic and insult them.

Now the Jacob’s
-not so sturdy, but peaceful, even-tempered, they love their mother and like to stay at home with her. If they leave the house it is to do her bidding, never through selfishness.
-they love and honor their mother, and are subject to her.
-they trust their mother, truly rely on her.

Finally and most importantly they follow their mother to the Father.

(Most all of this is not my words, but that of the Church Fathers and Saints)
 
No, that’s a different dynamic. Jacob was scheming for the birthright and for his father’s inheritance blessing. In Job, the issue is whether Job would love God if he weren’t so successful in this life. Two distinctly different issues.
You bring to the plate the literal difference between the two scenarios. I wasn’t referring to the face value of the story but rather taking the liberty for pondering a little “out of the box” as per related to the words blessing/curse.
Umm… ok. 🤷
June 4th, 2017 is the celebration of Pentecost. I meant to close the thread or our particular post/reply by saying the word which Paul used in 1 Corinthians 16:22 especially since it is paralleled next to the word “curse”; it seemed suitable for the thread and the day. :cool:
 
Woah! Hold the phone, remember the story of Esau and Jacob was rich in typology. It is not so much that of deceit or scheming but that of what is to come.

Rebecca is the symbol of the Blessed Mother, Jacob, is the symbol of the elect and of Christ, while Esau is of the condemned.

The Blessed Mother loves those who love her. She loves them because she is really their mother. She loves them because God loves them “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Also she loves them because they have consecrated themselves entirely to her. They are her portion, her inheritance, “Have Israel for thine inheritance.”

What does she do, what any good mother does. Just what Rebecca did of old with the two little goats Jacob brought to her: she kills them, makes them die to the life of the old Adam. She flays and strips them of their natural skin, their natural inclinations, their self love, their own will and all attachments to creatures. She dresses them to the taste of God, and for His greatest glory; and as it is Mary alone who knows perfectly what the divine taste is, and what the greatest glory of the Most High is, it is Mary alone who, without making any mistake, can adapt and dress our body and soul for that taste infinitely exalted.

As Rebecca covered the neck and hands of Jacob with the skins of the little goats, Mary covers her children with the merits and values of her own works.

She leads each one in his new clothes, his face shining, close to the Father. The Father hears the voice, and knows it, the voice of a sinner. However, He feels the hands covered with the skins put there by Mary. He inhales the aroma of the garments and He accepts with joy the dish prepared by Mary. Then, being aware of the merits of His Son and of His favorite daughter in the sinner, He gives him a double blessing.

Like Rebecca, Mary protects her children by her ingenuity and constant care. Esau would certainly have killed Jacob, had it not been for Rebecca’s resourcefulness and love. Esau roars in anger accusing his brother, and this is when Esau became a symbol of those who seek to serve both God and the world, who want the joys of heaven, and the pleasures of earth as well.

Lets look at the Esau’s of the world:
-strong, sturdy, loved to hunt, had confidence only in his own strength and skill.
-never stayed home, was always out in the world.
-fond of his own mouth, or of food, so much so he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
-envious of his brother.
-cared little for his mother, probably they (the Esau’s of the world) don’t hate her, formally, but they do not love her.
-sell their birthright (the joys of heaven) for the pleasures of the earth.
-they hate the Jacob’s, persecute them, mimic and insult them.

Now the Jacob’s
-not so sturdy, but peaceful, even-tempered, they love their mother and like to stay at home with her. If they leave the house it is to do her bidding, never through selfishness.
-they love and honor their mother, and are subject to her.
-they trust their mother, truly rely on her.

Finally and most importantly they follow their mother to the Father.

(Most all of this is not my words, but that of the Church Fathers and Saints)
Thank you for this info, my friend.
 
"USMC_Convert:
Woah! Hold the phone, remember the story of Esau and Jacob was rich in typology. It is not so much that of deceit or scheming but that of what is to come.
Absolutely!

The way I understood www’s question was on the level of the literal type of blessing being discussed. In Job, it’s a question of whether Job will have good things to say about God in the absence of good times, and in the Jacob narrative, it’s a legal / inheritance issue.
You bring to the plate the literal difference between the two scenarios. I wasn’t referring to the face value of the story but rather taking the liberty for pondering a little “out of the box” as per related to the words blessing/curse.
So… you were thinking about the literal word, but not the literal meaning? Umm… ok.
June 4th, 2017 is the celebration of Pentecost. I meant to close the thread or our particular post/reply by saying the word which Paul used in 1 Corinthians 16:22 especially since it is paralleled next to the word “curse”; it seemed suitable for the thread and the day. :cool:
Ahh…! 👍
 
Although the quotes are appreciated, why is there an omission of Rebecca’s willingness to participate in deceitfulness with the addition of the “let the curse be upon me” to comfort Jacob’s worry about being a deceiver? No need to answer the question here unless you feel it to be of necessity – mainly just to think about.
So… you were thinking about the literal word, but not the literal meaning? Umm… ok.
As we just discussed, bless in the text of Job actually expresses a meaning of cursing, so it is not the ‘literal meaning’ but the ‘literal word’ employed as you described. When the blessing is given to Jacob, what is shown to be the result later for him? He has to do twice the original work agreed upon (7+7 years) with the addition of getting a different wife, Leah (cute name), than what was originally proposed in the agreement – let alone the fact that he had to Wrestle in Gen 32 😉 Although it is a ‘stretch’, maybe this has something to do with this bless/curse usage as described earlier?

Haha, your “umms” bring a touch of juvenility to the forums 👍

See Ya, …and may this week’s evil ‘sufficient for a day’ be of inconsequential minuteness.
 
Although the quotes are appreciated, why is there an omission of Rebecca’s willingness to participate in deceitfulness with the addition of the “let the curse be upon me” to comfort Jacob’s worry about being a deceiver? No need to answer the question here unless you feel it to be of necessity – mainly just to think about.
Sorry to jump your thread, didn’t mean to derail you in anyway. Anyway, since I see no other interesting threads to write on right now, I will attempt to give you some small answer.

When we are talking literally about the actual person in the Bible (Rebecca, Jacob, etc) they do not totally reflect those who they are “types” of in the future. So while Christ was the second Adam (Adam being a “type” of Christ) that in no way means that Adam was perfect, performed miracles or anything else.

The omission is because I was not focusing on the exact story, I was telling the typology of it, how it relates to the Blessed Mother. Of course Rebecca is deceitful, she admits it straight out. However, I was pointing out that looking back on the meaning of the story in the Bible is not that someone was deceitful or not, but what it shows us, what it teaches us.

Finally I do not mean to insult anyone’s intelligence here, you guys seem to know what your talking about, I just have to throw my 2 cents in sometimes!
 
Gotcha.
I don’t want to speak for everyone who posted here, but I’m pretty sure no one feels insulted: at least I don’t. Ain’t nobody got time for that! Thanks for throwing in the quotes and see ya around.
 
As we just discussed, bless in the text of Job actually expresses a meaning of cursing, so it is not the ‘literal meaning’ but the ‘literal word’ employed as you described.
No; it’s the “literal sense of Scripture” in this passage. See The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church for a discussion of the difference between fundamentalist-style literalism and the “literal sense of Scripture”.
When the blessing is given to Jacob, what is shown to be the result later for him?
Again, you’re misunderstanding the context of the blessings Jacob received. The two incidents in Jacob’s life speak to inheritance and familial role. It wasn’t just a generic ‘blessing’, as you seem to be implying. Therefore, “later results” with respect to the way his attempts at marriage play out aren’t relevant here.
Although it is a ‘stretch’, maybe this has something to do with this bless/curse usage as described earlier?
It is a stretch. It doesn’t have something to do with the literal word ‘blessing’ found earlier in the text.
Haha, your “umms” bring a touch of juvenility to the forums 👍
I tend to see it as ‘lightheartedness’ as opposed to ‘immaturity’. You know… in the same way that your ‘haha’ is itself lighthearted, but not juvenile… n’est-ce pas? 😉
 
No; it’s the “literal sense of Scripture” in this passage. See The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church for a discussion of the difference between fundamentalist-style literalism and the “literal sense of Scripture”.

Again, you’re misunderstanding the context of the blessings Jacob received. The two incidents in Jacob’s life speak to inheritance and familial role. It wasn’t just a generic ‘blessing’, as you seem to be implying. Therefore, “later results” with respect to the way his attempts at marriage play out aren’t relevant here.
But it’s not a stretch to equate a shadow type of Miriam to Rebecca because of authoritative interpretation…

By what authority or method are you sure of the irrelevance? I mean no such thing to imply a “generic” blessing, and I’m not sure how you interpreted that erroneously on your part. I wouldn’t put it past the author(s) to link up the meaning of the blessing with his life a few chapters later in relation to what follows. For instance, not to change the subject, but there’s a parallel earlier with Lot. He is seen to press the Angels (being blessed in another sense by their presence) to stay at his place over and over again until they finally give in. Some guys come and attempt to “know” them, so he offers his daughters instead for sexual reasons. What happens later after the destruction? His own daughters lay with him when he’s unaware. You could say that has nothing to do with each other, but I mean to demonstrate that sometimes the author is showing a link from before to after in regard to what happens to someone even though the reason given literally isn’t linked: i.e. the reason they laid with him was because of their being alone and not having anyone else to share the bloodline, but this would have been the scenario whether or not he offered his daughters in the literal sense because the destruction was sure to come. The reader doesn’t know whether the incest was bound to occur, as it seems to be subtly linked with his previous own actions mixed with his later non-action of being asleep while the incest occurred, yet one subtly suspects that there is indeed a link here.

P.S, Thanks for the reference. Maybe it will be of use!
P.P.S. French is the devil’s language 😛
 
But it’s not a stretch to equate a shadow type of Miriam to Rebecca because of authoritative interpretation…
Again… read the document. 😉

In it, the “spiritual senses” of Scripture are discussed. The “allegorical” (or “typological”) sense – which is also mentioned in the catechism (see #117, CCC) – is the sense whereby we see Christ (and the fulfillment of God’s plan in Christ) in the events of the Bible… even the events of the Old Testament!
By what authority or method are you sure of the irrelevance?
By virtue of Catholic Scriptural theology. And yes, I’m dealing in the ‘literal sense’ of Scripture here. The ‘curse’ (/blessing) of Job is a discussion of how Job will use God’s name (will he continue to honor God and call on His name, even if all his earthly goods are taken from him?), whereas the blessings that are discussed in the Jacob story are historically known blessings passed from father to son (and which are referenced with respect to other persons and other stories in the Bible). The ‘birthright’ that Jacob takes is the “double portion” of inheritance generally given to the elder son (the tradition was that, if a father had n sons, he would split his property n+1 ways, such that the eldest received a double share). So, instead of getting 1/3 of Isaac’s goods as inheritance, Jacob ‘bought’ his way to a 2/3’s share of inheritance with that pot of stew!

In addition, the blessing of father to son – as we see it here in the Bible – is the passing on of God’s blessing through the line of Abraham (which, as we now know, leads to the Incarnation and Jesus). At the time, its significance was that the recipient became heir to the role of ‘patriarch’ of the family.

So, as you can see, these two references to ‘blessing’ (in Job and in the Jacob story) are vastly different: one refers to the way a person speaks of God, and the other refers to family structure and inheritance.
I mean no such thing to imply a “generic” blessing
Umm… ok. So, if you didn’t mean “blessing” in a general sense… what are you suggesting?
The reader doesn’t know whether the incest was bound to occur, as it seems to be subtly linked with his previous own actions
Actually, the ‘link’ here is that blame falls back on Lot. Inasmuch as he chose Sodom, when Abraham gave him the choice of direction to go, he’s responsible for the corruption of his daughters. After all, given the choice between “no children” and “child born of incest”, it’s clear which is the virtuous choice. And yet, Lot’s daughters choose the other option. The fact that he’s incapacitated with alcohol points to the fact that it was his daughters’ choice, not his. And yet, we find Lot – with wife killed out of disobedience, with daughters caught up in sin – reaping the rewards of his earlier decision with Abraham.

However, this doesn’t imply that there’s a similar link in Job. The main thrust of the story there is that Job refuses to give in to the culturally-accepted idea that, if bad things happen to you on earth, that’s an indication that God is punishing you for being a sinner. And, since it’s a didactic tale, we see precisely that dynamic: even though Job struggles, he refuses to give up his belief in God, and therefore, he receives back double what he lost.

If you’re suggesting there’s a causal link between the discussion of “blessing” in Job 1, and the result of the story, then that doesn’t quite hold up.
P.P.S. French is the devil’s language 😛
Mais non! 😉
 
Of course the blessings described are literally of a different nature in the two stories, as anyone should be able to see, and I am not suggesting the stories in nature have a link in this manner. I meant to muse of the words and how they are used, although I didn’t check to see the actual Greek or Hebrew in Genesis. I’ll leave the thread alone for now since it could be its own topic (could be fun actually) rather than of what the original post was inquiring – not to abandon the inquisition here – because we could easily continue this discussion. I am simply implying that it isn’t so clear cut as to the nature of blessing and cursing as it is generally understood in the every day sense, or in the literal sense, and that there seems to be connections throughout the canonical writings from these blessings/cursings that are more profound than what is understood in the literal sense, and with this in mind there opens up a layer of interrelations that might not have been entertained at first or even second pass reading, en passant 🙂

P.S. The word blessing in itself doesn’t have a very striking definition in the first place for one’s mind to completely grasp in the ‘spiritual sphere’, and sometimes a blessing that is spoken of in the familiar/worldly sense has a correlation to something more ‘spiritual’. Merriam-webster defines a blessing as “A thing conducive to approval”. This doesn’t do it much justice, as it must be experienced, just like grace, for one to be able to comprehend the nuances, if only slightly, of the word’s correspondence to reality. At any rate, thanks for participating in the thread: it was fun, and hopefully others will also find something here of value. Twyl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top