WHO or WHICH is most important?

[Bret Ripley]

Moses likely met Job.

Oh, bless your little cotton socks.

[Shulem]

I understand. You are entitled to believe whatever you want and make history fit whatever religious mold you want to suit your faith-driven purposes.

Been there, done that.

As you still do.

You’re conclusion about me is unfair and illogical. I no longer fit history to fit a religious mold. In the past I tried to make chronology fit the Mormon/Christian faith while denying and rejecting credited scientific world scholarship. That was an embarrassment in which I since emended my ways. I hope you do the same, someday.

[Shulem]

Moses likely met Job.

Oh, bless your little cotton socks.

It’s my understanding that most scholars attribute Job’s life story to have occurred long before the Mosaic era. How on earth LittleNipper thinks that Job was likely to have met Moses is beyond me.

[Bret Ripley]

Oh, bless your little cotton socks.

It’s my understanding that most scholars attribute Job’s life story to have occurred long before the Mosaic era. How on earth LittleNipper thinks that Job was likely to have met Moses is beyond me.

The composition of the Book of Job dates to the Persian period, some thousand years or so after a historical Moses (assuming there was one) would have lived. The Book of Job may have been inspired by older stories about a character (historical or not) named Job, but positing actual biographical data at that chronological and literary distance is the stuff of fanfiction. There is a similar problem with Moses: the writings we have about him were written centuries after he would have lived. We can't be sure what (if anything) that is written about Moses or Job is factual. There may or may not have been historical figures upon which these characters are based, but we can't know for certain either way.

Saying 'Moses likely met Job' is about as meaningful as saying 'G.I. Joe likely met Clark Kent.'