Greetings,
Surely it is actually a question, not a statement?
It's also a question asked by someone called Bildad the Shuhite, and doesn't appear to be presented as a command from God or anything like that.
I don't know what led you to your conclusion here.
Peace
Greetings czgibson,
Yes, I realize that the quote Follower gave from Job is indeed a question and not a direct statement. Had this been any other book than the Bible, I probably could not draw the same conclusions as I did here. I will explain my reasoning as follows:
The verse that Follower quoted could fall into either of two categories in the Bible:
1) Purely Historical.
2) Foundation for Christian belief
It seems like an oversimplification to divide the Bible into only 2 types of verses, but if you think about it, a verse either supports the Christian belief, or it exists merely to retell past events and should not be taken as part of the creed. An example of a purely historical verse:
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Even though this was written as a command from God (according to Christians), Christians today do not believe that God is commanding them to commit genocide as is described in the verse, and often they attribute it to something that did happen in the past, but not something they are commanded to do now. Thus, it is purely historical and has no basis in the modern Christian belief system.
Remember that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God according to Christians, which means that everything contained within it comes from God.
Bildad's question poses a bit of a problem; it contains no direct answer. Thus, there are two possibilities as I described above:
1) This poem by Bildad is just that; a poem that Bildad wrote which does not contribute to the belief system at all. If that's the case, then it belongs in the purely historical category. I don't have a problem with this, but rather it's Follower's evidence so if he wants to throw it out as evidence for the Christian belief in Jesus' (as) purity then that's fine with me. However, given that all scripture in the Bible is the inspired Word of God according to Christians, this poem would have been inspired by God. I'm therefore less inclined to believe it is purely historical, as those types of verses are mainly the ones dealing with violence and battles. Historical verses are still inspired by God (according to Christians), but they are not binding commandments on today's Christians, and they merely exist to retell past events. Thus, if the verse falls into this category, then God still inspired it, but it does not apply to Christianity in any way.
2) According to Christians, God is speaking through Bildad and He is posing the question because it is part of the Christian faith. Since there is no answer to the question, and this statement is coming from God (according to Christians), we can only assume that it's a rhetorical question. Sort of like if I asked "How can greed be good?" Well, if I provided no answer, then the reader immediately concludes that greed is not good. This is the same here. God is All-Knowing and All-Wise; He wouldn't leave such an important answer out of His book if it were not an obvious answer.
In conclusion, if the verse is of the category that supports the Christian creed and is the Word of God, then God must be asking a rhetorical question, because we have to assume that God will not purposely mislead His followers in the scripture. Thus, Bildad's question becomes more of a statement and we can draw a clear conclusion from it and say that indeed nobody born from a woman is pure.
Hopefully this explanation makes sense.