I learned something today in Sunday School:

We now know that the stars are merely giant balls of gas. But in ancient times, they were thought to be living beings.

The ancient Hebrew writers (of what we now call "the Old Testament") thought of the stars this way.

Hence, Job 25:5 declares that "even...the stars are not pure in [God's] eyes."

To suggest that the stars are immoral would be quite strange, if the writer did not consider them to be living beings.

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

We probably don't know if this thought was widespead or a small percentage...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I'm sorry, but how do you get there from that verse?
Of all the spots to assume that the writer understood it literally.
that reading seems a stretch.

Especially when "Star" and "Stars" are clearly most often considered inanimate objects elsewhere in the old and new testaments. And Used figuratively to reference people (as in Josephs Brothers) or angelic beings (as in Satan) and even Jesus is refereed figuratively as the "morning star".


Is there more that would lead you to believe that that was the writers understanding.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Well, I "get that" from the fact that Job--who is representative of the ancients--opined that God considered even the stars to be immoral. And it is really difficult to see exactly how that might be if Job did not consider the stars to be living beings.

And the term, "morning star," (with reference to Jesus), was clearly figurative. Literally, Venus is typically the morning star (although there are, on occasions, others; Mars and Jupiter come especially to mind).

An addendum: It would be one thing for you to believe that I--and also my Sunday School teacher (who happens to be my pastor)--are simply mistaken. But you appear to take some offense at this view.

A second addendum: Just a little later in the book (38:7), Job proclaims that the stars "sang together."

It seems that you wish not merely to question it--which would be quite all right--but to gleefully bash it.

I am simply wondering just why this view might be offensive--to anyone.

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

I didn't mean for it to come across as combative, my apologies on that front PJ.
But it seems that you put it out there as a settled notion. Rather than an interpretive option.

you said
"We now know that the stars are merely giant balls of gas. But in ancient times, they were thought to be living beings."

Are we suppose to take this as a settle fact? as presented.
Whether or not it offends me or not isn't really what i was getting at.
I was simply questioning the idea as a factual statement.
what's evidence is there to back that up etc..

My own take on the ancients has been revised over the decades. Basically to , they weren't nearly as ignorant and backwards as i was lead to believe from my formal education and documentaries. In fact they were often more brilliant than we are.
And concerning all the writers of the scriptures. Every place I've read where they've had been called ignorant or backwards has been eventually shown to be some misunderstanding on the readers/researchers part, a not on the part of the writer of the text. (who were lead by the Spirit BTW.)

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

So specifically in the case of "Stars" I'm not sure that your logic follows.
Immortality doesn't necessitated "being". Flames, Stones and even an "immortal Tree" in California among other inanimate objects have been called "Immortal".
So i'm not sure why the definitive leap to the notion that the Job must have thought the stars were "livings beings".
with All due respect to yourself and your pastor, but I wouldn't come to that conclusion.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

'Yea, the stars are not pure in his sight - That is, they are not bright in comparison with him. The design is to show the glory of the Most High and that nothing could be compared with him.'

there are several more commentaries on this page:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/job/25-5.htm

If you seek true meaning of God's word, imho you might want to use a commentary as a companion to your reading of the Bible.
God bless you.

__________________

Apology accepted.

As to the matter of evidence, here is something from the Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/nat...constellations

Moreover, I would be very careful about claiming that every time something (especially in the Old Testament) appears not to hold up to current knowledge as regarding that particular matter, it is simply because every time this occurs, it is similar to that which "has been eventually shown to be some misunderstanding on the readers/researchers part." (I should probably note, here, that I simply do not embrace the theory of "scientific foreknowledge" on the part of the Scripture writers.)

And I would also be quite careful about beginning with a definite conclusion, and then looking for arguments that would tend to support it--while rejecting, automatically, any arguments that would appear to refute it. (This is known as the a priori fallacy. And religion cannot be made immune from simple logic.)

Certainly, you may dispute the theory presented in the OP, if you wish. But please do not pretend that it was set forth by a heretic. Rather, it was set forth by my own pastor (in this Sunday School class).

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

the verse is an analogy. there are many old and new commentators who can help you with bible understanding. I like Matthew Henry but there are many. they are they are theologians and/or ministers of the faith.

__________________

Matthew Henry is good.

So is Albert Barnes. (I do disagree with his premillenialist views; but he is generally a good commentator.)

I am guessing that my own pastor (to whom I have alluded) has one or both of these.

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007