There is absolutely nothing in Job 1:1 to suggest it is a man's POV. It is stated as truth, a matter of fact that Job is perfect (blameless), that he feared God and that he shunned (eschewed) evil. Fearing God is consistent with an upright believer.
Then what is your explanation of the verse since we know that the Bible teaches that all have sinned?
Faith.
As far as Job goes: One way to look at the story, a way which presumes that God chastises the ones He loves - a presumption for which there is good warrant, in life as well as in Scripture, is that Job, while not doing anything, so to speak, actionable, is still deficient in the spiritual gift of resignation (as am I) and in the understanding of the mysterious relationship between God and Justice (as am I).
So while He is blameless up until the loss of all that is dear to him, under fire, He accuses God of injustice and wishes that there were a go'el -- a champion who would plead his cause against God before some unimaginable higher tribunal.So God messes him over and brings him to his glorious repentance.
And this is not a huge problem for me, because Our Lady, while we also hold her "blameless", still seems to have needed to do a lot of pondering in her heart to understand what it meant that Her Son w as the Messiah and the Son of God.
We postulate the a full-of-grace = completely gracious person could do so without sinning, while Job, I think did mess up under fire.But it seems to me the point of the "set-up", the "backstory" is clear: bad stuff happens to people who do all the right things, here's a guy who did all the right things, and He lost all that was dear to him. And here's what happened afterwards. And what happens is that Job experiences what we Papists hold to be the "end" of life: the vision of God. And when he is granted that wonderful grace, his complaint vanishes. As, may it please God, I hope all my little petty natterings will one day.
Still, for the, in comparison with the majesty of the book of Job, small concern of what Paul meant when he said all have sinned, I would say the Book of Job would count on the side of the argument that claims that we don't need to read "all" in the Boolean sense.
...since we know that the Bible teaches that all have sinned
we're saying he dind't mean "all" as in, without exception (despite the "No, not one") We adduce IHs as the one exception to which you will agree, and then we adduce our lady as the other exception, to which we don't expect you to agree.
This is not an argument, this is a "state of the question" comment. Or, as I say, book-keeping.