How literally are we to take the writings of Ecclesiastes?
- Thread starter Monna
- Start date
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
Cults like the Watchtower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) are fond of mining Ecclesiastes for proof texts to support their posit that there is no such thing as a conscious afterlife; thus refusing an alternate posit that the book is little more than an intellectual's world view, i.e. the perspective of a reasoning man whose philosophy of life is drawn from empirical evidence and human experience.
Q: What purpose did God have in mind for Solomon's worldly views? In what way is his personal philosophy of life useful for reproving, for setting things straight, and for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work? (2Tim 3:16-17)
A: Ecclesiastes is very valuable for discussing life sans the divine perspective; which Solomon concluded is both futile and meaningless. Humankind needs to believe in something more than itself just to make sense of why the cosmos— with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy —exists at all. Science keeps itself busy sleuthing "how" the cosmos came to be; but pretty much draws a blank as to the "why".
People who disbelieve in the possibility of a hereafter tend to be darkened by a somewhat pessimistic opinion of life; for example:
Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees; physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes" wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
Well of course Mr. Weinberg feels that way. How else could a thinking man feel when he dismisses the possibility of something beyond the natural world?
/
Cults like the Watchtower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) are fond of mining Ecclesiastes for proof texts to support their posit that there is no such thing as a conscious afterlife; thus refusing an alternate posit that the book is little more than an intellectual's world view, i.e. the perspective of a reasoning man whose philosophy of life is drawn from empirical evidence and human experience.
Q: What purpose did God have in mind for Solomon's worldly views? In what way is his personal philosophy of life useful for reproving, for setting things straight, and for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work? (2Tim 3:16-17)
A: Ecclesiastes is very valuable for discussing life sans the divine perspective; which Solomon concluded is both futile and meaningless. Humankind needs to believe in something more than itself just to make sense of why the cosmos— with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy —exists at all. Science keeps itself busy sleuthing "how" the cosmos came to be; but pretty much draws a blank as to the "why".
People who disbelieve in the possibility of a hereafter tend to be darkened by a somewhat pessimistic opinion of life; for example:
Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees; physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes" wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
Well of course Mr. Weinberg feels that way. How else could a thinking man feel when he dismisses the possibility of something beyond the natural world?
/
Upvote
0
1miraclechild
My Grandson Landon & me
- Dec 23, 2007
- 25
- 6
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No you are Definitely Mistaken Our Author Lacks Nothing; God is Perfect & He Lets Us Know He's the Author Here: 2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
God bless you & We love you
;-) Rebecca
Upvote
0
FatalHeart
Wisdom's Associate
- Jan 23, 2013
- 334
- 117
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Does one scripture all of a sudden destroy the principles throughout the rest of the book? Maybe, just maybe, you're reading it wrong. XD
Upvote
0
Tree of Life
Hide The Pain
God does not lack anything and he is the ultimate divine author of Scripture. But in the case of Ecclesiastes, in order to make sense of its strange statements, I think we have to say that the human author lacks an eternal perspective.
Upvote
0
GirdYourLoins
Well-Known Member
- Nov 27, 2016
- 1,220
- 929
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I read the scriptures quoted. I have not read them in context, I have not done a study on it. I dont see the problem.
When I read the verses shown I immediately interpreted them as man (without God) is like an animal in that both live, breathe and die. Man without God has nothing better that he can do other than enjoy the fruits of his work, that is still true today. Most people spend their lives trying to get the most they can for themselves and trying to make the best life they can for themselves.
We that know God on the other hand dont need to live like that. We have a knowledge of and understanding of things eternal and set our mind on the eternal rather than the worldly.
When I read the verses shown I immediately interpreted them as man (without God) is like an animal in that both live, breathe and die. Man without God has nothing better that he can do other than enjoy the fruits of his work, that is still true today. Most people spend their lives trying to get the most they can for themselves and trying to make the best life they can for themselves.
We that know God on the other hand dont need to live like that. We have a knowledge of and understanding of things eternal and set our mind on the eternal rather than the worldly.
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
Something to keep in mind with Ecclesiastes is that just because people's statements are recorded in a sacred text does not make their statements eo ipso true; for example Eve’s response to the Serpent.
"And he said to the woman: Indeed, has God said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said you shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die." (Gen 3:1-3)
Was Eve telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. God forbad them to eat the fruit, yes, but He didn’t forbid them to touch it. (cf. Gen 2:16-17)
The Serpent’s response was untrue too.
"And the serpent said to the woman: You shall not surely die." (Gen 3:4)
Did Eve die? Yes.
The conversation between Eve and the Serpent is no doubt on record because God wanted it so; but there are untruths in their statements. Solomon's observations of life under the sun is a lot like that; in other words: Ecclesiastes isn't necessarily totally wrong just because it's a humanistic point of view, nor is it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel of truth. No, the danger is that Solomon's world view, like most all world views, contains just enough truth to make it misleading. Caveat Lector.
/
Something to keep in mind with Ecclesiastes is that just because people's statements are recorded in a sacred text does not make their statements eo ipso true; for example Eve’s response to the Serpent.
"And he said to the woman: Indeed, has God said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said you shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die." (Gen 3:1-3)
Was Eve telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. God forbad them to eat the fruit, yes, but He didn’t forbid them to touch it. (cf. Gen 2:16-17)
The Serpent’s response was untrue too.
"And the serpent said to the woman: You shall not surely die." (Gen 3:4)
Did Eve die? Yes.
The conversation between Eve and the Serpent is no doubt on record because God wanted it so; but there are untruths in their statements. Solomon's observations of life under the sun is a lot like that; in other words: Ecclesiastes isn't necessarily totally wrong just because it's a humanistic point of view, nor is it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel of truth. No, the danger is that Solomon's world view, like most all world views, contains just enough truth to make it misleading. Caveat Lector.
/
Upvote
0
more4less
Well-Known Member
He was stating at the time that mankind did not have any advantage over the animals. They are supposedly have a little advantage over them, but they don't. They weren't prospering in knowledge. They remained the same from since the beginning. If they would of obeyed His commands, that they would of had prospered in all areas.
Deuteronomy 5:33 Walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.
2 Peter 2:12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
Jude 1:10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.
Deuteronomy 5:33 Walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.
2 Peter 2:12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
Jude 1:10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
