Jack Hectorman
Member
Originally Posted By Solomon
"Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
Eccl. 12: 6-7
__________
Some have argued that Eccl. 12:6-7 holds against
"soul sleep." They have noted the contrast between:
(1) the grave ["the dust returns to the ground it came from"]
and
(2) the return ["the spirit returns to God who gave it"]
And they have asserted that exegetically the phrase
"the spirit returns to God" seems inharmonious with
the notion of "soul sleep."
I just mentioned Eccl. 12: 6-7 for consideration. I don't know
how much it actually proves? My opinion is we have to be
very careful doing an exegesis of any Biblical text, and
especially an Old Testament text, because its easy to
impose our whims and prejudices upon the language
and thereby force the O.T. writer to "say what we want
him to say." This, imo, is how the cults can "prove" just
about any weird doctrine they want to "prove." For
example I have seen JW's fill up threads with a never
ending stream of "proof texts" that, on their lights,
"proved" that the traditional doctrine of the Holy Trinity
was unbiblical.
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
Eccl. 12: 6-7
__________
Some have argued that Eccl. 12:6-7 holds against
"soul sleep." They have noted the contrast between:
(1) the grave ["the dust returns to the ground it came from"]
and
(2) the return ["the spirit returns to God who gave it"]
And they have asserted that exegetically the phrase
"the spirit returns to God" seems inharmonious with
the notion of "soul sleep."
I just mentioned Eccl. 12: 6-7 for consideration. I don't know
how much it actually proves? My opinion is we have to be
very careful doing an exegesis of any Biblical text, and
especially an Old Testament text, because its easy to
impose our whims and prejudices upon the language
and thereby force the O.T. writer to "say what we want
him to say." This, imo, is how the cults can "prove" just
about any weird doctrine they want to "prove." For
example I have seen JW's fill up threads with a never
ending stream of "proof texts" that, on their lights,
"proved" that the traditional doctrine of the Holy Trinity
was unbiblical.
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪