Niyoe'es:ah
Member
-
Hello; and welcome to an armchair journey thru the Old Testament book of
Ecclesiastes.
Afterlife opponents often quote the book of Ecclesiastes; which is a fatal
error because proof texts related to the afterlife drawn from this book of are
inadmissible; and the reason is very simple.
Ecclesiastes isn't a book of divine revelation, but rather, a book of
humanistic philosophy; and though a holy man wrote Ecclesiastes, and was
no doubt divinely motivated to do so; he didn't record his observations from
the perspective of an enlightened man who's privy to knowledge beyond the
scope of empirical evidence and human experience; but rather, he recorded
his observations from the perspective of a man under the sun; viz: a down
to Earth thinking man-- a sensible man --whose perception of reality is
moderated by what he can see going on around him in the physical
universe; and that's why Bible students find so much material in Ecclesiastes
contrary to the doctrines of traditional Christianity.
Men under the sun who think for themselves typically find the book of
Ecclesiastes to be spot-on in agreement with their own philosophy of life;
and no mystery there since Ecclesiastes is primarily an evaluation of life on
Earth as seen from the Earth rather than an evaluation of life on Earth as
seen from Heaven.
Another thing to keep in mind when studying 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? As far as we know; yes, Eve did eventually pass away.
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 worldly philosophy of life is a lot like that; in other words:
Ecclesiastes isn't necessarily totally wrong just because it's an earthy point
of view, nor is it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel
of truth. No, the danger is that Solomon's philosophy, like most all
philosophy, contains just enough truth to make it misleading. Caveat Lector.
/
Hello; and welcome to an armchair journey thru the Old Testament book of
Ecclesiastes.
Afterlife opponents often quote the book of Ecclesiastes; which is a fatal
error because proof texts related to the afterlife drawn from this book of are
inadmissible; and the reason is very simple.
Ecclesiastes isn't a book of divine revelation, but rather, a book of
humanistic philosophy; and though a holy man wrote Ecclesiastes, and was
no doubt divinely motivated to do so; he didn't record his observations from
the perspective of an enlightened man who's privy to knowledge beyond the
scope of empirical evidence and human experience; but rather, he recorded
his observations from the perspective of a man under the sun; viz: a down
to Earth thinking man-- a sensible man --whose perception of reality is
moderated by what he can see going on around him in the physical
universe; and that's why Bible students find so much material in Ecclesiastes
contrary to the doctrines of traditional Christianity.
Men under the sun who think for themselves typically find the book of
Ecclesiastes to be spot-on in agreement with their own philosophy of life;
and no mystery there since Ecclesiastes is primarily an evaluation of life on
Earth as seen from the Earth rather than an evaluation of life on Earth as
seen from Heaven.
Another thing to keep in mind when studying 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? As far as we know; yes, Eve did eventually pass away.
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 worldly philosophy of life is a lot like that; in other words:
Ecclesiastes isn't necessarily totally wrong just because it's an earthy point
of view, nor is it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel
of truth. No, the danger is that Solomon's philosophy, like most all
philosophy, contains just enough truth to make it misleading. Caveat Lector.
/