Ecclesiastes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

deliveredarling -> Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 7:51:56 AM)

A brief discussion of this book was discussed in another thread, so as to not derail, here is the new thread.

It was said ( i am paraphrasing) that Ecclesiastes is a cynical book.

quote:

The book of Ecclesiastes is a book you have to take with an even bigger grain of salt than Proverbs because most of it is the writings of a cynic that has tried everything his way and has wasted much of his life chasing things with the eternal substance of the wind.


quote:

Which means that you souldn't take the observations of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as necessarily GODLY TRUTH - a lot of what Solomon was declaring was based on HUMAN WISDOM and we have to see what we find in Ecclesiastes in its intended context.


These are a few of the quotes regarding the book.


I found this verse that seems to define the reason for the book:

Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.
Ecclesiastes 1:18


Also, it's not proven that the author of Ecclesiastes is Solomon. The author is debated.

What do you think about the purpose and usefulness of this book?



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 8:22:51 AM)

It was said in that other thread ( I am paraphrasing) about Ecclesiastes:

quote:

If you read the book, you should see what I'm talking about...

A sample:

"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

Do YOU think everything is meaningless and without purpose?


Also paraphrasing, someone observed that the author says he tried
quote:

...everything but God's way to discover that it's the fool's way to wisdom.

IOW, he wasted his life trying sex, the mind, power, and every kind of pleasure and concluded all was utterly meaningless.

If one researches Solomon's life in the Bible, one will discover that, while he began well, he eventually caved in to the pagan practices of his many foreign wives.



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 8:25:57 AM)

Yet another poster observed:
quote:

Which means that you souldn't take the observations of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as necessarily GODLY TRUTH - a lot of what Solomon was declaring was based on HUMAN WISDOM and we have to see what we find in Ecclesiastes in its intended context.


That's an observation of someone that has studied both the book and its writer. Like the book of Jonah, Ecclesiastes contains a lot of examples of what NOT to do. Jonah, like the author of Ecclesiastes, had more than God's will on his mind too much of the time.



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 8:28:57 AM)

Another poster quoted from the book:
quote:

But beyond these, my son, be warned: There is no end to the making of many books, and much study wearies the body. -- Ecclesiastes 12:12


To follow that advice, one should put the collection of 66 books we know as the Bible and cease study. Does that sound like godly advice from a godly man?



deliveredarling -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 8:35:06 AM)

You are suggesting that it is a reflection of Solomon's life, when it is not proved that he is the author.



deliveredarling -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 8:39:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

Another poster quoted from the book:
quote:

But beyond these, my son, be warned: There is no end to the making of many books, and much study wearies the body. -- Ecclesiastes 12:12



To follow that advice, one should put the collection of 66 books we know as the Bible and cease study. Does that sound like godly advice from a godly man?

Let's put this is int 's proper perspective and keep it contextual:

Ecc 12:9 In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs.

Ecc 12:10 The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.

Ecc 12:11 The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of {these} collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd.

Ecc 12:12 But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion {to books} is wearying to the body.

Ecc 12:13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, {is:} fear God and keep His commandments, because this {applies to} every person.

Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.



Neeva_Candida -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:06:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

I found this verse that seems to define the reason for the book:

Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.
Ecclesiastes 1:18



I have not studied the book of Ecclesiastes in awhile. So, I'm not too sure how I feel about the comments being made regarding it. However, I do like the verse you chose to quote. At a very basic level and without trying to dissect it any further it speaks volumes. The more we learn in God's Word the more certain we are of our own depravity and desperate situation. The more we understand this truth the more we understand the depth of God's sacrifice on our behalf. Fortunately this pain is tempered by the understanding of God's grace towards us personally but then our focus tends to turn towards those around us. Now we are again grieved over what will happen to others that are still lost.

Anyway, I do like this verse.

~Neeva



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:09:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

You are suggesting that it is a reflection of Solomon's life, when it is not proved that he is the author.

I did not know any serious Bible scholars or students question that Solomon wrote the book. Can you show us one?

Thanks,
JF



Dubya -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:12:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

You are suggesting that it is a reflection of Solomon's life, when it is not proved that he is the author.

While the authorship is disputed (as many books in the Bible are) the traditional view of Solomon has substantial internal evidence.

To me, the book of Ecclesiastes reads like a testimony of Solomon. As was alredy said, Solomon started out well but slid into idolatry and hedonism.

Repeated references to "under the sun" are intended to refer to earthly things and wisdom as opposed to heavenly things.

By 12:1 Solomon gives advice to young people, "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say, "I have no delight in them"; before the sun, the light, the moon, and the stars are darkened, and clouds return after the rain"

Solomon is saying, don't waste your youth pursuing only earthly pleasures but remember to continuously praise and follow God. He has seen the error of his own ways. In view of Solomon's personal history, he may be deeply grieved over the way he raised his son Rehoboam - who eventually was responsible for dividing the kingdom.

The advice to take random quotations from Ecclesiastes with a grain of salt is good advice. This book MUST be read in its entirety to get the full meaning. It is interesting to note that Ecclesiastes is the single book of the Bible most often quoted by atheists. A brief survey of the first three chapters show why.

The conclusion of the book is stated in the last 2 verses of chapter 12: "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."

Living life without God is vanity. Enjoy life now – at whatever stage of life you are in – and honor God with every breath you take.



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:15:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya
...The advice to take random quotations from Ecclesiastes with a grain of salt is good advice. This book MUST be read in its entirety to get the full meaning. It is interesting to note that Ecclesiastes is the single book of the Bible most often quoted by atheists. A brief survey of the first three chapters show why...

Thank you, Dubya. Some people automatically reject anything I write without giving it any consideration.

Even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day.



Dubya -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:17:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

You are suggesting that it is a reflection of Solomon's life, when it is not proved that he is the author.

I did not know any serious Bible scholars or students question that Solomon wrote the book. Can you show us one?

Thanks,
JF

Tremper Longman III is one such scholar, in his commentary on Ecclesiates - part of the New International Commentary of the Old Testament. Lots of scholarly research in this volume.

Personally, I prefer Walter Kaiser's commentary, "Ecclesiastes: Total Life". He says Solomon is the author.

Both of these scholars are well respected evangelicals.



Dubya -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:20:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya
...The advice to take random quotations from Ecclesiastes with a grain of salt is good advice. This book MUST be read in its entirety to get the full meaning. It is interesting to note that Ecclesiastes is the single book of the Bible most often quoted by atheists. A brief survey of the first three chapters show why...

Thank you, Dubya. Some people automatically reject anything I write without giving it any consideration.

Even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day.

Your welcome Jimbo!

Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books in the Bible. I have done a fair amount of research on this book and have presented sermons on it.

If we interpret it properly, it is a very inspirational text and a great testimony for leading a godly life and not back-sliding. Too many folks read it and come away depressed... "meaningless, meaningless..." and so on.



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:23:17 AM)

I just always took verse 1 to mean Solomon, "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem," and the general writing style. What is Longman's main objection to Solomon being the author?



deliveredarling -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 9:41:53 AM)

quote:

Thank you, Dubya. Some people automatically reject anything I write without giving it any consideration.

Even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day.


This is a true statement coming from my standpoint. You are more interested in being right no matter what, rather than sincerely trying to educate or understand.

Just to let you know where I stand. I have no desire to interact with you.



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 10:09:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

quote:

Thank you, Dubya. Some people automatically reject anything I write without giving it any consideration.

Even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day.


This is a true statement coming from my standpoint. You are more interested in being right no matter what, rather than sincerely trying to educate or understand.

Just to let you know where I stand. I have no desire to interact with you.

That's your judgment of me and you are certainly entitled to it. Fortunately, lots of folk on this forum consider me as a friend or, at worst, an idiot uncle.

I've also been told (and have noticed to often be true) that the thing we despise most in others are things most like our own personality. I find that your description of me fits that truism.
[;)]



Dubya -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 12:11:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

I just always took verse 1 to mean Solomon, "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem," and the general writing style. What is Longman's main objection to Solomon being the author?

Longman has the understanding that there were at least 2 authors. One, whom he refers to as Qohelet (which means teacher or preacher) and an unknown second writer. Longman notes that there is a change in voice from third person to first person occurring in 1:12 and then from first person to third person in 12:8. It is Longman’s contention that the main body of the text which is in the first person (1:12 – 12:7) is the speech of Qohelet and the prologue and epilogue are the work of a second author who refers to Qohelet in the third person. He also concludes that Qohelet is not Solomon but maintains that Solomon is the perfect literary foil for the points Qohelet is making. If Solomon could not find satisfaction or meaning in life, considering his wisdom, wealth, and power, who could? Longman justifies his theory because of the resemblance of the text to a group of ancient Near-Eastern texts which have been labeled “fictional autobiographies”.

The question then becomes, “If Qohelet is not Solomon, who is he?” Longman suggests that he may actually be a fictional character invented by an unknown wisdom writer. Qohelet is the main character who speaks as though he is Solomon in the body of the text and the actual wisdom writer speaks in the prologue and epilogue which form a frame around Qohelet’s speech. Since Longman says he is not too sure of this suggestion, he makes the assumption that Qohelet is a real person for the sake of his commentary.

Needless to say, Longman reaches a very different conclusion of the message of Ecclesiastes than Walter Kaiser does, mainly because of this two author approach.



colliefan -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 12:41:27 PM)

Let's climb into Mr. Peabody's wayback machine for
Turn, Turn, Turn



deliveredarling -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 12:47:14 PM)

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]



JimboFletch -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 1:37:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya
Longman has the understanding that there were at least 2 authors. One, whom he refers to as Qohelet (which means teacher or preacher) and an unknown second writer. Longman notes that there is a change in voice from third person to first person occurring in 1:12 and then from first person to third person in 12:8. It is Longman’s contention that the main body of the text which is in the first person (1:12 – 12:7) is the speech of Qohelet and the prologue and epilogue are the work of a second author who refers to Qohelet in the third person. He also concludes that Qohelet is not Solomon but maintains that Solomon is the perfect literary foil for the points Qohelet is making. If Solomon could not find satisfaction or meaning in life, considering his wisdom, wealth, and power, who could? Longman justifies his theory because of the resemblance of the text to a group of ancient Near-Eastern texts which have been labeled “fictional autobiographies”.

The question then becomes, “If Qohelet is not Solomon, who is he?” Longman suggests that he may actually be a fictional character invented by an unknown wisdom writer. Qohelet is the main character who speaks as though he is Solomon in the body of the text and the actual wisdom writer speaks in the prologue and epilogue which form a frame around Qohelet’s speech. Since Longman says he is not too sure of this suggestion, he makes the assumption that Qohelet is a real person for the sake of his commentary.

Needless to say, Longman reaches a very different conclusion of the message of Ecclesiastes than Walter Kaiser does, mainly because of this two author approach.

Thanks. That's an interesting take.

Reminds me that there are places in the Song of Solomon that can be confusing to follow as to the one speaking. Like a lot of people, I thought the "rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys" was speaking about the groom and, by prophetic extension, Christ. I was taken aback the first time someone pointed out that it came from the bride (i.e. the Church).



crankius -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 1:57:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
Fortunately, lots of folk on this forum consider me as a friend or, at worst, an idiot uncle.


Do I have to choose between the two? [8D]

Jimbo, I appreciate that you asked your questions in post 8 and in post 13. It shows you are interested in hearing the objections, and it gave Dubya a chance to explain so that we can all learn something.

[sm=thumbsup.gif]



Bluethread -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 6:23:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

Thank you, Dubya. Some people automatically reject anything I write without giving it any consideration.

Even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day.


Not talking about you personally. but that saying refers to doing nothing or not moving at the same speed. If one is out of phase with reality, one is never right.

Seeing we are in the books of wisdom, getting our metaphors correct is important.



makarizo -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 10:17:40 PM)

not trying to sound narrow minded, but the book looses meaning (for me) if Solomon didn't write it.

"grain of salt" works for me Jimbofletch in that a man who seemingly had everything........
e v e r y t h i n g...... found that it was really nothing and meaninglessness apart from God.



deliveredarling -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 10:24:06 PM)

quote:

"grain of salt" works for me Jimbofletch in that a man who seemingly had everything........
e v e r y t h i n g...... found that it was really nothing and meaninglessness apart from God.


I like that. Good post!



Dubya -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/22/2008 10:38:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: makarizo

not trying to sound narrow minded, but the book looses meaning (for me) if Solomon didn't write it.

"grain of salt" works for me Jimbofletch in that a man who seemingly had everything........
e v e r y t h i n g...... found that it was really nothing and meaninglessness apart from God.

I feel the same way. But consider the following:

1. In Ecclesiastes 1:12, the use of past tense in stating that Qohelet was king over Israel indicates that he is still alive but no longer King, yet according to 1 Kings 11, Solomon died while still on the throne.

2. Qohelet says that he has surpassed the wisdom of all who ruled Jerusalem before him (Ecc 1:16). Only David preceded Solomon as king in Jerusalem with the exception of pagan rulers. Wouldn't it be strange of Solomon to compare himself to pagan, non-Israelite rulers.

3. In chapter 4 and 5, Qohelet bemoans the oppression and the absence of justice and righteousness. If Qohelet is Solomon, he is complaining about oppression he is committing himself! If the oppression should stop, who would have more power to do so than the king?

Food for thought!



MrFribbles -> RE: Ecclesiastes (8/23/2008 11:55:57 AM)

quote:

1. In Ecclesiastes 1:12, the use of past tense in stating that Qohelet was king over Israel indicates that he is still alive but no longer King, yet according to 1 Kings 11, Solomon died while still on the throne.

2. Qohelet says that he has surpassed the wisdom of all who ruled Jerusalem before him (Ecc 1:16). Only David preceded Solomon as king in Jerusalem with the exception of pagan rulers. Wouldn't it be strange of Solomon to compare himself to pagan, non-Israelite rulers.

3. In chapter 4 and 5, Qohelet bemoans the oppression and the absence of justice and righteousness. If Qohelet is Solomon, he is complaining about oppression he is committing himself! If the oppression should stop, who would have more power to do so than the king?

Food for thought!


Good points, Dubya! Another thought to consider - at the end of the book, Qohelet seems to be repentant of his sinful ways. This certainly was not the case with Solomon. His life was a steady moral decline, and the historical accounts of his life show no sharp upswing near his death.
Personally, I don't see any problem with a non-Solomon author. Indeed, I don't see a problem with a non-king author, and instead the author assuming a role for writing's sake to get his point across, since I don't see any of Israel or Judah's kings who lived the life that Qohelet did.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI