We have been scanning the scriptures for information about heaven. I used Strong's concordance to find all the instances the word heaven is used. A lot of what I have found is redundant, so, I skim through looking for the unique passages that have bits about heaven that we haven't covered yet. We left off in Psalms.
Proverbs 30:4 asks, "Who has gone up to heaven, who has come down?" This was written at a time when it was inconceivable to be able to leave the earth. It was also unknown that we live in solar system that inhabits a galaxy that is just one of billions of galaxies in a universe of which we have found no boundary. Airplanes have flown up into the atmosphere and found no gods. The astronauts went up above the atmosphere and found no gods. Space probes have gone out into the solar system and found no gods. Space telescopes have plumbed the depths of the universe and found no gods.
Ecclesiastes 5:2 says,"...god is in heaven and you are on earth." Song of Songs does not mention heaven. In Isaiah 13, Yahweh is mustering an army that comes "from faraway lands, from the ends of the heavens...to destroy the whole country." On that day "the stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light."
In Isaiah 14:12, the king of Babylon is told, "How you have fallen from heaven, o morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of god; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will make myself like the most high." It is interesting to note that this passage has been associated with Satan in a round about way. The morning star mentioned is actually the planet Venus. In Latin, and hence in the Latin translation of the Old Testament, it was rendered as "lucifer", a lower case noun, not a proper name. In context, that is obviously not a reference a reference to Satan. It is also important to note that in many cultures kings were considered divine, gods in the flesh. More about this later.
In Isaiah 34, we read a rant against the nations. Yahweh is angry with them all and will take out his wrath on them. Verse 4 says, "All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine...his sword has drunk its fill in the heavens." Isaiah 37:16 says that Yahweh is enthroned between cherubim. Isaiah 63:15 tells Yahweh to look down from his lofty throne in heaven. In Isaiah 66:1, Yahweh says, "Heaven is my throne, earth is my footstool."
In Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah speaks at the temple gate and says Yahweh is upset because the Israelites make cakes of bread for the "queen of heaven" and pour out drink offerings to other gods. In 8:2, Yahweh says the bones of Jerusalem's dead will be "removed from their graves. They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshipped." In 23:24, no one can hide from god because he fills heaven and earth. In chapter 44, Jeremiah received word from god about Jews living in various parts of Egypt. They are doomed for worshipping other gods, including the aforementioned Queen of Heaven. The people said it had been done for many generations by their forefathers, kings, and officials back in Jerusalem. They did not intend to stop.
It is clear from these passages that the Jews were not monotheists. Along with Yahweh worship, they also worshipped a female goddess and "the starry hosts" or "the hosts of heaven" which were heavenly bodies thought to be deities. This is called astrolatry. They believed the heavens or heaven to be filled with heavenly beings.
Showing posts with label Ecclesiastes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecclesiastes. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Ecclesiastes wrap up
It seems clear to me that Ecclesiastes is not the cohesive writing of one person. It appears to be much like proverbs, with a variety of adages, saws, and sayings, some in poetic form, cobbled together with a poor attempt to create a unifying theme. Perhaps, at one time its core was simpler and made more topical sense. Then, some person, or persons, stuck in what they considered to be relevant at the time.
Is life meaningless or hopeful? Who lives longer, the wise man or the wicked? Does it even matter if you are wise or wicked? Who is better off, the living or the dead? Is our labor for nothing, or should we find satisfaction in it? It seems to depend on what verse you are reading.
As for doctrine, we find no heaven or hell, no reference to angels or demons or Satan, no miracles, and no prophecy of a messiah. The book does not claim to be inspired or the words of a god. It also does not mention any Old Testament people, places, or events. There was one reference to the Genesis creation of man, at the end of the book. The god spoken of in Ecclesiastes is not called Yahweh, but Elohim, the collective singular "the gods." This leads me to wonder if it is older tan the yahweh texts. At the end we do get a reference to judgment, but it was obviously added on and the form judgment takes is unclear.
There seem to be a battle in the text between the ideas that 1) There is nothing new under the sun,every single thing is meaningless, all effort is for nothing in the end, even trying to be wise, and 2) you can be happy in this life if you are god-fearing and get joy in eating, drinking, and finding satisfaction in your work. Are they mutually exclusive? The god-fearing appears unnecessary to me, but number two gives us a more pleasant approach to life, even though I think happiness is a bit more complicated than that.
The "grave" mentioned in verse 9:10 is actually Sheol, which we have covered before. If you are new to the blog, click on the word sheol in the labels of this post to see more on that.
I found the book mostly boring and redundant, with a few interesting bits, especially the poetic description of old age.
What shall we do next?
As a reminder: I use the NIV for most scripture references, except when noted. The readings are generally taken at face value as much as possible, which is called a "plain reading." This is in the protestant tradition which teaches that each believer can study for themselves and understand what god wants them to know, without the necessity of an intermediary interpreting it for them. The church is supposed to be a priesthood of believers. Each person is supposedly given discernment by the holy spirit. This does not keep any or all from giving their own interpretation of what they read to others, and insisting that theirs is the correct one. I'm not doing anything different, I just don't believe any of it.
I also occasionally look at how a plain reading in modern language compares with original meanings found in Strong's concordance and interlinear scripture translations, found in the biblehub website. In addition, I use Wikipedia as a general reference. It is good enough for general purposes. If I need to go in more depth, I try to find reliable sources by experts in their field. All opinions are my own and the words are original to me unless I reference someone else. However, I may have been influenced by those whose works I have read or listened to.
Is life meaningless or hopeful? Who lives longer, the wise man or the wicked? Does it even matter if you are wise or wicked? Who is better off, the living or the dead? Is our labor for nothing, or should we find satisfaction in it? It seems to depend on what verse you are reading.
As for doctrine, we find no heaven or hell, no reference to angels or demons or Satan, no miracles, and no prophecy of a messiah. The book does not claim to be inspired or the words of a god. It also does not mention any Old Testament people, places, or events. There was one reference to the Genesis creation of man, at the end of the book. The god spoken of in Ecclesiastes is not called Yahweh, but Elohim, the collective singular "the gods." This leads me to wonder if it is older tan the yahweh texts. At the end we do get a reference to judgment, but it was obviously added on and the form judgment takes is unclear.
There seem to be a battle in the text between the ideas that 1) There is nothing new under the sun,every single thing is meaningless, all effort is for nothing in the end, even trying to be wise, and 2) you can be happy in this life if you are god-fearing and get joy in eating, drinking, and finding satisfaction in your work. Are they mutually exclusive? The god-fearing appears unnecessary to me, but number two gives us a more pleasant approach to life, even though I think happiness is a bit more complicated than that.
The "grave" mentioned in verse 9:10 is actually Sheol, which we have covered before. If you are new to the blog, click on the word sheol in the labels of this post to see more on that.
I found the book mostly boring and redundant, with a few interesting bits, especially the poetic description of old age.
What shall we do next?
As a reminder: I use the NIV for most scripture references, except when noted. The readings are generally taken at face value as much as possible, which is called a "plain reading." This is in the protestant tradition which teaches that each believer can study for themselves and understand what god wants them to know, without the necessity of an intermediary interpreting it for them. The church is supposed to be a priesthood of believers. Each person is supposedly given discernment by the holy spirit. This does not keep any or all from giving their own interpretation of what they read to others, and insisting that theirs is the correct one. I'm not doing anything different, I just don't believe any of it.
I also occasionally look at how a plain reading in modern language compares with original meanings found in Strong's concordance and interlinear scripture translations, found in the biblehub website. In addition, I use Wikipedia as a general reference. It is good enough for general purposes. If I need to go in more depth, I try to find reliable sources by experts in their field. All opinions are my own and the words are original to me unless I reference someone else. However, I may have been influenced by those whose works I have read or listened to.
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Ecclesiastes part ten
We are at chapter eight verse 2, and I don't mind telling you I am heartily sick of Ecclesiastes, but we will soldier on.
The next section has been given a title by the producers of the NIV, "Obey the King". Keep in mind that this book was supposedly written by the king. It starts off by telling the reader to obey the king because he took an oath before god. I didn't take an oath, did you? Who is he talking to? Then we are told to not be in a hurry to leave the king's presence, and to not stand up for a bad cause, because the king is going to do what he wants, no matter what anyone else says.
Verses 5-8are in the form of a poem that tries to convince the reader he will come to no harm if he obeys the king. If the reader is wise, he will recognize that there is a proper time and procedure for everything, even if he is miserable. Then the author contradicts that in the next stanza to imply no one knows what the future holds or has power over it.
Next we have more stuff that the author saw under the sun: People lording it over others, only to hurt themselves; both wicked people and holy people being buried; sentences for crimes not being carried out quickly. Even though he sees wicked people living a long time, he knows it will go better for god fearing men. Because the wicked do not fear god, it will not go well with them and they will not live long. This is a blatant contradiction from one sentence to the next. It's like someone went through and tried to fix the parts they disagreed with, without deleting the original.
The author changes his tune again in the next few verses: Righteous men get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men get what the righteous deserve. Of course it is all meaningless. So, the author recommends that everyone just try to enjoy life. Eat, drink and be glad. Then you will have joy, presumably in spite of all the unfairness and meaninglessness.
Chapter eight ends by telling us that after the author applied his mind to know wisdom, he came to the conclusion that no one can understand all that god has done, or discover its meaning, not even a wise man. This thought continues on in chapter nine where we are told that what the righteous and wise do are in god's hands and no one knows whether love or hate awaits him!" At this point, I would think that most people should come to the conclusion that reading Ecclesiastes is an exercise in futility. This guy has already admitted, more than once, that everything is meaningless and not even a wise man can figure it all out, so everyone should just go enjoy their lives. What's he continuing on for then?
He's got to tell us again that every bloomin' person on the face of the earth, wise or fool, good or bad, clean or unclean, shares a common destiny. In case you don't know what that is, because he doesn't say yet, it's DEATH. That's the evil in everything, the destiny of all. (Notice there is no eternal reward for the good.) Any living thing is better off than the dead because it has hope. (Tell that to the fundamentalist Christians.) The next passage effectively destroys the doctrines of heaven and hell. "The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." Everything associated with them vanishes. "Never again will they have a part of anything that happens under the sun."
The next section has been given a title by the producers of the NIV, "Obey the King". Keep in mind that this book was supposedly written by the king. It starts off by telling the reader to obey the king because he took an oath before god. I didn't take an oath, did you? Who is he talking to? Then we are told to not be in a hurry to leave the king's presence, and to not stand up for a bad cause, because the king is going to do what he wants, no matter what anyone else says.
Verses 5-8are in the form of a poem that tries to convince the reader he will come to no harm if he obeys the king. If the reader is wise, he will recognize that there is a proper time and procedure for everything, even if he is miserable. Then the author contradicts that in the next stanza to imply no one knows what the future holds or has power over it.
Next we have more stuff that the author saw under the sun: People lording it over others, only to hurt themselves; both wicked people and holy people being buried; sentences for crimes not being carried out quickly. Even though he sees wicked people living a long time, he knows it will go better for god fearing men. Because the wicked do not fear god, it will not go well with them and they will not live long. This is a blatant contradiction from one sentence to the next. It's like someone went through and tried to fix the parts they disagreed with, without deleting the original.
The author changes his tune again in the next few verses: Righteous men get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men get what the righteous deserve. Of course it is all meaningless. So, the author recommends that everyone just try to enjoy life. Eat, drink and be glad. Then you will have joy, presumably in spite of all the unfairness and meaninglessness.
Chapter eight ends by telling us that after the author applied his mind to know wisdom, he came to the conclusion that no one can understand all that god has done, or discover its meaning, not even a wise man. This thought continues on in chapter nine where we are told that what the righteous and wise do are in god's hands and no one knows whether love or hate awaits him!" At this point, I would think that most people should come to the conclusion that reading Ecclesiastes is an exercise in futility. This guy has already admitted, more than once, that everything is meaningless and not even a wise man can figure it all out, so everyone should just go enjoy their lives. What's he continuing on for then?
He's got to tell us again that every bloomin' person on the face of the earth, wise or fool, good or bad, clean or unclean, shares a common destiny. In case you don't know what that is, because he doesn't say yet, it's DEATH. That's the evil in everything, the destiny of all. (Notice there is no eternal reward for the good.) Any living thing is better off than the dead because it has hope. (Tell that to the fundamentalist Christians.) The next passage effectively destroys the doctrines of heaven and hell. "The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." Everything associated with them vanishes. "Never again will they have a part of anything that happens under the sun."
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Ecclesiastes part nine
We are at 7:15. The author says that in his meaningless life, he has seen righteous men perish and wicked men live long. Well, guess what Mr. Ecclesiastes, some wicked men perish and some righteous men live long. So. What. My guess is that he is peeved because he wants a guarantee for being righteous. He feels that life is not fair if your good behavior does not get you a pass. Has anyone ever done a scientific study on the odds of a long life if you adopt a "righteous" lifestyle? Then righteous behavior would have to be strictly defined and differentiated from wicked behavior. That's problematic. Often the same exact behaviors have been labelled righteous and wicked, depending on context. In the context of Ecclesiastes, I think righteous behavior would have been religiously adhering to the proscribed practices of the author's particular religion/god.
In verse 16, the author tells us to not be over righteous or over wise, or we might destroy ourselves. We should also not be foolish or wicked, or we will die before our time. "The man who fears god will avoid all extremes." That's downright fascinating. Yahweh himself seems pretty extreme. The modern world contains abundant religious extremism.
Just after telling us not to be too wise, in verse 19 the author says "One wise man is more powerful than ten rulers in a city." However, in verse 20, there isn't a single righteous man who never sins. I would actually agree with that, depending on your definition of sin. I would add that it often doesn't matter, there are so many petty sins on god's list.
Verses 21-22 Tell us not to pay attention to everything people say or you might hear your servant cursing you. (That is if you are rich enough to have servants.) Also, admit it, you know you have cursed other people too. (No, actually I haven't. I don't believe in cursing or blessing as real things. By the way, this is not talking about using swear words. It is about wishing magical harm will happen to someone else. For example just saying "Hell!" is not a curse. Saying "You go to Hell!" is. )
In verses 23-25 the author says he has tested all this stuff with all his wisdom and it was beyond him to understand what wisdom is. He also wanted to understand "the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly." In verses 27-29, he's still searching for the scheme of things. While he was searching, he couldn't find a single upright man or woman. He thinks god made men upright but went in search of many schemes and ruined all that.
Right smack in the middle of verses 23-29, we get verse 26, which goes on a rant about a woman who would trap a sinner with her heart and chain him with her hands, but "the man who pleases god will escape her." That seems to have come out of nowhere. I would suspect that it was inserted into the text by some woman hater.
The end of chapter seven appears to spill over into the beginning of chapter eight, which tells us wisdom makes a man attractive. It brightens his face and changes its hard appearance. Hmmm.
In verse 16, the author tells us to not be over righteous or over wise, or we might destroy ourselves. We should also not be foolish or wicked, or we will die before our time. "The man who fears god will avoid all extremes." That's downright fascinating. Yahweh himself seems pretty extreme. The modern world contains abundant religious extremism.
Just after telling us not to be too wise, in verse 19 the author says "One wise man is more powerful than ten rulers in a city." However, in verse 20, there isn't a single righteous man who never sins. I would actually agree with that, depending on your definition of sin. I would add that it often doesn't matter, there are so many petty sins on god's list.
Verses 21-22 Tell us not to pay attention to everything people say or you might hear your servant cursing you. (That is if you are rich enough to have servants.) Also, admit it, you know you have cursed other people too. (No, actually I haven't. I don't believe in cursing or blessing as real things. By the way, this is not talking about using swear words. It is about wishing magical harm will happen to someone else. For example just saying "Hell!" is not a curse. Saying "You go to Hell!" is. )
In verses 23-25 the author says he has tested all this stuff with all his wisdom and it was beyond him to understand what wisdom is. He also wanted to understand "the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly." In verses 27-29, he's still searching for the scheme of things. While he was searching, he couldn't find a single upright man or woman. He thinks god made men upright but went in search of many schemes and ruined all that.
Right smack in the middle of verses 23-29, we get verse 26, which goes on a rant about a woman who would trap a sinner with her heart and chain him with her hands, but "the man who pleases god will escape her." That seems to have come out of nowhere. I would suspect that it was inserted into the text by some woman hater.
The end of chapter seven appears to spill over into the beginning of chapter eight, which tells us wisdom makes a man attractive. It brightens his face and changes its hard appearance. Hmmm.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Ecclesiastes part eight
Moving on to chapter seven. This whole chapter consists of poetry and proverbs or poetic proverbs. Let's see how many we can get through.
"A good name is better than fine perfume." (Maybe, unless you don't care.)
"It is better to go to a house of mourning than a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man..." (Yes, death is every person's destiny. So have a feast and enjoy yourself while you are still alive, for goodness sake. Go to houses of mourning to support those who are still alive. Life is where it's at.)
"Sorrow is better than laughter, because a sad face is good for the heart." (What a load of crap.)
"The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, the heart of fools is in the house of pleasure." (The fools seem to have more fun.)
"It is better to heed a wise man's rebuke than listen to the song of fools." (You can't do both?)
"Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless." (So what?)
"Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart." (I might agree with you there.)
"The end of a matter is better than its beginning" (This guy likes closure) "and patience is better than pride." (I'm not sure which definition of pride he is using here.)
"Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools." (Often true.)
"Do not say 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." (Tell me about it. Usually our memories of the old days are faulty.)
"Wisdom, like an inheritance is a good thing...wisdom is a shelter as money is a shelter." (This guy loves money.)
"Wisdom preserves the life of its possessor." (Not always.)
"Consider what god has done, who can straighten what he has made crooked?" (What has god made crooked?)
"When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider, god has made the one as well as the other." (See here folks, it's in the Bible. God is responsible for the bad times.)
More to come.
"A good name is better than fine perfume." (Maybe, unless you don't care.)
"It is better to go to a house of mourning than a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man..." (Yes, death is every person's destiny. So have a feast and enjoy yourself while you are still alive, for goodness sake. Go to houses of mourning to support those who are still alive. Life is where it's at.)
"Sorrow is better than laughter, because a sad face is good for the heart." (What a load of crap.)
"The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, the heart of fools is in the house of pleasure." (The fools seem to have more fun.)
"It is better to heed a wise man's rebuke than listen to the song of fools." (You can't do both?)
"Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless." (So what?)
"Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart." (I might agree with you there.)
"The end of a matter is better than its beginning" (This guy likes closure) "and patience is better than pride." (I'm not sure which definition of pride he is using here.)
"Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools." (Often true.)
"Do not say 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." (Tell me about it. Usually our memories of the old days are faulty.)
"Wisdom, like an inheritance is a good thing...wisdom is a shelter as money is a shelter." (This guy loves money.)
"Wisdom preserves the life of its possessor." (Not always.)
"Consider what god has done, who can straighten what he has made crooked?" (What has god made crooked?)
"When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider, god has made the one as well as the other." (See here folks, it's in the Bible. God is responsible for the bad times.)
More to come.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Ecclesiastes part seven
We are now in chapter six. The author has seen another "evil under the sun." It seems to be very much like the last one. A wealthy man is given everything he wants, but then a stranger gets to enjoy the spoils. Too bad, so sad.
A man could have a hundred children, but "if he can't enjoy his property and receive a proper burial" a stillborn child is better off than he. Seriously? This is some messed up thinking. This guy is so obsessed with enjoying his possessions and not wanting anyone else to get them after he dies. He goes on to say the stillborn child receives more rest than he will in the grave, if he can't enjoy his prosperity. I hate to break it to him, but dead is dead. All the dead, rich and poor, are equal. Neither is more restless than another.
Verse 7 says, "All a man's efforts are for his mouth, yet his appetite is never satisfied." That's because when you are no longer hungry, you are no longer alive. The nature of the body is to need maintenance. That's not a bug, that's a feature.
Verse 8 says, "What advantage has a wise man over a fool? (I dunno, maybe a longer, more satisfying life?) What does a poor man gain by knowing how to conduct himself before others?" (How about respect and opportunities? Come on! This is too easy.) Of course, everything is again declared meaningless.
Verses 10-11 say, "Whatever exists has already been named" (Ha! Would he be in for a surprise if he lived now.) "What man is has been known." (We are still finding things out about ourselves. It's fascinating.) "No man can contend with one who is stronger than he." (We found ways.) "The more words, the less meaning and how does that profit anyone?" (I hate the word dude, but I think it is appropriate here. Duuude! You are talking about yourself. Stop blathering on.)
Verse 12 says, "Who knows what is good for a man in life, during the few and meaningless days he passes through like a shadow?" (Plenty of people have studied this subject and have their opinions.) "Who can tell him what will happen under the sun after he is gone?" (No one. Get over it already.)
A man could have a hundred children, but "if he can't enjoy his property and receive a proper burial" a stillborn child is better off than he. Seriously? This is some messed up thinking. This guy is so obsessed with enjoying his possessions and not wanting anyone else to get them after he dies. He goes on to say the stillborn child receives more rest than he will in the grave, if he can't enjoy his prosperity. I hate to break it to him, but dead is dead. All the dead, rich and poor, are equal. Neither is more restless than another.
Verse 7 says, "All a man's efforts are for his mouth, yet his appetite is never satisfied." That's because when you are no longer hungry, you are no longer alive. The nature of the body is to need maintenance. That's not a bug, that's a feature.
Verse 8 says, "What advantage has a wise man over a fool? (I dunno, maybe a longer, more satisfying life?) What does a poor man gain by knowing how to conduct himself before others?" (How about respect and opportunities? Come on! This is too easy.) Of course, everything is again declared meaningless.
Verses 10-11 say, "Whatever exists has already been named" (Ha! Would he be in for a surprise if he lived now.) "What man is has been known." (We are still finding things out about ourselves. It's fascinating.) "No man can contend with one who is stronger than he." (We found ways.) "The more words, the less meaning and how does that profit anyone?" (I hate the word dude, but I think it is appropriate here. Duuude! You are talking about yourself. Stop blathering on.)
Verse 12 says, "Who knows what is good for a man in life, during the few and meaningless days he passes through like a shadow?" (Plenty of people have studied this subject and have their opinions.) "Who can tell him what will happen under the sun after he is gone?" (No one. Get over it already.)
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Ecclesiastes part six
We are at verses 4:13-16. They talk about a poor wise youth who became the successor of an old foolish king. Everyone followed the youth at first but later people were not pleased. This too is meaningless. Yes, it is pretty meaningless. So what?
We are now at chapter five, verses1-7. This is telling people to not be fools in front of god. They are to be careful how much they say and what they say at the house of god. They are not to make foolish vows they cannot keep, then claim it was a mistake. Can you see that none of this matters? Vows to gods are all in the minds of believers. Nothing happens to them if they don't keep them, except their own pointless feelings of guilt.
We move on to verse 8. There we begin a section that discusses poverty and wealth. The poor are oppressed by the wealthy. This should not be a surprise says the author. He describes a hierarchy of exploitation that reaches to the top, the king. Then the author comes down on those who love money, speaking of their greed and insatiability. He says, "As goods increase, so do those who consume them. And what benefit are they to the owner except to feast his eyes on them."
This feels so relevant to today's consumer driven economy in the United States. Many are opting out in a search for a fulfilling life without all the stuff. Minimalism has become trendy. I myself am attracted to shedding the accumulation of years. However, I must quibble and say that most of us want to get rid of all the stuff that give us no pleasure from feasting our eyes on. This is so we can more fully enjoy the things that actually do bring pleasure. Yes, there can be things that bring lasting pleasure just by having them in your life. It is different for each person, but to say things can not bring real pleasure is just not true. That falsehood is usually perpetuated by proponents of religions, who believe that the only true pleasure is found in the service of their god. Will this author go there?
In verse 12, the author tries to convince us that a laborer is better off than a rich man. Why? He sleeps better, even if he doesn't get much to eat. I wonder if this author has ever been truly hungry or poor. Would he say these things if he had? I suspect not. The cares of the poor often weigh heavily on their minds and prevent sound sleep.
The author has seen a grievous evil under the sun: wealth hoarded to the harm of its owner or lost through misfortune. Are there no in-betweens with this guy? Does he not recognize the middle class? Where are the people who have moderately decent lives?
Verses 15-17 tell in poetic language how we were born with nothing and we will not be able to take anything with us when we die, which is quite true. However, the author claims it to be a grievous evil.
What does a man gain by working for this end? Frustration, affliction, and anger. What good is that? Mr. Whiner is back again. I don't know about you but I want to enjoy the short life I have. What difference does it make what becomes of my stuff when I am gone? I won't know or care.
In verse 18, the author has a revelation. Everyone should eat, drink, and accept their lot in life that god gave them. That goes for the laborer and the wealthy man. It is a gift of god for the rich man to be able to enjoy his possession, he should accept that and be happy. Mr Split personality is back! Woe is us.....but it's not that bad if you look at it the right way.
We are now at chapter five, verses1-7. This is telling people to not be fools in front of god. They are to be careful how much they say and what they say at the house of god. They are not to make foolish vows they cannot keep, then claim it was a mistake. Can you see that none of this matters? Vows to gods are all in the minds of believers. Nothing happens to them if they don't keep them, except their own pointless feelings of guilt.
We move on to verse 8. There we begin a section that discusses poverty and wealth. The poor are oppressed by the wealthy. This should not be a surprise says the author. He describes a hierarchy of exploitation that reaches to the top, the king. Then the author comes down on those who love money, speaking of their greed and insatiability. He says, "As goods increase, so do those who consume them. And what benefit are they to the owner except to feast his eyes on them."
This feels so relevant to today's consumer driven economy in the United States. Many are opting out in a search for a fulfilling life without all the stuff. Minimalism has become trendy. I myself am attracted to shedding the accumulation of years. However, I must quibble and say that most of us want to get rid of all the stuff that give us no pleasure from feasting our eyes on. This is so we can more fully enjoy the things that actually do bring pleasure. Yes, there can be things that bring lasting pleasure just by having them in your life. It is different for each person, but to say things can not bring real pleasure is just not true. That falsehood is usually perpetuated by proponents of religions, who believe that the only true pleasure is found in the service of their god. Will this author go there?
In verse 12, the author tries to convince us that a laborer is better off than a rich man. Why? He sleeps better, even if he doesn't get much to eat. I wonder if this author has ever been truly hungry or poor. Would he say these things if he had? I suspect not. The cares of the poor often weigh heavily on their minds and prevent sound sleep.
The author has seen a grievous evil under the sun: wealth hoarded to the harm of its owner or lost through misfortune. Are there no in-betweens with this guy? Does he not recognize the middle class? Where are the people who have moderately decent lives?
Verses 15-17 tell in poetic language how we were born with nothing and we will not be able to take anything with us when we die, which is quite true. However, the author claims it to be a grievous evil.
What does a man gain by working for this end? Frustration, affliction, and anger. What good is that? Mr. Whiner is back again. I don't know about you but I want to enjoy the short life I have. What difference does it make what becomes of my stuff when I am gone? I won't know or care.
In verse 18, the author has a revelation. Everyone should eat, drink, and accept their lot in life that god gave them. That goes for the laborer and the wealthy man. It is a gift of god for the rich man to be able to enjoy his possession, he should accept that and be happy. Mr Split personality is back! Woe is us.....but it's not that bad if you look at it the right way.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Ecclesiastes part five
We are at chapter three verse 9. The author repeats his theme of how burdensome life is. It is beautiful and eternal, yet unfathomable. "There is nothing better than to be happy and do good." It is a gift of god to be able to eat, drink, and be satisfied. Everything god does will endure forever, so that men will revere him. This author has a split personality. One half of him is a moaner, the other thinks life is grand.
Verse 15 is quite a cryptic piece of short poetry. "Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before, and god will call the past to account." The past appears to be responsible for the present and the future. Does that mean the present bears no responsibility for itself? Or is it like that idea that there is no present, the moment you think of it, it has already moved into the past. You could come up with some good sci-fi based on this verse. Unless, it is referring to the sins of the fathers, or even further back, the sins of Adam.
In verse 16, the author suddenly says, "I saw something else under the sun." This leads me to wonder if verses 3:1-16 were inserted into this book later than the surrounding text. They don't quite fit the style. What did he see? A place of judgment and justice. "Wickedness was there." (Hell?) Then he ties it into the previous poem about a time for everything, implying there will be a time for judgment.
Starting in verse 15, the author goes off on another tangent, saying god tests men just to see that they are like animals, breathing and dying. Man has no advantage over animals, so everything is meaningless. From dust they came, to dust they must go. Who knows if the spirit of man goes up and the spirit of animals go down? Indeed. Who knows? Since man can't see what will happen after him, he might as well enjoy his work, because that's what he's got. This is getting a bit tiresome.
We are now at chapter four. The author looks again and sees the oppressed. They have no comforter and power was on the side of the oppressors. Isn't that the truth. The author thinks the dead must be happier than the living, even better are the unborn. They haven't yet seen evil. This author is contemplating the problem of evil like many have before him.
Verse 4, "All labor and achievement springs from man's envy of his neighbor." That just not true. Many people achieve great things because their own natures impel them or compel them. They do it for love, for love of knowledge, for love of whatever talent they possess. Not all people are like the author of Ecclesiastes. He probably wasn't much fun to hang around with.
Verses 5 and 6 sound very much like typical proverbs. At verse seven, the author again sees something meaningless. It appears there is no end to meaninglessness. This time it is a person alone, without a son or brother, just working and working for himself and not enjoying his wealth. (Notice the companionship of a woman is not considered.) He wants to know why he is working so hard and not enjoying himself? Well, why is he? Surely he can do what he wants if he has the means. What's all the moaning about?
Verses 9-12 go on to extol the virtues of (male) companionship. With another person around, help is available for work and for times a hand is needed, human warmth on cold nights, and strength in numbers against attack.
So far, Ecclesiastes seems to be an anthology of sayings and poetry, brought together into some kind of order with a unifying theme of meaninglessness proposed between the various bits.
Verse 15 is quite a cryptic piece of short poetry. "Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before, and god will call the past to account." The past appears to be responsible for the present and the future. Does that mean the present bears no responsibility for itself? Or is it like that idea that there is no present, the moment you think of it, it has already moved into the past. You could come up with some good sci-fi based on this verse. Unless, it is referring to the sins of the fathers, or even further back, the sins of Adam.
In verse 16, the author suddenly says, "I saw something else under the sun." This leads me to wonder if verses 3:1-16 were inserted into this book later than the surrounding text. They don't quite fit the style. What did he see? A place of judgment and justice. "Wickedness was there." (Hell?) Then he ties it into the previous poem about a time for everything, implying there will be a time for judgment.
Starting in verse 15, the author goes off on another tangent, saying god tests men just to see that they are like animals, breathing and dying. Man has no advantage over animals, so everything is meaningless. From dust they came, to dust they must go. Who knows if the spirit of man goes up and the spirit of animals go down? Indeed. Who knows? Since man can't see what will happen after him, he might as well enjoy his work, because that's what he's got. This is getting a bit tiresome.
We are now at chapter four. The author looks again and sees the oppressed. They have no comforter and power was on the side of the oppressors. Isn't that the truth. The author thinks the dead must be happier than the living, even better are the unborn. They haven't yet seen evil. This author is contemplating the problem of evil like many have before him.
Verse 4, "All labor and achievement springs from man's envy of his neighbor." That just not true. Many people achieve great things because their own natures impel them or compel them. They do it for love, for love of knowledge, for love of whatever talent they possess. Not all people are like the author of Ecclesiastes. He probably wasn't much fun to hang around with.
Verses 5 and 6 sound very much like typical proverbs. At verse seven, the author again sees something meaningless. It appears there is no end to meaninglessness. This time it is a person alone, without a son or brother, just working and working for himself and not enjoying his wealth. (Notice the companionship of a woman is not considered.) He wants to know why he is working so hard and not enjoying himself? Well, why is he? Surely he can do what he wants if he has the means. What's all the moaning about?
Verses 9-12 go on to extol the virtues of (male) companionship. With another person around, help is available for work and for times a hand is needed, human warmth on cold nights, and strength in numbers against attack.
So far, Ecclesiastes seems to be an anthology of sayings and poetry, brought together into some kind of order with a unifying theme of meaninglessness proposed between the various bits.
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Ecclesiastes part four
We are now in chapter three. Verses 1-8 are pretty famous and have been celebrated in song by multiple artists. Here is the one I heard most when I was young: Judy Collins "Turn, Turn, Turn."
This is in the form of a poem whose theme is expressed in the opening lines. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." There are multiple activities and life events mentioned. I will not go through each one. The author seems to be subscribing to a belief in an inherent orderliness and pattern to life, with designated times for each event. Then one would ask, who designated that these things happen in their time? Must be god! (Which one?)
Everything that affects us does happen in time, but is the time it happens actually designated by a being outside of time? Can all the times of every event be anticipated by us? Obviously not, at this time. (See what I did?)If events could be determined, they would most likely be determined by the events that proceeded them and so forth, like a chain of dominoes. Ah, the deist might say, someone set up the dominoes and pushed over the first domino. Where did this pusher of dominoes come from, the skeptic might say. What good is a god who does nothing but watch his creation come tumbling down? Did he do it just for fun? What happens when the last domino falls? Couldn't there be a kind of eternal mobius strip of dominoes in a never ending chain? I digress.
Seriously, yes we see cycles in nature and in human lives. We live in a cyclical universe. If this was a universe without natural cycles , we wouldn't know about it, because this just happens to be the kind of universe that had the properties necessary to bring about us. We currently have no way to know if any other kind of universe exists. However, there are cycles that people themselves have created because of the nature of the world we live in.
Humans invented farming. They decided when are the best times for planting and harvesting. Humans around the globe invented seasonal rituals of all kinds, they are not actually dictated by nature or gods. Humans invented social customs based on age, gender, and status. Each group decided how different people would relate to each other at different times. Humans have always decided for themselves when they thought it was time go to war. There is never a time for war or peace that is dictated by nature or a god. Also, nature often ignores the timetable of humanity.
Now that I've spent time being critical of the poem's literal meaning, I must admit: Even if it does not make practical sense when taken literally as dogma, it is beautiful as a piece of poetry reflecting on the nature of life. If that's all it was, I would have no issue with it.
This is in the form of a poem whose theme is expressed in the opening lines. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." There are multiple activities and life events mentioned. I will not go through each one. The author seems to be subscribing to a belief in an inherent orderliness and pattern to life, with designated times for each event. Then one would ask, who designated that these things happen in their time? Must be god! (Which one?)
Everything that affects us does happen in time, but is the time it happens actually designated by a being outside of time? Can all the times of every event be anticipated by us? Obviously not, at this time. (See what I did?)If events could be determined, they would most likely be determined by the events that proceeded them and so forth, like a chain of dominoes. Ah, the deist might say, someone set up the dominoes and pushed over the first domino. Where did this pusher of dominoes come from, the skeptic might say. What good is a god who does nothing but watch his creation come tumbling down? Did he do it just for fun? What happens when the last domino falls? Couldn't there be a kind of eternal mobius strip of dominoes in a never ending chain? I digress.
Seriously, yes we see cycles in nature and in human lives. We live in a cyclical universe. If this was a universe without natural cycles , we wouldn't know about it, because this just happens to be the kind of universe that had the properties necessary to bring about us. We currently have no way to know if any other kind of universe exists. However, there are cycles that people themselves have created because of the nature of the world we live in.
Humans invented farming. They decided when are the best times for planting and harvesting. Humans around the globe invented seasonal rituals of all kinds, they are not actually dictated by nature or gods. Humans invented social customs based on age, gender, and status. Each group decided how different people would relate to each other at different times. Humans have always decided for themselves when they thought it was time go to war. There is never a time for war or peace that is dictated by nature or a god. Also, nature often ignores the timetable of humanity.
Now that I've spent time being critical of the poem's literal meaning, I must admit: Even if it does not make practical sense when taken literally as dogma, it is beautiful as a piece of poetry reflecting on the nature of life. If that's all it was, I would have no issue with it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Ecclesiastes part three
Starting at verse twelve, the author says he turns his thoughts to consider wisdom, madness, and folly. He saw that wisdom was better than folly, but the same fate overtakes both the fool and the wise man. Since that was true, what was the benefit of being wise? They will both be forgotten in days to come. They both must die! Yes. So what? I don't get this obsession with being remembered. What difference does that make to you, if you are dead. Life is for living now.
Verse 17, the author says he hated life, because his work was "grievous," whatever that means. It's all meaningless and he hates it, because everything he has worked for will be controlled by someone else when he is gone. That person could be a fool! Woe is him. A man could work with wisdom, knowledge, and skill, but after he dies, someone else takes over his stuff. This is ridiculous. What does he expect? He needs to count himself lucky to have lived to a good age, and to have been able to actually gain knowledge and skills, along with other privileges he must have had. To him, though, it is all meaningless.
Verse 24, the author seems to change his tune. Now he says "there is nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work." Guess what? That comes from God! Weird. Why can't it just be the natural state of things? What does a God have to do with it? Well, according to him, without god, who can eat or find enjoyment? A whole lot of people. I'm eating an ice cream sandwich right now and enjoying it very much. No God necessary.
The next statements by the author are a load of crap. "To the man who pleases him, god gives wisdom, knowledge, and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases god." Say what? This is very different than what he said earlier. His previous statements did not reference a god at all. Plus, both the wise and the fool were going to die. Plus, the person who was wise and worked hard was going to have all his stuff go to someone who might be a fool. Was this passage added by someone who wanted to make a plug for god? If so, it didn't work out so well. At the end it says "This too is also meaningless." So even pleasing god is meaningless? Confusing.
Plenty of "sinners" have an abundance of wealth and knowledge. Plenty of people who aim to please the god of the bible toil away to give their hard earned money to someone else.
I was curious about this first reference to god. It is not the lord, Yahweh. It is the collective godhead Elohim, in this passage. Also strangely enough, the literal translation of verse 25 is "for who can eat, or who can have enjoyment more than I." My NIV bible says "for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment." Very different.
Verse 17, the author says he hated life, because his work was "grievous," whatever that means. It's all meaningless and he hates it, because everything he has worked for will be controlled by someone else when he is gone. That person could be a fool! Woe is him. A man could work with wisdom, knowledge, and skill, but after he dies, someone else takes over his stuff. This is ridiculous. What does he expect? He needs to count himself lucky to have lived to a good age, and to have been able to actually gain knowledge and skills, along with other privileges he must have had. To him, though, it is all meaningless.
Verse 24, the author seems to change his tune. Now he says "there is nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work." Guess what? That comes from God! Weird. Why can't it just be the natural state of things? What does a God have to do with it? Well, according to him, without god, who can eat or find enjoyment? A whole lot of people. I'm eating an ice cream sandwich right now and enjoying it very much. No God necessary.
The next statements by the author are a load of crap. "To the man who pleases him, god gives wisdom, knowledge, and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases god." Say what? This is very different than what he said earlier. His previous statements did not reference a god at all. Plus, both the wise and the fool were going to die. Plus, the person who was wise and worked hard was going to have all his stuff go to someone who might be a fool. Was this passage added by someone who wanted to make a plug for god? If so, it didn't work out so well. At the end it says "This too is also meaningless." So even pleasing god is meaningless? Confusing.
Plenty of "sinners" have an abundance of wealth and knowledge. Plenty of people who aim to please the god of the bible toil away to give their hard earned money to someone else.
I was curious about this first reference to god. It is not the lord, Yahweh. It is the collective godhead Elohim, in this passage. Also strangely enough, the literal translation of verse 25 is "for who can eat, or who can have enjoyment more than I." My NIV bible says "for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment." Very different.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Ecclesiastes introduction and part one
Read about the book called Ecclesiastes here. It covers much more background information than I can. Ecclesiastes is traditionally ascribed to Solomon, but most scholars consider that wrong. Because of word usage, it evidently was written somewhere between 450-180 BCE, after the Babylonian exile. Solomon would have lived around 400 years before the earliest date. The book seems to have a confusing and mysterious history and purpose. No one is quite sure where it came from, how it was compiled, and why it is considered divine scripture.
It begins by introducing "the teacher," which is what the word Ecclesiastes refers to. The main body of the book is supposed to be the words of the teacher, with only the introduction and ending words in the voice of another. Because of what I read in the Wikipedia article, I am wondering if this book was even typically Jewish. Could its ideas have been adopted by the Jews, originating with another people group? We will consider that as we read through.
The opening lines introduce the teacher as the son of David, king in Jerusalem. "Son of David" can refer to a descendant. The first words of the teacher set the tone for the entire book: "Meaningless! Meaningless! Says the teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" If this were written today, it would be observed that the teacher is probably depressed.
Verses 3-11 are in the form of a poem which basically talks about how nothing ever changes. The generations, the earth, the sun, the winds, the streams, they all just keep on doing what they've always done. It's tiresome and boring. Eyes keep on seeing, ears keep on hearing the same old stuff. There is nothing new under the sun. No one can point to anything new. No one remembers the distant past and the distant future will not remember our descendants. It sounds like the author was living in a stagnant period of history, without access to information. That isn't exactly true today is it? If he was to be teleported into our present, he would marvel at the all the novelty, almost too much novelty.
The author's words have kept him alive, in a way, for over 2,000 years. Today we have an unprecedented access to the past, and technology is preserving the present with disturbing thoroughness. It is true that people haven't changed much. Most still have to labor for their daily bread. Most live unremarkable lives, being born, being educated, finding employment, finding life partners, raising children, living to relatively old age, and dying. Of all the people who have ever existed, very few remain in the public consciousness for any length of time. But why is that a problem? Isn't it enough to have had the chance to live and experience life? Can we not find some pleasure or satisfaction in many of the things that keep on doing what they've always done? Yes, the sun sets every evening, but most people still gaze at its beauty with awe, every time.
More to come.
It begins by introducing "the teacher," which is what the word Ecclesiastes refers to. The main body of the book is supposed to be the words of the teacher, with only the introduction and ending words in the voice of another. Because of what I read in the Wikipedia article, I am wondering if this book was even typically Jewish. Could its ideas have been adopted by the Jews, originating with another people group? We will consider that as we read through.
The opening lines introduce the teacher as the son of David, king in Jerusalem. "Son of David" can refer to a descendant. The first words of the teacher set the tone for the entire book: "Meaningless! Meaningless! Says the teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" If this were written today, it would be observed that the teacher is probably depressed.
Verses 3-11 are in the form of a poem which basically talks about how nothing ever changes. The generations, the earth, the sun, the winds, the streams, they all just keep on doing what they've always done. It's tiresome and boring. Eyes keep on seeing, ears keep on hearing the same old stuff. There is nothing new under the sun. No one can point to anything new. No one remembers the distant past and the distant future will not remember our descendants. It sounds like the author was living in a stagnant period of history, without access to information. That isn't exactly true today is it? If he was to be teleported into our present, he would marvel at the all the novelty, almost too much novelty.
The author's words have kept him alive, in a way, for over 2,000 years. Today we have an unprecedented access to the past, and technology is preserving the present with disturbing thoroughness. It is true that people haven't changed much. Most still have to labor for their daily bread. Most live unremarkable lives, being born, being educated, finding employment, finding life partners, raising children, living to relatively old age, and dying. Of all the people who have ever existed, very few remain in the public consciousness for any length of time. But why is that a problem? Isn't it enough to have had the chance to live and experience life? Can we not find some pleasure or satisfaction in many of the things that keep on doing what they've always done? Yes, the sun sets every evening, but most people still gaze at its beauty with awe, every time.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)