Ecclesiastes (2) Two inquiries

The book of Ecclesiastes tends to be neglected.
I must admit that I’ve been neglecting it myself.
So I come to this book with no preconceptions, except that a book found in the Old Testament must be intended to haver a spiritual meaning. The people who compiled the canon were not in the business of collecting an anthology of “Hebrew literature”.

Chapter 1 vv12-18

Modern translations of the Old Testament make a point of showing the difference between prose and poetry. That makes it easy to see that two lines of poetry have been incorporated into this passage. Have they been thrown in at random? No, on close inspection, not at all. They are part of a double pattern in which the writer announces two inquiries.

V12 “ I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.”
He declares his standing for making the first inquiry, namely that he has the power to do things.

V13 “And I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven.”
He declares the scope of the first inquiry, namely the things that men do.

He calls the work of men “an unhappy business” (RSV), a “sore travail” (AV), a “burdensome task” (the interlinear translation available on the Biblehub website).
Yet when he goes into more detail about these inquiries in the next chapter, the first one is about the pursuit of pleasure. So he’s really talking about “activity” rather than “work”.

V14 “I have seen everything that is done under the sun; and behold all is vanity and a striving after wind”
He reports, by anticipation, the result of the first inquiry.
The original “all is vanity” was ambiguous. He complained in vv1-11 that men got no satisfaction from what they saw in the world, but it might be thought that the world was at fault for this. Now it is more clear that men themselves are at fault because they are looking in the wrong places for their satisfaction, “striving after wind”. As James says, “You ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James ch4 v3)

“What is crooked cannot be made straight,
And what is lacking cannot be numbered.”
Finally, he attaches a poetic “tag” in keeping with his conclusion, perhaps a proverb that he knows.
The moral is that there is no such thing as perfection in the world. There will always be flaws, there will always be things missing.

V16 “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all those who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”
Now he declares his standing for making the second inquiry, namely that he has the power to think things.

V17 “And I applied my mind to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly.”
He declares the scope of the second inquiry, namely the things that men think.

“I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.”
He reports, by anticipation, the result of the second inquiry.

“For in much wisdom is much vexation,
And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.”
Finally he attaches a poetic “tag” in keeping with his second conclusion.

In the book of Proverbs, “wisdom” means knowing God and understanding what God wants from us, while “madness and folly” are about not understanding these things. I had misgivings that the writer here might be despairing of the quest for “wisdom” in that sense.

However, I think I was right the first time. It is secular knowledge that fills the mind with useless and vexatious rubbish.

The course of the first chapter seems to go as follows;
The writer was originally struck by the fact that men found no satisfaction from what they see in the world. His curiosity was then piqued (not peaked or peeked) to investigate further, whether men get satisfaction from what they do or think in the world.

As someone in athletics, you are always striving for perfection. The only way to maintain a healthy perspective on that is to understand that you will never, ever get there. The joy then is in the journey and every step you take in honing your skills.

I reached that point and realization long ago, but faith helps. Faith brings you to realize there is no earthly perfection possible.

My son is still struggling with this understanding being the little perfectionist he is.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I have to say your post was again very thought out and nicely composed. We must really consider this

Ec 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

The English word vexation never means striving. Seeing that we have no original Hebrew, and that it is impossible to know what form of Hebrew they spoke (it is definitely not the same as today's Hebrew language), we are left with trusting scholars. Scholars are men and like Solomon searching out wisdom is what is the sore travail given to men to do at the time of Solomon up until the completion of the Holy Scriptures

Ec 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

. As one studies in a way that uses dead languages, it becomes burdensome literally a vexation of spirit, leading to mental exhaustion, troubling of heart because we don't take it as it is written but seek to change it. (I did this for 40 hours a week plus for over 19 years in the pulpit ministry and believe me I would have liked to been doing something more productive than studying out languages that no one today uses. When I did I almost always changed the meaning of the words without ever giving it a thought of what it said where it said it in English.

Let me get back on track. If we go to Greek, Hebrew or any other Biblical language we run into one insurmountable problem, we have no VERIFIABLE ORIGINAL GREEK, HEBREW OR OTHER LANGUAGE DOCUMENT to examine so we can verify the Copy we are using is correct. We have only copies of originals and those copies are not verified to be accurate because no one has an original to compare it with. Knowing this the scholars since 100AD to date have established their own rule. If they agree then they must be correct. There in we still have problem. Erred Documents over 1900 years will agree with one another and it still does not make them true or accurate.

So the best we can do is believe that God has preserved his words to this generation as he promised in Psalm 12:6-7. Believe that there is one Bible in English today because of that promise (God never said he would preserve it into a generations language over and over again, I would say at best, the next preservation will be in Chinese if the Lord tarries). This leaves us with our duty as we study, to look up the meanings of those English words at that time of 1611, also consider all the new meanings the word has today, and consider the original spelling, as sometimes a old spelling reveals something unknown at the time of 1611. The later gives us an advance revelation of God's words i.e. "earthquakes in Divers places", we know immediately the word then meant diverse but also reveals a fact not known in 1611 but is known today, that earthquakes took place under water in the places where divers went or divers places.

So the conclusion is this, whether it be poetry or prose really doesn't matter much when it comes to an Application we can used today for our life and godliness. There is no need for all men to search out the matter as we have a man, Solomon, who already did it and we can read and learn from him that the conclusion of the matter over and over in this book, is searching out worldly wisdom is vanity.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
It remains true that I have ceased to have dealings with you, for the reasons already given.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Specifically, you told people that I denied the Godhead, something you knew to be a falsehood for which you had no evidence.
If someone feels no commitment to truthfulness, their comments can have no value.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ChesterJohn
It remains true that I have ceased to have dealings with you, for the reasons already given.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Specifically, you told people that I denied the Godhead, something you knew to be a falsehood for which you had no evidence.
If someone feels no commitment to truthfulness, their comments can have no value.

" Specifically you told people I denied the godhead". Disraeli, you posted that 1 John5:7 was an error and thereby did not mean that the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost were one as that verse states. You also stated that the Holy Ghost was not a Person, thereby if I did say you denied the godhead, it was based on at least those two points. A twofold witness of your own words confirms your guilt in the Bible. So if I made that remark it was based on those facts at the time.

Have you have changed your mind or repented on 1 John 5:7 and that the Holy Ghost is a person? to be exact the reference was to the Trinity which is not found in the Bible but the godhead as being 3 in one is as found in 1John5:7

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I said nothing of the kind. Find me that post.
To assist you, here is my entire series on 1 John;
1 John
And here is the specific thread on ch5;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The comments you are quoting are not there. They come from your imagination. I told you this the first time you brought the subject up, and you took no notice, becaue you were feeling hostile enough to want to believe anything that was bad.

Now if there is any spark of honesty and truthfulness and sense of justice left in your make-up, either find the evidence or withdraw the charge. Otherwise you prove my point.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It would be better yet if you find me my post where I said you denied the Godhead.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I'm patient enough to do that, but it will take time.
Meanwhile, asking for evidence that you said it is half-way towards withdrawing it, so I will accept that as evidence of good faith and ask for the rest when I've got the right link.

a reply to: DISRAELI

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

here is your teaching

The Spirit of truth is a further witness. As he has previously mentioned, the Spirit is truth.
Together with the water and the blood, that makes a total of three witnesses to Christ.
These three witnesses are EIS TO EN- “to the one”. That is, they are directed towards one end, they are teaching the same truth. “They agree” in some translations (vv7-8). .

the version you are teaching from does not have Vs 7 that says

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The version you were teaching from says this

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

So clearly if you teach from an incomplete verse. Then you deny the accuracy of the scriptures and therefore you have denied the godhead as it is seen in this verse. As a matter of fact you don't even address "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. in that particular teaching nor did I make my comment about your denial of the Godhead in that thread. But I will be very happy to post it in that thread if you like. So by default using a version that is incomplete or missing some of the words you by default deny the godhead in a very clear verse on it. This why I encourage you to use the KJV because it has all the words of God in it whether men agree to that or not, otherwise it can be misleading.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
First, as promised here is the link to the post where you first made that claim (followed by the challenge I made at the time). www.abovetopsecret.com...

Secondly, all you have found is that I offered no discussion on certain words found in the traditional text.
The simple answer is that my standard practice in all my threads is to work from the RSV, and the RSV does not contain those words. So they were not part of my brief. Incidentally, you have made completely the wrong guess about the version I was using; I don't know what translation you were quoting as "the one that you're teaching from", but it's not the RSV.

Thirdly, your whole mode of argument has been to draw inferences from the fact that I don't discuss them, and then quote those inferences as if they were my own words. So the fault of drawing false inferences is combined with the fault of misquotation.

I believe in (and I have written threads on) the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed in their full integrity. You have never seen me say anything else.

So your choice now lies between withdrawing your charge or proving my point about your own integrity.

a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Just one problem you were already saying I maligned you before Feb 5, 2020.

Another problem is I make statements in general based on what I have read in all your threads some of which I never posted on Like 1 John 5:7. RSV and the NIV both are taken from Vaticanicus, Alexandrian and Sinaicanicus Text only. the KJV gets it from the majority text or Textus Receptus and God's preservation which is the mind of God. IN short more text support for 1John 5:7 as found in the KJV than the othert three documents.

Ok, so answer these two questions.

Is the Godhead a Trinity as seen in the KJV 1611 version of 1 John 5:7?

Is the Holy Ghost a person?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Is the God head a Trinity as seen in the KJV 1611 version of 1 John 5:7?

Is the Holy Ghost a person?

I have already told you that I believe in the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed in their full integrity.
So I have already said "yes" to both questions, haven't I?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I did not ask you if you believed in a creed I asked it you believe that the the godhead is a trinity as found in the KJV 1 John 5:7?

And if the Holy Ghost is a person?

Disraeli has said he believes that the Godhead is a Trinity as found in 1 John 5:7 and that the Holy Ghost is a PERSON. I hereby revoke my opinion that Disreali denied the Trinity and the person of the Holy Ghost. Hereby all ye that are present are witnesses this day as to my revocation. I here by apologize for making the statements.

Now Disraeli, you accused me of no longer serving the Lord. Would you want or like to explain that?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
For heaven's sake, I have already said "yes", twice over.

Didn't you understand that? if I tell you that I've eaten a whole box of chocolates, that includes each individual chocolate in the box. If |I tell you that I believe a whole Creed, that means each individual statement within the Creed, including the ones about the nature of the Trinity and the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Now what about that retraction?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I am a person who likes direct answers to direct questions not some round about way of saying something without really saying it.

You falsely accused me of no longer serving the Lord will you clarify why your said that and what proof you have I had when in fact I had not?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Specifically, I said that you were no longer serving the God of truth. I meant that you were making false charges against me, which you were refusing to withdraw, and that demonstrated a lack of commitment to truthfulness. In effect, you were serving the Father of lies.

As soon as you withdraw the false statements you were making about me, I can withdraw my complaint that you are making false statements.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Disraeli has said he believes that the Godhead is a Trinity as found in 1 John 5:7 and that the Holy Ghost is a PERSON. I hereby revoke my opinion that Disreali denied the Trinity and the person of the Holy Ghost. Hereby all ye that are present are witnesses this day as to my revocation. I here by apologize for making the statements.

Thank you. We are back on good terms again. And I accept that you have renewed your commitment to the truth that is in God.

May I suggest, for future reference, that you read people's postings with more care before you get passionate in disagreement with them? I think this has been a perennial problem.

a reply to: DISRAELI

1) my father is God, by adoption through Jesus Christ 2) My making statements which according to what I read were not necessarily false. 3) I have never served the Devil since being saved. And I do not believe for one moment any of that. I remember you saying I was no longer serving the lord, not the God of Truth. and in any case whether is was God or Truth of the Lord I have always served him. If you did say God of truth it matters not because I had not stopped serving him. Only now you make that excuse.

I hereby certify I have never served the DEVIL as Disraeli has accused me. I made my judgements based on his previous words and because finding those words are very difficult to find I concede to retract my previous statements on his denying the God head and the person of the Holy Ghost based on today's statements only.

I will call all of You to notice I have never said he was not serving the God of Truth or the Lord, I also never said he was serving the DEVIL who is the father of lies as he has me. He to this day will not repent of these his words as he feel justified in making false claims based on my opinion of his own words in the past.

Furthermore, even if I did make a judgement on his words based on what I have read throughout all of his threads, it does not mean I am serving the DEVIL and stopped serving the Lord or God of Truth.