Ecclesiastes (4) The limits of wisdom

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I analysed the grammatical mistake you were making (re the "hid himself") on this page
I'm not going to go through it all again.

Let me just make a point which I have been trying to explain to you half a dozen times (see that dent in the brick wall over there?), so this time I'll put it into capital letters to see if you can understand;
My analysis of that sentence was an analysis based on YOUR translation.
The gross grammatical mistake which you are making is a mistake in reading YOUR translation.
SO DIFFERENCE IN TRANSLATION HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
ON THAT SENTENCE, WE ARE BOTH LOOKING AT THE SAME WORDING.
YOUR OWN FAVOURITE TRANSLATION IS THE ONE YOU ARE READING WRONGLY.
That is the whole point. That is what proves that the AV is not simple enough to stop people making mistakes out of it.

I have suggested that you consult a professional English teacher to explain how that sentence in the parable is put together. It will need to be a strong-minded one, though, because your unwillingness to understand explanations can be enough to test the patience of a saint.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You don't have to go through it all, you only have to admit you do see it and I know you do. But you wont admit it. Which I have no problem with it.

So let God be true and every man a liar.

Please compare you Bible version with the above chart on page one and if it falls on the left it is trust worthy but if it falls on the right you many want to consider why those versions only used 45 partial and whole documents.

But Disraeli the sentence structure is different your your RSV and my AV. The parable you speak of needs no interpretation because Jesus already gave it to the disciples. That is the problem your reinterpretion of it in your teaching for a nice warm devotional milk which lost the real spiritual meat of it. But it was more than that and it reveals more about Israel and Christ both back then and in the future. Your devotional lost all of that.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Let me tell you just once more- I WAS ANALYSING THE AV SENTENCE STRUCURE OF THAT SENTENCE, SO THEY ARE NOT DIFFERENT STRUCTURES.

But you are not even reading anything you don't want to see, so there is no point.
Until God is able to "dig out your ears", you're not going to listen to what anybody else says.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Then look at it again "He hideth" is separated by two commas, this allows it to not only add to the previous but also stands alone as an action of himself.

Mt 13:44 ¶ Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

So just read it simply as a simple man and it says "he hideth" Not "he hideth it".

So both understandings are in the text, and look here how the RSV changes it to limit to what was hid only to the treasure. BTW, the RSV Translators in their notes make mention of it needing change so what was hidden would not be confused with the man. Now if they thought it could be confused then they saw it as such too.

Mt 13:44 ¶ "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. (RSV)

In both readings were are told the treasure was already hid. so the RSV removes the comma and "he hideth" and replaces it with "and covered up". When a man found it does not mean he completely removed it from the ground and rehid it. The man who found it did not know the vastness of that Treasure at the time he found it, the man Jesus was limited in his divine activity as a man. Jesus tells us this takes place by comparing scriptures, it will take place in the end the Tribulation.

So if the man is Jesus and he today is hid from the Jews as a nation, which he is (individually Jews will come to know him as Lord and Saviour), but as a nation he will be revealed when he comes again and they will see him whom they pierced. So there it fits with scripture that the Holy Ghost compared with a scripture for in Isaiah it says that scriptures would not lack it mate.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
"The which he hideth"- the object of the verb is "the which". See the link already posted for the full analysis.

.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Don't over complicate it. "The which" if it were just the treasure would not need a comma before he hideth. So why the use of a comma? Be a simple man and read it. It has a two fold understanding that comes forth from adding the comma, 1) he did not want anyone else to find the treasure (if it is just a parable so no one else could find it as it is is believing Israel both then and in the Tribulation)and 2) He would not want anyone to know who he was that found it. Becasue if at the time the devil knew what Jesus was going to do for mankind he would not have allowed it to happen.

1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

That is if we take it only as a true to life story, which is what a parable is. But it was interpreted by Jesus as to what it was all about. So you presented a spiritualization of the text for a devotional. I presented something more revealing and that was there was going to be a period of time between his rising from the dead and his coming to set up the kingdom which Israel will be at the helm, that he would be hid from Israel and Gentiles as a whole (but revealed to individuals hearing the gospel of the grace of God), which is the treasure in field.

Here is a little extra for you. Do you know remember we are hid in Christ? the cross reference built into the AV Bible using just the word hid links to this truth.

Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

.

Oh how unsearchable is the AV text past finding out.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The comma is marking off the adverbial phrase "when he hath found".
he did two things with "the which";
1) He found it.
2) Having found it, he then hid it.

Again and again I say to you- don't take my word for it. Find a professional English teacher and get them to do the analysis for you.

a reply to: DISRAELI

but noticed you added the word "it". He hideth is all it says. When it says about someone, he hideth, it means he hid. But again you can't take a parable that has been given the meaning by the speaker literally. You are always faulting me for taking things literally, and when I do or don't do you see how you are.

Clearly understanding all scriptures that speak of the events and the context of the parable and its meaning given by Jesus, there is actually no reason not to see both meanings. And just because you disagree does not make in incorrect. It was advanced revelation at the time about Jesus and Israel both of which you missed in your devotional teaching on the verse.

So let's go back to Eccl 2:14 and how the changes in the RSV actually changed your and others understanding of the scripture in question.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
"It " , the second time round, represents "the which".

Let me repeat what I said before. And for God's sake (I mean that literally) focus on the term THE WHICH
The original AV wording is "the which ...he hideth".
The term "the which" is the object of the verb. "hideth".
There is a slight gap between "the which" and "hideth" because a clause indicating WHEN the hiding took place is inserted between them.

Two actions are happening.
The man finds something.
The man hides THE SAME THING.

THAT TERM "THE WHICH" IS A RELATIVE PRONOUN (look them up).
IT SAYS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SECOND VERB IS THE SAME AS THE OBJECT OF THE FIRST VERB .

I'm sorry for all the cpaitals, but how else am i to get through to you? You hear (perhaps) and you do not understand, because you do not want to understand.

I have suggested, and i repeat the suggestion now, that you take the question to a professional English teacher and let them explain the structure of the sentence to you. Let somebody else bang their heads against the brick wall.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
You are the one who is not taking scripture lierally, in this case, because you are thoroughly misunderstanding what scripture says. In fact your confused misreading of what the AV says has led you into inserting a new teaching into scripture which God did not want to be there. The AV says something different to anyone who understands how to read.

I am pinning you down on this point because it is part of the proof that the AV is not "easy to read" enough to prevent people falling into false teaching.
This, in turn, is part of the proof that "the AV says something different" is not relevant to the study of Ecclesiastes or any other book, which is why I'm not going to discuss Ecclesiastes on that basis.

(I will amend that slightly. In the case of a specific text, it is reasonable to discuss whether one rendering is better than another, but this CANNOT be done without reference back to the original language, which you refuse to do. )

a reply to: DISRAELI

Literal because Jesus is hidden right now to the house of Israel as a whole he was originally sent too. What you are failing to do is recognize the context of it being Israel (the treasure) the man (Jesus) and the end times that the context as a whole place that parables interpretation into.

Different Bible translations change that. being it is separated by two commas makes it reflective of being a stand alone statement. Taken simply and literally he hideth means he hid. I already admitted that both understandings are there but you want to limit it to only one. The AV allows for that, the RSV and NIV do not they limit the understanding of God's word in this case to ONE the treasure, which is Israel, the treasure is not the Christians. Let me ask you is Israel hidden today? NO. Is it not a fact Jesus is hidden from Israel as a nation as a whole today? YES.

The verses in the AV Bible don't stand alone for they all fit together.

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

The bible says more about Israel as a nation to rule this earth than it does about the church. And again what original documents do you have in any language? NONE. They are all copies none of which can be verified by the ORIGINAL Document because all we have are copies. Have you not grasped that yet? I believe God preserved his words and it seems you do not believe he has. I trust in GOD and his preserved words, you trust in MAN and his FAITHFULNESS. Odd the OT shows that all the faithful men failed and caused Israel to fall into sin and disobedience to God's words. What makes you think FAITHFUL MEN will do any better today?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The AV in that passage is not saying what you think it is saying.
You are reading the verse wrong, and using that wrong reading to introduce a new teaching into it.

Having made that point, I must rest there. I can lead you to water, but I cannot make you drink.
But I have explained why I will not be discussing Ecclesiastes (or any other book) in terms of "the AV has a different wording".

a reply to: DISRAELI

I said as a stand alone statement because it is encased in two commas. If the hideth was only connected to the treasure in the previous statement no need for a comma at all before he hideth. Just end he hideth with an it and a period. Which is what the RSV and 99% of the Translations taken from a majority of Roman Catholic text does.

You want to argue over the "He hideth but you never touch the real point I am making about Context and Bible translations, faithful men vs God, none of it seems to matter to you just because I see two meanings and you do not (though I believe truthfully you do see two in the AV but prefer to see only one as found in all the RC documents and commentaries of faith men you seem to idolize).

a reply to: ChesterJohn
If that silly cycle of random accusations is going to begin all over again, that is another reason to end the discussion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It once again it is based on what you said. You said that we should leave it to faithful scholars and with that it means you don't believe Psalm 12:6-7 that God preserved his words to every generation forever.

If I am wrong then prove it. But your words are already posted as such and that conclusion is made on those words not my opinion nor is it a personal attack.

This is how people who cannot debate issues act, they always say they are accused of something and refuse to speak any longer.

You never once debated the true point of my post which is your bible version changed the understanding of the AV and if their are that many different views you say we should leave it to faithful scholars. And I say leave it to a God who preserved his word into English as found in the AV. Obviously you don't believe God kept his word and preserved it to this generation (god not man persevered it through men via inspiration because all scripture is given by inspiration). If you do believe God preserved his words to this generation say so. Because so far you have not and I cannot be faulted for coming to a conclusion on that issue if in fact you are not being forthcoming on it.

I told you I would continue to call out your teaching but this time I stuck to the bible you are using instead of your teaching itself. You have attacked my teaching and not he bible I am using. You failed to give me the same courtesy.

ignore me and go on with your 5th teaching of Eccl.

I want to post this

“Can you trust just one Bible?

What a great question!

But what’s really funny is that most Christians don’t trust ONE Bible. In fact they don’t completely trust ANY Bible in ANY language anywhere on earth. That’s because they’ve been conditioned and trained not to. And that includes some of the top evangelical and fundamentalist leaders in the country.

You see, the training NOT to believe in a document (called the Bible) that contains all God’s words and only God’s words without error has been going on for over 100 years. And it spans five generations.” David W. Daniels & Jack McElroy, Can You Trust Just One Bible, p.127

I encourage as many as read this to get this book. It is an insightful read.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I told you I would continue to call out your teaching but this time I stuck to the bible you are using instead of your teaching itself. You have attacked my teaching and not he bible I am using. You failed to give me the same courtesy.

You seem to have an odd idea of what I was expecting and what I was offering in return, so let me make a couple of explanations.

Firstly, I never complained that you were criticising my teaching. My complaint was that you were criticising me on things which were NOT my teaching. The problem was not the criticism itself, but the falsehood. So, for example, the claim that I denied the Godhead was simply untrue, but you kept repeating it. Just now you made some snide comment abkout my supposed Roman Catholic friends, and on an older occasion my "friends" were Calvinist ones. That's what I mean by "random accusations". You seem to be incapable of believing in the good faith of anyone who disagrees with you, so you make huge inferences in order to associate them with other bad people.

Seccondly, the fact that you were criticisng the Bible version I was using doesn't count as an improvement, for the good reason that you've done nothing else, since you arrived on ATS, but criticise people for their failure to use the AV. That was the theme of your very first post on my threads, popping up out of nowhere from this unexpected and irrelevant angle. It seems to be the only message you've got for the people of ATS. Of course in sheer self-defence, the rest of us must respond by pointing out that the AV does not live up to the claims you make for it. Most of the time we can only point out the logical gaps in your claims. But when I criticise your "hiding himself" teaching, I am doing so as a way of criticising your Bible version. It shows that the AV is not "easy to read" enough to protect people from developing false teachings out of it. I've told you this before, but these things usually have to be repeated.

Thirdly, there are legitimate and illegitimate ways of criticising Bible teaching.
I aim to criticise on the basis "That statement disagrees with what the Bible says."
You offer to criticise on the basis "That statement disagrees with what the AV says."
The essence of the problem is that you don't understand that there is a difference.

I have told you several times on this thread, and now repeat, that I will not enter into discussions based entirely on the second kind of objection.
If you can find something wrong based on some argument other than "the AV says something different", then that can be open to discussion.

Incidentally, people do not always give up talking to you because they run out of arguments. Sometimes it is because they have given you the arguments ten times already, and they know you're not listening. Even trying to explain something to you can be a case of what Doctor Johnson said about second marraiges; "A triumph of hope over experience".

I have the right to criticize any Bible that MEN say words, phrases, verses and sections are in error and should not be in it, seeing God says he would preserve his words to every Generation. I say have them all in the bible and let God use them in our lives.

What is amazing is that the translator Notes from RSV, ASV, NIV (all six versions), NASB, et al All based on the 45 documents, all say their main reason was to replace, correct (according to man not God) an English version other than the AV. Everyone of their notes say their purpose was to replace the KJV.

Again your view is you trust is in MEN tosay what Bible word, phrases, verses and sections are correct and should be in or out of their Bible versions.

I say God preserved it in the AV because if has everything those MEN say should not be there. Mine is of faith in God's words, yours is in FAITHFUL Mens abilities. the OT shows what religious faithful men who trust in men do to with God's word and teach others. See Isiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The rest of us have the right to take no notice, which is what I was proposing to do in the first place.