the above post itself identifies solomon as author!
Why Solomon gets into bible/resurrection??? =Biggest Apostate ever???
by Witness 007 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Witness 007
Crap resoning from the Questions from readers as usual beating around the bush and not really answering the question.....if Solomon has a resurrection I DECLARE ALL APOSTATES CAN HAVE A RESURRECTION!!!!
-
nvrgnbk
BA- Setting the record straight.
Solomon was a horny devil!
nvr - Setting the record straight.
-
lovelylil
I'm with BA on that Solomon did write the books in question.
JCanon, just because a book is not "inspired" does not mean it does not belong in the Bible Canon. The bible contains books of prophecy (which are inspired) along with books on the histories of the Jews, literature or wisdom writing such as SOS, law codes pertaining ONLY to Isreal, poetry, books containing allegories, and a whole wealth of different "types" of books. I think that is what for me makes the bible more valuable. And I wouldn't for a minute want the beautiful poetry removed. Or any other book. I'm sorry more books such as Enoch, Book of Jashar and others did not make it into our official canon. But I guess the line had to be drawn somewhere? Peace, lilly
-
M.J.
There are two widely recognized Persian words in Ecclesiastes:
pardes in 2:5, meaning "garden, orchard", and cognate with Greek paradeisos and English "paradise",
and "pitgam" in 8:11, meaning "proverb, aphorism", cognate with Greek apophthegma and English "apothegm". [Segal, Alan, "Life After Death" p. 250.]
There are also a great number of Aramaic phrases in Ecclesiastes, which was the official language of the Persian empire.
This is a strong case for Ecclesiastes not being written until well into (or a bit after) the Persian period, much later than the time of Solomon.
Also, at the end of the Persian period there arose a commercial and monetary economy, which seems to be reflected in the statements of wisdom on money and finance, the social plight of economic injustice, putting newfound economic affluence into the correct perspective, the accompanying greed, etc.,..overall concepts rather foreign to a social environment based on the subsistence agriculture of preexilic Judah. -
lovelylil
Two persian words are the "strong case" for Eccl. not being written by Solomon? I'm sorry I am not buying it. Personally I need more evidence then that. Lilly
-
JCanon
For the record, the above statement is incorrect and revisionist. While the authorship has been questioned, the book itself (Ecclesiastes) identifies Solomon as author. The authorship of Song of Songs has also been debated, but is generally agreed to have been written by Solomon, some Bibles even calling it Song of Solomon.
BA- Setting the record straight.
Hi, Brother Apostate:
From the "Insight Volume" on "Apocrypha" page 121:
Additional ancient testimony. One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.
Esther is dismissed historically because the original version of the book, which is the LXX version has her married to Artaxerxes instead of Ahasuerus, who the WTS and others consider to be Xerxes. So even if some think the Hebrew version of Esther works out historically, the LXX version can't be considered inspired, obviously. So Esther is out.
Song of Solomon: Song of Solomon describes a 5th-century version of Artemis, long after Solomon was dead. It doesn't matter if someone else called "Solomon" claimed to write any of these books:
SOS 7: 7 "This stature of yours does resemble a palm tree, and your breasts, date clusters."
SOS 4:1 "Your hair is like a drove of goats that have hopped down from the mountainous region of Gil´e·ad."
Now what woman do you know who has breasts like DATE CLUSTERS and whose hair has goats in it that look like they are jumping down from a mountain? ??? What could it even mean symbolically? Fact is, this is just describing Artemis of Ephesus when one form of the goddess did look like she had goats in her hair:
Above is the version of Artemis being specifically described in Song of Solomon. A woman with breasts like date clusters and goats in her hair that look like they are jumping down from a mountain. But this is a later version of the goodess. There is no significance whatsoever to goats in any woman's hair, it's just how it looks when the original version of the goddess which simply depicted goats around her head was adapted. Notice how below the goats are just in a nimbus behind her head.
The adaptation of the image of the goddess is loosely based upon her image as a date palm laden with dates:
So not only is this just a poetic pagan book honoring the Mother Goddess, Artemis, the descriptions in SOS of the various forms of the goddess throughout time include forms of the goddess that did not even develop until much later, long after Solomon. So DEFINITELY NOT.
Maybe it's a play on the name of Solomon since he was known to finally worship various forms of the Mother Goddess that a poetic ode to the Mother Goddess appropriately comes from Solomon. Only Solomon himself didn't actually write it, obviously, he never seeing the later forms of Artemis.
ECCLESIASTES: Ecclesiastes has its detractors, some noticing that God's name is not mentioned and that it is a very negative book. But basically, with the clear dismissal of Esther and SOS as non-inpired and their not being cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers, Ecclesiates gets excluded as well. If the NT Bible writers purposefully cross-quoted from all the books they considered to be sacred, and excluded all books they did not, then it does establish it's own internal canon. If we make that presumption then Ecclesiates is excluded along with Esther and SOS. It doesn't matter if there is good advice in the book, there are lots of apocryphal writings and books from the "Wisdom Period" that were not considered "inspired".
JCanon
-
lovelylil
JCanon;
What you left out of your last post was ALL the surrounding texts in SOS chapter 4 and 7 that CANNOT be applied to the false persian God. You only picked one verse out of the entire text that COULD be applied the way you say. And for me, having read all the surrounding verses, it is clear the writer is speaking figuratively about a women and about sexual relations with a women. Can't have sex with a God made of stone can you? (of course, stranger things have happened)
But seriously, I would recomend everyone to go to www.biblegateway.com and look at the entire chapters (4 and 7) in SOS in several translations and then decide for yourselves. I for one am sick to death of people taking one verse out of context and forming an entire theory on it.
Again, I am with BA on this one. Peace, Lilly
-
M.J.
Lovelylil,
Yeah, I know. If you're really interested in digging more into this question, check out the commentary on Eccesiastes by Choon-Leong Seow from the Anchor Bible Series. He makes a case for a Persian period timeframe. -
lovelylil
M.J.
I will look into this because I find it interesting and I it won't really affect my faith either way. Unlike many Christians, I do understand that we should not take all the Bible as literal and there is much about the bible we still do not understand.
I was just saying that two scriptures alone is weak evidence for me to be convinced but thanks for that new information. Again, I will look into this topic more. Lilly
