Why Solomon gets into bible/resurrection??? =Biggest Apostate ever???

by Witness 007 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  lovelylil

  M.J.

  I can't find that commentary on Amazon, do you know where I could get a copy? Lilly
• 

  M.J.

  lovlelylil, check out this article, which makes reference to Seow's book:
  
  http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/morgan/7236.pdf
  
  Seow's book is expensive! If you live near a good university library, It would probably be best to look for it there.
  http://www.amazon.com/Ecclesiastes-Translation-Introduction-Anchor-Bible/dp/0385411146/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196804822&sr=8-2
• 

  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)

  My interpretation of SOS is that it deals with the cultic aspects of several aspects and versions of the Mother Goddess, not just Artemis of Ephsus. For instance, in some places it says she has just two large breasts. One verse says her naval is like a bowl. I found a Canaanite goddess that indeed had a naval like a bowl. So these are the various cultic expressions of the Mother Goddess in all her forms. That also includes walls with battlements, which is the WTS representation of the Mother Goddess as the "Tower Goddess."

  So it is not just one specific goddess, but many of them and all through the centuries. It's just that the goddess with goats in her hair and with "breasts like date clusters" is very obvious.

  You want it to be poetic and sexual but women usually only have two breasts, not multiple breasts. Furthermore, in what allegorical compliment can you imagine a woman's hair being described as like goats hopping down from a mountain? Yet this is clearly understood when you look at the later versions of Artemis of Ephesus. So yes, it is talking about a beautiful woman, but the Mother Goddess, who represents Satan has always had the concept of being especially beautiful. Like Venus.

  So indeed, some of the descriptions may be general and might fit some earlier goddesses around during Solomon's time but the references to the latter goddess forms from the 6th century proves the book wasn't written by Solomon who was from the late 10th and early 9th century BCE.

  9 “If she should be a wall, we shall build upon her a battlement of silver; but if she should be a door, we shall block her up with a cedar plank.”

  10 “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers.

  The goddess represented herself also in architecture. If a wall, her walls would have battlements which were considered her breasts. Also towers were considered her breasts. Towers and walls with battlements?

  Watchtower imagery includes a tower with battlements and a wall with battlements. The symbolic connection with the "Tower Goddess" is not a mistake.

  Song of Solomon is a pagan cultic book that passes for Jewish poetry written by Solomon.

  JCanon
• 

  lovelylil

  Jcanon,

  While I respect your opinion, I still disagree. You are taking one or two verses out of the entire chapters and not reading them in context. Also the bible contains a lot of figurative language not to be taken as literal.

  Could SOS have been written by others? It is possible, but almost every Bible scholar I have read agrees that the writer was King Solomon. Peace, Lilly

  edited to add: btw thanks Jcanon for those pics. they are very interesting.
• 

  Narkissos

  Don't forget this page which is very convenient for basic information about authorship and date (just click on the names of the individual books under "Tanakh"). http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

  Ecclesiastes offers one of the latest forms of Hebrew syntax (it's not only a matter of Aramaic and Persian loanwords) in the Bible (e.g. the use of the relative 'shr reflects the beginning of the evolution from classical to rabbinical Hebrew). Linguistically it makes no sense whatsoever in the early 1st millenium. Ideologically it may even reflect the influence of Greek Epicurism. I don't know of any scholar (except the hardest fundamentalists who will hold for tradition at any scholarly cost) who would ascribe to Solomon currently/
• 

  lovelylil

  Thanks Narkissos.