OzSpen said:
You are inventing a straw man fallacy again. You state: 'So you're advocating asserting that there is NO negative content in scripture?' At no place in my post did I state that. You're into eisegesis of my post. If you continue to do this to me, I'll not be replying to you. When you use logical fallacies, it makes it impossible to have a logical discussion with you
Eccl 1:1-4 (NIV) reads:
'Everything is meaningless' is the view from the perspective of those who 'toil under the sun' (1;3). The RSV translates v. 2 as, 'Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity'. That seems like a fair estimate of the world if one is looking at it from a secular point of view, i.e. 'under the sun'. However, this is also the view expressed in Ps 90:3-10; 102:24-26; 35:5ff; Gen 5:29; 47:9. Solomon is affirming what is stated elsewhere in the OT.
Nope, but this is. You disagreed with my premise that Solomon was in a back slidden state, then when I asked you a pertinent question in that regard, you deflect to your usual practise of accusing people of presenting straw men when they aren't. You really have no idea about fallacies at all.
Your logic appears to be a continual effort to AVOID defending your own assertions. I really do wish that if you can't participate in threads normally with me, that you would refrain from answering me.
The teacher is Solomon, and it's his perspective. This was directed at God's people, not unbelievers. Despite your assertions, God does NOT turn anybody into dust, it is a natural process of death and decay. Using this wording in a literal sense only indicates you have a hard time identifying style in the Bible. Whatever the reason, your eisegesis is quite evident. I suppose you also believe God 'knits' human beings together in their mothers womb? You've really gone off the deep end!
OzSpen said:
So, Stan, the exegesis of the term 'meaningless' or 'vanity' is not what you want to make it. More than that, I was dealing with Eccl 12:7 and not with Eccl 1:1-4. When I do the hard yakka with accurate exegesis of Eccl 1:1-4, I do not conclude as you do. I urge you not to accuse me about information that has no basis in fact when compared with what you posted. Your straw man included imposing on me the need to exegete Eccl 1;1-4 when I did not mention it.
So you really believe, regardless of your equivocation on the meaning, that God is telling us that life is futile? Your conclusions were what I addressed Oz. They aren't eisegesis, they are refutations. Somehow you have this warped sense that only the words you use are correct and cannot be challenged by other thoughts? That type of supercilliousness is beneath you, and it is sure not acceptable to me. You brought up Eccl 1, so deal with the responses and stop all these diversionary tactics.
OzSpen said:
Stan, you have demonstrated what happens when you try to exegete the OT from an English translation with your statement from Eccl 1:4 (NIV), 'the earth remains forever'. The earth remaining forever means nothing more than.
Funny how you're willing to vascilate on literalness to suit your POV? Despite other opinions, you can't have your cake AND eat it too. Either you are ABLE to see and understand the style Solomon uses, or you're not. Equivocating about it does nothing to enhance your argument. ôlâm In the Hebrew still has the same main connotation as forever here in the future context, that being ~
for ever, always; continuous existence, perpetual; everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity.
OzSpen said:
You state, 'Do you accept that the sun hurries around the earth to rise everyday?' You are referring to Eccl 1:5 (NIV) that states, 'The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises'. That is a perspectival observation for any human being and when Solomon gives his human view of life 'under the sun', that is an accurate view of what human beings see. It is not meant to be a scientific explanation that would satisfy the demands of cosmologists. Ecclesiastes is referring to 'the ceaseless round of rising, setting,and hastening back to the starting point'
My POINT, from my first response to you, is that ALL of Ecclesiastes is 'perspectival observation', as you put it above, so is it factual or not? Seems you've talked you self into agreeing with me? Do you accept what Solomon also states in Eccl 9:5 & 10 as being the truth of God?
OzSpen said:
Stan, I think you ought to quit bragging about your exegetical prowess. You have failed in your examination of these passages from Eccl 1:1-4.
Based on what Oz? Your equivocal and eisegetical responses? You may want to examine that chip on your shoulder. Seems your recent doctorate has gone to your head?
OzSpen said:
As for 2 Cor 5:8 (NIV), the souls of believers go immediately into God’s presence. What Paul asserts as a desire would make no sense in the God-breathed Scriptures if that is not what happens at death. Your view lacks biblical exegesis. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, explains:
So both you and Grudem are wrong and provide NO exegesis for your opinions. You both make assertions with NO support from scriotyre, other than those you both eisegete.
OzSpen said:
As for Heb 9:27 (NIV), it states, 'Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment'. What do you want that to mean? You state: 'we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die'. This plainly is a false statement. Nowhere in Heb 9:27 (NIV) does it state that people will be be 'judged immediately after we die'. That is your invention. It's eisegesis with your imposing your beliefs on the text. Heb 9:27 (NIV) does state that people will die once and after that face judgment but nowhere does this verse state when that judgment will happen after death. Nowhere. That really is very poor exegesis by you, Stan.
This response has me scratching my head Oz. I said EXACTLY what you conclude here, it does NOT state we do, so why do you do you assert it is eisegesis?
If you do not understand what I write, then ask. You make you self look very silly ultimately agreeing to what I wrote. If you can't relate it to your premise, how is that my problem? I'm addressing your contentions. This has nothing to do with my poor eisegesis Oz, it has to do with your 'to quick to read and comprehend' style of responding. You're so intent on proving me wrong, that you fail to even properly read what I write.
OzSpen said:
This is another false statement by you: We will not 'see Jesus or God after we die'. Jesus proved you wrong when he said to the thief beside him, 'Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise"' (Luke 23:43 NIV). At death, the thief 'saw' Jesus because he was with Jesus. We know from 2 Cor 5:8 that Paul would be 'absent from the body and present with the Lord'. In Phil 1:23 (ESV) Paul affirms his desire to 'depart and be with Christ, that is better by far' rather than remain on earth. His desire would be pointless if such a reality of dying and being with Christ was not a possibility. When Stephen was being stoned, he 'gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God... And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:55, 59 ESV). When was the Lord Jesus? He was standing at the right hand of God, so Stephen at death had his spirit received by the Lord Jesus.
Yes, He said the thief would, IN paradise, NOT heaven. You also continue to assert Paul was teaching a fact, when all he was doing was conveying his desires to be with Jesus. Stephen SAW, or perceived through a vision. How does one SEE God and Jesus in a non physical dimension? Again your insistence on taking things quite literally is why you have a hard time understanding. This event was no more physical than John seeing the NEW Jerusalem in heaven.
OzSpen said:
The exegetical evidence from OT and NT overwhelms your false position, Stan, that believers do not go directly into the Lord's presence at death. At death believers go into the Lord's presence and their bodies rot in the grave (returning to dust) only to be resurrected at Christ's second coming when the resurrected body will be joined with the spirit (1 Cor 15).
What evidence. You have distorted what I wrote and what the Bible DOES say. Jesus told the Apostles he would go to prepare a place, NEW Jerusalem, and return to, bring them there to be with Him as we read in John 14:2. How exactly does that work if they are there with Him already?
OzSpen said:
Before Christ’s resurrection, both believers and unbelievers went to Sheol/Hades – two separate places in that location (see Isa 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek 32:21; Lk 16:22-23). After the resurrection, believers go to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23) which is better than Hades. According to 2 Cor 5:6-9, believers are present with the Lord and are worshipping with the angelic hosts in heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).
So you think Jesus lied about paradise in Luke 16? You keep claiming these verses confirm what you assert, but you have NOT exegeted as such.
OzSpen said:
Dumbing down my exegesis doesn't work, Stan. You erected a straw man fallacy. I have sound biblical grounds for the position I maintain.
So I dumbed it down and you still can't address it? How dumbed down do I have to go before you get it? Again I suggest you really learn what a straw man is, as I did NOT write a sham argument set up to be defeated. When you actually DO show sound biblical grounds to support anything, I will let you know.