King Solomon should know about oppression since he was the biggest oppressor on planet earth. However, I get the idea that you think that the average person in 21st century America who works hard, takes care of his family, pays his bills,does not live on government aid nor accept handouts is an oppressor. Perhaps I am wrong but that's the impression I get from reading your blog for many years.
Most scholars don't believe that the King wrote this collection of reflections. However, even if he did, his character doesn't negate the truth of the wors. I'm sorry that I've left this impression with you. What I've tried to do on this page is to establish the fact that as a people, a nation, a community, we can enact processes and policies that lift disadvantaged persons out of the ditch and set them on a path that will benefit everyone.
love the Star of David! Shalom!
You need to understand that Obama loves it when as many people as possible are dependent on government. It's called re-election insurance. 35% of the American people receive some forn of government "welfare".
Off the subject, but when the writer identifies himself as the son of David and the King of Israel in the first chapter, I would be careful about accepting the word of so-called scholars. David had only one son that was King of Israel.A large number of so-called scholars go to great length to deny the truths of the Bible. I'm sure you are aware of that.
I heard in yesterday's news that 35% of Americans are on "the take" from the government. This is up from 10% in 1960. Disgusting!
I'd like to know what is included in your list of benefits that put so many of us "on the take." Do you have a source I could look at?
Check this site:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/03/10/democraticsocialism/
The only way 35% of people are 'on the take' is if it includes SS.Chris: Writers in antiquity frequently wrote under the name of someone who carried great weight. It was so common it was not even thought of as lying. Acknowledging this does not make you a Bible 'denier.' But it may mean that, just because the author identifies himself, it doesn't mean that's who wrote it. But many probably thought the writing was at least consistent with the known writings of the person to whom it was attributed, and that's why it became accepted. Just historical facts. Ignoring such facts is just denial.
Sorry. Meant to sign the last comment.KenDallas
In his introduction to the book of Ecclesiastes Dr. Burton Coffman said the following:"The Jews, and also St. Jerome, from the most ancient times attributed the book to Solomon, at a time in his life, when he had repented and recovered himself from the apostasy that resulted from the influence of the heathen women that he had married. This is a much more believable proposition than the stupid allegation, that "Soneone wrote this book in Solomon's name." If a canard like that is allowed, it denies Solomon's conversion, so evident in Ecclesiastes, thus reducing the most powerful part of the book to the status of an unqualified lie, making Solomon himself, of course, (the wisest man on earth) a pessimistic agnostic. Of course, this is exactly the thing that evil men would like to establish."_____There are many evidences that Solomon wrote the book and not a shred of evidence that he didn't. So why on earth would anyone spend anytime denying it? All the great versions of the Bible name Solomon as the author.
Post a Comment