DiscussMormonism.com

Ecclesiastes 4
9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

can someone explain the mythology in the above citation?

I realize that this scripture is likely unable to be dated, but some believe it is 2 to 3 centuries before Christ...the sentiment seems rather cliché' today, but is it really? Is there some merit attributed to the fact that this was recorded in a sacred text so long ago and still has relevance and application in modern times? Is this lesson not taught today? Is there a source that pre-dates this one?

Thomas Wolfe - "of all I have ever seen or learned, that book [Ecclesiastes] seems to me the noblest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man’s life upon this earth — and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence, and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one I could say that Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound."

It is one of the "wisdom" books of the Bible, of which there are seven. Five if you use a Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes is a collection of sayings, advice that answer the question, "What brings eternal happiness to man?".

Regarding the verses you have posted, there is a hint for ancient origin in verse 12: "Where one alone may be overcome, two together can resist. A three-ply cord is not easily broken."

There is a Sumerian proverb, more ancient than Ecclesiastes, "no man can snap a three-ply rope".

There is also symbolism in the interweaving of fasces at least to the ancient Etruscans and Romans. I understand a 20th Century conservative group in Italy also used this interweaving of fasces as part of their symbolism and that it helped them make the trains run on time.

subgenius wrote:Ecclesiastes 4
9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

can someone explain the mythology in the above citation?

I realize that this scripture is likely unable to be dated, but some believe it is 2 to 3 centuries before Christ...the sentiment seems rather cliché' today, but is it really? Is there some merit attributed to the fact that this was recorded in a sacred text so long ago and still has relevance and application in modern times? Is this lesson not taught today? Is there a source that pre-dates this one?

Thomas Wolfe - "of all I have ever seen or learned, that book [Ecclesiastes] seems to me the noblest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man’s life upon this earth — and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence, and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one I could say that Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound."

I'm not sure that these verses from Ecclesiastes have anything to do with mythology per se, but it is certainly one of many examples of genuine wisdom that can be found in the Bible.

Though the many authors of the Bible could not have had more than a tiny fraction of the vast body knowledge and experience accumulated by mankind in the millennia that have elapsed since their deaths, and were therefore mistaken about many things, most of them must have been of higher than average intelligence, and capable of occasional, brilliant insights that were sure to endure through the ages that followed. I think that even all but the most militant and cynical atheists would admit that much.

To deny that there is anything of value that can be learned or gained from reading the Bible would be at least as foolish as insisting that it is the inerrant, infallible word of God--as would be denying that theists and their various religions have ever produced anything of value during the millennia of human civilization.

What about Ecclesiastes 4:11?
Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
In Hungarian the word "meleg" (base meaning is warm, hot) became today the most PR word for gays...
by the way the same as "gay" in English; in Agatha Christie's novels sometimes I've met this word in the sense of merry, lively. She wrote the Poirots and Miss Marples in 1920s and 1930s.

madeleine wrote:It is one of the "wisdom" books of the Bible, of which there are seven. Five if you use a Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes is a collection of sayings, advice that answer the question, "What brings eternal happiness to man?".

Regarding the verses you have posted, there is a hint for ancient origin in verse 12: "Where one alone may be overcome, two together can resist. A three-ply cord is not easily broken."

There is a Sumerian proverb, more ancient than Ecclesiastes, "no man can snap a three-ply rope".

There is no conclusive date for Ecclesiastes, so how are you being so definitive?
i agree that the two works share this 3-ply proverb...but its origin?
and does this render both as to being mythological?

subgenius wrote:

madeleine wrote:It is one of the "wisdom" books of the Bible, of which there are seven. Five if you use a Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes is a collection of sayings, advice that answer the question, "What brings eternal happiness to man?".

Regarding the verses you have posted, there is a hint for ancient origin in verse 12: "Where one alone may be overcome, two together can resist. A three-ply cord is not easily broken."

There is a Sumerian proverb, more ancient than Ecclesiastes, "no man can snap a three-ply rope".

There is no conclusive date for Ecclesiastes, so how are you being so definitive?
i agree that the two works share this 3-ply proverb...but its origin?
and does this render both as to being mythological?

My understanding is: "Many would locate Ecclesiastes in the third century B.C., when Judea was under the oppressive domination of Hellenistic kings from Egypt. These kings were highly efficient in their ruthless exploitation of the land and people (4:1; 5:7). The average Jew would have felt a sense of powerlessness and inability to change things for the better. For Qoheleth, God seems remote and uncommunicative, and we cannot hope to understand, much less influence, God’s activity in the world (3:11; 8:16–17)." (NAB, Introduction to Ecclesiastes)

What do you mean by mythological? In a mainstream Christian reading, myth is a type of genre, one that is employed in the Bible. C.S. Lewis called this usage, "true myth". Meaning, myth (symbolic tales) used to convey truth.

Catholics describe the "senses of scripture". A medieval couplet goes like this:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

ludwigm wrote:What about Ecclesiastes 4:11?
Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
In Hungarian the word "meleg" (base meaning is warm, hot) became today the most PR word for gays...
by the way the same as "gay" in English; in Agatha Christie's novels sometimes I've met this word in the sense of merry, lively. She wrote the Poirots and Miss Marples in 1920s and 1930s.

"Gay" as merry or lively, is how the word was used when I was a kid. At that time, we called homosexuals "queer". *shrug*

Language is fluid, and reading modern usage into ancient texts can be fun, but doesn't draw out relevant meaning to the people of the time.

ludwigm wrote:What about Ecclesiastes 4:11?
Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
In Hungarian the word "meleg" (base meaning is warm, hot) became today the most PR word for gays...
by the way the same as "gay" in English; in Agatha Christie's novels sometimes I've met this word in the sense of merry, lively. She wrote the Poirots and Miss Marples in 1920s and 1930s.

i think they prefer the term "faggot" or "queer" don't they?

well, most atheists and their ilk often refer to the scriptures as being tantamount to, if not just outright, mythology...so i was making an appropriate inquiry.