@John-Mark-Steel said in Ecclesiastes 5:8-9:

The phrase “the king who cultivates the field is an advantage,” then, has a bit of sarcasm (or resignation), it seems.

That’s possible! “After all,” though, is a translation of the Hebrew ו (vav), which can mean many, many things, like “and,” “but,” and so on. Translations vary: the ESV has “but,” the CSB, NIV, and NET Bible have nothing.

The ESV translates the verse as a contrary point to verse 8: “But this is gain for a land in every way: a king committed to cultivated fields.”

The NET Bible makes the same point as the CSB and NIV, but in a more paraphrastic way: “The produce of the land is seized by all of them, even the king is served by the fields.” In this case, verse 9 is another example of injustice.

Thanks @Brent-Karding - those are helpful thoughts!

Cabeza:

Esta historia me muestra deseo (desesperado y necesario), finalmente y correctamente saciado. Debo pensar de esta manera sobre el diseño de Dios: ¡Es algo lindo! Debo llamar a la relación íntima–dentro del matrimonio–lo que Dios la llama: ¡Buena! Debo pensar así.

Corazón:

Al leer esta historia, debo sentir satisfacción cuando la esposa por fin encuentra a su amado.

Este pasaje trata el tema de la relación entre una esposa y su esposo. Como casado, ¿Estoy enfocado en mi esposa y en nadie más? Si estoy soltero o soltera, ¿Encuentro toda mi satisfacción en Cristo? Nuestra sexualidad es parte de nuestra humanidad y el matrimonio es la voluntad de Dios para la mayoría de los cristianos; sin embargo, el matrimonio en sí no satisface. El matrimonio refleja la relacion entre Cristo y su esposa y solo esa relación puede completamente satisfacer.

Manos:

Si bien este tema es un tema de corazón, está intrinsicamente conectado con nuestros cuerpos, que son o instrumentos de justicia o instrumentos de injusticia. ¿Qué estoy haciendo con mis manos? ¿Qué estoy haciendo con mis ojos? ¿Qué leo? ¿Qué veo? ¿Qué hago con mis otros miembros? ¿Estoy despertando deseos fuera de los límites del plan de Dios?

Conclusión:

“Comenté anoche que una relación genuina con Cristo no es meramente cuestión de principios. Debe ser personal o no tendrá ningún valor dos centímetros más allá de nuestras cabezas. Para que sea religión personal y relación personal tienes que realmente conocerle. No solo saber lo que él ha hecho para los pecadores en general, sino lo que está haciendo, ahora mismo (¡!) para ti. ¿Lo conoces de corazón, a él, ahora mismo, hoy? ¿Como tu Salvador, tu Señor y tu mejor amigo de alma? «Yo soy suya y mi amado es mío». Repetidamente la sunamita se refiere a su joven esposo como a «él que ama mi alma». ¿Y qué hizo ella al encontrarlo? «Lo agarré y no quise soltarlo» (Cantares 3:4). Deberíamos estar seguros que entendamos bien ese asunto antes de pasar a la eternidad.”

(Mark Minnick, carta pastoral, 18 mayo 2020)

In Daniel 1:8 the Hebrew word for Defiled or Polluted is Ga’al. This rendition of the word Ga’al is found earlier in scripture to refer to “redeemed” but seems to pick up this variant after the time of the exile. I’d be curious to know if this is more than just what naturally happens in all languages where there are natural evolutions to words.

How do you explain the Godhead as three persons?
History tells us that the Church accepted Trinitarian concept set forth by
Tertullian’s wording; Father is fully God, Son is fully God, and Holy Spirit is fully God.
Does anyone have anything to share?
History, Theology.

@Ari-Constancio said in "Proper" behavior in church:

@Brent-Karding Thank you! Would you deem appropriate to speak also of Ecclesiastes 5:1-7, as you’ve done a live video on “fearing God in corporate worship” over this passage?

Yes, I had forgotten about that passage! That is one of the best ones, since it talks about fearing God and listening when you worship publicly. Thanks for reminding me!

That makes sense. Thanks @Brent-Karding

Hi @Koko!

Thanks for uploading an image of your phrase! You did very well at the First Pass; there is only one small place it could be improved: “Of death” (14c) should be divided, just like you did with “of the shadow.”

Otherwise, superb work!

Next time, btw, you can upload another phrase to the Passage Discussions section of the forum. I’ll be glad to critique again!

@Josué-Pineda Thanks for the tip! Is it also possible to use the phrasing module to show parallelism (A B C A’ B’ C’)?

I’ve never used the phrasing module before. I’ve often wished that the arcing module would indent subordinate clauses as seen in the phrasing module. This makes me wonder why the indenting feature in the phrasing module isn’t also available in the arcing module. To me, indenting gives a more intuitive visual representation of subordination than wider arcs/brackets.

If I am arcing a passage which contains a chiasm, it would be nice to reflect that within the arcing module. I realize that arcing is focused on the functional relationships between clauses, whereas literary structure (chiasms, etc.) are simply about form, so these two methods aren’t a perfect fit with each other. Some details would need to be carefully thought out about how literary structure could be incorporated into the arcing module…

@Wellington-Driedger It is a little tedious to use, but things will be improved when Biblearc 3.0 is released. (There’s no release date yet, though.)

But you can highlight more than one word at a time; you can click and drag your mouse across as many words as you want, and highlight them all at once.

I’ve tried that as well. Doesn’t work for me within the Notes tab.

@Dani-Cavalheiro creo que la palabra se utiliza no para señalar la idea de un secuestro que tenga implicaciones inmorales, sino de la extracción de un grupo de personas. Sin embargo, creo que es un pasaje que se ha malentendido. Espero poder explicar esto al terminar esta publicación, posiblemente la semana que viene. Gracias por recordarme que tenía pendiente terminar esta publicación.

Gracias, por la respuesta.

Indonesian