Another excellent Hamercopia of Knowledge this week. See you next Tuesday, Hamerheads!

@unrecognizedtalent3432

3 ай бұрын

😃😃😃

This is one of my favorite passages: ”Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful, but time and chance happen to them all. For no one can anticipate one’s time. Like fish taken in a cruel net or like birds caught in a snare, so mortals are snared at a time of calamity, when it suddenly falls upon them.“ ‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭9‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

@alanpennie8013

3 ай бұрын

Famously translated into *officialese* by George Orwell, as a model of how (not) to write lifeless prose.

@duhface8066

2 ай бұрын

@@alanpennie8013not so famously

@alanpennie8013

2 ай бұрын

@@duhface8066 *Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success in competitive activities is not always aligned with innate capacity, but that a certain element of the unpredictable must always be taken into account*. Quoted from memory so it may not be quite accurate.

@nosuchthing8

Ай бұрын

Wow, that's great

This is my favorite lecture series , the lecturer is a genius with an encyclopedic knowledge…I do like how he interacts with his AV team during the Q&A , it’s like a blooper reel 😂

So nice to hear Jon’s favorite book is Ruth. A delightful story filled with good people and a happy outcome.

MC Hamer is living in my head at this point

When I was a teen , like many my age, I decided to read the bible cover to cover. When I got to this book I was very taken with it. It seemed so modern and relatable.

@michaelhenry1763

3 ай бұрын

This has been favorite book from the Bible since I was a teenager too. I was like Chemistry is meaningless.

@lightningbug276

2 ай бұрын

Me too! I had The Living Bible.

@FoursWithin

2 ай бұрын

Very few people actually read the Bible cover to cover. Very few read more than a few passages here and there. At least according to the polls. A

@michaelhenry1763

2 ай бұрын

@@FoursWithin absolutely, people are guided to only read select passages.

If you're able, please donate. These lectures are priceless. Thank you, John and all everyone who contributes to this historical journey.

@Pearlz4Pigz_777

2 ай бұрын

My ass. This video is garbage

HAMERHEADS!! Yes. All day, yes!

Adding comment to support algorithm result.

@tof39ish

3 ай бұрын

What he said.

@Pearlz4Pigz_777

2 ай бұрын

I hope disliking this comment helps… 🤡

“In the Gaarden of Eden by I. Ron Butterfly” was one of the greatest bits the Simpsons ever had, imo.

As I’ve become older, Ecclesiastes becomes more and more one of my favorite biblical books.

My favorite book in the Bible ❤

Very good presentation

Great lecture as always, thanks

Thanks, John. I was once a college literature prof, and taught sections of the Old and New Testaments in my world lit classes. and my conclusions about Ecclesiastes are much the same as yours, still I value your teachings on things I have never even thought about. take care, my dear podcast friend. Barry Richins

An amazing lecture - a simple biblical exegesis Very enjoyably and well presented

Excellent lecture as usual. Trying to game the algorhytm and taking the chance of thanking you guys for the best lectures on YT.

Enjoyed the overview and also your addressing variety of questions in q&a.

Excellent ! Thank you John. Blessings to all.

I rewatch this when I am feeling down and it is alike a sermon in its soothing affect and yet very appealing to me as an agnostic! I've heard this sort of advice often from other cooks or people in hospitality, it is good honest wisdom to live off of

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.

Taking a moment to express my appreciation for your work.

He has made everything beautiful in it's time...

Excited for this one!

Thanks!

@HamerToronto

3 ай бұрын

You're very welcome, thank you for your support.

Wonderful. Thank you for sharing.

Enjoyed that very much! Thank you, kindly! But is the lecture to be regarded as 'vanity' as well??!! 😂😅❤

I’m going to try to catch one of these lives. I watch a past episode every night. I appreciate the scholarly nature of the presentation because I’m not interested in any preaching. I just want to learn about the Bible.

@jaustill237

3 ай бұрын

It's very worth it.

Your lectures are always enlightening.

Thanks

The theme of all wisdom literature: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Excellent presentation! Thank you!

Missed the livestream. I was listening to an old program by Bart Ehrman.

@dimitrisiliadis4939

3 ай бұрын

Change your teaching sources. Seems like you only listen to agnostics. Put some variety in your life.

Ecclesiastes 7:26 isn't even misogynistic if you read it literally. It says "And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets". It says _ha-ishah_ in Hebrew (THE woman), not "women", and it is a special kind of woman, as identified by the qualifying phrase "whose heart is snares and nets". It's not saying "all women are deceptive", but "women who are deceptive are bad". I'm not a scholar of feminism, but I don't think saying "bad women are bad" is misogynistic. True, Ecclesiastes goes on to say (v. 28) that he hasn't ever met a good woman, but that's his problem--the poor sod--not ours. If we take it as literally true that he's never met a good woman, then we should pity him for having lived such a sucky life.

Thank you for you thoughtful perspective and comments. The most important Fathers of the Orthodox Church, St John Chrysostom, St Basil and St Gregory of Nyssa, in their sermons and other writings made it clear that what was contained in the Old Testament was appealing to people of that time, contrasting it with the Gospels. E.g. "because humanity was in the past even less developed and not able to grasp that which is the most perfect, the Holy Spirit made the Prophet speak in the language that has been recorded in the Scriptures" (St John Chrysostom, 3rd Homily on the Genesis). St Basil used the encyclopaedic knowledge of his time to interpret large parts of the Genesis. St Basil was doing what seemed rational to any normal human being, he was interpreting what seemed factually wrong or illogical in the creation story, he was not replacing biblical literalism with 4th C encyclopaedic literalism. St Gregory of Nyssa explained evolution as a succession of simpler living forms by more complex forms, saying that life must have originated in inanimate matter. Modern biblical literalism is as you said, a misunderstanding by Fundamentalists that the Bible was understood in antiquity to contain historically and scientifically verifiable facts, when it was only understood as received tradition.

Thanks, enjoyed this!

Love this channel 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@centre-place

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your support!

Another good lecture.

Keep up doing these!

Heck yeah brother!

My fave book from the catholic Bible growing up was Sirach. "Worst of all wounds is that of the heart, worst of all evils is that of a woman."

Ecclesiastes “one who convenes an assembly”

Great lectures! I've wondered for years, why did the Babylonians capture and/or exile the elite or whoever when they conquered Judea? Why didn't they just kill them?

@alanpennie8013

3 ай бұрын

An interesting question. Keeping them on ice in case they were useful later?

@centre-place

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching! One important reason is that Judah was already part of the Babylonian sphere of influence before the conquest. Zedekiah was a puppet king appointed by Nebuchadnezzar. When he rebelled, according to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar killed his two sons, destroying the Judean lineage, blinded Zedekiah, and kept him prisoner until his death. On the other hand, the Judean exiles were the educated and craftsmanship classes that could provide a great economic boost to the imperial capital.

❤❤❤❤❤❤

I need you Kathy. Please do a video explaining what the Treasury buyback announcement means and what its impact on the dollar will be.

The book of Job was coopted from a much older story that originated from southern Mesopotamia where they had crocs and hippos, described as Leviathan and Bemouth in the story.

God told Moses on Mt. Sinai to build the Wilderness Tabernacle with Pi as its cornerstone in 1440 BC. In 94 AD Josephus the historian wrongly described it as rectangular-shaped. Exodus 25-26-27 blueprints build a circle-shaped outer courtyard. 330 Exodus 26:8 eleven curtains each 30 cubits long 15 Exodus 26:12 one curtain is folded in half to 15 cubits long - 1 Exodus 26:13 curtain hang over/seams add to 1 cubit long = 314 3.14 = 314 circumference/100 diameter ≈ π ratio (100 cubit court per Exodus 27:9 -18) ................. This discovery is similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Martin Luther's 95 Theses. How did we miss this for 1900 years and does it even matter? .................. History of finding π: -(1900-1680 BC) Babylonian 3.125 for π -(1650 BC) Egyptians gave the approximate value of π 3.1605 -(1440 BC) Moses recorded Pi in the Exodus blueprints 3.141592653... Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi -(500 BC) India's Aryabhata approximation was 62,832/20,000, or 3.141 -(429-501 BC) Zu Chongzhi a Chinese mathematician 3.1415926 - 3.1415927 -(250 BC) Archimedes from Syracuse showed between 3.1408 and 3.1429 ................. More than a thousand years removed Josephus NOT know Exodus 26:13 approximated Pi. He was mistakingly describing the Temple's structure and NOT, and NOT the Tabernacle from Exodus 25-26-27. See? Pi is coded in your DNA. Consider King Josiah & the Prophetess Huldah rediscovering the forgotten scriptures, right? What is your next move? כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ ⭕ 1. Repent 2. Spiritual Awakening 3. Revival ...Exodus 3.14 ...I AM... דָּרַשׁ Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi

I'd really like to know what you think of "The Valediction of Moses" by Idan Dershowitz. The Standards between the Decrees, Blessings, and Curses make a lot of common sense and basic human nature, as well as discerning evil from good - and that there are other gods, not just one, but that Elohim in god of god. ???

I doubt that the vast majority of America even knew that the songs lyrics were from Ecclesiastes. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that the Bible holds the answers to all or most of life's basic questions, yet only 45% of American adults can name the four gospels and 37% of American ‘Christians’ cannot name the first book of the Bible and only 39% knew who Job was.

@nosuchthing8

Ай бұрын

He worked at apple!

I like Ecclesiastes for the same reason that I like Job. We just don't know. A just God knows.

The Tower of Babel probably stems back to the time when large groups who spoke various languages met . . . . . Hinduism is also monotheistic.

Yip. Ta again John ( and all involved) . Easily ( for me ,a non-believer ) the best book in the bible . Make life the best you can, simply because it's what you have. I know, it also talks about obeying gods commands....but nothing's perfect....

"More bitter than death" does wisdom not teach us that poison kills medicine heals and yet both are usually bitter

When you translated "Hebel" as "vanity", but it's literal interpretation meaning "vapor or breath" - that to me actually implies they're saying all is spirit, all is soul. Many other religious traditions use the same word or concept for our internal essence, the soul - the mind - that it is ephemeral, it is movement incarnate. Then translating that instead to something like "all is soul, or empitness", not necessarily "meaningless". the Concept of emptiness stemming from the latin root Vanus, to be empty. This is a concept shared in the traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism - which is just Hinduism stripped for export - that eludes to emptiness being all, but it's not a position on the value of of life as meaningless or "vain" in the modern context - but actually the opposite in many ways. I think there may be a more subtle meaning here that has a very different ring, especially because the literal translation of the word as breath is so similar to dozens of other notions of soul, of mind. Reading the book through, it feels like a lament of mortality - and an acknowledgement that nothing lasts - which is a powerful insight to living life to it's fullest, and not wrapping yourself up in affairs that only perpetuate selfishness. The other notion here is that intellectualizing, or attempting to ask questions about eternal life, the pursuit of wisdom, is folly - and yet you couldn't have arrived at that conclusion without the attempt. The question is required for an answer. In fact Ecclesiastes reads a lot like Buddhism. Christ himself echoes many notions of the Buddha, particularly through the Gnostic lens. Just food for thought.

Jesus could well be referring to Ecclesiastes in Luke 12:19 : And I will say to my soul, “‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”

Classic era of the Simpsons, "family therapy" foam bats!

First comment! ...I think

Ionian Greeks were already present in the Levant in significant numbers in the First Temple period, as mercenaries working for Egypt in the time of Josiah. I mean, this is generally understood to be why Goliath in the Bible is depicted as a hoplite instead of a bare-chested broom-hairpieced barbarian like a proper Phoenician should be. Greeks in general already had three colonies in the surrounding areas from the 7th century BCE: Naukratis in Egypt, Posideion at the mouth of the Orontes, and another unnamed one deeper in. By the time of Plato and Xenophon, the Achaemenids had gotten used to buying the services of Greek mercenaries, both Ionian and Dorian, for their own internal and external wars. Xenophon himself had been one such mercenary. In his case he went all the way back, but many of his contemporaries stayed. Notably, while Xenophon was serving under Cyrus the (failed) usurper, other Greeks were similarly serving on the opposite side under King Artaxerxes II. The Ten Thousand got to Babylon in 401BCE. This was when SOCRATES was still alive - the very start of the Greek philosophical age. That's why I don't think the presence of Greek philosophical ideas in Ecclesiastes presents any evidence that it was written in the Hellenistic era. This proposition assumes that those Greek ideas could only have reached Judaea after Alexander, but Xenophon his-goddamn-self was already hanging around the area two generations ahead of Alex and two years before Socrates sipped the hemlock.

@airrik2653

3 ай бұрын

Great addition to the program. You seem to be very knowledgeable about Greeks, thanks for sharing!

Ecclesiastes is less Agnostic when we read the last 2 verses of chapter 12. It explains the reasons why King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes 12:9 is the clincher, he still taught the people, Ecclesiastes 12:13 The purpose.

@michaelhenry1763

3 ай бұрын

Yes, it was a later editor putting their spin on the book.

@NorthernGate777

2 ай бұрын

Scholars do not know how to interpret holy writings. The holy writings make that clear. When they are interpreted using only human wisdom, then that is as far as one can go in their understanding. Solomon was given greater wisdom than all scholars of the world put together. Now, just like every other prophet, men categorize him and make a graven image out of what God has created and have broken the commandments in doing so . If it is done in ignorance, it can be forgiven but if they know he is a dignity and they want to rob him of his glory, that is something else.

@willielee5253

2 ай бұрын

@NorthernGate777 Just reminiscing for the benefit of on coming generations was his interest.

Nope for me, i just know about the book. But i became agnostic after learning some of the main religions, including read their as they call it "holybook"

I deconstructed from evangelical Christianity some time ago as I began my retreat from giving any authority to the OT and NT. I kinda still liked some of the wisdom literature passages during my transition but finally came to my senses after 50 years of indoctrination and the migraine-inducing consequences of scriptural dissonance. It was a relief to finally place my Protestant bible in the recycling blue box, where I feel all scriptures of every religion should be placed. What a catharsis that was. Now I just feel sorry for anyone who thinks God communicates through written words in a faith-based book. Ignorance is not the beginning of wisdom. Wisdom is the beginning of wisdom, as wrapping your brain around reality is true wisdom. Fear is just a manipulation manifestation of the authors of so much BS. Good luck people.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -6 illustrates the fact that Jews, including the first century orthodox, apocalyptic Jew named Jesus, did not believe that ‘the soul’ lived on after death in heaven or hell. 5. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward,and even their name is forgotten. 6. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.

Define vanity.

Earth is not under the sun

Sting can write good songs. I hope the Russians love their children too

ps Re Solomon's "Wisdom" he didn't fare well. Sorcery and Idolatry (worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God -- wisdom wealth . knowledge freely given by 2 Co 4:4 ? Job 5:13 , 1 Cor 3:19 Mk 8:36

First time Centre Place with a video out of focus.

@centre-place

3 ай бұрын

What do you mean?

Agnostic: Naysayer.. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Jn 3:18 Jn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

@michaelhenry1763

3 ай бұрын

We are not talking about the book of John. Did the author of John write Ecclesiastes?

@JLynnBkNy

3 ай бұрын

no John did not .. however 2 Tim 3:16-17 and Old Testament is foreshadowing the New Testament . for ex Gen 1-3 John 1-3 and as for Solomon ( author of Ecc? well what happened to him. He got off the track and went whoring after other gods and sorcery. sooo 1 Co 3:19 Mk 8:36-38 . @@michaelhenry1763

Historicity: They saw (not only in Rome) at every corner that the ancients weren't dressed as knights etc. The assumption that they were blind or stupid is even more suprising for a generation that put a Stahlhelm on Macbeth or made Judas Ischariot a black African.

While these lectures are very useful resource, I can't escape the feeling that "expanded literacy" to you means "agreeing with everything I think and feel based on my preferred logic"

@tomlehr861

3 ай бұрын

Or,an invitation to consider something that you may not agree with

Interesting take... The book of Proverbs (most of it and some of it by Agur and Lemuel) and Ecclesiastes was in fact written by Solomon. "Son of David and "king over Israel in Jerusalem (Ecc 1:1 ,12) Explorer and teacher of proverbs ( 12:9 ). The book displays knowledge of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Solomon had close contact with Egypt and his empire stretched to the Euphrates river, so he would have reflected on such texts. Additionally, it is unlikely that a Jew writing 500 or more years later, when Egyptian and Mesopotamia glory had passed, would have had access to such texts or been so familiar with them. Also, the texts shows limited similarity to Greek philosophy that flourished 500 years after Solomon. Please refer to Tony Evans work or John MacArthur's work for further study.

Agnostic? Well, no. Read Ecclesiastes 12:13 -14 which tell the right way to go after one finally becomes disaffected from an unsatisfying earthly existence in which everything is temporary.

@Goodscribemattscribe

3 ай бұрын

Excellent response 🎉

@ninoblader147

3 ай бұрын

That’s the ending which is widely regarded as an editor’s addition. It’s logically inconsistent with most of the Book of Qohelet. Mr. Hamer wasn’t actually saying this book is Agnostic. He said at the beginning it was an intentionally provocative title and at the end 1:15:09 he explains what he meant by it.

@andrewsuryali8540

3 ай бұрын

Go to 1:15:09

@JH-pt6ih

3 ай бұрын

..."I used the word agnostic NOT because the authors are agnostic about the existence of God" but about the claims of other authors. Twice he explains the use of the word. He also discusses the error and folly of people who want to only read a portion of a text and then try to gloss the whole thing with a passage or two - which is EXACTLY what you did. You did not bother to watch and thought all you had to do was throw a single passage out there and solve all problems and cast shade on something you could not be bothered to confirm before casting stones.

@drmichaelshea

3 ай бұрын

I think Ecclesiastes is probably the most misunderstood book in the Bible. It is often considered depressing. But to me it was the critical piece in my conversion to Christianity. First of all, there is no correct translation extant, to my knowledge. In the days of the KJV translation, the definition of “vain” was “temporary.” To say that everything is “futile” is misleading and just plain wrong. / There is a TIME and a PURPOSE (meaning that we can gain something from every experience) for everything under the heaven. The whole message of that book, is that earthly existence is that everything we sense is transient. Love, hate, passions, beliefs, science, lightning, clouds, hurricanes, volcanoes, rocks, the ozone layer, the sun - everything is temporary. How can one argue? Furthermore, the circle of life is just that, a circle, and things the have been tend to be repeated. Third, there is a time and place for everything. Finally, God does not micromanage human beings, for “time and CHANCE happen to them all. Ecclesiastes is a very Buddhist text, and it is unequivocally true. It is about how to live a realistic and productive live on this earth. Without that book, I do not believe I would have ever accepted any religion. After all, for now, I am mortal, and it is the mortal world that I live in. What comes afterward is what I hope for and believe in. And I have great faith that Jesus gave us a way to get there, challenging as that path might be. I’m sensitive about Ecclesiastes. I’ve read many, many books, but none have affected me more than that one. Thanks for the presentation.

Have you ever seen the picture s AI makes of founding fathers, popes, Europeans? This lecture is out of date.

1:30 :40 "Talibangelical" ?! 😂

Oh, come ON! NOBODY calls him "Peter". This guy lives in a 1950s bomb shelter.

This video belongs in the KZread trash can

As a historian you should know the language of persian is not called persian, it is called Farsi. You do not call hebrew jew language, do you? Hebrew is only a few hundred years old and you have made up all your knowledge as a jew not a historian.

@ninoblader147

3 ай бұрын

Modern Persian is referred to as both Persian and Farsi. In the lecture he would be referring to either Old Persian or Avestan. Farsi is just the Arabized “Parsi” which literally means Persian.

@tof39ish

3 ай бұрын

Does Persia have its own language? Persian is an important language of the Middle East and Central Asia. It is known as Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan and Tajik in Tajikistan.

@andrewsuryali8540

3 ай бұрын

Farsi is the Arabic-derived name for the MODERN Iranian language that MODERN Iranians use to denote their language specifically to distinguish it from the Arabic that was dominant in the region for many years. Ancient Persians, especially in the Achaemenid era, spoke a different language that is related to Farsi. It's just called "Old Persian" in academia, but it is probable that its contemporary speakers may have called it Ariya. The biggest problem with your post is that "Farsi" itself is a derived from a GREEK term.😂 The "Persians" themselves called their land Eyran, their kingdom Eranshahr, and their own people Arya. The Greeks called them Persians because they thought Pars was their original homeland. This Greek name was then borrowed by the Arabs in the form of Parsi, and reborrowed by the Iranians as Farsi.

@ShonMardani

3 ай бұрын

There is no old and new Farsi, but I agree that Arabic is arabized Farsi and hebrew is jewized Farsi and English is engelized Farsi. Also "ian" is a Farsi Suffix for the "Culture", so Persian or Parsian is the name of the people of Pars, it is not used as the name of their language. Persian speak many different languages with different names. @@ninoblader147

@ShonMardani

3 ай бұрын

Farsi is the root of ALL common languages. Academia are talking greek to cover their ignorance and incompetence. @@andrewsuryali8540

Thanks!

@HamerToronto

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your support!

Thanks!

@HamerToronto

3 ай бұрын

You're welcome! Thank you for your support.