the most gobbledegook answer i have read in a long time! WT 1/15/1953

by Aussie Oz 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Aussie Oz
    Aussie Oz

    What does Solomon mean when he says he found a true man in a thousand, but never a true woman?—J.K.,New


    Ecclesiastes 7:27-29 states (AT): “‘See, this is what I have found,’ says Koheleth, ‘adding one to one to find the total, which I have sought repeatedly, but not found; one man out of a thousand have I found, but not a woman have I found among all these. Only see this which I have found, that God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many contrivances.’” Moffatt renders verse 28 as follows: “Here is what I have found, says the Speaker: one true man in a thousand, but never a true woman!”

    This can hardly be taken to mean that men are better than women. It cannot be taken literally to mean that there are no true women, for the Bible speaks of faithful women, and there are more women who are Jehovah’s witnesses today than there are men. Solomon could have been speaking from his personal experience, for he had a thousand wives and concubines all told. There may not have been a single one of these that was devoted to Jehovah God, though he doubtless did know some men who were faithful to God. So he may have had his own unhappy domestic situation in mind when he wrote as he did.

    However, there is another possible meaning that seems more sound. One thousand is a multiple of ten, which represents earthly completeness. So the thousand may refer to all the women ever to live on the earth, not one of which was or is a perfect woman. Eve did not remain such, in fact never did pass the test that would have shown her perfect in integrity to God. The virgin mother of Jesus, Mary, was not perfect. As for men, the thousand there would also represent earthly completeness and embrace all the men that ever lived upon the earth. The situation of men is different from that of women. Whereas there has never been a perfect woman that held faultless obedience to Jehovah God, there has been one such man, namely Christ Jesus. He is the one true, perfect man, and the only one that ever lived on the earth. So it is very likely that this great truth is embraced by the words of Solomon at Ecclesiastes 7:27-29. The conclusion announced in verse 29 is a sweeping summation that embraces all mankind, man as a race rather than men as contrasted with women, and thus it supports the view last presented rather than the first possibility that Solomon’s words might be referring to his own personal experience

  • cult classic
    cult classic

    Aussie Oz - That explanation makes perfect sense to me.


  • punkofnice

    1953! I wasn't even born. I wonder how this would be written in the 'simplified' Janet and John edition.

    Here goes:-

    What does Solomon mean when he says he found a true man in a thousand, but never a true woman?—J.K.,New

    A. Obey the Governing Body or God will lovingly murder you at Armageddon. women shut up and do more in the minsistry or die. Soon. Overlapping permitting.


  • clarity

    Punkofnice .... too funny! Wish I could do that.


  • snowbird
    So he may have had his own unhappy domestic situation in mind when he wrote as he did.

    You think?



  • Heaven

    LOL @ punkofnice!

    Ho Brother! Yes, once again the Bible confirms.... It's All the Womens' Fault! (is Womens' a valid word?)

    Not really sure what the WTS is sayin'. Never knew Earthly Completion = 1000. Um... 1,000 what?

    I never really understood how Christ was a perfect man having the blood of an imperfect woman circulating within him.

  • cantleave

    Punk - Thanks for making spit my Pistachio nuts all my keyboard - too funny!

  • No Room For George
    No Room For George

    LOL Punk!

  • Larsinger58

    Three books were not cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers. Those books were Esther, SOS and Ecclesiates:

    From Insight on "Apocrypha":

    " Additional ancient testimony. One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant."

    The SOS is definitely not inspired and, in fact, is about pagan Artemis. Esther is also not historical so is not inspired. So, if you strictly go by an implied internal canon, that is, by those books cross-qouted by the NT Bible writers, those three books would not make the grade. So Ecclesiates is not considered to be inspired and so we don't have to worry about anything it states.


  • saltyoldlady

    Well Lars - I don't WORRY about what Esther, SOS, or Ecclesiastes say - I DELIGHT in what they say!

Share this