Eccl. 4:3 Better to not exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecone137
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thecone137

Guest
But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun. Eccl. 4:3

Is it is better to not exist than to exist?
 
LOL! Only for those who end up in hell! For everyone else existing, especially when you think of Heaven after this life, is worth dealing with life on this earth. 🙂
 
thecone137 said:
But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun. Eccl. 4:3

Is it is better to not exist than to exist?
Click to expand...
It is better…to check the IV Century Biblia Sacra Vulgata 😃
et feliciorem utroque iudicavi qui necdum natus est nec vidit mala quae sub sole fiunt
Click to expand...
Necdum: “not yet”. “necdum natus est”: “not yet born”.

In fact, as we review the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, we read:
And I judged him happier than them both, that is not yet born, nor hath seen the evils that are done under the sun.
Click to expand...
 
=thecone137;10578975]But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun. Eccl. 4:3
Click to expand...
Is it is better to not exist than to exist?
Click to expand...
NO! 😃

But that is NOT the point of this.

Mt. 26: 24-25 “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.”

The MEANING in both passages is it would be better NOT to be born than for men to freely choose Hell for Eternity. Our choice.:bigyikes:

The REASON “NO” is the only possible right answer to your OPQ is because if one is not born; one has no opportunity for the Beatific Vision:thumbsup:
 
PJM said:
NO! 😃

But that is NOT the point of this.

Mt. 26: 24-25 “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.”

The MEANING in both passages is it would be better NOT to be born than for men to freely choose Hell for Eternity. Our choice.:bigyikes:

The REASON “NO” is the only possible right answer to your OPQ is because if one is not born; one has no opportunity for the Beatific Vision:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Being non-existent is a win-win situation: you don’t risk hell (“wide is the road that leads to perdition and many…” ) and you don’t know what you might be missing (seeing God in HD forever).
 
R_C said:
Ah, the nonsense! :ouch:
Click to expand...
I understand we don’t all have the same worldview. I also understand that in different circumstances, I would have reacted exactly the way you do. Obviously, different people are going to react differently to the “gift” of life.
 
R_C said:
It is better…to check the IV Century Biblia Sacra Vulgata 😃

Necdum: “not yet”. “necdum natus est”: “not yet born”.

In fact, as we review the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, we read:
Click to expand...
Are you saying this passage speaks of being born and not existing or can it go either way? Either way, it still seems to speak of not being born better than being born and seeing evil.
 
PJM said:
NO! 😃

But that is NOT the point of this.

Mt. 26: 24-25 “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.”

The MEANING in both passages is it would be better NOT to be born than for men to freely choose Hell for Eternity. Our choice.:bigyikes:

The REASON “NO” is the only possible right answer to your OPQ is because if one is not born; one has no opportunity for the Beatific Vision:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
The individual in the Matthew passage is the evil doer, but the individual in the Ecclesiates passage is the evil observer, no? Seems like a big difference.
 
Since only an existent person can ask such a question, I think the answer speaks for itself.

Plus, wouldn’t you rather have our loving Lord than non-existence?
“…have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:26-27 RSV)
Click to expand...
 
thecone137 said:
Are you saying this passage speaks of being born and not existing or can it go either way? Either way, it still seems to speak of not being born better than being born and seeing evil.
Click to expand...
I am seeing as saying in a poetic way and related to the time and circumstances to which the prophet is writing (but, of course, in a prophetic way to future similar circumstances) that blessed are those who were not yet born for not experiencing such sorrow. There are times in history were mankind undergoes particularly harsh trials. Also before the coming of the Messiah, there was the expectation and hope for something that would radically shift the situation - thus the prophet rejoices at the thought that one day people who are born will not be born under oppression. In a very spiritual way, this is true for those born after the coming of Christ (though I suggest, if we want to discuss how, that we open a separate thread).
 
Robertanthony said:
I understand we don’t all have the same worldview. I also understand that in different circumstances, I would have reacted exactly the way you do. Obviously, different people are going to react differently to the “gift” of life.
Click to expand...
My apologies, but it’s not a matter of worldview. The statement “being nonexistent” is simply without meaning 😃

I understand that for some of us, life is very harsh, and we perhaps long for that instant in which we will be transformed, that moment that some think will simply mean oblivion and the end of all feelings, while others believe will mean corruptibility and mortality replaced by incorruptibility and immortality, all sorrows and sufferings suddenly paling before the glory of the beatific vision, along with the consolation of knowing just how much good we were able to do even by simply experiencing a given tribulation, perhaps undeservedly, without in return cursing God and life, but humbly bearing it as part of this life.
 
=Robertanthony;10579426]Being non-existent is a win-win situation: you don’t risk hell (“wide is the road that leads to perdition and many…” ) and you don’t know what you might be missing (seeing God in HD forever).
Click to expand...
right; BUT WRONG:D

Because everyone is guareenteed sufficient grace to metiy heaven; being born is by FAR the best Offer:sad_yes::extrahappy:
 
thecone137 said:
But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun. Eccl. 4:3

Is it is better to not exist than to exist?
Click to expand...
No, if it was then God wouldn’t have created you.
 
thecone137 said:
Then, what does this passage mean?
Click to expand...
Eccl 4:3 was Solomon’s opinion, a common enough sentiment among men without the benefit of full revelation, realized in the advent of Christ. Here’s another one:

So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them? Eccl 3:22

Is this a true statement? Is that all there is to life? In fact, all of Ecclesiastes is a lamentation regarding the vanity and futility of life as we naturally know it. The wisdom we find in this book is the wisdom of one who’s come to the end of his rope- there’s nothing that can satisfy him-and he’s had the opportunity to try everything. He just can’t find it-he’s teaching us a definitive lesson, learned by experience, about what doesn’t satisfy, but he doesn’t yet have the answer because he doesn’t yet have recourse to communion with God, and as Augustine put, ‘God, alone satisfies’.
 
=thecone137;10582722]The individual in the Matthew passage is the evil doer, but the individual in the Ecclesiates passage is the evil observer, no? Seems like a big difference.
Click to expand...
Ecclesiasticus
Chpt. 4:
[1] Son, defraud not the poor of alms, and turn not away thy eyes from the poor. [2] Despise not the hungry soul: and provoke not the poor in his want. [3] Afflict not the heart of the needy, and defer not to give to him that is in distress. [4] Reject not the petition of the afflicted: and turn not away thy face from the needy. [5] Turn not away thy eyes from the poor for fear of anger: and leave not to them that ask of thee to curse thee behind thy back"

Duh, what Am I Missing here?.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top