Biblical basis of socialism and work ethic

ECC 5

“10 Whoever loves money never has enough;
    whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
    This too is meaningless.

11 As goods increase,
    so do those who consume them.
And what benefit are they to the owners
    except to feast their eyes on them?

12 The sleep of a laborer is sweet,
    whether they eat little or much,
but as for the rich, their abundance
    permits them no sleep.

13 I have seen a grievous evil under the sun:

wealth hoarded to the harm of its owners,
14     or wealth lost through some misfortune,
so that when they have children
    there is nothing left for them to inherit.
15 Everyone comes naked from their mother’s womb,
    and as everyone comes, so they depart.
They take nothing from their toil
    that they can carry in their hands.

16 This too is a grievous evil:

As everyone comes, so they depart,
    and what do they gain,
    since they toil for the wind?
17 All their days they eat in darkness,
    with great frustration, affliction and anger.

18 This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. 19 Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God. 20 They seldom reflect on the days of their life, because God keeps them occupied with gladness of heart.”

Dark.

Bonus: a check against the cult of natalism.

Ecc 6:3

A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.

7

Everyone’s toil is for their mouth,
    yet their appetite is never satisfied.

Context in the Bible

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Why mention sexually immoral and adultery also? By modern, i.e. false, meanings those would be the same point? The same act i.e. sexing someone you aren’t married to, a particular type of intercourse.

I’ve been re-reading the sections with the word ‘adultery’, with the historically accurate context of adultery and it was there the whole time.

The Bible did say to test things so I looked and I’m shocked it’s clearly there in the phrasing. The only possible interpretation given the multiple instances of context like this is the Thou shalt not mongrelize linguistic origin of the Sixth Commandment.

This doesn’t bode well for the weebs and other outbreeding fetishists. “Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

The narrow modern definition is interpreted falsely (with intellectual dishonesty) and this lends new credence to the concept of the Way being narrow i.e. having the full context.

Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

That would be a great way for a Satanist to destroy us, sell us a publicized misinterpretation of a Commandment so many break it. It also justifies their own lusts (belly, loins) as not sinful for the same acts. They flatter greedy fools (the simple) and what are men most easily deceived by? The phallus.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Equalism aka Liberal Creationism is the myth. Nobody who buys into it can be right-wing i.e. reality-based.

We even have genetics studies, we can physically SEE the differences!

Proverbs: Take the garment of one who puts up security for a stranger; hold it in pledge if it is done for an outsider.

e.g.

Consider the context of:

James 4:4 You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God? I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God.

with the modern limited sense, the use of the concept adultery there is erroneous.

They must mean the deeper, broader rooted sense of the sin.

FYI, scroll to the Sixth Commandment

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl720.htm

“In most translations of the Bible, Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are translated: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: “You will not mongrelize”.

In many people’s minds, there is a very great difference between these two translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou moicheuseis. …

In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans 13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo. 

The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles, translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo and the Latin word adultero. 

First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held in high-esteem by the scholarly community. 

Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: “of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.” [In the German original, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: “auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen”]. 

This, of course, is the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation “You will not mongrelize” is correct. 

Now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford Latin Dictionary: “To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change . . . to corrupt, debase.” Once again, when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek. 

Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against race-mixing. 

To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than enough to convince him that the Bible explicitly prohibits race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars would agree with these definitions; anyone who would disagree with these definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.

Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.

To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred. That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie.