Proverbs & Ecclesiastes: The Dangers Of Talking Too Much

From Vancitybuzz.com

A Sikh colleague and I at work were discussing the foolishness of talking too much and listening too little in the professional, corporate and work context.

I did a quick mobile Google search and selected some of these to read to my Sikh colleague, that was intrigued and I decided to comment further here.

Selected verses

Proverbs 10:19

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.

Proverbs 10:19

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.

Martin here lists verses 19-21 as humanly focusing 'On restraint rather than prattle'. Martin (1986: 666).

Foolish talk is always wise to avoid; instead one should restrain questionable talk.
---

Proverbs 13:3

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; The one who opens wide his lips [a]comes to ruin.

Proverbs 13:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

3 Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.

Martin writes that 'rashness can lead to ruin'. Martin (1986: 668).

I good motto here is 'think before you speak'.
---

Proverbs 17:27

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 He who restrains his words [a]has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.

Footnotes: Proverbs 17:27 Lit knows

Proverbs 17:27

English Standard Version (ESV)

27 Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.

Martin: 'more advice to 'cool it''. Martin (1986: 674).

At times the cool restraint of words leads to knowledge and wisdom as opposed to foolishness.
---

Proverbs 18:2

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

2 A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own [a]mind.

Footnotes: Proverbs 18:2 Lit heart

Proverbs 18:2

English Standard Version (ESV)

2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

'The fool 'declares himself' by his chatter'. Martin (1986: 674).

One should make sure there is knowledge and wisdom in talk and not mere foolishness.
---

Proverbs 20:19

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with [a]a gossip.

Footnotes: Proverbs 20:19 Lit one who opens his lips

Proverbs 20:19

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.

[a] Footnotes: Proverbs 20:19 Hebrew with one who is simple in his lips

Gossip and senseless chatter 'undermine the privacy which is essential to a confident and respectful society'. Martin (1986: 677).

Slander does as well.

In a professional, corporate context, discussion of others, a person should remain professional and not personal in the form of gossip, chatter and slander which undermines the work.

These attacks can take place in the form of ad hominem, which attacks the person as opposed to the argument, position and view.
---

Proverbs 21:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 He who guards his mouth and his tongue, Guards his soul from troubles.

Proverbs 21:23

English Standard Version (ESV)

23 Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

One should not bring more trouble upon self, life is already problematic enough, through unwise and foolish talk.
---

Proverbs 26:4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

Proverbs 26:4

English Standard Version (ESV)

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

Martin states: 'It needs insight to talk to a fool; sometimes humour him, sometimes rebuke him'. Martin (1986: 684).

In the professional, corporate, work context, humouring the fool is often preferred over rebuking him, as one still needs to work with the fool.
---

Ecclesiastes 5:2

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2 [a]Do not be hasty [b]in word or [c]impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few.

Footnotes:
Ecclesiastes 5:2 Ch 5:1 in Heb
Ecclesiastes 5:2 Lit with your mouth
Ecclesiastes 5:2 Lit hurry your heart

Ecclesiastes 5:2

English Standard Version (ESV) 2 [a] Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.

Footnotes: Ecclesiastes 5:2 Ch 5:1 in Hebrew

Fleming writes that one should 'listen' and that implies understanding. Fleming (1986: 696).

If one is rash and hasty with words, this can imply that one is not listening. It is vital to listen to God through his word as opposed to opining from one's own sinful nature. The guidance of God, and God the Holy Spirit needs to be sought.
---

Ecclesiastes 9:17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 The words of the wise heard in quietness are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. Ecclesiastes 9:17

English Standard Version (ESV)

17 The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools.

Fleming: 'Through a little foolishness much good can be destroyed' Fleming (1986: 699). Foolishness inclines a person to do wrong and look a fool in public. Fleming (1986: 699).

When I read of 'ruler among fools' I think of some of the, not all, world leaders today in the context of government, corporations and religion as they place human wisdom, which can have merit, over that of the Biblical God. Some even mock those that trust in the Biblical God and Scripture.

Therefore there exists some foolish leaders, rulers among fools.

FLEMING, DONALD C. (1986) 'Ecclesiastes' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, CHARLES G (1986) 'Proverbs' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Robert McAfee Brown & The Developing World (PhD Edit)

South Africa: Facebook/Travel & Leisure

Robert McAfee Brown (1984) comments that in the Bible, in places such as Exodus, God takes a position against those who promote oppression and injustice.[1]  God at times does take sides in human struggles,[2] and God does side with the oppressed.[3]  Christians are sometimes in the delicate and tricky position of staying true to Biblical standards and yet standing with those who are oppressed and within the world system,[4] even if they are not believers and live outside of Christian morality.[5]  Those in power who call themselves Christians need to be respectfully challenged if they are perceived with a significant deal of evidence, to be involved in abusive practice.[6]  Western Christians need to examine the side they are on in many of the world’s social struggles, particularly in regard to the third world.[7]

In my mind there is a danger that Christianity, whether conservative or liberal, becomes overly influenced by cultures where it exists.  Christian thought must stay true to Biblical and theological principles at the expense of being led astray by societal movements that later in history may be deemed to have been corrupt.  Any historical corruption of the Christian Church is, in the end, a poor witness of Christ and the gospel and weakens the credibility of Christian ministry in the minds of many critics.[8]

Back to what Brown stated, as certain Christians may be on the wrong side of history on certain social issues.[9] 

Brown believes the Bible teaches that there is hope for those in the world who are poor and oppressed.[10]  He explains that if God sided with these suffering persons in Biblical times, he also does today.[11]  I can grant this proposition,[12] and state that although the salvific work of Christ for humanity should remain the core of Christian faith and philosophy, simultaneous to this Christians must help in an earthly physical sense, those they are attempting to assist in a spiritual sense.  This is an important and essential way of making theology practical. 

In a somewhat similar way Brown raises issues about the suffering of the poor. He desires liberation for those within third world today (the developing world) from suffering and oppression.  A reasonable view of Reformed soteriology and theodicy should be very concerned with the everyday lives of women and the poor, and all persons. 

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

---

[1] Brown (1984: 34).

[2] Brown (1984: 34).

[3] Brown (1984: 41).

[4] Anderson (2001:181). 

[5] A good Christian witness will treat non-believers with love, care and respect.

[6] Brown (1984: 160-161).

[7] Brown (1984: 160-161).  Anderson (2001: 181).  The third world is also known as the developing world.

[8] Anderson reasons the Church needs to repent for wrong doing in its existence.  Anderson (2001: 180-181).

[9] Brown (1984: 160-161).

[10] Brown (1984: 14).  Gebara (2002: 107).

[11] Brown (1984: 14).

[12] Brown (1984: 14).

Human Freedom Index

The south of France's Languedoc-Roussillon:Facebook & Travel+Leisure

The link below presented on my Facebook blog page, see the Facebook logo for blog link, has earned the most 'people reached', whatever that means, by far of any of my Facebook blog posts.

My Facebook blog is used to primarily promote my Blogger blog sites which receive far more pageviews than the newer Facebook blog page, but I am posting some links on the Facebook blog from material I find on the web.

If you are interested in hearing me present very short lectures, I have been producing audio posts almost weekly recently on Satire And Theology. I am pleased to state that my public speaking is much improved from previous attempts, some on this blog, although I fully admit I am not going to be confused with a motivational speaker or radio disc jockey. The audio posts are academic lecture meets satire...

---

Cato.Org

Cited

(2015 my add)

'The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.'

Cited

(2015 my add)

The index published here presents a broad measure of human freedom, understood as the absence of coercive constraint.

It uses 76 distinct indicators of personal and economic freedom in the following areas:

Rule of Law
Security and Safety
Movement
Religion
Association,
Assembly, and Civil Society
Expression
Relationships
Size of Government
Legal System and Property Rights
Access to Sound Money Freedom to Trade Internationally
Regulation of Credit, Labor, and Business

The Human Freedom Index (HFI) is the most comprehensive freedom index so far created for a globally meaningful set of countries. The HFI covers 152 countries for 2012, the most recent year for which sufficient data is available. The index ranks countries beginning in 2008, the earliest year for which a robust enough index could be produced. This preliminary report will be updated (using data for 2013) and subsequently presented and updated on a yearly basis.

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 represents more freedom, the nonweighted average rating for 152 countries in 2012 was 6.96. The level of global freedom stayed about the same compared to 2008, but almost all countries experienced changes in their ratings, with about half of those increasing their ratings and half decreasing.

The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The United States is ranked in 20th place. Other countries rank as follows: Germany (12), Chile (18), Japan (28), France (33), Singapore (43), South Africa (70), India (75), Brazil (82), Russia (111), China (132), Nigeria (139), Saudi Arabia (141), Venezuela (144), Zimbabwe (149), and Iran (152).

Out of 17 regions, the highest levels of freedom are in Northern Europe, North America (Canada and the United States), and Western Europe. The lowest levels are in the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Women’s freedoms, as measured by five relevant indicators in the index, are most protected in Europe and North America and least protected in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa.'

End Citations

I admit that another organization may use different criteria, numbers and have different rankings, but the United States of America ranked at number twenty, interests me.

One of the things my internship professor told me while at Columbia Bible College was that the United States has a strong mythology. Not to state that Canada does not, and every country has some type of mythology.

Part of what may be considered American mythology is the idea that it is and has always been since its beginnings, the freest nation on earth.

The nation with the most liberty.

I ponder on philosophically if the sheer size and power of the United States government and its military and maintaining intelligence does not at least, perhaps work against the freedoms of its citizens.

A very large government and the largest military in the world can motivate the State through the gathering of intelligence to preserve this power by limiting the freedom and liberty of its citizens.

When this report was mentioned on the CBC program The Exchange with Amanda Lang....paraphrased, the growing power of the United States government that could be used to curtail freedoms was mentioned as a reason for its ranking,

Does the United States of America use more 'coercive constraint' than some other Western countries because of the size of government, military and intelligence services?

RSF

The World press freedom index 2014 from Reporters Without Borders for 2014 has the United States ranked 46th in press freedom whereas Finland is 1st, Canada is 18th and the United Kingdom is 33rd.

Both of sets of statistics and indexes are not entirely objective as there is subjectivity present in criteria chosen and analysis, but I do ponder on why the United States of America is ranked lower than some other less powerful Western nations.

Ontology

As documented

A Facebook friend of mine working on her PhD, posted on my Facebook main page and mentioned, ontology.

I was indicated to perhaps be donnish, but when I simply skimmed the post on my mobile phone quickly at work, I originally read it as dorkish.

Another reason for re-reads...

Ontology is from the Greek word for being, and is a 17th century term for the branch of metaphysics that is concerned with what exists. Blackburn (1996: 269).

The ontological argument is an a priori (non-empirical knowledge or speculation, my add) has been used by those such as Anselm and is noted as purely a priori as an attempt to prove the existence of God. Blackburn (1996: 269). Blackburn writes that Aquinas did not accept the argument. Blackburn (1996: 269).

Blackburn mentions Plantinga as a modern philosopher that has stated a version of the ontological argument. Blackburn (1996: 269).

The view of Anselm is that God is something of which nothing greater can be conceived. Blackburn (1996: 269).

Plantinga uses the concept of possible worlds and that it is at least possible that a maximally great being exists in every possible world, if it exists in one possible world, it exists in all possible worlds. So, the maximally great being exists in every possible world. Blackburn (1996: 269). Plantinga (1977)(2002: 111-112).

It is an impossible proposition of the maximally great being in one possible world and every possible world, to not exist, therefore the being exists in the actual world. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 111-112).

Plantinga presents a version he reasons is valid and sound and he states that the argument does not prove the existence of God. His version, proves not the truth of theism, but that fact that the argument is rational; or its 'rational acceptability' as an argument.  Plantinga (1977)(2002: 112).

This does read as reasonable and sound and true.

I have never used an ontological argument and likely never will.

The critic can state that he/she, because much of the argument rests on what a human being can reason in conception, can conceive of a being as great as the maximally great being.

So, two maximally great beings. Perhaps one good and one evil? Dualism? I have come across that argument more than once.

Even when countered with the concept, that I use, that there cannot be two infinite (limitless) beings as they would be one infinite (limitless) being, many ontological arguments and counter arguments would focus too much on what the person and critic can subjectively 'reason' and 'conceive'. The reasoning and conception not necessarily being philosophically and theologically reasonable or for that matter sound and true.

Dualism being ruled out as contradictory as I reason the one infinite being that was both infinitely good and infinitely evil would be contradictory.

Or, good and evil are one in the same, i.e. there is no such thing as evil. One infinite being would be viewed as good.

Instead arguments for first cause, although still using human reasoning of course, rely less on human reasoning in the sense of what a person subjectively conceives.

It relies more so on objective reason.

A vicious regress occurs when a problem cannot solve itself, this not being the case with infinite numbers, with negative numbers, as infinite regress, as they are not real things but can count real things that do actually exist. An infinite regress is not always vicious.

A vicious regress occurs if time is eternal and infinite as in how would we arrive from the eternal, infinite past to the present? It would be impossible to traverse from the infinite past to the present.

Therefore, there exists an eternal, infinite first cause prior to time that created time.

This also could be stated in regard to matter and the universe which many scientists reason began with a big bang theory. Energy, time and space also have beginnings and are therefore finite.

What immaterial being existed prior to the big bang?

It is deduced as a non-material, eternal, infinite first cause.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.