Fish caught in an evil net

[Stravinsk]

For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Ecclesiastes 9:12

I am curious how the Christian would identify with this, in particular, the evil adjective ascribed to the net. Why is the net evil? Is it not merely the fish's fate, to eventually be caught? Did not Jesus have something to do with a miraculous catch of fish, in a net?

"I will make you fishers of men" - a calling away from an honorable trade?

A common symbol of Christianity is a fish. A fish caught in a net, or a fish freed from one?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I guess an evil net is just a net used for evil purposes.

The fish symbol is not really about fish caught or freed from a net, but a code word:
"The Greek word for ‘fish’ is ‘ichthus’ (transliterated from the Greek). The early Christians formed an acrostic from these letters as follows: I= Iesous (Jesus); CH=Christos (Christ); TH=Theous (God); U= UIOS (Son); SOTER (Savior)."

 

[Josiah]

"The Greek word for ‘fish’ is ‘ichthus’ (transliterated from the Greek). The early Christians formed an acrostic from these letters as follows: I= Iesous (Jesus); CH=Christos (Christ); TH=Theous (God); U= UIOS (Son); SOTER (Savior)."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with evil nets. It's an acrostic, affirming Jesus as the Son of God and Savior.



.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

"The Greek word for ‘fish’ is ‘ichthus’ (transliterated from the Greek). The early Christians formed an acrostic from these letters as follows: I= Iesous (Jesus); CH=Christos (Christ); TH=Theous (God); U= UIOS (Son); SOTER (Savior)."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with evil nets. It's an acrostic, affirming Jesus as the Son of God and Savior..

Right, but it is the reason why Christians identify with the fish. But maybe I misread the OP's question on why Christians would identify with "this." "This" being an evil net, or "this" being fish? I assumed he meant fish because I never heard of an evil net, much less anyone identifying with it, until I saw the post above.

 

[Stravinsk]

Right, but it is the reason why Christians identify with the fish. But maybe I misread the OP's question on why Christians would identify with "this." "This" being an evil net, or "this" being fish? I assumed he meant fish because I never heard of an evil net, much less anyone identifying with it, until I saw the post above.

The fish of course. The last sentence of my OP reads "A common symbol of Christianity is a fish. A fish caught in a net, or a fish freed from one?"

A simple reading of Ecc 9:12, in it's context, suggests clearly something negative about catching fish, not only because of the "evil" adjective to describe the net, but also the other examples used:

Birds caught in a snare
Men caught in an evil time

It could be argued that "evil net" might have some specific context that makes it evil but is not mentioned, but I think that is reaching a bit. It's use as an example, 1 out of 3, each without specific contexts, rather suggests it's innate wrongness.

Clearly reading such a passage and then reading about Christ's miraculous catch of fish might present some sort of difficulty, especially if the latter was believed to be part of the original gospels.

 

[Lees]

The fish of course. The last sentence of my OP reads "A common symbol of Christianity is a fish. A fish caught in a net, or a fish freed from one?"

A simple reading of Ecc 9:12, in it's context, suggests clearly something negative about catching fish, not only because of the "evil" adjective to describe the net, but also the other examples used:

Birds caught in a snare
Men caught in an evil time

It could be argued that "evil net" might have some specific context that makes it evil but is not mentioned, but I think that is reaching a bit. It's use as an example, 1 out of 3, each without specific contexts, rather suggests it's innate wrongness.

Clearly reading such a passage and then reading about Christ's miraculous catch of fish might present some sort of difficulty, especially if the latter was believed to be part of the original gospels.

No. There is no 'suggestion' of anything negative about men catching fish. The evil spoken of is the time, from the fishes point of view, that he is supprisingly caught.

The verse before this, (Ecc. 9:11) sets the context. "...the race is not to the swift, nort the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Then you have (Ecc. 9:12) "For man also knoweth not his time...."

As fish are caught in a net, as birds are caught in a snare, so man is caught in an evil time. This invovles man in general, Christians not excluded. It is life under the sun.

Christ's miraculous power in helping the disciples catch fish in a net, is part of the Gospels. And true. And the Christian has no problem with it. The fish might, as it was a bad day for them.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

No. There is no 'suggestion' of anything negative about men catching fish. The evil spoken of is the time, from the fishes point of view, that he is supprisingly caught.

But there is, without this context of "time" and "fishes point of view". If it's not evil, then neither is men caught "in an evil time". It's just their point of view.

Have you ever read Numbers, chapter 11, Christian? It's a little depth into the the Exodus, where the Israelites reject the manna and cry out for flesh to eat. God is not pleased. He sends them quail, then a great plague upon them that lusted after flesh.

The verse before this, (Ecc. 9:11) sets the context. "...the race is not to the swift, nort the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Then you have (Ecc. 9:12) "For man also knoweth not his time...."

As fish are caught in a net, as birds are caught in a snare, so man is caught in an evil time. This invovles man in general, Christians not excluded. It is life under the sun.

Christ's miraculous power in helping the disciples catch fish in a net, is part of the Gospels. And true. And the Christian has no problem with it. The fish might, as it was a bad day for them.

Lees

Lees, you are demonstrating what a great example of contorted thinking a Christian must have to practice their magic of "apologetics". With a wave of the hand, you have dismissed the "evil" adjective applied to the fish net, just as you have dismissed the "evil" adjective to men at certain times. It's just life under the sun, a bad day for them both. Thank you for reminding me of the mental gymnastics I get to consistently avoid holding diametric viewpoints.

 

[Lees]

But there is, without this context of "time" and "fishes point of view". If it's not evil, then neither is men caught "in an evil time". It's just their point of view.

Have you ever read Numbers, chapter 11, Christian? It's a little depth into the the Exodus, where the Israelites reject the manna and cry out for flesh to eat. God is not pleased. He sends them quail, then a great plague upon them that lusted after flesh.




Lees, you are demonstrating what a great example of contorted thinking a Christian must have to practice their magic of "apologetics". With a wave of the hand, you have dismissed the "evil" adjective applied to the fish net, just as you have dismissed the "evil" adjective to men at certain times. It's just life under the sun, a bad day for them both. Thank you for reminding me of the mental gymnastics I get to consistently avoid holding diametric viewpoints.

Men are caught in an evil time just like the fish are. I'm saying there is no evil attributed to man just because he goes fishing. It's a bad day for the fish or the men if they are caught up in an evil day. It is life under the sun.

I didn't dismiss the 'evil' adjective. I have no problem with it. Seem pretty clear to me what (Ecc. 9:11-12) is saying. Perhaps I dismissed what you are trying to do with it....with a wave of your contorted thinking.

To understand the Book of (Ecclesiastes) you must see it as life under the sun. That phrase, 'life under the sun', is mentioned well over 20 times in the small book. All that is interpreted in that book, must be viewed from that perspective. If you have a Bible, read it and circle all the times that description is used.

You're quite welcome. Always glad to help out.

And, you never answered my question in a previous thread. What is a deist doing beliving that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? I'm thinking there must be some 'gymnastics' in that answer.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Have you ever read Numbers, chapter 11, Christian? It's a little depth into the the Exodus, where the Israelites reject the manna and cry out for flesh to eat. God is not pleased. He sends them quail, then a great plague upon them that lusted after flesh.

I sure have, Deist. Too many times to count. When did you read it or find reference of it?

So, what is your point? Or do you have one?

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

I sure have, Deist. Too many times to count. When did you read it or find reference of it?

So, what is your point? Or do you have one?

Lees

If you can't see the obvious point I honestly have to wonder how dull your thinking is. Your Jesus makes miraculous catches of fish, but he also calls fishermen away from their trade to follow him. He feeds the multitudes with bread and fish, but some accounts only have bread, and bread only collected into the baskets. He represents (in word and deed) the Father - and yet the same Father condemned the ancient Israelites who lusted after flesh in the desert and sent a great plague on them. Christians will often point to the "permission" to break the diet God gave in the Garden of Eden by pointing to Noah after the flood, however the story in Numbers 11 describes an incident in the Exodus, long after the flood, and long after Noah.

 

[Lees]

If you can't see the obvious point I honestly have to wonder how dull your thinking is. Your Jesus makes miraculous catches of fish, but he also calls fishermen away from their trade to follow him. He feeds the multitudes with bread and fish, but some accounts only have bread, and bread only collected into the baskets. He represents (in word and deed) the Father - and yet the same Father condemned the ancient Israelites who lusted after flesh in the desert and sent a great plague on them. Christians will often point to the "permission" to break the diet God gave in the Garden of Eden by pointing to Noah after the flood, however the story in Numbers 11 describes an incident in the Exodus, long after the flood, and long after Noah.

He, Jesus, sure did. He was a great Fisherman. He sure did. He called some fisherman to be His disciples. He sure did. He fed multitudes with bread and fish. Quite miraculous wouldn't you agree?

God the Father didn't 'condemn' the Israelites who lusted in the desert after the flesh of meat. Where do you get that? Many were judged and killed, but that is not condemnation.

That's true, mankind has the freedom of eating all meats, ever since the flood. That doesn't have anything to do with (Num. 11). Read the whole chapter. God wasn't punishing them for eating unclean meats.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

He, Jesus, sure did. He was a great Fisherman. He sure did. He called some fisherman to be His disciples. He sure did. He fed multitudes with bread and fish. Quite miraculous wouldn't you agree?

I'm quite sure that as devout as you pretend to be here for the folk reading this, you haven't looked at all the Gospel accounts closely in regard to the feeding of the multitude. If you had, you would know there are discrepancies, discrepancies that indicate fish was a later addition and that Jesus fed the multitudes bread only.

God the Father didn't 'condemn' the Israelites who lusted in the desert after the flesh of meat. Where do you get that? Many were judged and killed, but that is not condemnation.

That's true, mankind has the freedom of eating all meats, ever since the flood. That doesn't have anything to do with (Num. 11). Read the whole chapter. God wasn't punishing them for eating unclean meats.

Lees

For a guy who claims to have read Numbers 11 "too many times to count", you sure don't seem to have the foggiest idea what it says. The Israelites complain that they don't have flesh to eat, only manna. The only specific about their complaint was "fish", but in general they were whining they didn't have flesh to eat. Nothing is mentioned about any "unclean meats". The chapter is clear that they "lusted" after flesh. That wording is used.

God is very angry with them, but decides to send them quail. While they eat the quail they are struck with a plague God sends. In fact in verse 34 they call the place the dead from the plague are buried Kibrothhattaavah - which in Hebrew means "graves of lust". Who died? Those who lusted after flesh.

Strange, all this, given that supposedly God gave them permission to lust after meat way back in Genesis after the flood. But, only an idiot would use this rationalization - as there's only 2 of each kind of animal to procreate more, none of Noah's family would be eating them, at least, not for a few (animal) generations where there would be enough to eat without threatening any particular species.

 

[Lees]

I'm quite sure that as devout as you pretend to be here for the folk reading this, you haven't looked at all the Gospel accounts closely in regard to the feeding of the multitude. If you had, you would know there are discrepancies, discrepancies that indicate fish was a later addition and that Jesus fed the multitudes bread only.


For a guy who claims to have read Numbers 11 "too many times to count", you sure don't seem to have the foggiest idea what it says. The Israelites complain that they don't have flesh to eat, only manna. The only specific about their complaint was "fish", but in general they were whining they didn't have flesh to eat. Nothing is mentioned about any "unclean meats". The chapter is clear that they "lusted" after flesh. That wording is used.

God is very angry with them, but decides to send them quail. While they eat the quail they are struck with a plague God sends. In fact in verse 34 they call the place the dead from the plague are buried Kibrothhattaavah - which in Hebrew means "graves of lust". Who died? Those who lusted after flesh.

Strange, all this, given that supposedly God gave them permission to lust after meat way back in Genesis after the flood. But, only an idiot would use this rationalization - as there's only 2 of each kind of animal to procreate more, none of Noah's family would be eating them, at least, not for a few (animal) generations where there would be enough to eat without threatening any particular species.

Where have I ever claimed to be devout? I claim only to be Christian. 'Discrepancies'? Ah, yes. The unbelieving always find 'discrepancies'.

I brought up 'unclean meats' because you said in post #(10) that the Christian points to permission to break the diet God gave in the Garden of Eden by pointing to Noah and the flood. That statement is true (Gen. 9:3). "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

You then use (Num. 11) to dispute that, saying it occurred long after the flood and Noah. In between the time of Noah and (Num. 11) you had the institution of the Law of Moses. (Ex. 19) And in this Law you had the clean and unclean meats given. (Lev. 11) Therefore, I assumed you were trying to say it was because of unclean meats that God was punishing Israel.

At the time of (Num. 11), mankind is still free to eat all meats. But Israel at this time now had their diet regulated between clean and unclean. But, as I said, God was not punishing them for eating unclean meats. It was their constant complaining. (Num. 11:1) And it was their rejection of the provision of Manna that God daily provided for them. (Lev. 11:7) It was their desire to return to their diet in Egypt. (Num. 11:5)

This is why the wrath of God was upon them. (Num. 11:33-34)

We are never told that Noah and his family lusted after meat. Their diet was fixed still with fruit and herbs. It is God that changed their diet as I showed in (Gen. 9:3). Once their diet changed, their desire toward meat was legitimate.

Lees

 

[atpollard]

as there's only 2 of each kind of animal to procreate more

Unclean.
Genesis 7:1-5

1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. 2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. 4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” 5 And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him.

(what is the significance of the number 7?)

 

[atpollard]

For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Ecclesiastes 9:12

I am curious how the Christian would identify with this, in particular, the evil adjective ascribed to the net. Why is the net evil? Is it not merely the fish's fate, to eventually be caught? Did not Jesus have something to do with a miraculous catch of fish, in a net?

"I will make you fishers of men" - a calling away from an honorable trade?

A common symbol of Christianity is a fish. A fish caught in a net, or a fish freed from one?

So many questions …

Why is the net evil?

• It is a metaphor. As the fish had no choice in the decision to be caught in the net or not to be caught in the net, men have no choice and are often caught up in evil circumstances that trap them.
• I am living this reality right now. I did not choose for my wife to be hospitalized three times since the beginning of this year. I did not choose to need to reduce my pay and hours to work from home and care for her as she struggles to regain the ability to walk. I did not choose for my mother-in-law to have her cancer return and need to repeat chemo to try to gain a few more years. I did not choose for my mother to fall and go to get stitches, only to suffer a stroke while joking with the nurses in the ER. I did not choose to have all of these happen at the same time in a perfect storm of evil times. And yet they did.
• “as fishes are taken in an evil net, so this son of man was taken in evil times.”

Is it not merely the fish's fate, to eventually be caught?

• Now we have a mixed metaphor.
• BIOLOGY: no, it is not the fate of ALL fish to be caught in a net. Most fish live, reproduce, and die without ever getting caught in a net.
• THEOLOGY: yes, if you live long enough, everyone will eventually experience trouble in their life. Seasons come and go.

Did not Jesus have something to do with a miraculous catch of fish, in a net?

• Yes, however it is an unrelated fishing metaphor.

 

[atpollard]

"I will make you fishers of men" - a calling away from an honorable trade?

A calling from a good trade to a better trade.

Ephesians 2:10

 

[Stravinsk]

Unclean.
Genesis 7:1-5

1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. 2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. 4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” 5 And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him.

(what is the significance of the number 7?)

Mea culpa. You make a valid point. 7 of the clean. And the purpose is...??

So Noah and his family can slaughter and eat animals, correct?

I'll have you look at Genesis 8:19 Genesis 8 :: King James Version (KJV)

and notice there are two different Hebrew words used. "Hay" for beast, and "remes" for "creeping thing".

When God gives permission for Noah and his family to eat outside the provisions given in the Garden of Eden, it is only for "remes". Genesis 9:3

And...the reason for this seems to be obvious. The "remes", or creeping things...like locusts, reproduce very quickly and in fairly large numbers. While Noah and his family are waiting for crops to grow, they can eat these things. Sounds gross, I know...but insects are still eaten in several parts of the world and it's normal there.

If this doesn't convince, there is also Genesis 9:4 and 9:5. "Remes" isn't mentioned here. In fact God prohibits the murder of the "hay" or beasts.

 

[XRose]

Maybe nets are seen as evil because GOD clearly made us humans to be fruitandnutivores not carnivores or herbivores.
The fact Jesus ate fish is irrelevant as at those times he had materialised a human body.