I wanted to explain this a little more thoroughly because I had a scary dream last night, and it came to my mind what I think Will was doing in more detail. I'll see if I can explain it better; meaning of why he was cherry-picking those definitions out of context.
Most of you who have learned English have learned analogies, meaning that they teach them in school like this:
A kitten is to a cat, what a puppy is to a _______. (Fill in the blank)Of course, the answer is "dog." The analogy is not to say that dogs and cats are the same, or that kittens and puppies are the same; they are obviously very different. The purpose of the analogy is to teach that both dogs and cats have a "baby" form they are in before they grow to be mature dogs and cats, but they do so in their own ways.
Likewise, the analogy here is:
A dream is to business, as a fool is to words.The analogy is not to say that dreams and fools are the same, nor to say that the business and words are the same; they are obviously very different things, and can be used in very different ways.
The purpose of the analogy is to teach the vanity behind a fool's voice.Dreams come about through business, and in relation to the original question of this thread, just last night, I had a scary dream that my wife left me. This came about because last night, our church group was at our mid-week Bible study meeting, and Steve and I were talking about the situation where his wife left him many years ago. Even my wife's parents were in the dream trying to help me hunt her down to bring her back, which didn't make any sense because her parents do not like me at all, and would be ecstatic if she left me, but because we've been trying to give the Gospel to her parents over the past couple of weeks, they came up in the dream too, but in reality, it made no sense according to the truth.
So when I woke up, I had this feeling of dread, but then I remembered that Lorraine was still there, and I went and hugged her because I was glad she was there, but after a few minutes, I realized how completely silly it was for me to be concerned over some dream that didn't make any sense, or have any relevance to anything in reality.
Thus, a fool's voice comes about by how much he speaks; it's the same vain things that don't make any sense and have no relevance to anything in reality because he lies out of his mouth as a call to impress. What he says might even give you a good feeling in the passions of the moment, but it's all completely pointless and means nothing to God. For example, a pastor goes on a long prayer for show; it's complete vanity, and if you could see his entire life, everything that is done in secret, and compare it to the words of his showtime prayer, you would see completely vanity and hypocrisy. (
SEE THIS LINK FOR DETAILS) Once you understand the truth, like waking up from a dream, the fool is recognized for what he is.
[v4] When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.The fool lies to everyone in the house of God, putting on a show so he can seem good on the outside, but inwardly, he is vain. He makes a vow to God in order to impress everyone else, but it means nothing inwardly because he has no intention of keeping it, and just as a dream is vain and means nothing, so too is the vow of a fool.
However, what Will attempted to do was change the analogy to this:
A dream is to business, as a fool is to business.The context of Ecc 5 is not "business," but rather it is about fools who are liars, who put on a show when they go into a religious institution, trying to make themselves look sanctified on the outside. Indeed, busybodies attempt to make themselves look busy on the outside, and I can totally understand that, but this passage is not talking about busybodies specifically. Certainly, busybodies are fools, and sometimes, they are even fools who go into religious institutions to put on a show; I would not argue against that, but if this passage was only talking about busybodies, then the meaning of the verses would be limited to a smaller percentage of the Jewish population, and it would not condemn all liars; only a few of them.
In short, Will is changing the analogy, cherry-picking definitions that support the change he made, and by that, he is then eliminating many of the sinners that God is referring to in this passage. Let me know if any of you understand that more clearly now, and if my explanation made sense.
