Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4 are in contradiction with Isaiah 24:3.

[black.hawk]

Psalms 37:29 - Those who do what is right will be given the land. They will live in it forever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 - People come and people go. But the earth remains forever.

Isaiah 24:3 - The earth will be completely destroyed.

So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction between Isaiah 24:3 vs Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4?

Either, the earth will be destroyed, or it won't; but you can't have it both ways.

So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction?

 

[A_Thinker]

Psalms 37:29 - Those who do what is right will be given the land. They will live in it forever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 - People come and people go. But the earth remains forever.

Isaiah 24:3 - The earth will be completely destroyed.

So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction between Isaiah 24:3 vs Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4?

Either, the earth will be destroyed, or it won't; but you can't have it both ways.

So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction?

The earth will be renewed ...

 

[black.hawk]

The earth will be renewed ...

But not completely destroyed?

 

[A_Thinker]

But not completely destroyed?

Are the two mutually exclusive ?

 

[Der Alte]

Psalms 37:29 - Those who do what is right will be given the land. They will live in it forever.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 - People come and people go. But the earth remains forever.
Isaiah 24:3 - The earth will be completely destroyed.
So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction between Isaiah 24:3 vs Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4?
Either, the earth will be destroyed, or it won't; but you can't have it both ways.
So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction?

1917 Jewish Publication Society Isa 24:3
(3) The earth shall be utterly emptied, and clean despoiled; for the LORD hath spoken this word.
225 bc LXX Isa 24:3
(3) The earth shall be completely laid waste, and the earth shall be utterly spoiled: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things.
NIV Isa 24:3
(3) The earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered. The LORD has spoken this word.

 

[black.hawk]

Are the two mutually exclusive ?

Only if one were to ascribe literal meaning to all 3 verses.

But to be mutually inclusive, only Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4 would have to be rendered as literal in their content, but the foretold destruction of the earth in Isaiah 24:3 can be taken as figurative.

 

[redleghunter]

To be mutually inclusive, the foretold destruction of the earth in Isaiah 24:3 would need to be figurative instead of literally the case.

This is the problem with comparing an inspired declaration of God (prophecy) with Solomon's general wisdom (book of sayings) and a prayer song (psalms).

Solomon is making a general observation that people come and go (born and die) but the land itself remains. This is not a prophecy but a material observation.

The Psalmist is inferring the righteous will inherit the land. Jesus says this too in Matthew 5. The psalmist is making a moral declaration. Again not prophecy. God already told Israel that if they obey Him they will inherit the land and remain in it.

In Isaiah God is declaring via prophet what Jesus teaches in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. And Peter in 2 Peter 3.

It is important to know the genre and context.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Psalms 37:29 - Those who do what is right will be given the land. They will live in it forever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 - People come and people go. But the earth remains forever.

Isaiah 24:3 - The earth will be completely destroyed.

So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction between Isaiah 24:3 vs Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4?

Either, the earth will be destroyed, or it won't; but you can't have it both ways.

So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction?

The condition is that if the people do what is right they will live in the Promised Land for ever. But in actual fact, the people went after other gods and did not do what was right, so they lost their land. If man had never sinned, the world would not have to be destroyed. But because sin entered into the world through Adam's choice, the whole world has been blighted by sin and it has to be destroyed to make way for a new heavens and a new earth.

The promises of God are conditional. People will be saved from destruction if they turn to Christ. If they refuse then that promise will not be fulfilled in them. If Israel had remained faithful to God, they would never have lost their land to the Babylonians and Assyrians. If they had accepted Jesus as Messiah, they would not have lost their land and Temple to the Romans.

 

[black.hawk]

1917 Jewish Publication Society Isa 24:3
(3) The earth shall be utterly emptied, and clean despoiled; for the LORD hath spoken this word.
225 bc LXX Isa 24:3
(3) The earth shall be completely laid waste, and the earth shall be utterly spoiled: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things.
NIV Isa 24:3
(3) The earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered. The LORD has spoken this word.

By using a different translation of Isaiah 24:3, you seem to have provided a workable solution to the problem, which is an even better solution than the one I suggested (See above); since all 3 verses can now be taken literally at face value - Seeing that the rules of logic requires one to be consistent in applying the same rules all the time.

To render literal meaning to Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4, whilst treating the destruction of the earth as a 'metaphor' is anything but consistent - And it's not consistent with the rules of logic.

 

[ChpJoe]

Only if one were to ascribe literal meaning to all 3 verses.

But to be mutually inclusive, only Psalms 37:29 and Ecclesiastes 1:4 would have to be rendered as literal in their content, but the foretold destruction of the earth in Isaiah 24:3 can be taken as figurative.

As someone else mentioned, the passages have different contextual backgrounds, therefore, they have different meanings.

Notwithstanding, in Isaiah 24:3 the verb that the translation you used translated the verb as destroyed, but the Hebrew verb bāqaq really means “empty,” “bare” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament).

 

[1213]

...
So, how does one resolve the apparent contradiction?

Maybe the answer is in this:

I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth have passed away, and the sea is no more.
Rev. 21:1

 

[sdowney717]

Speaks of different events happening at different times to the earth, the earth will be destroyed laid waste, the earth and heaven will also completely flee away from Him that sits upon the throne and a new earth and heaven created, but it will still be called the earth.
Rev 20
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.