It doesn't.

It says that nothing is new, yet there logically was a time when that statement was uttered for the first time, and therefore was wrong by your standards.

Except that you aren't allowing for Phenomenological language or Hyperbole. 

Then is sounds as if you could agree that the statement "There are no absolutes other than this statement" is logically consistent, right?

You are asking a Loaded Question Phil.  Rephrase please.

Not sure how it's loaded.
Do you agree with "There are no absolutes other than this statement"?

The question assumes that the proper interpretation of the cited passage in Ecclesiastes is the same as saying "There are no absolutes other than this statement", and you then limited it to a "yes" or "no" answer.  There is where it is loaded.

In answer to your last question, I believe there are absolutes therefore the  statement "There are no absolutes other than this statement" is not a part of my worldview.

I didn't make myself clear. I'm not refering to the bible at all.
Do you agree with "There are no absolutes other than this statement"?
"This statement" refers to the statement on the line above in which "this statement" is embedded.

Perhaps the following example will make it clear.



If you say "I am not making a statement about anything", you don't
need to also state "I am making a statement about something" to have a
contradiction per the standards introduced in your initial essay.



Simply stating "I am not making a statement about anything" is
making a statement. It does not need to be explicit.



The same goes for saying for the first time "There is nothing new
under the sun". No strawman here.

Do you agree with "There are no absolutes other than this statement"?

"This statement" refers to the statement on the line above in which
"this statement" is embedded.

I know which statement it is referring to.  Again, you are asking me if I AGREE with the statement.  I said that I do not.

So what is your point if you are not referring to the bible?

Now you're asking the right question. I did not need to refer to the bible. I did since I know you agree with the bible. You immediately (review your comments) accused me of trying to use The Ecc. passage to argue against the bible. Given your dogmatism about it, what am I to do? You've questioned my intentions, then proclaimed my intentions. This is not very productive to a dialog. It might be better to ask questions first. That way you don't look like a silly dogmatist trying to tell other people what they are saying.

Let me rephrase my question.
Do you agree that the statement "There are no absolutes other than this statement" contains no logical contradiction?

Do you agree that the statement "There are no absolutes other than this statement" contains no logical contradiction?

Calling me a dogmatist would be accurate as it is an accurate description of every living soul including you but attempting to poison the well with such language is just as helpful as the Ad Hominem that it is.

I thought you were going to refrain from this sort of language? 



So if asking this question has nothing to do with my worldview which you have admitted is centered around the bible, then why are you asking me it?

I'd encourage you other christians out there to read wanttruth2's words and ask yourself if this is the primary type of person reading and believing the bible produces. I believe it is. Ask yourself whether wanttruth2 has the ability to see himself as others see him? Are you perhaps somewhere in his direction of the continuum of blind dogmatism? I'd encourage you all to come to reason. There are far fewer such attitudes, and a real commitment to finding truth.

As for wanttruth2, I have no more use for him other than an object lesson.

Cheers, Phil

Another typical Atheist response when they have been cornered.  They go
into Ad Hominem mode.

You show your colors once again.

Ad hominem is when you offer personal attacks INSTEAD of evidence.

I'm offering your conduct and illogic AS (excellent) evidence for the failure and impotency of christianity.

I am the subject, I am the one you attack, therefore it is "Personal" and therefore Ad Hominem and not "evidence" of the failure or impotency of christianity.

You've made many claims that you have yet to prove such as:

1.  Wanttruth2 is "illogic"
2.  Wanttruth2 is offering "conduct" as evidence against Christianity
3.  Wanttruth2 is offering "conduct" as evidence of the impotency of Christianity

Even if I were illogical and had aweful conduct, it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Christianity.  You claim to be truthful yet you have committed fallacy after fallacy.  That is not just an assertion on my part as I have demonstrated it over and over and could do it more if you'd like.