Doesn't the fact that it talks about enoch within the garden which mankind was banned from makes it...well.. Honestly I refuse to accept ANYthing that contradicts in anyway the confirmed inspired word of God. The Spirit being the author would not contradict Himself.
Doesn't the fact that it talks about enoch within the garden which mankind was banned from makes it...well.. Honestly I refuse to accept ANYthing that contradicts in anyway the confirmed inspired word of God. The Spirit being the author would not contradict Himself.
Have you never read anything in the Bible that appears contradictory? Certainly the threshhold of proof you seem to be laying down here would cast out more books than just Enoch, ie, "if I find anything that seems to my perception contradictory, I'm throwing out the whole book!"
Most people assume Enoch was translated to Heaven. Does the Bible say this is the case? What if the mortal man Enoch was placed in the garden of Eden so he could partake of the Tree of Life and live a mortal life indefinitely. What if this is where Enoch is now. What if Enoch will come from the Garden of Eden to prophesy in Jerusalem in the last days as one of the two prophets who dies in the streets of Jerusalem at the mid-point of the tribulation period?
Just thinking out loud here and reserve the right to recant...
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
If he did eat of the tree of life... I think that that would make it pointless for God to post guard so that none could... and God could have simply done that with Noah to perserve him rather than have him make the boat. Either way it seems inconsistent.
Let me make something clear. All of my thoughts here are really just for the surface of the idea as I have only studied the Bible and 'read' the maccabean books. All that I am really familiar with is established scripture so my comments on Enoch are based off of quotes from this thread. But I know better that to throw out a book because of an 'apparent' contradiction. I honestly dont even truely want to prove Enoch wrong. Bottom line though is that from what I continue to study in church history, the addition of the apocrypha seems to be a political move... But either way I am content without them as part of the Scriptures, and I believe history shows God to be as well.
If he did eat of the tree of life... I think that that would make it pointless for God to post guard so that none could... and God could have simply done that with Noah to perserve him rather than have him make the boat. Either way it seems inconsistent.<snip>
But one of the purposes of the deluge was to cleanse from it the works of that generation as well as destroying all the living. Noah, secluded in the garden with the Tree of Life would not have accomplished that.
Following along on this hypothetical line though, keeping Elijah and Enoch alive yet mortal for thousands of years could serve the purpose for preserving them for a ministry in the last days, perhaps the 2 witnesses in Revelation 11? The ministry of the two witnesses is apparently more than incidental in salvation history as they were also mentioned in the Old Testament book of Zechariah 4. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13;&version=47;
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
<snip>Bottom line though is that from what I continue to study in church history, the addition of the apocrypha seems to be a political move... But either way I am content without them as part of the Scriptures, and I believe history shows God to be as well.
Do you mean the "addition" of them was political or the removal? I think its can be pretty well established the books Protestants perjoritively call Apocrypha were already in wide use in the churches long before there ever was an "official" canon of the Bible established.
Just discussing that's all.
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
people, especially Catholics, make a big deal out of the "Apocrypha". But why? they might be interesting to read, and perhaps shed some insight into ancient Judaism, but so what? understand now, I was raised Catholic and still have my first copy of the RSV, but really, Bel and the Dragon?
the whole focus of Christianity is in the NT. That's where all the Law and Prophets were fulfilled. when you read the OT, essentially you're standing at the finish line looking back to the starting line. Again, what possible impact does Maacabees or Enoch have on the NT?
__________________ THRESHHOLD THRESHHOLD TAKE US TO THE THRESHHOLD!! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
About Moshe, concerning whom you said we cannot believe because he has no other witness, all the prophets spoke under God's authority and thus God was the other witness.
Great point!
There was also two witnesses to Jesus authority as well. John the Baptist and the voice from heaven "this is my son....."
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
people, especially Catholics, make a big deal out of the "Apocrypha". But why? they might be interesting to read, and perhaps shed some insight into ancient Judaism, but so what? understand now, I was raised Catholic and still have my first copy of the RSV, but really, Bel and the Dragon?
the whole focus of Christianity is in the NT. That's where all the Law and Prophets were fulfilled. when you read the OT, essentially you're standing at the finish line looking back to the starting line. Again, what possible impact does Maacabees or Enoch have on the NT?
The history of the translation of the disputed books of the Greek Old Testament in the West is scandalous. Even the Catholic translations of these books in English is poor.
You mention Bel and the Dragon.
What is called a "dragon" by the Babylonians is not corroborated by Daniel in the story. Daniel merely kills their god, which was probably some large snake captured in an exotic location and kept captive in Babylon where those people attached mythology to its existence. The msessage of Bel and the Dragon is that both Bel and the "Dragon" were frauds.
Both Maccabees and Enoch have prophetic significance for our day.
The Church in the East, blinded by their anti-Chiliasm is prevented from mining the rich prophetic territory that is in those books. The Church in the West, impoverished by their having been divorced from the scriptural heritage that should be theirs is also prevented from the same.
Enoch specifically states in the first few verses his book is for the last generation; persecution of the righteous is one of the book's major contributions. Maccabees contains the oldest and most graphic martyrologies of the Church. As the day approaches we all would do well to strengthen our resolve in the grace of God by reading these testimonies, since martyrdom will become the norm in tomorrow's world.
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Last edited by SummaScriptura; 28th August 2009 at 01:27 PM.
Linear Mode
