Did Enoch say this? Could you tell me where?
Not sure about it, but the book has chapters on stuff like it.
Upvote
0
Did Enoch say this? Could you tell me where?
Standing up, you did read my post, right? I mentioned 367, specifically because of its significance for the NT canon. You are aware that Athanasius, being in the Catholic church, would be affirming the Catholic OT canon if he is referring to that also. Do you accept the entire Catholic canon of Athanasius, or today's Catholic canon? Or are you saying that Athanasius is only talking about part of the canon, since he only goes on to list NT books? Either way, I can't see how you can use Athanasius and still maintain that books like Tobit aren't in the canon.
Are you saying that if someone says something is from God, then it uncritically is so?
Lastly, are you saying that the Catholic church is the one true church, and Luther is "rubbish"?
Papias
Standing up wrote:
He mentions some OT additions as helpful, but not as canon/scripture.
The first OT list by a Christian was Melito c175.
Omitting inconvenient details can be seen as misleading.
and
You are aware that neither Melito nor Athanasius agree with the current Protestant or Catholic (or Ethiopian or Syriac or other that I know of) canons, right?
Athanasius rejects Esther and includes Baruch.
Melito rejects Esther, doesn't mention Nehemiah and Lamentations, and appears to also include the Wisdom of Solomon. The Bryennios list may predate melito, and it doesn't agree with anyone else either.
Plus, if you are arguing that the canon was ever decided, you'll have deal with other disuputes, like the fact that the Apostles clearly quote the disputed books, and explain why you accept Athanasius as inspired (even though you disagree with him?), yet reject Jerome. Why are you the decider of who is inspired?
You didn't answer about Luther, who shows that the NT canon was in dispute among protestants as recently as the 1500's. The NT canon is largely agreed on today, though there are disputes like the Johannine comma and many others. The canon as a whole is, and always has been, in dispute.
My point is not to argue which canon is right, but simply to show that saying "back when the canon was finalized" makes as much sense as saying "back when the waves on the ocean ceased".
Papias
It's like a surgeon watching Scrubs and thinking ... "hmmm .... ineresting idea!!!"
Now I KNOW you're not a geologist, juvie! 2012 posits increased tectonism as a result of "mutant nutrinos" from the sun. Gimme a break! (I also don't remember anything about the tilt of the earth changing.)
So, my guess is that the tilting is caused by the mass balance adjustment of the earth itself. This process could be different from planet to planet.
I don't think the impact theory can explain the tilting of the earth.
If it were true, then what about the tilting status of the Mars, Venus, and the Mercury? Did they also get similar impacts (or lack of impact)?
OK, this is just too much. Juve, you are aware that flood geology (the idea that there was a global flood in the past, which caused many of the geological features we see today) was rejected as massively untenable by Christian geologists more than a century ago?
It seemed pretty hard to believe that a person who claimed to be a a geologist was unaware of the consensus among geologists in support of radioactive dating, but I kinda let that go. But a person who claims to be a geologist advocating flood geology or that the mythical flood of Noah was real? That's like a chemist denying the Atomic theory in favor of belief in the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.
Juve, do you support flood geology? Or do you recognize that there is zero geological evidence for a flood that should have left more evidence than a tornado going thought your hometown, and that geologists worldwide have realized this for over 100 years?
Is there any way to verify that you are a geologist?
Papias
Juve wrote:
I had missed this post (and only saw it because Mallon's post was quoted, above). Juve, you are saying that as a geologist, you find the "mass balance adjustment" after a global flood to be a more likely cause of the Earth's tilt than an impact?
OK, this is just too much. Juve, you are aware that flood geology (the idea that there was a global flood in the past, which caused many of the geological features we see today) was rejected as massively untenable by Christian geologists more than a century ago?
It seemed pretty hard to believe that a person who claimed to be a a geologist was unaware of the consensus among geologists in support of radioactive dating, but I kinda let that go. But a person who claims to be a geologist advocating flood geology or that the mythical flood of Noah was real? That's like a chemist denying the Atomic theory in favor of belief in the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.
Juve, do you support flood geology? Or do you recognize that there is zero geological evidence for a flood that should have left more evidence than a tornado going thought your hometown, and that geologists worldwide have realized this for over 100 years?
Is there any way to verify that you are a geologist?
Papias
He might be. The only professional biologist I ever met personally was also a young-earth creationist who denied evolution. And yes, he was a real biologist doing actual research on insects.
Juve wrote:
Excuse me while I pick my jaw off the floor.
Yes, of course they did. You must know that the early solar system had more impacts than a billiard game - if you have any doubt, take a look at the moon sometime. It's been pummeled by impacts so much, that there are craters on top of craters - and all other bodies in the solar system have too (look at any of them that don't have geologic processes to erase the craters).
Juve, being a geologist, you can give us a good numerical estimate or exact number of how many impact craters geologists have found on earth, if any. Have they found any? Please, a number, which you probably know off the top of your head. 0? 1? 4?
Papias
-snip-
So, please quit the guessing on what I am. Simply focus on the issue.
You seems to be pretty harsh on me.
Are you a geologist?
I think it is pretty easy for a geologist to identify another geologist. I have no problem to identify Mallon as a paleontologist simply by a few exchanges. It is pretty hard to fake one's knowledge .....
Of course, all of them are pretty small, something like smaller than 100 miles in diameter. Their impacts should not be large enough to tilt the earth.
With the modern remote sensing technology, I heard the number to be something like a few dozens. I have personally seen about 10 (images).
- Not knowing that there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood
- Not knowing that a worldwide flood would leave tons of obvioius geological evidence.
- Not knowing that there are all kinds of geologic structures that refute flood geology.
- Not knowing that flood geology was rejected by Christian geologists over 100 years ago.
- Not knowing that muliple dating methods have agreed on the dates for thousands of samples.
[*]Not knowing that nearly all scientists agree that evolution occured.
[*]Not knowing that nearly all geologists agree on the age of the earth.
[*]Not knowing that nearly all geologists currently reject flood geology.
[*]Not knowing that the early solar system was a mess of impacts, as shown by craters on the surfaces of dozens of bodies in our solar system.
[*]Not knowing that most impacts on earth from that time have long been erased by known geologic mechanisms (See quote #1 below).
[*]Not knowing that there are well over 150 impact structures on the earth, even after all that geology (see quote #2 below).
[*]and so on.....
OK, so you are proposing that a global flood may have happened in the past, and been caused by an impact? There is nothing wrong with changing one's position (I see it as a sign that someone is not dogmatic), yet I wanted to understand, you are now saying that a global flood may indeed have been caused by the Theia impact?
Papias
Are you in Toronto area? If I have chance to visit the place again, do I have the honor to meet you?
Sure, just let me know when you are coming and I will give you contact info privately.