Book Of Enoch And The Flat-earth

Ophiolite said:

Perhaps that is the way you do it. I know of at least one person on the planet who does not do it that way. Perhaps there are others. Your absolute assumption it flawed.

Click to expand...

Pehaps that answers why there is much comprehension issues out there.

Hentenza said:

Pehaps that answers why there is much comprehension issues out there.

Click to expand...

I take note of the fact that you apparently believe that comprehension can be enhanced by deciding how to interpret words before reading them. Good luck with that.

Ophiolite said:

I take note of the fact that you apparently believe that comprehension can be enhanced by deciding how to interpret words before reading them. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

That’s not what I said. See comprehension. How can you possibly understand a word if you did not read it first?

Hentenza said:

That’s not what I said. See comprehension. How can you possibly understand a word if you did not read it first?

Click to expand...

This is not rocket science. If you approach a book, article, or any written medium with the pre-determined view that it is literal, or not literal; fiction, or non-fiction; theological, or secular; myth, or factual; or any other dichotomy, or suite of dichotomies, then your interpretation of what it means is likely to be flawed.
To further clarify: I did not say not too read it first, I said - I thought clearly - that one should read it without prejudging the category. You have asserted that you do and implied that everyone else does. (Of course, I may have misinterpreted your words, but they seemed to be an attempt to convery a factual truth, one which I consider to be mistaken.)

Ophiolite said:

This is not rocket science. If you approach a book, article, or any written medium with the pre-determined view that it is literal, or not literal; fiction, or non-fiction; theological, or secular; myth, or factual; or any other dichotomy, or suite of dichotomies, then your interpretation of what it means is likely to be flawed.
To further clarify: I did not say not too read it first, I said - I thought clearly - that one should read it without prejudging the category. You have asserted that you do and implied that everyone else does. (Of course, I may have misinterpreted your words, but they seemed to be an attempt to convery a factual truth, one which I consider to be mistaken.)

Click to expand...

My friend this is exactly what I said. The words should FIRST be read literally and then interpreted.

Hentenza said:

My friend this is exactly what I said. The words should FIRST be read literally and then interpreted.

Click to expand...

I think we can agree I am not your friend.
No. That is not at all what I am saying. I say the words should FIRST be read, then it should be decided whether or not they are literal, fictional, mythical, lies, rhetoric, etc., etc. You insist upon a literal reading. I consider that to be a foolish approach.

Ophiolite said:

I think we can agree I am not your friend.

Click to expand...

I guess if we can’t have a friendly, civil conversation then there is very little point in continuing. Have a nice day.

Ophiolite said:

I think we can agree I am not your friend.
No. That is not at all what I am saying. I say the words should FIRST be read, then it should be decided whether or not they are literal, fictional, mythical, lies, rhetoric, etc., etc. You insist upon a literal reading. I consider that to be a foolish approach.

Click to expand...

I think we're struggling with semantics.

I know what it is to literally read the word "the". I don't know what it means to read it literally, objectively, subjectively, metaphorically, or allegorically.

When we read "Noah built an ark", or "Huck stole a raft", or "Tom went up to the house", we can begin to assess meaning.

(I'll reassert that the words objective and subjective are useless for this discussion. Let's just understanding what and how we understand what the author wrote.)

In the three sentences above, every one can/could agree that the sentences are to be read literally. That is, a person named Noah put some effort into transforming materials into something we'd call an ark; Huck took a raft without permission of the presumed owner; Tom went to a house whatever the and up means.

It's almost certain the authors meant us to understand the sentences literally. But, what to we take with us? Who was Noah? Huck? Tom?

Well, if we were raised in a culture steeped in the Abrahamic religions, we automatically assume Noah of the Bible. If we are American, we probably get Huck Finn. None of us probably can guess who Tom might be (cuz I made it up, without a conscious reference to anything.)

So now we discover that the reader brings something to the table. (Here, I find the phrase "death of the author" deliciously ironic, but let that go.) Our culture deeply influences our interpretation.

So, did the author want us to understand that Noah actually built an actual ark? What did the author believe about what he wrote? Just a story? An allegory? History? Why did he include the story at all? Whatever he thought he was writing, there was a reason to tell the story. Perhaps all he wanted to say was that it happened. I'd say then that that would be a useless thing for a religious text. Perhaps he wanted to convey something about the nature of the relationship between God and man.

If the latter, that meaning is conveyed regardless of the historicity of the story.

In contrast, Twain both meant you to understand his sentence literally and as fiction.

And Tom? Well, we'd need more context before we'd be able to assess that sentence.

To circle back, it's not clear that there is a correct default way to read anything. You get clues from where and how you came across the text (e.g., what section of the library). And you bring yourself to the text; that is, you interpret the text from your own cultural accumulations.

(This is a long way of saying that I agree with @Ophiolite .)

Hentenza said:

I guess if we can’t have a friendly, civil conversation then there is very little point in continuing. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I have never met you. I have exchanged half a dozen short posts with you on an anonymous internet site. In what universe could that be thought to constitute a friendship? I believe I have been civil throughout our exchanges. If you feel otherwise, please specifiy, so I may rectify.

Im my experience, in writing, but more so in person, the phrase "my friend" is used to convey the opposite sense; at the very least a suppressed anger directed to the recipient. That was my interpretation of the most probable intent of your use of the phrase.

Ophiolite said:

I have never met you. I have exchanged half a dozen short posts with you on an anonymous internet site. In what universe could that be thought to constitute a friendship? I believe I have been civil throughout our exchanges. If you feel otherwise, please specifiy, so I may rectify.

Im my experience, in writing, but more so in person, the phrase "my friend" is used to convey the opposite sense; at the very least a suppressed anger directed to the recipient. That was my interpretation of the most probable intent of your use of the phrase.

Click to expand...

The is not how I use “my friend”. I’m a friendly guy and this is just a board. No prizes for being right or wrong. I like listening and learning from other people’s perspectives even if they don’t line up with mine. I might not agree but is still good to have the knowledge. I try not to make assumptions about people here. They usually reveal their true self in good time.

Ophiolite said:

Im my experience, in writing, but more so in person, the phrase "my friend" is used to convey the opposite sense; at the very least a suppressed anger directed to the recipient. That was my interpretation of the most probable intent of your use of the phrase.

Click to expand...

Including here?

Ophiolite said:

Then perhaps you should have sent the message by pm my friend. (Or even better, recognised that in a discussion forum all participants and lurkers are recipients of the message, my fellow member.)

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Including here?

Click to expand...

Almost certainly, since it was in response to a post in which I was addressed as "my friend".

Hentenza said:

I try not to make assumptions about people here. They usually reveal their true self in good time.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I still find the sub-text of this post suggestive and not in a positive way.

For the record, I avoid making assumptions about people, as far as I can, but I do assess what they have written, how they have written it, when they have written and what they have chosen to write about. This provides insights. I believe most everybody does this. It produces the best, most reliable results when it is done consciously.

I do not know a biblical reason to not give the first book of Enoch a chance and read from it, there are quotes and references to passages in it shown in the new testament of the Bible.

FredVB said:

I do not know a biblical reason to not give the first book of Enoch a chance and read from it, there are quotes and references to passages in it shown in the new testament of the Bible.

Click to expand...

I gave it a chance. The "Book of Heavenly Luminaries" revealed to me that it was complete and utter hogwash.

Jipsah said:

I gave it a chance. The "Book of Heavenly Luminaries" revealed to me that it was complete and utter hogwash.

Click to expand...

That did not answer what I posted, at all. I said I don't know a biblical reason to not give it a chance, you then did not give one. There isn't one, but for saying that with reference and quotation from passages from Enoch, which early Christian believers were familiar with, in passages of the Bible there is complete and utter hogwash in the Bible.

Perhaps it would even be said that there were things added to it. How can I be sure, if so? But it would have to be held that the Bible is corrupt and not reliable with complete and utter hogwash in it if any of all of Enoch that is referred to and quoted is not authentic.

Shown in Jude, these also in their dreaming defile the flesh, despise authority, and slander celestial beings. But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!” But these speak evil of whatever things they don’t know. They are destroyed in these things that they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason. Woe to them! For they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in Korah’s rebellion. These are hidden rocky reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds who without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, He comes with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. You have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of the Lord, but you have turned away and spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness. Oh, you hard-hearted, you shall find no peace. Therefore shall you execrate your days, and the years of your life shall perish, and the years of your destruction shall be multiplied in eternal execration, and you shall find no mercy.“

FredVB said:

That did not answer what I posted, at all. I said I don't know a biblical reason to not give it a chance, you then did not give one

Click to expand...

Really? I’d have thought that having a huge chuck of it being observably false from end to end would kind of rule it out as being holy writ. How much leaven you reckon it would take to leaven that lump?

Jipsah said:

Really? I’d have thought that having a huge chuck of it being observably false from end to end would kind of rule it out as being holy writ. How much leaven you reckon it would take to leaven that lump?

Click to expand...

No, and I specify the first book of Enoch, which has its references in the new testament of the Bible, you did not use anything from the Bible that gives reason to not give it a look. It has more than the epistle of Jude referring to it, 2 Peter 2:4 shows: God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment. This is only mentioned in the book of Enoch which this refers to. And there are more places. So if you dismiss it as hogwash you are of the position of dismissing passages in the Bible. I see that now.

FredVB said:

No, and I specify the first book of Enoch, which has its references in the new testament of the Bible, you did not use anything from the Bible that gives reason to not give it a look.

Click to expand...

Give it a look and notice that ever word in the Book of Heavenly Luminaries is a lie, including the "ands" and "thes". I would think that the "Biblical" reason for tossing "Enoch" into the trash bin is that Biblically valid stuff ought to have at least a nodding acquaintance with the truth. You'd have as much Biblical" warrant for including "Enoch" as Scripture as you would including the Koran (which does say a great many of the same things the Bible does).

FredVB said:

This is only mentioned in the book of Enoch which this refers to.

Click to expand...

Even a blind hogs finds an acorn now and then.

FredVB said:

And there are more places. So if you dismiss it as hogwash

Click to expand...

I most emphatically do. Too much of it is pure fiction. That's how it only found its way into one canon, which also includes some very questionable stuff. But by all means, make up your own canon if you like, Many do.

FredVB said:

you are of the position of dismissing passages in the Bible. I see that now.

Click to expand...

i'm in the position of dismissing a book of lies from the Bible even if it has some shreds of truth in it. You may certainly do as you please.