Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don't know what you are talking about. I've been able to defend my position just fine - even without any one else's research. The truth stands on its own. I'm not worried.You've never studied or at least read the work of Jozef T. Milik regarding the Aramaic Henok fragments discovered at Qumran? (and regarding your claim that Henok is not a "Jewish-centric writing"?)? There is no excuse for this seeing that his work is now in the public domain.
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4 : Jozef T. Milik : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4The Enoch Scroll of the texts from Qumran Library Cave 4 has provided parts in Aramaic among the Dead...archive.org
Moreover, if you had known this, you would have easily refuted the comments from others here in this thread claiming that the Henok quote from the epistle of Yhudah isn't testified in Henok, for it clearly is: and that is before the first century, as per the scholarly dating of the related Qumran fragments.
Ah well, enjoy your all-important paradi
"simply dismiss the Book of Enoch as it is not part of the canon of Scripture. Yet, it is quoted. "
Lets see no the book of Enoch was never quoted. What Jude by the sweet sweet holy Spirit said was "But Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, also prophesied about these men, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,". There are a few really strong reasons why Enoch was not put in the Canon. So when we read about who wrote it "unknown".
Why is it so hard for a God that once said to Sarah "what is to hard for the lord?" That He made sure what we have today is what He wanted and not a bunch of men made the choice?
So Enoch never said that?
Do you think you could at least quote a verse from this alleged writing of Enoch that says those words. Was Enoch not the 7th generation from Adam? You can read that in Genesis 5.
The point made is that whoever wrote this book of Enoch after the Babylonian captivity had some source of information they used. They did not receive Holy Spirit revelation. If not they just made it all up. So Jude did not have to quote that particular book, as information would have already been in circulation before that book was written. Both Jude and that unknown author were quoting the same source. Jude was not necessarily quoting the book of Enoch.
After reading the work by Milik, you discover that he is a typical unbelieving liberal scholar. These type of people can not be trusted in what they claim.From the link to the work of J. T. Milik, which was posted in my previous post, here is a section from one of the fragments which begins with the greater portion of the verse from Sefer Henok which is quoted in the epistle of Yhudah.
A description of the fragment with dating, (Pg 178).
View attachment 332353
The Aramaic text, (Pgs 184-185).
View attachment 332354
The reading of the Aramaic text supplied by J. T. Milik, (Pg 185).
(Highlighting is mine).
View attachment 332355
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4 : Jozef T. Milik : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4The Enoch Scroll of the texts from Qumran Library Cave 4 has provided parts in Aramaic among the Dead...archive.org
This Qumran DSS fragment is from a copy of Sefer Henok estimated to be from the first century BC, (Herodian era). The epistle of Yhudah quote is legitimate and it is from Sefer Henok. Moreover Yhudah does not just say that he is quoting a writing but actually states that these are the very words of Henok the Prophet: that's saying quite a bit more than what people generally tend to realize on a surface level reading.
After reading the work by Milik, you discover that he is a typical unbelieving liberal scholar. These type of people can not be trusted in what they claim.
Sure everyone can have their own personal opinion. But every single one that I've examined has fatal flaws and does not stand up to scrutiny. Only my work meets all known facts, theology and the historical record. That's why I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
You can doubt all you want. Doesn't change the facts whatsoever. I've stated exactly why I reject your so-called evidence. It's seems you are the the one that doesn't want to accept facts. Just because someone has an alternate opinion, does not make it actually true and does not mean I have to accept it. I've been able to show the passage is internally consistent and I have not injected any personal bias whatsoever. You are the one who believes it has to do with 70 AD without any evidence in the passage at all - that's from your privately held belief.I seriously doubt that your work "meets all known facts, theology and the historical record". More likely your work meets all the criteria that you have hand-picked so as to uphold your own privately held beliefs on a given topic. If it were not so then you would not have rejected the very little that has already been said here without even blinking a eye. You have already shown that you do not give any other possibility the time of day if it in any way disagrees with your paradigm. You have not shown yourself to be an honest researcher, imo, and by that I mean honest with yourself.
You can doubt all you want. Doesn't change the facts whatsoever. I've stated exactly why I reject your so-called evidence. It's seems you are the the one that doesn't want to accept facts. Just because someone has an alternate opinion, does not make it actually true and does not mean I have to accept it. I've been able to show the passage is internally consistent and I have not injected any personal bias whatsoever. You are the one who believes it has to do with 70 AD without any evidence in the passage at all - that's from your privately held belief.
Ya, I save you any further bother. The LXX is Greek garbage - totally corrupted. As the Jews and Christians of the 2nd century acknowledge. They hated it so much they made other translations to use instead. So, no. the genealogy information in the LXX is absolutely useless. And btw, the New Testament writers did NOT quote from the LXX. They wrote in Aramaic and were quoting the Targums in use in all synagogues since hardly anyone spoke Hebrew any more - as Josephus states very clearly in his work. Look it up. I'll wait.....No, it's actually from my understanding of the entire chronology of the world, based on scripture and historical evidence: none of which you have actually engaged or even attempted to discuss. Do you suppose I just pulled the second year of Darius 2 out of thin air? It doesn't merely align with the ten weeks of Henok but also with Daniel, and Ezra, and I believe even Yosephus also agrees, (if I remember correctly, it's been a while, but trust me: I'll check again to make sure before I double down on the historical information from Yosephus). But seeing that you apparently believe some variant of a seven thousand year plan of Elohim, I am pretty sure you will not accept anything that does not align with the modern Hebrew Masoretic text genealogies despite what is more often quoted by the Apostolic authors, (the LXX).
Ya, I save you any further bother. The LXX is Greek garbage - totally corrupted. As the Jews and Christians of the 2nd century acknowledge. They hated it so much they made other translations to use instead. So, no. the genealogy information in the LXX is absolutely useless. And btw, the New Testament writers did NOT quote from the LXX. They wrote in Aramaic and were quoting the Targums in use in all synagogues since hardly anyone spoke Hebrew any more - as Josephus states very clearly in his work. Look it up. I'll wait.....
Ya, I save you any further bother. The LXX is Greek garbage - totally corrupted. As the Jews and Christians of the 2nd century acknowledge. They hated it so much they made other translations to use instead. So, no. the genealogy information in the LXX is absolutely useless. And btw, the New Testament writers did NOT quote from the LXX. They wrote in Aramaic and were quoting the Targums in use in all synagogues since hardly anyone spoke Hebrew any more - as Josephus states very clearly in his work. Look it up. I'll wait.....
The amount of quoted text does not equate to the amount of correctness. You misunderstand that I'm interested in your arguments. I don't even know what you are trying to prove. Good day.
Ya know, I've made a similar challenge. I've challenged anyone to prove that I'm not the rightful Czar of All the Russias, and so far none has even come close.Only my work meets all known facts, theology and the historical record. That's why I challenge anyone to prove me wrong
That's fine. Those who appreciate truth and accuracy in research and have open minds have been blessed with the information I share.Ya know, I've made a similar challenge. I've challenged anyone to prove that I'm not the rightful Czar of All the Russias, and so far none has even come close.
Could be. Some people make a hobby of recording eccentric ideas.That's fine. Those who appreciate truth and accuracy in research and have open minds have been blessed with the information I share.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?