John N. Oswalt, NIVAC or NIV Application Commentary on Isaiah 14 and the Underworld

[CoreyD]

The man Enoch existed - but that does not mean the work we know as the Book of Enoch was actually written by him or is not myth.

I agree with that.
However, I did not say Enoch is a myth, but it is known by most students of the Bible, that the book is inconsistent with the Bible, and for this reason, it was excluded from the Canon.
For that reason, as well as some of it's contents, it is a myth.

If you were following the conversation, you would realize you are "attacking" the wrong person.

I would not be bothered if this were the case. The Bible can reference mythology to make theological points. Similar to how Peter and Jude reference Enoch.

Interesting.
I actually met someone who thinks the Bible references mythology, and claims that Enoch is a myth.
Why, I believe you can explain why you think Enoch - the man the Bible says was born to Jared Genesis 5:18 - a descendent of Adam, and ancestor of Noah, and the Messiah Luke 3:37 - who walked with God Genesis 5:22-24, in faith Hebrews 11:5, is a myth.
Please do so.

Have you read the book of Enoch? Enoch is myth. It is pseudepigrapha.

Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

I was going to report this personal attack, but decided to give you a chance.
The next time you personally attack my intelligence though, I will report the post.
There is no need to bring what we learn from atheists, here, and neither is it called for.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I agree with that.
However, I did not say Enoch is a myth, but it is known by most students of the Bible, that the book is inconsistent with the Bible, and for this reason, it was excluded from the Canon.
For that reason, as well as some of it's contents, it is a myth.

If you were following the conversation, you would realize you are "attacking" the wrong person.





I was going to report this personal attack, but decided to give you a chance.
The next time you personally attack my intelligence though, I will report the post.
There is no need to bring what we learn from atheists, here, and neither is it called for.

I never attacked anyone - and my comments are still directed at you.

The other poster was claiming that Biblical writers can use myth to make valid theological points.

He did not claim that Enoch - the man - was a myth - but that the Book of Enoch that was referenced by Biblical writers was - which you seem to agree with.

I don't consider anything I said to you to be a "personal attack" - but if you want to report me for pointing out when you are obviously wrong and seem to know it - yet won't admit it - and you intentionally drag it out like you somehow don't understand what other people are saying or they are somehow not being clear - when they are - go ahead.

I think it would be better if you just admitted that you were wrong - but if you find that you can't do that for some reason - go ahead and report me.

 

[CoreyD]

I never attacked anyone - and my comments are still directed at you.

The other poster was claiming that Biblical writers can use myth to make valid theological points.

He did not claim that Enoch - the man - was a myth - but that the Book of Enoch that was referenced by Biblical writers was - which you seem to agree with.

I don't consider anything I said to you to be a "personal attack" - but if you want to report me for pointing out when you are obviously wrong and seem to know it - yet won't admit it - and you intentionally drag it out like you somehow don't understand what other people are saying or they are somehow not being clear - when they are - go ahead.

I think it would be better if you just admitted that you were wrong - but if you find that you can't do that for some reason - go ahead and report me.

Perchance you do not know... If you ask someone, "Are you being this obtuse on purpose?", what are you asking them?
Obtuse:

1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity.
   "an obtuse remark."

If you tell a person they are obtuse, you are attacking their character - their intelligence, in a very bad way.
The atheists on various forums, are popular for this.
If you don't believe it's an attack on one's character, you can always do it again, and we can see what the mods think.
That's one way to find out for sure, and I certainly would want you to know, so that you do not repeat it in the future.

Loving reproof is always good... even if the person does not like it.
Proverbs 27:5 A truly good friend will openly correct you.

I'm not wrong in what I said, so there is no need on my part, to admit to being wrong
There is no scripture that says man has a spiritual body inside him, and certainly, no reliable secular source agrees with that.
That's something you would want to respond to, if that is wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

I never attacked anyone - and my comments are still directed at you.

The other poster claimed that Biblical writers can use myth to make valid theological points.

He did not claim that Enoch - the man - was a myth - but that the Book of Enoch that was referenced by Biblical writers was - which you seem to agree with.

I don't consider anything I said to you to be a "personal attack" - but if you want to report me for pointing out when you are obviously wrong and seem to know it - yet won't admit it - and you intentionally drag it out like you somehow don't understand what other people are saying or they are somehow not being clear - when they are - go ahead.

I think it would be better if you just admitted that you were wrong - but if you find that you can't do that for some reason - go ahead and report me.

Perhaps he doesn't know that 1 Enoch (the myth) speaks of angels being chained up in Tartarus under gloomy darkness. And so when I said that "Peter and Jude quote Enoch," he may have thought that I was speaking of the person, despite 1 Enoch being commonly referred to Enoch in everyday settings. A sincere mistake that could be possible if someone were not familiar with the subject.

But, if one were to act as if they knew such things, they might stretch themselves into a position where they might go against 99% of Biblical scholarship and deny that Peter and Jude reference 1 Enoch at all (the myth). Even though the texts word for word and idea for idea flow together as though verbatim referenced by the NT authors, in addition to Jude mentioning that Enoch is being quoted.

It is not as though Jude had ever met Enoch (the person), nor is there evidence of 1 Enoch (the myth) outside of texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (excluding later additions).

Be it either sincere unawareness or be it mental gymnastics and denial of all credible resources on the subject, either way, it's problematic.

@CoreyD I'd recommend reading content on Peter and Jude by old testament Biblical scholar, and Evangelical Hebrew language expert, Dr. Micheal S. Heiser. He has a lot of good material on this subject.

Or you might enjoy this video here:

But it's fair to say, there is, in fact, mythology in the Bible. Anyone can just flip to Isaiah 27:1 or Psalm 74:14 and can read about God smashing the heads (plural) of a fire breathing sea dragon to reach this conclusion. It's not hard to see, if Enoch (the myth) is not straightforward enough.

But it's also worth noting that, the NT authors can reference mythology without actually believing that mythology to be history. Just as I can reference Lord of the Rings or Dracula, for the sake of conveying ideas to people, without me necessarily needing to believe these stories to be historical. In fact, that's what I am doing in this very sentence. And it's not a crime for Peter or Jude to do the same. Or Isaiah or the Psalmist or anyone else.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's like asking me, if I ever watched Dracula.
The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch; Hebrew: סֵפֶר חֲנוֹךְ, Sēfer Ḥănōḵ; Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ, Maṣḥafa Hēnok) is an ancient Jewish apocalyptic religious text, ascribed by tradition to the patriarch Enoch who was the father of Methuselah and the great-grandfather of Noah.
The older sections of 1 Enoch are estimated to date from about 300–200 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) is probably from around 100 BC.

Do you use counterfeit money?
I don't need to use counterfeit money in order to know real money.
I don't need to read apocryphal writings, when I can read the truth. Especially, when the truth is written centuries before the counterfeit... That's right - fake.

The book of Enoch contradicts, and lies against the truth of God's word.
It is inconsistent with the teachings of the Torah, and several early sections of the book make use of material from the Torah.
So, asking me if I went to Hollywood, is not going to make over what is already writen centuries earlier.

I will say, it's strange that you provided this response. As if you knew that I was speaking of 1 Enoch, yet subsequently

"@Job 33:6 So, the reason you think Enoch is a myth is because you read a book that is a fake, and full of myths? Really?" -Corey

But now you seem to acknowledge 1 Enoch as myth in agreement.

As if you might believe in some other 1 Enoch book out there in the world that is not "fake" or "full of myths" that perhaps Peter and Jude were quoting.

"However, I did not say Enoch is a myth, but it is known by most students of the Bible, that the book is inconsistent with the Bible, and for this reason, it was excluded from the Canon.
For that reason, as well as some of it's contents, it is a myth."-Corey

Smh

 

[Zaha Torte]

I will say, it's strange that you provided this response. As if you knew that I was speaking of 1 Enoch, yet subsequently

"@Job 33:6 So, the reason you think Enoch is a myth is because you read a book that is a fake, and full of myths? Really?" -Corey

But now you seem to acknowledge 1 Enoch as myth in agreement.

As if you might believe in some other 1 Enoch book out there in the world that is not "fake" or "full of myths" that perhaps Peter and Jude were quoting.

"However, I did not say Enoch is a myth, but it is known by most students of the Bible, that the book is inconsistent with the Bible, and for this reason, it was excluded from the Canon.
For that reason, as well as some of it's contents, it is a myth."-Corey

Smh

This is why I asked if he was being obtuse.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Perchance you do not know... If you ask someone, "Are you being this obtuse on purpose?", what are you asking them?
Obtuse:

1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity.
   "an obtuse remark."

If you tell a person they are obtuse, you are attacking their character - their intelligence, in a very bad way.
The atheists on various forums, are popular for this.
If you don't believe it's an attack on one's character, you can always do it again, and we can see what the mods think.
That's one way to find out for sure, and I certainly would want you to know, so that you do not repeat it in the future.

Loving reproof is always good... even if the person does not like it.
Proverbs 27:5 A truly good friend will openly correct you.

I'm not wrong in what I said, so there is no need on my part, to admit to being wrong
There is no scripture that says man has a spiritual body inside him, and certainly, no reliable secular source agrees with that.
That's something you would want to respond to, if that is wrong.

I was asking if you were willfully acting slow on purpose - if you were acting a certain way because you did not want to admit you were wrong or that you did not know what was being discussed.

 

[CoreyD]

Perhaps he doesn't know that 1 Enoch (the myth) speaks of angels being chained up in Tartarus under gloomy darkness. And so when I said that "Peter and Jude quote Enoch," he may have thought that I was speaking of the person, despite 1 Enoch being commonly referred to Enoch in everyday settings. A sincere mistake that could be possible if someone were not familiar with the subject.

But, if one were to act as if they knew such things, they might stretch themselves into a position where they might go against 99% of Biblical scholarship and deny that Peter and Jude reference 1 Enoch at all (the myth). Even though the texts word for word and idea for idea flow together as though verbatim referenced by the NT authors, in addition to Jude mentioning that Enoch is being quoted.

It is not as though Jude had ever met Enoch (the person), nor is there evidence of 1 Enoch (the myth) outside of texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (excluding later additions).

Be it either sincere unawareness or be it mental gymnastics and denial of all credible resources on the subject, either way, it's problematic.

@CoreyD I'd recommend reading content on Peter and Jude by old testament Biblical scholar, and Evangelical Hebrew language expert, Dr. Micheal S. Heiser. He has a lot of good material on this subject.

Or you might enjoy this video here:

But it's fair to say, there is, in fact, mythology in the Bible. Anyone can just flip to Isaiah 27:1 or Psalm 74:14 and can read about God smashing the heads (plural) of a fire breathing sea dragon to reach this conclusion. It's not hard to see, if Enoch (the myth) is not straightforward enough.

But it's also worth noting that, the NT authors can reference mythology without actually believing that mythology to be history. Just as I can reference Lord of the Rings or Dracula, for the sake of conveying ideas to people, without me necessarily needing to believe these stories to be historical. In fact, that's what I am doing in this very sentence. And it's not a crime for Peter or Jude to do the same. Or Isaiah or the Psalmist or anyone else.

I don't believe you missed what I said here, so I think you posted this, just to post another video.
I don't need videos. Fake or fraudulent sources are dishonest.
If persons want to believe such sources, that's not my concern, and it's not my job to judge persons who consider 2Peter 1:21, as invalid.

 

[CoreyD]

I was asking if you were willfully acting slow on purpose - if you were acting a certain way because you did not want to admit you were wrong or that you did not know what was being discussed.

Acting slow?
Do you understand what an insultof someone's character is?
Can I suggest you quit doing that, because you are only making it worse.

You are attacking the opposition, with your words, and since you are not obtuse, you know you are doing this.
Internet forums are not new to us, so we know what you are doing.
If you aren't able to address the post, silence is acceptable.

Attacking the poster's character, using words like unintelligent, slow, etc., is not acceptable.
Express shock if you like. That's not going to take any heat.
Although, overdoing it, might.

 

[Job 33:6]

However, I did not say Enoch is a myth, but it is known by most students of the Bible, that the book is inconsistent with the Bible, and for this reason, it was excluded from the Canon.
For that reason, as well as some of it's contents, it is a myth.

"It is a myth."

I'm glad to hear that you now agree, Corey. Good job.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Acting slow?
Do you understand what an insultof someone's character is?
Can I suggest you quit doing that, because you are only making it worse.

You are attacking the opposition, with your words, and since you are not obtuse, you know you are doing this.
Internet forums are not new to us, so we know what you are doing.
If you aren't able to address the post, silence is acceptable.

Attacking the poster's character, using words like unintelligent, slow, etc., is not acceptable.
Express shock if you like. That's not going to take any heat.
Although, overdoing it, might.

I don't think continually threatening people is acceptable either.

I did not attack you. I asked you a question about your behavior.

I did not accuse you of anything or claim that you were anything.

I will be avoiding you from now on though because I don't like you.

 

[CoreyD]

I don't think continually threatening people is acceptable either.

I did not attack you. I asked you a question about your behavior.

I did not accuse you of anything or claim that you were anything.

I will be avoiding you from now on though because I don't like you.

I understand.

I tend to get annoyed when people start attacking the poster's character, because the poster opposes their beliefs, and presents facts against them.
When it becomes about the poster - his behavior; his intelligence; his ability to follow a simple thing, because he is slow... that is getting disrespectful, and rather than get offended, when someone points that out, I would want to consider it, since it does help in following the rules of the forum, and being imperfect, I could be guilty of that.

I know I did not use the best 'approach'. I'm sorry about that, but I am not sorry, about pointing out what you are doing.
It's not right... and neither is this:

"It is a myth."

I'm glad to hear that you now agree, Corey. Good job.

...but you liked it.
@Job 33:6 you know I did not now agree, don't you?
If not, it would make me wonder if you are reading my posts carefully.

Anyway, I am sorry that I responded to your "question" @Zaha Torte. That was a mistake. I should not have tried to point out something to you that I felt you needed to be aware of.
Now that I know, from this experience, it won't happen again with anyone on these forums.
Thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[DRas]

Isn't this statement already presupposing a belief in a living spirit that needs a body.
The spirit which God gives, and takes away, is not unembodied or disembodied, according to scripture.
Psalm 104:29, 30; Job 34:14, 15; Psalm 146:3, 4; Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20; Ecclesiastes 12:7

Please note that Ecclesiastes 3:19, says both animals and humans have the same spirit.
All scriptural references from the very verse you quoted in Genesis 2:7 refer to the spirit like breath, that gives live. Not an unembodied or disembodied thing, like a ghost that roam about without a body, once someone dies.

That is not a Biblical teaching.


Many people believe that the lake of fire is actually a physical fire that destroys the person.
I'm not saying this is what you believe, as I don't know what you believe. However, the second death is indeed permanent death for the soul, as Jesus said. Matthew 10:28
It's not a matter of being cast anywhere though, in a physical sense. It refers simply to dying with no hope of resurrection.

For example, Jesus referred to sin that is unforgivable.
Mark 3:28, 29

28 Truly I say to you that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven the sons of men, as many as they shall have blasphemed.​

29 But whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness, to the age, but is guilty of eternal sin."​

So, those who commit the unforgivable sin, and die in this age, they are permanently dead.


They are obviously separated from life. John 3:36


I am just being clear in case you think I am saying something else, because I don't know the reason for your saying this.

The body, is not the soul.
Soul is the life of the person, or the person.
Adam did not exist as a body. The body was not Adam.

When God breathed the breath of life - the spirit into man, yes, the man became a living soul - a living person, or being.
That person - Adam, if dead, would be a dead person - a dead soul.
If Adam did not commit the unforgivable sin... which he did, the person - Adam - the soul, would be raised up.

The soul dies, and according to Jesus, and his apostles, is asleep, and will be raised up, if they are in God's memorial. See this post, for the scriptural references.


Firstly, I want to point out that this is commentary from the authors, and secondly, it does not agree with you, unless you, since it does not refer to a spiritual body.
Qualities - "the emotional and spiritual aspects of a person" - of a man, are not a spiritual body.


There are no reliable references, either secularly, or Biblically, which says man has a spiritual body. nor animals.


Luke 1:38
So he is the God of the living, not the dead, for they are all alive to him.”

I understand why it doesn't make sense now.
I hope it does make sense at some later time.


You said, "The word "being" means "to exist"".
Angels exist. They are angelic beings, or spiritual beings. Not fleshly.
They are spiritual beings, and physical beings. They aren't of the same material, but they are both beings.
1 Corinthians 15:35-49

Please consider the following scriptures.
Psalm 108:1; Psalm 130:5; Psalm 146:1; Proverbs 20:27-30; Isaiah 26:9
Acts 17:29; Hebrews 1:3
I hop, they do help.


That's what I am talking about.
Zaha Torte said:

The Soul of Man is the combination of their spiritual and physical bodies - which is why Adam became a "living soul" after God breathed life into him (Genesis 2:7) - or in other words - placed Adam's spiritual body into his physical body - for we know that all spirits come from God (Ecclesiastes 12:7)​

Angels are living beings. They have life.
So, soul can apply to those beings in heaven.
However, I won't make that a subject of discussion.


This is a belief. It's not scriptural.


We do not find spiritual body in man, referenced anywhere in the Bible, as shown above.
The only spiritual bodies referred to in the Bible, are heavenly beings. 1 Corinthians 15:35-57


When you can support your beliefs about this "spiritual body God put in man" with scripture, we can continue.

 

[DRas]

I am brand new to this forum, and was drawn to it because this particular topic. Someone very close to me, who considers themselves Christian, has recently been very focused on concepts about their “spirit” based on personal experiences and interactions with “psychic
professionals”. This person is extremely confident in their sense of heightened spiritual knowledge.
None of this fits with my lifelong understanding of biblical teaching. This subject has made discussions of faith and bible study in our home contentious to say the least. I am feeling like a lifetime of Church, bible study and Christian education has left me whole fully unprepared for this, any suggestions?

 

[Job 33:6]

I am brand new to this forum, and was drawn to it because this particular topic. Someone very close to me, who considers themselves Christian, has recently been very focused on concepts about their “spirit” based on personal experiences and interactions with “psychic
professionals”. This person is extremely confident in their sense of heightened spiritual knowledge.
None of this fits with my lifelong understanding of biblical teaching. This subject has made discussions of faith and bible study in our home contentious to say the least. I am feeling like a lifetime of Church, bible study and Christian education has left me whole fully unprepared for this, any suggestions?

I would recommend. Carl Sagan's book, demon haunted world.

But likewise, I think it's important to understand that the underworld is a normal concept of ancient near Eastern biblical cosmology. Dr. Michael Heiser and Dr. John Walton have a good bit of content on this as well.

 

[CoreyD]

Welcome to the forums.

I am brand new to this forum, and was drawn to it because this particular topic. Someone very close to me, who considers themselves Christian, has recently been very focused on concepts about their “spirit” based on personal experiences and interactions with “psychic professionals”. This person is extremely confident in their sense of heightened spiritual knowledge.

The Bible tells us at Revelation 12:9 why the spirit of Satan is very strong in these final days.

None of this fits with my lifelong understanding of biblical teaching. This subject has made discussions of faith and bible study in our home contentious to say the least. I am feeling like a lifetime of Church, bible study and Christian education has left me whole fully unprepared for this, any suggestions?

I would suggest, stick with the scriptures.
If a teaching contradicts the scriptures, reject it.
If you are uncertain, ask questions, and discuss it from a Biblical perspective.
It's important to know what the Bible says, and talk with those who know the scriptures, and who use the scriptures together, rather than picking out one verse, and running with ideas.

An approach I normally take, is to apply the same principle that works for everything - Start from the foundation, and build on it.
I have found that most people tend to ignore the foundation, or demolish them.
Let me explain what I mean.

Jesus spoke of two men that built houses...

He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock. When the flood came, the torrent crashed against that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.​

But the one who hears My words and does not act on them is like a man who built his house on ground without a foundation. The torrent crashed against that house, and immediately it fell - and great was its destruction!”​

Luke 6:48, 49

Though, this apples to doing the will of God, as opposed to not doing it, the principle is, that building on a good foundations allows the structure to stand immovable.
Similarly, when we build on truths in the Bible, we first start with the foundation.
In other words, we build on rock, not sand. So, we first need to establish solid rock, and build on that.

When it comes to the truth about the dead, for example, find solid rock.
Some solid rock is found in scripture, which directly state the condition of the dead. See here, here, and here, for some.

Be careful with the books and commentaries that people refer you to.
They have many interpretations and ideas. Stick with the scriptures.
If you need help finding scriptures, find someone who can point our references to you.
Remember the account at Acts 8:26-40. We need help.

If you have questions, you want answered, from the Bible, feel free to ask.
Thanks for asking.

 

[CoreyD]

I would recommend. Carl Sagan's book, demon haunted world.

But likewise, I think it's important to understand that the underworld is a normal concept of ancient near Eastern biblical cosmology. Dr. Michael Heiser and Dr. John Walton have a good bit of content on this as well.

I would say it's important to understand something that can be clearly shown to be true.
If it cannot be shown to be true, but is a product of people's belief... especially of persons who believe that their interpretations, which is based on their beliefs, is correct, I would say, reject it, because it is not the truth.

While many cultures believe in some form of immortality of the soul, the Hebrews - the writers of the Bible did not. They believed the soul is mortal. Ezekiel 18:4
It's always best to go with the scriptures, if we want the truth about the ancient people who were under God.

 

[DRas]

Welcome to the forums.


The Bible tells us at Revelation 12:9 why the spirit of Satan is very strong in these final days.


I would suggest, stick with the scriptures.
If a teaching contradicts the scriptures, reject it.
If you are uncertain, ask questions, and discuss it from a Biblical perspective.
It's important to know what the Bible says, and talk with those who know the scriptures, and who use the scriptures together, rather than picking out one verse, and running with ideas.

An approach I normally take, is to apply the same principle that works for everything - Start from the foundation, and build on it.
I have found that most people tend to ignore the foundation, or demolish them.
Let me explain what I mean.

Jesus spoke of two men that built houses...

He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock. When the flood came, the torrent crashed against that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.​

But the one who hears My words and does not act on them is like a man who built his house on ground without a foundation. The torrent crashed against that house, and immediately it fell - and great was its destruction!”​

Luke 6:48, 49

Though, this apples to doing the will of God, as opposed to not doing it, the principle is, that building on a good foundations allows the structure to stand immovable.
Similarly, when we build on truths in the Bible, we first start with the foundation.
In other words, we build on rock, not sand. So, we first need to establish solid rock, and build on that.

When it comes to the truth about the dead, for example, find solid rock.
Some solid rock is found in scripture, which directly state the condition of the dead. See here, here, and here, for some.

Be careful with the books and commentaries that people refer you to.
They have many interpretations and ideas. Stick with the scriptures.
If you need help finding scriptures, find someone who can point our references to you.
Remember the account at Acts 8:26-40. We need help.

If you have questions, you want answered, from the Bible, feel free to ask.
Thanks for asking.

 

[DRas]

I would recommend. Carl Sagan's book, demon haunted world.

But likewise, I think it's important to understand that the underworld is a normal concept of ancient near Eastern biblical cosmology. Dr. Michael Heiser and Dr. John Walton have a good bit of content on this as well.

I would say it's important to understand something that can be clearly shown to be true.
If it cannot be shown to be true, but is a product of people's belief... especially of persons who believe that their interpretations, which is based on their beliefs, is correct, I would say, reject it, because it is not the truth.

While many cultures believe in some form of immortality of the soul, the Hebrews - the writers of the Bible did not. They believed the soul is mortal. Ezekiel 18:4
It's always best to go with the scriptures, if we want the truth about the ancient people who were under God.

Thank you