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.
Actually, there is a problem with the Ethiopic text in that verse. Corrected to a Greek text for Enoch 7:2, the verse says nothing about the stature of the giants, instead, “And they conceived from them and bore to them great giants. And the giants begot Nephilim, and to the Nephilim were born Elioud- and they were growing in accordance with their greatness."
I pasted the part from Eusebius on the genealogy of Joseph by nature and by law, which gives Jesus, as Joseph's legal son, the right to the throne of David. Being the firstborn of the family who opened the womb, Jesus inherits David's throne from Joseph.
Hi Steven
Could you tell me the source of this information you read? I think the only people seriously putting forth that idea are a couple of textual scholars by the name of Nicklesburg and Vanderkam. But they doubt a lot of things about the text of the Bible too. Do you remember where you saw this. A straight reading of the text of Enoch does not say that.
The Book of Enoch, Translated by Robert H. Charles, 1912
Hi Steven
Could you tell me the source of this information you read? I think the only people seriously putting forth that idea are a couple of textual scholars by the name of Nicklesburg and Vanderkam. But they doubt a lot of things about the text of the Bible too. Do you remember where you saw this. A straight reading of the text of Enoch does not say that.
The Book of Enoch, Translated by Robert H. Charles, 1912
If you put the teaching of some "educated" men over what others call the Word of God....... where did these "educated men" get their information and authority to be the "go to" on the things of God?In truth, I do not know you. I am not really saying anything about you, per se, or you personally. In general, there is a great deal of what I would describe as pseudo-intellecutalization of the Scriptures that comes from those who make an idol of them. The Scriptures are writings, ancient writings. Jesus didn't leave Scriptures, he left a Church. Before that, among the Jews, he left a priesthood. In both cases, God revealed himself through prophetic priests. Some of what they said was written down, much of it was not.
I understand the desire to privilege the written word over the institutional word, but I do not believe that God intended this. I certainly don't believe that God intended to leave everything up to the untrained and untutored scholarly and legal skills of individuals.
In any case, this is THE divide between your religion and mine. Yours goes back to some late medieval guy who had the absurd and ridiculous pretension that the plowboy could read and understand difficult writings as well as the consecrated clergy. THAT is why we end up with the pseudo-intellectualism of today.
It's not very interesting. You say that we both know exactly what the Scriptures are, but we do not. The authority that you believe reposes in Scripture, I do not. That authority was given by God to the Church (and to the High Priest of the Temple before the Church). God never vested that authority in a set of scrolls, and the set of writings cannot usurp the authority that God gave to the institution.
There can never be any meeting of the minds on this. All there can be is increasing levels of verbal abuse. The Scriptures are not the highest authority. The Church is. You will say the opposite. Because what I say on this score seems as obviously absurd to you as what you say is patently absurd to me, all we can do is circle each other and jab at each other until we finally get angry. And what good is that?
Since the Reformation there has been, and there remains, a deep seated animosity and increduilty across the Protestant/Catholic divide. This cannot be repaired and it cannot really be bridged, any more than the theological divide between Jews and Christians can ever be fully bridged. In the end, Christianity is Jewish blasphemy, and Judaism is the denial of the one true Christian God.
All that Jews and Christians can do, to get along, is to not speak very deeply about religion. To find common points and choose to live alongside each other on the common points, because if one goes any deeper, one encounters the frank blasphemy of the other, followed by abuse for it.
This is no less true of Catholics and Protestants, or Protestants and the Orthodox, or Catholics and the Orthodox. We are not of different religions because of trivial things. We are of different religions because of profoundly important things, things that cannot and will not ever be compromised.
We can cooperate as long as we don't delve into them, but if we MUST delve into them, then the truth is that we each think that the other two are some from of stubborn and arrogant heretic.
We really DON'T see God the same way at all, and we don't see the same path TO God. We can feign that we do, to keep the peace, but when it comes right down to it, when pressed, the amity falls apart and the real, serious, differences in theology lead to hostility and, ultimately, outright abuse and warfare.
You spent a paragraph and a few posts telling me I'm wrong. I'm not, you are. Your whole way of looking at God and the world is cracked and deficient. It's as obvious to me as what is obvious to you about my way is obvious to you. There's no amount of spinning words that can fix that. Protestant and Catholic are as different as English and French, or Arab and Jew, or Southerner and Yankee - and the lengthy history of warfare and enmity is something that can be let alone, but it is never forgotten, and each's latent sense of superiority over the other remains, and is kindled anew when things become fraught.
Look over the pages of Christian Forums, and you do not see brothers striving together towards the light. You see brothers striving like Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau. We, you and I, have not been brought closer at all by our attempt to communicate. You've told me in various ways why my view of God and his revelation is deficient. And I just shake my head and wonder why in the world you think you're so smart about such things, such that you really believe that you have any capacity to lecture me, a Catholic, about any of it at all.
There is nothing good coming out of any of this. All the moreso on a thread in which a book that was rejected by the Catholic AND Orthodox (except for Ethiopian) AND all the Protestant Churches long ago.
There is apparently a deep-seated desire among many Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox to take up the sword of our ancestors and refight and relitigate the sources of division between us. In the past, nobody won. In the present, nobody won. I suppose we are paying it forward into the future, making certain, by our present obnoxious conduct, that Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant cannot and do not stand together, or like each other, or respect each other. That way, in our angry disunity, we can all slide into the mouth of Islam and secularism. But if that is the way it is to be, then that is the way it is to be. Most Protestants would rather be secular than Catholic, and back in the day the Orthodox frankly said "Better the turban of the Sultan than the miter of the Pope", and so that's exactly what they got - and given all of the history since, they would probably choose the same thing again.
The differences between our religions are unresolvable. We're not going to resolve them by fighting with each other. I'm of a mind to just drop it, because if I reply point by point to what you have written, I have to attack YOU, because the particular nature of Protestantism is that all of the earnestly held beliefs come from the logic and reasoning of just one mind - each particular Protestant - so it's really your mind against mine - every single time - when a Protestant talks to a Catholic. In general, Catholics don't find Protestants to be very smart, so it doesn't get anywhere but to a fight.
And why bother? It's too early and takes too much energy. And nobody ever convinced anybody of anything that way.
So let's go our separate ways. My lesson learned is what I already knew: communication across religious lines is a useless, pointless, aggravating effort best left alone. Your lesson learned is whatever you've learned by it. I won't characterize.
Thank you for that.Actually, there is a problem with the Ethiopic text in that verse. Corrected to a Greek text for Enoch 7:2, the verse says nothing about the stature of the giants, instead, “And they conceived from them and bore to them great giants. And the giants begot Nephilim, and to the Nephilim were born Elioud- and they were growing in accordance with their greatness."
Eusebius is telling you what the Word of God teaches on the Law which Moses gave, about the first born son of a second husband to a barren widow. The legal heir to the deceased first husband of a barren widow is the firstborn son of the second husband, which husband is the next of kin who marries the barren widow and raises up his natural first son as the legal son of the deceased, with all the rights of the law for the inheritance.Eusebius had an opinion. Why is his opinion to be given weight?
The same reason in your Bible the translators weigh the relative reliability of the texts they use in translation work. There are quite a few criteria for deciding which text is more reliable.And why would some Greek text found somewhere be the "correct" text while the Canonical Orthodox text be the wrong one?
Of the 5 or 6 traditional canonical lists of the books of the Bible which exist in our world today, to which do you subscribe?Enoch isn't canon for a reason.
I have a copy. After I read your post I tried to find that passage and could not. Do you know which one it is?This is the version I was reading at the time..
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800636945/
It was written by Nicklesberg. That might be why it said it.
Once again, the language, even our language, works as though the sun was moving relative to the earth when in fact the opposite is true. We still say "the sun rose", because it's easier than saying that the earth revolved until the sun was visible above the horizon.Well according to the heliocentric model the sun is stationary but, for some reason God stopped the sun from moving when Joshua commanded it to. Surely God would have corrected Joshua by telling him that He needed to tell the earth to stop moving.
Maybe because it's chockablock with stuff that is observably false.And why would some Greek text found somewhere be the "correct" text while the Canonical Orthodox text be the wrong one?
Enoch isn't canon for a reason.
The problem is with the stuff that "Enoch" said that just isn't true. How many lies can a document contain and still be considered a prophetic revelation from God?Enoch was a prophet whom they had access to and which the scholarly, like Paul, and the spiritual, like Jesus' womb brothers and Mary and Joseph had, and read, in their home.
True. We speak from our perspective which is earthbound. Its not wrong, just relative to our perspective.Once again, the language, even our language, works as though the sun was moving relative to the earth when in fact the opposite is true. We still say "the sun rose", because it's easier than saying that the earth revolved until the sun was visible above the horizon.
Well according to the heliocentric model the sun is stationary but, for some reason God stopped the sun from moving when Joshua commanded it to. Surely God would have corrected Joshua by telling him that He needed to tell the earth to stop moving.
Primarily because we can observe that in fact ths earth revolves around the sun. The writers of Scripture speak, as even we do, as though the sun moves relative to the earth instead of the other way around. Had they the power, as we do, to actually see how God designed the universe, they might have worded it differently. Then again they may not have, because we still say "the sun rose" because that's how it looks. <Laugh>Yes, it amazing that the men who deny the Word of God from Enoch to Genesis to Revelation, on the clear fact of the Word that the sun revolves around the earth
They did not word it of themselves, they wrote under the power of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus created it all, and knew Who He was, from the beginning, and also stated the truth of the sun rising.Primarily because we can observe that in fact ths earth revolves around the sun. The writers of Scripture speak, as even we do, as though the sun moves relative to the earth instead of the other way around. Had they the power, as we do, to actually see how God designed the universe, they might have worded it differently. Then again they may not have, because we still say "the sun rose" because that's how it looks. <Laugh>
Actually, if you ever read Enoch, you would see that he indeed visited the north, and the east and south and the west, and saw many things. He saw the stars that never set. He saw the breadth of the outstretched earth, where the Garden is, and he saw the throne of God who was to come and is come, in flesh, which is a very high mountain whose summit is of sapphire.BTW, "Enoch" appears to believe that days are the same length everywhere in the world at the same times of year. You'd think a prophet, being personally instructed by an angel, no less, would have known better. I vaguely recall a week in Greenland a few decades ago during which the sun never properly went down at all, and I believe that's normal there. I guess poor old Enoch never ventured that far north, but it does seem like his angelic interlocutor would have 'splained that for him while he was blathering about "portals" and similar nonsense.
No. Its from the 49th parallel.BTW, "Enoch" appears to believe that days are the same length everywhere in the world at the same times of year.
Thanks to SummaScriptura for bringinig up a point that reminds me of something I want to elaborate on....BTW, "Enoch" appears to believe that days are the same length everywhere in the world at the same times of year. ...
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?