The Sun Revolves Around The Earth: Scripture Cannot Lie

[The Liturgist]

Which is still 5 1/4 days shorter than an actual year. Enoch was consistently wrong, anyway. You can pretty much depend on anything he said being rubbish.

Also, the actual quote provided from 1 Enoch is "The year is completed in perfect justice, unto eternity", which seems to be an accurate theological statement. As for the preceding parts, use Alexandrian exegesis and don’t read them literally, as 1 Enoch is an apocalypse, like the latter portion of Revelation, clearly not intended for a literal-historical exegesis (the epistles of Christ to the seven churches I do believe have literal-historical exegetical importance, because we know for instance the Nicolaitans were a vile Gnostic cult founded by one of the seven Deacons, the one who went bad, Nicolas, which viewed wives as property and practiced sexual immorality under the pretense of sharing all property in common).

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes I do, unashamedly so, as the foundations are laid down in Enoch which all Torah, the prophets and The New Covenant do not relay again, because once laid, they are used as factual truth and wisdom that does not need to be laid down again by those who write by inspiration of YHVH after that.

Forgive me, but the problem seems to be that you are exegeting it in a literal manner when it is an apocalypse, intended for prophetic exegesis. I must ask, did you think of the Cross or the Eucharist when reading 1 Enoch 24:3-35:7?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I think 1 Enoch does deserve some credit, since it was quoted by St. Jude and is in the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, and parts of it correspond with established doctrine, for example, the four principle archangels Saints Michael, Gabriel, Rafael and Uriel. I think it is meant to be read like the Song of Solomon or to a lesser extent Job or Jonah, or the Revelation of St. John, as a highly metaphorical, spiritual, prophetic, typological apocalypse, using primarily Alexandrian exegesis rather than using the Antiochene Literal-Historical exegesis that is appropriate for, say, Luke-Acts, or the books of Samuel, and the Chronicles and Joshua or Judges (and even these books have aspects which have value if read using Alexandrian exegesis, for example, in 2 Samuel the description of the reign of King David, who was 30 when he became King and ruled all of Israel for 33 years - the ministry of Christ our Lord was between the ages of 30 and 33.

And when we use Alexandrian exegesis, Christological prophecy starts to become apparent in 1 Enoch. For example, let us consider this Pericope, of the Fragrant Tree, from 1 Enoch 24:3-25:1-7

3 The seventh mountain (was) in the middle of these, and it rose above them in height, like the seat of a throne. And fragrant[66] trees encircled it. 4 Among them was a tree such as I had never smelled, and among them was no other like it. It had a fragrance sweeter smelling than all spices, and its leaves and its blossom and the tree never wither. Its fruit is beautiful, like dates of the palm trees.
5 Then I said, “How beautiful is this tree and fragrant, and its leaves are lovely, and its blossoms are lovely to look at.”
6 Then Michael answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me and was their leader,

Ch. 25

1 and he said to me, “Enoch, why do you inquire and why do you marvel about the fragrance of this tree, and why do you wish to learn the truth?”
2 Then I answered him—I, Enoch—and said, “Concerning all things I wish to know, but especially concerning this tree.”
3 And he answered me and said, “This high mountain that you saw, whose peak is like the throne of God, is the seat where the Great Holy One, the Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will sit, when he descends to visit the earth in goodness.
4 And (as for) this fragrant tree, no flesh ahas the right to touch it until the great judgment, in which there will be vengeance on all and a consummation forever. Then it will be given to the righteous and the pious,
5 and its fruit will be food for the chosen. And it will be transplanted to the holy place, by the house of God, the King of eternity.
6 Then they will rejoice greatly and be glad, and they will enter into the sanctuary. Its fragrances <will be> in their bones, and they will live a long life on the earth, such as your fathers lived also in their days,
and torments and plagues and suffering will not touch them.”
7 Then I blessed the God of glory, the King of eternity, who has prepared such things for people (who are) righteous, and has created them and promised to give (them) to them.

Clearly, this pericope, from the translation 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation, is a typological prophecy of the Cross, commonly represented as the Tree of Life, and Christ offering Himself to us in the Eucharist.

In this respect it is similiar to the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, and the related content in Wisdom chapter 2, which are undoubtably prophecies of the Passion of our Lord on the Cross.

So if we read 1 Enoch literally, we get wacky results, much more than just a geocentric model, we would find ourselves with a flat Earth and a land of fire in the West responsible for the Sunset. If we read it as typological Christological prophecy, remembering that all of the Old Testament is about Christ, as He revealed to His disciples at the end of Luke, before being known to them in the breaking of bread (the Eucharist), so for example, Jonah, while I believe it literally happened, is also a prophecy of the three days Christ was confined in a tomb, and a comparison of the humanity of Jonah enfeebled by sim and the humanity of Christ strengthened by His sinlessness, and of the importance of repentence, if we read 1 Enoch using the Alexandrian technique, there is value to it.

The danger is these days, most Christians have forgotten about Alexandrian exegesis, and assume a literal interpretation is intended for everything, when this view is actually disproven by a literal reading of the Gospel According to Luke, and furthermore, when some books like the Song of Solomon only make sense when interpreted as typological prophecy. 1 Enoch is such a book, and it should be stressed, that since the Ethiopian Church was until the 20th century an autonomous church under the omophorion of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, whose Patriarch, or Abune, was appointed by the Coptic Patriarchate, we should expect the Ethiopians read it using Alexandrian technique, since Ethiopia was historically one of the most advanced civilizations of antiquity, and possesses, among other scientific and technical accomplishments (like rock-hewn churches and coffee), the oldest system of musical notation still in continuous use, and would not assume the world was flat or that the Sun set in a firery land, responsible for the sunset (particularly since it was a mathematician in neighboring Egypt who in antiquity determined the approximate curvature of the Earth).

What is very important to mention is that there is no single book of Enoch. It's made up of several parts. And the majority of these parts are quite clearly not earlier than the intertestamental period. It's very obvious that it does not meet the standards of being Scripture and the Word of God. Book 4 especially is quite ridiculous.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Forgive me, but the problem seems to be that you are exegeting it in a literal manner when it is an apocalypse, intended for prophetic exegesis. I must ask, did you think of the Cross or the Eucharist when reading 1 Enoch 24:3-35:7?

Personally, I take up my cross and follow Jesus every day.
When my Adam nature rears up, I die to it, daily, because I identified my old man with my Savior by being dead with His death for me, buried with Him in His burial and resurrected in Him with His resurrection when I obeyed His command to be baptized in water in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
I partake of the bread and fruit of the vine, remembering Him, and as the "Last Supper" with His Apostles was a Passover supper, and aa that is done once a year, we remember it was He, who was the true passover, and celebrate it as Believers, remembering Him.

 

[The Liturgist]

And the majority of these parts are quite clearly not earlier than the intertestamental period.

For those of us in traditional churches, there is no “intertestamental period.” To my knowledge the most recent Old Testament book is Wisdom, which was composed as recently as 60 BC, and chapter 2 of that book is one of the most extraordinary prophecies of the Passion of our Lord.

The idea of an “intertestamental period” is a recent innovation, not found in Patristic writings, because nearly all church Fathers accepted some deuterocanonical books, indeed, of the reformers John Calvin considered Baruch to be protocanonical. The concept is useful as a means of explaining the lapse of time between the most recent book of the 66 book canon of the Masoretic Text and the first book of the New Testament, but I found it, as presented in the KJV Study Bible, which was edited by Premillenial Dispensationalists and thus lacks the deuterocanonical books included in the original KJV (because the Church of England uses them, very effectively, I might add), to be implausible.

Specifically it was argued the books if one read them would seem obviously inferior and uninspired; this is a subjective evaluation and I have not found it to be the case, on the contrary, I prefer the longer versions of Daniel and especially Esther and regard Sirach, Wisdom and Tobit as some of the best material in the Old Testament; I would probably cut out some of the redundant historical books (since the Chronicles, 1 and 2 Samuel, and the Books of the Kings overlap) and/or minor prophets to accommodate the aforementioned “deuterocanonical” books if push came to shove. The other major argument, that we shouldn’t use these books because they were not written in Hebrew, has been disproven by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Now, 1 Enoch is admittedly another matter than the deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Old Testament for all of the early church until the translation of the Vulgate and the completion of the Peshitta in the fourth century, and it is the version quoted in the New Testament. Among major denominations, 1 Enoch is only canonical in the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, which between them have 50 million or so Christians. That said, they are probably the most pious Christians alive, given that they hold 24 hour vigils, standing in church, several times a year, despite severe famine, and they have a genuine piety and intensity of faith which is amazing given the hardships and martyrdoms at the hands of Muslims they are continually subjected to. And there are no strange doctrines in the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches based on 1 Enoch or Jubilees or certain other books being in their Bibles. They are consistent with the Coptic, Syriac, Indian and Armenian Orthodox churches in their worship and beliefs, and very similar to the Eastern Orthodox. They are the salt of the Earth and a light to the world.

The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church is also the ancient church with the highest ratio of members descended from converts from Judaism, since Ethiopia was officially a Jewish country before converting to Christianity, and most Ethiopians converted (some did not, the Beta Israel, but they coexisted peacefully with the Christians until Emperor Haile Selassie was strangled in the Communist coup after he refused to renounce the Christian faith, and the new Marxist-Leninist regime, the Derg, took a leaf from Stalin’s playbook and began a pogrom, but brilliant work by Mossad with some CIA and USAF magic at the end ensured the safe evacuation of the Beta Israel to Israel, although at present, with the Derg having been vanquished to the dustbin of history, like the USSR, the DDR, Yugoslavia and friends, there are a few thousand Beta Israel who are now living in Ethiopia, probably due to racial discrimination they have experienced in Israel.

Lastly, St. Jude did quote 1 Enoch in his Epistle, and that to me is a compelling reason to accept it.

However, 4 Enoch is another matter; no one accepts any of the Enochic books other than 1 Enoch as canonical. Its a bit like the spurious epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans or 1 Barnabas, in terms of credibility, at best. Genuine apocrypha. It might be worse, like the Odes of Solomon, or it might be heretical, like the Pistis Sophia or the Gospel of Judas, or it might be completely wacky, like THUNDER: The Perfect Mind, some weird poem found amidst the Gnostic literature at Nag Hammadi which Ridley Scott is obsessed with.

 

[The Liturgist]

Personally, I take up my cross and follow Jesus every day.
When my Adam nature rears up, I die to it, daily, because I identified my old man with my Savior by being dead with His death for me, buried with Him in His burial and resurrected in Him with His resurrection when I obeyed His command to be baptized in water in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
I partake of the bread and fruit of the vine, remembering Him, and as the "Last Supper" with His Apostles was a Passover supper, and aa that is done once a year, we remember it was He, who was the true passover, and celebrate it as Believers, remembering Him.

Indeed, I am not doubting your faith, or asking how you interpret the sacramental theology of the Lord’s Supper, but rather if you see the connection, which I think is clear, between the Fragrant Tree in 1 Enoch 24:3-25:7 and the Cross, and our Lord’s sacrifice on that, and how partaking of the fruit of that tree refers to partaking of the bread and wine that Jesus said are His Body and Blood, that we are to partake in anamnesis of Him.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

For those of us in traditional churches, there is no “intertestamental period.” To my knowledge the most recent Old Testament book is Wisdom, which was composed as recently as 60 BC, and chapter 2 of that book is one of the most extraordinary prophecies of the Passion of our Lord.

The idea of an “intertestamental period” is a recent innovation, not found in Patristic writings, because nearly all church Fathers accepted some deuterocanonical books, indeed, of the reformers John Calvin considered Baruch to be protocanonical. The concept is useful as a means of explaining the lapse of time between the most recent book of the 66 book canon of the Masoretic Text and the first book of the New Testament, but I found it, as presented in the KJV Study Bible, which was edited by Premillenial Dispensationalists and thus lacks the deuterocanonical books included in the original KJV (because the Church of England uses them, very effectively, I might add), to be implausible.

Specifically it was argued the books if one read them would seem obviously inferior and uninspired; this is a subjective evaluation and I have not found it to be the case, on the contrary, I prefer the longer versions of Daniel and especially Esther and regard Sirach, Wisdom and Tobit as some of the best material in the Old Testament; I would probably cut out some of the redundant historical books (since the Chronicles, 1 and 2 Samuel, and the Books of the Kings overlap) and/or minor prophets to accommodate the aforementioned “deuterocanonical” books if push came to shove. The other major argument, that we shouldn’t use these books because they were not written in Hebrew, has been disproven by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Now, 1 Enoch is admittedly another matter than the deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Old Testament for all of the early church until the translation of the Vulgate and the completion of the Peshitta in the fourth century, and it is the version quoted in the New Testament. Among major denominations, 1 Enoch is only canonical in the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, which between them have 50 million or so Christians. That said, they are probably the most pious Christians alive, given that they hold 24 hour vigils, standing in church, several times a year, despite severe famine, and they have a genuine piety and intensity of faith which is amazing given the hardships and martyrdoms at the hands of Muslims they are continually subjected to. And there are no strange doctrines in the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches based on 1 Enoch or Jubilees or certain other books being in their Bibles. They are consistent with the Coptic, Syriac, Indian and Armenian Orthodox churches in their worship and beliefs, and very similar to the Eastern Orthodox. They are the salt of the Earth and a light to the world.

The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church is also the ancient church with the highest ratio of members descended from converts from Judaism, since Ethiopia was officially a Jewish country before converting to Christianity, and most Ethiopians converted (some did not, the Beta Israel, but they coexisted peacefully with the Christians until Emperor Haile Selassie was strangled in the Communist coup after he refused to renounce the Christian faith, and the new Marxist-Leninist regime, the Derg, took a leaf from Stalin’s playbook and began a pogrom, but brilliant work by Mossad with some CIA and USAF magic at the end ensured the safe evacuation of the Beta Israel to Israel, although at present, with the Derg having been vanquished to the dustbin of history, like the USSR, the DDR, Yugoslavia and friends, there are a few thousand Beta Israel who are now living in Ethiopia, probably due to racial discrimination they have experienced in Israel.

Lastly, St. Jude did quote 1 Enoch in his Epistle, and that to me is a compelling reason to accept it.

However, 4 Enoch is another matter; no one accepts any of the Enochic books other than 1 Enoch as canonical. Its a bit like the spurious epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans or 1 Barnabas, in terms of credibility, at best. Genuine apocrypha. It might be worse, like the Odes of Solomon, or it might be heretical, like the Pistis Sophia or the Gospel of Judas, or it might be completely wacky, like THUNDER: The Perfect Mind, some weird poem found amidst the Gnostic literature at Nag Hammadi which Ridley Scott is obsessed with.

So much error in that amount of text, I don't even know where to begin. And it would be pointless since you just dismiss everything anyway since you don't agree with it. Everyone should really investigate your claims and determine for themselves exactly how trustworthy your post is.

 

[The Liturgist]

So much error in that amount of text, I don't even know where to begin. And it would be pointless since you just dismiss everything anyway since you don't agree with it. Everyone should really investigate your claims and determine for themselves exactly how trustworthy your post is.

If you feel I have made any errors in my post, please do me the courtesy of responding to them. Just earlier today I made a historical error, which a friend of mine noticed, and I corrected it.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Indeed, I am not doubting your faith, or asking how you interpret the sacramental theology of the Lord’s Supper, but rather if you see the connection, which I think is clear, between the Fragrant Tree in 1 Enoch 24:3-25:7 and the Cross, and our Lord’s sacrifice on that, and how partaking of the fruit of that tree refers to partaking of the bread and wine that Jesus said are His Body and Blood, that we are to partake in anamnesis of Him.

I do not see that interpretation. I believe there is a true Tree of Life. I believe it is in the midst of the Garden of God which is in the Mount Eden, in the third heaven, which is where Adam (with Eve) was cast down and out of and prohibited from going back in so as to not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever in cursed flesh, and never able to be elementally changed to the New Man creation bodies made for the glory, undefiled, and so, only cursed and cast into the the Lake of Fire.
I believe the new creation body which Jesus', as God the Word come in flesh is wearing forever, as 2nd Man, Son of God, creation flesh, is the True Mercy Seat which Moses' saw the pattern of, in heaven, and made.
The Mercy seat was made of solid gold, which cannot corrupt.
The body Jesus is come in flesh in, and will wear forever as "Firstborn" Son of God of the 2nd creation human being kind could not see corruption because it had no DNA of the cursed Adam flesh in it -not one single cell, because all flesh of Adam is corrupt.
The Holy Spirit formed a New creation flesh in the womb of a virgin -the legal wife of Joseph- so as to reverse adopt himself into the Adam race, to have the legal right, and the power, as legal Kinsman/Redeemer of the dead in spirit, defiled in flesh Adam, to ransom the earth which Adam sold into Death and Corruption and to cleanse the souls of His brothers born in Adam, and to adopt them into His New Man Name, which Name is "Israel", as to the Firstborn Son of God of human being Kind.
Isaiah chapter 49.
His Name is Israel, not Adam.
His flesh could never corrupt.
His blood was poured out on His body which is the True Mercy Seat.
His blood was sprinkled on the earth, so as to fulfill the Day of Atonement.
Earth is His, now, and He is High Priest of God over it, in the Patriarchal order of Firstborn sons ruling as priests, which Shem, son of Noah, was doing when Abraham met him in Mount Moriah after routing the kings in Genesis 14 -for the king of righteousness (Melche Zedek) in Genesis 14, priest of the Most High God, was Shem, as the ancient histories state.

 

[FredVB]

I believe things without reference being needed to 1 Enoch, which I know some believers go to, with it supporting their no longer using anything from animals, which I know to not do, without that book, as there is all scriptures I have, to go to, for what I will believe. The sun does not actually go around the earth though, any more than God flies above with his wings.

 

[The Liturgist]

Better do your research.

Yeah, I did that. Considering my job is developing software for real time embedded computers used in aerospace and other applications, it is a requirement of my job that I have an understanding of physics.

The geocentric earth was used for those launches.

No, it wasn’t, because the orbital trajectories used for those launches are incompatible with a geocentric model of the Universe or even the Solar System. Indeed, if geocentrism were the case, the gravitational pull of the sun would quickly and dramatically reorient the Solar System to a heliocentric model.

Earth is NOT a planet. Planet means wandering star, and the wandering stars have no light of their own, and their courses/paths are each peculiar to themselves.

You say that Earth is not a planet and then you proceed to give a definition of a planet which precisely describes the Earth (except to the extent that the planets including the Earth do emit a very small amount of non-visible light (not counting artificial light) in the form of radioactive decay and in the case of warmer planets like Earth, Venus and so on, infrared light, also known as heat).

And FYI the Word of God tells us Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still when the sun was near setting, and God heeded Joshua and the sun and moon stood still for very nearly one whole extra day.
It is written in the Book of the Upright (the real book of Jasher, a history book).

There is nothing about that miracle which precludes Heliocentrism, assuming the miracle in question was a literal event and not a Christological or typographical prophecy.

 

[The Liturgist]

There it is again - "not in my opinion". So facts mean nothing in this discussion.

That’s not the case at all. Rather, I prefer to make it clear when I am expressing an opinion versus a factual statement.

 

[BobRyan]

There is nothing about that miracle which precludes Heliocentrism, assuming the miracle in question was a literal event and not a Christological or typographical prophecy.

So "yeah" I agree with your arguments about our "solar system" not the universe - being Heliocentric... but I have a few caveats for that.
1. Back when "heliocentric" was first promoted they thought the universe actually revolved around the sun -- which obviously is not true.
2. I don't think it makes sense to try and turn the battlefield in Joshuah's day into nothing more than a "Christological" prophecy, since battles don't work that way, enemies on the battlefield don't respond well to poetry, and the Bible makes no case for this being anything but literal. What is worse, making the "sun of righteousness" stop or go backward -- is not a good look for Christ who is always depicted as conquering.
3. Given modern science the most obvious way God could produce that effect has nothing to do with the orbit of the Earth around the sun or the orbit of the sun around the center of the Galaxy. The most obvious solution would be to affect the rotation of the Earth where the miracle would focus more on the inertial forces on Earth, magnetic field etc and less on manipulating the sun or the rest of the Universe.

 

[BobRyan]

For those of us in traditional churches, there is no “intertestamental period.”

I would have expected traditional churches to have an "Old Testament" and a "New Testament" ... is that not correct in their case?

Some people claim that "1 Thessalonians, written around 50 A.D." was the first NT book written. If you know of a "traditional church" claiming no gap between OT and NT - then I would have to assume they believe one of the non-NT books was written in 49 A.D. What book would that be? And why wouldn't it be Christians that are writing scripture in 49 A.D.? Why would it be non-Christian Jews writing scripture in 49 A.D.

To my knowledge the most recent Old Testament book is Wisdom, which was composed as recently as 60 BC

Ok so then even in the view you propose that is about a 100 year gap between what you call the OT and what we all call the NT.

 

[BobRyan]

Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam, was taken on a tour of the entire heavens and shown the exact orbits of the sun, moon, and stars/constellations. He wrote their paths all down, as the angel showed him, and he gave the books to Methuselah, his son, to leave for his descendants.

And, FYI: the word of God states that the Creator has "set His temple in the sun".
David wrote it in psalm 18 (19 in AV),
in Hebrew.
Septuagint translated it the same.
Latin Vulgate translated it the same.
Douay Rheims translated it the same.
It is Bible Truth.

1. I am pretty sure there was no writing before the flood.
2. There is no so-called book of Enoch quoted from or mentioned in the OT days of Moses, Isaiah, Malachi etc. And first century Jewish historian Josephus admits that the Jews did not have a Hebrew book/manuscript handed down to them from Enoch.
3. Jude mentions this statement by Enoch - but does not say what the source is for it other than they accepted that Enoch said this -

Jude 1:
14 It was also about these people that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord has come with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage​

 

[The Liturgist]

I would have expected traditional churches to have an "Old Testament" and a "New Testament" ... is that not correct in their case?

We absolutely have an Old Testament and a New Testament. We merely reject the idea of a massive 500 year “Intertestamental Period” which is what certain Bibles like the KJV Study Bible use to gloss over important books they are missing (which are in the original KJV), including vital historical texts like the Books of the Maccabees, which among other things document the Jewish resistance to the wicked Antiochus, and the origin of Chanukah and the Menorah, a trio of moving and prophetic spiritual books (namely Tobit, Judith, Baruch, and The Prayer of Manasseh), and wisdom literature (Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon), which are collectively akin to Job, Jonah, Proverbs, and the Hamesh Megillot (the Five Scrolls, which are Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations and the Song of Songs), and longer, more complete versions of Daniel and Esther.

In particular I would note the Septuagint version of Esther is vastly superior to the Masoretic version, in that prayer is a central theme in it; the Masoretic version in contrast comes across primarily as a Jewish historical narrative, and not only did St. Athanasius not recognize it as canonical, but Martin Luther actively wanted to remove it.

The most recent Old Testament book as far as I am aware is The Wisdom of Solomon, also known as Wisdom, which may have been compiled (primarily from sayings of King Solomon not recorded elsewhere) as recently as 61 BC. It is thrilling to consider, given the prophecy of the Passion of our Lord it contains in chapter 2, that this book was potentially compiled within approximately 90 years of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ Jesus, our Lord, God and Savior. Wisdom ch. 2 is one of my very favorite parts of the New Testament, an opinion I share with several members of CF.com.

So, I suppose you could say we do have a de facto Intertestamental Period, and it is at least 90 years long, but that still covers vastly more ground than the 500 year gap people who reject the Deuterocanonicals call for.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ok so then even in the view you propose that is about a 100 year gap between what you call the OT and what we all call the NT.

Between what the majority of Christians call the Old Testament and the New Testament, yes (the SDA may be fast growing, but the largest denominational groupings are still the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed churches, and the first four of those, plus Continental Reformed churches that follow the Belgic Confession of Faith, accept the deuterocanonicals), and the Oriental Orthodox and Methodists are also quite large and also accept the Deuterocanonicals, not to mention a number of smaller denominations, such as the Old Catholics and the Assyrian Church of the East.

A major goal of my ministry is to promote the Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical Books, because frankly, Christians who reject them are really missing out on some of the most beautiful parts of the written words of God, including many of the most poignant and prophetic Christological prophecies. I would go so far as to say the Deuterocanonicals are probably more valuable than several of the minor prophets, and also given the partial overlap between the Books of Samuel, Kingdoms and Chronicles, and the dry nature of some of the material therein, considering we include those books, and Masoretic Esther, a book seriously proposed for deletion by Martin Luther for reasons not applicable to Septuagint Esther, the omission of the Deuterocanonicals from so many Bibles would boggle my mind.

I say would, except the fact of the matter is that these books, which were historically part of the King James Version, were omitted by printers starting in the late 18th century, because while the Church of England used them extensively, the Church of Scotland and most of the non-conforming Protestant churches (such as Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Unitarians, as well as most Congregationalists) did not, and the latter formed a majority in North America.

 

[BobRyan]

Between what the majority of Christians call the Old Testament and the New Testament, yes (the SDA may be fast growing, but the largest denominational groupings are still the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans
and Reformed churches, and the first four of those, plus Continental Reformed churches that follow the Belgic Confession of Faith, accept the deuterocanonicals),

I think that is your way of saying that SDAs, Baptists, most Presbyterian, all Methodists, evangelicals etc - do not accept the Apocrypha "as scripture" and so have an even wider "intertestimental period" then the 100 year gap of that the traditionalist admit to. That is fine with me because that non-traditionalist group are the ones I run into the most my area of the USA. So I am not bothered by being in what Christianity Today called the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - that sides with the evangelical groups in agreeing on the "wider gap" in intertestimental period.

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"The United Methodist Church The United Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations, do not recognize the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. But they do allow apocryphal books to be read aloud ..."​

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

“That version incorporated a number of works that later, non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90) identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books),” according to Britannica.
​

I say would, except the fact of the matter is that these books, which were historically part of the King James Version, were omitted by printers starting in the late 18th century, because while the Church of England used them extensively, the Church of Scotland and most of the non-conforming Protestant churches (such as Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Unitarians, as well as most Congregationalists) did not, and the latter formed a majority in North America.

from: History of the “Apocrypha” — Classical Christianity.

“Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s!"
​

Those groups that believe Apocryphal books are not part of scripture - call them "the Apocrypha" in those Bibles that include it... and those who believe they are part of scripture call them "deuterocanonical".

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"Those who don’t accept these books as canon call them the Apocrypha apocryphal. But those who do accept them call them the Deuterocanon or deuterocanonical books, meaning “belonging to the second canon.” "
​

=============================

Since I am not sure why this particular discussion has been ongoing in this thread and it looks to be at risk of being "off topic" to me - I have started an "Apocrypha" thread for those interested in this history...

Apocrypha and the "intertestimental gap" between OT and NT

 

[The Liturgist]

I think that is your way of saying that SDAs, Baptists, most Presbyterian, all Methodists, evangelicals etc - do not accept the Apocrypha "as scripture" and so have an even wider "intertestimental period" then the 100 year gap of that the traditionalist admit to. That is fine with me because that non-traditionalist group are the ones I run into the most my area of the USA. So I am not bothered by being in what Christianity Today called the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - that sides with the evangelical groups in agreeing on the "wider gap" in intertestimental period.

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"The United Methodist Church The United Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations, do not recognize the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. But they do allow apocryphal books to be read aloud ..."​

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

“That version incorporated a number of works that later, non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90) identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books),” according to Britannica.
​

from: History of the “Apocrypha” — Classical Christianity.

“Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s!"
​

Those groups that believe Apocryphal books are not part of scripture - call them "the Apocrypha" in those Bibles that include it... and those who believe they are part of scripture call them "deuterocanonical".

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"Those who don’t accept these books as canon call them the Apocrypha apocryphal. But those who do accept them call them the Deuterocanon or deuterocanonical books, meaning “belonging to the second canon.” "​

I was not talking about the United Methodist Church, although it is the case that United Methodist parishes frequently read from the Deuterocanonical books as they are included in the Revised Common Lectionary. Rather, I was referring to Methodism as a whole.

John Wesley’s Sunday Service Book, which is the original Methodist liturgy, quotes from the Deuterocanonical books in its various services, including the Eucharistic liturgy which the Methodists use.

I myself refuse to call the Deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint Apocrypha regardless of who is using them, because I regard them as Scripture, in fact, I consider them to be Protocanon, and I regard certain books from the Ethiopian Bible such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees to be Deuterocanonical, along with Psalm 151 from the Septuagint and Psalms 152-155 from the West Syriac Bible, and also found amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, I begrudgingly refer to the Septuagint books that the Roman Catholics regard as Deuterocanon as such, in order to avoid confusion.

By the way, I would note that my position on the books in the Septuagint all being Protocanonical is basically the same position held by the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the possible exception of Psalm 151 and 3-4 Esdras.

Where I differ from that is in recognizing the Ethiopian Old Testament books and Psalms 152-155 as Deuterocanon, and for my own purposes, when I regard a book as Deuterocanon, all that means is that if it conflicts on a matter of fact with a book I regard as Protocanon, I will regard the Protocanonical book as correct, if, and only if, the apparent conflict cannot be resolved through the use of alternative methods of exegesis and hermeneutics. Much of the Old Testament is meant to be read as Alexandrian typological-Christological prophecy; indeed the entire Old Testament is about Christ, although most of the books contain both a literal-historical layer which should be exegeted using the Antiochene methodology as perfected by Mar Theodore the Interpreter (Theodore of Mopsuestia), and a typological-prophetic later which should be interpreted usinf the Alexandrian approach (as perfected by Origen Adimantius). The most important Church Fathers, such as the Cappadocians, St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, among others, used both exegetical techniques.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

1. I am pretty sure there was no writing before the flood.
2. There is no so-called book of Enoch quoted from or mentioned in the OT days of Moses, Isaiah, Malachi etc. And first century Jewish historian Josephus admits that the Jews did not have a Hebrew book/manuscript handed down to them from Enoch.
3. Jude mentions this statement by Enoch - but does not say what the source is for it other than they accepted that Enoch said this -

Jude 1:
14 It was also about these people that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord has come with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage​

Enoch the prophet wrote about the Lake of Fire, who it was made for, and who will end up there, and and about Sheol below earth, who was there who would go there, and what places there they were held in. There were four separate “hollows” separated for holding the fallen angels in the deepest one, and the slain innocents in one, who cried out for the avenging of their blood and one for the righteous souls to wait in comfort for the day of Atonement and who could not go to Paradise because the Atonement was not yet accomplished…Jesus emptied that place out -set those held captive in the 1st death of separation from the Father since the fall of our first father, The Adam, whose seed we are. Jesus announced the Gospel for them when He descended, and they ascended to Paradise in the 3rd heaven at that time, to wait there for their resurrection bodies made in the image of the New Man, which the dead souls do not get before the rapture of the living saints when He brings them with Him, in the air, to receive their elementally regenerated bodies to live in, and be glorified in, along with the same elemental change of the living saints at that time. Psalm 50 gives a picture ot it.
Jude, womb brother of Yeshua/Jesus said Enoch prophesied. Enoch the prophet was the 7th from Adam, and Jude said he prophesied.
Jude also writes of several things in his short book that are not found in the OT but are found in Enoch.Jude and James/Jacob make use of Enoch’s writings, as their womb brother did, of what Enoch the prophet, the 7th from Adam, wrote.
You would get a good education on the Book of Enoch if you read Robert Burns very researched book with hundreds of footnotes on the history of the Book of Enoch. You can even read it free on his web site. He used to post here as SummaScriptura.
The Book of Enoch Information Website ~ This is your one-stop for Enochan studies!
As far as Josephus you seem to be saying something Josephus did not say. I have Josephus and his book was not about Enoch or what he wrote or did not write.
The Jews were descended from Issac, but before Abraham had Isaac, he lived with Noah and Shem and got his own copy from Noah. Abraham writes about reading the book of Enoch to the Egyptian “wise men” who returned Sarah to him, when they asked him to teach them “wisdom, values and truth”. That is in the DSS scrolls in the Genesis Apocryphon, which is named by the finders of the testaments of the patriarchs in the DSS.
I also know that Josephus wrote that he lived with the group called the Essenes, in modern times, or as the Hebrew name for them is “the sons of Zadok”. They used Enoch extensively, as is proved by the DSS scrolls.
Also there was no “canon” rule for what is inspired or not at the time Jesus our Messiah walked the earth. So the Jews could read and study without some one telling them they could not do so…
The Holy Spirit is the one who inspires men to write, and the canon list men make is not held by consensus agreement by all the different rulers of the churches of the age of the Church. It is the politics of power which cause men to make their lists, change their lists, and fight over their lists.