Genesis 1 Vs Big Bang/String/Inflation and Darwinism

[other one]

Here is some clear/plain scholarship to why Enoch doesn't belong to Scripture

http://www.brainout.net/EnochTest.htm#13

Love, Steven

many of the church fathers disagree and a not so small number of very learned people of today agree with them...

 

As to being equal with scripture, I would not think so, but being untruthful I could not agree with.   i have interface with people who pick the Bible apart the same as this article does  on Enoch...

[enoob57]

 

Here is some clear/plain scholarship to why Enoch doesn't belong to Scripture

http://www.brainout.net/EnochTest.htm#13

Love, Steven

many of the church fathers disagree and a not so small number of very learned people of today agree with them...

 

As to being equal with scripture, I would not think so, but being untruthful I could not agree with.   i have interface with people who pick the Bible apart the same as this article does  on Enoch...

 

Well I am guided to the fact I can only trust Scripture... I can be unguarded with taking

it in and all else is and will remain suspect to me no matter what others and their numbers

say. I am fully vested in the belief I have been 1^st born as enemy of God in a place of the

enemy of God who spreads his superior ability about influencing to remain an enemy of

God. His skill as an enemy are so subtle that those who are under the reliance of his care

do not even realize their status...  Love, Steven

[SavedOnebyGrace]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/22/mummy-mask-papyrus-may-reveal-oldest-known-gospel/

 

This was in the news yesterday but I didn't get a chance to write about it.  But my question is: if this version of the Gospel of Mark from 90 AD differs from the King James Version, what are you going to believe?  To think we now have a first century gospel written while at least one of the apostles was alive (John), I'm excited and looking forward to the translation.

[other one]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/22/mummy-mask-papyrus-may-reveal-oldest-known-gospel/

 

This was in the news yesterday but I didn't get a chance to write about it.  But my question is: if this version of the Gospel of Mark from 90 AD differs from the King James Version, what are you going to believe?  To think we now have a first century gospel written while at least one of the apostles was alive (John), I'm excited and looking forward to the translation.

Just off hand I would think that's a bridge one should be at before any decision would be made.....     we have differences in a dozen translations that we deal with every day......   so I don't see it making a huge thing unless someone wants to use it to defame the Bible.

 

If it differed too much, maybe that's what it's doing in the mask.  LoL

[Enoch2021]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/22/mummy-mask-papyrus-may-reveal-oldest-known-gospel/

 

This was in the news yesterday but I didn't get a chance to write about it.  But my question is: if this version of the Gospel of Mark from 90 AD differs from the King James Version, what are you going to believe?  

 

The Authorized King James Version.

 

Where was the Mummy found?  

 

If it was anywhere near Alexandria (Home of the Gnostics), what makes this any different from The Corrupt: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or Alexandrinus Codices? Which btw....all have the Last 12 Verses of Mark (16:9-20) missing!!  <---- this is what I'll be looking for 

 

Also, the age of something has nothing whatsoever to do with any Veracity thereof.

[other one]

 

 

Here is some clear/plain scholarship to why Enoch doesn't belong to Scripture

http://www.brainout.net/EnochTest.htm#13

Love, Steven

many of the church fathers disagree and a not so small number of very learned people of today agree with them...

 

As to being equal with scripture, I would not think so, but being untruthful I could not agree with.   i have interface with people who pick the Bible apart the same as this article does  on Enoch...

 

Well I am guided to the fact I can only trust Scripture... I can be unguarded with taking

it in and all else is and will remain suspect to me no matter what others and their numbers

say. I am fully vested in the belief I have been 1^st born as enemy of God in a place of the

enemy of God who spreads his superior ability about influencing to remain an enemy of

God. His skill as an enemy are so subtle that those who are under the reliance of his care

do not even realize their status...  Love, Steven

 

I do really hope and pray that you are not assigning that to me because I agree with many of the original founding fathers.......

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/22/mummy-mask-papyrus-may-reveal-oldest-known-gospel/

 

This was in the news yesterday but I didn't get a chance to write about it.  But my question is: if this version of the Gospel of Mark from 90 AD differs from the King James Version, what are you going to believe?  To think we now have a first century gospel written while at least one of the apostles was alive (John), I'm excited and looking forward to the translation.

Just off hand I would think that's a bridge one should be at before any decision would be made.....     we have differences in a dozen translations that we deal with every day......   so I don't see it making a huge thing unless someone wants to use it to defame the Bible.

 

If it differed too much, maybe that's what it's doing in the mask.  LoL

 

True.  I don't even know how complete it is.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just because the book of Enoch is quoted from in the Bible, that doesn't make it inspired.  That's not how inspiration works.   Furthermore, Jesus also quoted from the Talmud.  Should we start claiming that the Talmud is canonical?  Paul quoted from pagan writings.  Should we consider those pagan authors inspired???

 

Biblical writers do often appeal to outside sources, but only for didactic purposes.  They are not claiming, by quoting them, that they are inspired, nor is their quotation from a verse or two of Enoch an endorsement of the book of Enoch as being on par with Scripture.

 

Furthermore, just because the early church fathers believed that this or that book was inspired doesn't mean it was.  Appealing to the early church fathers is an argumentative fallacy known as, "appealing to authority."   It assumes that something is true on the grounds that someone with enough clout accepts it as true.  That is not a reliable basis for determining truth.

 

The reality is that there are certain conspiracies that rely on documents like the book of Enoch.  The assumption seems to be that If it could be shown that Enoch is on par with Scripture, it gives those conspiracies more clout, more credibility.  That's what is really behind the push to put Enoch on par with Scripture.

[other one]

just because you can't consider it inspired doesn't mean it isn't true.....   you guys seem to be saying that there is nothing written in the world that is reality but the Bible....   and that just isn't so...

 

I also read that many of the early church fathers disagree with you, so who am I to believe????

 

What makes you more reliable than Tertullian or Origen?

 

Even though Irenaeus doesn't directly comment on the book, he directly quotes from it.  So what part did he think was quotable and what parts if any are not/??

[Guest shiloh357]

Other one,  your appeal was to the church fathers' belief that it was canonical and Scripture, not that it was true.    I am working from the argument YOU raised.   I am not saying that the Bible is the only true document in the world   Sorry, but that's a straw man. 

 

The early church fathers were wrong on its canonicity and that can be demonstrated given the numerous places where Enoch contradicts the Bible.   It's not a case of my word against theirs.   Scholars have long shown that Enoch simply gets a lot of facts wrong when compared to the Bible.

 

Another thing...   The book of Enoch doesn't have near the historical witness that the Bible enjoys.  We  have far more manuscript evidence for the reliability of the Bible, than we do for Enoch.  That coupled with the fact that Enoch contradicts the Bible in numerous places makes it unqualified to be seen as on par with Scripture.