The Book of Enoch

[Guest shiloh357]

40 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Commonsense indicates that the Earth is quite old.  Many Christians accept and believe this while still taking the Bible literally.  Seen any unicorns lately?

The old earth view is not a literal approach to Scripture.

Unicorns are a one-horned, now extinct species similar to the rhinoceros.

34 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Then I guess you want to remove Genesis and many other books from the 66 books of the Bible because they don't square with your prejudiced interpretation.  You may find this hard to believe, but Jesus, the prophets, patriarchs and apostles did not speak English.  The inspired text is not English.

I can read Hebrew and I know it well enough to know there is nothing in the Genesis account that teaches an old earth.   You cannot get an old earth from the Bible.  Enoch, therefore, not inspired and didn't originate with God.   The 66 books of Scripture are the Word of God and our final authority.  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

18 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

It's more about the canonization of the NT. It's almost nothing to do with the OT canonization. The legitimate authority to canonize the OT is the Jews. The book of Enoch is not in the canon of the Jewish OT as well as the Catholic OT. So it's not part of the canon disregarding how it was treasured by early Christians.

That said, personally I think that it's removed (by God in the end) because the contents are not from a true account of witnessing. It may contain some truth which can be used as a reference though.

The canonization of OT started with King Hezekiah. 17 out of the 22 books in Jewish canon are said to be with a mark of Hezekiah. Some of these 17 books were finally edited by Ezra after the Babylon exile. The book of Enoch is never part of whole process of canonization which last for more than 700 years. 

You will NEVER find one quote from me in any of the tens of thousands writings I posted on multiple sites that even remotely suggests that this document belongs in either the Jewish Testament or the Christian Bible.  I believe it's an interesting book that explains many things that God wanted to keep hidden until these end days.  I am only saying that about 1 Enoch, which is the more reliable of the three books.  That is not to say I consider it part of the Canon.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The old earth view is not a literal approach to Scripture.

Unicorns are a one-horned, now extinct species similar to the rhinoceros.

I can read Hebrew and I know it well enough to know there is nothing in the Genesis account that teaches an old earth.   You cannot get an old earth from the Bible.  Enoch, therefore, not inspired and didn't originate with God.   The 66 books of Scripture are the Word of God and our final authority.  

The Old Earth view is the one explained in Genesis 1:1-1:3 and elsewhere.  I accept God's word over yours.  No offense meant but your views don't mean anything to me compared to God's word.

[Guest shiloh357]

16 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The Old Earth view is the one explained in Genesis 1:1-1:3 and elsewhere.  I accept God's word over yours.  No offense meant but your views don't mean anything to me compared to God's word.

I know enough that the plain reading of Genesis in Hebrew  defies the old earth view.  You can believe the old earth view if you want. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I know enough that the plain reading of Genesis in Hebrew  defies the old earth view.  You can believe the old earth view if you want.  I will believe the Bible.

Quote

I don't know what you believe or say you believe.  I believe God's word and hate to see some of the elect being confused by your narrow interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Quote

Hebrew (/ˈhiːbruː/; עברית‎, Ivrit [ʔivˈʁit] ( listen) or [ʕivˈɾit] ( listen)) is a language native to Israel, spoken by over 9 million people worldwide, of whom over 5 million are in Israel.[7][4] Historically, it is regarded as the language of the Israelites and their ancestors, although the language was not referred to by the name Hebrew in the Tanakh.[note 2] The earliest examples of written Paleo-Hebrew date from the 10th century BCE.[9] Hebrew belongs to the West Semitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family. Hebrew is the only living Canaanite language left, and the only truly successful example of a revived dead language.[10][11]

Hebrew had ceased to be an everyday spoken language somewhere between 200 and 400 CE, declining since the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt.[1][12][note 3] Aramaic and to a lesser extent Greek were already in use as international languages, especially among elites and immigrants.[14] It survived into the medieval period as the language of Jewish liturgy, rabbinic literature, intra-Jewish commerce, and poetry. Then, in the 19th century, it was revived as a spoken and literary language, and, according to Ethnologue, had become, as of 1998, the language of 5 million people worldwide.[3] After Israel, the United States has the second largest Hebrew-speaking population, with 220,000 fluent speakers,[15] mostly from Israel.

Source: Hebrew

So if you're reading a Hebrew account of the flood, you are either reading a copy or something saved over and over again through oral tradition.  I really don't care what you read and claim, I know the truth when I hear it and God's presence inside me in the form of the Holy Spirit separates truth and fiction.  A rhino is a unicorn?  Sorry shiloh357, that just doesn't jive with real history.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

 

  I really don't care what you read and claim, I know the truth when I hear it and God's presence inside me in the form of the Holy Spirit separates truth and fiction.  A rhino is a unicorn?  Sorry shiloh357, that just doesn't jive with real history.

The unicorn image we have of the mystical one horned horse is fiction.  What the Bible refers to as a unicorn is an animal very similar to the modern rhinoceros but with one horn, and I think it was smaller.  Basically it was a now extinct species of the same type of animal.   People have used the verse about the unicorn to criticize a literal interpretation of God's word, without realizing that what the Bible refers to as a unicorn is not the mythical horse we see in modern fantasy images and films.   http://creationtoday.org/why-does-the-bible-mention-unicorns/

Quote

So if you're reading a Hebrew account of the flood, you are either reading a copy or something saved over and over again through oral tradition. 

Yes, but then so are the theologians and linguists that translated the Old Testament into your English Bible.   So if you're making that argument to attack a young earth reading, then that is an argument that cuts both ways and is rather self-defeating.

God inspired and preserved His words in Hebrew and in Greek and in English.  Almost every argument for an old earth is refuted by the Hebrew text of Scripture.

Quote

I believe God's word and hate to see some of the elect being confused by your narrow interpretation of Holy Scripture.

It's not a narrow interpretation at all.  It's the correct interpretation.   Old Earth creationism is really just a compromise with Evolution.   The age of the earth really does make a difference and if the earth is old, it challenges the inerrancy and ultimately the authority of Scripture.

The book of Enoch isn't Scripture and doesn't have the textual witness that the Bible has.   It doesn't point people to Jesus and contradicts God's word if it is supporting billions of years-old earth.  That means it clearly doesn't come from God. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Quote

It's not a narrow interpretation at all.  It's the correct interpretation.   Old Earth creationism is really just a compromise with Evolution.   The age of the earth really does make a difference and if the earth is old, it challenges the inerrancy and ultimately the authority of Scripture.

The book of Enoch isn't Scripture and doesn't have the textual witness that the Bible has.   It doesn't point people to Jesus and contradicts God's word if it is supporting billions of years-old earth.  That means it clearly doesn't come from God. 

I wish people would continue spreading this lie.  Most of us who believe in an Old Earth don't believe in evolution, and neither did a small minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, and that life as we know it today did not always exist. Rabbis who had this view based their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash. For example:

• Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
• Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 9.

I believe the Bible's original autographs are inerrant. 

For Future Reading: Old Earth Creationism

[Guest shiloh357]

13 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I wish people would continue spreading this lie.  Most of us who believe in an Old Earth don't believe in evolution, and neither did a small minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, and that life as we know it today did not always exist. Rabbis who had this view based their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash. For example:

• Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
• Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 9.

I believe the Bible's original autographs are inerrant. 

For Future Reading: Old Earth Creationism

I didn't say you believed in evolution.   It is interesting that you have to go outside the Bible to make an old earth argument, though. 

But the Old Earth view is a compromise with evolution.  It's the evolutionary timescale that Old Earthers accept and the methods for determining the billions of years for the age of the earth are based on flawed methods that are proven unreliable.  There is not one place in Scripture that makes a case for an old earth, and the literal interpretation method doesn't help the old earth case either.   So, science (flawed as it may be) and not the Bible, is the final authority for an old earth.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

12 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Generations of what? I Guess Paul under the guidance of the Holy Spirit had it wrong...

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Genesis 2:7 KJV
[7] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Generations stand for time periods before Adam. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I didn't say you believed in evolution.   It is interesting that you have to go outside the Bible to make an old earth argument, though. 

Not necessary at all.  You just won't accept what's written in the Bible.

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But the Old Earth view is a compromise with evolution.  It's the evolutionary timescale that Old Earthers accept and the methods for determining the billions of years for the age of the earth are based on flawed methods that are proven unreliable.  There is not one place in Scripture that makes a case for an old earth, and the literal interpretation method doesn't help the old earth case either.   So, science (flawed as it may be) and not the Bible, is the final authority for an old earth.

The Old Earth Viewpoint has nothing to do with evolution.  You are spreading a falsehood, a lie, and passing it off as truth and wisdom.  We should agree to disagree and move on.  I am tired of correcting you.  I can put you on Ignore if you prefer.