A Lesser Known Explanation for Dinosaurs that I found

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Abdicate said:

Do you have a verse for this?

Angels are never said to create.  If anything YOU would have to show from Scripture that they can create.   The Bible never speaks of angels creating anything.   Never says man created anything, either.  The word for create in Hebrew (bara) is unique to God alone.  It is never used in connection to anything man or angels do.

Quote

I do, Gen 6:1-2. Mixing of DNA will achieve this feat.

That is not creation of new life.   God creates life ex nihilo, out of nothing.  That is never something attributed to angels or man. 

Quote

God gave the physical the gift of creating life, so the fallen angels have to use humans. 

Procreation isn't creation

 

Quote

It's how the giants came to be, mixing their DNA with women. We can eat the angel's food, the corn of heaven, Psa 78:23-25, so they have compatible DNA to a degree. Of course you have to believe the word of God means what it says and says what it means.

Yeah, that is some really sloppy hermeneutics.  I believe the Bible which is why I reject your nonsense.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Unteachable heart you have. Good luck.

I am not unteachable.   I am simply not gullible and know the truth.  Since I know the truth, I am not going to buy into your fables.

You cannot show one angel creating anything.   So the problem is on your end, not mine.

[Tristen]

On 15/09/2017 at 4:01 PM, Jude1:3 said:

Good question. Mostly, I assume this because they were abominations created through the fallen angels mixing with regular animals and God didn't want them on the ark for that reason. 

  They very well may have been on the ark though, or at least some of them maybe. 

There is a third explanation, Maybe some of the dinosaurs were legit animals created by God and were brought on the ark but then later became extinct through man hunting them.

I don't consider the book of Enoch to be inspired scripture, though I would be surprised to find that it references "dinosaurs" as abominations. I subscribe to your latter explanation - that dinosaurs were part of God's creation, were brought onto the ark, but have since become extinct. That is consistent with inspired scripture. I see no reason to deviate from that.

[Jude1:3]

3 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I don't consider the book of Enoch to be inspired scripture, 

You really should.

Early Christians did and The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church still has it in their canon:

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

 

Even early Church Fathers spoke of The Book of Enoch being scripture:

 

• Justin Marty wrote in his Second Apology

“But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them“. 

Justin Marty Second Apology

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm

 

•Tertullian and the Book of Enoch
Tertullian, an early church father and founder of Latin Christianity, wrote a few positive things concerning the Book of Enoch. Tertulian writes as follows in his 2nd century work, On the Apparel of Women I 3:1-3.

“I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason for rejecting it, let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s ‘grace in the sight of God,’ (Genesis 6:8) and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of his preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition of things made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
“If Noah had not had this conservative power by so short a route, there would still be this consideration to warrant our assertion of the genuineness of this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
“But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that ‘every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.’ (2 Timothy 3:16) By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that very reason, just like all the other portions nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.” (Jude 1:14-15)

 

• Irenaeus, in his work The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 18, records a condensed retelling of Enoch 6-8. He does this without directly citing the Book of Enoch, yet the citation here is unmistakable.

“And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them: and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness, in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colours and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled.”

http://torahdrivenlife.com/articles/enoch/the-church-fathers-and-the-book-of-enoch/

 

 

 

[Jude1:3]

I just posted the video in the Biblical Video section and I'll post a link as soon as it's available. 

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, Jude1:3 said:

You really should.

Early Christians did and The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church still has it in their canon:

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

 

Even early Church Fathers spoke of The Book of Enoch being scripture:

I never contested that some Christians considered Enoch to be scripture. But it does not meet the accepted standard of canon by anyone but the Egyptian orthodox church. I agree with the conclusion to exclude Enoch as inspired scripture (based mainly on it's exclusion from Jewish canon, but for other reasons as well). I trust that God has delivered to us His Word. If God wanted Enoch in His Bible, it would be there.

[Jude1:3]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

 the accepted standard of canon by anyone but the Egyptian orthodox church. 

That's Ethiopian just so you know. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church

 

Keep in mind that It Was Canon Scripture Before The "Official" Councils that ruled them as Scriptures.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Jude1:3

[Jude1:3]

The Jewish Council of Jamnia (70–90 A.D.) rejected 1 Enoch because it was leading so many Hebrews to The Lord Jesus Christ :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

 

Here's some information on when canon's were finalized:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

[Tristen]

18 hours ago, Jude1:3 said:

Keep in mind that It Was Canon Scripture Before The "Official" Councils that ruled them as Scriptures.

Enoch was not accepted as scripture by all major Christian communities at the time of canonization. To me, that is an important standard. Regardless of why the Jews rejected Enoch as scripture, they did. If God had wanted Enoch to hold the authority of scripture, He would have preserved it for all Christians throughout Christian history - as He did the rest of scripture.

Just to be clear, I don't think Enoch should be rejected outright. It has historical and theological relevance (as attested to by James' usage), but it does not hold the same authority of divine inspiration as do those works contained in the canonized Bible.

 

But back to your main point, does Enoch talk specifically about dinosaurs (or dinosaur-like-creatures) as abominations, or is that something you are reading into the text? It's not meant as a challenge, I'm just curious what it says. The verse you provided above doesn't really make that case. Is there any reason, from Enoch, to assume anything other than dinosaurs were created by God along with the other animals?

[Jude1:3]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Enoch was not accepted as scripture by all major Christian communities at the time of canonization. To me, that is an important standard.

This isn't true. It has always been excepted by The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

Scroll down to the chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon