- This topic has 284 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 21 2006,06:16) an article from here ; http://www.sherryshriner.com/church-coverup.htm Since it's English translation in the 1800's from texts found in Ethiopia in 1768, The Book of Enoch (known today as 1st Enoch) has made quite a stir in academic circles. 1 Enoch has been authenticated as existing and in wide use before the church age (most scholars now date it at 200 BC). Multiple copies were discovered in 1948 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This of course has caused many to wonder why it is not included in modern Bibles…
“Thou has seen what Azazyel has done, how he has taught every species of iniquity upon the earth… Samyaza also has taught sorcery… They have gone together to the daughters of men, have lain with them… The women likewise have brought forth giants…”
Enoch 9:5-8Particular to this site, parts of The Book of Enoch tell the story of wicked angels who abducted and mated with human women, resulting in the hybrid race known throughout secular and Biblical history as the Nephilim (giants, KJV).
While this account encompasses only the first four verses of Genesis 6 (but see also Genesis 3:15, 2 Peter 2:4-6, Jude 6-7), Enoch 1 relates this story in great detail. It lists the names of 18 “prefect” angels – of 200 – who committed this sin. According to the text, these angels also taught mankind the “making of swords and knives, shields and breastplates (metallurgy); … magical medicine, dividing of roots (medicinal and hallucinogenic use); incantations, astrology, the seeing of the stars, the course of the moon, as well as the deception of man.”
By Noah's time, “The earth also was corrupt (wasting – KJV notation) before God, and the earth was filled with violence… all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Gen 6:10-11. Afraid of the consequences, these angels appeal to Enoch to intercede with God on their behalf; God instead uses Enoch to deliver a message of judgment against them. Aside from the “taking of wives,” God states that he would not forgive them for teaching mankind magical arts and warlike ways. As summarized by Pastor Chris Ward:
“According to the Book of Enoch (Not a Canonical Text), God judged the angels for producing the Nephilim. God decreed that the fallen angels (Watchers) were to be cast into Tartarus. The Nephilim were also judged and it was determined that their bodies were to return to the earth in peace but their souls were doomed to wander the earth forever (as) wandering spirits…” (Visit Pastor Chris's Enoch page which reprints this dialogue between God and Enoch, and The Origin of Demons for more.)
The increasing acceptance and popularization of this important book among theologians helps cast light on the extra-terrestrial hypothesis (ETH) in general. Enoch is an ancient writing which states that angels (not true space aliens, as stated by many UFO cults, and popular modern authors Erich Von Daniken and Zechariah Sitchin) visited ancient Earth and polluted mankind's DNA. While this case can easily be made solely from the canonized Bible (see Relevant Bible Verses), Enoch is yet another witness against these bad interpretations of Earth's predelulvian era (i.e., before the flood of Genesis 6). The fact that they also gave mankind technology which supposedly “advanced our race” (but which we actually used to destroy each other, and to incur God's judgment), lends itself to a more sinister understanding of today's UFO phenomenon…
Genesis 6 / Book of Enoch
Today / Any episode of the X-FilesSupernatural Beings identified as angels Supernatural Beings identified as ET's
Took as wives “any whom they chose” Abduction Phenomenon
Hybrid Race of Nephilim Missing Fetuses, Hybrids, Cloning
Introduced Destructive Technology: Weapons of Warfare / Psychotropic Drugs / Astrology & Sorcery Hitler's Foo Fighters / Roswell Crash / “Back-engineering” of Stealth Bombers, etc / Occult Arts, New Age Doctrines
Worshipped as Gods (Annanuki) /
Nephilim hybrids were “heroes of old, men of renown…” Gen 6:4 – the factual basis for Greco-Roman deities Zechariah Sitchin / UFO Cults / Immunity for Abduction Crimes /
Called “Spirit Guides, Ascended Masters and/or “Space Brothers”
“And the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the Earth … but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Genesis 6:7-8
“As it was in the days of Noah,
so shall it be at the coming
of the Son of Man…”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 24:37FAQ:
What other evidences for Enoch's authenticity (as a sacred text) are there?
Why isn't it in the Bible today?
Jesus said that angels can't have sex, proving this book's falsehood…The idea that Jesus said that angels cannot have sex is a very common objection to The Book of Enoch and the angelic understanding of Genesis 6 in general. However it is also a very common misinterpretation of what he actually said. Go Here to read what he said (Matt 22:30), and to study this topic. Beyond that misunderstanding, there is no doubt today that The Book of Enoch was one of the most widely accepted and revered books of Jewish culture and doctrine in the century leading up to Jesus' birth.
It is usually noted first that New Testament author Jude directly quotes from 1 Enoch – “Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgment …” (1 Enoch 2, Jude 14-15). Additionally, “the citations of Enoch by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs… show that at the close of the second century B.C., and during the first century B.C., this book was regarded in certain circles as inspired” (1).
Aside from Jude, Peter and Paul's affirmations of the angelic/hybrid interpretation, recognition of 1 Enoch “… is given amply in the Epistle of Barnabus, and in the third century by Clement and Irenaeus” (1). The Catholic Church's Origen – known as “the father of theology” – affirmed both the Book of Enoch and the fact that angels could and did co-habitate with the daughters of men. He even warned against possible angelic and/or Nephilim infiltration of the church itself. Oddly, while thousands of his writings are still considered by them as “sacred,” this very issue got him labeled as a heretic when the faulty Sons of Seth “doctrine” was conceived! (2)
Additionally, the Coptic Orthodox Churches of Egypt (est'd appx 50-100 A.D.) still include Enoch as canonized text in the Ethiopic Old Testament (2). This fact alone should carry great weight for Western Christians when honestly studying the “case” for Enoch. Given their 1900+ year history, the fact that they were never “ruled” by Rome's theology, and that they currently number over 10 million – this is a VERY significant portion of The Body of Christ that has historically esteemed 1 Enoch as inspired doctrine.
Some today (who do not seem to believe in the inspiration of scripture) claim that most major themes of the New Testament were in fact “borrowed” from 1 Enoch. “It appears that Christianity later adopted some of its ideas and philosophies from this book, including the Final Judgment, the concept of demons, the Resurrection, and the coming of a Messiah and Messianic Kingdom” (3). No doubt, these themes are major parts of 1 Enoch, and appear there as complete theologies a full 200 years before any other NT writings.
Christian author Stephen Quayle writes, “Several centuries before and after the appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, this book had become well known to the Jewish community, having a profound impact upon Jewish thought. The Book of Enoch gave the Jews their solar calendar, and also appears to have instilled the id
ea that the coming Messiah would be someone who had pre-existed as God (4).” Translator RH Charles also stated that “the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than all of the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books put together” (3). The conclusions are somewhat inescapable given Enoch's dating and wide acceptance between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. – either Christian authors, and especially the Nicene Council, did plagiarize their theology directly from Enoch, or the original version of Enoch was also inspired.James H Charlesworth, director of Dead Sea Studies at Yale University, says in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha & The New Testament (Trinity Press International),
“I have no doubt that the Enoch groups deemed the Book of Enoch as fully inspired as any biblical book. I am also convinced that the group of Jews behind the Temple Scroll, which is surely pre-Qumranic, would have judged it to be quintessential Torah — that is, equal to, and perhaps better than, Deuteronomy….Then we should perceive the Pseudepigrapha as they were apparently judged to be: God's revelation to humans(2 & 5).”But perhaps the most telling argument for 1 Enoch's “inspiration” may well be that the Jewish understanding of the term “Son of Man” as a Messianic title comes – not truly from our Old Testament canon – but from the Book of Enoch! Ever wonder why Jesus refers to himself in the gospels as the “Son of Man” rather than the Son of God? (2) Of over 100 uses of the phrase “son of man” in the OT, it refers almost always to “normal” men (93 times specifically of Ezekiel, and certainly not as Messiah!), but is used only one time in the entire OT, in one of Daniel's heavenly visions, to refer to divinity. Despite the Old Testament's frequent lack of divine application of the phrase, 1 Enoch records several trips to heaven, using the title “Son of Man” unceasingly to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ. Of particular Messianic significance, Enoch describes the following scene (2):
The angels “glorify with all their power of praise; and He sustains them in all that act of thanksgiving while they laud, glorify and exalt the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and ever… Great was their joy. They blessed, glorified and exalted because the name of the Son of Man was revealed to them (1 Enoch 68:35-38).” Both His disciples, and especially the Sanhedrein knew what Jesus was claiming – 84 times in the gospels! – when referring to Himself as the “Son of Man.” This claim was considered an obvious blasphemy to the Pharisees & Saducees, but it is eternal life to all who confess that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, the Son of Man, The Messiah, God in the flesh, The Holy One of Israel, God's Christ – the Lord of All to whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:8-10).
Using “normal rules” of scriptural interpretation, we are never to draw firm doctrine from only one passage of scripture. Right? Daniel's single use of “Son of Man” (in a “night vision” at that – Dan 7:13), would not be sufficient to claim that the phrase is indeed Messianic, especially given the other 107 times it is not used in that way. 1 Enoch is the missing “second witness” needed (according to all other rules of interpretation) to understand the phrase's double meaning as an enduring Messianic title. It has been argued ever since Enoch's first English translation, that by using this title so familiar to the Jews, Jesus was actually affirming the truth of this book, that the prophet was taken on many trips to heaven before his “final” translation, and that HE WAS THE ONE whom Enoch saw there – the pre-existent Son of Man, whom Enoch prophesied would judge the souls of all men.
Interestingly, Daniel is ALSO the only OT use of the term “watcher” to ever refer to angels (Daniel 4:13, 17, 23 KJV). Strong's Concordance defines a watcher as a “guardian angel” (Strong's 5894). “The distinguishing character of the Watcher (opposed to other angels in the canon) appears to be that it spends much time among men, overseeing what they are doing. It is also interesting to note that both times one of these angels appeared to Daniel, he took pains to note that it was “an holy one,” suggesting that some Watchers are not aligned with God while others are (4).” Found nowhere else in the OT canon but the book of Daniel, “watcher” is patently Enoch's term for these angels. Likewise, Daniel alone used Enoch's term “Son of Man” to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ, adding further intrigue to the case for 1 Enoch's inspiration, and an overall understanding of it's doctrinal acceptance among both Old and New Testament writers.
What we lose out on today by not examining 1 Enoch – even if only for its historical significance – is that it is actually more splendid than ANY OTHER book in our canon in its exultation of Christ as King! It also gives clear, stern and oft-repeated warnings to the unsaved of swift destruction at the Coming of The Lord, but is also full of amazing promises of future glory for the elect! We are of course wise to stay clear of dangerous heresy, but… ask yourself if the below sounds like false doctrine? Keep in mind, this was written at least 200 years before Christ walked the earth, and perhaps before Noah's birth:
Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth,
glorify Him who has dominion over all things, Him who was concealed;
for from eternity the Son of Man was concealed,
whom the Most High preserved in the presence of
His power and revealed to the elect.He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect;
and all the elect shall stand before Him in that day.
All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule
over the earth shall fall down on their faces before Him,
and shall worship Him.
They shall fix their hopes on this Son of Man…Then the sword of the Lord of Spirits shall be drunk from them (the lost);
but the saints and the elect shall be safe in that day; nor the face
of the sinners and the ungodly shall they thence-forth behold.
The Lord of Spirits shall remain over them;
And with this Son of Man shall they dwell, eat, lie down,
and rise up for ever and ever…Enoch 61:10-13
Literally Translated from the Ethiopic by Richard Laurence LL.D.
Archbishop of Cashel
Late Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford———————–
“For more than a century, scholars and church officials debated as to whether or not certain gospels, epistles and apocalypses should be included. For instance, it was long debated which to include in the canon, the Book of Revelation, or the Book of Enoch…”
Liberty Magazine – December 7, 1935 (1)OK! OK! So why is it not in the Bible?
Uncertain as well as multiple authorship, and several slightly varying texts are among the main reasons cited for Enoch not “making it” into the generally recognized canon. In truth, the spiritual agenda(s) of the early Roman Church is most likely the ultimate reason however, and we will examine this agenda here as well. Let's begin with the first two though, before moving to the more incredulous, but quite valid “conspiracy theories.”
“The Book of Enoch, like the book of Daniel, was originally written in Aramaic, and partly in Hebrew (1).” While there may have been Hebrew translations during the centuries B.C. (which early church leaders may or may not have had access to), today only the Ethiopic manuscripts exist, as well as some incomplete Greek and Latin translations, plus one Aramaic fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls. By the time of Jesus' birth, “average” Jews were reading mainly the Greek Septuagint translation of their own Torah (completed 200 B.C.), as a result of their years of foreign captivity and then-current Roman occupation. To coin the vernacular, they had been assimilated. So unless an authentic Aramaic version appears miraculously today, there will never be any completely
indisputable way to argue for a modern “canonization” of 1 Enoch, as the originals are lost, probably forever.The honest problem facing the infant Roman Church of 390 A.D., when first assembling today's Bible, was that the existing copies of 1 Enoch varied, albeit in minor ways. “Unlike the (rest of the) Bible which was carefully copied and checked for errors by Jewish and Christian scribes throughout its history, The Book of Enoch is available in a number of ancient manuscripts that differ slightly from one another… and many errors have crept in… There is no way of knowing which versions are (exactly faithful to) the original and which are the errors. While this doesn't change its stories in any substantial manner, it does make it impossible to anchor beliefs or arguments on any given section… (4).”
Even to those who will rightfully argue that Enoch was unjustly banned, this alone IS a legitimate reason to exclude it from the holy writ. When faced with the task of declaring what is and what is not the “inspired, infallible Word of God,” erring on the side of caution and certainty must be the case every time! (Only those who do not believe in the divine inspiration, and modern integrity, of scripture will be dissatisfied with this reasoning. That topic is too far off the subject for this writing, but please at least read this before writing me nasty notes. Also, here's a great site with a history of the English Bible from 500 B.C. to present, for those interested.) So, while 1 Enoch is almost beyond doubt an “inspired” text, the translated copies available (presumably) in 390 A.D., and especially those we have today, could not with any certainty also be classified as “infallible.”
Another less important but quite “legitimate” issue is that 1 Enoch is actually a collection of at least four different “books,” possibly written by various authors over many centuries, and possibly not by the true Enoch of Genesis 5.
The Artisan Publishers' introduction to The Book of Enoch says “there can be no shadow of doubt” that there is a diversity of authorship and perhaps even time periods represented across the span of 1 Enoch, but that there is also “nonetheless, uniformity.” They attribute this to the very possible idea that as God raised up prophets (after Malachi…?), they published under the safety of a revered pseudonym, to avoid persecution and possible death at the hands of the religious powers-that-were, who wanted no “fresh words” from God (1). This could well be the case, but would make the book(s) of Enoch no less inspired of God if true. However, only the NT Book of Hebrews (written centuries closer to the Bible's assembly, with multiple matching manuscripts) has been accepted as canon with such uncertain authorship – without even a good solid guess agreed upon, that is.
Since “the real” Enoch of Genesis 5 was transported to heaven – permanently – it would be no stretch to imagine that it was also a normal experience during his lifetime. After all, the Bible says he walked with God for 300 years! (Genesis 5:22) The first 36 chapters (detailing the watchers' fall) are sometimes only reluctantly attributed to Enoch (given their pre-deluvian history), but there are varying theories regarding the rest of the book(s). For much of the 1800's, it was argued that the remaining chapters were actually the work of an early Christian scribe, but these claims were decisively put to rest with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as were JT Milik's claims that chapters 37-71 were Christian. Charlesworth says “The consensus communis is unparalleled in almost any other area of research; no specialist now argues that I Enoch 37-71 is (written by a first-century) Christian and (that it) postdates the first century… (2) and (5).” With this in mind, we must again face up to the very real dilemma of stating that that either the entire New Testament was “drawn” in a natural, secular way from 1 Enoch – with no supernatural inspiration – or that 1 Enoch and The New Testament are both from God.
It is also considered that possibly a single author assembled older prophets' inspired works around 200 B.C. and simply added Enoch's name to them all, to ensure widespread acceptance – “Hardly a practice that inspires confidence in the text (4).” But in reality, it is no secret academically that certain canonized OT books, as well as Mark's gospel, may have been originally written by another – or even multiple – inspired author(s) and later were also assembled under the inspiration of God by a single author, who put either his own, or the original author's name, to the work. For example, most agree that Moses actually wrote Job's story from other existing texts (or that he knew him personally), before he even wrote Genesis. Most of the Major Prohets and historical books contain clear breaks in the time period, and were finally assembled many years later – as the author “was carried along by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 2:21).” Christians need to get over the idea that “inspiration” means the writer went into some mystical trance, while God “possessed them” and wrote the Bible. Inspiration simply means they were obedient to God's leading, and wrote what He said OR supernaturally revealed to them, or even that he guided their research, helping them discern truth from error, for the purpose of writing “an orderly account (Luke 1:3).” Here, Luke states that his gospel was an extended research project!
In that vein, I.D.E. Thomas has recently suggested one other possibility perhaps not considered in academic circles before the 1986 publication of The Omega Conspiracy. “Thomas suggests that the compiler may have written his book from texts originally written by Enoch himself. In such a case it would make perfect sense for the compiler to attach Enoch's name to the book for which he had provided the material (4) and (6).”
Even with all of this said, there is still no “clean” explanation for Enoch's 1000-year disappearance from even popular literature though. Despite the above reasons for not canonizing the book, it is painfully apparent that the church did in fact supress The Book of Enoch. Only in studying both the goals and motives – positive and negative – of the Roman Church do the truest reason for Enoch's “fall from grace” become apparent.
(But despite the arguments presented here, please note that I have no intention of bashing the early Roman Catholic Church. Always remember, they have done the world an incredible service by assembling and preserving God's Word for the 1600+ years yet to follow. To make a distinction, the greatest sins and travesties they often stand accused – and guilty of – were not the work or intent of the earliest Church fathers, but of the corrupt political system that grew up in the centuries after the Roman system's formation. “It was not until hundreds of years later (5th – 7th centuries), that the first vestiges of this church government rose where there was a Roman bishop as the head of the Church, making it an official Roman Church functioning similar to today's.” (7))
Realistically however, there was also a “point” to the canon. The goal and even eternal function in assembling the earliest Bibles was NOT merely sorting out what was inspired of God and what was not. They also had the specific intent of promoting and preserving a solid doctrinal foundation for all believers in Christ. Like Paul, they had to passionately argue against Gnosticism – “the doctrine of salvation by knowledge (8),” or the idea that gaining “superior” and/or “hidden” knowledge ensures one some higher spiritual position – opposed to a simple obedient faith in Christ.
Arguing for 1 Enoch's “proper place” today, one (seemingly) Gnostic apologist states “Enoch had found and experienced God face-to-face, something which Gnostics strive for. The Church opposed Gnostics… Experiencing God was taboo… Putting a stamp of approval on such a wild tale (Enoch) would have too many people belie
ving that they could experience God for themselves, instead of going into a church and being told what to believe… Those who experienced visions or personal insights became dangerous to the church. They could lead people astray by supporting independent thought and actions (3).” It's quite difficult to seriously consider this argument however, in light of the fact that a more common criticism of Catholocism is that they “worship,” or at least perhaps TOO highly esteem, those who have had profound mystical experiences with God! For that matter, the Bible is NOTHING BUT a collection of “those who experienced visions or personal insights.” It would quite a thin book if all such stories were left out!The truth is that Gnostics “strive(d) for” experiencing God without knowing and submitting to Christ or His Body, the church. Even today, the wish to “experience God face-to-face” without Christ's mediation (1 Timothy 2:5) is not just an honest effort to avoid false religion (of which there is much), but to not submit to any spiritual authority at all – whether it be God's Church, God's Word or even God's Christ! It should always be kept in perspective that “the church” was not Rome's, or even man's idea. Jesus said “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mt 16:18).” The early church rightly opposed Gnosticism, but beginning with Paul's letters, not with the Roman Church. Many who passionately promote (or just reprint and sell) 1 Enoch today do so not with the intention of promoting a deeper faith in God's inspired Word, but more with the intent of undermining the Bible's authority – and especially the church's. 1 Enoch's clear historical integrity but “lack of inclusion in the Bible” is often used to “springboard” arguments for other “favorite” heretical books, left out for all the right reasons. Modern Gnostics are often fond of several other “gospels” (such as Thomas and Mary, both of which have statements and theologies that clearly contradict the more reliable works by John, Matthew, et al, proving they were NOT inspired by God). In short (oops – too late for that!), the typical Gnostic and New Age arguments have nothing to do with why The Book of Enoch was not included in the Bible, or not preserved with other ancient works. (The true “reasons why” are actually more sinister…)
The forming church also had to publicly refute and stand against (from within!) the heresy of modalism, which in part suggests that Jesus Christ is a created being – eternal nonetheless, but inferior in substance to God the Father. The Council of Nicea was expressly interested in making sure that the doctrine of the Triune Godhead was clearly expressed by the canon, and especially that it would not be misunderstood by those who would read the Scriptures. Another “motive” was to refute “Pneumatomachians – who accepted the deity of Christ but said the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force… And so it was, and we are indebted today to a 4th century Luther that stood up to define the nature of Christ and God against a flood of falsehood (8).”
To be honest, in reading Enoch there seems to be in the multitude of heavenly trips a physical distinction sometimes made between The Father and the Pre-Incarnate Son. The phrases “Lord of Spirits” , “Ancient of Days,” and “Son of Man” are used so often (perhaps interchangeably, perhaps not) that even a careful reading sometimes infers the (doctrinally acceptable – 1 Cor 15:24) separation of the eternal Godhead. On earth, “… all the fullness of the deity” was present in Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God.” But 1 Enoch can at minimum cause confusion to the understanding of the Godhead – hard enough to grasp even today – in a way that other authors (Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul and John) do not when speaking of their face-to-face encounters with God. (Did any gnostics still in the audience catch that phrase?) Even without the conflicting manuscripts or possible multiple authors coming into play (which careful examination of the rest of canon shows could have been worked out actually, if they so chose), I sincerely believe that if there was a legimate, excusable motive for not including Enoch in the Bible, this was it.
This does not excuse why we had to wait 1000 years to re-discover this book however.
So finally, with the general integrity of the Holy Scriptures, and the legitimate reasons the early Roman Catholic Church may have rejected 1 Enoch covered respectfully (and in a way palatable for modern Christian academics), let's critically examine the real reasons behind the indisputable censure of 1 Enoch. There are many texts that – while not included as canon – have nonetheless retained their “postion of honor” and even reverence among the (Western) historical Christian church. Among these are the Apocrypha (still included of course in modern Catholic Bibles – and, just FYI, even included in the original King James Bible), as well as The 12 Patriarchs, and writings too numerous to name by various “Church Fathers.” All of these have remained in a relatively high-profile position throughout church history, more or less available for both scholars and laymen to draw from when studying the ancient origins of the Christian faith. Not so with Enoch.
Yes, ANY of the above are certainly “good enough” reasons to have disqualified Enoch from canonization. But only assuming you wanted to in the first place …
With all of the evidence in, we have to own the fact that 1 Enoch was not merely “rejected for canonization.” It was buried. Flat out suppressed. It was quite intentionally lost to history, with all copies destroyed or left to rot 10 stories deep under the Vatican. Enoch was not merely “left out of the Bible.” It was dropped like a bad habit.
Okay, only for those who have come the distance, now let's talk dirt…
Point blank, Origen was right. Enoch was suppressed and labeled as heresy specifically to hide the truth of the fallen angels' past, present and future activity on earth.
Forget Roswell. Forget the X-Files. The most successful, enduring and damaging cover-up of “The Truth” about our planet's frequent visitors – has come from within The Church.
I only want the truth, because only the truth is going to stand after everything is tried in the Great Affliction.
I have tried the Gospel of Thomas and Peter and found them to be nonsense, as well as the so-called Gospel of Judas, which is also nonsense. Most of the other “Gospels” are nonsense; but you cannot deny that there are mistakes in the New Testament, and that there are differences between some of its books and the Old Testament (which are more reliable as a foundation)
Hi,
Copied from another threadVeritas ad Caritas
“
Hi re the angels and Demons for those who accept it, the Book of Enoch makes it very Clear.
Their are angels (unholy/fallen) and Demons which are seperate but connected. The angels are Gods creation and the Demons are the spirits of their physical offspring that God destroyed in the Flood. –
-Short version finished-
-Extended version continues-
They were tolerated for a while on earth but as they became more corrupt and then began dominating corrupting and destroying humans they were destroyed despite their pleas to God. It was through the Fallen angels that many of the early technologies of Iron Bronze use of plants for 'medicinal' remedies making of weapons of war Astrological knowledge etc was taught to a much more simple living human race.
The Book of Enoch details clearly the various regions of Hades the Grave and their is a place for 4 different types of soul/spirit. (Spirits in Prison).
It indicates God seperates the unrighteous dead from the unforgiven dead who have fair grievence that their lives were wrongly cut short before choosing or rejecting God was possible. They will be terminated but not tormented forever.
The Angels that Sinned are chained up kept in Prison until Judgment day The spirits of their offspring they had (when as in Genesis it says the sons of God came and got with so to speak the sons of men) remain free in the world till the end of time and bring trouble on mankind as they bodyless, not fully human in spirit, envy the blessed human race and want to bring it to choose the way of their Angel progenetors and have us deny Gods authority and seek equality with God something to be grasped. It is also the case that a portion of Satan and his angels are by allowance free still to stand as our accusers until the judgment day. The whole horde of Hell will be released for a while at the end before their final Judgment as recorded in Revelation. Demons are their Offspring that they had with human Women (This is from the Book of Enoch That is the Book quoted in Jude and alluded to elsewhere in the Bible accepted in the Ethiopian Canon and by the early Church. It predicted Christ the Flood Moses the Bible itself amongst many other things Clearly I have sympathies that it is canonical before its exclusion in the 4th century or so. It was not excluded explicitly at Nicea nor by Jews but ignored. Jews apparently found some content too telling of their failings. I am still to hear a good basis for it being dated to recent generations. before the Dead sea scrolls it was claimed to have first been written in the first centuries AD, then that was revised to the second temple period but that is without as I see any any proof against its prior existence. I believe it is very very likely (as the Ethiopian Church that was kept seperate from the Roman Catholic that excluded this book also think); the oldest human writing, dating to before the Flood. It makes alot clear on that topic too. I think it is the Chassis of the Car being the Bible).One more thing on Pre existence of Christ.
To “BECOME flesh and dwell among us”…
Well to “become” it infers progressing from one stagee to another.
It doesn't say “appeared” though to us he appeared as written elsewhere in the NT.
But as a seed “becomes” a flower and flowers don't just “appear” So Christ became flesh and didn&t appear with no prior existence.
Enoch calls Christ the Son of Man and explains his being in Heaven with God, at least (whatever you think of the Book) hundreds of Years BC and talks of his role in Judging the earth etc and the events before his coming and the time of his coming, right down to the Generation number.
Trinitarian or otherwise this book that predates Christ gets right his coming and tells us he was with God before his pre existing form becoming flesh. This book makes clear all sorts of things that are hazy in the Bible. For example Last days (for how long it has been since Christ) makes sense when you see the divisions of history set out in Enoch. “Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2005,09:23) Hi ,
I love Enoch. Does anyone else? Are there any concordances available for books like this?
Nick I am Very impressed with it.
It is ABSOLUTELY GARBAGE to call it Pseudegraphica until the writer is identified/proven to be other than Enoch and Noah who it claims to be written by.
It explains much and I want to get to the bottom of it to see if it is for real.
It makes a lot of sense. The area I want to clarify is the more scientific observations as in the Book of Luminaries. Apparently you can make a device that pridict equinox etc perfectly at any lattitude by this method, predates all the Stonehenge stuff etc. But also I want to look at what seems difficulties in it in sientific senses.The criticisims of it are lame in deed, Sons of God being sons of Adam etc (when Adam means Man!) It predicts events before and after its claimed first date of a few centuries BC so I read its forwarsd accuracy as evidence to treat its date of writing far earlier. It had no prophetic accuracy issues following the time it verifiably existed why should we with No evidence claim it was not lieing about its predictiopn of the Flood the Bible the entire history of Isreal the Law The Red Sea crossing the dispersal of the Jews etc, etc, etc
It is fear that people may have to look into the Bible they believed to be complete that makes people invent false claims about a book they too often have not even read.
Veritas ad Caritas
Quote Apparently you can make a device that pridict equinox etc perfectly at any lattitude by this method, predates all the Stonehenge stuff etc. But also I want to look at what seems difficulties in it in sientific senses. Stonehenge built around 2200BCE, with Neolithic diggings on that site back as far as 8000BCE. Book of Enoch almost certainly written around 200BCE. I you want to know about the truth of history then let's have some respect for archaeology and put a bit less store in Ttheology. There is nothing very special about the solar observatory described. As the alleged Noachian flood never happened, and the number of the generation of the mythical Enoch character (starting from the time of the first truly modern humans) would be more like 7000 than 7, the book should be considered as religious fantasy fiction.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 23 2008,22:37) Veritas ad Caritas Quote Apparently you can make a device that pridict equinox etc perfectly at any lattitude by this method, predates all the Stonehenge stuff etc. But also I want to look at what seems difficulties in it in sientific senses. Stonehenge built around 2200BCE, with Neolithic diggings on that site back as far as 8000BCE. Book of Enoch almost certainly written around 200BCE. I you want to know about the truth of history then let's have some respect for archaeology and put a bit less store in Ttheology. There is nothing very special about the solar observatory described. As the alleged Noachian flood never happened, and the number of the generation of the mythical Enoch character (starting from the time of the first truly modern humans) would be more like 7000 than 7, the book should be considered as religious fantasy fiction.
Stuart
I really do wonder why a person so convinced the Bible (the basis of everything bar nothing here) that is said to be an absolutely Crap fantasy of the order of Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland. I really wonder why such a Wise person spends such passion on such hopeless Brain dead folk as I?
I wonder why you who ridicule as if we are blatant fools here, spend your effort registering with this site, to save society a society so convinced (not!) of Noah and the Ark and the animals going on two by two etc.
Or is it more likely you had a Sunday school teacher you hate for giving you too many moral lessons or Bible memory Verses that you have violated? And hate the idea that the 'old bag' was right? Or did a parent or Christian you know make a hypocrite of them self (and a truth teller of God in the process that we are all hopeless sinners)? Is it for such a reason that you so desperately need her(/him) who maybe even swiped you across the ear one day (when you were being a little rat) to be verified an old fool. Perhaps you so need not feel any Guilt about rather ill informed life choices you may have madeFor a person who has not I bet read this book
Nor examined why we have massive Oil deposits from Ancient forests buried Right across the earth and certainly in the Middle East where the imaginary flood was for sure meant to have happened at least locally…
For a person who has not explained the unnatural formation of a massive fossil layer across the earth. (Fossilisation only occurs in the case of Rapid Burial).
for a person who can not explain why many Universities now say they know their dating systems are highly questionable but we are taking them as accurate for the purposes of teaching the Dogma of the course.
For a person in a world where almost all real history drops into a Sudden Blank at around 3500 – 4000 BCI think you are the Person who perhaps ought to consider if you live in fantasy land.
I did and do not assume the Book of Enoch to be fact I point though to its earliest dated manuscripts that despite your flawed and false assumption prove nothing of its original source manuscripts date only that a copy existed a couple of centuries BC.
If we only had a 2005 version Bible that said in the front cover that it was based on a 5000 year old Book… on your logic it is certain proof that no other copy existed before 2005. Even if it predicted accurately events of 2006 2007 and 2008 you would know it was a load of Crap Right!?!
You need some basic lessons in arithmetic and Logic before you mock with such disdain people who are clearly making much more carefully worded arguments.
Yes we are looking for answers in one direction but we are certainly doing it with a view to reality and not based as are your arguments on a whole set of unestablished claims and criticisms.
I am sure you would accept a meteor could have wiped out the dinosaurs but never could accept such a meteor could have caused a world wide Tsunami (flood). In fact it is almost certain that a meteor of a certain size would do exactly that and it would take weeks or months for the oceans to settle. As for a dating of 8000 years there are more than enough examples of the mockery RC and other dating methods are. They can't date accurately rocks blown out of the Ground in near living memory let alone 8000 year old relics.
Fantasy land is your clearly unestablished imaginations that Man has been here for millions of years. Right now in Alternburg the quote “evolution industry” is desperately trying to come up with a new theory of Evolution because they know that Darwinian Survival of the fittest is no less than a Joke, and if they are to have anything in the name of evolution they had better think fast before the derisible drivel of the theory is laughed out of the universities. See Scoop.co.nz to look at a seen of desperation in that pseudoscience.
I work for an evolutionary scientist and really with a positive attitude and bias toward his views try to help his clearly futile research efforts bear fruit because I really want him to prove this thing if there is an ounce of truth in it.All he keeps proving in his studies is survival of the last dregs of the genetic pool that can survive and never can establish progressive evolution. He travels the world seeking new evidence and preaching his faith for which yet he has established Zilch indicating positive development. And I get souvenirs from his trips which I enjoy.
Re; all the current age of mocking any Existence of God as a mental illness… it is so short lived that it is still a flash in history to be established. Tell me some solid history from 5000 BC that is not based on the screwed up dating systems we depend on to discount the Bible record from witnesses who were there to see things.
Then I will check in at the local Mental Clinic for treatment for my God Delusion.Hi again V ad C
Quote I really do wonder why a person so convinced the Bible (the basis of everything bar nothing here) that is said to be an absolutely Crap fantasy of the order of Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland. I really wonder why such a Wise person spends such passion on such hopeless Brain dead folk as I?
I wonder why you who ridicule as if we are blatant fools here, spend your effort registering with this site, to save society a society so convinced (not!) of Noah and the Ark and the animals going on two by two etc.
Or is it more likely you had a Sunday school teacher you hate for giving you too many moral lessons or Bible memory Verses that you have violated? And hate the idea that the 'old bag' was right? Or did a parent or Christian you know make a hypocrite of them self (and a truth teller of God in the process that we are all hopeless sinners)? Is it for such a reason that you so desperately need her(/him) who maybe even swiped you across the ear one day (when you were being a little rat) to be verified an old fool. Perhaps you so need not feel any Guilt about rather ill informed life choices you may have made
The answers to my motivations for posting here are clearly outlined in various threads. Maybe reading a bit more here would show you how wrong your amateur psychoanalysis is.Quote For a person who has not I bet read this book
Nor examined why we have massive Oil deposits from Ancient forests buried Right across the earth and certainly in the Middle East where the imaginary flood was for sure meant to have happened at least locally…
Of course there has been local flooding. You are claiming global flooding that wiped out all plants and land animals (and would have killed most marine life as well) but there is no evidence of such an event.Quote For a person who has not explained the unnatural formation of a massive fossil layer across the earth. (Fossilisation only occurs in the case of Rapid Burial).
I think you have been reading too much creationist fiction. Fiction is too mild a word for it…Quote for a person who can not explain why many Universities now say they know their dating systems are highly questionable
Cite peer-reviewed articles from respected journals, please (not links to the Discovery Institute website or Answers in Genesis).Quote but we are taking them as accurate for the purposes of teaching the Dogma of the course.
For a person in a world where almost all real history drops into a Sudden Blank at around 3500 – 4000 BC
What? Look in the mirror! Do you reject archaeology and substitute writing of dubious provenance?Quote I think you are the Person who perhaps ought to consider if you live in fantasy land.
OK. Done that. No, I conclude that I require evidence and you don’t seem to.Quote I did and do not assume the Book of Enoch to be fact I point though to its earliest dated manuscripts that despite your flawed and false assumption prove nothing of its original source manuscripts date only that a copy existed a couple of centuries BC.
But please interpret it in the context of other writing of the period. Many wanted to use Enoch as a principle character in a fantasy novel.Quote If we only had a 2005 version Bible that said in the front cover that it was based on a 5000 year old Book… on your logic it is certain proof that no other copy existed before 2005. Even if it predicted accurately events of 2006 2007 and 2008 you would know it was a load of Crap Right!?!
No, just setting things in context. Is there any biblical prophecy that even comes close to being as good as an astronomer predicting a solar eclipse to within minutes? That magical prophecy has been used to save colonial European navigators from native cooking pots, it is so strikingly accurate.Quote You need some basic lessons in arithmetic and Logic before you mock with such disdain people who are clearly making much more carefully worded arguments.
OK. Sorry if my interpretation of religious fantasy does not match yours.Quote Yes we are looking for answers in one direction but we are certainly doing it with a view to reality and not based as are your arguments on a whole set of unestablished claims and criticisms.
You’ve got to be joking. What reality is there in humans living for 350 years, of a global flood, the 7 generations of humans before the third millennuim BCE?Quote I am sure you would accept a meteor could have wiped out the dinosaurs but never could accept such a meteor could have caused a world wide Tsunami (flood).
A Tsunami is not a world-wide flood as described in Genesis. Not to the height of Everest. That’s fantasy.Quote In fact it is almost certain that a meteor of a certain size would do exactly that and it would take weeks or months for the oceans to settle. As for a dating of 8000 years there are more than enough examples of the mockery RC and other dating methods are. They can't date accurately rocks blown out of the Ground in near living memory let alone 8000 year old relics.
Dendrochronology shows no global killing of all plant life at any point in the last 8,000 years. Much older cave paintings remain intact. There are plenty more reasons that it a global flood did not happen as described in Jueo-christian literature, and there is no reason to think global flooding has ever happened.Quote Fantasy land is your clearly unes
tablished imaginations that Man has been here for millions of years.
Please show me where I wrote any such thing. What do you mean by man?Quote Right now in Alternburg the quote “evolution industry” is desperately trying to come up with a new theory of Evolution because they know that Darwinian Survival of the fittest is no less than a Joke, and if they are to have anything in the name of evolution they had better think fast before the derisible drivel of the theory is laughed out of the universities. See Scoop.co.nz to look at a seen of desperation in that pseudoscience.
Has the scoop website published evidence that disproves the theory of evolution by natural election?Quote I work for an evolutionary scientist and really with a positive attitude and bias toward his views try to help his clearly futile research efforts bear fruit because I really want him to prove this thing if there is an ounce of truth in it.
Then clearly you do not understand the nature of the scientific method. Otherwise you would not be using the word proof in this context…Quote All he keeps proving in his studies is survival of the last dregs of the genetic pool that can survive and never can establish progressive evolution.
…or this one.Quote He travels the world seeking new evidence and preaching his faith for which yet he has established Zilch indicating positive development. And I get souvenirs from his trips which I enjoy.
Can you cite any references to his work, or do we just have to accept your slander?Quote Re; all the current age of mocking any Existence of God as a mental illness… it is so short lived that it is still a flash in history to be established. Tell me some solid history from 5000 BC that is not based on the screwed up dating systems we depend on to discount the Bible record from witnesses who were there to see things.
Then I will check in at the local Mental Clinic for treatment for my God Delusion.
I think simply believing that this particular novel is the writing of someone who live 5,000 years ago, written in the only language that existed at that time is enough to qualify you!Stuart
Stu, well as I say, what passion considering your final conclusion that I am mad enough to need to check in down at the mental clinic.
You clearly still need to get a lesson in arithmetic and logic based in just about each and every one of your rebuttal points.Briefly for now as I would like to go and get Breakfast for my girl,
Please point me in the direction of some of the writings on your motives here amongst the Mad and deranged as most of us seem by your definition to be. There are literally thousands of posts here and to read them all would take weeks for me.
Is it just Charity work amongst the hopeless of society in vain hope we plug into the higher truths?I will check back soon then I will attend to all this flimsy rebuttal this evening.
A few points though are
– I showed the capacity and pointed to a reason to believe…. there could be a WORLD WIDE flood a wave that would circumnavigate the Globe.
– And the Alturnberg thing you ought to just get it from the horses mouth but don’t expect it to be from a creationist. It is from a reporter that is doing a very in-depth series on the evolution of evolution. I may as well not republish it here. It just highlights the disarray in the true evolution scientific world. (And that is not her goal; I think?)
Re the word proof …. now your just being childish and trying to masquerade as one who is right across scientific method at some level way beyond most.
Prove can mean also to test to the final limits. And when working with this person drawing up presentations of results and research, my understanding of scientific method is exactly why I got this job rather than others.
I can not reveal this person of course and you should know that is obvious. What Evolutionary scientist would want there name tangled up with a site like this and why would I want to loose my Job on your behalf? That would be mad!
Re your accusations that I reject Archaeology and such, I clearly point to it! And I point out also that it has some issues of a very large type on dating etc. And that universities are also ashamed of dating methods but need them to tell the evolution fairy tale. (Sorry that is just provocation. I just wanted to make the point the unstable theory of evolution needs a lot more proof that may well come but it certainly is not yet available) And your only examples to refute me again are based on the Dubious dating methods re cave paintings. Always the same!And as for your precious Dendrochronology, well that is one of the lamer attempts as it too relies directly on C14 dating for any dates of use.
Peer review (a process I assist with here) is little more than peer pressure apart from simple issues of scientific method. It means no new theory that is not wanted gets credibility. It is truth by democracy/mob.
Peer review in effect is what put people like Galileo in court for showing what the Bible wrote many years earlier (and the Book of Enoch) that the world is a round and not flat or in Enoch celestial bodies travel in parabolic paths.
Pretty good for a myth/folk tale in flat earth days.
The typical response of the scientific community and you in your response to me by barring creationist research organisations out of the argument in advance…. is shutting the door!
By the way none of my points are quoted from any such place.
You simply expect those scientists to shut up and keep out of the discussion on issues that the majority have a view on. That is peer bullying.
What is most interesting is as with your self it only gets passionate when the topic gets close to God or morality.I think for one who expects me to pull finger for your rambling claims to prove this and that, you should have also done some more homework on the accuracy of the Bibles prophecies and Enoch’s which you mock without having researched it.
I take it I am right and you have not read the Book? That is called Pre Judice and is not for ‘Scientific Stu’ a very scientific approach to researching ancient documentsFinally, what is the nature of your relationship with those Christians in your life that have influenced you most? What are the words you most often say of them?
Because your behaviour is very strange here in the presence of such fools as us, unless you have a massive chip on one or both of your shoulders. Are you a missionary to exterminate thoughts of God etc?
You can’t change the truth Stu by arguing harder.
That is why I am happy to work in support of an evolutionary biologist and use my understanding to test the theories of evolution. I want the truth Even the truth I can’t presently handle. I in summary think evolution is a very dodgy theory, but let truth rule not my hopes. If I worked for creation research or such I would be likely to become biased against evolution as my pay would demand that. Best this creationists work on proving evolution but I realise that is against most peoples nature and when you’re convinced of the opposite.
For now I may not redress anything further now having already responded a fair bit. But do let us hear about the Christianity connections in your life. And point me to your writings on why you are here.VaC,
Had you been around in 4th century Rome, would you have stood up for Mithraism as Constantine and his successor made Pauline Christianity the official state religion? That was one historical event that launched Christianity towards religious domination.
I ask this because you seem to be offended that Stu would oppose your viewpoint that Christianity — and the bible, and the book of Enoch — is true.
I support arguments from Stu. Man if he could seriously decimate the Bible record for me it would make my life a lot more free. No standards to go by but socially agreed ones.
I hope Stu can get to the core of Enoch, especially if he can prove it is a fraud. But it is nothing but clear he has little or no basis on which to speak about it.
He hasn't read it and probably has only glanced at wikipedia in his cause to have a few of the right words to criticise it.
I am not offended by his seeking to prove it wrong I am annoyed at the sweeping rulings he makes with no knowledge of the topic.That is pre judice Judging when you don't know what you are talking about.
That is not good science at all so it makes me dubious when I see him mocking things as fantasy and not science that he does nothing but have blind uninformed conclusions without having researched first.
That is why I go straight to look at his motives. It is the only explanation for such passion without evidence. He accuses Christians of the very thing he is committing so blatantly. While the Christians even amongst themselves are talking a lot more carefully.And Re Rome
Rome embraced Christianity for Political reasons (and perhaps if you believe in wicked plans, for the purpose of destroying it by infiltration and corruption)
Rather than by continuing in what was a failure of suppression and execution of Christians.Rome was miffed about the way the Christians in defiance of self preserving reason continued to grow in number.
The reason was they being close to the events and witnesses of what happened a few years before found Christianity was so compelling that the people of the time thought death more correct than defying such a real God.If you look into history you will see some of the reasons that the Christians were so frustrating to Rome was that they would have no issues in elevating a slave over even his master in the church and they would rescue disposed of Babies and adopt them as their own Children and they would almost exclusively exclude wealthy people from having power in the Church and would share freely their goods as if they were commonly owned.
These people embarrassed and threatened the classy and the wealthy and defied the concept of worshipping Roman Gods. Read the words of Justin the Martyr and see how he explains himself and Christianity to Ceaser in very intelligent and fair terms before his execution.
He was a high level Roman with nothing to gain in defying Rome.Take a look at his reasoning to get a realistic view of why Rome could not stop the spread of Christianity within it to the point that they decided…
If we can't beat them Lets merge/join them.
So Christianity (At a point when there was at least 9 “popes” not 1) was handed the power of the greatest empire in world history.
And it is very easy to see what that means.
Power corrupts and ultimate power ultimately corrupts.
The same happened here in Japan with Buddhism.
Politicians are always attracted to religion as a tool to control people.
Have you not noticed America lately?
Every self willed corrupt money loving power thirsty person across the Roman world would feign Christianity and try to use and reform it to become what they wanted it to be.
Frankly that Christianity endured such a natural influence for corruption until the reformation time is amazing. The Roman Church carried a fair bit of Good stuff through to that point.The corruption out of Rome inspired Mohammed who was disgusted by Christianity as it was morphing into an idol worshipping pagan look alike.
So he reengineered religion to include his own Genetic material and over the next 500 years took over almost exclusively the heart of the Christian nations only as Islam was rumbling at the borders of central Europe was the response to hundreds of years of violent military expansion and suppression of Christianity resisted with the Crusades.
Roll on the arguments but please have a point to make before drawing a conclusion.Re your question sorry
Had I been around then?
Well born to the parents I have now, perhaps I would have had dead parents and been pushing Christianity as Nicholas of Myra did and was put in prison a few times before Constantine legalised things.
Really I don't know how I would have responded not knowing where in the Roman scheme of things I would have been.
I would have supported honest enquiry if I had the mind I do now.
Mithraism was one of a mass of religions at the time I possibly would have been one who had worshipped Greek Gods.
Or perhaps I would have been sitting on Mars hill in Athens hearing arguments from people as to why multiple Gods is a nonsense and such.
Interestingly Enoch also predicted tha the Stars and planets would be worshipped with people supposing they were Gods which he clearly said they were nothing but masses rotating around. He pointed out the moon was an ampty and barren place (No man in the moon).
So maybe I would be giving up on Jupiter having heard from the Book of enoch that the Stars etc were not Gods. (The book of enoch was only supressed and banned in Catholic times and was read and accepted by the early christians).
Sems that the non believers here would not spare any time to tear apart a religion that worships rocks or animals but have massive energy to tear apart the religion that has the wisdom to see that imagined Gods and man made Gods are not Gods at all.
Most intelligent Christians would happily agree to dump Christianity if they found it to be a contrived story.
It is just for he reason that the books that it is based on stand out beyond any other books I at least have observed in *verifiable* accuracy, that we give it the time of day.Hanoch
I was literally going to include that verse…
but didn't because I didn't want to include only half the verse.
After that verse it continues…
“Answer a fool lest he thinks himself wise.”
I answer him in the hope he latches on to a lack of reasoning and realises that prejudice and mocking is not way to get truth.
It comes from honest investigation not writing off those with uncomfortable views, like a God.:blues:Quote (Hanoch @ July 24 2008,15:59) “Do not answer a fool, or you will be like him (a fool).”
Thanks for the warning.Stuart
Hi V ad C (Part 1)
Quote Please point me in the direction of some of the writings on your motives here amongst the Mad and deranged as most of us seem by your definition to be. There are literally thousands of posts here and to read them all would take weeks for me.
Yeah well it might take weeks, but what is the point of questioning motivation here? They say the highest level of conversation is about ideas, below that is discussing events, and dull people talk about people. Questioning motive is really like talking about people.Quote Is it just Charity work amongst the hopeless of society in vain hope we plug into the higher truths?
I like to support non-religious charities, then there is less chance of supporting the dissemination of the deadly pronouncements of the pope or other shrill christian prostyletising, not to mention the sums that are skimmed off for running religions. No system is perfect and that goes twice for religious charities. Just look at the legislation that the British government is developing to control these excesses among their “faith-based providers” of social services.Quote I showed the capacity and pointed to a reason to believe…. there could be a WORLD WIDE flood a wave that would circumnavigate the Globe.
Sure. There COULD be a Santa Claus. Do you believe that on my say-so? Your idle speculation is not a good basis for determining natural history. You have not answered my point about a tsunami not equating to what is claimed in Genesis, or anything in recent earth science (recent being thousands of years).Quote And the Alturnberg thing you ought to just get it from the horses mouth but don’t expect it to be from a creationist. It is from a reporter that is doing a very in-depth series on the evolution of evolution. I may as well not republish it here. It just highlights the disarray in the true evolution scientific world.
There are two phrases that really get creationists excited. The first is ‘theory in crisis’ which is not only a lie, but is hot air given the complete lack of any predictive and falsifiable theory of divine creation. Real science says put up or shut up. Creationists are capable of neither. The second phrase that makes a creationist internally squeal like a schoolgirl is ‘creation/evolution debate’. Creationists crave the reflected respectability of real science and constantly line up to share a stage with evolutionary biologists. The biologists no longer respond to such invitations, having long ago made their unanswered points to ears deafened by literalist mythology.Quote Re the word proof …. now your just being childish and trying to masquerade as one who is right across scientific method at some level way beyond most. Prove can mean also to test to the final limits. And when working with this person drawing up presentations of results and research, my understanding of scientific method is exactly why I got this job rather than others.
I stand by my previous remark about your inappropriate use of the word proof. I know some christians play fast and loose with definitions of common words, but if you do not understand the critical importance of the p word in science then you urgently need to read Karl Popper just to be ready to keep up in a scientific discussion. You cannot test past empirical limits so therefore you cannot ‘test to final limits’ like you can in maths.Quote I can not reveal this person of course…
Weasel words then. Why mention him at all?Quote and you should know that is obvious. What Evolutionary scientist would want there name tangled up with a site like this and why would I want to loose my Job on your behalf? That would be mad!
You sound ashamed. Or is it christian victimhood? See! You’ve got me discussing motive now!Stuart
V ad C (Part 2)
Quote Re your accusations that I reject Archaeology and such, I clearly point to it! And I point out also that it has some issues of a very large type on dating etc.
No you just asserted some nameless smear against a well-established scientific technique, and you have not mentioned any specific archaeology at all that I can find. What problem do you have with the various forms of radioisotope dating?Quote And that universities are also ashamed of dating methods but need them to tell the evolution fairy tale.
Even if you completely ignored dating results, evolution is still so well established by comparative DNA and fossil morphology that only those with an overwhelming religious agenda have cause to oppose it.Quote And your only examples to refute me again are based on the Dubious dating methods re cave paintings.
Are you saying that all existing cave paintings were made after the time of the alleged global flood (c. third millennium BCE)? Yes radiocarbon dating says you are wrong, and you cannot say what is wrong with that technique.
[qquote]And as for your precious Dendrochronology, well that is one of the lamer attempts as it too relies directly on C14 dating for any dates of use.[/quote]
Do you know that dendrochronology is counting annual tree rings?? Real scientists have established that bristlecone pines add either no new rings or one new growth ring annually. By overlapping the record of ring growth in preserved trees, there is a history of bristlecone pine growth that goes back over 8000 rings. The only possible error is that the results could indicate a much longer sequence. 8000 years is the minimum continuous uninterrupted history of tree growth. The myth of the supposed Noachian flood requires that all trees died at the same time, within that time period. They never did. That is only one example of countless pieces of evidence that disprove (yes I am allowed to use that word) the assertion of that global flood.Quote Peer review (a process I assist with here) is little more than peer pressure apart from simple issues of scientific method. It means no new theory that is not wanted gets credibility. It is truth by democracy/mob.
Peer review in effect is what put people like Galileo in court for showing what the Bible wrote many years earlier (and the Book of Enoch) that the world is a round and not flat or in Enoch celestial bodies travel in parabolic paths.
Pretty good for a myth/folk tale in flat earth days.
Now I wonder if you have read Enoch. How you get from the single use of the word parabolic to a description of the trajectory of celestial bodies (aren’t they strictly elliptical if in orbit?) is beyond me. Actually it’s not. Many times on this site David and others have shown how their apologia require bending biblical verses beyond recognition in order to match them to modern science. They abuse the language and ignore the match between the literal contents of scripture and the actual contemporary beliefs about the universe at the time of its writing.To conflate the process of a real scientist putting his professional reputation on the line, with the Catholic persecution of Galileo is dishonest. What rules applied to the inquisition in its treatment of him? You know what rules apply to scientific peer review.
Quote The typical response of the scientific community and you in your response to me by barring creationist research organisations out of the argument in advance…. is shutting the door!
OK. Lets test that then. Give me your predictive, falsifiable alternative theory that is a better explanation for the evidence than the neo-Dawinian one.Quote By the way none of my points are quoted from any such place. You simply expect those scientists to shut up and keep out of the discussion on issues that the majority have a view on. That is peer bullying.
What scientists? I shared a university lab with one of the leading AiG apologists. He has a PhD in Raman spectroscopic analysis of chalcogenide ring compounds, a piece of pure chemical research. Just like me, he has no formal qualification in biology. Even with our combined lack of formal training on the topic of evolutionary biology, I can still tell him why his creationist writing is a succession of strawmen of Darwin. Now Jonathan is a very bright chap but he is hamstrung by his prior commitment to his bible. I a happy to be convinced by the evidence whatever it may be. He is not. Tell me how, on the subject of human origins or other aspects of natural history, you can call him a scientist.Quote I think for one who expects me to pull finger for your rambling claims to prove this and that, you should have also done some more homework on the accuracy of the Bibles prophecies and Enoch’s which you mock without having researched it. I take it I am right and you have not read the Book? That is called Pre Judice and is not for ‘Scientific Stu’ a very scientific approach to researching ancient documents Have you read On the Origin of Species, or anything by Richard Dawkins? The literal contents of the book are irrelevant. What is important in cases of supposedly prophetic, or very old writing is the meta-data about the writing. Is the writing style consistent throughout? How old is the oldest known copy? (I bet if it was carbon-dated to 5000BCE you would have a sudden re-think of 14C dating!) What conclusions might be drawn from the nature of similar writing? Etc.
Stuart
V ad C (Part 3)
Quote Finally, what is the nature of your relationship with those Christians in your life that have influenced you most?
This pope, together with the last one, is responsible for much human misery and death. Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac. John Hagee, Tony Blair and George Bush are deluded godheads whose early response to potential international conflict is pseudo-religious brinkmanship, putting the entire world in needless peril. A former work colleague of mine is a creationist and on most matters of science he is fundamentally naïve. I have no idea how he graduated in science. Perhaps he did no biology. Whatever happened, it is a travesty. See! Now you have got me discussing people. We can go no lower!Quote What are the words you most often say of them?
Genocidal, homicidal, naïve. Just like the god they worship.Because your behaviour is very strange here in the presence of such fools as us, unless you have a massive chip on one or both of your shoulders. Are you a missionary to exterminate thoughts of God etc?
Are you not bothered to judge not lest ye be judged? I am interested in the truth, as far as we can know it. I believe that no christian should be allowed to get away with using creationism as a form of apology, because it has no answers and tells lies. Curiously creationists aren’t worried that they might burn in hell for their false witness.Quote You can’t change the truth Stu by arguing harder. That’s why I try to argue smarter. Note I have called no one a fool. At least one of us can co-operate with the gospel of Matthew. But you are right (and I take the credit for saying it to you first!) that opinion does not matter one jot. Even if Benny Hinn began giving lectures on CBN on how natural selection perfectly explains speciation and human origins, it would still not mean that Darwin was right. The only thing that matters is evidence. The only explanation that fits the evidence is Darwin’s, unless you can answer science’s challenge to you above. I await your reply to that keenly. You will understand me not holding my breath in anticipation, I hope.
Stuart
V ad C
Quote I support arguments from Stu. Man if he could seriously decimate the Bible record for me it would make my life a lot more free. No standards to go by but socially agreed ones.
Please visit the thread entitled “The Too Hard Basket”.Quote I am not offended by his seeking to prove it wrong I am annoyed at the sweeping rulings he makes with no knowledge of the topic. That is pre judice Judging when you don't know what you are talking about. That is not good science at all so it makes me dubious when I see him mocking things as fantasy and not science that he does nothing but have blind uninformed conclusions without having researched first.
Now you know how biologists feel.Quote That is why I go straight to look at his motives. It is the only explanation for such passion without evidence. He accuses Christians of the very thing he is committing so blatantly. While the Christians even amongst themselves are talking a lot more carefully.
I expect that extraordinary claims be supported by extraordinary evidence. Where is it?Quote The corruption out of Rome inspired Mohammed who was disgusted by Christianity as it was morphing into an idol worshipping pagan look alike.
What would you call biblical fundamentalism if it is not making an idol of scripture?Quote …hope he latches on to a lack of reasoning and realises that prejudice and mocking is not way to get truth.
It comes from honest investigation not writing off those with uncomfortable views, like a God
Boy can you understate a case. Your god is not only a cause for discomfort, he slaughtered between 2,300,000 and 32,000,000 humans, innocent and ‘guilty’ together, by his own admission. Would you sign a petition asking for his trial on charges of genocide? If not, why not?Stuart
Quote (Veritas ad Caritas @ July 24 2008,16:07) Re your question sorry
Had I been around then?
Well born to the parents I have now, perhaps I would have had dead parents and been pushing Christianity as Nicholas of Myra did and was put in prison a few times before Constantine legalised things.
Really I don't know how I would have responded not knowing where in the Roman scheme of things I would have been.
I would have supported honest enquiry if I had the mind I do now.
Mithraism was one of a mass of religions at the time I possibly would have been one who had worshipped Greek Gods.
Or perhaps I would have been sitting on Mars hill in Athens hearing arguments from people as to why multiple Gods is a nonsense and such.
Interestingly Enoch also predicted tha the Stars and planets would be worshipped with people supposing they were Gods which he clearly said they were nothing but masses rotating around. He pointed out the moon was an ampty and barren place (No man in the moon).
So maybe I would be giving up on Jupiter having heard from the Book of enoch that the Stars etc were not Gods. (The book of enoch was only supressed and banned in Catholic times and was read and accepted by the early christians).
Sems that the non believers here would not spare any time to tear apart a religion that worships rocks or animals but have massive energy to tear apart the religion that has the wisdom to see that imagined Gods and man made Gods are not Gods at all.
Most intelligent Christians would happily agree to dump Christianity if they found it to be a contrived story.
It is just for he reason that the books that it is based on stand out beyond any other books I at least have observed in *verifiable* accuracy, that we give it the time of day.
Greetings VC…..You bring an interesting point to the discussion….The writings of Enoch is just one of a miriad of writings that did not meet the criterior (according to the judgement of the aurthors/assemblers of the Bible)The Catholic church decided to eliminate the book of Deut…and the Hebrew authors/assemblers do not recognize the New testament…In light of all this censoring,How does one decern what is the inspired word of God and what is not…Greetings Stu…..The God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob….Is the giver of life as he sees fit….He is a respecter of no man…HE IS GOD !!! the supreme being,the creator of all things….When you come to understand and comprehend the awesome power of God…you will cease to think that there is any meaning to the massive amount of death that you keep elluding to….Life is important to men..Not to God…He grants life so we may come to know him and in doing so he blesses us with a meaningfull existance that will result in the gift of eternal life….He loves us all…If we follow his plan the fear of death is no longer an issue…If we choose to mock him…then he will leave us to our own devices….and that is what gives us the kind of brutality you reference in your indictment of God…God uses war to enact judgement as well as weather,and desease….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
