Home Visions The man who was given visions of the end from the beginning Page 6

The man who was given visions of the end from the beginning

Viewing 20 posts - 101 through 120 (of 285 total)
123…567…131415
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 26, 2006 at 8:51 pm#22844
    Mercy
    Participant

    Thanks Nick!

    I will check it out tonight when I get home from work. Have to run now, but I am very interested in reading it.

    July 27, 2006 at 10:16 am#22902
    Mercy
    Participant

    Interesting read through. I can certainly tell the difference between the posters who studied through Enoch and those who either have not read it or did not give it a thorough go. I am convinced beyond doubt that the new testament writers considered it inspired. Arguments can be made that demonstrate corruption of the enoch text and I have no doubt there are quite a few.

    My personal opinion is that the brothers of these fallen angels who did not cohabit, yet still rebelled are alive and well with satan. I also believe the disembodied spirits of the nephelim (giants) or demons are alive and well. I think that the role these beings have played in our history is phenominal. I think they work tirelessly to hide their existence, to keep man from knowing what they have done in our past and what they still are doing to this day. I find it very suspicious that the truth about the angelic activities in scripture have been hidden from us. Who do you think orcestrated that?

    excellent book I recommend is the

    Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse

    by Patrick Heron

    July 28, 2006 at 1:31 am#22959
    kenrch
    Participant

    If the Father wanted the book of Enoch in His letter then it would be in their. Or is Satan more powerful than God?

    July 28, 2006 at 5:07 am#22966
    Mercy
    Participant

    It is in the ethopic canon. so that is not really a relevant argument. It has been in the bible for 2000 years, just not in the western canon.

    It would be like saying “If God didn't want church tradition, the scriptures and the Trinity doctrine all in existence the way they are today then he would have done it differently”.
    Is Satan and Church history more powerful than God?

    July 28, 2006 at 5:11 am#22967
    Mercy
    Participant

    To clarify I dont think enoch should be considered equal scripture to the canon. Because it is apparent that it is a corrupted text. But, to dismiss the book completely and bury you head in the sand so that we don't know what the new testament writers are talking about when addressing angels or least have better clarification is silly, irresponsible and not very consistent with using the mind of Christ. The apostasy and great deception is coming, many will be clueless.

    July 28, 2006 at 9:23 pm#23006
    kenrch
    Participant

    Quote (Mercy @ July 28 2006,06:07)
    It is in the ethopic canon. so that is not really a relevant argument. It has been in the bible for 2000 years, just not in the western canon.

    It would be like saying “If God didn't want church tradition, the scriptures and the Trinity doctrine all in existence the way they are today then he would have done it differently”.
    Is Satan and Church history more powerful than God?


    The Trinity is man's idea. I don't see the trinity doctrine anywhere in the bible.

    As you say the book of Enoch is not scripture and shouldn't be treated as such. I always duck when Satan sends his fiery dart at me. But I wouldn't quite say I stick my head in the sand. :)

    July 29, 2006 at 2:21 am#23015
    Mercy
    Participant

    I don't mean to personally accuse you of that, sorry if I came across that way. I would be curious to know if you have read it and compared it to the new testament. If you have surely you see the overwhelming corralations that occur? I agree with you on the canon vs. non canon aspect, however, do you not see the the “themes” are consistent between both writings concerning angelic activity? My point is that information is in enoch that Jude, Peter, Paul and even Jesus himself referenced and supported.

    July 29, 2006 at 4:46 am#23026
    kenrch
    Participant

    There is no mention of a “book” of Enoch in the word of God. There are other “books” mentioned in the bible but no Book of Enoch.
    The Book of Wars – Num. 21:14 The Book of Jasher – Josh. 10:13 The Chronicles of David – 1 Chron. 27:24 The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah – 2 Chron. 27:7; 35:27; 36:8 The Book of the Kings of Israel – 1 Chron. 9:1; 2 Chron. 20:34. The Words of the Kings of Israel – 2 Chron. 33:18. The Decree of David the King of Israel – 2 Chron. 35:4. The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer – 1 Chron. 29:29 The Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet – 1 Chron. 29:29 The Book of Gad – 1 Chron. 29:29 The Book of the Prophet Iddo – 2 Chron. 13:22 The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet – 2 Chron. 12:15 The Deeds of Uzziah by Isaiah the Prophet – 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32 The Book of Jehu – 2 Chron. 20:34 The Record book of Ahasuerus – Esther 2:23; 6:1 The Book of Remembrance – Mal. 3:16 The Book of Life – Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 20:11; 22:19 The Book of Judgment – Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12 The seven-sealed book – Rev. 5:1, 13. An angel's book – Rev. 10:2

    I have read some of all the “other” books. I see the “other” books as a diversion to the true word of God. I believe that the word of God is complete. The book of Enoch is not included in God's letter to His children. If one gets off the main hwy and takes an alternate route then they will have to back track to get back on the right road. I don't believe I will know the whole meaning of the bible in my lifetime. I don't need to be side tracked.

    Personally I see no need to waste my time.

    July 29, 2006 at 6:50 am#23042
    Mercy
    Participant

    Fair enough. :)

    July 30, 2006 at 11:51 pm#23107
    He’s Coming in the Clouds
    Participant

    Dear Mercy,

    The important thing to remember is the the book of Enoch is not even recognized by the Jewish Rabinical order who are responsible for the keeping of the torah. If they do not recognize this book as authentic, why should we? Especially since the Old Testament was theirs from God.

    July 30, 2006 at 11:58 pm#23108
    He’s Coming in the Clouds
    Participant

    At least I don't believe it is. Does anyone know for sure? I will look into the matter more, but I do not believe the book is recognized as authentic.

    July 31, 2006 at 5:33 am#23119
    Mercy
    Participant

    Matthew 23:15

    15″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are

    Matthew 16:5-12

    5When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6″Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
    7They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn't bring any bread.” 8Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

    I don't consider Jewish scribes to be reliable resources. After all they left out 27 books from their canon as well.

    July 31, 2006 at 5:38 am#23120
    Mercy
    Participant

    If the Jews regarded the Book of Enoch as scripture they would be forced to acknowledge the new testament as well. It reveals the messiah so precisely that they could come to no other conclusion. So, of course, they don't recognize it and neither do they recognize Matthew – Revelation.

    July 31, 2006 at 6:33 pm#23148
    He’s Coming in the Clouds
    Participant

    Dear Mercy, lol, you can't judge them as to their stand on the OT to that of the NT. Common sense alone will tell yo that. They viewed Jesus as a false prophet and a threat to the Jewish religion. By the time Jesus had been born, the OT was already in place. Our Lord quoted from it and everything he quoted from was recognized by the Rabinical order. There is nothing in the gospels of Jesus quoting from anything that was unrecognized.

    July 31, 2006 at 8:30 pm#23152
    Mercy
    Participant

    If you read Enoch you may reconsider that Jesus taught nothing from it. Jude, Jesus's own brother, does indeed quote it.

    It is fair to judge the Jews concerning the Old Testament canon? It depends on what Jews at what time. The bible is very clear on describing the roller coaster ride of Jewish faithfulness to the truth. I am not bringing into question the Old Testament I am bringing into question the exclusion of books to the already existing canon.

    In particular, the Book of Enoch claims it was to be hidden until a future generation. Does that make it a convient way to slip false scripture in with the new, possibly, if not for the clear testimony of Jesus and the new testament authors who give it credability.

    God has at many times talked of “Sealing up books” or “Sealing up prophetic insight” until the correct time they are to be revealed. The bible quotes from many extra biblical sources and at many times giving them authoratative positions as if they may indeed be inspired writ themselves.

    Exodus 16:31-36

    31 The people of Israel called the bread manna. [a] It was white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey. 32 Moses said, “This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Take an omer of manna and keep it for the generations to come, so they can see the bread I gave you to eat in the desert when I brought you out of Egypt.' ”

    33 So Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it. Then place it before the LORD to be kept for the generations to come.”

    34 As the LORD commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna in front of the Testimony, that it might be kept. 35 The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna until they reached the border of Canaan.

    36 (An omer is one tenth of an ephah.)

    God's word is often described as Bread, leaven and yeast.
    Could this be an example of God's word being kept in store? Perhaps, or maybe not. It may not mean at all what I am implying, but I post as food for thought.

    July 31, 2006 at 8:34 pm#23153
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Mercy,
    An excellent insight. Thanks.

    July 31, 2006 at 9:06 pm#23159
    He’s Coming in the Clouds
    Participant

    Dear Mercy,

    I believe that God's complete work is in existance. I am a firm believer, and one who is of the minority, that the King James bible is the infallible Word of God.

    Man today believe that it is impossible for Almighty God to have his Word be in a translation and have it infallible. I believe this is a lie of the devil to turn man from God and his infallible Word. I believe that the KJ destroys the doctrine of all other translations that have come after it.

    For man to believe that God is so weak to not do such a simple thing as to have his Word perfectly written according to his will is just how evil man has become. Does it make sense that God would not have his Word in a book that was written perfectly according to his will?

    Most of the world believes that it is impossible. I believe they doubt God and thus believe a lie.

    August 1, 2006 at 5:32 am#23216
    Mercy
    Participant

    I stand with ya on God's word being infallable, but I don't quite get what scripture and verse you have that says the KJV of 1611 is an inspired translation. I love the KJV, but I don't think the translators were inspired.

    The doctrine of preservation of God's word, I whole hardedly agree with. I just don't believe that the preserving has taken place in the manner that KJV purists hold to. I believe in the inspired writ of the original manuscripts and their preservation throughout time til (via copying) our current day. I can't find any scriptural teaching that future translators will be without error.

    The New Testament is the most accurate and preserved document we have in existance. We have 5600 complete copies of ancient New Testaments and thousands of more fragments and documentary evidence. I call that preservation!!!

    I use the KJV as my hardcore study bible because it is a word for word translation and because of the Strong's concordance. The Thee's and Thou's are actually useful, unbeknownst to many, since it helps distinguish who is being spoken to our about, whether in the singular or plural tense. I love the english of that time period it was probably at it's most pure then.

    I am sure you have been hit over the head with the 1 John 5:7 verse before, but I think it needs another bonk, I hit lightly.

    However, I find that most all translations have errors. Thats why i feel it is important to reference the original language myself.

    Case in point for most all translations:

    2 Thessalonians 2:7
    The famous “taken out of the way” verse that leads to the false teaching of the rapture. Should be translated “until it comes out of the midst”.

    ginemai (1096) it comes
    ek (1537)
    mesou (3319,3326)

    August 1, 2006 at 5:39 am#23218
    Mercy
    Participant

    Whoops I hit return on accident, I'll continue:

    ginemai (1096) it comes
    ek (1537) out of
    mesou (3319,3326) the midst

    http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html (online strongs)

    look up each word to check me

    In my Strong's concordance, there are 709 instances of verses containing Strong's number 1096, ginomai. Out of these 709 occurences, the word is translated as “taken” only one time by the King James translators, and that's in our study verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:7. Why they translated it this way I don't know because the REAL GREEK WORDS for “taken” and “way” ARE NOT LISTED IN THE VERSE. Yet, “taken out of the way” is used in quite a number of Bible translations besides the KJV. Those who use this phrase mention the phrase “until it comes out of the midst,” but then always use the phrase “taken out of the way.” What we have heard for years is that something is removed or “taken out of the way,” and that has been variously applied to the removal of a restrainer, such as the rapture of the Church before the tribulation, the Holy Spirit, and good government. Green's translation paints a totally different picture. I believe it is right because of the 709-1 ratio. What “until it comes out of the midst” means is that something comes to be, it becomes, or is birthed out of the midst of something else. In this case, the full-fledged apostasy would come on the scene out of the working of lawlessness, its secret goal. Notice the definitions for genomai. Its various shades of meaning point to something that comes into existence, begins to be, or receives being; something arises and so appears in history, coming upon the world stage, etc. The idea and implication of something being “taken away” or “being removed” is not present at all in this section of the verse. In fact, it depicts the opposite: it becomes and remains, i.e., until the Lord returns in the day of the Lord.

    August 18, 2006 at 7:55 pm#24808
    david
    Participant

    A while ago, someone quoted this website:

    http://a-voice.org/qa/enoch.htm

    This website states that the books of Enoch is dedicated to Satan and his demons, and is really “doctrine of demons.” (1 tim 4:1)

    The website lists some reasons why the guy who just skimmed over it found for not believing that it is really written by Enoch.

    While Soxan was able to disagree and say that he was sure there was explanations for the discrepencies I'm wondering what those explanations are. Anyone?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 101 through 120 (of 285 total)
123…567…131415
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER
ALL REPLIES →

Recent Topics

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account