Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Should Enoch be acccepted?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Enoch be acccepted? (44 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Enoch be acccepted?

  1. 1. Yes, Enoch, should be included/accepted by the Vatican (14 votes [31.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.82%

  2. 2. No, it should not (explain why) (15 votes [34.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.09%

  3. 3. I don't know (3 votes [6.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.82%

  4. 4. I don't care (12 votes [27.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:48 PM

QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child @ Jun 24 2005, 01:00 PM)
1. It is not 'agreed upon' by every 'expert' that it is a 'hoax' because 'hoax' wasn't the word used in the first place. They claim it was written later, by these same people who inherantly ignore the Judaic texts which aren't part of Christian cannon.


Nobody has said that it was.  It is, however, agreed by the vast majority of biblical scholars to be a hoax.

QUOTE
2. Like I said to Searphina, you don't know me from a bar of soap, and your 'assessment' of my expertise in this area is personal opinion alone. You obviously have NO knowledge of this area whatsoever, and have even admitted that, your 'assessement' takes on the tone of the first three letters of that word.


You are not as complex as you would like to think.  My assessment is clear and can be easily checked by anyone who wishes to do so by simply checking the four numbered points I made and comparing them to the past topics that you have made.  And I never admitted to having no knowledge whatsoever of this area, I said that I had little interest in it.  To be perfectly frank, based on some of the things you have claimed in the past, I suspect what I know surpasses your knowledge, and that doesn't say much for you.

That's twice you have misquoted me.  As I have said before, you are not capable of having a reasoned discussion.

QUOTE
3. More and more people read and accept this book every single day whether you like it or not. And it's going to keep happening, on a much grander scale if I can help it.


And?  Should we just take your word on this?  Any reason why we souldn't see this as merely wishful thinking on your part?

The vast majority of the worlds population believe the sun revolves around the Earth too.  That does not make it so.

QUOTE
4. And for those of you who are entirely scriptually illiterate and driven by bias against such texts, Enoch WAS part of the cannon until the 4th Century when Augustine, driven be fear and bias, decided he didn't like it anymore because it talked about astrology, and kicked it out, along with making astrology a 'dirty word', and in it's place brought in the idea that evrey human being is born with 'original sin' which has NO scriptual basis. This idea that it was written at a later date is a 'modern' idea to cover asses.


Cover who's asses's?  Who would have a vested interest in discrediting the Book of Enoch?  Why would they have the support of the majority of biblical scholars?

QUOTE
5. It talks about dinosaurs (especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls parts). No matter which way you look at it, whether you try to refute it saying it was written at a later date, it STILL talks about dinosaurs. Now if you continue to run in with the latter, you'd be saying dinosaurs were still around until late B.C. and so was Noah's flood which wped them out, which just makes the Earth YOUNGER. So, take your pick up to 8000-26,000 years ago, or about 3,000 years ago? Either way, it don't change a damn thing, because dinosaurs weren't formerly discovered or even known about at either of those times, unless of course, they were co-existing with them. Think on that one for a while grin2.gif thumbsup.gif

View Post



Yes, well, we have seen what you consider a dinosaur.  If you refuse to acknowledge that ancient civilizations had scads of monsters, demons, and mythological creatures, and instead decide to label everything a dinosaur, you have no credibility.  Show us something a little more concrete than a lion with a large, prehensile neck, and a claim that it is a sauropod.

Any moment now...

Edited by aquatus1, 24 June 2005 - 01:49 PM.


#32    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:55 AM

QUOTE
Nobody has said that it was. It is, however, agreed by the vast majority of biblical scholars to be a hoax.


You obviously don't read posts you intend to respond to, do you. In fact, you even quoted it and didn't read it. It was never called a 'hoax'. Your knowledge on the subject is equal to a tabloid magazine. Biased and unfactual.

QUOTE
You are not as complex as you would like to think. My assessment is clear and can be easily checked by anyone who wishes to do so by simply checking the four numbered points I made and comparing them to the past topics that you have made. And I never admitted to having no knowledge whatsoever of this area, I said that I had little interest in it. To be perfectly frank, based on some of the things you have claimed in the past, I suspect what I know surpasses your knowledge, and that doesn't say much for you.

That's twice you have misquoted me. As I have said before, you are not capable of having a reasoned discussion.


Yes indeed you have no knowledge of this area whatsoever, I wasn't quoting you, I was telling you. So, your entire arguement is irrelevant. And I said before you don't know me at all. you know nothing about me except for a few posts I make on this board. And by WHOSE standard do you assess someone by your 'four checking points', yourself? Wow, all hail Aquatus, he knows all, yet he knows nothing about the topic at hand.

QUOTE
And? Should we just take your word on this? Any reason why we souldn't see this as merely wishful thinking on your part?

The vast majority of the worlds population believe the sun revolves around the Earth too. That does not make it so.


You sound worried.

QUOTE
Cover who's asses's? Who would have a vested interest in discrediting the Book of Enoch? Why would they have the support of the majority of biblical scholars?


Now, if you actually knew anything about the topic at hand, or even read through posts abandoning your usual superiority complex you'd know that I was talking about the Church, who is solely resposible for what Augustine did when he ditched the book in the 4th century, when up to that time IT WAS PART OF THE CANNON. Maybe in capitals it will sink in.

QUOTE
Yes, well, we have seen what you consider a dinosaur. If you refuse to acknowledge that ancient civilizations had scads of monsters, demons, and mythological creatures, and instead decide to label everything a dinosaur, you have no credibility. Show us something a little more concrete than a lion with a large, prehensile neck, and a claim that it is a sauropod.

Any moment now...


You really do contradict yourself there Aquatus. Especially here 'ancient civilizations had scads of monsters, demons,'. You believe in demons but you can't accept the description of ancient people describing dinosaurs, from how they were created, to their eating habits, terrorization of humankind, their 45ft height, and a detailed description of their eventual doom with ties in with the scientific theory of the extinction of dinosaurs? Again for those who find it hard to grasp. It states in this order Asteroid hits, several of them causing tsunami's, global climatic changes, 40 day flooding, and a eventual Ice Age, all to destroy these 'great monsters' AND the humanoid Nephillim. Just befoe this, these 'great monster's along wth eating mammals, birds, reptiles and humans, started eacting each OTHER almost to extinction.

Now let's look at the evidence. 1. There IS a crater frm an asteroid hit in the ocean dating back to the late Cretaceous Period said to be a contributing factor in the extinction of dinosaurs. 2 And asteroid in the ocean will indeed cause tsunamis. 4 Asteroid hist tend to change global climates, and global climate change was another 'guesstiamte' which science used as the extinction of dinosaurs. 5. Climatic changes ca indeed cause flooding through constant rain. 5. There was an Ice Age, AFTER the 'dinosaur era', and after constant rain, and colder climates, the water would then 'turn to ice'.

The Serpopard looks like a sauropod dinosaur, and was in the same era which has Egyptian 'discoveries' identical to that taught by the angels of Enoch. Many other Egyptian 'creatures' are identical to angelic forms, including those with the heads of animals and bodies of humans (similair to Cherubim). And the Serpopard wasn't soley Egyptian, surrounding areas also had this 'untameable' creature.

Dinosaurs have been found in the same layers of rock supposed to be 'millions upon millions' of years old, some even fossilized in limestone and turquoise.

T-Rex blood, the latest discovery going in MY favor. You all said when the first was found that 'it couldn 't be Hemoglobin' in the blood cells that it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to still exist aftr millions upon millions of years. And lo and behold, ANOTHER was found, with both Hemoglobin AND soft tissue. The honeycombed structure of a bone does NOT allow for such amterial to still be there after millions upon millions of years. You claimed 'the ice froze it', yet by Evolution's 'standard' the Ice Age didn't happen until millions upon millions of years AFTER the extinction of dinosaurs. It would have distiintergrated in  that time. You ALSO claimed that fossilized bones were comparable to a 'safe' locked up for millions of years where the 'meat' within would still be 'fresh'. Any logical person would realize the utter flaw in logic there when the blood, flesh, skin, muscle, etc all SURROUNDING the bones disintergrates over TIME, within that fossil. Unl;ss of course, you actually believe dinosaurs were walking skeletons. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Now, next time you come in here on a subject you know absolutely nothing about trying to insult my logic for you own gain, I suggest you think twice.

As some people are saying 'Evolution is dying slowly, day by day'. You can't control the way people think, and the flaws of Evolution keep popping up, no matter how much you try to degrade them. And as I've pointed out before, there are scientists on neither Creationists, nor Evolutionists 'side' who have tested Evolution and claimed it bunk because it couldn't even pass a chicken farm test, they scream out for justice, while Evolutionists degrade and defame them for their own dying myth. And speaking of hoaxes, the embarressement of both Naional Geographic and the Evolutionist community ater it's pathetic attempt to claim there was a transitional fossil of an 'Acrheoraptor' that was deliberately hoaxed is the best one that comes to mind. The Archeoraptor that never was.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child, 25 June 2005 - 01:01 AM.


Posted Image


#33    babayagafamiliar

babayagafamiliar

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2005

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:25 AM

QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child @ Jun 22 2005, 03:53 AM)
Now of course this is not going to change anything but out of general curiosity, who here believes Enoch should be accepted either as part of the Cannon again (it was once part of it) or at least accepted by the Vatican (and minues the guesstimate dating)?

Reasons to vote yes:

Without Enoch, the case for Creationism is incomplete and it has historical evidence to back it up proving it IS a genuine document

2. It specifically says that God said He wanted everyone to have and share this book

3. Enoch begins the Bible, but has been left out

4. NOTHING was meant to be left out (and I believe other excluded and or partial books should be recognized and included in it's entirety).

5. The reasons it was left out were pure predjucide and not being able to comprehend what was written (like the accurate astronomy). Also, they didn't want to accept the notion of fallen agels

6. It's part of history, and should be treated as such

Reasosn to vote no:

Oh I'm sure many have reasons, state them, but if it's to do with dating, note I will NOT even read your post, because it's erroneous and irrelevant.

Reasons to vote 'I don't know'/'I don't care':

That's pretty obvious.

View Post




I voted no, but I'm not Catholic. I think even though Jude quoted from it we will never really know what is from the oral tradition and what is true and accurate.


#34    P4P3R T1G3R2

P4P3R T1G3R2

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2005
  • Location:Bucureşti

  • "Fight for the Motherland!!!"

Posted 25 June 2005 - 04:41 AM

No I don't think Enoch should be in the Bible.  It says that there is 10 heavens and animals have their own heaven.  laugh.gif

Edited by P4P3R T1G3R2, 25 June 2005 - 04:58 AM.


#35    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:34 AM

So do many other Hebrew texts.


Posted Image


#36    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:27 PM

QUOTE
You obviously don't read posts you intend to respond to, do you. In fact, you even quoted it and didn't read it. It was never called a 'hoax'. Your knowledge on the subject is equal to a tabloid magazine. Biased and unfactual.


I call it a hoax because that is what is has become.  It was originally created, according to the biblical scholars who have researched this, as a fake to sell.  It would be called a forgery, except there was no original to forge it from.  It was completely fabricated.

Now, are you done with semantics, or do you wish to continue avoiding the actual subject?

3) Refused to address specific arguments against your case, instead deciding to divert attention by making comments on the person instead,

QUOTE
Yes indeed you have no knowledge of this area whatsoever, I wasn't quoting you, I was telling you.


Again, semantics:

"It is not 'agreed upon' by every 'expert' that it is a 'hoax' because 'hoax' wasn't the word used in the first place."

"You obviously have NO knowledge of this area whatsoever, and have even admitted that"

You don't want to call it quoting?  Fine, call it a straw-man argument.  Whatever title you wish to place on it, it remains that you claimed I said something that I did not say.  Whether you quoted me or told me, you still claimed that I said things that I did not.

3) Refused to address specific arguments against your case, instead deciding to divert attention by making comments on the person instead,

QUOTE
So, your entire arguement is irrelevant. And I said before you don't know me at all. you know nothing about me except for a few posts I make on this board. And by WHOSE standard do you assess someone by your 'four checking points', yourself? Wow, all hail Aquatus, he knows all, yet he knows nothing about the topic at hand.


As I said, these four points apply specifically to you, and they can be checked by anyone who wishes to do so, regardless of their personal opinion on the matter, merely by going to your past topics and seeing the progress, as I outlines.

QUOTE
You sound worried.


More like irritated.  It utterly amazing to me the lengths you will go to to avoid testing your faith.

QUOTE
Now, if you actually knew anything about the topic at hand, or even read through posts abandoning your usual superiority complex you'd know that I was talking about the Church, who is solely resposible for what Augustine did when he ditched the book in the 4th century, when up to that time IT WAS PART OF THE CANNON. Maybe in capitals it will sink in.


Okay, fine, let's go with that.  The original questions still apply:  Why would the Church have a vested interest in discrediting the Book of Enoch? Why would they have the support of the majority of biblical scholars?

QUOTE
You really do contradict yourself there Aquatus. Especially here 'ancient civilizations had scads of monsters, demons,'. You believe in demons but you can't accept the description of ancient people describing dinosaurs, from how they were created, to their eating habits, terrorization of humankind, their 45ft height, and a detailed description of their eventual doom with ties in with the scientific theory of the extinction of dinosaurs?


I believe in demons?  Where the heck did that come from?

And no, I do accept the descriptions because all the descriptions that you have given have been repeatedly shown to not be dinosaurs.  Heck, you want to do it again?  Let's do it.  I have already challenged you to defend you claims in a formal debate, and you have completely ignored the challenge.

As I have said before, I am tired of your repetitious and loud claims that you have irrefutable evidence and that no one has ever shown how that evidence is faulty.  Once again, I challenge you, take all this 'evidence' that you continue to spew forth and meet me on the formal debate field, where you will have no place to hide and no way to ignore the arguments opposing you.  If you think you have a decent, reasoned argument, I invite you to put it to the test.  Either put up, or shut up.

Edited by aquatus1, 25 June 2005 - 01:29 PM.


#37    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,686 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:50 PM

If one believes that the Bible was put together by man according to the will of man...then by all means, include Enoch....

however, if one believes that the Almighty God put the Bible together according to His will using man as the tool....then isn't it a bit foolish to presuppose that God made a mistake in not including Enoch?

Either way....the argument for Enoch loses.,

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#38    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:29 AM

Aquatus, I don't know how many times I have to go over the fact that not EVERY 'expert' deems Enoch a forgery.

As for your challenge, I've already done so, and you read had no way to wiggle you way out of it even then when I had less evidence to work with than I do now except to say it didn't meet a format. You again ignored the many points of evidence brought up.

This isn't going to go away, but if want a format DEBATE, and not a bullshit excuse about which format it should be in, go for it, send it in as a debate suggestion.

Joc,

With all due respect man DID indeed put the Bible together, you surely don't believe it placed itself together now do you? MAN changed it and again I'll go through the fact that it was part of the Cannon (I.E IT WAS PART OF THE BIBLE) up until the 4th Century. So, what, are you claiming God changed His mind? It was GOD'S rule not to take books/parts out, and the term WORD OF GOD was used because it was all one singular word. Man ignored that rule, not God.


Posted Image


#39    TheOriginalF

TheOriginalF

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2005
  • Location:Maine

  • "Well I'm sorry dad, I won't live in your...microwave oven world any longer. You people have carpet on your hearts!"

Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:33 AM

I voted yes, it has just is just as valid as any other book in the bible why not include it with countless other texts that have been left out by the church. It would allow people to view the whole spectrum of the religion and not just what the church wanted us to see.

<center>"Christ! I work hard all day, I expect a normal ham meal, not, not--Voodoo pork!"<center>
<center>Posted Image<center>

<center>8th Degree of the Steel Circle: May intelligence, rationale, and logic reign. <center>

#40    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:42 AM

OriginalF,

That's exactly my point, with Enoch and just about every other book which is considered 'lost'. People should see the whole story, and make their minds up themselves, it shouldn't be censored because someone in the Church/Vatican doesn't happen to like it.


Posted Image


#41    TheOriginalF

TheOriginalF

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2005
  • Location:Maine

  • "Well I'm sorry dad, I won't live in your...microwave oven world any longer. You people have carpet on your hearts!"

Posted 26 June 2005 - 07:12 AM

Yes exactly Ashley, actually I would really like to see the book of Thomas included in the bible as well. As I recall it provided a more human, less divine view of Jesus...or perhaps I may be confusing my gospels.

<center>"Christ! I work hard all day, I expect a normal ham meal, not, not--Voodoo pork!"<center>
<center>Posted Image<center>

<center>8th Degree of the Steel Circle: May intelligence, rationale, and logic reign. <center>

#42    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 26 June 2005 - 11:26 AM

Haven't read that one, but might take a look into it later. While I believe in Jesus divinity, Jesus, while He was here lived like a human being, and many people tend to forget that.

Some poeple even believed He made wine yet never drank it Himself. Obviously, the Judaic customs of wine during various feasts and festivals aren't know to the vast majority of the Christian world.


Posted Image


#43    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2005 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child @ Jun 26 2005, 06:29 AM)
Aquatus, I don't know how many times I have to go over the fact that not EVERY 'expert' deems Enoch a forgery.


Probably about as many times as I will have to repeat that no one is claiming EVERY expert  says it's a hoax, but the vast majority do.

QUOTE
As for your challenge, I've already done so, and you read had no way to wiggle you way out of it even then when I had less evidence to work with than I do now except to say it didn't meet a format. You again ignored the many points of evidence brought up.


You have already done so?  Oh, you must mean your post in my "Proof of Creationism" Thread.  Proof of Creationism

Last we heard from you, I was asking you to present a a proper theory, something other than a vague claim, and explaining exactly what it was that I was looking for (falsifiability).  You made no posts after that.  We didn't even get to discuss any evidence, since there was no theory for evidence to support.


QUOTE
This isn't going to go away, but if want a format DEBATE, and not a bullshit excuse about which format it should be in, go for it, send it in as a debate suggestion.


Sounds fine to me.  Maybe that will get it through your head that, whether or not you consider it 'bullshit', the standards of scientific methodology and Formal Logic exist for the purpose of verifying that an argument makes sense and is reasonable.  I will call Disinterested and set it up.

Shall it be Enoch: Fact or Fiction?


#44    Lamont Cranston

Lamont Cranston

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 124 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2005

Posted 26 June 2005 - 03:12 PM

QUOTE
Sounds fine to me. Maybe that will get it through your head that, whether or not you consider it 'bullshit', the standards of scientific methodology and Formal Logic exist for the purpose of verifying that an argument makes sense and is reasonable. I will call Disinterested and set it up.

Bravo Aquatus1, after reading as many of Ashley Star-Child's postings and your postings as I could find, it appears the debate will be you shooting fish in a barrel!  Only ASC will think she won, everyone else (except for the fundies) will know that you won the debate hands down! wink2.gif


"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed, miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue." - Ethan Allen

#45    JuneyGirl

JuneyGirl

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2005

Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:41 AM

QUOTE(Jeremy_Rumbolt @ Jun 22 2005, 05:53 AM)
So, Enoch is more about the Creation?

View Post




IMHO you need the bible.. you are to involved in this enoch stuff blink.gif

''Fear not; I am with you to the end of the age. Jesus




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users