let me start by saying... if you know Hebrew... please correct me if i'm wrong about what i'm about to say...

from what i know about the Hebrew language, in my OPINION, it is one of the easiest languages to learn....

i have heard a lot of debate in person... and seen a lot of debate on this board... about whether the 7 days of creation in the Bible are litteral or represent vast amounts of time...

based on the structure of the Hebrew language... they are indeed LITERAL...

whenever a specific number or date is placed with the word "yom" (day), it is to be taken literally... whenever the word "yom" appears by itself, without a specific number... it can mean anytime in the future or past...

if you notice... the first thing that God creates is Day and Night... which is significant to the rest of the creation verses...

EXAMPLE 1

Gen. 1:5 "... and the evening and the morning were the first day"

in the above verse, you have two SPECIFIC time intervals mentioned. you have the words EVENING and MORNING... which specify a specific 24 hour period.

next, you have the word "rishon" (first)... which specifies and order...

not just the order of the creation, but the order of the days in which things are created...

according to Hebrew grammer, it seems as though they wanted the reader to understand that they meant these days to be literal...

EXAMPLE 2

Joel 2:1 "... for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand;"

in all instances where the phrase "day of the Lord" appears, there is NEVER a specific number associated with this event...

the "day of the Lord" is what is referred to as the end of the world...

this could happen at any time... so the phrase is left "OPEN" by not providing a specific number before or after the statement...


like i said above... please correct me if you understand the grammatical structure of the Hebrew language... please do not try to correct me if you don't...

my only objective was to point out how the grammatical structure of the language works... so that all the people arguing over what it MIGHT mean... can see how it was meant to be read...

gods do not think as men think. the thoughts of men are images;the thoughts of gods are living beings.


rudolf steiner,

You are assuming that the physical elements involved resolved to a day period equaling the same length of time as we currently are acquainted. Also, where is this evening and morning occurring? Is it on the Earth, was God on Earth when this observation of time made? There are a large number of logical possibilities that could account for the time statements.

Also, there is this:Day as we measure it was impossible until the fourth day of creation, thus how can we claim that the "days" as referred to in the creation account were equivalent to our current understanding of the period?

The Genesis was written 4000 years ago by people who didn't understand science. Even if the beginning of Earth was explained to them they wouldn't understand it. Genesis is a metaphor, to explain the beginning of the world it is not science.

by the way... i wasn't going to throw this in... because it really leads to a whole other area of debate... but the text really DOES not only imply that it was created in 7 days... the text actually points toward a reshaping... or a putting back together of the earth in 7 days...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"... Gen. 1:1

that's a general statement... but in the Hebrew and Aramaic... something happens that CAUSES the earth to become without form and void... then God pours out his judgement on the planet...

Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew and Aramaic hint at something that happened before verse 3... which is what some people refer to as the GAP THEORY...

what is interesting... is that God tells adam to REPLINISH the earth... Gen. 1:28

so who knows... maybe everyone is right... there are 3 Hebrew words translated as create in the Bible...
bara... to create out of nothing
asa... to shape or form
yasar... to make something new out of something that alread exists... (please note... i might have the definitions of asa and yasar switched by mistake)

so maybe it took 10 billion years the first time... something happened that made God mad... and He destroyed the planet... which would explain a lot...

then He decided to put it back together in 7 days... which would explain the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION... and explain alot more...

lol... maybe we are all right and this whole debate between science and religion is really preaching to the choir... so to speak...

I've always wondered why an Omnipotent god would need so long to make the earth.

If he's truly all powerful shouldn't he have just thought it and it would be?

If you have completely unlimited energy and if time has no meaning to you then there is no need for the earth to have been created in anything other then an instant.

The claim that he needed to do it in graduations infers that he could not do it all at once OR that he was not sure exactly what he was going to make in the end.

Just a thought I've had for a long time.

Can i ask what did God do on the third day?

I always thought to say the Earth was created in seven days belittled the act of creation. It must be very complex to build life and eco systems.

thaphantum, it does no good to spout bible verses at me as I don't except the bible as Truth. I am not a Christian and your bible has little meaning to me.

sure... check out Genesis 1:9-13

actually regardless of if you believe it or not... it's what is being talked about... if you don't like it... maybe you shouldn't post in a thread that talks about the Biblical account of creation...

that's just common sense...

nobody ever said that God had to take 7 days to do it... it's just how long He chose to take... and as you read through the Bible... there's actually a lot of reference back to the 7 days of creation... as far as prophecy is concerned...

actually... let me correct myself now... it took 6 days to create the earth...

Yes he rested on the seventh, hence we have Saturday! Hooray for it! But I digress, God chose to take that long, he could have snapped his fingers and it would have been done just like that, but he is quite the dramatic. hence the parting of the red sea, or turning people into salt... its just how he is.

I'd have to disagree, phantum. If you look at the structure of these early chapters of Genesis, there is a definite poetic structure to it (see, for example, the relationships between the days of creation - I'll post more details on this if you want them). In the context of a poetic/figurative piece of text then, the 24-hour period indicated may not necessarily be literal, but a figurative way of dividing up the creation of the earth. Genesis was never written as a scientific explanation for the creation of our universe. It just doesn't do that. Instead, the early chapters of Genesis was written to show us that the God is the creator of our world. In other words, it explains the who, not the how of creation.

Regards, PA

you could possibly be right... but as i said before... the structuring of the Hebrew is the main indicator of literal or figurative translation...

also, if you read my post about the Gap Theory and that Genesis 1:3-31 could simply be a re-creation of things...

i already ran through a few reason why i believe that both sides could indeed be right on the explanation of chapter 1... check out my post above about how God told adam to replinish the earth...

Perhaps if you gave Enoch the credit it deserves (and I strongly suggest you read my debate on it of which I WON) you would know that it clearly states that the '7 days' is actually 7000 EARTH YEARS which was 7 of God's days. This can be further backed up by the fact that the OT states 1 of God's days (God being in space because HEAVEN is in space) is 1000 earth days, hence why Adam DID die on 'the DAY he ate from the tree' dying 70 years off being 1000 years old. Those 70 years he lent to his future incarnation (there's that reincarnation again ) which God told him about which would be king David, Solomon's father. His incarnation as David was supposed to be quite short but he asked God to take the years off his life as Adam so it could be added to his future incarnation as David.

yeah... i understand your point about adam dying the same day... no argument there... and i understand that "one day is with the Lord a thousand years and a thousand years is one day" but not from enoch which was written in the 2nd or 3rd century... and not by Enoch...

Psalms 90:4
2 Peter 3:8

where exactly does the Bible say heaven is in space? it is a spiritual realm... why does it need to be in space?

where in anything ever did God tell Adam that he would be reincarnated as king david?

and finally... why would Adam ask to die early? that makes absolutely no sense... as to why adam would want to shorten his life by almost 70 years... just so he could add them to a life a few thousand years in the future...

can i please get some references...

by the way... i have the book of Enoch... and it's a great story.... all fiction... but a great story... i also have the books of Adam and Eve... if i were you... i wouldn't give much credit to "Forgotten Books of the Bible and the Lost Books of Eden"

Like I said read my debate.

seeing as how i asked for references to the above... i'm not going to read a whole debate in which you try to convince people that the book of Enoch is valid for anything besides interesting reading...

second... i don't know where it is... and even if i did... i probably still wouldn't read it... i'm just going to assume that your only source is the Book of Enoch... written by a rabi, thousands of years after Enoch existed...

There are several books which back up Enoch and even speak of the fall of the angels with women. One of them is Genesis 6 where 'The Sons of God (Benai Elohim, i.e. ANGELS) went in unto the daughters of men and chose wives for themselves' and 'And there were Nephilim (giants, depending on the translation) in those days'. There is also the passage in Jude plus a whole host of Jewish books which back up the event talk of Enoch's books, including the book from where Genesis CAME FROM which was Jubilees, which talks of Enoch's books and the fall of the angels and the Nephilim etc, proving tha Enoch is OLDER THAN GENESIS. Your claim that is fiction is entirely flawed, Jesus' own disciples quoted a passage from the Book. Hence why, for this reason and more I urged you to read my debate whic is 'Debates season two' 4th page 'Enoch: Fact or Fiction.' I won the debate.

Bible chronology and some excerpts from the King James Bible and New Advent.org by Paulo Riven.


Human.......Age (Yrs)..Sired....Lifespan (Years)

Adam........130 .......Set.......930
Set........105 .......Enos.......912
Enos........90.........Cainan.....905
Caiann......70.........Malaleel...910
Malaleel....65.........Jared......895
Jared.......162........enoc.....962
enoc......65.........Matusala..365 (Walked with God)
Matusala...187........Lamec.....969
Lamec......182........Noe........777 (begot a son?)
Noe.........500..(Sem,Cam,Japet)

*see link for more details*

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen006.htm

*see link for details*

The Bible Chronology of Riven.


Here's the problem with man's history according to The Bible.

In the Bible, it took God 7 days to create the Earth, be they which eons you choose.

But yet, it only took man 2 chapters from creation to Sin, and 5 chapters to DESTROY what God created.


Genesis
This book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Beresith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the history of the Creation of the world; but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph. (For more information, see the article PENTATEUCH in the Catholic Encyclopedia.) -New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/

2369 / 50 Chapters for Genesis = 47.38 years per chapter or 17,293.7 days.

6 days (chapters) would equal 284.28 years of Creation.
1 day = 47.38 years to rest and sanctify the Earth.

7 days = 331.66 Years for Gods works or 121,055.9 days.

If we perceive chapters as years of days. For Chapter one, we know was six days of Gods work, so 47.38 years divided by 6 days = 7.896 years to a day, however...

Chapter 1 - 47.38 years = 6 days of Creation.
Chapter 2 - 47.38 years, but in this Chapter God rested for only 1 day...7.896 years + 47.38 = 55.276 years of God's Great Works.

On the 56th year , humanity Sinned. (5+6=11) (1+1=2)
2 = Man and Woman.

Chapter 4, Man commits Murder, 189.52 years later.

Chapter 7, The Deluge proclaims the Earth, 331.66 years after Creation.

Chapter 8, The Earth is reborn, 379.04 years after Creation.

So if we take my date of 6482.bC was created in 6813.66 bC, according to Theosophists and myself, which of course we could extend this slightly if we constitute each day as a Chapter of 47.38 years rather than 7.896 years from God's 6 days in Chapter 1. If we did that, then God would have just finished building the Earth, and like a child with resentment for his artwork, would crumple the paper right after...The only difference being that we would have to start Genesis off at Chapter 8 to reserve 7 Chapters for God's Works and Leisure.

*see link - HERE* - P.S, I think you missed putting this link in

Are you sure you have your name correct? Maybe it was someone else you were thinking of, because the book of Jude (which is in our Bible) quotes Enoch, and scholars all agree that Jude was written in the 1st century A.D. Interesting point that Enoch is quoted by our own scripture, yet Enoch is not apart of said scripture. The new pastor at my church before he came to our church was asked at his old parish to do a sermon on Jude. He looked it over, spent hours researching, tossing up ideas on how to bring up a bible passage that is not in our bible. In the end, he passed the buck onto the senior pastor to give the sermon. I never did ask him how the other pastor handled the talk *files this away to ask him next i see him*

i'm not saying that Enoch wasn't real... i'm saying that Enoch DIDN'T write the book of Enoch...

it's not a secret... it was written by a Rabbi...

as you know PA... anyone that is knowledgable of the Bible could indeed write a book in which all points agree... Jude didn't quote the book of Enoch... it quoted Enoch the preacher...

just because someone throws a name on it... doesn't give it one bit of credibility...

just like most people don't give the Books of Adam and Eve credibility... yet they appear in the same group of books that the book of Enoch does... you can go buy them all together...

the above are reasons i don't accept it as valid scripture... but of course it should line up with the rest of scripture... it was written a couple hundred years after Jude was...

i had a huge interest in Enoch when i was 16... i found the book and lost intersest by 17... i still have it though...

i could go and write the book of Jabez and use the argument... the Bible quotes Jabez, so it must be real...

talk of nephilim and fallen angels DOES NOT prove that it's old just because the title of the book carries and older name... it just proves that it talks of Nephilim and fallen angels...

i wouldn't be able to resist calling the writer stupid if it didn't speak of those things... since they did indeed happen in the time of Enoch...

i think you are confusing the existance of the man with the validity of the book... Enoch did indeed live before Genesis... but that book was written almost 200 years after Jude...

again... KNOWING that the book was written in the 2nd or 3rd century... why wouldn't they put in quotes and history already mentioned in the Bible... just to add believability to id? that's what a GOOD con artist or hoaxter does... they do their best to make it look valid...

and if i recall... didn't God freeze Enochs faceand kept it in heaven when he went back to earth? because "no man can see God and live" how did they recognize him when he went back to say bye to his sons?

if Enoch died on his trip to heaven... who wrote the book? and why would God snatch him up from earth... so he wouldn't die... just to kill him in heaven?

i recall the Bible saying that God took Enoch... if the mass amounts of information contained in the book of Enoch existed before the flood... there is NO WAY the Jews or anyone else would have lost track of that book. I'm sure Noah would have taken it with him.... and i'm sure there would be more than 3 verses in the Bible about Enoch... and if Noah didn't have a copy... how did anyone get one, thousands of years after the flood?

according to the book of Enoch... he saw a rediculous amount of things when he was in heaven... he saw more stuff than any other prophet... yet the Bible only felt compelled to say "God took him", "He pleased God", and "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints."

that makes absolutely no sense... at least not to me... Enoch's name means "preaching" so what it says of him in Jude makes perfect sense...

i'm almost sure that if the book of Elijah pops up somewhere and it has quotes from the Bible and talks about Biblical subjects... and the army that was behind him... you would believe it's validity too... lol...

i'm not sure who you were debating... but they obviously didn't have a good grasp on scripture... and they obviously have never read the book of Enoch... i on the other hand have... multiple times... that one book raises more questions than the entire Bible does...

and one last thing... the book of Enoch refers to men becoming angels... which is a direct CONTRIDICTION of many verse in the Bible that says men are all together different from the angels... the Bible says we become similar to the angels when we die... but nowhere in the Bible does it say that we BECOME angels...


after all of that... i will admit to this... the theory is that it could indeed be a real book... left out only because of what it says about fallen angels having sex with women...
which was indeed believed in until about the 3rd or 4th century (i'm not too good with specific dates) when the Africanus (can't recall his first name at the moment... i think it's Julius) guy figured it was a rediculous idea and made up the lines of seth theory...

so i will admit that there is that slight possibility that i could be wrong... and the whole thing is just a huge attempt to cover up the validity of the text...

edited: there are two versions of the Book floating around... in which case it is possible that we are debating two different books... lol... and i have read one and you the other... which would make this all pointless because neither of us would be talking about the other's book...

It was a ridiculous story when it was written by the ancient Semite priests, long before the Hebrews even existed and was just as ridiculous a story when the YHWHist priests of Judah copied it into the scriptures that they were creating in the 6th century BCE for the new Temple Theocracy set up to rule Judah under the auspices of the Persian Emperor (after all religions aren't as quick to rebel as are subordinate kings). It is a view that the very ancient peoples held; a barbaric ignorant belief with no evidence even then and totally disproven to all but those blinded by religion.

The bible also states that bats are fowls and insects have four legs, and rabbits chew their cud (even without the prerequiste multiple stomachs) so that must be true too! LOL

i just want to point out... the mako PURPOSELY took what i said out of context...

this was a response to Ashley Star Child about the validity of the book of Enoch...

my ACTUAL words were:



but i've notice that mako has a tendency to only present a partial truth in order to prove his point...

just thought i should point out his purposely intended misquote...

and i know it's on purpose because it's in the middle of the post i made... and it's preceded by the point i was trying to make... so you had to erase all of that to get to it... or you had to skip over all of that just to write it...

You are right that the Book of Enoch could not be written by Enoch. It was written by priests after the Jews returned from thier Persian exile, filled with ideas of Zoroastrian dualism. In the truly ancient books of the bible, Satan is an obedient servant of God, not an opponent, and this goes all the way back to the origin of all of these stories in the Sumerian myths.

But you are way off to think it is later than Jude. Enoch was written beginnig ca. 300 BC. Jude has imitated some passages from Enoch verbatim, and most secular Bible scholars will tell you Christianity had a lot of inspiration from this book. Fragments of Enoch were also found in the Qumran caves.

The Jews would later reject Enoch, not because it spoke of angels having sex (for this is in the OT as well), but becasue it contains pagan Persian Zoroastrian beliefs. This of course, did not bother the Christians, for their religions is simply Zoroastrianism with a Jewish slant.

If you studied the Old Testament more closely you would know that the original angels were virtually identical to men. They must eat food both in heaven and earth, and they are frenquently mistaken for normal men. No angel in the bible has wings. These are attributes of the Seraphim (fiery flying serpents/drakones) which ignorant Christians later mistook for swan winged humanoid angels based on pagan Greek and Roman winged demigods. The invisible "spirit" angels of the New Testament are yet one more Pagan Greek addition to the theology, along with Hades, demons, etc.

Ashley knows a great deal about the mythology/angelology in Enoch, but nothing of its historical origins. She still does not understand that "Ethiopic" Enoch refers to the very late copy found in Ethiopia. The oldest examples are from Qumran and written in both Greek and Aramaic from a probable original Hebrew version. And from disuccsions here at UM, everyone can see that she simply ignores those parts of Enoch she doesn't agree with, such as its acknowledgement of earlier Hebrew scriptures and the Bible itself, that the Seraphim in Isaiah are winged reptilian creatures, called flying serpents in the Ethiopic Enoch (like Isaiah), or Drakones in the Greek translations, and used to describe these creatures in later Christian texts.

You are quite correct on the history of the book of enoch DC. But how do you justify using a greek word (Drakones) for OT authorization. The LXX is full of Greek mythical and Pagan overtones in their language. Why not stick to Hebrew?

It was the Jewish Rabbis themselves that used the Greek word Drakones in place of Seraphim, simply becasue this Greek word was the most descriptive of an intelligent reptilian creature in service to the Gods. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman empire, and it is natural that Jewish scriptures were translated to this language. And even the pagan Greeks themselves acknowledged the exact kinds of creatures in their own theologies. It is no coincidence the Garden of Ares in which the Golden Fleece of Eternal life hung was guarded by a dragon, just as was the remarkable trees in the Garden of Eden. Or that Yahweh rides Cherubs in the form of dragons, just as winged dragons pull the chariots of Greek Gods.

Christians seem to be bothered when pagan religions much older than their own, often have identical beliefs. This is one of the reasons mainstream Christianity is largely unaware of many of these things, for they have been covered up by the leadership, and why Christians seem shocked and adversarial when these truths are revealed.

And Seraph may not even be originally a Hebrew word. You looked this up yourself. Far, far more ancient Pyramid hymns tell of a fiery flying serpent called the Seraph, and these were inscribed long before there were any Hebrews. In those times Abraham's ancestors still dwelled in Sumeria, and the serpent dragon of the Garden of Eden was called Enki, who created mankind, warned Noah of the Flood, caused the different languages at the tower of Babel, and many other Biblcial event mistakenly attributed to Yahweh., his brother. In fact, the serpent-dragon of Eden would not be called Satan until the Book of Enoch! Before that he is Yahweh's obedient servant, but Zoroastrian dualism (and its Christian imitation) required an evil opponent to Yahweh, and Satan fit the bill best. And this does have Mesopotamian precedents, for Enki-Satan did save Noah from Enlil-Yahweh's flood, but by the time the Hebrews finally wrote the story down, the two brother God's had been merged into one.

Ashley even if god took 7000 years and not 7 days to create the earth, what would that get you in the eyes of science that works with millions and billions of years.?

Great post DC, could you post some good sources. The first story of Mesopotamia in which the story of flood appears is The Epic of Gilgamesh. It goes into a lot of detail about the building of the boat.


It is a long story but will worth reading. It is part of the foundation of the Torah.

Darkwind,
The best source on the internet for the connections between Sumerian mythology and the Bible is at bibleorigins.com As for the truth about the dragons of the bible, much of this is from original source material. The most extensive work on the subject will be my upcoming book, hopefully finally out by the Summer.

Regarding your Second Book , The Holy Bible, The Second Sentence is enough said.

Genesis
"This book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Beresith, from the word with which it begins."

As our Forum member here, thaphantum pointed out the deep etymological meanings of "Hebrew" words in The Second Book of Conformational Testimonies.
Truth mixed with Lies or Ignorance for lack of knowledge there of...
in other words..The Second Hebrews...Judeans, stories and tales of the Serpent lands.
Not the First Family of Hebrews, for there are Two.
The Ones and The Zeros.
The Families of Eleazar mixed the Brew that fed the Grapes for Drunken Bactrian cries of Constantine Bacchic Orgies.

As I said, when The Library of Alexandria fell, so too did Wisdom Fall.

In Truth, Wisdom Fell when 150 years of Darkness Fell Upon Egypt in the time of k-H-ufu and snof-Heru.

Like our oldest Legend, The Tale of Atlantis, we also find mysterious numbers that stretch us across entire dimensions of curiosities, 900 days or 9000 years, or months, or bull counts or kings reigns.

Our Earth is said to be near some 7 Billion years old, so should we also take God's works of days to be as such?

Is it Galactic Time and 7 Light Years? Is it 7 days, months, bull counts, kings reigns, etc, etc....

For the most part, the provenance we find is not the numbers but the meaning of the numbers and how they are a part of the Book.

Such as The Great Flood provides meaning for the numbers, so too does the Third Flood Before Deukalion provide meaning for the numbers as it is told in Plato's Atlantean Preservation of Timaeus.

So the parallel of our Father's works are parallel to the Bible, and not to our Galaxy or Earth.

As I have shown, the parallel for these numbers must lie in the parallels of the Chapters of The Old Testament.

For they also did not tell you the ages of Cain and Abel, who we can presume 900, but they can tell you everyone elses ages or lineage and say it is so.

Neither would they tell you the Names of The Pharaohs or of Our True Father, but Alter them.

I feel the same for Critias, but not Timaeus, the original account of Atlantis.

For the word Critias, translated from Latin is in meaning as "Hebrew Judges".

This is the 2400 year old Second Book you know.

What happened to everyone else?

And who is to say that their words are the words of meaning, when we know etymologicaly that the meaning comes from Linear A.

Not 1300.bC evolving Hebrews from the mixtures of Arabians who came out of Africa to Phoenicia.

Nor 320-350.aD Black Bishops Brewing.

To understand the meaning of the word you have to understand it's origin.

To understand the root of H is to understand the root of a Horn and Serpent Languages.

what exactly am i a member of? how come i didn't know about this?

Either he means a member of the Christian faith or your unknowingly part of some new cult organisation!

If earth is not created on the first day.. then how they calculated or measured a "Day" May be this 7 days is calculated with some other revolution! May be one micro second of that revolution is calculated here in earth as 7 days.

So why is the book of Enoch the only known source for this quote from Jude?

I think he just means UM member.

My apologies, yes it is sometimes difficult to watch our words. Especially at this level of paradoxes.

I wouldn't want to say the wrong thing, for the pen is mightier than the sword!

I have corrected the post to reflect "forum member" thaphantum.

Generaly, I say that we can only reflect the words of the Second Book, for that is the meaning you seek to want to know our histories or God's works.
God himself has not spoken to you, nor has he made a booming audible announcement heard worldwide through actual voice to tell you what His 7 days actualy mean. However, the only answer you can find is in a book of collected legends and myths.

So our answer has to correspond to the Book, but not to the actual wisdom of our Father.

Diehards believe it was actualy 7 days.

The Bible can also reflect either 6000 years or 50,000 years to Genesis.
I read the entire old and new testaments in 3 months when I was in Jail for 6 months for false testimony and "political strings" which include a police officer sleeping with my ex-girlfriend whose child I raised for the first 3 years of his life.

I would never have found out about our Atlantean Kingdoms, but they did have some elements of the Garden correct.

Obviously, we are coming to know the truth.

actually i was looking into the book of Enoch and found some pretty interesting stuff...

like there are indeed two copies of the book... the Ethiopic copy and something else too... cna't remember the other one... but i do plan to do a little more research on it...

Ethiopic refers to the first copy introduced to the west which came from the Ethiopian Church. But this DOES NOT mean this is the original language or source of this book as a well known fan of this book on UM believes. Because they were cut off from the rest of the Christian world by the moslem invasions, the Ethiopians were not told Enoch had been exorcised from the Roman Church. Although the most complete version, it is generally considered the least accurate because it was so new.

Since then more fragmentary versions have been found, including those from Qumran dated before 70 AD, and in Greek and Aramaic, which is an important tool in confirming what the ancient Jews actually meant by certain Hebrew words unfamiliar with us today. For example, the Greek translation of Enoch proves that the ancient Jews and Christians from the time of Jesus still believed the Seraphim servants of God were "drakones", thus confirming the most scholarly view that these wing reptilian creatures that flanked the throne of the high God were Mushushu serpent-dragons, exactly as the Sumerian originators of Judaism believed some 2000 years earlier, and not the winged human "angels" that the Catholic Church would transform them into.

But as for the actual content, it shows clear examples of dualism imported from Persia after the Jewish Captivity there. Later, the Jews would eleminate all of the Zoroastrian tainted scriptures, though these would form the basis of Christian thought, so in this respect, Enoch represents the great schism between Christian and Jewish theology.

Thanks DC, I am sure you will inform us when your book comes out. I look forward to reading it.

No, I was using your statement to merely point out that because something is in the bible doesn’t mean it is true, in fact it is a good sign that it isn’t true.

if that's the case... i guess you disagree that we should love our neighbor as our self? help the homeless? protect the widows? etc...

just because you don't believe it's true doesnt' make it any less true... in fact the same could be said about science... which is indeed usually the case...

"look i found a pig's tooth... lets add it to the human evolutionary tree"
"we don't have any absolute proof of this... but lets present it as FACT anyway"

that's pretty much what i get when i look at MOST sceince that involves the origin of humanity...

There are several factors (other than certain prophecies in the Book of Daniel meet incidents in the reign and actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes), to include historical problems, the Greeks words, the prophecies relating to the second century, the book’s location among the Writings, and the late Aramaic as opposed to the earlier form that would have been used during the supposed period of Daniel.

The following is from the Oxford Companion To The Bible ...
Date. The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible, and yet it is still early enough to have been known by the sectarian community at Qumran, which flourished between the second century BCE and 68 CE.

The lengthy apocalypse of Daniel 10–12 provides the best evidence for date and authorship. This great review of the political maelstrom of ancient Near Eastern politics swirling around the tiny Judean community accurately portrays history from the rise of the Persian empire down to a time somewhat after the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple and the erection there of the “abomination that makes desolate” (Daniel 11.31) in the late autumn of 167 BCE by the Greco-Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (The story of this first of all pogroms of the Jews is told in 1 Maccabees 1.41–61; See Maccabees, The Books of the.) The portrayal is expressed as prophecy about the future course of events, given by a seer in Babylonian captivity; however, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that this is mostly prophecy after the fact. Only from Daniel 11.39 onward does the historical survey cease accurately to reproduce the events known to have taken place in the latter years of the reign of Antiochus IV. The most obvious explanation for this shift is that the point of the writer’s own lifetime had been reached. Had the writer known, for example, about the success of the Jewish freedom fighters led by Judas Maccabeus in driving the garrison of the hated Antiochus from the temple precincts (an event that occurred on 25 Kislev, 164 BCE, according to 1 Maccabees 4.34–31), the fact would surely have been mentioned. But evidently it had not yet happened!

The discussion of the date of the book of Daniel can be summed up as follows. With the possible exception of minor glosses, the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE, though the translation of Daniel 1.1–2.4a and Daniel 8–12 from Aramaic into Hebrew may have taken place later. One of the best pieces of evidence available for the rapid acceptance of the book of Daniel as scripture is the inclusion of Daniel and his three friends in the list of the heroes of the Jewish faith in 1 Maccabees 2.59–60, thought to have been written in Hebrew about 100 BCE. In contrast, in Ben Sira’s similar list (Sirach 44–49), written about 180 BCE, Daniel figures not at all.--W. SIBLEY TOWNER

As for editing and re-writing, here is what an early Christian Churchman had to say about the Gospels:
"It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with... Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."--St. Faustus, Fifth-Century French Bishop

Now that I have given you the evidence for the psuedepigraphical nature of Daniel, give me your evidence that the opinions of the majority of biblical scholars (including many Christians) are wrong.


I do not misquote people. I use their own words to “hoist them by their own petard”, that is called debating, something that anyone with any experience at the art would recognize!


In the several years that I have posting on these forums, many people have verified what I have said. My reputation as posting factual information is well established by the members of these forums.

(Phantom, I wouldn't under-estimate Ashley on this stuff (LOL). She may can teach you a thing or two, seriously!!! Read her debate, you'll see. Do your own research stop asking questions. Good luck!!!! (btw, Ashley is a teacher, she is NO student on this.)

Fiction, only because it was thrown out due to particular unlikings by self rightous groups-- I wouldn't necessarily call that fiction. I'd call that being partial to what you believe & having the ultimate authority to do make such decisions based on RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. Enoch coincides with Genesis, they are like one and the same. Enoch has more detail in areas, so why not call Genesis fiction too?
The fact is one measly little vote could and did keep important books from the bible... one little vote made the difference b/t the "word of God" and fiction. GO FIGURE THAT ONE!!

Nah! I want to make that decision for my self--- Give me all of those lost books.

i'm sure there are people who could teach me a lot about Moby Dick too...

and just so you know... research involves questions... but i assume since you made the statement on asking questions, that you never ask any?

and if you had bothered to read my previous post... i already told PA that i found some interesting info... and was going to research the matter a little more...

thus, this was an unecessary post...

It's not just about ENOCH, forgodsakes!! It's like WHOA!!! look at all these canons and what IS the "word of God?" what is truth? According to WHO????? Certainly NOT GOD! but a council of men. It's a lie. well, a white lie. Some truth, mixed with lies considering half of what has been given to us (by the word of GOD) is deleted by man because of his own partial religious opinions---
We are being spoon fed the most important information of this world, in this world. I, personally, do not accept what has been voted on to feed me spiritually. Especially by no group of Laodicia (?) (self rightous men) who either didn't like the idea that Angels bore children with women; or either Christ may have been given too much significance.... these are reasons we don't have the "lost books" in our bibles today, Phantom. This is what I've have began to see so far and it see it as disturbing, lied to even.... ......anyway!


http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm

Now did I say that? Every belief system that has ever existed has advocated those values, they are not unique to the bible. In fact, I could ask if you disagree with killing all the men, man children and non-virgin women and then giving those women who have never known man as sex toys to your soldiers? Do you believe in not letting the castrati or the cripple worship in the temple/tabernacle/church/synagogue/etc? Do you believe in killing children that disobey their parents? This is some of what your bible teaches and even your demi-god admitted that he came fulfill the law not change it one tittle.


Conversely it also stands to reason that just because you believe it’s true doesn’t make it true, especially in the face of contrary evidence!


Just as the same could be said of the bible, which is indeed always the case. Give me evidence of the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Paul, or any of the Disciples. No scriptures accepted, it must be contemporary non-biblical evidence. Incidentally, I am making no extraordinary claims, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.


Then you must be frequenting only those Creationists websites and not those that cover science…but then that is usual of Apologists, pick that which happened long ago by no scientists and crow about how wrong it all is…I am still awaiting your answer on Matthew and Luke….

although i don't believe that i'm wrong... the burden of proof isn't on me... i'm already a believer... so if i'm wrong... we die... that's it... or we all go to heaven or we all go to hell... but that's only if i'm wrong...

but if you are wrong... and i'm right... you have a whole list of things to worry about right?

Sorry, but those making fantastic claims (such as the validity of the bible, the Godhood of Jesus, etc) have the burden of proof laid on them. If I claimed there were invisible pink unicorns in my garden, it would be my responsibility to prove their existence, not yours to prove they didn't exist...So the ball is in your court!

and if you are wrong and the member known as Muslim is right, then you are in very hot water....their hell makes yours look like kindergarten! As for you being right, I have no worries on that matter and hope I can be a fly on the wall when you stand in front of the Creator and try to explain why you wasted your time following such a patently false god as Jehovah!

Incidentally, you never answered by question - In fact, I could ask if you disagree with killing all the men, man children and non-virgin women and then giving those women who have never known man as sex toys to your soldiers? Do you believe in not letting the castrati or the cripple worship in the temple/tabernacle/church/synagogue/etc? Do you believe in killing children that disobey their parents? This is some of what your bible teaches and even your demi-god admitted that he came fulfill the law not change it one tittle.