Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The flood, and meat eating.
Regless
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 183 (255004)
10-27-2005 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
10-25-2005 2:11 PM


Re: Enoch to Noah
Well, I believe it is two different enoch's since they both stem from different childred of Adam.
"Remember, Genesis is not one book but a compilation of stories from a variety of sources that are all then attributed to Moses. There are the two separate Genesis myths and two differing Flood stories. It's likely that the two origins of Enoch comes from two differing family groups or tribes, each claiming lineage from Enoch."
Really, wow, if you can prove it I can believe it?.
"That's it. That one line. No story, no explanation. Then later in the Bible, for example in Hebrews, an elaborate story of Enoch shows up. What is the source?"
Well, Hebrews was written by Paul when he was jailed. It's nowhere near Moses time and Genesis did make a point of mentioning enoch. Perhaps Paul thought it was time to record the story since he wrote many books in the Bible. As for the ordering, that is too say why you don't hear about enoch for so long, The work bible literally means a small library, but they arn't organized alphabetically or chronologically, but rather they're first seperated into Hebrew and greek, then odered by type. For example all the Gospel are to together, all the prophets are together. Genesis, which even starts with 'In the beginning' is in the beginning, and Revelation, which speacks consistant about the time of the end, is in the end.
Edited to add more. Sorry.
Sorry, I forgot I wanted to mention something about the meat rule. If a flood truely did occur to the extent it's depicted as, the soil would've been horrible eroded. They may have been aloud to eat meat because they need to. But the blood rule never changed.
This message has been edited by Regless, 10-27-2005 04:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 10-25-2005 2:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Brian, posted 10-27-2005 6:04 AM Regless has not replied
 Message 180 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 10:28 AM Regless has not replied

  
Regless
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 183 (255192)
10-27-2005 6:22 PM


Jar-
quote:
That's fine, you are free to believe that if you wish. As I said, the Bible is very inconsistent when it comes to geneologies (for example, there are two different geneologies for Jesus), often including more than one account of events. And it is certainly possible that there were two Enochs.
Fair enough. But can you please tell me where you found out about the two different geneologies.
quote:
As to Genesis having only one author, that is nearly impossible and I do know that most Christian Churchs accept not only that it had multiple authors but that the same stories are repeated in Genesis from those different sources and times. And there is nothing in the Bible that I know of that says Moses wrote Genesis. If I missed it perhaps you can point it out.
Yes, you're right, I should've phrased this better. I appoligize. While I still believe believe the book was compilated by Moses. I understand that there is nothing to support that he wrote any of it. Hebrews at the time kept track of their family documents so they knew their lineage, as that was considered highly important at the time. I document I have open in my pop-up window indicates that Genisis consists of a variety of documents, three are even believed to be from before the flood. Perhaps this explains the repetion of Enoch. Or perhaps Jared married in Enoch's famiy. It doesn't say, sadly.
quote:
It's also unlikely that Paul was really the author of Hebrews, although it too is possible. Regardless, the information about Enoch found there and in Jude IIRC comes from the Book of Enoch, mostly 1 Enoch. And neither 1 Enoch nor 2 Enoch made it into many of the Canons.
Yes, but that doesn't mean Paul didn't know of the books of Enoch. He obviousally knew the story of Daniel since he made a refference to him. Their were many books that didn't make it into the cannon, some of the more popular ones are commonly reffered to today as the apocraphal. But perhaps there were more of the Gospel books. Also, the strongest evidence I hear that paul didn't write Hebrews is that it's a diffrent style. Fair enough except that writting styles change. My writting is different from stuff I did even a year ago. Another thing to conisder is that writing styles can change depending one who you are reffering to. A congregation that was becoming calous or ridig, for example would require stronger words than one that was simply making an honest mistake. Of course, this doesn't prove anything. But I don't think the ecidence against Paul's writing is as strong as most claim it to be. And I'd like to thank you for keeping an open mind.
Brain -
quote:
Any support for this claim, there is certainly nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis.
That's why we look at secular records. The dead sea scrolls and thousands of other copies writting in ancient times.
quote:
Paul didn't write Hebrews. Hebrews and a few other Pastorals have now been taken off Paul, been that way for a long time now.
Hmm, I've read the italicized text, but I don't see anything conclusive. As I've mentioned before writing styles change depending on when and who you are addressing, I agree the lack of a signature is odd, but it could be the Roman solider interupted him a dozen other things. It's note-worthy I agree, but not conclusive.
Not done with the Old Testament, but no. It's commonly accepted that Nehemiah compiled the Hebrew scriptures, so he would have to be the last, yet he is not even halfway through it. Secondly, Psalms would have to come in the midst of kings since they were written by King David.
quote:
Surely an omniscient God could provide veggies and thus avoid the eating of meat?
Yes! I agree with you completely on this. However surely when Adam sinned an omniscient god wcould've whiped him out and started over, but rather he decided to make it work.
When Lot wanted to leave Sodom and Gamorah (sp) he said he couldn't run to vilage god told him to. Surely an omniscient could've found a way for him to do so, but rather he left one of the cities he intended to destroy thus giving lot a closer destination. Same with the walls of Jericho. Why use trumphets and horned when a meteor will work just as well. It seems God usualy tried to work with what he had, only in rare cases did he use increadible means to achieve his goals, such as the tenth plague.

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 10-27-2005 6:49 PM Regless has not replied
 Message 183 by purpledawn, posted 10-27-2005 8:30 PM Regless has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024