I never considered Wiki a scholarly source, but it is a good source if you need info fast. It also usually has links to original documents.
I didn’t quote Jude because of how Jude USED the quote.
“12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” - Jude
Notice, he uses Enoch as an illustration, not as authority for saying it. This is true when Paul quotes the Cretan prophet.
You mention misquotes and cherry-picked quotes. I noticed that when I was in my teens. However, I believe Greek at the time didn’t even have quotation marks - perhaps you can enlighten me on that. However, people back then didn’t take a precise approach to quotes. Often, the general sense was good enough.
As for cherry-picked quotes, we see that in Jewish teachings and in many early church fathers. I’ve read that it was standard practice for Jewish rabbis - again, I’m way out of my area of expertise here, so anyone who wants to correct me is welcome to jump in.
I don’t feel like looking it up, but I believe Augustine covered this in his books on interpreting scripture - dare I say on how to make one’s own personal interpretation of scripture? Of course, that was long before Trent.
I also read about it in an article a month or so ago on interpreting scripture. Like Augustine (IIRC - just got back from a run & don’t feel like digging it out), the guy said to do it rarely, since it is very easy to go astray approaching scripture like that.
“But the “apocrypha” are no exception. It’s your choice to believe one and reject the other. That’s the only citerium that makes some books ‘holy” an dother profane; you.”
This is actually close to the Protestant position. I grant it isn’t logical, but it relies on God’s revelation to an individual. Like the loose interpreting, I don’t recommend folks make a habit of it - some humility in accepting what millions of others have before is called for. But there isn’t any getting around the fact that each individual, in the end, decides what he believes is the Word of God - and if the Bible is correct, each individual will be called to account for the choice he makes.
“If you believe, you have no reason to seek. Those who seek doubt.”
You and I have batted this back and forth between us a fair bit. Those who seek based on REASON doubt. When I was in my 20s, I thought reason could get me to the truth.
I eventually concluded that REASON isn’t adequate, it takes revelation. Reason is like using a 10’ stepladder to paint a 30’ wall - it just doesn’t get you where you need to go. I concluded that reason, by itself, leaves almost nothing but doubt.
We are, after all, told to believe in Jesus - not to think him.
But the context is not the same. Jude quotes Enoch as if it were scripture, in a prophetic context. Of course, everything can be rationalized, i.e. find "plausible" explanations for just about anything.
You mention misquotes and cherry-picked quotes. I noticed that when I was in my teens.
All one has to do is look where in the OT is the NT author quoting from and you will discover that most of the time there is no such verse! The NT alleged OT prophesy basically turns out to be put together from cherry-picked verses and made to look like something God uttered in one swoop.
That's not only false and misleading, but outright deceiving. It's no different than saying the New York Times said something based on sentences and words cut out from different sections and making up a new sentence. In my teens I trusted that grownups had enough integrity not to do something like that, because they were teaching me not to deceive, lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.
However, I believe Greek at the time didn’t even have quotation marks - perhaps you can enlighten me on that
No, of course they didn't use quotation marks. In fact, they used no punctuation or any other markings of the text. The words were not even separated by space, let alone commas, colons or semicolons. Sometimes, this is a source of controversy because depending where you place a comma can change the entire meaning of the verse. Here, too, we have a bottomless pit where human hand and mind can create it's own scripture, and has, with nothing more than individually chosen punctuation.
When ancient writers "quote," they make up a speech as they imagine the character they are quoting would have uttered it. That's paraphrasing at best. Thus, when we run into inconsistencies and contradictions, numerical errors, etc. Bible apologists invoke cultural and other factors. Case in point is Matthew's Gospel where Jesus enters Jerusalem riding two animals.
Apologists say he didn't know the Hebrew term for "and" which is used as "even" in the KJV! Matthew was a Jew, and an inspired Jew who somehow managed to master Greek but not Hebrew. I find that rather strange.
But since Hebrew was not spoken, but rather Aramaic, it is possible that he didn't know the difference (I suppose he was reading Targums instead of the Hebrew Bible). But then we go back to the other argument the apologists like to use, when it's convenient, namely that Matthew wrote according to what the Holy Spirit led him to write, i.e. that it was all really God's own words! Then shall we ask did God not know the difference but rather made a blunder?
This is actually close to the Protestant position. I grant it isn’t logical, but it relies on God’s revelation to an individual. Like the loose interpreting, I don’t recommend folks make a habit of it - some humility in accepting what millions of others have before is called for
Well, if it works for one person, then why not on the whole Catholic Church, or the pope himself? And if some humility is to be exercised for the wisdom and revelation of others, why not the revelation claimed by the Church? You see, both Protestants and Catholics are claiming the same thing; they are just focusing on a different level (corporate vs. individual). When you mock Catholics for their "deposit of faith" I ask you where is yours coming from, and why is yours to be taken as genuine and theirs as mere unsupported claim?
When I was in my 20s, I thought reason could get me to the truth.
That's clearly false, but what makes you believe that lack of reason can? Maybe we don't have the capacity to reach the (absolute) truth. Where is proof that man can, spiritually or rationally, reach the ultimate knowledge (and comprehension!)? It is an assumption that rejects the possibility that perhaps man is not capable of such a feat any more than your dog is capable of understanding why you do what you do, what paying bills means, or what and where the United States is on something known as planet earth.
I eventually concluded that REASON isn’t adequate, it takes revelation. Reason is like using a 10’ stepladder to paint a 30’ wall - it just doesn’t get you where you need to go. I concluded that reason, by itself, leaves almost nothing but doubt.
And that conclusion was based on what? A hunch or some imperfect reasoning? So, your whole meaning of life is based on a "hunch" or a faculty you dismiss as capable of giving you the answer? Why must there be an either or answer when it is obvious that man does not have an unlimited capacity, mentally or spiritually?