I tried my "Magic Eight Ball", and it said, "Reply Hazy, Try Again"
(While searching for the above image, I ran across this hysterical page: Behold the amazing Hysterical Liberal Magic Eight Ball! )
Posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
So I herewith announce my intention to Abandon Thread! 389 posted on 01/09/2004 6:21:17 PM CST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
PatrickHenry remains aloof ... 419 posted on 01/10/2004 6:49:25 AM CST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
So you believe, anyway.
I tried my "Magic Eight Ball", and it said, "Reply Hazy, Try Again"
(While searching for the above image, I ran across this hysterical page: Behold the amazing Hysterical Liberal Magic Eight Ball! )
What "contradiction"? A reading placemarker is hardly the same as a return to participation.
Furthermore, the thread has calmed down and is no longer being strewn with landmines like it was getting for a while. If he decides it's now safe to come back, that's no "contradiction" either, it's just changing his mind because circumstances have changed for the better.
Now then, was that so hard to figure out?
Or were you just trying to fan the flames by pretending to be obtusely mocking someone, a tired old flamebait tactic?
Creationists have the same problem with Archaeopteryx. Some hand-wave it away as "it's clearly just a bird", the rest with "it's clearly just a reptile". Obviously it's not really "clearly" one or the other after all.
They have the same problem with hominid fossils, as you note. What follows is excerpted from this webpage. (I have highlighted a key passage in a red font, it was bolded in the original but not in red.)
The following table summarizes the diversity of creationist opinions about some of the more prominent items in the human fossil record. (If your browser doesn't support tables, click here for a text version.)
Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils Specimen Cuozzo
(1998)Gish
(1985)Mehlert
(1996)Bowden
(1981)
Menton
(1988)
Taylor
(1992)
Gish
(1979)Baker
(1976)
Taylor
and Van
Bebber
(1995)Taylor
(1996)
Lubenow
(1992)ER 1813
(510 cc)Ape Ape Ape Ape Ape Ape Java
(940 cc)Ape Ape Human Ape Ape Human Peking
(915-
1225 cc)Ape Ape Human Ape Human Human ER 1470
(750 cc)Ape Ape Ape Human Human Human ER 3733
(850 cc)Ape Human Human Human Human Human WT 15000
(880 cc)Ape Human Human Human Human Human As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)
It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.
Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case.
ER 1813 (H. habilis?, 510 cc) is almost totally ignored by creationists, but it is safe to say that they would all classify it as an ape. Few mention ER 3733 (H. erectus, 850 cc) either, but those who do seem to consider it human (although it's hard to be sure in Bowden's case). As one would expect given its essentially human skeleton, virtually all creationists consider the Turkana Boy to be human, although Cuozzo has been a recent exception. (Cuozzo recognizes that it is different from any modern ape, of course; he believes that apes have degenerated from Homo erectus, just as he believes that modern humans have degenerated from Neandertals.)
It would be fascinating to know what creationists think about fossils such as OH 12 (H. erectus, 750 cc), Sangiran 2 (H. erectus, 815 cc), OH 7 (H. habilis, 680 cc), OH 13 (H. habilis, 650 cc), but unfortunately few creationists even mention these fossils, let alone discuss them in any depth.
What's confusing about Archaeopteryx?
Archaeopteryx's Relationship With Modern Birds.
You can make a case Archy is a bird. You can make a case Archy is a dinosaur. Gee, how does that happen?
Therefore, the more complete the fossil record of the origin and early radiation of higher taxa the more similar the transitional species, and the more difficult it is to determine their taxonomic assignments. Species placed into two different higher taxa may thus have very similar morphologies.Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record, Keith B. Miller.
The farther back you go in the fossil record, the more similar those "separately created" things get. From the same article:
Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.As Darwin predicted, it's a tree of life, a real branching family tree of common descent. Things grow together and eventualy unite as you go down in the geologic column. That's what the creationists don't want people to understand.
Your post was quite exhaustive (and much appreciated) and it took some time to analyze all of your research but I determined that you and I were using two different translations. Mine is the more recent version.
Because of our underlying philosophical differences I doubt we will be able to find significant common ground on the subject, but I did want you to know about the newer translation for future reference.
Indeed, the study of ancient manuscripts is not everyone's "cup of tea" - but I strongly suggest it is essential to one's health and well-being to study the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. Your choice of handle and profile page would indicate that we do have some common ground in that aspect.
I have been interested in Enoch and other ancient manuscripts for a very long time because they help me to interpret Biblical prophesy. Here's a quote I haven't seen used on the forum but you might find interesting:
We could go into all the details why Enoch is not accepted as scripture, but let's assume we all know why and move past that. Therefore, since scripture can only be used to interpret scripture, or a true prophet (and let's assume we all know the rules for that too, and move past it) then Enoch cannot be used to interpret the prophecies in the bible. One true prophet will know another by the Word of the Lord that he brings. Did Isaac Newton say "Thus saith the Lord" or did he insist that the Lord told him these things, when he made that statement? If not, you must dismiss it, even though we know that he was a believer.
I understand what you are saying and on most all other ancient manuscripts would agree with you, no problem. However, Enoch is an anomaly because Jude quotes it directly and verses and phrases from it are quoted in the New Testament about 100 times. Worse, there are several versions of Enoch. But since it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the copy carbon-dated to 200 b.c. the text begs to be revisited.
There is also the issue of why it was never canonized. here's an excerpt concerning Tertullian (155-160 C.E.):
"If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
"But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired". By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude."
I wish I could hang around and discuss this further, but my daughter and son-in-law are due to arrive any minute and will be here for a week. But please post your comments and such and I’ll respond as soon as possible!
For the curious, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch lies outside accepted scripture with texts such as The Book of Jubilees, Manichaean Creation Myths, The Secret Book of John, The Apocalypse of Adam, The Gospel of Philip,etc, (All mostly Gnostic texts, and so not accepted by Christianity). There are many more, such as The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, The Paraphase of Shem, Creation of the World and Alien Man, Kabbalah (Roseanne's personal favorite), plus all the histories and narratives, including all the various interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and all the Wisdom Literature and Poetry such as The Odes of Solomon, and The Gospel of Truth and the Valentinian Speculation, again all Gnostic material.
You are either a Christian who believes the Bible is the given Word, or you are a believer in all sorts of esoteric knowledge, which I personally don't have a problem with, as long as you don't proffer the extrabiblical Gnostic gospels as Christian belief.
Enoch was the 8th generation and he walked with God. That pretty well should tell you all you need to know about Enoch
From this one quote you can't interpret that Jude is quoting from The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. It could well be just Oral Tradition. It could be from the mysterious Q, or L, or M documents, we don't know. Paul even quotes a Greek prophet, not necessarily implying that the Greek is inspired.
Very astute and, except for the alleged existence of Q etc, positively correct. The fascination with pseudepigrapha among those who also consider themselves learned is difficult to explain indeed. One one hand we are warned against "literal" interpretation of biblical ancient literature and, on the other, we are expected to take Enoch seriously--- as if ancient literature were a buffet where each person decides what is true and what is not. That is postmodernism at its worst.
Yes, Jude may not have quoted Enoch directly. As you pointed out it may have been a source common to both books or it may have been tradition. Regardless, quotation in a canonical book does not mean the source quoted is inspired. And certainly there is no one on this thread-- especially not a scoffer-- who is qualified to modify the Canon.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam,
BTW, Mark, this quotation makes it clear that generations were not skipped in Genesis as young-earth critics have suggested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
