Posted on 08/27/2003 11:33:41 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
You send chills up and down my spine with your reverance and understanding.
Love the comments on this thread-from everyone, and even understand fChristain's commentary on the Ten Commandments :^)
Jam137-Thanks for the comment on the authors who presented King James with their dedicated work to translating the Bible. Oh if only words could cross languages with the exact meaning intact for all to understand.
Loved Alamo-girl's response to you about the WORD OF GOD being there since forever, that became so meaningful to me as I read this thread....isn't it amazing how certain parts of scripture suddenly leap out at you....bringing understanding and that certain magnification and satisfaction Alamo-girl spoke of..
I have much to learn, so much and am so GLAD to learn of Enoch in this manner.
As for the Enoch's astronomy and visions relating to his grandson many times removed (Noah), perhaps word of mouth was the way the stories were carried forward from the flood on....does Noah refer to Enoch?
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to * patronize * those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.
Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.
The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).
The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or ... prohibiting (( link )) --- the free exercise thereof."
The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.
Truly, there is no greater joy than the epiphany when we discover more about Him! Knowing Jesus is more deeply satisfying than anything; He is truly the bread of life (John 6:35).
I do not recall any Scripture or ancient manuscript wherein Noah speaks of his great grandfather Enoch. BTW, I kept saying Noah was Enoch's grandson, but he was his great grandson.
The full text of Enoch would have been a great deal to pass down to generations by memory and word of mouth, but I imagine it would be possible. It appears that the language of the day was largely pictures, like in Egypt - so it is possible that the text was a collection of pictures which had lengthy understood, word-of-mouth, meaning.
And tho we probably should keep this debate to threads centering on this issue-I understand your passion and I share it! This thread has got a mission as stated by Alamo-girl in her opening salvo!
Isn't this unpeeling of Enoch's astronomy, the time line, fascinating? I have so much to learn here!
There is little existing evidence concerning the origin of Aristarchus's belief in a heliocentric system. We know of no earlier hypothesis of this type but in fact the theory was not accepted by the Greeks so apparently never had any popularity. We only know of Aristarchus's theory because of a summary statement made in Archimedes' The Sand-Reckoner and a similar reference by Plutarch.And this website is another scholarly treatment of Aristarchus. It says:
Copernicus himself originally gave credit to Aristarchus in his own heliocentric treatise, De revolutionibus caelestibus , where he had written, "Philolaus [see below] believed in the mobility of the earth, and some even say that Aristarchus of Samos was of that opinion." Interestingly, this passage was crossed out shortly before publication, maybe because Copernicus decided his treatise would stand on its own merit.It also says that Aristarchus claimed: "The moon receives its light from the sun." And:
In terms of heliocentricity or the movement of the earth, the only person to follow Aristarchus' philosophy was Seleucus, who in 150 BC attributed the ocean tides to the stirring of air caused by the rotation of the earth and its interaction with the revolution of the moon. Later, in the first century BC, Seneca mentioned the possibility of a rotating earth, but did not necessarily believe that it was possible.Philolaus (circa 480 BC - circa 405 BC), was a Greek mathematician and philosopher. He was an immediate pupil and transcriber of Pythagoras. He was the first to propound the doctrine of the motion of the Earth; some attribute this doctrine to Pythagoras, but there is no evidence in support of their view. So says the website.
Read what he had to say, and you'll agree that it's very strange indeed, and not at all a description of the solar system. But at least he said the earth moved.
Anyway, those are the predecessors of the orbiting earth theory. Those ideas seem to have been around in plenty of time for the Enoch text.
I agree with you on the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation.
With regard to the "appointed once to die" I agree with Ready2Go on the source (Hebrews 9:27).
In addition to that are the tribulation rapture passages. I am of the pre-trib rapture belief. There are others who are of the mid-trib or post-trib … and perhaps some who expect no rapture at all.
Following are tidbits selected from some of my personal favorite pre-trib passages. Lurkers may want to read the passages before and following each of these to get the full meaning to decide for themselves:
Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. – I Thess 4:17
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. – Matthew 25:10
Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. – Matthew 24:40
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. – Revelation 3:10
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, - I Thess 5:9
I still have found nothing on Enoch's observation that stars rise and die by becoming lightening (supernova) - or that there is a prison house for the heavens without measure or content (singularity?)
I scanned that one, and although there is apparently some good info there, it's very confusing about the dates involved for the various methods being discussed. The author discusses "Babylonian" astronomy during the "Seleucid Era." It's very misleading terminology. If the Seleucid Era is what the article is talking about, as seems to be the case, then this isn't very useful. Because it isn't really Babylonian.
Seleucis (for whom the era is named) was one of Alexander's generals who carved up the world upon the death of Alexander. The Selucids ruled the old Persian empire pretty much until the Romans took it over. Same story for Ptolemy, another of Alexander's generals, whose descendants ruled Egypt until Cleopatra, when the Romans took over.
Anyway, by the time of Alexander (and Seleucis), what we call Babylonia was probably as distant a memory as the time of Charlemagne is for us. And before Babylon there was the very ancient Sumerian empire (Abraham's origin). When Sumer fell, there was a mini dark age of a few centuries, and then Babylon rose (the political entitity mentioned in the Bible). When Babylon fell, another dark age followed, and then the Persian empire rose, and it was this which Alexander conquered. I believe that each new appearance of civilization in the region was largely ignorant of what went before, so there was virtually no intellectual continuity between, say, old Babylon and the later Persian empire (except collaterally, via the Hebrew scriptures).
So, it's misleading -- at least to me -- to speak of "Babylonian" astronomy during the Seleucic era. The Seleucids were Hellenic, so this whole website is consistent with the Enoch text's being of "classical" Greek origin, and this no historical anomolies are presented. (If I've read it correctly.)
Great thread.
I loved the way you described magnifying the bible.It described perfectly my feeling on reading the book of Enoch.I beleived it had credence as it was quoted in Jude,it "magnified the bible" to me.It has it's importance no doubt but it isn't included in the bible so it's importance to me is not on that same level.
However....I will certainly follow this thread as it's something I find fascinating.I also think that it speaks loudly to our times.
To add to your list of scriptures...
Psalm 27:5 "For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavillion;in the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me;He shall set me upon a rock"
God bless Alamo-Girl,grace and peace to you.
mitch
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.