Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Other posters have already pointed this out, and most of us already know this from common sense, but: the date of authorship of a book is not determined by the supposed historical setting of the book's narrative events.
Nobody that I know reasonably thinks that the script of Star Wars was penned "a long time ago", in any galaxy, merely because it boldly claims so.....
With that said, in this case the linguistic and theological details of 1 Enoch can actually tell us that it is the furthest thing from being "the oldest book" and that it is quite late comparatively (as other posters have pointed out, again). The double-edged sword of honest critical examination dices and slices the unwary! Unfortunately, the sharp edge becomes immediately dull when it bounces against some people's critical thinking skills, or lack thereof. The same problem occurred in American Biblical Archaeology. The searchers found more things that challenged the traditional view, rather than supported it - even though the most famous and honest scholars were actively engaged in using Archaeology to "prove" the Bible's historical claims.
Nothing exists that can prove genesis or the book of revelation, any more than we can prove that Alice's rabbit hole exists. You fundies need to stop trying to prove the unprovable, and just proclaim that you have "faith" that these things are real. Myths cannot be proven.
Evening all!
I should like to make a point, if I may.
While the expression of my faith does not require me to 'prove' anything, please allow that other people may have (or have had) experiences that you have not, and that such experiences shift one's reality from "I think this______ (fill in the blank) is true," to "I believe that this_________(fill in the blank) is true," to "I know that _______ (fill in the blank) is true."
In the absence of a supernatural experience or two, one cannot know that, for example, Jesus walked the Earth circa 2,000 years ago, and is the Son of GOD. One may believe it based on historical records and other material (and natural) evidence, but one cannot know it without Divine revelation.
Given the above, it is feckless and futile to attempt to prove anything to one who has neither seen nor heard for himself. One might as well attempt to explain color to someone who has been blind from birth.
While the expression of my faith does not require me to 'prove' anything, please allow that other people may have (or have had) experiences that you have not, and that such experiences shift one's reality from "I think this______ (fill in the blank) is true," to "I believe that this_________(fill in the blank) is true," to "I know that _______ (fill in the blank) is true."
In the absence of a supernatural experience or two, one cannot know that, for example, Jesus walked the Earth circa 2,000 years ago, and is the Son of GOD. One may believe it based on historical records and other material (and natural) evidence, but one cannot know it without Divine revelation.
Given the above, it is feckless and futile to attempt to prove anything to one who has neither seen nor heard for himself. One might as well attempt to explain color to someone who has been blind from birth.
Shalom Aleichem,
Mahrie.
Mahrie, thanks you for saying that! I think it needed to be said
I do, however, have one minor quibble.
Much of the time, when we non-believers get involved in discussions like this one, we find that one thing is universally true: that the people on the other side of the discussion either don't want to 'see or hear' anything that contradicts their preconceptions, or they deliberately go out of their way to avoid seeing and hearing it.
To extend your own analogy a bit, it's often the case in these discussions that when told that the pen is red, the proverbial 'blind person' continually insists that we're wrong and that the pen is blue, against all evidence to the contrary.
Don't get me wrong -- I have great respect for everyone here, even when we don't agree (and yes, Vizio and Jeff, I include you when I say 'everyone'). I just wish that my counterparts on the 'other side of the table' would remember that stubborn religious zealotry is an impediment to discussion, not an advancement...
Mahrie, thanks you for saying that! I think it needed to be said
I do, however, have one minor quibble.
Much of the time, when we non-believers get involved in discussions like this one, we find that one thing is universally true: that the people on the other side of the discussion either don't want to 'see or hear' anything that contradicts their preconceptions, or they deliberately go out of their way to avoid seeing and hearing it.
To extend your own analogy a bit, it's often the case in these discussions that when told that the pen is red, the proverbial 'blind person' continually insists that we're wrong and that the pen is blue, against all evidence to the contrary.
Don't get me wrong -- I have great respect for everyone here, even when we don't agree (and yes, Vizio and Jeff, I include you when I say 'everyone'). I just wish that my counterparts on the 'other side of the table' would remember that stubborn religious zealotry is an impediment to discussion, not an advancement...
Hello Fred (et all)!
I appreciate your well-stated and kindly delivered comments.
I 'bolded' the parts of your comment I wish to discuss (hope you don't mind).
What you have said is true, of course, but it does apply equally to both believers and nonbelievers -- at least in my experience, and I've spent nearly forty-two years in the missionary field.
The core problem is that those on both 'sides of the table' (or more precisely -- ALL sides of the table) each consider everyone else 'blind.' Nonbelievers (again, in my experience,) hold just as stubbornly to their preconceptions as do 'religious' (I despise that word because of what it connotes, as most of the disgraceful acts that have taken place over the centuries in the name of religion have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ) zealots.
I find it interesting that most nonbelievers (such as sanspeur, for example,) object to believers stating their beliefs as facts (perhaps those who you might find 'stubborn') yet have no qualms about labeling such beliefs as 'myths.' In the spirit of polite discussion, it's hardly constructive to take what someone else considers sacred and consign it to the realm of fantasy; don't you agree?
Websters Pro Edition:
myth: a person or thing existing only in imagination or whose actuality is not verifiable.
The truth of the matter is that both parties (believers and nonbelievers) cannot begin to 'prove' or disprove any facet of the supernatural with natural human language, as any mode of human expression lacks both the scope and dimensionality to adequately describe Life that is not of this earth. Simply put: one cannot explain the spiritual in physical terms.
I usually refrain from participating in 'religious' discussions because my experience is such that even most Christians would take issue with what I have been given to know, and I long ago learned that arguing about spiritual matters is counterproductive, and indeed only results in contention and division (both of which GOD 'hates').
What I have learned in my life and time is that seekers of truth will always find it -- provided that they seek *earnestly* and with a pure heart, as GOD is not One to be either mocked or tested, and He will not respond to taunts. A secular equivalent truism might be: 'When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.'
Ultimately, I have found:
'For those who believe in GOD, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in GOD, no explanation is possible.'(St. Francis of Assisi.)
Also, from Acts chapter seventeen, which I include here not because it is Scripture, but because it fairly represents the condition of most of the human race, in particular referencing the act of seeking GOD, and the assurance (or in my case, knowledge,) that He is not far off from each one of us.
“I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you:
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things, and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would *earnestly* seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
A Christian viewpoint, to be sure, but the veracity of the existence of GOD can easily be 'proven' simply by *earnestly* seeking Him.
The Athenians in the above example were *earnestly* seeking GOD -- 'AN UNKNOWN GOD' -- going by the inscription on the alter that they dedicated to Him. They even worshiped GOD without knowing His Name or many of His attributes, and GOD sent them a messenger to better inform them. (This is, of course, historical fact, and easily verifiable.)
GOD lets Himself be found by all those earnestly seeking Him (to paraphrase His many statements on the subject). No arguments are necessary. He couldn't have made it easier. If any of us remain ignorant ('blind') regarding the matter of GOD'S existence, it is because we choose to.
I appreciate your well-stated and kindly delivered comments.
I 'bolded' the parts of your comment I wish to discuss (hope you don't mind).
I don't mind at all I'll have to do the same, and redact a bit to avoid jamming things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahrie
I find it interesting that most nonbelievers (such as sanspeur, for example,) object to believers stating their beliefs as facts (perhaps those who you might find 'stubborn') yet have no qualms about labeling such beliefs as 'myths.' In the spirit of polite discussion, it's hardly constructive to take what someone else considers sacred and consign it to the realm of fantasy; don't you agree?
I certainly do agree; I think that many non-believers (athiests, in particular, though I don't intend to single them out) need to step back and stop deriding the beliefs of others. We may not agree with their beliefs, but it's important to treat them with respect if we want ours to be respected in return.
That said, when someone uses the excuse of 'religion' to defend an untenable position, it's very frustrating to a lot of us, particularly when the justification for that defense flies in the face of logic.
Ultimately, the frustration many of us feel is directed at the mindset that allows someone to arbitrarily reject thousands of years of repeatedly tested, proven axioms in favor of something that is inherently untestable and unprovable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahrie
The truth of the matter is that both parties (believers and nonbelievers) cannot begin to 'prove' or disprove any facet of the supernatural with natural human language, as any mode of human expression lacks both the scope and dimensionality to adequately describe Life that is not of this earth. Simply put: one cannot explain the spiritual in physical terms.
One of my favorite authors once said that the fundamental problem with the human race is that we're trying to achieve world peace via a language that's designed to tell one another when the best fruit is.
I think that we're on the same page here, to a degree: we're trying to answer some of the most daunting questions we've ever faced by using a tool that's wholly inadequate to the task.
Ultimately, I think that before science and religion can 'meet in the middle', as it were, we need to develop a better way of expressing ourselves.
Curiously, Fred, and I'll freely admit that this is beyond my intellectual capacity to fully understand, let alone verbally define, I am able to spot/sense another believer across a parking lot, over a telephone line, and frequently on the Net -- sans verbal exchange. I'm certain it's kinetic in origin and equally certain that it is 'of The Spirit,' which should constitute an oxymoron, but it does not.
There is a 'light' around certain people (not an earthly, light bulb kind of light -- something else) and I can sense it in people, as they can sense it in me. There have been many times in my life, particularly as I've matured spiritually, when a stranger in an airport (or some other crowded and busy place) will smile a 'knowing' smile at me, and I'll return it with full knowledge that I've just bumped in to someone who is (what we Christians would call) 'in The Body' (of Christ).
I'm a student of behavioral psychology, linguistics, medicine, and quantum physics, and my intellect can't touch this, but my spirit fully comprehends it, and I perceive the results of the interchange(s) in a language that I have yet to define or master.
Such indefinable (in linguistic terms) connections (prayer is another similar experience) are impossible to explain to an unbeliever, or even to a believer who has perhaps either a nominal or minimal faith, or personal relationship with GOD through Christ, so it isn't surprising that 'spiritual' threads on the Net spin in infinite circles with no resolution possible. It's your world peace and fruit allegory.
Thankfully, what's impossible with words is possible in action. I've found that love expressed, in all its forms, is the closest phenomenon experientially to what I've described above, and if it is intense enough, it's practically indistinguishable.
I'm hoping that this lame attempt at explaining the inexplicable will lessen the distance between us. After all, God is Love.
Shalom,
Mahrie.
P.S. Who is the favorite author you mentioned? If you don't mind saying....
Curiously, Fred, and I'll freely admit that this is beyond my intellectual capacity to fully understand, let alone verbally define, I am able to spot/sense another believer across a parking lot, over a telephone line, and frequently on the Net -- sans verbal exchange. I'm certain it's kinetic in origin and equally certain that it is 'of The Spirit,' which should constitute an oxymoron, but it does not.
There is a 'light' around certain people (not an earthly, light bulb kind of light -- something else) and I can sense it in people, as they can sense it in me. There have been many times in my life, particularly as I've matured spiritually, when a stranger in an airport (or some other crowded and busy place) will smile a 'knowing' smile at me, and I'll return it with full knowledge that I've just bumped in to someone who is (what we Christians would call) 'in The Body' (of Christ).
I'm a student of behavioral psychology, linguistics, medicine, and quantum physics, and my intellect can't touch this, but my spirit fully comprehends it, and I perceive the results of the interchange(s) in a language that I have yet to define or master.
Such indefinable (in linguistic terms) connections (prayer is another similar experience) are impossible to explain to an unbeliever, or even to a believer who has perhaps either a nominal or minimal faith, or personal relationship with GOD through Christ, so it isn't surprising that 'spiritual' threads on the Net spin in infinite circles with no resolution possible. It's your world peace and fruit allegory.
Thankfully, what's impossible with words is possible in action. I've found that love expressed, in all its forms, is the closest phenomenon experientially to what I've described above, and if it is intense enough, it's practically indistinguishable.
I'm hoping that this lame attempt at explaining the inexplicable will lessen the distance between us. After all, God is Love.
Shalom,
Mahrie.
P.S. Who is the favorite author you mentioned? If you don't mind saying....
I've experienced something similar -- not with people of faith, but with people in general. Sometimes, I can stand outside a closed door and tell you if someone's inside. If I intentionally try, it never works, though.
I don't think there's a distance between us . In fact, I'm a person of faith, myself (I'm Wiccan). The thing about 'distances' is that no matter how vast they are, they can all be crossed if one simply has the courage to try.
My favorite author is the late Terry Pratchett. He was certainly very good at pointing out the many flaws of human nature.
I believe in things that can't be confirmed by experience. But acting on those beliefs seems to be self-rewarding in that helps me to be happier inside myself and to treat others in the same happy way. In that sense the experience of acting on my beliefs is positive. That's good enough for me.
Nothing exists that can prove genesis or the book of revelation, any more than we can prove that Alice's rabbit hole exists. quote]
I do not believe you exist.
You cannot prove to me or to anyone that you do exist.
He sure can. Simply give him your home address.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same problem occurred in American Biblical Archaeology. The searchers found more things that challenged the traditional view, rather than supported it - even though the most famous and honest scholars were actively engaged in using Archaeology to "prove" the Bible's historical claims.
