Looks like it could be a phone he's holding in his hand?
"Since the Council of Nicaea in fact removed the Book of Enoch from the Bible."
The Council of Nicaea, convened in AD 325, primarily addressed theological issues, such as the nature of Christ, and didn't have a specific mandate on the canon of Scripture. Canonical discussions evolved over subsequent councils and centuries.
"If they hadn’t removed any books, the Apocrypha Books, then it wouldn’t be a fact now would it."
The claim that the Book of Enoch was removed by the Council of Nicaea oversimplifies the canonization process. The Book of Enoch was influential in some early Christian circles but wasn't universally accepted due to theological divergences.
"Do some research and stop thinking the modern day Bible is 100% factual, and not edited and contextualized for control by the Vatican."
The assertion that the modern Bible is edited and contextualized for control by the Vatican oversimplifies the diverse history of biblical translations and interpretations. While translations have evolved, the core biblical texts have maintained substantial consistency across various Christian traditions.
"Any biblical scholar worth their weight knows the Book of Enoch is an original Book of the Bible."
The inclusion of unique books in the Ethiopian Bible reflects a localized canonization process that considered specific cultural and theological factors, as is common in different Christian traditions globally.
"Oh and the Dead Sea Scrolls say so as well, as does the non-Vatican-edited Ethiopian Bible; which happens to factually include all of the Apocrypha and additional, original gospels/books, that the Councils of Nicaea had removed/edited out."
The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable insights into Second Temple Judaism and its textual landscape. However, they don't uniformly endorse or reject specific books but offer a broader understanding of the diversity of texts in circulation during that era.
Excellent reply.
Their argument is tantamount to saying “God can give us a message, but can’t preserve it.”
Doesn’t make sense.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense with their argument is that they would have no way of knowing something has been “corrupted” unless they knew what the “uncorrupted” version was.
Questioning corruption implies a standard of purity or correctness. If someone claims corruption, they implicitly acknowledge a presumed unaltered state. The assertion that the Bible has been corrupted is self defeating.
Indeed, there were numerous writings circulating at the time. The councils, rather than trying to fit a "Roman Narrative," aimed to discern the writings widely accepted and used across diverse Christian communities. It was more about finding a common ground among believers than pushing a specific agenda.
The process was complex, but the idea was to ensure unity in the essential teachings of the faith. So, while there were many writings, the councils focused on those that resonated most broadly among Christians.
The comment I’m responding to offered no evidence/explantion for their assertions.
Let's straighten this out.
The councils didn't decide on a whim what books should be in the canon. Instead, they more or less recognized and affirmed what was already widely accepted and used by Christian communities.
Think of it like this: The councils weren't picking books out of thin air. They looked at what most Christians across various regions were already considering authoritative and divinely inspired. It's more like a ratification process than a selection process.
So, the councils didn't play a "Let's choose random books" game. They were more like, "Hey, these books are already being read and respected by the majority of Christians. Let's make it official."
The Roman Empire founded the church and was in control of what was allowed in the bible.
This is poppycock.
And before someone tries to jump on you for saying “an actual infinite is impossible” yet “God is infinite,” God is a qualitative infinite, not a quantitative infinite. He is an actual being with infinite qualities: infinite power, infinite knowledge, etc…
You have a misunderstanding of a “literal interpretation” of scripture. Taking a literal approach doesn’t mean you take non literal language (symbolism, metaphor, etc…) literal.
The Literal Interpretation method is like looking at the Bible in the most direct way possible, trying to understand what the authors meant using the regular meaning of words. It considers the historical and cultural background to get what the writers were saying. And here's the cool part – it doesn't force us to interpret everything as if it's all literal. So, if the Bible uses symbols or metaphors, this method encourages us to get what those symbols mean in the bigger picture, not necessarily taking them word-for-word. It's a way to appreciate the different writing styles in the Bible while still aiming to understand what the authors were trying to tell us.
Bro, you wrote ALL that assuming I meant the “Sons of God” referred to “good” angels? You should ask some clarifying questions before you waste your time.
“Sons of God” = fallen angels.
The original meanings written in Hebrew have been changed over the years, to the point that modern English (and other language) versions appear to say and mean something they never did.
While it's essential to approach biblical translations with a critical mindset, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the meticulous work of scholars in ensuring accuracy. Modern translations undergo rigorous processes, and numerous ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, validate the reliability of the text. Hyper-skepticism can overlook the dedication to preserving the original meanings and dismiss the wealth of evidence supporting the integrity of biblical translations.
Your analysis of the two, named, trees in the Garden, while exotic, really doesn’t make sense in relation to all the other trees that God said he gave to Adam to “freely eat.”
They are represented in the Garden of Eden as the "Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil."
HIGHLY debatable.
The Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, the “Watchers” in Enoch) intermarrying with the daughters of men. This is clearly stated in the text. The Nephilim were the great men of old, men of renown. The Sons of God (fallen angels) ruled the earth in those days by proxy through their offspring, the Nephilim.
As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the son of Man
~ Jesus
The days of Noah were evil, and the Nephilim (Hybrid beings created with genetic manipulation from fallen angels) walked the earth in those days (Genesis 6 and Enoch). Will the Nephilim be returning during this age that we live in?
I seriously wonder if we have succeeded in recreating the Nephilim genetic line with all the advancements in DNA manipulation we’ve been doing since the 50’s.
Are we keeping them hidden in the Antarctic regions? Are we consulting them for knowledge? Post Humanists want to merge man and machine (hybrids) for the next phase in their human “evolution.” That’s very coincidental. And we all know the powers in charge worship Satan and are in communication with his demons.
This type of “disclosure” makes sense if the powers in charge are warming us up for the re-emergence of the Nephilim.
Just thinking out loud here…
Obama, really puts the “D” in Democrat, doesn’t he?
Isn't the timing of this info coming back up interesting to anyone else?? I mean we knew this stuff happened about a month after the 2020 election, if not sooner. But NOW it's starting to get some traction? A good year before our next one? Definitely a controlled release. Almost like this is planned 🤔
Right! Truly blind faith!
You are absolutely correct.
My only point was that even if the MU experiment succeeded, it would only succeed in showing that Minds (the scientists) were still needed, essentially supporting the Intelligent Design position.
God walked with Man in the Garden (Genesis 3:8).
Man (Adam) had access to a Being with infinite knowledge.
Knowledge has devolved over time.
Ancient Man had more knowledge, not less. This flies in the face of modern Darwinian timelines and anthropological assumptions.
At this point in the game, Russia is more American than America.
#Rootin4Putin
In true Highlander style.
"There can be only one!"
<Chop>
Sounds like you're favoring some sort of Theistic Evolution. Do I understand you correctly?
A Joke comes to mind that I heard in Seminary once:
God and Satan were having an argument, and Satan proposed a challenge: he said he could do anything that God could do. God agreed to the challenge and told Satan to go ahead and try. So Satan reached down to the earth and picked up a handful of clay and started to shape it into a human being. God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You have to create your own dirt."
over time
Ah yes, "Time." The magic wand of Darwinian evolutionary processes.
By definition, never observed.
"Add in deep time and anything is possible," the Darwinian evolutionist proclaims. Time, however, does not have creative powers. In fact, Time is more destructive and deleterious on genetic information than beneficial, and this is observable and verifiable.
Macroevolution - change on the grand scale from one species to another - is never observed. The fossil record doesn't support it (which Darwin acknowledged).
In fact, the fossil record screams long periods of stasis with short burst of new, complex life appearing on the scene (see Pre-Cambrian Explosion), and then long periods of stasis again. This resembles special creation so much so that Stephen J Gould (Darwin's successor) had to posit the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in order to save the Atheistic paradigm of Darwinian thought.
It's a joke.
The Miller–Urey experiment comes to mind.
Ironically, without the "intelligent minds" behind the design of the experiment, the experiment would've failed miserably. Proving that a Mind is, indeed, required.
Darwinian Evolution is a farce - a lie.
Simple syllogism:
-
DNA = a code (biological definition)
-
Codes only come from Minds (Observable)
-
Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Now, this little argument doesn't get us to the God of the Bible just yet, but it does get us to a Being that existed before Humans with extreme intelligence.
Sprinkle in the Cosmological argument - which gives us a Space-less, Time-less (Eternal), Immaterial (Sprit), and VERY powerful cause for the Universe coming into existence - with the above little argument, and we're quickly approaching the God of the Bible.
Kek!