Freethought & Rationalism Archive

none_ · 07-23-2013, 02:27 AM

I find the following interesting and I interpret it to mean that death isn't the only option, a person could just cease to exist.
so Jesus dying wasn't the only option presented in the bible for existing with god if that is what verse 22 means.
and no, I don't believe the bible to be anymore than lore.

Quote:

21When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

neilgodfrey · 07-23-2013, 03:30 AM

Okay, I'll bite. What's the difference between "just ceasing to exist" and "being dead"?

(Quite apart from any other (i.e. "non-death") innuendo in the Genesis text you are quoting.)

none_ · 07-23-2013, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Okay, I'll bite. What's the difference between "just ceasing to exist" and "being dead"?

(Quite apart from any other (i.e. "non-death") innuendo in the Genesis text you are quoting.)

I guess "just ceasing to exist" would mean there is no remains as in a corpse.
being dead by contrast means there would be a corpse.
btw I am not sure this is in the right place on the forum, maybe a mod could let me know or move the thread if need be.

Duvduv · 07-23-2013, 04:56 AM

The intention is that he was taken to heaven alive and was transformed into an angelic being.

none_ · 07-23-2013, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The intention is that he was taken to heaven alive and was transformed into an angelic being.

now what about that "walking with god"... I guess the question is where were they walking?

semiopen · 07-23-2013, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by none_

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The intention is that he was taken to heaven alive and was transformed into an angelic being.

now what about that "walking with god"... I guess the question is where were they walking?

The Book of "Genesis": A Biography (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

What does it mean to say that “Enoch walked with God and then was no more, for God took him” ? This is a genuinely cryptic passage, and it is unclear what Genesis means. It seems that Enoch was a righteous man— this is what “walking with God” means elsewhere (e.g., Noah in Genesis 6:9, Abraham in Genesis 17:1)— whom God may have taken up to heaven (compare Elijah’s ascent to heaven in 2 Kings 2:11). But the text doesn’t say this explicitly—it doesn’t tell us the whole story. The job of the biblical interpreter, like that of a detective, is to ferret out the whole story from hints in the text.

The

Book_of_Enoch is an example of later interpretation of this passage.

Quote:

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC.[2]

It's fine to ask questions but this stuff is easy enough to look up on your own.

none_ · 07-23-2013, 06:22 AM

I know now that I think about it that it was a bit lazy on me not fact checking.
I do thank you for the instruction.
But, I really don't think it matters where they where walking.
my take on it is that they where together and if jesus needed togetherness to fulfill a prophecy death wasn't the only option for that togetherness.

semiopen · 07-23-2013, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by none_

I know now that I think about it that it was a bit lazy on me not fact checking.
I do thank you for the instruction.
But, I really don't think it matters where they where walking.
my take on it is that they where together and if jesus needed togetherness to fulfill a prophecy death wasn't the only option for that togetherness.

Relating the Hebrew bible forward to Jesus is pretty lame, but maybe that's just me.

Hendel in the book above, in the cryptic passage section, also comments on Genesis 49-10

Quote:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, עַד כִּי-יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים

Quote:

The scepter shall [n]ot depart from the tribe of
Judah…. Until the messiah of righteousness
comes, the branch of David. For the covenant of
his people’s kingship has been given to him and his
descendants for everlasting generations. (Commen-
tary on Genesis A [4Q252])4

This passage is cryptic for two reasons. First, some of the language is obscure or archaic. The clause “So that tribute may come to him” has an unusual preposition (‘ad ki usually means “until,” and rarely means “so that”). The sequence “tribute … to him” (šay lo) is squeezed together into one word in the traditional Hebrew text, yielding šilo, as if it were a name, “Shiloh” (as in the city, Shiloh). It looks like this line reads, “Until Shiloh comes to him,” which doesn’t make sense. These are linguistic obscurities, which occur because “The Blessing of Jacob” is an old poetic text. To the interpreter, these obscurities were hints of deeper meanings.

The second reason that this passage is cryptic has to do with history. For the people of Israel at the time of Ezra and for centuries after, there was no king from the tribe of Judah on the throne. The people were ruled by foreign empires and kings. (The only exception was during the native Hasmonean dynasty in the second and first centuries BCE.) So the scepter did depart from Judah! But aprominent prophecy in the Torah of God must be true somehow. Perhaps the clues in the cryptic words can yield the passage’s deeper meaning, so that it is not contradicted by historical realities.

Even Jews generally interpret this passage as Messianic, as Hendel remarks.

However the bible frequently puts really old shit in places and then brackets it with commentary, but the idiots today (and in the past) thought it was all one thing.

Switching to Exodus, the

Song_of_the_sea is a good example of this -

Quote:

The Song of the Sea (Hebrew: שירת הים‎, Shirat HaYam, also known as Az Yashir Moshe) is a poem that appears in the Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible, at Exodus 15:1-18. It is followed in verses 20 and 21 by a much shorter song sung by Miriam and the other women. The Song of the Sea was reputedly sung by the Israelites after they crossed the Sea of Reeds in safety, and celebrates the destruction of the Egyptian army during the crossing, and looks forward to their future conquest of Canaan.

When they (whoever they were) were writing Exodus they had this old song and stuck it in the text. Oddly enough it's not clear from the song that the sea actually parted - probably that wasn't part of the original story.

If this gets you back to Baby Jesus I guess that's wonderful, but studying the bible seems more interesting if we ignore the believing part.

Duvduv · 07-23-2013, 09:22 AM

If you prefer another term could be "abiding with God." It simply means walking in God's ways. Is that better now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by none_

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The intention is that he was taken to heaven alive and was transformed into an angelic being.

now what about that "walking with god"... I guess the question is where were they walking?

outhouse · 07-23-2013, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by none_

and I interpret it to mean

That is your problem right there.

It doesn't even state that in a literal sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2013, 03:30 AM	#2
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Okay, I'll bite. What's the difference between "just ceasing to exist" and "being dead"? (Quite apart from any other (i.e. "non-death") innuendo in the Genesis text you are quoting.)

07-23-2013, 04:56 AM	#4
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The intention is that he was taken to heaven alive and was transformed into an angelic being.

07-23-2013, 06:22 AM	#7
none_ Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: colorado Posts: 423	I know now that I think about it that it was a bit lazy on me not fact checking. I do thank you for the instruction. But, I really don't think it matters where they where walking. my take on it is that they where together and if jesus needed togetherness to fulfill a prophecy death wasn't the only option for that togetherness.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.