Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 08-12-2007, 06:26 AM

Hmmm ... you're right. I forgot about Jude. I guess Geisler and Nix should say "almost never" instead of "never." It's always dangerous to say "never." Thanks for the comment.

Faid · 08-12-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Hmmm ... you're right. I forgot about Jude. I guess Geisler and Nix should say "almost never" instead of "never." It's always dangerous to say "never." Thanks for the comment.

This is not my field, dave (then again, it's not yours either), but I can't help pointing this out:

"Almost never" doesn't help you, when trying to argue that someone does NOT regard a source as authority. If they quoted it ONCE, they use it as an authority.

It's like regarding someone a virgin, because they "almost never" had sex.

Sorry.

DrJim · 08-12-2007, 08:07 AM

Enoch is not in the apocypha. It is in a body of work nowadays called the Pseudepigrapha, that is a large collection of diverse material that never existed as a distinct anthology or collection in the ancient world.

Some Jews around the turn of the era considered Enoch very significant. At Qumran, there were more copies of Enoch found than of many now biblical books. Enoch is itself an anthology, a cobbling together of diverse material about Enoch. The Enoch collection best known to the modern worlk is the so-called Ethiopic book of Enoch because it is in the canon of the Ethiopian church.

Jim

Dave Hawkins · 08-12-2007, 09:10 AM

So Geisler and Nix were right after all ... Sorry Faid.

Toto · 08-12-2007, 12:44 PM

Having browsed Geisler and Nix at the Amazon link, I think that any error must be Josh McDowell's.

Faid · 08-12-2007, 04:07 PM

Heh, no need to be sorry, dave, It's not like I was mortallyworried about whether Enoch is in the apocrypha or the pseudepigrapha.

All I did was to point out your flawed logic in defending the notion that "Almost X" = "X", something that you unfortunately still seem to believe, and about more than just mutations.

Oh well, nothing new.

Magdlyn · 08-12-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJim

Enoch is not in the apocypha.

Actually, it depends on whose definition of apocrypha you are using.

You could call it Deuterocanonical, or just "outside the canon." It was still quoted in the Jude, and was popular and considered useful.

See def of apocrypha from wiki:

Quote:

"those having been hidden away"[1]) are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. Given that different denominations have different ideas about what constitutes canonical scripture, there are several different versions of the apocrypha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

Quote:

It is in a body of work nowadays called the Pseudepigrapha, that is a large collection of diverse material that never existed as a distinct anthology or collection in the ancient world.

That word just means "falsely signed/attributed." Like many of the canonical Pauline epistles, for example!

Dave Hawkins · 08-12-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Having browsed Geisler and Nix at the Amazon link, I think that any error must be Josh McDowell's.

What error?

Toto · 08-12-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Having browsed Geisler and Nix at the Amazon link, I think that any error must be Josh McDowell's.

What error?

This one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I forgot about Jude. I guess Geisler and Nix should say "almost never" instead of "never." It's always dangerous to say "never." Thanks for the comment.

Dave Hawkins · 08-13-2007, 03:22 AM

Did you not read Dr. Jim's post which, if correct, made the "error" not an error after all? The Geisler and Nix statement originally in question was this one ...

Quote:

3. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

See list above.

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

08-12-2007, 06:26 AM	#361
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Hmmm ... you're right. I forgot about Jude. I guess Geisler and Nix should say "almost never" instead of "never." It's always dangerous to say "never." Thanks for the comment.

08-12-2007, 08:07 AM	#363
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	Enoch is not in the apocypha. It is in a body of work nowadays called the Pseudepigrapha, that is a large collection of diverse material that never existed as a distinct anthology or collection in the ancient world. Some Jews around the turn of the era considered Enoch very significant. At Qumran, there were more copies of Enoch found than of many now biblical books. Enoch is itself an anthology, a cobbling together of diverse material about Enoch. The Enoch collection best known to the modern worlk is the so-called Ethiopic book of Enoch because it is in the canon of the Ethiopian church. Jim

08-12-2007, 09:10 AM	#364
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	So Geisler and Nix were right after all ... Sorry Faid.

08-12-2007, 12:44 PM	#365
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Having browsed Geisler and Nix at the Amazon link, I think that any error must be Josh McDowell's.

08-12-2007, 04:07 PM	#366
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	Heh, no need to be sorry, dave, It's not like I was mortallyworried about whether Enoch is in the apocrypha or the pseudepigrapha. All I did was to point out your flawed logic in defending the notion that "Almost X" = "X", something that you unfortunately still seem to believe, and about more than just mutations. Oh well, nothing new.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.