basicallyblues wrote:
> >Now, if the idea that Enoch did not die, is not harmonious with ones
> >theology, that person can just ignore it.  No big deal. If one does
> not
> >like a story, skip it.  To try to make a story come out different
from
> >how it is written however, is pointlessness.
>
> Nothing to do with theology but scripture itself. Either you believe
> the Bible contradicts itself or you realize that Enoch being "taken"
or
> "transferred" does not mean he didn't die. John 3:13 plainly says
that
> "no man has ascended to heaven be he that descended, the Son of Man"
So
> if Enoch was not in heaven where was he? Hebrews 9:8 shows that the
way
> into heaven was not open to anyone before Jesus. Is it not possible
> that Enoch did die? Perhaps his life was mercifully cut short by God
> while he slept or was in a trance. Certainly there was some special
> circunstance about Enoch's death. Whatever the case the Bible says
that
> nobody had gone to heaven prior to 33 c.e.

I just do not see any problem. I think it a great probability that the
author of the Gospel of John knew about God's taking of Enoch, yet he
wrote what he did. I am no more worried by what some may call a
possible contradiction than was John when he wrote what he did.  If
there is a contradiction between Genesis and the Gospel of John, then I
would allow for that in my understanding of scripture.  If my
understanding of scripture says there are no contradictions in the
scripture, and then if, to my surprise,  I became convinced that there
were contradictions, then I should change my understand of scripture.
I should bring my understand of scripture in line with what is real,
not try to change what scripture really says to bring it into line with
my understanding.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/26/05 4:46:23 PM ---