Thank you.
It's just like how it is with any other subject....lots of reading, research, and interest in field of study. And when you dig into stuff, it gets all the more interesting to discover all these subtleties and connections between things.
If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus?
by I_love_Jeff 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
smiddy
I too am amazed,impressed, even im awe of the depth of knowledge of Leolaia,Kudos to you girl.
My question to you is : No I`m going to start another thread.
smiddy
-
Jeffro
JWs already simply ignore verses that are not compatible with JW doctrine. There is no difference here.
If there were 'proof' that the Book of Enoch 'should' be considered 'canonical' (that is, just as reliable as many other folktales in the Bible) the JW leadership would simply say that the proof is wrong.
Setting that aside for a moment, if they were to start accepting the Book of Enoch, any contrary elements would just be 'interpreted' as 'representing' something else.
-
Quarterback
So, Leo
The fact that parts of the Enoch book was written at different times, wouldn't that alone invalidate the authenticity of the book?
-
botchtowersociety
Depends on how you define authenticity.
The book is authentic, but it is not canonical.
All canonicity is, is a stamp of approval from a religious authority for inclusion into a collection of books considered to be religiously authoritative. In the case of the Western Christian Bible, it was the Catholic Church.
-
Quarterback
Good point, BochT
-
Quendi
This thread demands close attention and deep study, so I am bookmarking it for future reference. Thanks to all involved, especially Leolaia for her outstanding contributions.
Quendi
-
Leolaia
The fact that parts of the Enoch book was written at different times, wouldn't that alone invalidate the authenticity of the book?
That would pretty much invalidate the authenticity of most of the Bible, if we hold it to the same standard; it is filled with redactions and additions. But of course it is not held to the same standard. 1 Enoch actually gives a very nice parallel to Isaiah as a rolling corpus accumulating accretions (such as the Isaian Apocalypse, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah). Authenticity in religious tradition does not draw on insights from critical scholarship; it is based more on the value placed on the content of the book by the community. It is the same thing with prophecy; it doesn't matter if the prophecy doesn't come true. If it has the right religious message, as judged by later readers, then its failures can be readily interpreted away.
-
Chariklo
Authenticity in religious tradition does not draw on insights from critical scholarship; it is based more on the value placed on the content of the book by the community. It is the same thing with prophecy; it doesn't matter if the prophecy doesn't come true. If it has the right religious message, as judged by later readers, then its failures can be readily interpreted away.
That's a very interesting concept indeed, Leo. It also raises the question as to what exactly is religious authenticity. Is it merely historical, or literary, or actually theological and/or spiiritual? Here, by theological I do not mean necessarily literally God-given in a JW sense, i.e. direct divine inspiration, though it might be, but I mean of intrinsic spiritual value.
I heartily concur with other testimonies to the value of your contributions, not merely encyclopaedic but spiritually helpful, and very thought-provoking.
Farkel
If solid proof was suddenly found that absurdly long thread titles irritated the shit out of people, would you shorten them?
I suppose it depends on how easily one is irritated. Some of us, myself included, often find such titles very helpful. The function of the thread is thereby made explicit and clear. Anyone who isn't interested can simply move on.
-
finallysomepride
interesting
bookmarked