DoorDash is a food delivery service.

flashguy

I never knew about that design myself or really cared to know. It is a shame/twisted that those who think Lucifer/Satan was correct in the garden, do not read/think any further about what he had done and was the cause for man to fall out of grace with God through Adam. Let alone that he tried to aspire to be God. He was just another creation that was too full of himself.

The problem with the book of Enoch is that it was written by many authors over a long period of time and has inaccuracies, for both Jews/Christians.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Oh! BCC.

What my Google search came up with was TOTALLY different.

BBC. I have one every morning.

Big black coffee.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
May I suggest the first book of Enoch? I've become convinced that it should be included in the Holy Bible.

I would have to refute that as it has many problems/heresies with the bible as we know it. It speaks of Azazal causing sin to fall into this world and not Adam, which is the reason Jesus had not born of an Earthly father as sin fell on Adam. Had it fallen on Azazel, this would be an issue. It also speaks of fallen angels naming Mount Herman pre-flood,which could not have been as it was named after the flood. Another set of books describe creatures being 4,500 feet tall (Ells not cubits),but the bible states that was wrong, as King Og of Bashan was around 13 feet tall, as his bed was approx. 13.5 feet long. These are only a few problems with the book(s) of Enoch. If there is even one discrepancy, it should be noted that the book itself is false and not inspired.

I think that B C C is the abbreviation of 'I am a pinhead and desperate for attention' or something like that.

Getting stuck on tangents, but felt I should tell you Mark that I've read the book of Enoch that my mom had in her collection. She was protestant, as was my dad, but she had many other scriptures and was quite a student of religion in general.

As for inaccuracies rendering it false, the whole scriptural shooting match is pretty much up for grabs if that is the criteria IMO. That said, it is one of many reasons I don't get too hung up on any one religion and tend to discount them all...or at least wonder what percentage could possibly be correct.

Concerning the validity of the Book of Enoch:

quote:

Originally posted by patw:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
May I suggest the first book of Enoch? I've become convinced that it should be included in the Holy Bible.

I would have to refute that as it has many problems/heresies with the bible as we know it. It speaks of Azazal causing sin to fall into this world and not Adam, which is the reason Jesus had not born of an Earthly father as sin fell on Adam. Had it fallen on Azazel, this would be an issue.

I'm not sure how well you know the Bible that you consider valid so please forgive me if I assume less. This part implies that you aren't well versed in Levitucus. You see, on the day of Atonement, there were two goats chosen. One was sacrificed and the other was considered a "scapegoat". The high priest would lay his hands on the head of the live goat and ascribe the sins and iniquities of Israel onto it and then it would be led into the wilderness.

quote:

And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

It is biblically ceremonial to ascribe sins. Besides that, I'll let you look up the word "scapegoat" in your favorite concordance. Let us know what you find.

This just proves to me that the Book of Enoch (only the first book) is inspired and belongs in canon.

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
It also speaks of fallen angels naming Mount Herman pre-flood,which could not have been as it was named after the flood.

Names of cities that didn't exist before the writing of the Torah that you consider valid were included during its writing in a number of cases. It's just so the reader would know where they were talking about. I can't accept that as an argument.

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
Another set of books describe creatures being 4,500 feet tall (Ells not cubits),but the bible states that was wrong, as King Og of Bashan was around 13 feet tall, as his bed was approx. 13.5 feet long. These are only a few problems with the book(s) of Enoch. If there is even one discrepancy, it should be noted that the book itself is false and not inspired.

I think I know what you are talking about here. I believe that was a mistranslation, but even if it weren't, why can you believe in a virgin birth, a 6 day creation, a resurrection from the dead but you can't believe there were really big guys? Regardless, from what I understand, it doesn't say that they were 3000 ells tall, but that there were three types of offspring from the mating of the Watchers and human women. One of the types was Elioud which was mistaken as ells.

Please continue the conversation and please do present more refutation.

These debates about the Bible remind me of the old Jewish humor: "If two Jews move into a town, they will disagree, they will each build their own synagogue, and they will both boycott the guy who built the synagogue on that hill over there."

Quick-load all mags with Silvertips!

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
These debates about the Bible remind me of the old Jewish humor: "If two Jews move into a town, they will disagree, they will each build their own synagogue, and they will both boycott the guy who built the synagogue on that hill over there."

Yeah, but that guy on the hill is a political Zionist.

I read from the KJV. When we take a book from scripture as we know it, we must take the entire book and not just pieces parts. 1 Enoch, must also be accepted if we take it in that regard if we say the book is inspired.

As to my first point, according the the book of 1 Enoch 10:8, "And the whole Earth has been corrupted through the works taught by AZAZEL:to him ascribe all sin". In 1 Enoch 10, Azazel is seen/noted, I suppose, as a fallen angel but there are no other mentions in the bible of Azazel other than Leviticus. Leviticus 16 were instructions for Moses to tell Aaron how to enter the temple and what to do for his and the Israelite's atonement. These were yearly commands, not for the basis of how sin fell/blamed on for the world as 1 Enoch 10:8 states. Prior to the goats, Aaron was to sacrifice a bull for himself and his family. I get what your saying about "scapegoats" but Enoch states that the sin of the world falls/ is ascribed to/on Azazel not just for atonement, and Romans 5:12 and 19 say sin fell/attributed to one man (Adam),which one is correct? The verses I refer to are not talking about scapegoats as in Leviticus, which states on who to make for atonement in the Old Testament only,but on who sin fell on. That was my point.

When it comes to Azazel, Satan was attributed to talking with Eve in the garden and twisting logic/knowledge in order for her to fall first and then she to Adam. Satan is known as being the greater/greatest of the fallen angels. So theoretically, sin should have been ascribed to Satan not Azazel and not just for atonement in the Old Testament. Satan cannot be Azazel as 1 Enoch chapter 10 states that Azazel,(instructed by God), is to be restrained/constrained by Raphael (angel) in a dark place not being able to see light until the day of judgment,(which is yet to come). If Azazel is chained/detained as in the book of Enoch, he cannot be Satan unless Raphael defied God, which cannot be the case and God would know. Satan, is allowed to roam freely on the Earth and has done so from the Old Testament throughout the New Testament and today. So the two cannot be the same. According to the book of Enoch, Azazel was a type of fallen angel and not just a word for scapegoat as in Leviticus.

It's not a salvation issue so you can deny 1 Enoch. However, I think it's a mistake to exclude it as it fills in a lot of holes and bolsters belief in the whole of the scripture. My larger concern is that doctrine is held in higher regard than scripture. That's hard to deny.

Personally, I consider 1 Enoch scripture. Azazel is not just a word, there are no coincidences in scripture.

Trying to equate Satan and Azazel doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not understanding what your point is in that regard.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Oh! BCC.

What my Google search came up with was TOTALLY different.

Hilarious!

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
It's not a salvation issue so you can deny 1 Enoch. However, I think it's a mistake to exclude it as it fills in a lot of holes and bolsters belief in the whole of the scripture. My larger concern is that doctrine is held in higher regard than scripture. That's hard to deny.

Personally, I consider 1 Enoch scripture. Azazel is not just a word, there are no coincidences in scripture.

Trying to equate Satan and Azazel doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not understanding what your point is in that regard.

I am not sure what holes you are referring to in the bible. I agree that doctrine, or set of beliefs within a religion is wrong vs. what we know of scripture. Doctrines have been handed down for many generations but they are not necessarily scripture based. The book(s) of Enoch were written over a longer period than the life of Enoch in that some are based on Greek mythology-ie.,sirens/sireens-wives of fallen angels with human and bird parts.

I am only comparing Azazel to a word in that we really don't know who or what it is/means, as there are no other references in the bible. How is Azazel attributed to sin in the world if he was not the first one to bring it into the world? I agree there are no coincidences but we don't know anything more about Azazel in any other book we have in the bible.

I mention Azazel and Satan as some believe they are the same or derived the same. If Azazel is ascribed to sin, why was he not mentioned in the garden as was satan? To me, it would appear that Azazel started the issue of sin, according to the book of Enoch but it was Satan who did so and he and his followers were kicked out of heaven because of it. It blames a "watcher angel" like Azazel,according to the book of Enoch ,if that makes sense, which we see in no other scripture of the bible.

OP we're going to need you to order as many Door Dash food orders as it takes to get this vehicle back to your place. That is the only way we can get to the bottom of this.