- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,986
- Reaction score
- 2,092
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
OK, never mind. I frankly don't care. You had your chance to be honest, and you blow it with every post. You can't even treat the authorities you cite in your own defence truthfully, so I can't reasonably expect you to treat my arguments truthfully either.
You quote John Gill:
"Wherefore"--i.e. why, for this reason. And for what reason does Gill give for concluding Jude is quoting a genuine prophecy of the historic Enoch? "[T]he Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it"; in other words: the fragment of Enoch that Gill was aware of, did not contain the part quoted in Jude, and therefore he concludes that the prophecy must have been handed down from the historic Enoch.
From this I can draw three conclusions:
The Scottish traveler James Bruce re-discovered the book of Enoch in Ethiopia, where the Abyssinian Christians included it in their canon:
John Gill died in 1771; Bruce brought the Book of Enoch to Europe when he returned from Africa in 1773. So unless Gill travelled to Ethiopia and learned ancient Ethiopic when no one was looking, it was impossible for him to know what the complete book contained. His conclusion that Jude 14 could not be taken from the Book of Enoch is an assertion made in the absence of evidence.
So much for treasure_unseen. There's no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.
Reference
[1] James Bruce, Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: J. Ruthven, 1790), 498, https://archive.org/details/travelstodiscov01bruc.
You quote John Gill:
wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration, and is as follows:
"Wherefore"--i.e. why, for this reason. And for what reason does Gill give for concluding Jude is quoting a genuine prophecy of the historic Enoch? "[T]he Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it"; in other words: the fragment of Enoch that Gill was aware of, did not contain the part quoted in Jude, and therefore he concludes that the prophecy must have been handed down from the historic Enoch.
From this I can draw three conclusions:
- Gill was not aware of the complete book of Enoch, as I said.
- This is not sound reasoning by Gill. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
- Whoever you think you are arguing with, it's not me.
The Scottish traveler James Bruce re-discovered the book of Enoch in Ethiopia, where the Abyssinian Christians included it in their canon:
Amongst the articles I consigned to the library at Paris, was a very beautiful and magnificent copy of the prophecies of Enoch, in large quarto; another is amongst the books of scripture which I brought home, standing immediately before the book of Job, which is its proper place in the Abyssinian canon; and a third copy I have presented to the Bodleian library at Oxford, by the hands of Dr Douglas the Bishop of Carlisle. The more ancient history of that book is well known. The church at first looked upon it as apocryphal; and as it was quoted in the book of Jude, the same suspicion fell upon that book also. For this reason, the council of Nice threw the epistle of Jude out of the canon, but the council of Trent arguing better, replaced the apostle in the canon as before. [1]
John Gill died in 1771; Bruce brought the Book of Enoch to Europe when he returned from Africa in 1773. So unless Gill travelled to Ethiopia and learned ancient Ethiopic when no one was looking, it was impossible for him to know what the complete book contained. His conclusion that Jude 14 could not be taken from the Book of Enoch is an assertion made in the absence of evidence.
So much for treasure_unseen. There's no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.
Reference
[1] James Bruce, Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: J. Ruthven, 1790), 498, https://archive.org/details/travelstodiscov01bruc.