What makes a Dispensation a Dispensation?

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
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 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:

  1. Gill was not aware of the complete book of Enoch, as I said.
  2. This is not sound reasoning by Gill. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
  3. 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.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Since you just said that “Dispensationalists don’t know how to handle Enoch” and “Dispensationalists lack humility” without give me an example I was asking about.

Don’t shove out one-liners if you don’t like them.
I said much more than that and you have to admit that you've been absent in this discussion while your second in command tries to cover for you.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
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:

  1. Gill was not aware of the complete book of Enoch, as I said.
  2. This is not sound reasoning by Gill. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
  3. 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.
There you go. Typical Ransom. You prove he lied about something and he keeps insisting he is right.

If you know John Gill, and it is clear Ransom doesn't, He was a very prolific follower of several Jewish theologians.

Ransom, you assume that Gill had to have the corrupt book in hand to even know its contents. Which is ridiculous. The oral tradition had long been among the Jews and as such, John Gill knew. Which why John Gill specifically referenced the work.....

Oh, but forget that. Just ignore it. Ransom has decided John Gill didn't really know at all. John Gill was an expert at the ancient Jewish religion.

Ransom, you should stop pretend you know as much as you do. When pressed you make mistakes like this all the time. Just admit you can't possibly undo your mistake here.

John Gill said that Jude spoke of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Saints. Yet, somehow, you believe this an extraordinarily silly insomuch as you propose that Gill couldn't possibly believe what he said he believed.

Yep. Same old Ransom.
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
I said much more than that and you have to admit that you've been absent in this discussion while your second in command tries to cover for you.
Hey, FSSL, you been covered for?
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
There you go. Typical Ransom. You prove he lied about something and he keeps insisting he is right.
I just have to keep reminding myself that you have said, repeatedly and despite my corrections, that I believe the book of Enoch was antedeluvian.

And, having remembered that treasure_unseen is incapable of rational discourse, there is of course no reason to feel bad about being called a liar.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Well, if you're ever feeling ignored, it's ignorant assertions like this one that you can thank.

Please show me where I have ever said Enoch's words were a written narrative that survived the flood. Until you do that, or tell the truth about what I've been saying about Enoch, it's pointless trying to reason with you since you are either stupid or lying.

Put up, or shut up.
Everything I wrote and you want to narrow it down to two things.. Still so dishonest and self centered.

I was dealing with the conclusion of your comments and not the silly notion that the words of Enoch just appeared out of thin air one day from an uninspired/inspired source.

You've been purposely parsing your words and talking in circle hoping for this very moment where you can tell me "to put or shut up".... You do so much enjoy using those words. It makes you feel so powerful and cunning.

Well. I guess your only choice left is to agree with me. That it was an oral tradition that survived through Jewish culture till someone, "not Enoch", decided to write them down.

Either way, they had to come from somewhere. Not that you will every begin at the beginning and go line by line. Your tactics are devilish and sinister. You love trying to pick around the edges of things. Looking for a thread to pull or a wedge to start hammering. We know who uses such tactics.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
I just have to keep reminding myself that you have said, repeatedly and despite my corrections, that I believe the book of Enoch was antedeluvian.

And, having remembered that treasure_unseen is incapable of rational discourse, there is of course no reason to feel bad about being called a liar.
I know you don't believe it is antedeluvian. Yet, you claim some of its words are inspired. Pray tell, just how does that work?
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Everything I wrote and you want to narrow it down to two things..
Shouldn't have wasted your time on it, then.

That feeling of disappointment you're experiencing right now is self-inflicted. I certainly don't feel bad about it.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Shouldn't have wasted your time on it, then.

That feeling of disappointment you're experiencing right now is self-inflicted. I certainly don't feel bad about it.
I'm not disappointed at all. Like I said earlier to FSSL. You have to let people be who they are. That way they will condemn themselves.

You've have always proven to be absent Christian character.
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
I know you don't believe it is antedeluvian.
Uh huh.

You've provided no proof that Enoch words were a written narrative that survived the flood and was subsequently copied from generation to generation.
Tell me: If you knew I didn't believe it was antedeluvian, why in Hyles' name would you whine that I didn't prove "Enoch [sic] words were a written narrative that survived the flood"?

Does your brain even know what your fingers are typing?
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
You have to let people be who they are. That way they will condemn themselves.
Well, I let you be who you are, and you condumbed yourself with every post.

That's what you get for entering a battle of wits half-armed. So, CU later.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
50
Points
48
I said much more than that and you have to admit that you've been absent in this discussion while your second in command tries to cover for you.
Was that a one-liner?
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Uh huh.



Tell me: If you knew I didn't believe it was antedeluvian, why in Hyles' name would you whine that I didn't prove "Enoch [sic] words were a written narrative that survived the flood"?

Does your brain even know what your fingers are typing?
I said you were parsing your words and talking in circles. I played along to try and get you to admit you have no idea what you're talking about. It worked. You made a preposterous claim concerning John Gill and then..... in typical "Ransom Fashion" keep spinning your lie into a larger lie. Good work?.... or rather Good bad work....
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
I said you were parsing your words and talking in circles.
And I said you were a halfwit. That's still self-evident.

Now, if you'll excuse me, something else requires my undivided attention.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
And I said you were a halfwit. That's still self-evident.

Now, if you'll excuse me, something else requires my undivided attention.
Says the man that insists on repeating his last lines to me.

Admit it. You don't know what you're talking about. You talk big but lies are always too difficult to keep straight.
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Well amen and praise Yeshua.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
50
Points
48
If find it interesting that the LXX predates Jude. It includes a rough translation of Jude 14 (cf Deut).
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,731
Reaction score
119
Points
63
If find it interesting that the LXX predates Jude. It includes a rough translation of Jude 14 (cf Deut).
How similar are they? I can recognize a few key words, but I don't read Greek, so the most I can say is that it's obvious one is not a direct quotation of the other.

I find it interesting that Deut. 33:2 in the LXX speaks of the Lord coming with a myriad of angeloi, whereas Jude 14 seems to follow the Greek translation of Enoch (as found, for example, in the Gizeh MS), in saying he comes with the hagious.
 
Top