Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | EdB | 232547 | ||
Bradk Did you read the three part quote I posted in post # 232472, 232474, 232475? If you haven't read them please do. I would like to hear your response in light of what that article said. Ed |
||||||
2 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232578 | ||
Hi Ed, Yes, I did read the article you referenced- in fact twice before I posted. This is what lead me to respond initially. I’ve now gone back and carefully re-read it for a third time. Here’s my assessment of it: Their entire argument seems to hinge upon a rather rigid view of John 3:13. There are also many (incorrect) assumptions made. I’ve already replied to much of this in my previous posts (232479, 232514, 232527) My first issue is with their attempted comparison of the Hebrew phrase “he was not” as given in Gen. 5:24. They refer to Ps. 37:36 and Ps 39:13, etc in support. They quote, “the phrase means the person “passed away” or “would eventually die”. I beg to differ. Nowhere in the definition of ‘ayin’ do I find this meaning. It ranges from ‘neither’, ‘never’, nowhere’, ‘to nought’, etc. In fact the TWOT says , “it’s basically a negative substantive. The word therefore has no single meaning and the exact translation must be determined in each context.” Next, what of Heb. 11:5? Do we now deny it’s plain meaning? I really see Hebrews 11 as a Divinely inspired commentary on Genesis 5:24 here in this instance particularly. The grammar ‘me ho eidon thanatos’ (did not see death), expands upon “he was not” from the Genesis passage. It tells us what happened to him. The fact that the verb here is not in the present tense has no bearing upon the meaning at hand! Rather (as it should be), it’s a verb, aorist, active and this takes us back to what happen to Enoch. They say, “we must conclude Enoch died the first death”? OK, but why? Because that’s your conclusion? They’re begging the question here. Further to say most people “carelessly assume without proof” seems overly dismissive to other valid views. That may be their opinion, but it’s not an established fact. I don’t think it’s careless to take Heb. 11:5 for what it says. (This is what they’re doing with John 3:13) I think there’s unnecessary confusion being created over “translate”. Of course it doesn’t mean to make ‘immortal’, but in the context of 11:5 it tells us he was “transported to another place”, where he did not see death! Death is negated here. My initial detraction is one of lack of credibility. Who are they and what makes them authoritative? I also think their lack of understanding the original languages shows and it poorly reflects upon the argument. The argument is certainly interesting, but it doesn’t persuade me to change my view- particularly in light of historical interpretation of this passage. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Where was Enoch "translated"? | Heb 11:13 | 00123 | 232580 | ||
Brad, Thanks for the answer. So, where was Enoch "translated"? Do you think he was translated to the Heaven where Jesus ascended to the Heaven and is sitting at the right hand of God the Father? If not, was he translated to Abraham's bosom where Nazarus died and was carried by the angels? What do you think? -Dan | ||||||
4 | Where was Enoch "translated"? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232589 | ||
Hi Dan, Here's the previous related posts in my discussion with EdB (#232479, 232514, 232527). Wuest notes, "(11:5) Enoch was translated. The word is ['metatithemi']. The verb 'tithemi' means “to place,” the prefixed preposition 'meta' signifying a change, the compound word meaning “to transpose” (two things, one of which is put in place of the other). This word is used in Acts 7:16 of the transporting of the remains of Jacob and his sons to Shechem, in Gal. 1:6 of the sudden change of the doctrinal position of the Galatian Christians, and in Heb. 7:12, of the change of the law of the priesthood, a new regulation being instituted in place of the old. In the case of Enoch, the word speaks of his sudden transference from earth to heaven. It refers to a change of position. It was one thing put in the place of another, heaven for Enoch rather than earth. Now, in the transference of believers from earth to heaven, that operation is effected usually by death. But in the case of Enoch, it was apart from death. He departed this earthly scene without dying." [Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament] Rather than repost entirely, I'll hope this is helpful in answering your question. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||