Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Hebrews 11:13 ¶ All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Hebrews 11:13 ¶ All these died in faith [guided and sustained by it], without receiving the [tangible fulfillment of God's] promises, only having seen (anticipated) them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. [Gen 23:4; Ps 39:12] |
Subject: Did Enoch die? |
Bible Note: 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 |