9 ms·

The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction

The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree - the decree is not inspired in spite of the quote.) Despite this, the Book of Enoch and other rejected books do appear in some Bibles, with a warning about how they are apocryphal. Just because they aren’t inspired though (officially-speaking) doesn’t mean they can’t be interesting.

lapestenoire 4y ago
[flagged]
- NateEag 4y ago
  Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.
  - lapestenoire 4y ago
    The burden of proof rests on those who make fantastical claims, not on everyone else to disprove their claims.
    - generalizations 4y ago
      The point is that science can’t comment on the “divine inspiration” claim, except to note that it’s outside its purview. Burden of proof is a whole different discussion.
      - lisper 4y ago
        > science can’t comment on the “divine inspiration” claim It certainly can. It can point out that there is no evidence that any human writing is divinely inspired, and so claims of divine inspiration are almost certainly false.
        chickenimprint 4y ago
        See, there's the problem. You called it almost certainly false, but what are the criteria of truth? Science uses induction as a measure, meaning it presupposes that we have faith in the proposition that something will happen again because it has happened in the past. That would be akin to claiming to be immortal, because every time someone died, it wasn't you. With a little additional information, such as the recognition that you are an animal and that most animals seem to have not been immortal in the past, a good hypothesis would be that you will die, but how can you be sure that you're not the first immortal one? It might seem silly, but how can we be certain that the entirety of physics in the universe is not milliseconds from unraveling, that we're not a metaphorical barrel at the crest of a waterfall without knowing? In epistemology, only logical truths are certain, anything else is an attempt to put a confidence rating on a proposition, be it through science or religion. Neither can reach 100%, but both can certainly be 0%. There aren't even objective measures for such confidence ratings, statistical modelling is the best we have. The scientific method explicitly excludes unfalsifiable claims from its purview. If you have ever argued with a religious person, you will realize how easily deflected the argument is, that there is no evidence for divine inspiration. You could mention billions of recorded scientific findings that point toward a material world without supernatural events and still be rebuked by "So what? That doesn't mean it's untrue. You can't disprove that it happened that one time." I'm not saying that science is a pointless endeavor, just that it can never be an objective measure of truth.
        lisper 4y ago
        > Science uses induction as a measure No, it doesn't. This is a common misconception, but it is 100% wrong. Science is the business of finding the best explanations that account for all observations. One of the consequences of this methodology is that it turns out that all known observable phenomena can be described by fairly simple mathematical laws that appear to remain constant over time. But science does not assume this.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I used to believe this after reading Dawkins as a teenager. After reading lots of philosophy I’ve come to believe that the question as posed is unfalsifiable and thus not possible to test scientifically. Asking “is the bible divinely inspired” is similar to asking “what is the meaning of life”, it cannot be tackled scientifically, thus it falls into philosophy and theology. The same thought process led me to abandon the Sam Harris notion that science can provide us with morals. A simple way to see my point is to ask yourself “what scientific experiment could I design to test whether science is a good basis for morality?” You will find this statement contains a categorical error: a “good” basis can only be defined prior to the experiment, thus the question can only be tackled philosophically.
      - Beltalowda 4y ago
        You can't "scientifically prove" that I didn't write this comment under divine inspiration either. Making unfalsifiable claims is not hard. I guess what you're saying is technically true, but adhering to an extremely strict interpretation of "science" doesn't strike me as terribly useful here. Science can't offer a definitive conclusive question for a lot of things in life, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything useful to say and can certainly inform on theological and moral matters. For example, we can conduct scientific experiments to determine whether animals have emotions, what kind of emotions they have, if they can feel pain, and things like that. This doesn't directly answer any moral questions about how animals should be treated, but such science is invaluable if you want to try and answer these moral questions. Philosophy without science is just a bunch of people talking shit.
        brutusborn 4y ago
        Philosophy has existed long before science and produced things like democracy, so it’s unfair to claim it’s just “people talking shit.” I agree that science is very useful, but thinking that science can be applied to every problem is delusional. I think of it as a subset of philosophy (specifically epistemology). Thinking that science can be applied to morality results in dystopian situations, like nazi eugenics “improving” the population because Darwinism is scientific. How can science inform morality? You are right that it can help us determine if animals are suffering; but what we do with that information comes down to our morals, which are generated through philosophy or theology. All the proponents of scientific morality are very passionate about promoting it, but you will notice that they don’t follow through and actually develop a moral system, they just discuss it theoretically (e.g. Sam Harris)
    - ars 4y ago
      You can not just ignore their claims unless you have an alternative answer to why (or how) does the universe exist. Science does not contain tools to refute or confirm any answer to that question. So it's less "fantastical claim", and more a topic that you do not have any tools to approach.
      - toast0 4y ago
        You certain can ignore their claim. It's an unfalsifable claim, so it should be ignored in a context of formal logic. But you can't assert it's negative. That's just as unfalsifable, and that claim should also be ignored in a context of formal logic. Of course, we don't always work in a system of formal logic, and it doesn't much matter to me if you choose to assume/believe works are inspired or not.
        ars 4y ago
        > it's an unfalsifable claim, so it should be ignored in a context of formal logic The claim might be unfalsifiable, but the question is still valid. Basically you are required to answer the question. If you answer "I can't know" your answer is also unfalsifiable, and no better than theirs. i.e. your position on this matter is not superior to theirs.
        torben-friis 4y ago
        Admittance of ignorance is undoubtedly better than a lie, in general.
        mensetmanusman 4y ago
        It’s impossible to say whether it is a lie, because of incompleteness.
        NateEag 4y ago
        Let's try the more charitable "unjustified certitude" instead of "lie".
    - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
      And for the others to seriously consider the proof. What good is asking for proof if you then remain either oblivious to it or consistently refuse to engage with it?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lisper 4y ago
    > Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. No, that is not what naturalism is. That would be circular. Naturalism is the philosophical stance that things that cannot be observed do not exist. Alleged supernatural phenomena cannot ever be definitively ruled out (because new observations may confirm their existence) but to date there has never been an alleged supernatural phenomenon that did not have an adequate naturalistic explanation.
    - kkoncevicius 4y ago
      Under naturalism there can never be a supernatural phenomena that would prove supernatural things exist. Because once the phenomena reaches a state where it can be measured it ceases to be supernatural and becomes a thing of scientific investigation. And while its not in a state that could be measured there is nothing to investigate. Or put it another way - naturalism is a world view that would kill any supernatural interpretation even if/when its real. And as such it cannot be used to prove nor disprove supernaturalism.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Not quite, naturalism exposes the idea that the physical world is governed by natural laws not the whims of higher powers. Or as Wikipedia puts it “a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences” It’s a worldview that reproducibility goes out the window once you introduce supernatural forces. If the weather where actually responsive to a god who regularly changed things because they got mad, then it would be inconsistent over short time periods. It does classify things that are reproducible and testable as part of the natural world even if we don’t understand them such as gravity. Finally things that don’t have a detectable influence don’t exist. This is subtly different from materialism or physicalism which both define how reality operates.
      - lisper 4y ago
        Naturalism could demonstrate the existence of things that today are called supernatural. Ghosts. Demons. Deities. All of these things could be demonstrated naturalistically if they were observable. In that case they would no longer be "supernatural" but they would still be qualitatively different from what is today understood to be "natural phenomena".
  - shhdhsheh 4y ago
    And it can't even tell you if science is perhaps the unified tool from god to us. What if our world was designed on purpose including drugs like LSD to enlightenment and all earth religions are wrong because they stopped listening? But hey true we don't know :-)
    - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
      This is just intellectually lazy, reheated New Age blather. Serious people engage intellectually (which means humbly) with the subject matter, beginning with rigorous training in philosophy. This isn't just something about which a nerd who has watched some schlock on PBS or a read a NYT bestseller can have something legitimate or valuable to say.
  - smeagull 4y ago
    There is space for divine inspiration as a hypothesis in science. It fulfills the same role as a flat earth hypothesis. It's up to the weirdos to prove their insane leaps, not on us to disprove.
  - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
    > It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though. https://www.catholic.com/tract/proving-inspiration https://www.catholic.com/tract/proving-inspiration
- waynecochran 4y ago
  Isaac Newton would disagree.
  - krapp 4y ago
    So? Brilliant as he was for his time, your average modern middle-school student has a more fundamental grasp of the natural world and its secrets than his alchemy would ever teach him.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- softsound 4y ago
  Well... I mean science did make books and science can be quite inspiring. Literally inspired books seem possible if you get the right combination to write and I'm sure there could be a study on how to literally inspire someone to write... Perhaps add too much DMT to the brain. That said, without being silly about words the bible could be full of science but their concept of science is very different from our own, how they view the world is quite different... But we sometimes are blind and make assumptions about their views. Often people discredit those in the past with assuming they know better. Like the mystery of how we lost concrete and why bricks were so popular. And for some silly reason people often say "Science" as if it disproves things. As if a mere word could really be an argument. Science in fact can prove lots things and yes, a fair amount of the Bible is already proven and can make one curious about what is possible. Stuff changes but some things remain the same - we still have modern day immortal jellyfish, what other creatures could have lived back then? If the live span of a mammal like a whale is so long imagine other creatures of the past. More ancient, and older than the Greenland shark. How could other animals be if they used a similar technique to the jellyfish? Snakes with tiny legs still exist though the amount of legs very, and no I was not referencing Tetrapodophis amplectus, nor lizards but actually snakes forced to crawl (because their tiny legs are useless) so you can look that one up. Look up python legs. Animals can talk and use tool (Well trained birds come to mind, but many birds are able to do this, and some mammals easily mimic humans like many dog species rather it be a laugh or scream of a fox. Whales have speech patterns like humans, perhaps the giant beasts of the past could be similar to whales with speech? Kind of a scary idea of a smart land whale with human like whale speech patterns) who is to say what the world was like? What it sounded and acted like? How intelligent it could have been. So many curiosity's. Very scary ideas too. Land killer whales could be very frightful as they are very good at finding human weaknesses if they get angry enough... The idea of the Pharaoh's snake a popular chemical used by magician's back then would be quite magical and still is today. If you want to feel like summoning a monster try those chemicals. It got it's name for a good reason. Now can I explain everything in the Bible? Well no of course not, nor do I think everything is literal and even the Bible itself says this in multiple places. But to say "science" is quite silly. It's like saying man can never fly nor sail because of science. Depending on your point of time well science would say you are correct, but that does not mean it is impossible. Science leaves room for all sorts of discovery if you are willing to look with a bit of faith and be willing to see the impossible. We use our grand imagination to examine the past but it's fragmented at best. Science is good at making predictions but not everything can be predictable from unknown factors and ever changing variables. It's a helpful tool though to bring a sense of order and control until you dig too deep or your assumptions last too long, like the lack of fat dinos compared to how we view whales with similar bones. Etc etc.
waynecochran 4y ago
I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.
- jimbo9991 4y ago
  As a protestant I've certainly seen some of the deuterocanonical books in non-Catholic study Bibles. Not the same thing really as Enoch, which I think is a little bit more controversial.
  - waynecochran 4y ago
    Certainly -- you find Tobit, Judith, 1,2,3 Maccabees, Baruch, Wisdom of Sirach, and a couple others. But if there is a Bible with Enoch in it I want it. I try to read a different Bible every year.
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    We know much more Jewish and Christian religious literature from antiquity than found its way into the bible. The nomenclature for it is a bit confusing. There are the "apocrypha" of the "Old Testament" in the narrow sense, which are those parts nowadays excluded by the Protestants. And then there are the "apocrypha" in a wider sense, which is the literature that bears a certain generic resemblance to biblical writings. However, some texts related to the New Testaments were typically not called "apocrypha" because the term traditionally had something pejorative about it; so it is not used for "almost" canonical texts that were traditionally recommended as pious reading, such as the so-called "Apostolic Fathers"[1]. To everyone who is interested in the texts and backgrounds of the apocrypha of the New Testament, I can highly recommend the two volumns of Wilhelm Schneemelcher: "New Testament Apocrypha" (or for German speakers: "Neutestamentliche Apokryphen"): vol. I: "Gospels and Related Writings" and vol. 2: "Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects". They include a lot of texts, many in complete translations, and provide excellent philological introductions to each text. However, the Apostilic Fathers are not included. For this you must look for other editions. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers
hef19898 4y ago
I never understood the historical relevance of religious texts outside of the context of how they impacted societies. Because these religious texts are hardly orimary sources that state historical facts, they are closer to pure propaganda pieces. So, for me, the question of forgeries is interesting because if forged texts were used someone had an interst in doing it. If a text is not a "forgery", it doesn't mean the text states objective truths so.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > Because these religious texts are hardly orimary sources that state historical facts, You're overgeneralizing. The Bible is effectively something like an anthology compiled from texts written in different styles over thousands of years. The character of Genesis is quite different from, say, the New Testament Gospels. While Genesis is not intended to be a scientific text, the New Testament does describe events in a historical kind of manner. > they are closer to pure propaganda pieces. I have no idea what that means. You should probably revisit your assumptions.

lapestenoire 4y ago

[flagged]

NateEag 4y ago
Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.
- lapestenoire 4y ago
  The burden of proof rests on those who make fantastical claims, not on everyone else to disprove their claims.
  - generalizations 4y ago
    The point is that science can’t comment on the “divine inspiration” claim, except to note that it’s outside its purview. Burden of proof is a whole different discussion.
    - lisper 4y ago
      > science can’t comment on the “divine inspiration” claim It certainly can. It can point out that there is no evidence that any human writing is divinely inspired, and so claims of divine inspiration are almost certainly false.
      - chickenimprint 4y ago
        See, there's the problem. You called it almost certainly false, but what are the criteria of truth? Science uses induction as a measure, meaning it presupposes that we have faith in the proposition that something will happen again because it has happened in the past. That would be akin to claiming to be immortal, because every time someone died, it wasn't you. With a little additional information, such as the recognition that you are an animal and that most animals seem to have not been immortal in the past, a good hypothesis would be that you will die, but how can you be sure that you're not the first immortal one? It might seem silly, but how can we be certain that the entirety of physics in the universe is not milliseconds from unraveling, that we're not a metaphorical barrel at the crest of a waterfall without knowing? In epistemology, only logical truths are certain, anything else is an attempt to put a confidence rating on a proposition, be it through science or religion. Neither can reach 100%, but both can certainly be 0%. There aren't even objective measures for such confidence ratings, statistical modelling is the best we have. The scientific method explicitly excludes unfalsifiable claims from its purview. If you have ever argued with a religious person, you will realize how easily deflected the argument is, that there is no evidence for divine inspiration. You could mention billions of recorded scientific findings that point toward a material world without supernatural events and still be rebuked by "So what? That doesn't mean it's untrue. You can't disprove that it happened that one time." I'm not saying that science is a pointless endeavor, just that it can never be an objective measure of truth.
        lisper 4y ago
        > Science uses induction as a measure No, it doesn't. This is a common misconception, but it is 100% wrong. Science is the business of finding the best explanations that account for all observations. One of the consequences of this methodology is that it turns out that all known observable phenomena can be described by fairly simple mathematical laws that appear to remain constant over time. But science does not assume this.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I used to believe this after reading Dawkins as a teenager. After reading lots of philosophy I’ve come to believe that the question as posed is unfalsifiable and thus not possible to test scientifically. Asking “is the bible divinely inspired” is similar to asking “what is the meaning of life”, it cannot be tackled scientifically, thus it falls into philosophy and theology. The same thought process led me to abandon the Sam Harris notion that science can provide us with morals. A simple way to see my point is to ask yourself “what scientific experiment could I design to test whether science is a good basis for morality?” You will find this statement contains a categorical error: a “good” basis can only be defined prior to the experiment, thus the question can only be tackled philosophically.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      You can't "scientifically prove" that I didn't write this comment under divine inspiration either. Making unfalsifiable claims is not hard. I guess what you're saying is technically true, but adhering to an extremely strict interpretation of "science" doesn't strike me as terribly useful here. Science can't offer a definitive conclusive question for a lot of things in life, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything useful to say and can certainly inform on theological and moral matters. For example, we can conduct scientific experiments to determine whether animals have emotions, what kind of emotions they have, if they can feel pain, and things like that. This doesn't directly answer any moral questions about how animals should be treated, but such science is invaluable if you want to try and answer these moral questions. Philosophy without science is just a bunch of people talking shit.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        Philosophy has existed long before science and produced things like democracy, so it’s unfair to claim it’s just “people talking shit.” I agree that science is very useful, but thinking that science can be applied to every problem is delusional. I think of it as a subset of philosophy (specifically epistemology). Thinking that science can be applied to morality results in dystopian situations, like nazi eugenics “improving” the population because Darwinism is scientific. How can science inform morality? You are right that it can help us determine if animals are suffering; but what we do with that information comes down to our morals, which are generated through philosophy or theology. All the proponents of scientific morality are very passionate about promoting it, but you will notice that they don’t follow through and actually develop a moral system, they just discuss it theoretically (e.g. Sam Harris)
  - ars 4y ago
    You can not just ignore their claims unless you have an alternative answer to why (or how) does the universe exist. Science does not contain tools to refute or confirm any answer to that question. So it's less "fantastical claim", and more a topic that you do not have any tools to approach.
    - toast0 4y ago
      You certain can ignore their claim. It's an unfalsifable claim, so it should be ignored in a context of formal logic. But you can't assert it's negative. That's just as unfalsifable, and that claim should also be ignored in a context of formal logic. Of course, we don't always work in a system of formal logic, and it doesn't much matter to me if you choose to assume/believe works are inspired or not.
      - ars 4y ago
        > it's an unfalsifable claim, so it should be ignored in a context of formal logic The claim might be unfalsifiable, but the question is still valid. Basically you are required to answer the question. If you answer "I can't know" your answer is also unfalsifiable, and no better than theirs. i.e. your position on this matter is not superior to theirs.
        torben-friis 4y ago
        Admittance of ignorance is undoubtedly better than a lie, in general.
        mensetmanusman 4y ago
        It’s impossible to say whether it is a lie, because of incompleteness.
        NateEag 4y ago
        Let's try the more charitable "unjustified certitude" instead of "lie".
  - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
    And for the others to seriously consider the proof. What good is asking for proof if you then remain either oblivious to it or consistently refuse to engage with it?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lisper 4y ago
  > Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. No, that is not what naturalism is. That would be circular. Naturalism is the philosophical stance that things that cannot be observed do not exist. Alleged supernatural phenomena cannot ever be definitively ruled out (because new observations may confirm their existence) but to date there has never been an alleged supernatural phenomenon that did not have an adequate naturalistic explanation.
  - kkoncevicius 4y ago
    Under naturalism there can never be a supernatural phenomena that would prove supernatural things exist. Because once the phenomena reaches a state where it can be measured it ceases to be supernatural and becomes a thing of scientific investigation. And while its not in a state that could be measured there is nothing to investigate. Or put it another way - naturalism is a world view that would kill any supernatural interpretation even if/when its real. And as such it cannot be used to prove nor disprove supernaturalism.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Not quite, naturalism exposes the idea that the physical world is governed by natural laws not the whims of higher powers. Or as Wikipedia puts it “a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences” It’s a worldview that reproducibility goes out the window once you introduce supernatural forces. If the weather where actually responsive to a god who regularly changed things because they got mad, then it would be inconsistent over short time periods. It does classify things that are reproducible and testable as part of the natural world even if we don’t understand them such as gravity. Finally things that don’t have a detectable influence don’t exist. This is subtly different from materialism or physicalism which both define how reality operates.
    - lisper 4y ago
      Naturalism could demonstrate the existence of things that today are called supernatural. Ghosts. Demons. Deities. All of these things could be demonstrated naturalistically if they were observable. In that case they would no longer be "supernatural" but they would still be qualitatively different from what is today understood to be "natural phenomena".
- shhdhsheh 4y ago
  And it can't even tell you if science is perhaps the unified tool from god to us. What if our world was designed on purpose including drugs like LSD to enlightenment and all earth religions are wrong because they stopped listening? But hey true we don't know :-)
  - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
    This is just intellectually lazy, reheated New Age blather. Serious people engage intellectually (which means humbly) with the subject matter, beginning with rigorous training in philosophy. This isn't just something about which a nerd who has watched some schlock on PBS or a read a NYT bestseller can have something legitimate or valuable to say.
- smeagull 4y ago
  There is space for divine inspiration as a hypothesis in science. It fulfills the same role as a flat earth hypothesis. It's up to the weirdos to prove their insane leaps, not on us to disprove.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though. https://www.catholic.com/tract/proving-inspiration https://www.catholic.com/tract/proving-inspiration
waynecochran 4y ago
Isaac Newton would disagree.
- krapp 4y ago
  So? Brilliant as he was for his time, your average modern middle-school student has a more fundamental grasp of the natural world and its secrets than his alchemy would ever teach him.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
softsound 4y ago
Well... I mean science did make books and science can be quite inspiring. Literally inspired books seem possible if you get the right combination to write and I'm sure there could be a study on how to literally inspire someone to write... Perhaps add too much DMT to the brain. That said, without being silly about words the bible could be full of science but their concept of science is very different from our own, how they view the world is quite different... But we sometimes are blind and make assumptions about their views. Often people discredit those in the past with assuming they know better. Like the mystery of how we lost concrete and why bricks were so popular. And for some silly reason people often say "Science" as if it disproves things. As if a mere word could really be an argument. Science in fact can prove lots things and yes, a fair amount of the Bible is already proven and can make one curious about what is possible. Stuff changes but some things remain the same - we still have modern day immortal jellyfish, what other creatures could have lived back then? If the live span of a mammal like a whale is so long imagine other creatures of the past. More ancient, and older than the Greenland shark. How could other animals be if they used a similar technique to the jellyfish? Snakes with tiny legs still exist though the amount of legs very, and no I was not referencing Tetrapodophis amplectus, nor lizards but actually snakes forced to crawl (because their tiny legs are useless) so you can look that one up. Look up python legs. Animals can talk and use tool (Well trained birds come to mind, but many birds are able to do this, and some mammals easily mimic humans like many dog species rather it be a laugh or scream of a fox. Whales have speech patterns like humans, perhaps the giant beasts of the past could be similar to whales with speech? Kind of a scary idea of a smart land whale with human like whale speech patterns) who is to say what the world was like? What it sounded and acted like? How intelligent it could have been. So many curiosity's. Very scary ideas too. Land killer whales could be very frightful as they are very good at finding human weaknesses if they get angry enough... The idea of the Pharaoh's snake a popular chemical used by magician's back then would be quite magical and still is today. If you want to feel like summoning a monster try those chemicals. It got it's name for a good reason. Now can I explain everything in the Bible? Well no of course not, nor do I think everything is literal and even the Bible itself says this in multiple places. But to say "science" is quite silly. It's like saying man can never fly nor sail because of science. Depending on your point of time well science would say you are correct, but that does not mean it is impossible. Science leaves room for all sorts of discovery if you are willing to look with a bit of faith and be willing to see the impossible. We use our grand imagination to examine the past but it's fragmented at best. Science is good at making predictions but not everything can be predictable from unknown factors and ever changing variables. It's a helpful tool though to bring a sense of order and control until you dig too deep or your assumptions last too long, like the lack of fat dinos compared to how we view whales with similar bones. Etc etc.

waynecochran 4y ago

I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.

jimbo9991 4y ago
As a protestant I've certainly seen some of the deuterocanonical books in non-Catholic study Bibles. Not the same thing really as Enoch, which I think is a little bit more controversial.
- waynecochran 4y ago
  Certainly -- you find Tobit, Judith, 1,2,3 Maccabees, Baruch, Wisdom of Sirach, and a couple others. But if there is a Bible with Enoch in it I want it. I try to read a different Bible every year.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  We know much more Jewish and Christian religious literature from antiquity than found its way into the bible. The nomenclature for it is a bit confusing. There are the "apocrypha" of the "Old Testament" in the narrow sense, which are those parts nowadays excluded by the Protestants. And then there are the "apocrypha" in a wider sense, which is the literature that bears a certain generic resemblance to biblical writings. However, some texts related to the New Testaments were typically not called "apocrypha" because the term traditionally had something pejorative about it; so it is not used for "almost" canonical texts that were traditionally recommended as pious reading, such as the so-called "Apostolic Fathers"[1]. To everyone who is interested in the texts and backgrounds of the apocrypha of the New Testament, I can highly recommend the two volumns of Wilhelm Schneemelcher: "New Testament Apocrypha" (or for German speakers: "Neutestamentliche Apokryphen"): vol. I: "Gospels and Related Writings" and vol. 2: "Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects". They include a lot of texts, many in complete translations, and provide excellent philological introductions to each text. However, the Apostilic Fathers are not included. For this you must look for other editions. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers

hef19898 4y ago

I never understood the historical relevance of religious texts outside of the context of how they impacted societies. Because these religious texts are hardly orimary sources that state historical facts, they are closer to pure propaganda pieces. So, for me, the question of forgeries is interesting because if forged texts were used someone had an interst in doing it. If a text is not a "forgery", it doesn't mean the text states objective truths so.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> Because these religious texts are hardly orimary sources that state historical facts, You're overgeneralizing. The Bible is effectively something like an anthology compiled from texts written in different styles over thousands of years. The character of Genesis is quite different from, say, the New Testament Gospels. While Genesis is not intended to be a scientific text, the New Testament does describe events in a historical kind of manner. > they are closer to pure propaganda pieces. I have no idea what that means. You should probably revisit your assumptions.