[MicahB0B]

The only place that one can find a real apparent contradiction is in Johns account, were Mary Mag seemly tells Peter and John about the empty tomb before here encounter with the angel; and Luke's account, where she it looks like she tells the diciples about the tomb after her encouter with the angel.

I'm happy to see that a Protestant, like most of us Catholics, acknowledges at least one contradiction in the "100% inerrant" Word of God, and acknowledges that we cannot accept every single word as infallibly historically accurate without taking into account the proper context of who was writing it and who they were writing it to.

Dark Tofu, you must understand that "inspired Word of God" does not necessarily equal "inerrancy", unless you can prove that God specifically wanted it to be inerrant.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

I'm happy to see that a Protestant, like most of us Catholics, acknowledges at least one contradiction in the "100% inerrant" Word of God, and acknowledges that we cannot accept every single word as infallibly historically accurate without taking into account the proper context of who was writing it and who they were writing it to.

Dark Tofu, you must understand that "inspired Word of God" does not necessarily equal "inerrancy", unless you can prove that God specifically wanted it to be inerrant.

Except for the nature of God's word being truth.

[Dark Tofu]

Exactly.

[Dark Tofu]

I am trying to slowly work through my defences. But I also want to know how you can't think at least Enoch is inspired. Even excluding the Jude arguement. The similarities are too much. Revelation would pretty much be a knockoff of a noninspired book if Enoch wasn't inspired.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I am trying to slowly work through my defences. But I also want to know how you can't think at least Enoch is inspired. Even excluding the Jude arguement. The similarities are too much. Revelation would pretty much be a knockoff of a noninspired book if Enoch wasn't inspired.

I'm not sure why you believe it's unthinkable that God would give Enoch a vision but not inspire him. You seem to say:

A: Enoch saw a vision and recorded it
B: Anyone who sees a vision and records it is inspired
C: Therefore, Enoch was inspired.

or

A: If book A is inspired, then similar book B is inspired
B: Book A is inspired
C: Therefore, book B is inspired.

The first is non-sequitur, and the second has an invalid, unargued premise. Give me a valid syllogism for why, because Revelations was inspired, the Book of Enoch is inspired.

[Dark Tofu]

If Revelation is inspired then Enoch would have to be because it is too similar.
If book A is generally equal to book B. And book A was written after book B. And book A is considered inspired, then that would make book B inspired. Or book A would be a copy of book B, not inspired or inspired.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

If Revelation is inspired then Enoch would have to be because it is too similar.
If book A is generally equal to book B. And book A was written after book B. And book A is considered inspired, then that would make book B inspired. Or book A would be a copy of book B, not inspired or inspired.

That's only true if the books are equal.

In the case of the book of Enoch, perhaps God gave Enoch the visions but did not inspire the book. In the case of Revelation, however, God gave the visions and inspired the writing. I don't see how that's so hard to believe.

[Dark Tofu]

How can a vision from God not be inspired?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

How can a vision from God not be inspired?

I said nothing about the vision not being inspired. The writing may not be inspired, which is why your argument fails.

[Dark Tofu]

But if he wrote down his inspired vision then wouldn't that make that writing inspired?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

But if he wrote down his inspired vision then wouldn't that make that writing inspired?

I don't see why it would.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

But if he wrote down his inspired vision then wouldn't that make that writing inspired?

I dont' think you understand the tradiational conservative view/views of inspiration. In our view "inspired" means that God was in control of the message being written down. It doesn't mean Enoch saw a vision and therefore was "inspired" and wrote it down. In our view God inspiring the writing and God inspiring the vision are two different things altogether.

[Skeeter]

Besides, not all that is inspired is Scripture. And that's about all I have to add to this gong show.

[Dark Tofu]

But did God 'inspire' John to write down his vision from Revelation? If so, how can you tell me that Enoch was any less inspired than John was when he wrote Revelation?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

But did God 'inspire' John to write down his vision from Revelation? If so, how can you tell me that Enoch was any less inspired than John was when he wrote Revelation?

If the Book of Enoch was, word for word, exactly the same as Revelation then you would have an argument. But it isn't, so you don't.

Again, show me the syllogism.