When the Bible talks about the sons of God and when it talks about one of the reasons Noah was chosen because his generations being perfect. We know from bones that have been found that Neanderthals existed wherever they came from, is it possible that was who it was talking about. There is evidence that in areas both existed in the same areas at the same time. I saw in the National Geographic Magazine that some scientists actually managed to extract dna and it supposedly showed some human dna patterns in it.
Well, we've talked about lots of stuff here that is not on the subject of Melchizedek but about who he was/is we have three opinions:
1. a theophany or pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. YHWH appeared many times as the Word/Memra/Logos/Ha-Kavod/Angel or Messenger of the Lord and some folks think Melchizedek was one of them
2. Shem
3. an unknown person with no recorded pedigree who appears in this one incidence and then disappears from the record
"ON TOPIC", Sam? C'mon, this is AFF.
But you do sum it up nicely. We are left with something of a loose end with this, IMHO. It may well be that the character's ambiguous background is intended to tell a story itself. Is he simply a mysterious individual who appears for the sole duty of recieving tha patriarch Abraham's tithe and then disappearing into the mists of time?
Perhaps the redactors of Genesis, the Sopherim of Ezra's school, simply had no idea about the details either, thus they left them out rather than speculated. The old rabbi's had a habit of "reading what was not said." They felt that the silences were as important and that which was spoken.
Of course, with our Western tradition of rationalism; and modern Bible Fundamentalism despite its complaints to the contrary is very much in the rationalistic tradition; demands that we fill in all of the blanks. Sometimes it's best just to accept the mysteries, again MHO.
When the Bible talks about the sons of God and when it talks about one of the reasons Noah was chosen because his generations being perfect. We know from bones that have been found that Neanderthals existed wherever they came from, is it possible that was who it was talking about. There is evidence that in areas both existed in the same areas at the same time. I saw in the National Geographic Magazine that some scientists actually managed to extract dna and it supposedly showed some human dna patterns in it.
Not wanting to pick a fight...
There is no geologic evidence of a worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years, so to try and cross reference a literal interpretation of Genesis 6 - 11 with the evidence we do have is going to be problematic.
The Neanderthal DNA, as I remember the story, was mitochondrial so we were not able to see the chromosomes and tell if the Neanderthals could interbreed with the Cro-Magnon lines (us). What we could find from the mitochondrial evidence led researchers to conclude that the Neanderthals did not share descent from a common female as the available Cro-Magnon examples. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child only.
So my thoughts are that the original did not survive history. That is one reason to not include any so called books of Enoch today, we just don't know that we have the original.
Do we have the originals of any books in the Bible?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
We have relatively modern manuscripts that we can compare to the 2,000 year old Dead Sea scrolls and find that the transmission methods were surprisingly accurate - surprising to critics of the Bible, anyway.
I re-read the last several posts and have to ammend and correct myself. I was conflating Jasher with Enoch ... And Timmy's question is valid. If we must have an "original" then we're out of luck on all 66 books we do have in the canon.
We have relatively modern manuscripts that we can compare to the 2,000 year old Dead Sea scrolls and find that the transmission methods were surprisingly accurate - surprising to critics of the Bible, anyway.
Copies, sure. But it seems like Prax is talking about original manuscripts. I could be wrong. (And usually am, when it comes to reading Prax! )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Well, they are the original Dead Sea Scrolls. LOL.
Some of the books in this collection don't appear in any other library and may be unique autographs. Certainly the more mundane stuff like the diaries and inventories are "unique" - but so what? My grocery list is unique and original every week and much of the DSS contain similar information - except the ice cream.
It's the biblical books that hold much of the fascination; and to be sure, they are not and none of them even purport to be the "autographs." An "autograph" is the original handwritten copy of a book. For example, the "autograph" of the Book of Romans would literally contain Paul's "autograph" in it.
Well, they are the original Dead Sea Scrolls. LOL.
Some of the books in this collection don't appear in any other library and may be unique autographs. Certainly the more mundane stuff likke thee diaries and inventories are "unique" - but so what? My grocery list is unique and original every week and much of the DSS contain similar information - except the ice cream.
It's the biblical books that hold much of the fascination; and to be sure, they are not and none of them even purport to be the "autographs." An "autograph" is the original handwritten copy of a book. For example, the "autograph" of the Book of Romans would literally contain Paul's "autograph" in it.
Right, that's what I meant by 'originals'. Guess Prax will explain what he meant, at some point.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
)
Linear Mode
