Information about news, events, anti-cruelty and rescue, education, and legislation. Provides veterinary care and health care information.

The number "666" has recently (3rd anniversary of
Sept 11) appeared in a certain context. You can be
the judge as to whether it is divine or not...

http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/07/sign-of-beast.html

BFN. Paul.

Finally, a new argument! But this too fails, since it was true when
Paul wrote
it, that "flesh and blood cannot enter heaven". But he never wrote that
it was
NEVER true.

WEAK! Why would there be any difference between Enoch's time and Paul's
time. Add Hebrews 9:8 (better ye- all of Hebrews 9) and it is
conclusive. Enoch died.

Besides, it is illogical to think the physical could enter the
spiritual. You obviously don't even comprehend Paul's point in 1 Cor.
15:36-50!

Yes, my 'theory' DOES have support from the Biblical usage: for as I
have
already pointed out several times now, the _context_ shows that when he
write
"so as not to see death (Heb 11:5)", he really does mean the obvious:
ENOCH DID
NOT DIE.

than you must believe the Bible contradicts itself.

>> Why didn't Paul simply say Enoch was "taken" (harpazo) here?

>Because hARPAZW is also used of religious ecstasy

>not exclusively so your point is useless.

Are you in a competition for who can come up with the most fallacies?

you win!

"so as not to see death
(HEb 11:5)".

if "translated/transferred" had not preceded those words you'd have a
point. Paul's use of "metatithemi" shows this was no ordinary thing
when he could have used "harpazo". Kind of reminds me of the Sam Cooke
song. "You Send Me". :-) If Paul meant to convey "so as to not see
death" he would have used different words. What the verse means is that
Enoch did not know he was going to die when he did. If one dies in
their sleep you can say they "did not see death"

respond to the rest of your post tonight..please wait before responding
to this half so the discussion doesn't get lost.

Imagine if Pauls had said "taken (or taken up) (harpazo) so as to not
see death".

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

goddardbe@netscape.net wrote...
>
> peter.gibbs@charter.net wrote:
>
> > You guys crack me up with your insistence on "right understanding",
> > "correct doctrine", and, for Christ's sake, proper spelling?!
>
> > b) it really isn't all that important, as neither right understanding,
> > correct doctrine, nor proper spelling will save you (except perhaps in
> > a spelling bee.)
>
> What cracks me up is illogical pontificators who 1. insi