Pronomian Zoomer

Lover of God's perfect law. Sometimes casual and other times semi-academic. Not "Hebrew Roots" or a "Judaizer." Same age as YouTube. Blog Linked Below👇

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

The Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) speak about a Messianic figure identified as the “Son of Man,” “Chosen One,” “Righteous One,” and “Anointed One.” This figure will be a light to the nations, and in his name the righteous will receive salvation. He is also depicted as sitting on a throne of glory, judging the deeds of mankind, and receiving worship from all who dwell on the earth (1 Enoch 45:3–6; 48:3–7; 51:1–3).

Interestingly, in 1 Enoch 71:14, Enoch himself is identified as this figure. In this verse, the Head of Days, together with four archangels and innumerable other angels, greets Enoch with the words, “You are the Son of Man.”

Now, some argue that this passage does not identify Enoch as this figure. They point to a 1912 translation by R. H. Charles, which renders the verse differently. Charles translates the statement in the third person rather than the second person, reading, “This is the Son of Man.” If Charles’s rendering is correct, then Enoch is not being identified as the Son of Man but is instead being introduced to a separate figure.

The problem with Charles’s translation is that it does not reflect what the Ethiopic text actually says. The Geʽez reads አንተ ውእቱ ወልደ ብእሲ, which contains the second-person pronoun አንተ (“you”). Hence, “You are the Son of Man.” If the text intended to say, “This is the Son of Man,” we would expect a construction using ዝንቱ or the shorter form ዝ (“this”). Therefore, grammatically speaking, the Geʽez text identifies Enoch as the Son of Man.

Charles himself acknowledged that his translation of this verse does not reflect what the text says. In the footnotes to his translation, he noted that “this is” in 1 Enoch 71:14 is an emendation and that the “Text reads ‘Thou art.’” In other words, Charles did not deny that the Geʽez text identifies Enoch as the Son of Man. The issue is that Charles believed the text should not say what it says, so he emended the verse to reflect what he thought it ought to say rather than translating it correctly.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@JLtrucker1211 @TChapman500 @osasisHERESY https://t.co/YsS2udUjUc

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@osasisHERESY @TChapman500 I think @TChapman500 may be referring to Romans 2:9-10.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@HomesteadAmeric @DavidWilberBlog What was that one sentence actually saying, then?

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@HomesteadAmeric @DavidWilberBlog Solberg isn't willing to argue against scholarly pronomian arguments, so instead he mainly sticks to misrepresenting Wilber videos and critiquing your videos' simplistic arguments in his book Torahism.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@osasisHERESY @TChapman500 I think @TChapman500 may be referring to Romans 2:9-10.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@DavidWilberBlog @HomesteadAmeric I agree, Zach Bauer is clearly shooting himself in the foot with claiming that every single scholar that has written on the Book of Enoch agrees with his interpretation of its messianic theology. This may explain why R.L. Solberg quotes him so much.
https://t.co/TMil977KNA

[AnAmerican Homestead @HomesteadAmeric]

@DavidWilberBlog I have yet to ever see any scholar say yes, I Enoch promotes Enoch as the future Messiah. Find me one scholar that says that. We're not debating "Son of Man" we are debating "MESSIAH"

Find me just one. You're on an island by yourself.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@HomesteadAmeric @DavidWilberBlog What did Waddell mean by this statement then?

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@HomesteadAmeric @DavidWilberBlog https://t.co/ixVEv4YHIK

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@HomesteadAmeric @DavidWilberBlog You just moved the goalposts from "one scholar" to "someone from the 2005 symposium" then wrote "You're still on an island by yourself." If any other scholar agrees with Wilber, he's not "on an island" and you're wrong in claiming he is.

[Theopolis Institute @_Theopolis]

The church isn’t an escape pod, it’s a challenge to the world’s order.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

Yeshua said, "You are the light of the world." (Matthew 5:14). The world is dark, cold, and full of injustice and cruelty. It is our responsibility to show the world something different. Let your light shine and spread the warmth of his love.

[Peter the Heretic @PeterSilliman]

@5SolasMissy Worshipping Christ means obeying Christ. According to Christ.

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and remain in his love.

[🇺🇸 The American Culturist 🇺🇸 @MericaCulture]

In 1776 Daniel Boone rescued his daughter Jemima along with two other girls who were abducted by Cherokee-Shawnee Indians.

Boone along with a few other men tracked them the Indians for two days before ambushing them and saving the girls.

This would make an epic movie.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

One of the big reasons for the current lack of patriotism and pride in our nation’s history is that about 40 years ago our most prominent storytellers in Hollywood just basically stopped telling stories about American history altogether, unless it has something to do with WW2, civil rights, or slavery. I mean they just released a movie about the meteorologist who did the weather report for D-Day. They’ll give WW2 weathermen their own movies before they tell a story from any other era of American history.

The Right has attempted to counteract this a little bit, but “conservative” attempts at American history films and TV shows are invariably hokey and kid friendly, the kind of thing you can watch with your grandmother and your 5 year old, and you’ll all be equally informed and bored by the experience.

We need R-rated adult-oriented American history stories. Daniel Boone should have his own series. It would be gritty and violent and not for children, but it would also be phenomenally entertaining and put an American legend back on the cultural map, so to speak. The fact that Daniel Boone hasn’t been depicted on screen at all since like the 60s is a travesty. Throw a dart at that guy’s Wikipedia page and you’ll land on something that could be its own feature length trilogy.

That’s just one example. How is there not a great R-rated movie or series about Antietam? Or Kit Carson? Or the Panama Canal? How does Theodore Roosevelt not have like 10 movies about different periods of his life?

You could go much farther back to pre-American history. A movie about Cortes’s conquest of Tenochtitlan would be tremendous and horrifying and fascinating, and it would introduce into the public consciousness one of the world’s most incredible stories that most Americans know next to nothing about. And on and on.

The possibilities are literally endless. All of these movies, if they’re executed to even a B+ level, could make hundreds of millions of dollars and transform the culture in a way that a million podcast monologues never could. If the Right actually wants to reclaim the culture, this is the place to start.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@JoshuaBarzon E

[Jay at AmericanTorah.com @AmericanTorah]

Whether or not you believe in the Trinity, OSAS, speaking in tongues, infant baptism, space aliens, global warming, Mary's perpetual virginity...

...has no relevance to your eternal salvation.

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@JoshuaEnsley I wonder if Grok might be saying different things to please different users. I asked it my Substack note's question and it gave me a quite different answer. https://t.co/K97bRW51Ki

[Pronomian Zoomer @TorahRight]

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey I asked Grok to tell me the history of your interactions with @nathancoxey and it gave me nothing I didn't already know. How long ago was this?