Look man, the two witnesses if they are indeed human beings have a special connection to the Lord but that doesn't make them God. A mysterious connection no doubt...which I don't think can be properly understood except in a similar way that angels can be. They do the will of the Father. Need more be said?
He did not raped her
2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl as my wife.”
18 Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. 19 The young man, who was the most honored of all his father’s family,
I'll have to go back and look at that passage but though I do not recall "most honored"...it seems pretty irrelevant. It doesn't say "most honored of the Lord"...what does it matter that he was honored in his own family? At least when discussing your claim that things are said backwards?
If I recall aright, Jacob's sons slaughtered them all. Nor is the Lord's opinion really given on whether what they did was right or not. We do have Jacob's response and indeed I heard a sermon on how selfish he was recently, though I can't say I completely agree with the interpretation/extrapolation (with regard to a sermon base that is).
At least I don't recall if the Lord's response was given. As far as I can understand, what the son did by marrying the daughter and later making a convenant of circumcision in order to appease her brothers and "make it right" was reasonable considering they had little understanding of the Lord (as far as we know) and yet they were double crossed and killed.
True she was raped and from their perspective it was a matter of their sister's honor...but do we have her words? Raiding for wives is not an unknown concept historically is it?
I'm having fun going just from memory to be honest but I'll read through it tomorrow perhaps and see if anything else sticks out.
I realize I may be mincing words a bit and since English may not be your primary language perhaps I err by doing so...but while I can sort of see where you are coming from on something being said backward it just states a fact of where the son was positionally within his own family and MANY things can be extrapolated from that. What cannot be extrapolated is that the Lord approved of her rape.
Notice we don't have any words on God's opinion of what happened with Lot's daughters either. Only that it is recorded and I suppose you "might" presume his opinion based off what nations they became as the Lord's ultimate opinion but that's the only real clue as far as I can tell (which is an important clue nevertheless)
I'm not trying to come across as beating you over the head or anything by the way...it's just that your initial statement that I asked for clarification on you still haven't addressed. I get that some things are vague but Enoch was indeed human and God took him. He is mentioned in Hebrews and again in Jude. That's all we know. He lived before the flood and whatever you think about Hebraic numbering it appears that he lived 365 years (365 days x 365 days?) which is pretty nifty. He had children and so had a wife. He didn't die.
I would love to say I know more than I do about him but I don't see any way that further conjecture (beyond the topic of this thread and a few others) would NOT be "going beyond what is written" which is a scripture if you didn't know (since I have no idea what scripture you know and don't...I forget portions of Paul's letters often enough).
Anyway, it's late and I'll let someone else chime in if they care to regarding your statement.
1
