FoxDemonSoavi
Member
either the bible was written by god or it was wirtten by man. you can't pick and choose.
Debate Classics : Religion
- Thread starter FoxDemonSoavi
- Start date
arcthemonkey
Sponsor
Although g_man stated correctly that Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law (Which has nothing to do with who wrote it), I'll address these individually as far as I can. Also, way to copy and paste :P
Animal sacrifice was symbolic of the future sacrifice of Christ. When Christ's sinless blood was spilled, the necessity for any sacrifice bame null - the sacrifice had already been made. If your neighbors have a problem with the smell, it's probably becuase you have no excuse to be sacrificing animals. Also ask yourself why you have neighbors who are so pissed over a barbeque.
This is a critical misreading of the text, and I trust that if you had actually read it you would realize that the passage does not "sanction" selling yo daughter into slavery, rather, says that if for whatever reason you DO sell your daughter into slavery, she is to be given several specific rights or she must be set free. (Also, this passage is likely referring to selling daughters as wives, not manacled laborers.) What's being said by this verse is that if you buy a woman, you have to take good care of her - or set her free.
God did not "sanction" or ordain slavery any more than he did rape or murder. Rather, he allowed it - it was an invention of sinful man. He makes allowances for the failure of mankind.
In Mathew 19:8, Jesus said regarding divorce: "... Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Again, this comes from a profound lack of knowledge of the text you are referencing. The passages in leviticus 11-15 are as much about hygiene as they were about ritual cleanliness. Never mind that being "unclean" was hardly sinful. A state of being unclean simply prohibited one from entering the tabernacle. (Usually all you had to do to get "clean" again was wash your hands and wait a day.) This is basically a much stricter version of food handlers washing their hands after using the restroom.
Before Christ, people were wrapped up in ritualism, because they had to do everything they could to find favor with God. They had no direct way into heaven, because mankind was fallen and basically really screwed up. Christ said some interesting things about cleanliness though. He taught that being unclean couldn't keep you out of heaven, because not only is it impossible for humans to get "clean," but because our souls are, in essence, not dirtied by germs and menstrual blood.
Leviticus 11-15 could be summerized as "bathe regularly" in our modern situation.
As I said, "God did not "sanction" or ordain slavery any more than he did rape or murder. Rather, he allowed it - it was an invention of sinful man. He makes allowances for the failure of mankind."
It also pays to mention that slaves in the first millenium B.C. were a bit different from what we think of when we think of slaves. There were codes (many in the Bible) dictating how they are to be treated (and they were treated fairly well) and they had many, many right. Some slaves even owned houses, land, and sometimes even slaves of their own! They were allowed to marry free people and slaves alike.
Never mind the obvious fact that slavery is illegal! The Bible is very clear that christians are to follow man's law unless it violates God's law. Not having slaves does not violate God's law - but it does violate man's law, hence, we are not allowed to do it.
I'm going to quote CARM for this -
The passage cited does not say eating shellfish is an abomination. Again, this is a matter of cleanliness which I have already addressed. Eating shellfish was considered ritually unclean, and was not considered an abomination at all. But ritual cleanliess is no longer important. Jesus said that it's not what you put in your mouth that makes unclean, rather, it's what comes out.
It's hard to tell what precisely it means by defect in the eye, but truly that does seem a fairly insignificant problem compared to the others in the same passage. Again, this had to do with man's imperfection and the ritualistic nature of worship back then. Don't think that this means that someone with a defect in their eye was barred from worshipping God, or were outcast and ridicules. They were simply unable to bring their sacrifice past the curtain to the altar.
Finally, we don't have a tabernacle anymore - because God now dwells in us (christians) through Christ. Our bodies are the temple of God - our hearts the altar. We don't have to bring sacrifices to the altar anymore, because, as I have already explored, Christ's sacrifice has us covered. This is the significance of Christ. No more temple, no more ritual sacrifice.
No where does it say you should put these people to death. Also, this is again a case of adhering to old testament ritual and old testament law, which I have addressed earlier. Finally, the passage (and the one following) is a reference to pagan mourning rites. Making this reference shows blatant ignorance to the culture of the time. Shaving your beard was taken as a sign of paganism. Go read up on the importance of beards in the first millenium B.C., and then come back and try again.
Already addressed in previous passages. Also, most modern footballs are leather or rubber.
This is again an issue with old testament law vs. new testament law, and is therefore already largely addressed.
Furthemore, quoting CARM:
Being condascending and sarcastic and posting an ignorant entry that you probably got from a "joke" site as part of an effort at serious discussion is missing the mark significantly Saovi. I know you can do better
Animal sacrifice was symbolic of the future sacrifice of Christ. When Christ's sinless blood was spilled, the necessity for any sacrifice bame null - the sacrifice had already been made. If your neighbors have a problem with the smell, it's probably becuase you have no excuse to be sacrificing animals. Also ask yourself why you have neighbors who are so pissed over a barbeque.
This is a critical misreading of the text, and I trust that if you had actually read it you would realize that the passage does not "sanction" selling yo daughter into slavery, rather, says that if for whatever reason you DO sell your daughter into slavery, she is to be given several specific rights or she must be set free. (Also, this passage is likely referring to selling daughters as wives, not manacled laborers.) What's being said by this verse is that if you buy a woman, you have to take good care of her - or set her free.
God did not "sanction" or ordain slavery any more than he did rape or murder. Rather, he allowed it - it was an invention of sinful man. He makes allowances for the failure of mankind.
In Mathew 19:8, Jesus said regarding divorce: "... Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Again, this comes from a profound lack of knowledge of the text you are referencing. The passages in leviticus 11-15 are as much about hygiene as they were about ritual cleanliness. Never mind that being "unclean" was hardly sinful. A state of being unclean simply prohibited one from entering the tabernacle. (Usually all you had to do to get "clean" again was wash your hands and wait a day.) This is basically a much stricter version of food handlers washing their hands after using the restroom.
Before Christ, people were wrapped up in ritualism, because they had to do everything they could to find favor with God. They had no direct way into heaven, because mankind was fallen and basically really screwed up. Christ said some interesting things about cleanliness though. He taught that being unclean couldn't keep you out of heaven, because not only is it impossible for humans to get "clean," but because our souls are, in essence, not dirtied by germs and menstrual blood.
Leviticus 11-15 could be summerized as "bathe regularly" in our modern situation.
As I said, "God did not "sanction" or ordain slavery any more than he did rape or murder. Rather, he allowed it - it was an invention of sinful man. He makes allowances for the failure of mankind."
It also pays to mention that slaves in the first millenium B.C. were a bit different from what we think of when we think of slaves. There were codes (many in the Bible) dictating how they are to be treated (and they were treated fairly well) and they had many, many right. Some slaves even owned houses, land, and sometimes even slaves of their own! They were allowed to marry free people and slaves alike.
Never mind the obvious fact that slavery is illegal! The Bible is very clear that christians are to follow man's law unless it violates God's law. Not having slaves does not violate God's law - but it does violate man's law, hence, we are not allowed to do it.
I'm going to quote CARM for this -
The passage cited does not say eating shellfish is an abomination. Again, this is a matter of cleanliness which I have already addressed. Eating shellfish was considered ritually unclean, and was not considered an abomination at all. But ritual cleanliess is no longer important. Jesus said that it's not what you put in your mouth that makes unclean, rather, it's what comes out.
It's hard to tell what precisely it means by defect in the eye, but truly that does seem a fairly insignificant problem compared to the others in the same passage. Again, this had to do with man's imperfection and the ritualistic nature of worship back then. Don't think that this means that someone with a defect in their eye was barred from worshipping God, or were outcast and ridicules. They were simply unable to bring their sacrifice past the curtain to the altar.
Finally, we don't have a tabernacle anymore - because God now dwells in us (christians) through Christ. Our bodies are the temple of God - our hearts the altar. We don't have to bring sacrifices to the altar anymore, because, as I have already explored, Christ's sacrifice has us covered. This is the significance of Christ. No more temple, no more ritual sacrifice.
No where does it say you should put these people to death. Also, this is again a case of adhering to old testament ritual and old testament law, which I have addressed earlier. Finally, the passage (and the one following) is a reference to pagan mourning rites. Making this reference shows blatant ignorance to the culture of the time. Shaving your beard was taken as a sign of paganism. Go read up on the importance of beards in the first millenium B.C., and then come back and try again.
Already addressed in previous passages. Also, most modern footballs are leather or rubber.
This is again an issue with old testament law vs. new testament law, and is therefore already largely addressed.
Furthemore, quoting CARM:
Being condascending and sarcastic and posting an ignorant entry that you probably got from a "joke" site as part of an effort at serious discussion is missing the mark significantly Saovi. I know you can do better
Not necessarily. Someone may believe in the Bible's works are written by man. By that man may have been inspired by God to write it. Or, God did not write it, but man wrote what God told him. The problem I see is the uncertainty factor. We aren't sure if God wrote it, but because it's in the language of man we can make the assumption that man wrote it. I'm not sure on this part.
Roman Candle
Member
Yes, condascending people really are awful, arc.Being condascending and sarcastic and posting an ignorant entry that you probably got from a "joke" site as part of an effort at serious discussion is missing the mark significantly Saovi. I know you can do better
There is no uncertainty factor, if you believe the Bible is true. It says in the Bible that "all scripture is inspired by God (or God-Breathed, depending on the translation)". So, the Bible claims to be written by man, inspired by God. it is up to you whether to believe it.
Also, about God could have used evolution, said by romancandle, as an example of when God uses natural causes, evolution contradicts the Bible, like i said earlier.
and arcthemonkey, awesome post.
Also, about God could have used evolution, said by romancandle, as an example of when God uses natural causes, evolution contradicts the Bible, like i said earlier.
and arcthemonkey, awesome post.
But... without evidence, there isn't really any real reason to believe either. Without evidence, God is an arbitrary belief. There are SO MANY possible arbitrary beliefs that a person can hold, and even if they indicate that there's evidence, nobody has the combination of resources and motivation to go look every time. It doesn't matter though. If it sounds too grand or threatens our worldview, we just assume they're wrong until someone shows us otherwise. Well, maybe not you, but we cynics do, I guess. Keep in mind that's a casual "no" and a technical "maybe." Is our only disagreement in the casual answer?
Roman Candle
Member
Yes, it is an arbitrary truth. And if you happen to feel incredibly strongly one way about it, and there's no reason to believe that it's not true, then why shouldn't you believe that it's true? There's no more reason for you to believe that it isn't.
You've said that evolution contradicts the Bible; I've said why I don't think it does, but you havn't added anything to that. I don't see why you're so determined to believe that the Bible contradicts evolution.
You've said that evolution contradicts the Bible; I've said why I don't think it does, but you havn't added anything to that. I don't see why you're so determined to believe that the Bible contradicts evolution.
Shadow_Strike
Member
Prove it.
It is an arbitrary truth if you can prove it. One apple owned by James McCowan Plus One Apple owned by James McCowan Equals Two Apples owned by James McCowan, assuming that James McCowan started with no Apples, arbitrary, and true.
Now state your proof.
~~~~~
So how much should we sell her for? Sanctioned or not, the original questoin was how much, not how should she be treated or what not.
Thank you, but cleanliness has nothing to do with "menstrual uncleanliness" which refers to her period. Something you totally missed.
Now answer the question. How do you tell when she's on her period and she doesn't tell you?
Cool, so the bible is out dated and out sourced. Can't God give us a Bible 2.0 already?
arcthemonkey
Sponsor
Shadow_Strike;159343 said:
The question was not valid. The basis of the question was that selling your daughter was sanctioned by God. It is not. I have no reason to answer any more of the question. The question was a clear jab at the concept of God sanctioning the selling of your daughter, which he does not, therefore the question is baseless.
The answer is, you should not sell her. Later in my post I also talked about man's law vs. God's law, which adds another clear angle to this response. It is illegal to sell your daughter, and since not selling you rdaughter does not violate God's law, it is not permitted since it does violate man's law.
There are a number of reasons why I am in no way obligated to so much a acknowledge the second part of that question, but if you really want to know how much bride goes for these days, I'm sure a google search for "Russian Brides" will give you a good idea.
Shadow_Strike;159343 said:
Companies that produce femenine hygeine products are really wasting their time then, aye? Menstrual blood was considered unclean. That means that if it gets on you, or you touch a woman who was menstruating you were considered unclean. Unclean = the opposite of cleanliness.
Blood is a biohazard. Blood spreads disease. When you grow up a bit and take sex ed, you'll learn that women bleed when they menstruate. I think it's fairly clear how one could associate menstruation with lack of cleanliness. After all, not even a paramedic will touch you without gloves on if there is ANY blood on you.
But you still really want to know? Sorry, I'm not a gynocologist, but I have a phonebook and could probably look up the number of one for you. They may be able to help you out.
Shadow_Strike;159343 said:
No, the Bible is half history book. If you have really have such a problem with a book because it contains historical information, then I have no interest in talking to you.
Roman Candle
Member
You seem to have understood by 'arbitrary truth', 'not arbitrary truth'. If you're going to charge into a thread making big agressive statements, then at least check what you've read/written. And it would have been nice if you'd read the last page or so, in which I've detailed over and over again why it's an arbitrary truth. Unless that phrase has some bizzare, counter-intuitive meaning in the world of logical discussion which I'm unaware of, in which I'm terribly sorry and eat all my words.Dictionary.com":23klbiqu said:
According to the Bible, during your period you are unclean. Reading the whole passage will show you that by 'clean' it essentially means 'pure'. And it doesn't consider you pure while menstuating. Just because clean can often substituted for hygenic, it doesn't mean that if you can't use the word hygenic, you can't use the word clean.
As to 'answering the question' - the law says that you shouldn't be an accessory to murder. It doesn't tell you how to work out whether the bag you're carting around has a body inside.
And I don't even know why you bothered making that 'Bible 2.0' comment. It clearly wasn't what he meant. And apparently you havn't heard of the New Testament :p
Just because you're attacking a powerful and well established organisation, it doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious. If you'd said half of that to my face, you can bet I wouldn't have been nearly as polite back.
EDIT
Arc obviously moves faster than me. Nevermind.
Ok, I'll give you more reasons why i dont believe in evolution because of the Bible. In the Bible God says the world was created in six days. add up the genealogies (is that spelled right??? :S) and you get that the creation of the world happened about 6000ish years ago, give or take 1000 years at most due to omissions in the genealogogologeies.
The reason that i believe that the six days were literal is because jesus said man was created at the beginning of the world. on Day six of the worlds existence is pretty much at the beginning. Year umpteen million, billion even, is not at the beginning of the world. Thus, if the evolutionary timescale is true, (which it has to be for evolution to be true, the chances are just too low, zero even, otherwise), then six day creation isn't true, and thus Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is a liar, then he wasn't perfect, if he wasn't perfect, he wasn't the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and if he wasn't the sacrifice for our sins, we aren't forgiven, and if we aren't forgiven we are still sinners, and still going to Hell, (if there is a hell because at this point the entirety of the Bible's doctrine falls apart.)
Hence, if evolution is true, we aren't saved.
The Bible, I reckon, doesn't allow any space for evolution.
Thar we go. anyway, evolution was originally proposed as a theory to prove God wasn't needed for the creation process, not a method that God could have used. Unfortunately, this is just what it has become for many christians. Thinking about what i wrote above could (and has) drawn christians away from their faith.
The reason that i believe that the six days were literal is because jesus said man was created at the beginning of the world. on Day six of the worlds existence is pretty much at the beginning. Year umpteen million, billion even, is not at the beginning of the world. Thus, if the evolutionary timescale is true, (which it has to be for evolution to be true, the chances are just too low, zero even, otherwise), then six day creation isn't true, and thus Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is a liar, then he wasn't perfect, if he wasn't perfect, he wasn't the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and if he wasn't the sacrifice for our sins, we aren't forgiven, and if we aren't forgiven we are still sinners, and still going to Hell, (if there is a hell because at this point the entirety of the Bible's doctrine falls apart.)
Hence, if evolution is true, we aren't saved.
The Bible, I reckon, doesn't allow any space for evolution.
Thar we go. anyway, evolution was originally proposed as a theory to prove God wasn't needed for the creation process, not a method that God could have used. Unfortunately, this is just what it has become for many christians. Thinking about what i wrote above could (and has) drawn christians away from their faith.
lunarhiro2002
Member
I was just reading and I think that all this "refrence" to the law is putting off the meaning of Christianity. I mean Jesus Himself doesn't like the fact of being bound by the law. The law was made for the lawless. Not for a guide to spiritual life.
The law is good in that it shows us what is good and bad. But thats it. The law has no control over who goes to heaven or hell. It has no control over your future. It's just kinda like a refrence manual. In the end its a personal relationship with God that He desires.
And I believe that once you get into that personal relationship with God you desire will be for God and to become more and more like Him through sanctification, which is not to be confused with justification. (What I mean is by accepting Jesus as your savior you are justified)
I believe that there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus runs into a rich man who follows all the commandments and asks Jesus what he should do. Jesus tells him to give up everything and follow Him. So clearly the Law, is not our saving grace.
The law is good in that it shows us what is good and bad. But thats it. The law has no control over who goes to heaven or hell. It has no control over your future. It's just kinda like a refrence manual. In the end its a personal relationship with God that He desires.
And I believe that once you get into that personal relationship with God you desire will be for God and to become more and more like Him through sanctification, which is not to be confused with justification. (What I mean is by accepting Jesus as your savior you are justified)
I believe that there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus runs into a rich man who follows all the commandments and asks Jesus what he should do. Jesus tells him to give up everything and follow Him. So clearly the Law, is not our saving grace.
However, I'm pretty sure Jesus was challenged by skeptics about whether or not his followers should follow the law at the time, and his answer was yes, they should. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give God what belongs to Him (liberal paraphrasing just went on in the aforementioned sentence).
You have to remember that Jesus didn't show up to be some sort of Joshua or Moses like people were probably imagining at the time. Rebelling against Caesar wasn't a lot less important than what was really at stake at the moment.
What is meant by the Law is not the Law of the day, the Roman law, like you seem to be getting Lene, but the Jewish law as recorded in the first five books of the old testemant.
It is clear that lunarhiro's comment was right, because of what it says in Ephesians (a letter from a guy called paul to the christians in ephesus)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do " (Eph. 2:8,9).
I mean apart from the wow factor that God is happy to call us his workmanship (maybe you and me aren't as screwed up as we thought we were!) It does say here that we are saved by God, not by obeying the law. like lunarhiro says, the law shows us what right and wrong is, nothing more. The traditions of purity etc are not needed now, only faith in God is needed.
1 John 5:1 says "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" No law or sacrifices needed there!
the story about the young guy is in: Matthew 19:16 to the end of the chapter if anyone wants to read it. it probably crops up in Mark, Luke or John as well, but hey, here is one recording of it.
It is clear that lunarhiro's comment was right, because of what it says in Ephesians (a letter from a guy called paul to the christians in ephesus)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do " (Eph. 2:8,9).
I mean apart from the wow factor that God is happy to call us his workmanship (maybe you and me aren't as screwed up as we thought we were!) It does say here that we are saved by God, not by obeying the law. like lunarhiro says, the law shows us what right and wrong is, nothing more. The traditions of purity etc are not needed now, only faith in God is needed.
1 John 5:1 says "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" No law or sacrifices needed there!
the story about the young guy is in: Matthew 19:16 to the end of the chapter if anyone wants to read it. it probably crops up in Mark, Luke or John as well, but hey, here is one recording of it.
Jonathan;159793 said:
I'm not sure how you can take that literally. Do you honestly believe that the creation of the world could have just happened with a wave of Gods hand and suddenly all of these things appear in 6 days? The one story that is the most philosophical meaning has to be Genesis. How was a woman created from a mans rib? (Eve from Adams Rib) How did Satan inhabit a snake? How can you explain all of that logically? Because God is the best and he's perfect and he can do whatever he wants isn't a valid enough explanation (at least for me anyway.) If it was meant to say anything, I think the Genesis Story was a moral story to teach us to stray away from sin. Because at the end look at what happens. All of mankind is now cursed with Sin, and they get punished for eating from a tree that God said not too. I could use this story to try to teach my younger brother to always obey God, or say God will punish you if you don't, just like in that Adam and Eve story.
Roman Candle
Member
I agree the Genesis is a mainly symbolic piece of work. I mean, How many talking snakes have you ever seen? It's not God, it's not Lucifer, it's not an angel; what is it then, that produces a human voice? Maybe, and don't just dismiss this out of hand as some wacky, crazy theory, but just maybe, it's a symbol.
Roman Candle
Member
But there's a difference between God and snake. If God exists, he would certainly be able to take the form of a tongue of flame. But the snake wasn't God, and snakes can't talk.
@Grandor: How do you explain God coming down as a human logically? How can you explain logically that God loves people enough to die for them? How can God logically die?
Here's an idea! What if God doesn't work with logic? What if God's ways are so high above ours we would never understand them even if we tried! What if... Human's are so pathetically finite minded that God didn't even explain how he created the world because he knows we wouldn't understand? What if he only says he did it because 1. He did, and that should be enough and 2. If he told us exactly how he did it it would fill hundreds of books (and blow our minds!)
What if calling God illogical is a bit arrogant?
@RomanCandle: If Genesis is a symbol, Adam is a symbol. There is a CLEAR Geneaology in the Bible from Adam to Jesus. Jesus was a historical figure. If Adam wasn't, and was merely a 'metaphor', then were does it stop being metaphors and start being real people? Methusalah was the Son of a Metaphor really doesn't cut it for me. Maybe, just maybe, god meant what he said. Genesis is a historical book, NOT written in hebrew poetic language. Song of Solomon is. Read that and compare.
@RomanCandle again: Are you trying to say that God couldn't allow the devil to talk through a snake? (And it was Satan. elswhere in the Bible it identifies satan as 'that ancient serpent'.
And Yes, i believe the world is only about 6000ish years ago.
Here's an idea! What if God doesn't work with logic? What if God's ways are so high above ours we would never understand them even if we tried! What if... Human's are so pathetically finite minded that God didn't even explain how he created the world because he knows we wouldn't understand? What if he only says he did it because 1. He did, and that should be enough and 2. If he told us exactly how he did it it would fill hundreds of books (and blow our minds!)
What if calling God illogical is a bit arrogant?
@RomanCandle: If Genesis is a symbol, Adam is a symbol. There is a CLEAR Geneaology in the Bible from Adam to Jesus. Jesus was a historical figure. If Adam wasn't, and was merely a 'metaphor', then were does it stop being metaphors and start being real people? Methusalah was the Son of a Metaphor really doesn't cut it for me. Maybe, just maybe, god meant what he said. Genesis is a historical book, NOT written in hebrew poetic language. Song of Solomon is. Read that and compare.
@RomanCandle again: Are you trying to say that God couldn't allow the devil to talk through a snake? (And it was Satan. elswhere in the Bible it identifies satan as 'that ancient serpent'.
And Yes, i believe the world is only about 6000ish years ago.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I'd like to deviat a moment and ask a question if I may, one that has always wondered in my mind but I never found a time to ask. And things like this I'd rather ask, as opposed to just go an looking something up.
If the geneaology in genesis is true, as written, then what does that do to the 2nd Enoch listed? Theres 2, the one I'm referring to is the 2nd, and I believe is a descendent of Noah. He doesn't "die" but rather "walks with God".
Some have connected him with the angel Metatron (who has been a figure of no minor controversy, specially when labled as a/the lesser god instead of an angel). Others simply say it was a more poetic way of saying "passed on", "died", "kicked the bucket" - whatever. That there is nothing special about it, save that the writer decided to change the vocabulary for a moment.
No cause of death is listed, only that Enoch (there might be a "u" in the name too, I may be misspelling it) "walked with God". So, what does that actually mean, if the geneaology isn't false.
And does that go against a seperation of angel, or other holy being, and humans? Or is there no seperation (this is one subject I've never known)?
If the geneaology in genesis is true, as written, then what does that do to the 2nd Enoch listed? Theres 2, the one I'm referring to is the 2nd, and I believe is a descendent of Noah. He doesn't "die" but rather "walks with God".
Some have connected him with the angel Metatron (who has been a figure of no minor controversy, specially when labled as a/the lesser god instead of an angel). Others simply say it was a more poetic way of saying "passed on", "died", "kicked the bucket" - whatever. That there is nothing special about it, save that the writer decided to change the vocabulary for a moment.
No cause of death is listed, only that Enoch (there might be a "u" in the name too, I may be misspelling it) "walked with God". So, what does that actually mean, if the geneaology isn't false.
And does that go against a seperation of angel, or other holy being, and humans? Or is there no seperation (this is one subject I've never known)?