The Book Of Enoch

[Billyd]

Is it factual?

Enoch does not appear in any accepted cannon. Read F F Bruce's "The Cannon of Scripture" for an analysis of why each book is included.

Here is a website that lists the books currently accepted as cannon.

Jewish and Christian Bibles: Comparative Chart

 

[Gabriel2020]

Some people act like they wrote the bible. Their mistake in reading it is carnal. They make up their own interpertation. The only prophesy is in the old testament besides revelation. the new testament was the works of Jesus where accounts were different of his ministry by the apostiles and worded different. They would not believe it. And all books were letters written to the leaders of the church of their revelation.

 

[Denadii]

Biblical ignorant people, who have never bothered to study the scriptures, will undoubtedly point to the fact that the KJV, The Revised Standard Version and other Bibles, have Luke saying in chapter 3 verse 23: “And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of Age, being (As was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Had those people bothered to study the scriptures, they would have discovered for themselves, that the words (As was supposed) in brackets are not in the more ancient Greek manuscripts of Luke! Those words were simply a gloss, which were added by later Christian translators.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour, as his heir and successor.


In Luke 3: 21-22; in most, if not all Christians English bibles of today, it is written that when Jesus was baptised by John and was praying, the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “Thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.”

Here again, we see that the Christian translators have corrupted the words of Luke, to make it appear that Jesus had been born as ‘The Son of God,’whereas according to the ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.” The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

So when we ignore the added corruptions of the Christian translators, we see that the man Jesus, who was born of human parents, was later born ‘Son of God’ at his baptism, when he was filled with the spirit of the Lord that descended upon him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my son, THIS DAY (The day of his baptism) I have begotten thee.”

In reference to the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, which was witnessed by Peter, James, and John.Here, after waking from a deep and sound sleep, Peter says to Jesus, Luke 9: 33; "Master, how good it is that we are here! We will make three tents, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.Now, read verse 34: ‘While he (Peter) was still speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them with its shadow; and the disciples were afraid as the cloud came over them. A voice said from the cloud. "This is my son, whom I have 'CHOSEN.'

Concerning the future Messiah, in Isaiah 42:1; we read; The Lord says, “Here is my servant, whom I strengthen-----the one I have CHOSEN, with whom I am pleased. I have filled him with my spirit and he will bring Justice to every nation, etc.

In Isaiah 61: 1; It is written; “The Sovereign Lord has filled me with his spirit. He has CHOSEN me and sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal the broken hearted, to announce release to captives and freedom to those in prison, etc.”This was the scripture that was read by Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth, after which, the crowd tried to kill him by casting him from a cliff.

Do you have a son sir? Was that son (or daughter) begotten, conceived, born, when you told them Son, I'm proud of you! Neither was Jesus when the Father said "This is my son, and I'm proud of Him"

You make too much of yourself sir..Slow down.

 

[Denadii]

Enoch does not appear in any accepted cannon. Read F F Bruce's "The Cannon of Scripture" for an analysis of why each book is included.

Here is a website that lists the books currently accepted as cannon.

Jewish and Christian Bibles: Comparative Chart

Though it's not cannon I would still say its factual....Why else would it be quoted in the bible? I would say God's Word is a good reference.

 

[Denadii]

Only an unskilled person would ask that. Question. One who is puffed up and full of ptide. As if he is the only one that knows the word of God

Who are you talking to Gabe? Why don't you use the "reply with quote button"? Come on boy! You can do it.

 

[Denadii]

Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name etc.

Peter confirms that Jesus was that man, when in reference to Jesus he says in. Acts 3: 22; For Moses said; "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc."

Acts 3:19; “Repent then and turn to God, (Not to Jesus, but to God) so that He (God) will forgive your sins. If you do, times of spiritual strength will come from the Lord, and He will send Jesus, who is the Messiah that he has already CHOSEN for you. The man Jesus, was chosen and made both Lord and saviour by “Who I Am”.

Did the people of his day believe that Jesus was the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of our ancestors? No, they did not, for on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people escorting him cried out, "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD” Verifying that they believed Jesus to be the one that God had promised that he would choose from among the Israelites, and send to the people to speak in his name.

Jesus who admits that he spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by our Lord God and saviour, says in John 5: 24; “Whoever hear my words (The words that he was commanded to say) and believes in “HIM” who sent me, has eternal life.

John 14: 24; “And the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. Not my Father, but THE Father.

Jesus said to Mary Magdalene in John 20: 17; Go to my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and their Father, to my God and their God.

Whose words were these in reference to the body of Jesus that had been filled by the spirit of the Lord which had descended upon him in the form of a dove?

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1[SUP]st[/SUP] Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17: 30-31; For HE has fixed a day in which he shall judge the whole world with justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN.He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death.

Cut and paste... cut and paste....What do YOU say?

 

[Billyd]

Though it's not cannon I would still say its factual....Why else would it be quoted in the bible? I would say God's Word is a good reference.

If a writer quotes John 3:16 correctly in an article, that doesn't make the article true. If you wish to use Enoch as a reference, I have no problem with that, as long as you filter your quotes from it through accepted scripture, not the other way around.

You might find how Jude made the cannon interesting. It almost didn't.

 

[Denadii]

If a writer quotes John 3:16 correctly in an article, that doesn't make the article true. If you wish to use Enoch as a reference, I have no problem with that, as long as you filter your quotes from it through accepted scripture, not the other way around.

You might find how Jude made the cannon interesting. It almost didn't.

There is no such thing as almost wrong in the bible.

 

[followjesus]

How does angel not given in marriage translate to sexual intercourse? It also say the angels in Heaven...were exactly do you think fallen angels reside? How do you explain Jude quoting the Book of Enoch?

Not only jude, but peter obviously was referencing it as well in 1 and 2 peter. and also in my own view Johns gospel and revelation reference enochian material and it has been dated prior by 2-300 Years before all of those books. its really not deniabl that at least some of the apostles had read and had good Knowledge of enoch. and Jude saying " enoch the 7th of adam prophesied...." Kind of at the very least tells us there is indeed a valid book of enoch or was at one time that the apostles accepted. i think really its a translation issue regarding the ethiopic text v those partials found in the caves of the dead sea. without a doubt the book of enoch exists or existed before Jesus Christ came to earth.

 

[PennEd]

Okay. Chuck said to prove everything by Him, including the things that he says; so do it.

Bene HaElohim is not meaning angels; here is why.

Ben means builder of the family name. Angels are not marrying nor given in marriage so sons of God is not them.

The problem here is using the Book of Enoch for the vocabulary of what sons of God mean in the Bible. That is a mistake when the scripture has Jesus saying that angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage. They are not created to reproduce to build a family.

Matthew 22:30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So when we look at the references that Chuck claims are angels, we can see that it is not when you do NOT use the Book of Enoch as a vocabulary. Start with the Book of Job:

Job 1:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.[SUP] 7 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[SUP] 8 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Again...

Job 2:1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.[SUP] 2 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[SUP] 3 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Now I pray God is keeping you from reading Enoch into the Book of Job.

Note how TWICE now when the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord, Satan came and God pointed out Job among them TWICE.

Job is one of the sons of God, because he was among them. There is no point in pointing out Job during the presentation of the sons of God if angels were presenting themselves to the Lord.

What need does angels have for presenting themselves to the Lord? Sinful men living a godly life to please God does.

If you want definite proof that sons of God is not referring to angels; look who Adam is.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

So is Adam an angel?

Even Chuck referred to John 1:12-13 in how we as a new creation, we are the sons of God, but he overlooked how the former sons of God were.

John 1:[SUP]12 [/SUP]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:[SUP]13 [/SUP]Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John made the distinction of born again believers from how the former sons of God were; not of blood as being of the bloodline of the nation of Israel, nor of the will of the flesh or the will of man for those foreigners that converted to Judaism, but of God.

That verse Chuck pointed out proves that sons of God does not always refer to angels, and yet he still went onward.

I can see why pastors that have gone to college and universities were not taught this because Chuck is using the Book of Enoch erroneously as a vocabulary in understanding what sons of God mean in the Bible, and that is a mistake to do even after Chuck admitted that it is not inspired.

So stop reading sons of God as meaning ONLY angels. Chuck is wrong about that. Period.

The other reference is:

Luke 20:[SUP]36 [/SUP]Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
That is using the Book of Enoch to read that verse in that way as inferring angels being the children of God, overlooking the following wording that said "being the children of the resurrection".

Angels are not children of the resurrection when that definitive phrase is attached to "are the children of God" and thus referring to those saints resurrected that cannot die any more and equal to the angels in that way; not that the angels are children of God BEING of the children of the resurrection.

Book of Enoch is a fraud and should not be used as a reference to understand the accepted scripture in the Bible.

The Septuagint LXX is of Alexandrian origin where poetic licensing and gnosticism had been known to exists.

I would rather rely on the documents origin from Antioch where the disciples were first called christians.

Anyway, Chuck had opposed himself with John 1:12-13 because sons of God does not always mean angels whereas I say it never did mean angels. The phrase "sons of God" is only referring to Israel's roots as God's people. That is all.

I cannot convince you guys so you are just going to have to go before that throne of grace and prove by Him what sons of God actually mean. It cannot mean both godly men and angels for in no way are angels are builder of a family name.

You are not called to be a disciple of Chuck; you are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ. I do not care how right he has been in other sermons; he is not right about what sons of God means since he is allowing his reading to be clouded by reading the Book of Enoch into the scripture using its vocabulary of what sons of God meaning to be as angels. So go and ask Jesus for wisdom now.

Hey, obviously you are free to believe whatever you want. I just completely disagree with you.

Not sure if you watched the whole video, but the point was made that the ANGELS ABANDONED THEIR "HABITATION", which not only means Heaven, but what they were clothed in (bodies) . That's what Jude tells us. Jesus says like the Angels IN HEAVEN who do not marry. Why is the concept that they WEREN'T in Heaven so difficult to understand?

I can't even to begin to comprehend the point that Job was one of the "sons of God" presenting himself before God. I'm sorry, but this borders on being ludicrous.

the WHOLE book deals with Job and his "friends" trying to figure out why these plagues attacked him! to cap it off, God appears at the end of the book to set Job straight.

The Scriptural mental gymnastics one has to go through because they are so uncomfortable with the thought of fallen Angels mating with human women, begatting a hybrid race is astonishing.

But I do agree there is a danger in trusting in the Book of Enoch, or any other Book, that is not in the Bible.

 

[S-word]

You addressed Biblical ignorant people and yet you claim to get that information outside the normal Bible reading for which you claim people are ignorant of their Bible.

Now... I am ignorant of what you are trying to lay claim to; are you denying the deity of Jesus Christ?

I can see your references in what you may be trying to say... but what about this one? Do inform what Bible version you are using. If none, but the Greek & Hebrew, I should scream, because you have no right to call any one ignorant of their Bible when you do not even read one version of it to speak from to say how people are ignorant of their Bible. So I better be seeing your preferred Bible version in looking up this reference below that is in the KJV.

Isaiah 48:[SUP]16 [/SUP]Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.[SUP] 17 [/SUP]Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

I read God is speaking and yet it is God and His spirit that sent Him. What does your Bible version say?

Enow wrote.............You addressed Biblical ignorant people and yet you claim to get that information outside the normal Bible reading for which you claim people are ignorant of their Bible.

S-word responds...........Do you put your total faith in the word of God, or in the erroneous translations and false interpretations of the so called christian scholars of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine?According to Genesis 11: 12, and 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Chronicles 1: 18 in your bible, it is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah.

Only twice in the Old Testament of your cannon, is the father of Shelah mentioned, but Luke 3: 35-36; in your NT, states that Shelah is the son of Cainan/Kainam, who is the son of Arpachshad.Did Luke go outside the normal bible to find out who the real father of Shelah was?Your bible says in Genesis 11: 12; that Arpachshad was 35 years old when he became the Father of Shelah, but now let us read the same verse from the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament by Hebrew scholars over 200 years before Jesus: Genesis 11: 12; “And Arpachshad lived 175 years and begot Cainan/Kainam then lived another 400 years, And Cainan lived 135 years and begot Shelah, etc.

Or perhaps Luke studied the Book of Jubilees, which states in [Chapter 8]1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.

And in the thirtieth jubilee, [1429 A.M.] in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year [1432 A.M.] he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’So do I believe by faith, the limited books which comprise the canon of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine. I think not.

But those who are not interested in discovering the truths of Gods word, are entitled to accept the Christian corrupted versions of the Holy Scriptures.
​

 

[S-word]

Knowing that the Hebrew has a specific word for 'VIRGIN' which word is 'BETHULAH' and is used in every instance in the OT when a woman who has never had sexual intercourse is referred to, and Knowing that Isaiah in his prophecy of 7: 14; uses the Hebrew word 'ALMAH' which word, according to Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible carries the meaning (Concealment---unmarried female,) I believe that we can safely assume that the Lord, through his prophet was not referring to some 'VIRGIN' being pregnant and bearing a son, etc.

 

[S-word]

Do you have a son sir? Was that son (or daughter) begotten, conceived, born, when you told them Son, I'm proud of you! Neither was Jesus when the Father said "This is my son, and I'm proud of Him"

You make too much of yourself sir..Slow down.

And where in the Holy Scriptures is it said; "This is my son, and I'm proud of him?" Methinks that you are writing your own bible.

BTW, Not only have I son and daughter, but grand children and great grand children, of which I am proud.

 

[Denadii]

Enow wrote.............You addressed Biblical ignorant people and yet you claim to get that information outside the normal Bible reading for which you claim people are ignorant of their Bible.

S-word responds...........Do you put your total faith in the word of God, or in the erroneous translations and false interpretations of the so called christian scholars of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine?According to Genesis 11: 12, and 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Chronicles 1: 18 in your bible, it is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah.

Only twice in the Old Testament of your cannon, is the father of Shelah mentioned, but Luke 3: 35-36; in your NT, states that Shelah is the son of Cainan/Kainam, who is the son of Arpachshad.Did Luke go outside the normal bible to find out who the real father of Shelah was?Your bible says in Genesis 11: 12; that Arpachshad was 35 years old when he became the Father of Shelah, but now let us read the same verse from the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament by Hebrew scholars over 200 years before Jesus: Genesis 11: 12; “And Arpachshad lived 175 years and begot Cainan/Kainam then lived another 400 years, And Cainan lived 135 years and begot Shelah, etc.

Or perhaps Luke studied the Book of Jubilees, which states in [Chapter 8]1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.

And in the thirtieth jubilee, [1429 A.M.] in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year [1432 A.M.] he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’So do I believe by faith, the limited books which comprise the canon of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine. I think not.

But those who are not interested in discovering the truths of Gods word, are entitled to accept the Christian corrupted versions of the Holy Scriptures.
​

So you use the book of Jubilees as your authority? What other books do you use? Jubilees is nothing but a history book.

 

[Denadii]

And where in the Holy Scriptures is it said; "This is my son, and I'm proud of him?" Methinks that you are writing your own bible.

BTW, Not only have I son and daughter, but grand children and great grand children, of which I am proud.

He said This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased...Comes down to the same thing as "I am proud of him."

Nice dodge to the question by the way.

 

[Denadii]

And where in the Holy Scriptures is it said; "This is my son, and I'm proud of him?" Methinks that you are writing your own bible.

BTW, Not only have I son and daughter, but grand children and great grand children, of which I am proud.

So? Were they conceived when you acknowledged them?

 

[S-word]

He said This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased...Comes down to the same thing as "I am proud of him."

Nice dodge to the question by the way.

You are quoting Luke 3: 22; which is just another corruption of Holy Scriptures by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine.

See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22: which state that as Jesus rose from the Baptismal waters, and was filled with the spirit of God’s only begotten Son, which descended upon him in the form of a dove, the heavenly voice said; “Thou art my son, Today I have become your Father, or, TODAY I have begotten thee.

According to the ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.” The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

But the truth doesn't seem to interest most people who call themselves christians does it? Only the erroneous interpretations of The Holy Scriptures by so-called christians, who have corrupted the words of the Lord.

 

[Zmouth]

Not to be offensive, but this is truly offensive. Tone it down sir.

Well, at least you were not offended by it.

 

[S-word]

So? Were they conceived when you acknowledged them?

Mate, when I copulate with my wife and introduce my semen into her uterus, I don't know if or when she will conceive, but when we do know that she has conceived and fallen pregnant, then I acknowledge the child that is born of her womb as my child.

 

[S-word]

Cut and paste... cut and paste....What do YOU say?

No mate, I always try to type that which I intend to post in this forum, in 'My Documents' first, then bring them over to the chat room, that way I keep a file of everything I post.