The Books of Enoch.

[KingdomBrat]

If the KJV states:
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these[?], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

and the NKJV states
14. Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these [[men]] also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,


The NKJV adds MEN to the verse.

Do these 2 verses mean the same with MEN added to it?

If the NKJV has changed MEANING from the KJV, is the NKJV Inspired Word of God?

This thread is about ENOCH!
This Verse 14 is about ENOCH'S Prophecy!

If the NKJV adds men to this verse, have they changed the [original Inspired Word of God meaning] we know in the KJV?

 

[Dino246]

I agree but the verse in question for both the KJV and the NKJV still are in the Thread reference of the person of Enoch.

The issues you raise with regard to 'inspiration' require their own thread. They can't be addressed adequately without derailing this one. I suggest you begin another one with a link back to this one.

 

[KingdomBrat]

The issues you raise with regard to 'inspiration' require their own thread. They can't be addressed adequately without derailing this one. I suggest you begin another one with a link back to this one.

I understand. But if CS1 and I are discussing the meaning of Jude, and his version uses words not found in my KJV, that literally changes the full meaning of the verse, I am not allowed to point this out?

 

[KingdomBrat]

The [ADDED] words makes us completely see this verse differently.

And this Verse has only one intention here, so it's important for us to know the truest Inspired Version of God's Word.

In my view, it's the KJV!

 

[Dino246]

I understand. But if CS1 and I are discussing the meaning of Jude, and his version uses words not found in my KJV, that literally change the full meaning of the verse, I am not allowed to point this out?

You are certainly welcome to say anything you like, within the site rules.

Here's a short explanation: the KJV, while being fairly good overall, is merely one translation that happened to get approved for use by the Church of England. Because of that, it became the most common and best-known English translation. However, the "inspiration" is not in the choice of English words, but in the message that was recorded in the original languages and translated into English. The Holy Spirit did not "inspire" the KJV translators to use specific English words any more than He inspired Luther's choice of German or Jerome's choice of Latin. As the Preface to the Reader clearly implies, what makes the message "God's word" is not the choice of translated words, but the source of the message: God Himself. The Bible is inspired because God inspired it, not because God spoke in English. Don't get hung up on the particular wording of a particular translation.

 

[Dino246]

The [ADDED] words makes us completely see this verse differently.

And this Verse has only one intention here, so it's important for us to know the truest Inspired Version of God's Word.

In my view, it's the KJV!

Others don't necessarily share that view, so they won't accept your interpretation made on that basis.

 

[KingdomBrat]

You are certainly welcome to say anything you like, within the site rules.

Here's a short explanation: the KJV, while being fairly good overall, is merely one translation that happened to get approved for use by the Church of England. Because of that, it became the most common and best-known English translation. However, the "inspiration" is not in the choice of English words, but in the message that was recorded in the original languages and translated into English. The Holy Spirit did not "inspire" the KJV translators to use specific English words any more than He inspired Luther's choice of German or Jerome's choice of Latin. As the Preface to the Reader clearly implies, what makes the message "God's word" is not the choice of translated words, but the source of the message: God Himself. The Bible is inspired because God inspired it, not because God spoke in English. Don't get hung up on the particular wording of a particular translation.

I completely agree.
I love our Church History
From Apostles to their own disciples, to church Fathers and Historians to ancient writers until we formatted the 66 Inspired Books. Then to the Latin Vulgate, to a German and partial English versions, and one other before King James took it upon himself to hold the position of documenting what we have as the KJV Bible.

But even though King james was a buffoon, he still is very close to the Latin Vulgate version, which complies with the Hebrew/Aramaic, and the Greek.


The addition of MEN to the meaning of Enoch's Prophecy in the NKJV is nowhere close to the Latin Vulgate/Greek version like we see from the KJV in the Book of Jude!

Therefore, the NKJV has given false beliefs to this Prophecy.

 

[KingdomBrat]

The Latin Vulgate Jude 14 same as KJV

14 prophetavit autem et his septimus ab Adam Enoc dicens ecce venit Dominus in sanctis milibus suis

Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints:

15 facere iudicium contra omnes et arguere omnes impios de omnibus operibus impietatis eorum quibus impie egerunt et de omnibus duris quae locuti sunt contra eum peccatores impii

To execute judgment upon all and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly: and for all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God.

 

[KingdomBrat]

The NKJV is NOWHERE in the same stadium playing on the same field as the KJV, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek.

And to use it like the Inspired Word of God...??
Seriously?

 

[Dino246]

This thread is about ENOCH!
This Verse 14 is about ENOCH'S Prophecy!

If the NKJV adds men to this verse, have they changed the [original Inspired Word of God meaning] we know in the KJV?

The word translated "these" in the KJV and "these men" in the NKJV is toutois, a plural masculine or neuter pronoun. It appears to me that the word "men" is implied, and the inclusion or exclusion of it is a secondary matter with greater or lesser clarity, respectively. It's not an issue of inspiration at all.

Here are some other translations:

ESV It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

NASB It was also about these people that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord has come with many thousands of His holy ones,

NIV Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

Personally, I don't think you can make a case either way, and therefore, I don't think it matters.

 

[Dino246]

The NKJV is NOWHERE in the same stadium playing on the same field as the KJV, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek.

And to use it like the Inspired Word of God...??
Seriously?

Bluntly, you're employing circular reasoning. The Greek text is the standard against which all English translations should be compared; the KJV is not.

 

[KingdomBrat]

The word translated "these" in the KJV and "these men" in the NKJV is toutois, a plural masculine or neuter pronoun. It appears to me that the word "men" is implied, and the inclusion or exclusion of it is a secondary matter with greater or lesser clarity, respectively. It's not an issue of inspiration at all.

Here are some other translations:

ESV It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

NASB It was also about these people that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord has come with many thousands of His holy ones,

NIV Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

Personally, I don't think you can make a case either way, and therefore, I don't think it matters.

I see it is Newer Translation format.

Then i will just add this:

For those who prefer the NKJV I apologize. I am from a generation that relied upon the best translations and closest to the written materials we've discovered, not so it sounds/reads legible so now I can take the time to read it. Substance and Truth was more important over enjoying the hard words I was reading. I knew it would lead to the Spirit of God to make these words understandable. And He did!

 

[KingdomBrat]

Bluntly, you're employing circular reasoning. The Greek text is the standard against which all English translations should be compared; the KJV is not.

No, I am employing the meaning it was intended to mean, not that English has several ways to define this ONE SINGLE MEANING.

Who cares if English has several definitions when the Language used to write is the [only] meaning intended that we should follow?

 

[Dino246]

No, I am employing the meaning it was intended to mean, not that English has several ways to define this ONE SINGLE MEANING.

More circular reasoning. If you want to use the KJV, please continue, but you aren't going to make a sound case for anything if the basis of your argument is that the KJV wording is inherently superior... because it simply isn't.

Like I said, this needs its own thread.

 

[KingdomBrat]

More circular reasoning. If you want to use the KJV, please continue, but you aren't going to make a sound case for anything if the basis of your argument is that the KJV wording is inherently superior... because it simply isn't.

Like I said, this needs its own thread.

I said the KJV wording is closer to the Latin Vulgate which translated the Greek to Jude. And the Greek alone verifies the Latin Vulgate.


I then said, the addition of words changes the meaning on first appearance {until as you mentioned} [English] has several definitions to this single meaning.

 

[Dino246]

I see it is Newer Translation format.

Then i will just add this:

For those who prefer the NKJV I apologize. I am from a generation that relied upon the best translations and closest to the written materials we've discovered, not so it sounds/reads legible so now I can take the time to read it. Substance and Truth was more important over enjoying the hard words I was reading. I knew it would lead to the Spirit of God to make these words understandable. And He did!

I am unable to find any evidence of textual variants in the manuscript evidence with regard to the word toutois. Apparently the difference is entirely a matter of interpretation by the translators.

 

[KingdomBrat]

I am unable to find any evidence of textual variants in the manuscript evidence with regard to the word toutois. Apparently the difference is entirely a matter of interpretation by the translators.

I have noticed, and still am harping on this, the English versions are the only versions that have the addition. Like the KJV, the German and French Versions follow the Latin Vulgate meaning and wording.

 

[KingdomBrat]

So, it's an English translation thing.
Does that make me more comfortable in translating God's Word or more nervous?

 

[Scribe]

Generally, your hermeneutics are sound, but you goofed on this one. Firstly, there is no descriptive statement in Genesis 4 about Cain's daughters being "fair". In fact, there are no "daughters of Cain" identified as such at all. Only two females are named: Adah ("adornment"), and Zillah ("shadow")(source: https://themeaningofthename.com) , those are four generations later than Cain, and it is not stated that they are descended directly from Cain. It's not sound methodology to cast an entire gender of one lineage in a certain light on such thin evidence.

I appreciate your sincere desire for discovering authorial intent which is why I don't put you on my ignore list as I do others who think that angels mated with women. I realize that some may think that is what it says and are not being belligerent in their eisegesis. I can tell the difference between those who want to know what the text really means and those who are off on a tangent of their own. I respect your opinion on this topic more than most others who don't seem to be willing to reexamine their position.

Let us examine the following text once again from Gen 4:

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. 19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah

You can question the descent of Adah and Zillah (though I don't think it is necessary) but you can't dispute the relation of Naamah a direct descent from Cain and a daughter of Lamech. Her name also meant pleasant and beauty. It depends on the Hebrew references you consult they all seem to have something similar to Fair, Pleasant, Beauty.

I propose that at this stage in the book of Genesis names had significant meanings and were expected to be paid attention to as part of the narrative. We miss it in English but a Hebrew reader would not. The fact that daughter were mentioned at all when none were in Seth's genealogy is significant. Or since I am in New York at this present time I might say "it was not for nothing" that they were mentioned. We are expected to notice that their names suggested something. Naamah especially seems to have no reason to be mentioned other than to point out her looks. A Hebrew reader would notice but English readers don't. This is why they are baffled by Gen 6:2 when they shouldn't be.

The Hebrew reader of Gen 6:2 immediately remembers these daughters of men that had been previously highlighted concerning their Fairness in Gen 4:22 I think it is VERY STRONG evidence that cannot be dismissed out of hand. One must ask "If not to point out the meaning of her name, why is Naamah mentioned at all?" Let us just say it is much stronger evidence to interpret Gen 6:2 than anything from Job could be.

 

[Dino246]

I appreciate your sincere desire for discovering authorial intent which is why I don't put you on my ignore list as I do others who think that angels mated with women. I realize that some may think that is what it says and are not being belligerent in their eisegesis. I can tell the difference between those who want to know what the text really means and those who are off on a tangent of their own. I respect your opinion on this topic more than most others who don't seem to be willing to reexamine their position.

Let us examine the following text once again from Gen 4:

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. 19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah

You can question the descent of Adah and Zillah (though I don't think it is necessary) but you can't dispute the relation of Naamah a direct descent from Cain and a daughter of Lamech. Her name also meant pleasant and beauty. It depends on the Hebrew references you consult they all seem to have something similar to Fair, Pleasant, Beauty.

I propose that at this stage in the book of Genesis names had significant meanings and were expected to be paid attention to as part of the narrative. We miss it in English but a Hebrew reader would not. The fact that daughter were mentioned at all when none were in Seth's genealogy is significant. Or since I am in New York at this present time I might say "it was not for nothing" that they were mentioned. We are expected to notice that their names suggested something. Naamah especially seems to have no reason to be mentioned other than to point out her looks. A Hebrew reader would notice but English readers don't. This is why they are baffled by Gen 6:2 when they shouldn't be.

The Hebrew reader of Gen 6:2 immediately remembers these daughters of men that had been previously highlighted concerning their Fairness in Gen 4:22 I think it is VERY STRONG evidence that cannot be dismissed out of hand. One must ask "If not to point out the meaning of her name, why is Naamah mentioned at all?" Let us just say it is much stronger evidence to interpret Gen 6:2 than anything from Job could be.

I overlooked Naamah; my apologies.

I think your case is reasonable as far as "the daughters of Cain" argument goes. I don't think it's airtight, but I don't think it's without merit either. However, it does nothing to account for the presence of giants though. Any solution must account for all the evidence, not just some of it.