The Books of Enoch.

[Diakonos]

Actually they are mentioned in Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD

Some KJV Margin note bibles have "by the name of the Lord" If they called themselves by the name of the Lord that would be the same as calling themselves "the sons of God" as in following the theology of Adam the son of God. They were believing the prophecy of Enoch about a coming redeemer who would come with ten thousands of his saints to judge the ungodly. They considered themselves separated from the ungodly in Cains city. Until they saw that their women were fair. The daughters of Cain as specifically mentioned by name in Chapter four and their names meant fair and pleasant.

If you stick the to context, chapter 4 when reading chapter 6 you don't need to explore other books by other authors to determine what the author is referring to. He expects you to know that he has already mentioned the sons of God in 4:26 as well as the fair women of Cains camp.

It is impossible to dismiss these facts as if they don't exist. That would be intellectually dishonest. They must be considered or one would be violating the rules of hermeneutics.

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.

What I think, you think, or this Church Missler thinks has absolutely nothing to do with establishing the truth, scripture tells us the truth. Scripture tells us the Daughters of men married the Sons of God and produced children who were evil. The mystery is who the Sons of God were, and they are mentioned in Job.

If it helps any of you, feel free to glean from my comments from another conversation in this thread concerning the "sons of God"
in post 237: https://christianchat.com/threads/the-books-of-enoch.197499/post-4497477
and post 361: https://christianchat.com/threads/the-books-of-enoch.197499/post-4498666

 

[Dino246]

If it helps any of you, feel free to glean from my comments from another conversation in this thread concerning the "sons of God"
in post 237: https://christianchat.com/threads/the-books-of-enoch.197499/post-4497477
and post 361: https://christianchat.com/threads/the-books-of-enoch.197499/post-4498666

Thanks; I did see them.

 

[iamsoandso]

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 agree most should really examine their positions in eschatology as they ponder the validity of 1 Enoch. It's as if it's a secret or something that's never spoken of in these threads about the book of Enoch where everyone fights tooth and nail to either defend it's validity or disprove it. Very few stop to ask why or even what it would mean for their camp if it was to be proven to be valid and don't realize that only one eschatological camp would survive if it was.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Fair enough. (no pun intended ) Lets look at that text as well.

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

This seems to be a complete thought. The Lord was grieved because the sons of God (Adams/Seths Tribe) marrying the daughters of men (Cains Tribe) would result in total wickedness so he sentences them to 120 years left before the flood.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

This states that there were giants in the land in those days.
And, also (means in addition to this fact) when the sons of God and the daughters of men had children those children became mighty men which were of old men of renown. It does not say those children became giants.
The giants were in the land before the sons of God had children with the daughters of men.

How many giants? The natural reading of the statement leads one to think that it was not an uncommon thing. "There were giants in the land in those days" (as in, not like today where there aren't and if there are it is extremely rare) What is the point?

It is not related to the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men and I don't understand why anyone tries to force the text to say that the giants were the result of the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

It was clearly stated that they were in the land before.

And because Nephilim is a Hebrew word translated giants in Numbers 13:33 (the spies report of the sons of Anak) and Moses wrote both books, I think that would be strong evidence that he means that there were those kinds of giants in the land in those days, 9 to 11 feet tall men like Goliath, Sons of Anak, Og, and a few other mentions in the OT.

I have read that it could be a statement about giant animals, giant plants, and giant men in comparison to those at the time Genesis was written. Is this a possible reference to what we know from the fossil records about giant dragon flies, giant beavers, giant animals, dinosaurs, and also giant men? Maybe, but because of the use of the word Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 I lean toward it being a reference toward humans like those referenced in Numbers 13:33 where the same word is used.

I could be wrong, but being cautions to use only the most natural reading of the text I believe I have a higher chance of being correct in this interpretation than all of the other guesses I have heard presented. I suppose there is less guessing involved in this interpretation though I concede it requires the "best guess" due to lack of more information.

The question is always "Why is it recorded?" It is not for nothing.
Since so little is said then only what CAN be known should be the focus.

1) There were giants in the land in those days.

2) The sons of God and the daughters of men had offspring that became mighty men, men of renown.

3) God says that His Spirit will not always strive with men and that they will have 120 years.

Then the what becomes of the people after these ungodly marriages that were considered a striving against the Spirit of God.

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And further we have this description:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Now, to me the natural reading of the text is telling me that this was what happened after the sons of God married the daughters of men and their offspring grew up and became mighty men men of renown. They also became very wicked and every imagination of the thoughts of their heart was evil continually. Corrupt here means moral decay not that of changing their DNA as some have wildly guessed. It was about sexual sins and no restraint to do evil.

It is very possible that the fact that some of them were giants made them stronger than others and they used this to their advantage to inflict violence and rapine upon others. This might be the reason it is mentioned.

If anything the reference to the giants in addition to the whole earth filled with violence paints a picture of a very frightening place. One that the readers could understand in the light of the wicked people they would be called to destroy in the land of Canaan which included some giants. Imagine the whole land filled with these instead of a small group in a tribe.

So I am getting the authorial intent about the giants as a way of emphasizing the frightening aspect of such a world given over to violence. Bad enough that they were so evil but to be so evil and also be giants would result in much more human suffering upon their victims.

I do not think that the text supports that these giants did not exist UNTIL the sons of God had children with the daughters of men. The text suggests that they were existing BEFORE these children. Therefore it there is ZERO proof that these giants were a result of this union. And that theory is built upon a rearranging of the order of the statements in the text.

 

[Blik]

The origin of the English Translation, not Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin Vulgate/German..
Why?
Because my point is that a preacher today will take a KJV Bible from 1611 or a 2021 copy from the shelves off a book store and tell you it is the INSPIRED WORD of God!

That's my point!

Why some [[keep reading into my posts]] make me wonder about their cognitive ability to read, comprehend, and process data input. It literally baffles me!

It is NOT the inspired word of God, it is a TRANSLATION of the inspired word of God into English.

 

[Blik]

I agree most should really examine their positions in eschatology as they ponder the validity of 1 Enoch. It's as if it's a secret or something that's never spoken of in these threads about the book of Enoch where everyone fights tooth and nail to either defend it's validity or disprove it. Very few stop to ask why or even what it would mean for their camp if it was to be proven to be valid and don't realize that only one eschatological camp would survive if it was.

There is a third way to think of this book. That is to admit there are questions for and against accepting every word as inspired and truth. That way would accept the possibility of it being inspired, the possibility that the Nephilim caused God to give us the flood and that the world was quite different before and after the flood.

 

[Scribe]

There is a third way to think of this book. That is to admit there are questions for and against accepting every word as inspired and truth. That way would accept the possibility of it being inspired, the possibility that the Nephilim caused God to give us the flood and that the world was quite different before and after the flood.

There were Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 so therefore it is impossible that the reason for the flood was to destroy Nephilim specifically.

 

[posthuman]

Well Magenta, you cannot deny that Jude is quoting Enoch

i can't deny that Jude quotes the man Enoch -- but that doesn't tell me whether Jude is quoting anything called 'the book of Enoch' or if he is only quoting a verbal tradition of what Enoch had said. even if Jude is quoting an actual book of the prophecies & sayings of Enoch, i do not know that the 'book of Enoch' that we have today is the same book Jude is quoting from.

does that make sense? we have copies descended from a 3rd century BC or so book that wasn't actually written by Enoch, claiming to be the things Enoch said. correct me if i'm wrong, but what we have today is mostly put together from 15th-16th century AD Ethiopian manuscripts, which may or may not represent whatever it was that existed in the 3rd century BC. you might recall that 300 years before Christ appeared was in the interim between the last prophet of the OT and the advent of our Lord on earth. this is a time the scripture tells us is a time of famine of hearing the word of the LORD. so for a prophetic book to be written during a famine of hearing the word of the LORD? it's not looking good for that book's legitimacy.

but the facts i know don't tell me it's actually Enoch's words, and don't tell me that it's even actually what Jude was referring to -- anyone in the 1500 years after Jude's epistle was written, who wanted to write their own 'book of Enoch' is of course going to include Jude's quote verbatim. so its existence in what the modern world calls 'book of Enoch' is not proof that it's genuine.

yes it was included in old Bibles. in a section called 'apocrypha' -- designated as such so that the one reading it knew that it was not thought to be the word of God but that it contained good & edifying things. that's important in the historical sense, but it doesn't make it worth reading on its own. various false works like 'gospel of Thomas' and 'gospel of Peter' etc were also in the apocrypha, and they are full of heresy. so inclusion in apocrypha doesn't mean it's trustworthy.

just as importantly, it is not part of the Tanakh. the Jews did not consider it scripture, if they knew of it. God did not preserve it along with the prophets that are part of the Masoretic or Septuagint texts. so if it did exist at that time, it ought to be part of the OT right? well God's people did not think so.
so why should i?


i ain't saying don't read it. i'm saying read it with a lot of suspicion. prove it. test everything it says rigorously against scripture.

 

[posthuman]

We have [solid] side by side comparison where the WORD made flesh quoted Enoch around 20 times.

no, we don't.
we have a much later manuscript including things Christ said. that doesn't mean Christ got them from the later book; that's not solid at all.

by the same reasoning you are using to make that statement, you could justify the book of Mormon -- in which Joseph Smith put lots of quotes from the actual Bible, to make it seem more legitimate.

if i write something now that i want to pass of as being a forgotten secret scripture older than 1 AD, naturally a good way to trick people is to put things Jesus or Paul said in it, so people will think maybe they are quoting my fake book. i'd especially want to make up things that answer weird things He said -- for example Paul mentions in an offhand way we'll judge angels. wait, what? where's that from? the idea isn't found anywhere else, plainly anyway. so i will write my fake book and put my imaginary reasonings about judging angels in it. i will dream up things about baptizing for the dead and put that in there. then fools will read it and go 'ah, that's where Paul gets that from' and i'll gain cult status. i'll pretend someone like Agur wrote it or something, i'll call it "the book of Agur" -- hey Solomon quoted him in Proverbs. he's a real person. probably my book is real...
and naturally i'll work in the actual things in Proverbs 30 that Agur said to lend legitimacy, so it'll look like Solomon read my book. in fact i have to do that, or my lie will be exposed otherwise.

get the picture?



we ought to be really really suspicious of 'book of Enoch'
that's my position.

 

[KingdomBrat]

no, we don't.
we have a much later manuscript including things Christ said. that doesn't mean Christ got them from the later book; that's not solid at all.

by the same reasoning you are using to make that statement, you could justify the book of Mormon -- in which Joseph Smith put lots of quotes from the actual Bible, to make it seem more legitimate.

if i write something now that i want to pass of as being a forgotten secret scripture older than 1 AD, naturally a good way to trick people is to put things Jesus or Paul said in it, so people will think maybe they are quoting my fake book. i'd especially want to make up things that answer weird things He said -- for example Paul mentions in an offhand way we'll judge angels. wait, what? where's that from? the idea isn't found anywhere else, plainly anyway. so i will write my fake book and put my imaginary reasonings about judging angels in it. i will dream up things about baptizing for the dead and put that in there. then fools will read it and go 'ah, that's where Paul gets that from' and i'll gain cult status. i'll pretend someone like Agur wrote it or something, i'll call it "the book of Agur" -- hey Solomon quoted him in Proverbs. he's a real person. probably my book is real...

get the picture?

I understand all of the views to this argument.

We don't know anything for certain and it's a waste of time to assume. But had the real man who Prophesied what Jude wrote about in verses 14/15 actually began writing down these things, since God directs him to share these things he's been shown, at least what Jude is speaking about...and we had solid evidence he did begin writing things down, we would have a better side of the viewpoint.

 

[Scribe]

i can't deny that Jude quotes the man Enoch -- but that doesn't tell me whether Jude is quoting anything called 'the book of Enoch' or if he is only quoting a verbal tradition of what Enoch had said. even if Jude is quoting an actual book of the prophecies & sayings of Enoch, i do not know that the 'book of Enoch' that we have today is the same book Jude is quoting from.

does that make sense? we have copies descended from a 3rd century BC or so book that wasn't actually written by Enoch, claiming to be the things Enoch said. correct me if i'm wrong, but what we have today is mostly put together from 15th-16th century AD Ethiopian manuscripts, which may or may not represent whatever it was that existed in the 3rd century BC. you might recall that 300 years before Christ appeared was in the interim between the last prophet of the OT and the advent of our Lord on earth. this is a time the scripture tells us is a time of famine of hearing the word of the LORD. so for a prophetic book to be written during a famine of hearing the word of the LORD? it's not looking good for that book's legitimacy.

but the facts i know don't tell me it's actually Enoch's words, and don't tell me that it's even actually what Jude was referring to -- anyone in the 1500 years after Jude's epistle was written, who wanted to write their own 'book of Enoch' is of course going to include Jude's quote verbatim. so its existence in what the modern world calls 'book of Enoch' is not proof that it's genuine.

yes it was included in old Bibles. in a section called 'apocrypha' -- designated as such so that the one reading it knew that it was not thought to be the word of God but that it contained good & edifying things. that's important in the historical sense, but it doesn't make it worth reading on its own. various false works like 'gospel of Thomas' and 'gospel of Peter' etc were also in the apocrypha, and they are full of heresy. so inclusion in apocrypha doesn't mean it's trustworthy.

just as importantly, it is not part of the Tanakh. the Jews did not consider it scripture, if they knew of it. God did not preserve it along with the prophets that are part of the Masoretic or Septuagint texts. so if it did exist at that time, it ought to be part of the OT right? well God's people did not think so.
so why should i?


i ain't saying don't read it. i'm saying read it with a lot of suspicion. prove it. test everything it says rigorously against scripture.

I think fragments were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am not sure how much has been published from those fragments.

 

[KingdomBrat]

Interesting enough, according to Jewish Tradition, the Book of Enoch arrived on the scene around the [Beginning of the 2nd Temple Period] around 586 BC. Oddly enough, about 70 years before the Book of Malachi is thought to be written {516 BC}.

 

[iamsoandso]

There is a third way to think of this book. That is to admit there are questions for and against accepting every word as inspired and truth. That way would accept the possibility of it being inspired, the possibility that the Nephilim caused God to give us the flood and that the world was quite different before and after the flood.

There's probably many reasons why some would argue for or against Enoch(and other books) being inspired or not. I notice that on the issue of Enoch that the "camps" are not aligned as to the issue of "for or against" Enoch and so there are a mixture of the camps(eschatological) for it and a mixture of camps against it. I think if you look at 1 Enoch and ask yourself what eschatological camp 1 Enoch would either help or hurt and then look at who rejected or supported it in history it will become more clear why they did.

 

[Scribe]

no, we don't.
we have a much later manuscript including things Christ said. that doesn't mean Christ got them from the later book; that's not solid at all.

by the same reasoning you are using to make that statement, you could justify the book of Mormon -- in which Joseph Smith put lots of quotes from the actual Bible, to make it seem more legitimate.

if i write something now that i want to pass of as being a forgotten secret scripture older than 1 AD, naturally a good way to trick people is to put things Jesus or Paul said in it, so people will think maybe they are quoting my fake book. i'd especially want to make up things that answer weird things He said -- for example Paul mentions in an offhand way we'll judge angels. wait, what? where's that from? the idea isn't found anywhere else, plainly anyway. so i will write my fake book and put my imaginary reasonings about judging angels in it. i will dream up things about baptizing for the dead and put that in there. then fools will read it and go 'ah, that's where Paul gets that from' and i'll gain cult status. i'll pretend someone like Agur wrote it or something, i'll call it "the book of Agur" -- hey Solomon quoted him in Proverbs. he's a real person. probably my book is real...
and naturally i'll work in the actual things in Proverbs 30 that Agur said to lend legitimacy, so it'll look like Solomon read my book. in fact i have to do that, or my lie will be exposed otherwise.

get the picture?



we ought to be really really suspicious of 'book of Enoch'
that's my position.

That is happening now. The conspiracy theorist camp are trying to promote a book written in the 1700s as the lost book of Jasher. And there are schizophrenics that are obsessing over it. It's pathetic.

 

[Scribe]

Interesting enough, according to Jewish Tradition, the Book of Enoch arrived on the scene around the [Beginning of the 2nd Temple Period] around 586 BC. Oddly enough, about 70 years before the Book of Malachi is thought to be written {516 BC}.

I don't know where you are getting that information. Keep reading. Almost all reputable scholars say between 200 and 100 BC.

 

[Ahwatukee]

i can't deny that Jude quotes the man Enoch -- but that doesn't tell me whether Jude is quoting anything called 'the book of Enoch' or if he is only quoting a verbal tradition of what Enoch had said. even if Jude is quoting an actual book of the prophecies & sayings of Enoch, i do not know that the 'book of Enoch' that we have today is the same book Jude is quoting from.

does that make sense? we have copies descended from a 3rd century BC or so book that wasn't actually written by Enoch, claiming to be the things Enoch said. correct me if i'm wrong, but what we have today is mostly put together from 15th-16th century AD Ethiopian manuscripts, which may or may not represent whatever it was that existed in the 3rd century BC. you might recall that 300 years before Christ appeared was in the interim between the last prophet of the OT and the advent of our Lord on earth. this is a time the scripture tells us is a time of famine of hearing the word of the LORD. so for a prophetic book to be written during a famine of hearing the word of the LORD? it's not looking good for that book's legitimacy.

but the facts i know don't tell me it's actually Enoch's words, and don't tell me that it's even actually what Jude was referring to -- anyone in the 1500 years after Jude's epistle was written, who wanted to write their own 'book of Enoch' is of course going to include Jude's quote verbatim. so its existence in what the modern world calls 'book of Enoch' is not proof that it's genuine.

yes it was included in old Bibles. in a section called 'apocrypha' -- designated as such so that the one reading it knew that it was not thought to be the word of God but that it contained good & edifying things. that's important in the historical sense, but it doesn't make it worth reading on its own. various false works like 'gospel of Thomas' and 'gospel of Peter' etc were also in the apocrypha, and they are full of heresy. so inclusion in apocrypha doesn't mean it's trustworthy.

just as importantly, it is not part of the Tanakh. the Jews did not consider it scripture, if they knew of it. God did not preserve it along with the prophets that are part of the Masoretic or Septuagint texts. so if it did exist at that time, it ought to be part of the OT right? well God's people did not think so.
so why should i?


i ain't saying don't read it. i'm saying read it with a lot of suspicion. prove it. test everything it says rigorously against scripture.

Hi posthuman!

Thank you for your suggestion, but I have already been proving and testing for many years. I'm not one given over to any writing being the word of God. But the Spirit in me confirms the truth of this information. Here is Enoch's prophecy right from the book of Enoch, which pretty much matches Jude's quote:

"Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all of flesh for every thing which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against Him." - Enoch 2 (Ethiopic Enoch)

Because the prophesies of Enoch were at one time a part of the scriptures, Jude would have had access to them which is what he is quoting from. Therefore, regardless of where Jude got the prophecy from, it originated with Enoch. Not only does Jude quote from Enoch, but he also provides the same information as Genesis 6, with more detail, regarding the angels taking wives and the women conceiving giants and why the earth was flooded. In addition, there is much more information within the Enoch's prophesies regarding end-times which also match what is written in scripture.

While it is true that the these should be consider as 'the books of Enoch,' belonging to different dates and having diversity of authorship, there is none the less, uniformity. Remember, this is the 'Word of God" which means that He is the one who authorized all of the information that is written therein. Therefore, it was God's will for Jude to include this quote from Enoch in His word. In addition, Enock walked and talked with God and God took him, which gives his prophesies clout. The information in the books of Enoch reveal his traveling throughout the heavens with the angels and all that he saw and experienced after God took him. The angels, the watchers of heaven, called him 'Enoch the scribe.'

When I read the book of Enoch, I feel that I am reading scripture.

 

[49]

In verses 1-3(beginning of the book) look at the usage of the personal pronouns "I",,,"He",,"Me" ect. the anonymous author goes back and forth from himself to Enoch... (Look at the different interpretations also) https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2126 http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

Gotcha, and thank you!

 

[iamsoandso]

Gotcha, and thank you!

Your welcome,,, I think that the misconception is that the author is trying to pretend to be Enoch but if so then he would not have separated the first person personal pronouns from the second person pronouns one being the author and the other Enoch. Closely examining the three verses from the book and examining Semitic usage of personal pronouns shows that they appear in second person with marks for gender and so it would have been impossible for all of the different interpreters to have made the same mistake. https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/51354/PDF/1/play/

 

[KingdomBrat]

I don't know where you are getting that information. Keep reading. Almost all reputable scholars say between 200 and 100 BC.

Even the timeline you present still places the Book of Enoch in the Second Temple Period, the Yiddish Tradition just has it on the scene about 300 years before. So, we're discussing a possible 250 year difference here. I don't know how that should be an issue.

 

[Magenta]

Even the timeline you present still places the Book of Enoch in the Second Temple Period, the Yiddish Tradition just has it on the scene about 300 years before. So, we're discussing a possible 250 year difference here. I don't know how that should be an issue.

It is an issue because it is accepted that during the time Enoch was written, it is accepted that
there were no prophets, which is specifically why it is called an intertestamental period.