Interesting fact about Enoch's generations

[Sister]

On 18/04/2016 at 0:36 AM, other one said:

http://sam.evans.org/historylog.xls

 

some interesting relations between the born and deaths of people in a visual format.....     I find it interesting that Shem lived longer than did Abraham.   Jacob was almost 50 when Shem died.

On 18/04/2016 at 0:49 AM, other one said:

2 Tim 3:7-8
 8 And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith.
NASB

 where did these names come from?

Good question, I cannot find those names in the OT. 

 

 

[Jayne]

59 minutes ago, Sister said:

Hi Jayne

Could you please expand on a little more on what you mean here?

 

OK Sister -

For example, in Acts 17 when Paul was at Mars Hill in Athens and saw all the statues to false gods - EVEN a statue with the title "The UNKNOWN God" in case they forgot one  - he used the words of a pagan playwright to teach these people.

He begins to preach to these people and tries to get them to understand that God is not a statue.

He says, "... for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and mans devising."

These are a couple of quotes from who scholars think are two Greek poets who lived before Christ - Epimenides the Cretan and another poet.  Paul did not quote them because they were prophets or because they wrote inspired scripture - because they did not.  He is quoting them as a reference to which these Greeks would connect.

It's like Paul is saying, "How can you be worshiping a stone statue to an "UNKNOWN God" when even your own pagan poets wrote poetry about a god who is alive and that humans are his children?"  [Even though these writers did  not believe in Jehovah God]

Paul quotes another poet, Euripides when he is chastising the church at Corinth for their evil ways.  In 1 Corinthians 15, he uses a quote from one of his plays and says, "Bad company corrupts good morals."

It's like teaching a little child today about Aesop's fables to teach them a lesson.  It doesn't mean that Aesop was a believer in God or that Aesop's fables should be taken as truth or scripture.  It's just using it to explain something.

Even if Jude DID quote from the book of Enoch (it's not even a direct quote and Jude could be citing oral tradition), that doesn't mean that the book of Enoch isn't flawed, written by a non-believer, or should be taken as scripture.

 

[Sister]

On 18/04/2016 at 0:43 AM, 1to3 said:

 

 

Quote

If Enoch were so important and important being the claims of" the books of Enoch", How come Christ Jesus who is part of the trinity Father, Son, Holy Spirit never once mentioned any reference to Enoch or his books.

1to3

Jesus came to give us the light, truth, ....things pertaining to the spirit of God, he gave us so much more to work  regarding our salvation than what Enoch did.  Jesus is the Light, the truth,and the way.  We have to start with the gospels first, get the foundations right then it grows from there.

 

Quote

 

Christ Jesus, Lord,,Savior, God, never quoted Enoch.

 

Christ Jesus quoted from what is written in the old testament scriptures that are part of the Holy Bible.

If Enoch  was so important, Christ Jesus would have quoted, referenced to and endorsed Enoch.

But HE our Lord and Savior, only begotten Son of God, who is part of the Holy trinity Father, Son Holy Spirit, never did.

 

Yes he did, but he didn't quote everything and everyone.  Christ did not come preaching the prophets, but the kingdom of his Father and when he quoted the prophets, he was quoting "The Word" spoken. 

Luke 16:29   Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

 

Quote

In revelation it is well cautioned that we are not to add or take away from what is accounted to be Holy Scriptures.

I already answered you on this one in the other thread and you did not want to discuss?

Enoch IS mentioned in the scriptures, he's not someone new or added.

Luke 3:37   Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

Hebrews 11:5   By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Was was  Enoch's testimony?  That he pleased God?  Is that it?  A testimony needs something to back it up.

 Jude 1:14   And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Where did Enoch say this, can you find it?

 

Quote

What it means is that one is not to add their own words to what God gave. Each one is a specific book that was complete that man was not to add or subtract from.

It's not supposed to be IN the bible, God left it out on purpose.  It's not for everyone.  For one, it doesn't lay the foundations, just an account of what happened, and future prophecies describing events, not fine details.  He speaks about the Son of Man, but doesn't give his name, He wasn't even given God's name, but called him the Lord of Spirits.

The Bible is a collection of all 66 books that are of the Old and New Testament.

 

Quote

 

Nothing May Be Added

 

Enoch's writings were written before Moses' account of Genesis.  If Jude quoted it to the Jews, then they knew what he was speaking about.  Like I said before, it's not supposed to be "in the bible", but doesn't make it untrue, God knows it will only cause even more confusion than what we already have.  It's not essential, or necessary, but in my opinion, very informative only for those on solid food, and even then, there's some tricky bits to work out.

 

 

 

 

[Jayne]

36 minutes ago, Sister said:

Good question, I cannot find those names in the OT. 

 

 

I heard a preacher once who said that these men were - by Jewish tradition - the magicians who opposed Moses and copied a couple of his miracles.  Jewish tradition is not scripture, but Paul says that are somebody who opposed Moses.  Just who?  I don't know.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Jayne

[Sister]

9 minutes ago, Jayne said:

OK Sister -

For example, in Acts 17 when Paul was at Mars Hill in Athens and saw all the statues to false gods - EVEN a statue with the title "The UNKNOWN God" in case they forgot one  - he used the words of a pagan playwright to teach these people.

He begins to preach to these people and tries to get them to understand that God is not a statue.

He says, "... for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and mans devising."

These are a couple of quotes from who scholars think are two Greek poets who lived before Christ - Epimenides the Cretan and another poet.  Paul did not quote them because they were prophets or because they wrote inspired scripture - because they did not.  He is quoting them as a reference to which these Greeks would connect.

It's like Paul is saying, "How can you be worshiping a stone statue to an "UNKNOWN God" when even your own pagan poets wrote poetry about a god who is alive and that humans are his children?"  [Even though these writers did  not believe in Jehovah God]

Paul quotes another poet, Euripides when he is chastising the church at Corinth for their evil ways.  In 1 Corinthians 15, he uses a quote from one of his plays and says, "Bad company corrupts good morals."

It's like teaching a little child today about Aesop's fables to teach them a lesson.  It doesn't mean that Aesop was a believer in God or that Aesop's fables should be taken as truth or scripture.  It's just using it to explain something.

Even if Jude DID quote from the book of Enoch (it's not even a direct quote and Jude could be citing oral tradition), that doesn't mean that the book of Enoch isn't flawed, written by a non-believer, or should be taken as scripture.

 

Thank you Jayne, I see where you are coming from now.  That was a great explanation by the way.

 

[MorningGlory]

53 minutes ago, Sister said:

Enoch's writings were written before Moses' account of Genesis.  If Jude quoted it to the Jews, then they knew what he was speaking about.  Like I said before, it's not supposed to be "in the bible", but doesn't make it untrue, God knows it will only cause even more confusion than what we already have.  It's not essential, or necessary, but in my opinion, very informative only for those on solid food, and even then, there's some tricky bits to work out.

 

You seem to be saying that books such as Enoch are for the spiritually mature.  I beg to differ; those that are all into studying them and other extrabiblical writings and picking apart Scripture are NOT mature in their faith and are looking to alternate understanding, IMO.

[other one]

5 hours ago, Sister said:

Good question, I cannot find those names in the OT. 

 

 

the first place I saw them outside the New Testament was in the book of Jasher, chapter 79.  

[Sister]

8 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

You seem to be saying that books such as Enoch are for the spiritually mature.  I beg to differ; those that are all into studying them and other extrabiblical writings and picking apart Scripture are NOT mature in their faith and are looking to alternate understanding, IMO.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  I see many here try to explain and argue the scriptures using men's wisdom, which is the wisdom of this world, trying to show off their credentials using what man gave us.  The bible is a spiritual book, it speaks from the spirit to the spirit.  For instance, when discussing the scriptures many come along and say I have the real meaning, for I know Hebrew, or I know Greek, therefore my understanding is superior to yours for I am qualified to judge the word and you are not, or they bring up words not used in the bible, labels given by "man" used in a classroom environment, a study of man's study of the scriptures, ...that language, the language of the world.  This scares many off, for the bible is for the simple, for the unlearned, the broken hearted and the humble to find refuge, and we don't need all that other stuff to come to Christ, just his WORD. 

If we approach the scriptures in the most simple way, and actually understand what God is feeding our spirit for us to change in our everyday walk, then we start on the milk which is from Christ.  If we start on the milk, we learn to love one another first, forgive, put away those things that are bad for our spirit, the things that offend God, and change our nature to become more holy, .....only then will Christ see that we are sincere, because we changed for him, because we love truth and his ways, and as we grow he will teach us more and more of what the spirit is saying, and move us on to solids.  Not because of what we have learnt from men, but from him.  If we have received from him, we can judge all things.  If we have been given truth, understanding all the prophesies, we can compare.  Not all are weaned off the milk yet, so they havn't been given all the solids, therefore will find some things hard to judge. 

I am not here to stir trouble, but encourage everyone to not take that milk for granted, to really feed and learn from it, then God will give understanding for the more complicated things, to discern as we go, because if the foundations were right, like a fertilized garden, rich soil, we have the perfect conditions for truth to grow and knowledge to increase from the simplicity that is in Christ and his Word to become mature in the spirit.

[MorningGlory]

19 minutes ago, Sister said:

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  I see many here try to explain and argue the scriptures using men's wisdom, which is the wisdom of this world, trying to show off their credentials using what man gave us.  The bible is a spiritual book, it speaks from the spirit to the spirit.  For instance, when discussing the scriptures many come along and say I have the real meaning, for I know Hebrew, or I know Greek, therefore my understanding is superior to yours for I am qualified to judge the word and you are not, or they bring up words not used in the bible, labels given by "man" used in a classroom environment, a study of man's study of the scriptures, ...that language, the language of the world.  This scares many off, for the bible is for the simple, for the unlearned, the broken hearted and the humble to find refuge, and we don't need all that other stuff to come to Christ, just his WORD. 

If we approach the scriptures in the most simple way, and actually understand what God is feeding our spirit for us to change in our everyday walk, then we start on the milk which is from Christ.  If we start on the milk, we learn to love one another first, forgive, put away those things that are bad for our spirit, the things that offend God, and change our nature to become more holy, .....only then will Christ see that we are sincere, because we changed for him, because we love truth and his ways, and as we grow he will teach us more and more of what the spirit is saying, and move us on to solids.  Not because of what we have learnt from men, but from him.  If we have received from him, we can judge all things.  If we have been given truth, understanding all the prophesies, we can compare.  Not all are weaned off the milk yet, so they havn't been given all the solids, therefore will find some things hard to judge. 

I am not here to stir trouble, but encourage everyone to not take that milk for granted, to really feed and learn from it, then God will give understanding for the more complicated things, to discern as we go, because if the foundations were right, like a fertilized garden, rich soil, we have the perfect conditions for truth to grow and knowledge to increase from the simplicity that is in Christ and his Word to become mature in the spirit.

Great analysis, Sister.  But how does this tie in with going to extrabiblical books?  We are not going to learn from what God did not deem acceptable to be included in the Bible. 

[Esther4:14]

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

Great analysis, Sister.  But how does this tie in with going to extrabiblical books?  We are not going to learn from what God did not deem acceptable to be included in the Bible. 

If that were true there would be no point to studying people like Aristotle either.  The point is the Bible is the canon that provides the ability to weigh other writings.  So when I read Aristotle, while I respect his intelligence, I also recognize that his pursuit of knowledge is not guided by the Spirit.  So, some things I just find irrelevant.  However, his book "On the Heavens" is the first place that the atmosphere is referred to as ether, which is still debated, and I have only a beginners understanding of the subject so that is all I will say about it.  But, it is an interesting piece of information from antiquity that is still considered in the study of modern physics.  But, should I not consider someone like Aristotle at all because he isn't a writer guided by the Spirit according to your argument opposing extrabilical material?  I don't see why that would be necessary just like I don't see how it should bother you if I decide to form my own conclusion about the book. 

What difference does it make to you?