Book of Enoch

[Called Out One]

3 hours ago, Jayne said:

Here's my question that I always have.  What's the definitive proof that Jude quoted Enoch?  Jude does not say, "Enoch said", or "it is written" or any other reference.  

What if Jude and Enoch both took their quote from oral tradition?  It's very possible. In fact, there are the exact same odds.  The book of Enoch was not written by the Enoch of the Old Testament.  So, someone had to keep the real Enoch's words going to from multiple generations to multiple generations across the millennia.  Why do people believe Jude's only resource was the book of Enoch?

As for the "claims" of the book being heretical....here are the facts.  I've read all three books of Enoch by multiple authors.

• In Enoch 10 it says the prior to the Flood that God told Michael the archangel to "cleanse" the world corruption, sin, and crime and all people would praise him [God] and adore him and worship him.  The Bible says otherwise.  The Bible says that only Jesus' blood can cleanse from sin and that mankind was no different after the Flood than before it. Genesis 6 and then 8 say the same thing about mankind.
• Enoch also says that sin was brought into the world by a fallen angel who taught mankind all kinds of sin.  The Bible says that sin was brought into the world by Adam.
• Enoch says that during the tribulation that the Enoch of old says that there will be no mercy or opportunity for salvation for sinners.  The book of Revelations says that many, many people will be saved during that time.

I'll stop there as people who understand the book of Enoch to be false already understand and people who believe the books won't listen.

I'll say what I always say.  If you believe the book of Enoch - which contains the grossest error of any non-canonical book I've read [I've read at least 8-10] - please, please read it again with the Bible alongside and see which book contains the truth.

Yes, there is great irony that people believe Jude to be quoting Enoch and at the same time Jude writing about false teachers.

All I can say is that the devil is crafty and heresy began very early.

It's not that Enoch supplements the Bible with extra facts not in the Bible.

It's that the authors of the books of Enoch blatantly distort the facts of the Bible into lies and teach heresy.

 

 

 

 

[Jde 1:14-15 NASB] 14 [It was] also about these men [that] Enoch, [in] the seventh [generation] from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

Seems pretty clear to me that's a quote from Enoch by Jude.  

 

[ENOCH2010]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

yes I have actually read a great deal about unresolved contradictions found within God's Word and a great many are shown to be not in conflict the one's that remain I am suspect to the inability of contextualization as who and what frame of measure in case and point... 

The circumference of the laver given the measurements is incorrect, 3.14 wasn't used. It should be 31.4 feet 

Edited January 23, 2019 by ENOCH2010

[NOONE7]

Don't trust this book.

[Retrobyter]

On 1/23/2019 at 5:51 PM, ENOCH2010 said:

The circumference of the laver given the measurements is incorrect, 3.14 wasn't used. It should be 31.4 feet 

Shalom, ENOCH2010.

People forget that with any round, physical object that has thickness, like a pipe, there is both an ID and an OD, that is, an Inside Diameter and an Outside Diameter.

2 Chronicles 4:2-5 (KJV)

2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 3 And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast. 4 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. 5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

The reason for the difference in the measurements of the laver is that the 30 cubit circumference is the INSIDE CIRCUMFERENCE of the laver. The 10-cubit diameter is measured from the outside of the brim to the outside of the brim on the other side, "from brim to brim," making the OUTSIDE CIRCUMFERENCE = 31.4 cubits. With an inside circumference of 30 cubits, the inside diameter would only be 9.54 cubits.

Therefore, the difference would be 10 - 9.54 = .46 cubits, and if a cubit was 18 inches, that would be 8.28 inches. A "handbreadth" would be half of that, 4.14 inches, the thickness of the rim.

Remember: At this time period, the Egyptians knew about pi.

Also, by using the volume of a sphere (or actually, half of that volume), one could calculate the amount of a "bath" of water, assuming that the laver was spherical as half a sphere inside. This is a fair assumption since the height (5 cubits) was half the OD.

OR, if one already knew the amount of a "bath" of water in liters, one could calculate in centimeters and then in inches how long of a cubit was being used.

(Sorry, just the mathematician in me having a little fun.)

Oh, and by the way, the Volume (V) of a sphere is...

V = 4/3 x pi x r^3, where "r^3" means "r cubed." So, half of that would be...

0.5V = 2/3 x pi x r^3.

Pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279...

(I wrote that from memory through the poem,

"Now I will a rhyme construct
by chosen words the young instruct
cunningly devised endeavour
con it and remember ever
widths in circle here you see
sketched out in strange obscurity... ."")

Edited January 26, 2019 by Retrobyter
to add some thoughts

[thomas t]

Hi Justin,

I agree with you in so many things such as the Catholic Church changed the 7th day sabbath just like this.

Look, it's only that I disagree with you here:

On 1/23/2019 at 2:49 PM, Justin Adams said:

As stated, linguistic scholars CAN tell the difference between true text and doctored text.

No, in general they don't have the ultimate authority as to decide which text is directly stemming from God and which one is not, I think.

Concerning the book of Gensis, some of them even say it has older parts and it has a younger parts.*

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but I also believe linguists can very well be right in determining different ages of parts of the book of Genesis. Even if many of them believe the whole book of Genesis is a fabrication...

I don't want to distract from the topic, as I also believe the book of Enoch shouldn't be part of the Bible now.

Regards,

Thomas

* I give you a German source just for the sake of providing a source for my assertion, and I knew this one. If you're interested, I can translate, no problem, but I'm sure there must be a similar source for English speakers.

Edited January 25, 2019 by thomas t
clarity