Christians "The Book of Enoch", In or Out???

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I see many Christians on ATS who appear to accept the “Book of Enoch” as if it were a natural part of the Biblical cannon. I would like to get everyone’s thoughts regarding the “Book of Enoch”, or more specifically, “The Book of Watchers”. As you may be aware, the book is still today, seen as canonical, by the Ethiopian Christians, but was of course always rejected, for inclusion, by the Jews.

Now here’s the interesting twist to the questions I’m posing, which I must warn you, is very controversial. The Ethiopian Jews have a claim (key word being claim) that they are part of the original descendants, of the House of Israel! Now please understand, I’m not saying this is a fact, but there does appear to be some evidence out there, which suggests this could be true. If this is true, then it raises huge questions, as to which Biblical Old Testament, is the most complete/correct one.

We know that the book of Jude mentions Enoch in verse 14, and it also appears that a few of the Church Fathers, Iranaeus and Clement gave the book their seal of approval. In fact, Tertullian made mention of the Jews rejection of the book, in the 3rd century; mentioning that the Jews rejected it, because it prophesied of Christ. There are also clear historical connections between Jesus and the Essenes, who also kept the “Book of Enoch”, as part of their cannon. The complete book was only discovered centuries later, in the Ethiopian communities, around the 17th Century.

As a Christian, do you believe the book was inspired and should therefore have been made part of Biblical cannon? etc…And if you accept the book, then how has it affected your overall beliefs?

Or, are you a Christian who thinks that it was rightly not included in the Bible; and if so, then why?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Greetings OP.

Thanks for your well written and thought provoking post. It made me come and log in and offer you my reply.

I am very aware of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. H.I.M Haile Selassie of Ethiopia claimed to have descended from King Solomon and The Queen of Sheba. That would have made him kind of related to Christ if any truth in that.

The Ethiopians and Nubians are often referred to throughout the Bible. Some even claim that Moses' wife Zipporah was African (a Cu#e). Cu.#e is not a swear word, ATS (for goodness sake)!

Which prophet wrote that famous maxim; "Can a Cu#e change his skin, can a leopard change his spots"?

I accept The Book of Enoch and all that is written there. I do that because Jude and others did refer to it in their own writing.

The Book of Enoch tells of that time before The Flood. I have an intuition it was a very different world and we were in some ways as advanced as we are now, yet obviously in a different way. I just see the whole pattern running through all The Holy writing.

Yes Enoch did prophesy concerning Christ, scarily accurately!

edit on 23-1-2013 by Revolution9 because: spelling
edit on 23-1-2013 by Revolution9 because: punctuation.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Ok....I'll go ahead and play.

The Book of Enoch was not included in the last Catholic review( as back in the 1400's-Council of Trent or Nicaea- or whichever)but had been referred to and included in biblical writings previous. As it is referenced in the old and new testaments, I personally think it is a validly inspired writing.
It doesn't change anything for me, but sure makes Catholics and mainstream Christianity nervous. Mainly I think because it refers to things that happened on this earth that mainstream Christianity doesn't want to believe or want us to believe.
edit on 23-1-2013 by dakota1s2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by dakota1s2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I think that the Book of Enoch as well as the Book of Jubilees were excluded from the Catholic Cannon because the Catholics didn't want their people consorting with angels Both books outline the names, duties and stations of the angels and have been used in "Enochian Magic and attributed to the sorcery of Solomon.

Here, in the THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA you see where it is strictly forbidden.


CANON XXXV.
CHRISTIANS must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.


Fortunately for us, we can access these books, in spite of their suppression. It seems to me that there are a lot of things that are already in the Old Testament that are worse for Christians to accept, like murder and rape, than knowing about the angels.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Well, if you're going to include the book of Enoch, then the book of Jasher is next in line. It is mentioned twice by name in the bible. Here again though, it talks about things the church would rather not have to deal with openly.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft

As a Christian, do you believe the book was inspired and should therefore have been made part of Biblical cannon? etc…And if you accept the book, then how has it affected your overall beliefs?

Or, are you a Christian who thinks that it was rightly not included in the Bible; and if so, then why?


This book could never be explained away. It also cannot be explained. In context with the other Bible 'books' would not make any sense because it is of supernatural tenents, was the point of its being excluded to avoid instigating unnecessary introspection? SpiritofEnoch? do you have anything to contribute? Let me think on this.
edit on 23-1-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
"The Book of the Secrets of Enoch" contains obvious inaccuracies, such as this one regarding the length of a year:

16:5 - "The quarter of a day is omitted for three years, the fourth fulfills it exactly."

The fourth does not fulfill it exactly. This was clearly not from divine inspiration. It had to have been written some time before we figured out that a year is actually 365.242199 days. It's close enough to trick anyone without the benefits of atomic clocks and computers, but it's wrong... and thus, the entire book is suspect. God would have shown Enoch the truth, not an approximation that was only close to true. It's like it was created as "proof" that the Julian calendar was "God's favorite." Or something.

As for "The Book of Enoch" itself (different book), it's really really big, so I haven't read it all... but chapter 82 is even less accurate:

82:6-7 - "...the year is completed in three hundred and sixty-four days. And the account thereof is accurate and the recorded reckoning thereof exact..."

So it might be that those books were made up before science found the exact "reckoning." If I'm missing something, tell me, but I'm not sure I trust them, just like I don't trust the "Gospel of Judas." (I have my reasons.)

PS: If you want to know which Apocryphal books I do trust, I'm only confident in one of them: the Gospel of Thomas. I'm also leaning in favor of Mary Magdalene's Gospel, too, but there's too much of it missing to be really sure. There are also several books in the Apocrypha I've never examined. Some of them may be true too for all I know.
edit on 1/24/2013 by Thought Provoker because: PS



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Lots of ancient Jewish texts are referenced and alluded to in the Bible for historical context but weren't included for a number of reasons, generally because the books have too many contradictions to basic Biblical teachings. As a Christian, if the Bible is the word of God and the disciples felt the books were relevant enough to mention them, then they obviously have some sort of association with the Bible, so we should be reading them for historical reference.


A list of non-canonical books referenced in the Bible:

The Book of Jasher (whose title fully translated means the Book of the Upright or the Book of the Just) is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. From the context in the Book of Samuel it is implied that it was a collection of poetry. Several books have claimed to be this lost text, but are widely discounted as pseudepigrapha.

The Book of the Wars of the Lord.[1] Referenced at Numbers 21:14.

A "Book of Songs" is referenced at 1 Kings 8:12-13 (Septuagint).

The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (lost/missing) and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah ("2 Chronicles" in the Christian Old Testament or "Divrei Hayamim II" in the Hebrew Tanakh) are mentioned in the Books of Kings (1 Kings 14:19, 14:29). They are said to tell of events during the reigns of Kings Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah, respectively. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is again mentioned in 1 Kings 16:20 regarding King Zimri, and many other times throughout 1 and 2 Kings.

"The Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer" (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annals of the Prophet Iddo) is mentioned in the book of 2nd Chronicles. (II Chr 9:29, 12:15, 13:22). Iddo was a seer who lived during the reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijah. His deeds were recorded in this book, which has been completely lost to history, save for its title. However, it is interesting to note that Zechariah was the son of Iddo, but this was likely not the same Iddo. (Ezra 5:1, Zechariah 1:1)

The Manner of the Kingdom[2]
Referenced at 1Samuel 10:25.

The Acts of Solomon[3]
Referenced at 1Kings 11:41.

The Annals of King David[4]
Referenced at 1Chronicles 27:24.

The Book of Samuel the Seer Also called Samuel the Seer or The Acts of Samuel the Seer, which could be the same as 1 & 2 Samuel .[6]
Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

The Book of Nathan the Prophet Also called Nathan the Prophet or The Acts of Nathan the Prophet or History of Nathan the Prophet[5]
Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29, and also 2Chronicles 9:29.

The Book of Gad the Seer[6]
Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

The Prophecy of Ahijah,[7] might be a reference to 1 Kings 14:2-18.
Referenced at 2Chronicles 9:29.

The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[8]
Referenced in 2Chronicles 16:11, 2Chronicles 27:7 and 2Chronicles 32:32. Might be the same as 1 & 2 Kings.

The Book of Jehu,[9] Could be a reference to 1 Kings 16:1-7.
Referenced at 2Chronicles 20:34.

The Story of the Book of Kings[10]
Referenced at 2Chronicles 24:27.

The Acts of Uziah Also called The Book by the prophet Isaiah. Perhaps the same as the Book of Isaiah[7]
Referenced at 2Chronicles 26:22.

The Vision of Isaiah[11]
Referenced at 2Chronicles 32:32.

The Acts of the Kings of Israel Also called The Acts and Prayers of Manasseh.[8] May be identical to The Book of the Kings of Israel, above.
Referenced at 2Chronicles 33:18.

The Sayings of the Seers[12]
Referenced at 2Chronicles 33:19.

The Laments for Josiah Also called Lamentations. This event is recorded in the existing Book of Lamentations.
Referenced at 2Chronicles 35:25.

The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus.[13]
Referenced at Esther 2:23, Esther 6:1, Esther 10:2, and Nehemiah 12:23.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 




Originally posted by Revolution9
Greetings OP.

Thanks for your well written and thought provoking post. It made me come and log in and offer you my reply.


Greetings Revolution9… thank you for your kind words and response.




Originally posted by Revolution9
I am very aware of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. H.I.M Haile Selassie of Ethiopia claimed to have descended from King Solomon and The Queen of Sheba. That would have made him kind of related to Christ if any truth in that.


Yes, many claim that Haile Selassie, is a descendant of King Solomon. But there is so much information out there on this topic it’s hard to know what to believe.

What seems clear to me is that, there is a clear split between the Standard Jewish traditions of the OT, and that of the Ethiopian Jews. Just how far and how wide this goes, is not clear. History clearly shows that the orthodox Jewish community, are clearly apposed to the “Book of Enoch”, and yet this other Jewish group (the Ethiopian Jews) kept it as a sacred part of their scripture.



Originally posted by Revolution9
The Ethiopians and Nubians are often referred to throughout the Bible. Some even claim that Moses' wife Zipporah was African (a Cu#e). Cu.#e is not a swear word, ATS (for goodness sake)!

Which prophet wrote that famous maxim; "Can a Cu#e change his skin, can a leopard change his spots"?


Jeremiah.

I’ve read some theories that the split in the house of Israel was a racial split. There are a few white separatists websites, which claim that Abraham and his descendents were white. And that the Judeans in the 1st century AD had became racially mixed, resulting in a racial divide. Of course these same “separatists”, state that Jesus is white, and yet bizarrely, it is the Black Ethiopians, who have kept a book, which describes the Messiahs arrival intact.




Originally posted by Revolution9
I accept The Book of Enoch and all that is written there. I do that because Jude and others did refer to it in their own writing.


The great thing the book has going for it, is that it does not contradict the Bible IMO.



Originally posted by Revolution9
The Book of Enoch tells of that time before The Flood. I have an intuition it was a very different world and we were in some ways as advanced as we are now, yet obviously in a different way.


Yeah, I totally agree. My own view is similar in that I believe there was a time when man was advanced, both technologically and spiritually. But that all changed, when the fallen ones arrived.

- JC



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





Originally posted by windword
I think that the Book of Enoch as well as the Book of Jubilees were excluded from the Catholic Cannon because the Catholics didn't want their people consorting with angels Both books outline the names, duties and stations of the angels and have been used in "Enochian Magic and attributed to the sorcery of Solomon.


But isn’t that like kind of admitting that Solomon, was in turn, not a righteous prophet from God, if he was dabbling in sorcery and magic etc. Perhaps this is even the key reason, as to why the Jews wanted to get rid of it, in the first place.

Angel’s names and their functions/attributes, are mentioned in the book of Daniel and a few other books within the Bible; so it seems strange to clamp down on one book, for that reason alone.



Originally posted by windword
Here, in the THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA you see where it is strictly forbidden.



CANON XXXV.
CHRISTIANS must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.



Interestingly, the Book of Revelations, has this to say about the church of Laodicea



Revelation 3:16
“So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”





Originally posted by windword
It seems to me that there are a lot of things that are already in the Old Testament that are worse for Christians to accept, like murder and rape, than knowing about the angels.


Yes, my thoughts exactly. The most common reason given by the church for not accepting the “Book of Enoch” is because of the issue, of Angels having sex with humans. But IMO this seems an unlikely reason for it’s rejection, because it’s a theme already mentioned in passages such as Genesis 6:1-4 and the notion of Angels walking around, like regular men, is also clearly covered in the OT. And there are far worse things depicted in the Bible, as you rightly pointed out.

There is clearly a push by a few church Fathers, to include the “Book of Enoch”, but as Tertullian mentioned, it was the Jewish disdain of the book, that IMO seems to be the more telling factor, for it’s rejection.

- JC



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft

I see many Christians on ATS who appear to accept the “Book of Enoch” as if it were a natural part of the Biblical cannon. I would like to get everyone’s thoughts regarding the “Book of Enoch”, or more specifically, “The Book of Watchers”. As you may be aware, the book is still today, seen as canonical, by the Ethiopian Christians, but was of course always rejected, for inclusion, by the Jews.

Now here’s the interesting twist to the questions I’m posing, which I must warn you, is very controversial. The Ethiopian Jews have a claim (key word being claim) that they are part of the original descendants, of the House of Israel! Now please understand, I’m not saying this is a fact, but there does appear to be some evidence out there, which suggests this could be true. If this is true, then it raises huge questions, as to which Biblical Old Testament, is the most complete/correct one.

We know that the book of Jude mentions Enoch in verse 14, and it also appears that a few of the Church Fathers, Iranaeus and Clement gave the book their seal of approval. In fact, Tertullian made mention of the Jews rejection of the book, in the 3rd century; mentioning that the Jews rejected it, because it prophesied of Christ. There are also clear historical connections between Jesus and the Essenes, who also kept the “Book of Enoch”, as part of their cannon. The complete book was only discovered centuries later, in the Ethiopian communities, around the 17th Century.

As a Christian, do you believe the book was inspired and should therefore have been made part of Biblical cannon? etc…And if you accept the book, then how has it affected your overall beliefs?

Or, are you a Christian who thinks that it was rightly not included in the Bible; and if so, then why?

Included the entire OP, as I didn't know what to edit-down to, that wouldn't diminish the argument...
Formerly, while "in the Church", I was a proponent for inclusion of the Book/s of Enoch, and/or the Book of Jasher (and/or, possibly others).
In part, because, at least the Book of Jasher was named as "a reference for" (meaning - a source that substantiated, verified or validated) other claims in The Bible.
However - I found at least one troublesome bit, in the Book/s of Enoch, as follows:
One of the Watchers/Angels was punished "by God" for teaching the humans writing (to write)...but later, Enoch chose to "learn to write"...and...somewhere along the way, "God" obviously chose to use "writing" to get "His" message across to humanity, for an everlasting testament...
So - if it was "wrong"-enough, that one of the "Fallen Ones" was chastised without mercy for its introduction to humanity, in the first place...how could it become "right"-enough, for Enoch to use, to pass on his accounts, and/or for God to use to establish "His" accounts for an everlasting tribute and covenant?

Thus - if The Bible is to be counted flawless, I would consider the Book/s of Enoch unworthy of inclusion.

2 cents and no more.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Originally posted by Joecroft
Ok....I'll go ahead and play.

The Book of Enoch was not included in the last Catholic review( as back in the 1400's-Council of Trent or Nicaea- or whichever)but had been referred to and included in biblical writings previous. As it is referenced in the old and new testaments, I personally think it is a validly inspired writing.
It doesn't change anything for me, but sure makes Catholics and mainstream Christianity nervous. Mainly I think because it refers to things that happened on this earth that mainstream Christianity doesn't want to believe or want us to believe.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My thought, is if there was ever an Achilles Heel/Heal (English spelling not Greek) it discribes or explains the requisite blame to be placed on the Christian Doctrine for NOT including this book in their Modern Bible. Mainstream Christianity believes in an immaculate birth compared to the ridiculous notion that Enoch was a time traveler as a moderator and a conduit would be an afterthought, a punctuation. Someone was afraid of something.
edit on 24-1-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by Joecroft

I see many Christians on ATS who appear to accept the “Book of Enoch” as if it were a natural part of the Biblical cannon. I would like to get everyone’s thoughts regarding the “Book of Enoch”, or more specifically, “The Book of Watchers”. As you may be aware, the book is still today, seen as canonical, by the Ethiopian Christians, but was of course always rejected, for inclusion, by the Jews.

Now here’s the interesting twist to the questions I’m posing, which I must warn you, is very controversial. The Ethiopian Jews have a claim (key word being claim) that they are part of the original descendants, of the House of Israel! Now please understand, I’m not saying this is a fact, but there does appear to be some evidence out there, which suggests this could be true. If this is true, then it raises huge questions, as to which Biblical Old Testament, is the most complete/correct one.

We know that the book of Jude mentions Enoch in verse 14, and it also appears that a few of the Church Fathers, Iranaeus and Clement gave the book their seal of approval. In fact, Tertullian made mention of the Jews rejection of the book, in the 3rd century; mentioning that the Jews rejected it, because it prophesied of Christ. There are also clear historical connections between Jesus and the Essenes, who also kept the “Book of Enoch”, as part of their cannon. The complete book was only discovered centuries later, in the Ethiopian communities, around the 17th Century.

As a Christian, do you believe the book was inspired and should therefore have been made part of Biblical cannon? etc…And if you accept the book, then how has it affected your overall beliefs?

Or, are you a Christian who thinks that it was rightly not included in the Bible; and if so, then why?

Included the entire OP, as I didn't know what to edit-down to, that wouldn't diminish the argument...
Formerly, while "in the Church", I was a proponent for inclusion of the Book/s of Enoch, and/or the Book of Jasher (and/or, possibly others).
In part, because, at least the Book of Jasher was named as "a reference for" (meaning - a source that substantiated, verified or validated) other claims in The Bible.
However - I found at least one troublesome bit, in the Book/s of Enoch, as follows:
One of the Watchers/Angels was punished "by God" for teaching the humans writing (to write)...but later, Enoch chose to "learn to write"...and...somewhere along the way, "God" obviously chose to use "writing" to get "His" message across to humanity, for an everlasting testament...
So - if it was "wrong"-enough, that one of the "Fallen Ones" was chastised without mercy for its introduction to humanity, in the first place...how could it become "right"-enough, for Enoch to use, to pass on his accounts, and/or for God to use to establish "His" accounts for an everlasting tribute and covenant?

Thus - if The Bible is to be counted flawless, I would consider the Book/s of Enoch unworthy of inclusion.

2 cents and no more.


I would like to know the troublesome bit, which watcher/archangle (not misspelled) was punished and by what God Entity? Why was Enoch punished/banished beause it decided to to learn lanquage-not writing, at that time a cuniform clay writing expression was'nt even a thoughtform not yet. The last thing this God wanted and you need to understand which is which is that humans were forbidden to communicate with each other. Why? to not incite/give creedence to the riots that eventually would occure. How dare God establish his will "Johnny come lately" considering Lucifer already established a clear path to knowing enlightennment. The post affore baffles. Fallen Ones pass accounts tribute, covenant everlasting chastised, mercy, To me describes a disaster happenning real time right now to the happless human unable to unravel this ridiculous parade of mistruths, lies and deceptions.

No one has defined who the 'watchers are' and I find the extreme vagueness of speaking such things sacred in such a relaxed reclining manner very disturbing. Almost like a still birth is a good thing.
edit on 24-1-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I would like to know the troublesome bit, which watcher/archangle (not misspelled) was punished and by what God Entity? Why was Enoch punished/banished beause it decided to to learn lanquage-not writing, at that time a cuniform clay writing expression was'nt even a thoughtform not yet. The last thing this God wanted and you need to understand which is which is that humans were forbidden to communicate with each other. Why? to not incite/give creedence to the riots that eventually would occure. How dare God establish his will "Johnny come lately" considering Lucifer already established a clear path to knowing enlightennment. The post affore baffles. Fallen Ones pass accounts tribute, covenant everlasting chastised, mercy, To me describes a disaster happenning real time right now to the happless human unable to unravel this ridiculous parade of mistruths, lies and deceptions.

No one has defined who the 'watchers are' and I find the extreme vagueness of speaking such things sacred in such a relaxed reclining manner very disturbing. Almost like a still birth is a good thing.

Don't know if you were pointing this at me...or in some more general direction.
And - I don't know that I understand what you are asking...OR IF...you are asking anything.
Seems like you have some pretty strong opinions in these regards - so - if you're wanting an/any answer/s from me, please speak-down a couple of grade levels, so I can understand what is being asked.
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 





Originally posted by Thought Provoker
"The Book of the Secrets of Enoch" contains obvious inaccuracies, such as this one regarding the length of a year:

16:5 - "The quarter of a day is omitted for three years, the fourth fulfills it exactly."


Ever considered the possibility that the earth was in a slightly different position, back then, than it is today!



Originally posted by Thought Provoker
The fourth does not fulfill it exactly. This was clearly not from divine inspiration. It had to have been written some time before we figured out that a year is actually 365.242199 days. It's close enough to trick anyone without the benefits of atomic clocks and computers, but it's wrong... and thus, the entire book is suspect.


Wow!

The problem is, is that there are clear discrepancies, within the Bible as well. Such as the creation account, does not fit with the standard scientific model. If your going to discount a book based on that, then you need to apply the same rigors to the rest of the books in the Bible as well IMO.

Also, the 365.242199 days in year, was only discovered fairly recently. And although the Romans adopted the Julian Calendar in 45 BC, I think this was only a rough estimate, and not an exact science; so I don’t think it was a key factor for rejecting the book, when it’s inclusion, into the Bible, was being debated.




Originally posted by Thought Provoker
As for "The Book of Enoch" itself (different book), it's really really big, so I haven't read it all... but chapter 82 is even less accurate:

82:6-7 - "...the year is completed in three hundred and sixty-four days. And the account thereof is accurate and the recorded reckoning thereof exact..."


Well, during a recent earthquake, the Earth was thrown of it axis, although it was only by a few millimeters. Perhaps before the great flood, the Earths axis was different, and was slightly changed, when the heavy disruption on the planet surface, began to take place.

Another interesting thing to note, is that through the passage of time, the calendar year, was no where near what it is today, with dates constantly ranging from 304, to 325.25 to 355 days etc…

Perhaps if they’d taken the “book of Enoch” more seriously, they would have gotten closer to the mark, sooner, rather than later.

- JC



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I would like to know the troublesome bit, which watcher/archangle (not misspelled) was punished and by what God Entity? Why was Enoch punished/banished beause it decided to to learn lanquage-not writing, at that time a cuniform clay writing expression was'nt even a thoughtform not yet...

As to these two questions...
"which watcher/archangle...was punished...?"
Regarding what I formerly detailed...the following:
Chapter 69 (verse 9...or so)...
Name - Penemue
"...And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity..."
As to "by what God Entity?"... Don't know where you're going. If you're requesting information about what Christians (or Christianity) would believe in this regard, they would probably believe this to have been the one and only "God". If you want to know who I believe it might have been...that would be for another conversation, as I believe that would carry great potential for derailing the general direction established by the OP.

As to the second question - I didn't know that Enoch was punished/banished...so - couldn't answer the question even if I understood what it was.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
...Ever considered the possibility that the earth was in a slightly different position, back then, than it is today!
...Also, the 365.242199 days in year, was only discovered fairly recently....Well, during a recent earthquake, the Earth was thrown of it axis, although it was only by a few millimeters. Perhaps before the great flood, the Earths axis was different, and was slightly changed, when the heavy disruption on the planet surface, began to take place.

Another interesting thing to note, is that through the passage of time, the calendar year, was no where near what it is today, with dates constantly ranging from 304, to 325.25 to 355 days etc…

Perhaps if they’d taken the “book of Enoch” more seriously, they would have gotten closer to the mark, sooner, rather than later.

- JC

Pretty good responses (IMO).
Another thing, in these regards - don't know when they began using "decimal notations" to describe "non-whole numbers"... Kinda like measuring the credibility of anything/everything written in "Olde English" by Modern English standards.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 


I haven’t got time to research right now, every single one of those 21 books!, that you highlighted in your last post. Especially in terms of finding all the reasons, as to why they were not included in the Bible. But thank you for pointing them all out.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that I think, (so please don’t quote me on this one) that most of those books you mentioned, were probably not considered for inclusion by the early church Fathers, with the same fervor, as the “Book of Enoch” was.

Of course, each of those books non-inclusion, would have to be considered separately, and on an individual, case by case basis. Which I’m sure you can appreciate, would take me a long time, too investigate all of them etc…




Originally posted by BlackManINC
Lots of ancient Jewish texts are referenced and alluded to in the Bible for historical context but weren't included for a number of reasons, generally because the books have too many contradictions to basic Biblical teachings.


Reading between the lines here, I presume you believe that the book contradicts many, or some, Biblical teachings, and if so, can you be more specific, as to what these contradictions are?

You see, what I find in many cases, is that the Bible, as it stands now, contains many contradictions already. Many of which can be explained and some of which are a mystery. I’m not saying these contradictions are bad in themselves, in all cases. But what I am saying, is that the fact they exist, is not being held as a reason, against their inclusion in the Bible.

My thinking is as follows; you can’t allow some books in, which are contradictory, and then excluded others, for the same reason; unless the contradiction/s, go against the overall message of the Bible, and can be clearly demonstrated as doing such etc…


- JC



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I would like to know the troublesome bit, which watcher/archangle (not misspelled) was punished and by what God Entity? Why was Enoch punished/banished beause it decided to to learn lanquage-not writing, at that time a cuniform clay writing expression was'nt even a thoughtform not yet. The last thing this God wanted and you need to understand which is which is that humans were forbidden to communicate with each other. Why? to not incite/give creedence to the riots that eventually would occure. How dare God establish his will "Johnny come lately" considering Lucifer already established a clear path to knowing enlightennment. The post affore baffles. Fallen Ones pass accounts tribute, covenant everlasting chastised, mercy, To me describes a disaster happenning real time right now to the happless human unable to unravel this ridiculous parade of mistruths, lies and deceptions.

No one has defined who the 'watchers are' and I find the extreme vagueness of speaking such things sacred in such a relaxed reclining manner very disturbing. Almost like a still birth is a good thing.

Don't know if you were pointing this at me...or in some more general direction.
And - I don't know that I understand what you are asking...OR IF...you are asking anything.
Seems like you have some pretty strong opinions in these regards - so - if you're wanting an/any answer/s from me, please speak-down a couple of grade levels, so I can understand what is being asked.
Thanks.


Not you generally; its a frustration of mine and I own it. It is sometimes the content of posts other times it is that there seems to be no sense of humor regarding the question of existance of a god form. Is there supposed to be one? or the joke is on us? Or there is a caring parent that wishes us to do our best WITH NO PARENTAL GUIDANCE other than an antiquated book written by persons that have no idea what a Television is. Come on even if this was a divinely controlled occurance you would think God would have anticipated the advent of IPODs; speaking reasonably--could have would have traveled back and forth in time space and observed Its catastrophies Its World Wars. This is my problem. Foresight and Hindsight a givin, yet not expressed by ANY SANE HUMAN can logically have an opinion of what God is and its "INTENTIONS" or existance. I'm actually just asking these questions of myself so either I should be flattered or I owe you an apology.
edit on 24-1-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 





Originally posted by WanDash
However - I found at least one troublesome bit, in the Book/s of Enoch, as follows:
One of the Watchers/Angels was punished "by God" for teaching the humans writing (to write)...but later, Enoch chose to "learn to write"...and...somewhere along the way, "God" obviously chose to use "writing" to get "His" message across to humanity, for an everlasting testament...

So - if it was "wrong"-enough, that one of the "Fallen Ones" was chastised without mercy for its introduction to humanity, in the first place...how could it become "right"-enough, for Enoch to use, to pass on his accounts, and/or for God to use to establish "His" accounts for an everlasting tribute and covenant?

Thus - if The Bible is to be counted flawless, I would consider the Book/s of Enoch unworthy of inclusion.



Firstly, thanks for your initial reply, and your appreciation of my other post.

But surely your reasoning for rejecting the “Book of Enoch”, would have to be applied across the board i.e. with the whole of the Bible as well? And any other written books.

Because, if all writing is evil, then none of it should be read at all. Not even this sentence…lol


My own personal view, is that the many Biblical accounts revolve around a struggle between fallen Angels and Righteous Angels; but that man doesn’t always know the difference between the 2.

I really don’t think the one true God, didn’t want man to learn to write; otherwise nothing in the Bible would have been preserved at all.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join