Missing Christian scripture - Enoch Parables - The parable of the mountains - part 1

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I already said debate over. If it says sons of God in Job then they are Sons of God.

If it says that they are angels they are angels .

But in terms of honesty and accuracy they are not the same thing no matter how bad you want it to be.

Now you will have to argue with yourself because I only go so far to inform people not to the point when the person just refuses to get it though.

Then it means that you haven't studied Canaanite mythology and don't know that it is where the Israelites got their God AND gods and that Judaism wasn't monotheistic until roughly 5-700 BC.

And I am not going to go there because you guys are all the same you put your beliefs before the truth and can't be reasoned with by facts or logic.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Then tell me what was singing for joy when God created the world. You say sons of God isn't angels, so tell me who was singing for joy when God created the world.

All ears.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Everyone is descended from Enoch, lol. Noah and his fan was on the ark. Specifically the Caananites came from Ham. Remember when Ham looked at his drunk dad who was naked with desire? Noah didn't curse Ham, he cursed his son Cannan.

The deluge is just an elaboration at best, certainly not a global flood.

So no, not everyone is descended from Enoch. Unless you want to put a Nephilim on the ark to explain the later "giants" or as Genesis puts it "Nephilim" who were on the earth "and later" someone else survived the flood.

There were actually two Enochs in the Bible one from Cain and one from Seth.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And don't even try saying that the curse of Canaan was the cause of the Canaanites size because that would mean God allowed a curse to create something just to destroy it.

That would be twisted.

a reply to: TheInfiniteFantastic

1. There's some lack of clarity and definitely lack of certainty about which and/or how much of THE BOOK OF ENOCH 1 was really written by Enoch--if any.

2. There are a surprising number of quotes of Enoch in the New Testament. So there was a lot of respect for it.

3. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE CANON BY THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB. And it was not considered part of the Canon by the Disciples.

4. It is more considered a good supplemental text to consider and ponder prayerfully.

I'm trying to find the best translation author . . . I loaned mine out. . . .
.


This article may be worth considering:
.
www.angelfire.com...

.
And this one . . . which asserts that the early church fathers did think of it as Canon. Not sure about how accepted that is, as a fact. Evidently it's more of a controversy than I recalled it being.
.
www.goodreads.com...
.
This may be the translator I'm looking for but I'm not sure:
.
www.logos.com...
.
This one is about:

THE "ENOCH" OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS:
.
www.lds.org...
.
AND THIS about "The HIdden Aramaic Enoch Scroll"
.
bibeltemplet.net...
.

= = =

The translation by R H Charles MAY be the one I'm looking for. I just don't recall. I should be able to find out by tomorrow as I'm having lunch with the bloke I loaned it to, tomorrow.

I know there's a lot of junk involved with some translations and even more junk in the commentaries by various cults etc. related to the book of Enoch.
Anyway--that may be all I can offer at this time.

.

a reply to: BO XIAN

R.H. Charles is the best in my opinion. It's one of the first and I've never heard a bad word spoken about its accuracy.

1 Enoch R.H. Charles

An earlier version is good too 1 Enoch Richard Laurence

I believe that the Ethiopian has a racial component that isn't in the common versions, about blue eyed blondes but don't know the whole story.

Moses Apcryphon/Genesis florilegum features Enoch.

I still wonder about the mysterious Enoch of Cain and why nothing but his name is known. Maybe he was the Egyptian Hanok/Enoch.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Besides using the Book of Giants to validate Joseph Smith as a prophet because he 'prophesied' about a person Mahijah and a place Mahujah because MHWY is mentioned in it (admittedly a hell of a coincidence but far from validating Joseph Smith), that LDS link was good.

They are actually intelligent people who read anything possibly scriptural. But they always have to mention how it validates Smith's writings and never let them stand alone.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

To debate the Book of Enoch is futile because everyone wants to and is going to read it. The Bible makes a huge statement about Enoch walking with God and everyone wants to know the rest of the story.

And nobody is ever disappointed or cares about who wrote it because every inspired Bible book was written the same way. Moses did not write a word of the Torah/Pentateuch and the Catholic Church was even forced to admit it and then "the books of Moses", which was a term used in Bibles prior to that has since been removed and the issue is not debated by all but the extremists of the faiths.

ROFLAMAO

Yeah! All the books from that god are of equal inspiration.

The Rabbinic tradition claims that ability to this day. They could crank one out right now if they felt like doing it.

But seriously. Did you happen to get Déjà vu while reading the opening post? I could swear I read that exact same thing some time before it was posted, like yesterday or maybe 2 or three days ago.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

To debate the Book of Enoch is futile because everyone wants to and is going to read it. The Bible makes a huge statement about Enoch walking with God and everyone wants to know the rest of the story.

And nobody is ever disappointed or cares about who wrote it because every inspired Bible book was written the same way. Moses did not write a word of the Torah/Pentateuch and the Catholic Church was even forced to admit it and then "the books of Moses", which was a term used in Bibles prior to that has since been removed and the issue is not debated by all but the extremists of the faiths.

ROFLAMAO

Yeah! All the books from a god are of equal inspiration.

The Rabbinic tradition claims that ability to this day. They could crank one out right now if they felt like doing it.

But seriously. Did you happen to get Déjà vu while reading the opening post? I could swear I read that exact same thing some time before it was posted, like yesterday or maybe 2 or three days ago.

Nope. Just a big Enoch fan. Have been since I found out about it and I have escaped from the shackles of letting others decide what is scripture for me because of it.

I am grateful for that because I have read A LOT that isn't in the canon and am more enlightened because of it.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Welcome to ATS.

I see you started a thread. I'll check it out.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

I don't have the refs handy.

However, there's evidence in more than a couple of passages that

angels

and

sons of God

IN SOME CASES were used interchangeably.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Oooops.

Didn't mean to let such slip through my quick scan and listing.

Sorry.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TheInfiniteFantastic

1. There's some lack of clarity and definitely lack of certainty about which and/or how much of THE BOOK OF ENOCH 1 was really written by Enoch--if any.

2. There are a surprising number of quotes of Enoch in the New Testament. So there was a lot of respect for it.

3. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE CANON BY THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB. And it was not considered part of the Canon by the Disciples.

I doubt this, if the disciples didn't consider it scripture (canon didn't exist then) then Jude wouldn't have quoted from it in a Spiritual writing. Is anything ever quoted from in the New Testament NOT from scripture?

Not a when it comes to God and a prophecy, which is what Jude's quote was making it inspired if the NT is inspired itself.

4. It is more considered a good supplemental text to consider and ponder prayerfully.

I'm trying to find the best translation author . . . I loaned mine out. . . .
.


This article may be worth considering:
.
www.angelfire.com...

.
And this one . . . which asserts that the early church fathers did think of it as Canon. Not sure about how accepted that is, as a fact. Evidently it's more of a controversy than I recalled it being.

Very accepted.
Before Nicea there was no canon and each church had their own scriptures. It was one of the most popular books AND scripture.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

I don't have the refs handy.

However, there's evidence in more than a couple of passages that

angels

and

sons of God

IN SOME CASES were used interchangeably.

AFTER the advent of monotheism and the Persian Empire.

The original beliefs was my point not the revised version.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Welcome to ATS.

I see you started a thread. I'll check it out.

I did thank you

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Is anything ever quoted from in the New Testament NOT from scripture?

That's kind of a trick question. Some people assume "scripture" to mean "canonical inspired by their god writing" when, in fact, it means something more like "it is written".

Titus 1?

12One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, and idle gluttons." 13This testimony is true. For this cause, reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not paying attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

I'm sure scholars have a list available of quotes and paraphrases and memes that come from sources not considered holy by the church.

I got to go now. I'll check in tomorrow.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Before Nicea there was no canon and each church had their own scriptures. It was one of the most popular books AND scripture.

Why do you think that? Nicaea had nothing to do with the Canon of scripture. It was convened to address the Arian heresy, settle a date for Easter, and to vote for bishops.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

That would be the whole Dan Brown thing...

Speaking of which you didn't ever answer my question about that in the other thread

Not that it matters anymore... i forget what thread it was in

a reply to: Akragon

I don't remember either.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Doesn't matter... but Since the topic is missing scripture...

you should take a look over The Didache

The dating is actually earlier then a many NT texts. Thats being Generous of course...

Im sure you'd find it quite interesting