Enoch

[Origen]

Here is another bombastic thought, what if Satan and/or some of His demons in ancient past actually represent themselves off to mankind as bient "gods of ancient times" basis for the myths like a zeus or hercules?

So there could have been then Thor, odin, all of those other various so called gods roaming around the world

Not bombastic at all.

"They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods;
with abominations they provoked him to anger.
They sacrificed to demons that were not God,
to gods they had never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded." (Deut. 32:16-17)

 

[Origen]

So while the majority of the text was false, that portion was historically accurate, as was included by the Holy Spirit as being true ?

There are at least three possibility, and all three have the Holy Spirit as the source for Jude.

1. Jude knew nothing of the information in Enoch or the Assumption, and the information was given directly to Jude by means of Holy Spirit. However, this also does not explain how Enoch or the Assumption contain accurate information on those subjects.

2. It is possible Jude knew of both documents, and the Holy Spirit guided Jude to draw upon those two examples as trustworthy without suggesting that either document was Scripture. This also does not explain how Enoch or the Assumption contain accurate information on those subjects.

3. Jude and the authors' of Enoch and the Assumption drew upon an older source, perhaps an oral source, that had pass down this information within the Jewish community, and the Holy Sprit guided Jude to uses it. As for the authors' of Enoch or the Assumption, it was just dumb luck.

 

[Major]

Here is another bombastic thought, what if Satan and/or some of His demons in ancient past actually represent themselves off to mankind as bient "gods of ancient times" basis for the myths like a zeus or hercules?

So there could have been then Thor, odin, all of those other various so called gods roaming around the world, what is ironic is that would get laughed away as being mental illness if held to, but same people will just smile and amen "ancient Aliens" as beings who created mankind and will be our coming saviors

Thor and Odin are "Norse" gods not Greek mythology.

Both Norse and Greek mythologies are PAGAN! They are both Polytheistic.

I do not bring this up to cause any conflicts, but the topic actually goes back to Genesis 6:1-4.

As we have seen debated right here in front of us, many people believe that those “sons of God” were fallen angels who married beautiful, earthly women—“daughters of men.” This fanciful idea sounds familiar, because it is an echo of classical mythology, in which the “gods” seduced human women, who afterward bore demigods who grew up to be “mighty men” and “men of renown.”
BOOM!.........It is a common theme in those Greek and Roman and Norse tales of mythology!

The basic idea of this interpretation is that, as a result of these unions between angels and women, the children produced were called Nephilim, a Hebrew word that can “giants.” Then those people who reject the God of the Bible take the word "GIANT" and turn that into beings through their natural gifts inherited from their angelic fathers. Then through manipulations. these half-angel/half-human beings became powerful, famous men, doers of great exploits. That takes us to the Norse-Greek Romans and We have only to recall the stories of Hercules, Perseus, or Achilles to understand this explanation of these verses.

I hope the people reading this can begin to understand how easy it is to reject the Word of God and then manipulate the minds of people into believing this nonsense.

Men like Stephen King and Rod Serling became millionaires doing it.

 

[Major]

Rock Creatures? What? I'm afraid we didn't see that one. So you and your wife actually walked out of the movie? lol!

Back to Enoch. I feel we already gave friendly warning to LearningToLetGo early in the get go. Let him finish and we'll see where this goes.

Bob

Yes.....I call them Rock Creatures for no other reason than I can not explain what they were. You have to watch the movie to see what I am talking about. THEY actually built the Ark. THEY actually killed the people who tried to get in the Ark when it rained.

No sir.....we started watching it on TV. It was on one of the streaming services we get. We turned it off becuase we were laughing so hard we lost our breath.

 

[Major]

Your posts caught my attention. Are we talking about the Noah movie where the people in "paddle boats" came up to the Ark begging Noah to let them board? Or when Noah had glass jars on the Ark, with lids? lol!

crossnote, does this include The Ten Commandments, with Edward G. Robinson?

NO Bob. The movie Noah I am talking about has Russel Crowe as Noah made in 2014.

It was based NOT on the Bible but solely on the book of Enoch.

Just to make this clear.....
The Bible says=
Noah task was to save his family and animals.

The Book of Enoch says =
Save the animals while questioning the worth of humanity.

The Bible says that Tubal-Cain was mentioned briefly as a decendant of Cain.

The Book of Enoch pictures him as the "main protagonist" of Noah.

The Bible says that the Watchers are vaguely mentioned as demons.

The book of Enoch pictures the Watchers as "Rock Creatures" that actually build the Ark for Noah.

The Bible pictures Noah as the ONLY Righteous man on the earth.

The Book of Enoch pictures Noah as a troubled prophet grappling with his morality.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

In the parable you posted, I must point out to you that if and when you accept a literal translation of the passage rather than the emended translation offered by some commentators, you can then understand that the verse actually read...... “You are that Son of Man,” thus identifying Enoch as this Messianic figure.!!!!

I finally got to that part. It's 71.14 in my copy. Interestingly the text I have says "This is the Son of Man", not "You are the Son of Man." Out of curiosity I dug into this section and it appears the language is sufficiently vague to actually accommodate both interpretations. However, given the prior context, most scholars (but not all) accept the "This is" interpretation.

 

[In Awe of Him]

I finally got to that part. It's 71.14 in my copy. Interestingly the text I have says "This is the Son of Man", not "You are the Son of Man." Out of curiosity I dug into this section and it appears the language is sufficiently vague to actually accommodate both interpretations. However, given the prior context, most scholars (but not all) accept the "This is" interpretation.

You get A+ for tenacity and perseverance. Y'all seem to be enjoying yourselves.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

You get A+ for tenacity and perseverance. Y'all seem to be enjoying yourselves.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I hope the people reading this can begin to understand how easy it is to reject the Word of God and then manipulate the minds of people into believing this nonsense.

How is this rejecting the word of God? Genesis 6 describes this exact same thing.

Genesis 6 ESV

6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

 

[Origen]

I finally got to that part. It's 71.14 in my copy. Interestingly the text I have says "This is the Son of Man", not "You are the Son of Man." Out of curiosity I dug into this section and it appears the language is sufficiently vague to actually accommodate both interpretations. However, given the prior context, most scholars (but not all) accept the "This is" interpretation.

If I were you I would check into those sources.

This is the note on verse 14 by R.H. Charles on this verse.

The book of Enoch, or, 1 Enoch : Charles, R. H. (Robert Henry), 1855-1931 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The metadata below describe the original scanning. Follow the All Files: HTTP link in the View the book box to the left to find XML files that contain more...

archive.org

Charles makes it clear that what he had is an emendation from what the text actually has. In other words, Charles changed the text. Charles believed the passage was lost. Charles considered his reading a restoration of a lost passage.

Nichelsburg and Vanderkam point out:

See 1 Enoch 2, Hermeneia: Fortress Press, p. 328.

There simply is no manuscript to support Charles' view.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

If I were you I would check into those sources.

What do the Ge'ez texts say? I don't read them so I can't verify myself.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

If I were you I would check into those sources.

What do the Ge'ez texts say? I don't read them so I can't verify myself.

I poked around some AI sources. Here's what Grok has to say on the issue. I suppose this is as far as I desire to take it since I'm reading the book for education purposes and not as holy scripture.

Scholarly consensus today​

Virtually all modern critical scholars (Charles, Knibb, Black, Isaac, Nickelsburg, VanderKam, etc.) consider አንተ ፡ ውእቱ (“You are that …”) the original and superior reading, and treat ዝኩ ፡ ውእቱ (“This is …”) as a later scribal change that softens the shocking identification of Enoch with the pre-existent Son of Man.

So, in summary:

• Yes, some Ge'ez manuscripts and older translations do say “This is the Son of Man.”
• The majority and oldest manuscripts, however, say “You are (that) Son of Man,” which is the reading accepted in all modern critical editions and translations.

 

[Origen]

I poked around some AI sources. Here's what Grok has to say on the issue. I suppose this is as far as I desire to take it since I'm reading the book for education purposes and not as holy scripture.

Scholarly consensus today​

Virtually all modern critical scholars (Charles, Knibb, Black, Isaac, Nickelsburg, VanderKam, etc.) consider አንተ ፡ ውእቱ (“You are that …”) the original and superior reading, and treat ዝኩ ፡ ውእቱ (“This is …”) as a later scribal change that softens the shocking identification of Enoch with the pre-existent Son of Man.

So, in summary:

• Yes, some Ge'ez manuscripts and older translations do say “This is the Son of Man.”
• The majority and oldest manuscripts, however, say “You are (that) Son of Man,” which is the reading accepted in all modern critical editions and translations.

Perhaps, but I have sometimes found AI to be an unreliable source of information. I have more information to share. I am just getting it together.

 

[Origen]

What do the Ge'ez texts say? I don't read them so I can't verify myself.

I do not read Ge'ez, and unfortunately this section cannot be found in Hebrew or Greek.

However, the pronoun is "you." And the sources agree that Charles changed the text.



The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew by Leslie W. Walck, p. 151 and p. 144.




The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature by John J. Collins, p. 188.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I have more information to share. I am just getting it together.

I look forward to whatever information you have. In the meantime, I'm moving on to the remainder of the book.

 

[Major]

How is this rejecting the word of God? Genesis 6 describes this exact same thing.

Genesis 6 ESV

6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

God bless you brother. I have gone as far as I can go and it is clear that you are on a pre-determined course of action.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

God bless you brother. I have gone as far as I can go and it is clear that you are on a pre-determined course of action.

I do appreciate your contributions to this thread. This has been quite educational. I hope you continue to discuss such unconventional topics since there are twenty-two additional books still yet to discuss.

 

[Major]

I do not read Ge'ez, and unfortunately this section cannot be found in Hebrew or Greek.

However, the pronoun is "you." And the sources agree that Charles changed the text.

View attachment 13605

View attachment 13604The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew by Leslie W. Walck, p. 151 and p. 144.


View attachment 13606

The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature by John J. Collins, p. 188.

It seems to me that this post validates what I stated in post #64 in that the focus of the book of Enoch placed the coming Messiah was on Enoch himself which as I stated makes this book Occultic.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I am continuing on my journey through Enoch and came across a veritable animal farm. White, black and red bulls - hogs, sheep and goats. Never seen anything like it. Totally unexpected. But... Obviously the sheep are Israel so the shepherd metaphor makes a lot more sense.

 

[In Awe of Him]

.