The Books of Enoch.

[Truth7t7]

Your

Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Refusing to deal with this passage only makes your position look foolish.

Your reference of Job has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that "The Son's Of God" in Genesis 6:1-6 below, were human men, that took human wives, they married.

The Sons Of God were human men, that married human women

Teaching Angels have sex with human women, and maintaining human sperm is a fairytale in mythology, and false teaching.

Look There, Elimelech's Sons Took Human Wives Toooo

Ruth 1:3-4KJV
3 And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

Genesis 6:1-6KJV
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

"The Sons of God" took wives, Angel's don't marry humans, it's that simple.

Matthew 22:30KJV
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

[Dino246]

Your

Your reference of Job has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that "The Son's Of God" in Genesis 6:1-6 below, were human men, that took human wives, they married.

The Sons Of God were human men, that married human women

Teaching Angels have sex with human women, and maintaining human sperm is a fairytale in mythology, and false teaching.

Look There, Elimelech's Sons Took Human Wives Toooo

Ruth 1:3-4KJV
3 And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

Genesis 6:1-6KJV
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

"The Sons of God" took wives, Angel's don't marry humans, it's that simple.

Matthew 22:30KJV
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Genesis 6 says "sons of God", not "angels".

The phrase, "sons of God" does not always mean "human", per Job 38.

The phrase, "they took them wives" in Genesis 6 and Ruth 1 means that they got married, not that they were humans.

The sons of God in Genesis 6 are on earth; the angels of Matthew 22:30 are in heaven.

Your dismissive snark shows clearly through your fake smiley face.

No amount of thoughtless repetition of the same verses will change those facts.

 

[Truth7t7]

Genesis 6 says "sons of God", not "angels".

The phrase, "sons of God" does not always mean "human", per Job 38.

The phrase, "they took them wives" in Genesis 6 and Ruth 1 means that they got married, not that they were humans.

The sons of God in Genesis 6 are on earth; the angels of Matthew 22:30 are in heaven.

Your dismissive snark shows clearly through your fake smiley face.

No amount of thoughtless repetition of the same verses will change those facts.

Try doing a study on fallen Angel's (devils) in Gods words, they are spirit beings (Without Physical Bodies) let alone having human sperm to impregnate human women

The wild man in the caves, having a legion of devils, that were cast into the swine, Mary Magdalene having seven

How did the (devils) below know Jesus?

From their first estate in heaven, before they were cast down to earth.

Mark 1:34KJV
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

 

[KingdomBrat]

nope the are not the same you read Jude then read Enoch they are worded differently. 95 % is not 100% correct therefore Enoch can't be called scripture but Jude is.

I guess by [Your] estimation of what constitutes [2 separate passages having the same meaning] must NOW go for the same when the New Testament wording is not even close to 95% to matching the Old Testament and we call that prophecy-fulfilled.

 

[Truth7t7]

I guess by [Your] estimation of what constitutes [2 separate passages having the same meaning] must NOW go for the same when the New Testament wording is not even close to 95% to matching the Old Testament and we call that prophecy-fulfilled.

Get over it, the Book of Enoch isnt in the inspired canon of scripture,the historical Hebrews/Jews never put it in the Tanak, it's that simple

There are many books that arent inspired literature, the book of Thomas, Barnabas, Enoch to mention a few

 

[KingdomBrat]

Get over it, the Book of Enoch isnt in the inspired canon of scripture,the historical Hebrews/Jews never put it in the Tanak, it's that simple

There are many books that arent inspired literature, the book of Thomas, Barnabas, Enoch to mention a few

I never pushed for the Book of Enoch to be inspired, had you been paying attention to my posting history.

 

[JesusismyKing2]

Read passage in context referring to Nephlim. I have no information about the book of Enoch . If God wantedit in He would have put it there. We are to not add or subtract from the Bible.

 

[KingdomBrat]

The answer is that Jesus and the apostles never called it Scripture.

Jesus [DOESN'T] call anything He quotes Scripture.

27 Ye [[have heard]] that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Ye "have HEARD"



4 And he answered and said unto them, [[Have ye not read]], that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

"Have ye not READ"

Everything spoken is assumed by the audience to already know these things. Quoting Enoch would be no different then.

 

[CS1]

I guess by [Your] estimation of what constitutes [2 separate passages having the same meaning] must NOW go for the same when the New Testament wording is not even close to 95% to matching the Old Testament and we call that prophecy-fulfilled.

Enoch was not inspired it was never referred to as scripture. Jesus did not nor did the Apostles. it may be a good read like Flavius Josephus who was an I witnesses account of Jesus the book of Enoch can't even be said Enoch wrote it. it was a hidden book the writer hid behind the name. Just because a writer tells the truth about something doesn't make it inspired by God. Elevating the book of Enoch and calling the word of God well you can say the same for Nostradamus, not a very good standard to discern what is the inspired word of God.

What measuring rod would you use to agree that a writer in the bible is inspired? IF you think Enoch rises to that standard Please explain what that standard is?

 

[CS1]

I guess by [Your] estimation of what constitutes [2 separate passages having the same meaning] must NOW go for the same when the New Testament wording is not even close to 95% to matching the Old Testament and we call that prophecy-fulfilled.

No it is two different writers with two different witnesses Jude we know saw Jesus The book of Enoch we don't know who wrote it but it was not Enoch. Jude is inspired Enoch is not. Jude is called Scriptures Enoch is not.

 

[CS1]

Jesus [DOESN'T] call anything He quotes Scripture.

27 Ye [[have heard]] that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Ye "have HEARD"



4 And he answered and said unto them, [[Have ye not read]], that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

"Have ye not READ"

Everything spoken is assumed by the audience to already know these things. Quoting Enoch would be no different then.

That is not true. ReAD LUKE CHAPTER 4: 18 -21

 

[luigi]

Teaching Angels have sex with human women, and maintaining human sperm is a fairytale in mythology, and false teaching.

To marry means to join together. When the angels, who are spiritual entities, married the daughters of men, they inhabited and took residence within that individual. They would have influenced the thoughts of those possessed women, which in turn those women would have conveyed their corrupted thoughts, influencing their children who would become great men (giants of industry) among men.

 

[luigi]

The Sons Of God were human men, that married human women

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Yes, the Sons of God were human men, who were children of Eve, the mother of all (spiritually) living beings (Genesis 3:20).
The women the Sons of God found attractive were not children of Eve, and were not spiritually (knowing love/God) living beings.
When the two mixed, the offspring had both parents perspectives and took advantage of it, becoming mighty men of renown.

 

[KingdomBrat]

Enoch was not inspired it was never referred to as scripture. Jesus did not nor did the Apostles. it may be a good read like Flavius Josephus who was an I witnesses account of Jesus the book of Enoch can't even be said Enoch wrote it. it was a hidden book the writer hid behind the name. Just because a writer tells the truth about something doesn't make it inspired by God. Elevating the book of Enoch and calling the word of God well you can say the same for Nostradamus, not a very good standard to discern what is the inspired word of God.

What measuring rod would you use to agree that a writer in the bible is inspired? IF you think Enoch rises to that standard Please explain what that standard is?

I am not trying to validate Enoch here.
I am pointing out even from Jude's few verses, it's just quotes. It could be from either oral/written materials of that time. But nevertheless, whatever Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the minor prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Paul's Epistles, Peter,, Jude, Revelation quote of Enoch is from a true source. Whether that source was oral or written.

Now, what we have today called the Book of Enoch, in my opinion, it's been [added] to what they had back then. Therefore, it is not inspired.

 

[KingdomBrat]

That is not true. ReAD LUKE CHAPTER 4: 18 -21

ONE EXAMPLE means it overrides the 10 examples where Jesus quotes and says, [You have heard or it is written]?

 

[KingdomBrat]

No it is two different writers with two different witnesses Jude we know saw Jesus The book of Enoch we don't know who wrote it but it was not Enoch. Jude is inspired Enoch is not. Jude is called Scriptures Enoch is not.

Why do you think I believe Jude and Enoch are the same?
I said, he quoted Enoch.
If you don't even know what I am discussing, how do you feel so positive to correct me?

 

[1ofthem]

I don't see how anyone can even entertain this nonsense. It seems so perverse and unbelievable.

 

[KingdomBrat]

Let me ask a simple question here.


From the Book of Jude:
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Verse 14 claims Enoch prophesied.

Verse 14 and 15 show us the Prophecy of Enoch.


My Question to whomever:
Do we believe that Jude [BELIEVES] in this prophecy from Enoch?

 

[crossnote]

Before the ark scripture was not written, it was put to memory. It wasn't until Moses that any of scripture was written.

Sooo,... are you saying Moses wrote the Book of Enoch?...or "The Book of Enoch" is not Scripture?

 

[CS1]

I am not trying to validate Enoch here.
I am pointing out even from Jude's few verses, it's just quotes. It could be from either oral/written materials of that time. But nevertheless, whatever Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the minor prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Paul's Epistles, Peter,, Jude, Revelation quote of Enoch is from a true source. Whether that source was oral or written.

Now, what we have today called the Book of Enoch, in my opinion, it's been [added] to what they had back then. Therefore, it is not inspired.

You need to understand between "Malachi, to Matthew God was silent. This is the time these writings made the since. The man did it not God. They were used to bring a discussion of God back to the people, those who wrote them used the name Enoch to bring attention to the writing. When you say " It Could be from oral/written materials of the time", You can't IT IS from Oral or written materials of the time.

That is a big problem when one sees what is assumed direct quotes in the New Testament from Enoch who we know was not really Enoch. Does it speak some truth? Yes. Is it to be seen as Scripture by the Standard of what we know to be the word of God? No.
You say, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel quoted Enoch?

That is not true. You have no proof of that. And I will point out to you the three you mentioned are not "minor Prophets" They are Major Prophets.

This too is a problem, now we are trying to inject Enoch with those who are inspired by writings from God.

WE know from the dead sea scrolls that the Book of Enoch is not the Enoch of the Bible.

Liberal theologians try to beat over conservative ones Enoch is inspired by saying untruths as Enoch has been quoted by other Major Prophets, wrong!