Zone1 The Book of Enoch...How should Christians think about it, and why does it matter?

[TNHarley]

The issue only exists if one reads these accounts literally. Which they shouldn’t.

Why do you get to pick and choose what actually happened?

 

[ding]

Why do you get to pick and choose what actually happened?

I don’t. Logic and truth does.

I think you should separate these texts from the question of does God exist and ask yourself if you believe God exists based on your understanding of the material world. Because I think that’s how ancient man did it.

I doubt you will discover God in a book. You have to look at your surroundings, your life and the lives of the people in your life.

 

[TNHarley]

I don’t. Logic and truth does.

I think you should separate these texts from the question of does God exist and ask yourself if you believe God exists based on your understanding of the material world. Because I think that’s how ancient man did it.

I doubt you will discover God in a book. You have to look at your surroundings, your life and the lives of the people in your life.

I think ancient man looked for gods for things they just couldnt understand.
Which isnt logical.

 

[buttercup]

I think ancient man looked for gods for things they just couldnt understand.
Which isnt logical.

First of all, if you're starting with the assumption that Darwinian evolution is true, then of course your conclusion will fit into that worldview.

I don't believe that mankind is smarter today than we were in the beginning. In fact, in some ways, I believe mankind had more knowledge and was closer to the truth back then than we are now.

Secondly, I know this is getting off topic, but since you brought it up, logic itself is evidence for God. By logic I mean the abstract laws of logic. That's a perfect example of something that is very real, objectively and universally true, yet immaterial. Which completely goes against the atheistic worldview. (I'm not saying you're an atheist, just sayin...)

 

[TNHarley]

I believe mankind had more knowledge and was closer to the truth back then than we are now.

I dont even know how to respond to that, honestly.

logic itself is evidence for God

For a "God" perhaps.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The issue only exists if one reads these accounts literally. Which they shouldn’t.

You better. That's why you don't understand the Scriptures

 

[Woodznutz]

Why do you get to pick and choose what actually happened?

The Hebrew offers several translations for most words. The translators often picked the word that fit their traditional beliefs, even if they didn't make sense logically. Gap theory is built on two things: the apparent age and condition of the earth, and a more logical translation of certain key words that reconciles that fact.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The Hebrew offers several translations for most words. The translators often picked the word that fit their traditional beliefs, even if they didn't make sense logically. Gap theory is built on two things: the apparent age and condition of the earth, and a more logical translation of certain key words that reconciles that fact.

The Gap "theory" is the only interpretation that makes sense. It also fits with the Book of Enoch.

The earth has been around for a long time.

Then came chaos when the angels inhabiting the earth rebelled.

There is a time gap between the first two verses of Genesis.

If the reader reads these verses with that understanding, the creation story all makes perfect sense.

 

[surada]

Well, then you are basically saying that Jude is a false prophet, that Peter was wrong, and that Jesus Himself was wrong, because He referenced something directly from the Book of Enoch, and called it scripture. You're also saying that numerous early church fathers were wrong to refer to the Book of Enoch as authoritative. So your view is very problematic, to put it mildly.

Jesus taught in parables. If he referenced the boy who cried wolf you would understand.

 

[surada]

Always blaming someone else. Nothing jas changed

 

[Cougarbear]

Jesus taught in parables. If he referenced the boy who cried wolf you would understand.

You should be able to tell the difference between a parable and when the Lord spoke of true scripture he gave to the prophets. There was no boy who cried wolf. There is definitely a book of scripture called The Book of Enoch.

 

[surada]

You should be able to tell the difference between a parable and when the Lord spoke of true scripture he gave to the prophets. There was no boy who cried wolf. There is definitely a book of scripture called The Book of Enoch.

Aesop's fables were written about the same time as the Old Testament by a Greek Slave. They are teaching narratives... morality tales like most of the Old Testament stories. They express universal truths.

The older sections of 1 Enoch (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) of the text are estimated to date from about 300–200 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) is probably to 100 BC.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki
Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

 

[Cougarbear]

The older sections of 1 Enoch (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) of the text are estimated to date from about 300–200 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) is probably to 100 BC.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki
Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

Wikipedia isn’t fact. Even if it was revealed to a prophet hundreds of years or thousands of years later, the book is about the city and people of Enoch. There are other books mentioned in the OT that we have no current record. Perhaps a latter-day prophet will restore that as with the Book of Mormon. Same with lost letters from apostles. In fact, one from John was found in Israel in 1967 by Jesuit Priests. I don’t see it coming out anytime soon because it was about rituals Jesus was performing inside the Temple with His disciples. Some were like ones we perform in our Temples. So, no other religion will share that letter with the world and we won’t either.

 

[onefour1]

From the LDS perspective we believe that all angels that administer to this earth either belonged to or will belong to this earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:5
5 I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.

What this means is that any angel who ministers to this earth will have at sometime come to this earth as a mortal or will come to this earth as a mortal. It means that all angels who minister to this earth were unembodied spirits before coming to this life to take on themselves mortal bodies. This belief is in direct contrast to what is taught in the Book of Enoch. Why? Because angels who ministered to this earth before the days of Jesus Christ were unembodied spirits. Jesus was the first to resurrect so after a mortal had died, before the days of Jesus, were not resurrected so the spirits of all mortals who had died were again unembodied spirits. Before they came to this earth life they were unembodied spirits. We do not believe that an unembodied spirit is capable of have intercourse with mortals nor capable of having children. Thus the story of angels having intercourse with mortals before the days of Christ is not possible according to our doctrine. The Book of Enoch teaches otherwise. Thus we believe the Book to be false doctrine and a book of fiction.

 

[Woodznutz]

I doubt you will discover God in a book. You have to look at your surroundings, your life and the lives of the people in your life.

Those experiences validate what is written in 'the Book'. It's like using a map to safely arrive at a certain destination.

 

[Care4all]

From the LDS perspective we believe that all angels that administer to this earth either belonged to or will belong to this earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:5
5 I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.

What this means is that any angel who ministers to this earth will have at sometime come to this earth as a mortal or will come to this earth as a mortal. It means that all angels who minister to this earth were unembodied spirits before coming to this life to take on themselves mortal bodies. This belief is in direct contrast to what is taught in the Book of Enoch. Why? Because angels who ministered to this earth before the days of Jesus Christ were unembodied spirits. Jesus was the first to resurrect so after a mortal had died, before the days of Jesus, were not resurrected so the spirits of all mortals who had died were again unembodied spirits. Before they came to this earth life they were unembodied spirits. We do not believe that an unembodied spirit is capable of have intercourse with mortals nor capable of having children. Thus the story of angels having intercourse with mortals before the days of Christ is not possible according to our doctrine. The Book of Enoch teaches otherwise. Thus we believe the Book to be false doctrine and a book of fiction.

Interesting...

But I am a little confused.....



First, are you saying that angels prior to Jesus were unembodied and could NOT have a body, before Christ, but after Christ was resurrected they could be angels occupying a body???

And are you limiting or rather categorizing angels by those angels assigned to earth vs other angels who have not been assigned to earth....which is a distinction needed noting?

In Enoch, are these angels really a misinterpretation of aliens of some sort, because they had bodies... in order to impregnate the women? Or you see the whole book as hogwash???

 

[surada]

An excellent talk, and yes, I believe it is inspired (God Breathed). There is so much in there.

The Book of Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the Septuagint and therefore, also from the writings known today as the Deuterocanon. The main reason for Jewish rejection of the book is that it is inconsistent with teachings of the Torah.

 

[ding]

You better. That's why you don't understand the Scriptures

Please enlighten me as to YOUR understanding of the creation account.

 

[Woodznutz]

Please enlighten me as to YOUR understanding of the creation account.

The earth was created for the pleasure of the angels, who enjoyed it in physical bodies. Some rebelled causing great destruction on the earth. Man is just a temporary replacement.

 

[ding]

The earth was created for the pleasure of the angels, who enjoyed it in physical bodies. Some rebelled causing great destruction on the earth. Man is just a temporary replacement.

That seems unnecessarily convoluted to me.