The Book of Enoch

[David M]

The Book of Enoch

I have started this thread so that all the information we can find and all our opinions can be stated in this thread concerning the Book of Enoch. I hope you will contribute your thoughts.

Jude makes reference to Enoch (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.

The concern is not about when this prophecy of Enoch applies, rather when was the Book of Enoch written and by whom? Are all the writings in the book are actually the writings of Enoch back in the time pre the Flood? What evidence is there for any written scriptural books dating back pre the Flood?

The first five books of the Bible are credited to Moses as the author. The first five books are referred to as the Pentateuch and the basis of the Torah. They contain much factual information after the Flood and in the time of Moses and the Children of Israel in Egypt and of their Exodus from Egypt. How did the facts concerning The Creation, Adam and Eve, and what happened pre the Flood come to be written by Moses? How much came from preserved writings (if any) kept by Noah? How much would have come down from generation to generation orally? Or was much of the information divinely inspired? The apostle Paul had no doubt that the ancient scriptures going back to the time of Moses were divinely inspired. (2 Tim 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Here are some of specific questions we have to ask about the reference of Jude to Enoch and maybe the other New Testament authors also referred to some other work, which is thought to be the book of Enoch.

Q1. Is; “the seventh from Adam”, the actual words of Jude, or has someone wrongly made that connection by adding those words to Jude’s letter?
Q2. How were the words of Enoch (the 7th from Adam) preserved from the time before the Flood?
Q3. If Jude and others were quoting from a book attributed to Enoch, was the book they were quoting from the same book as it is in the form the book is now?

Richard’s table showing the correlation between the writings of Jude and Peter with the Book of Enoch is shown below. If the Book of Enoch contained myth and folklore, just because Peter and Jude are thought to quote from a book of folklore, does not prove they believe the folklore. Quoting folklore can be just a way of getting one’s own message understood by those who could only relate to what they already believed superstitiously. In everyday speech I often refer to Gremlins being the reason for when the technology has problems. The fact is; I do not believe in Gremlins, though I use the term.

When was the Book of Enoch written?

Here is what Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch)
The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#cite_note-1)) is an ancient Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish) religious work, traditionally ascribed to Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_%28Biblical_figure%29), the great-grandfather of Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah). It is not part of the biblical canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) as used by Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews), apart from Beta Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel). It is regarded as canonical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons) by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church) and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church), but no other Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) group.
The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#cite_note-2)
It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%27ez_language), with Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language) fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) and a few Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek) and Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) fragments. For this and other reasons, the traditional Ethiopian view is that the original language of the work was Ge'ez, whereas non-Ethiopian scholars tend to assert that it was first written in either Aramaic or Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language); E. Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel), was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#cite_note-Isaac-3):6
The authors of the New Testament were familiar with the content of the story and influenced by it:[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#cite_note-4) a short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) (Letter of Jude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Jude) 1:14–15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8).
The dating of the Book is 300 BC. Moses, who wrote the first 5 books and all that is contained concerning what happened pre the flood, lived around 1391–1271 BCE; over one thousand years before the oldest part of the Book of Enoch was written. If the oldest part of the Book was not written until 300 BC, how could the writings be attributed to Enoch who lived pre the Flood?

Richard in replying to L67 has provided some more information which I shall post here;
file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Dell\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cli p_image002.gifOriginally Posted by The Christadelphian Tidings
In July, 1932, Bro. W.H. Boulton published an article in The Testimony Magazine (pp. 214-218), entitled the “The Book of Enoch,” in which he argued that the words of “Enoch” recorded in Jude 14 were not the words of the Enoch of Genesis but were from The Book of Enoch (I En.1:9), one of the oldest Jewish pseudepigrapha. At the time this was difficult to accept, as the oldest Greek manuscript of The Book of Enoch dated only to the 8th century, and Bro. Boulton’s argument was weakened by the fact that I En.1:9 could, it was argued, have been copied from Jude14 rather than vice versa.

In 1948, however, seven Aramaic copies of I Enoch surfaced among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q201-2, 204-12) including the words of “Enoch” found in Jude 14. These Aramaic copies are considerably older than Jude (some possibly 200 years earlier), so it appears Bro. Boulton was right after all. What this article concludes is that W.H. Boulton was (quote)correct after all (end quote) and (quote)the words of “Enoch” recorded in Jude 14 were not the words of the Enoch of Genesis but were from The Book of Enoch (I En.1:9)(end quote)

Here is Richard’s table showing the correlations. A study as to whether the correlations are exact or remotely similar can be discussed in your replies.


Jude

Book of Enoch


Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,
The name of the book!


Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Enoch XII.4 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven [angels] who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:


Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Enoch X.4: And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel [of the fallen angels] hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.


Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Enoch XII.4 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of heaven [angels] who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:


Jude 1:14 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.
Enoch I.9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.



It should be stated at this time, that although Richard is presenting the table as his evidence, he had (in the days he was a “Christian”) posted this;
Hey Bob,
I was beginning to follow the same line of thought, but now I see it as backwards. Enoch is obviously not Scripture. As mentioned by Rose, it has a "totally different feel and flavor" about it. It has all the earmarks of an error ridden man-made book. It professes all sorts of "secret knowledge" such as the exact names of the leading angels that fell and"all the secrets of the heavens ... the secrets of the lightning and of the thunder, and the secrets of the winds ... and the secrets of the clouds and dew" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
So given the fact that we KNOW that 1 Enoch can not be trusted, it would be pure folly for us to infer anything from it that is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This means that we can not conclude that angels and humans produced children, since there is no unambiguous witness to that idea in the Bible.
But what about Jude's beliefs? If he believed in angel/human procreation, shouldn't we?
NOT IF GOD DID NOT PUT IT IN THE BIBLE!
You see, all the writers that God used to produce Scripture were humans like you and me, and their minds were filled with errors to a greater or lesser degree. So we must distinguish between what God explicitly revealed in Scripture from what we can infer that the human writer may or may not have believed.
This then leads to the big question: Why did God allow Jude to quote from a faulty human book?
I don't have a good answer to that yet, but I do know that God did not intend for us to import doctrines from the Book of Enoch into the Bible.
There's lots more to say on this, but the essential point is that I am not even slightly bothered by the teachings in the Book of Enoch. The idea of angel/human procreation is not explicitly taught, nor even strongly implied, in the Bible. Granted, it is a possible interpretation of Gen 6/2Pet/Jude, but without importing very questionable ideas from extra-biblical books, it will remain ambiguous.
That's where I currently stand, anyway. Of course, you will probably point out some essential point I've missed and I'll be tossed right back in the center of the maelstrom of ambiguity and unanswered questions.
But you wouldn't do that to me, would you, Bob? :lol:
Richard
I actually agree with what Richard wrote. The Book of Enoch should not be trusted as scripture. What evidence have we that Jude was quoting from that book when he is supposed to be quoting Enoch the 7th from Adam and the book was not written until 300 BC? Was the saying that Jude used from the Enoch pre Flood that which had come down through oral tradition?

I have presented the facts as presented by Richard and from Wikipedia and posed some questions for you to consider and so I wait for your replies.

David

[duxrow]

ENOCH the 7th -- instead of the 3rd, which would be the son of Cain.
Confusion Factor: Am figuring that Jude (half-brother of Jesus) is calling our attention to 'numbering' as well as identifying which Enoch did the preaching. He adds to the confusion IMO by neglecting to note about "Enoch the 7th" being also 'the 2nd with that same name'.

Remembering how Jude is the 65th Book and how mystery writers don't say how the Butler did it until the end of the book, I see this clue as a focus on the subject of Same-Names and Numbering.

It calls our attention to Genesis again, with added info to aid our interpretation and understanding. Like how the 7th generation in Cain's Line agrees with the time of Enoch the preacher, and why would anyone choose to copy the name of a murderer? :eek:

[duxrow]

:chores015: So many interesting aspects of the Enoch7th that we may have overlooked the possibilities of "The NOAH GENERATION" of 500 years before the 3 sons came along, and how that may have a tie to the Trinity. You think? :winking0071:

[sylvius]

:chores015: So many interesting aspects of the Enoch7th that we may have overlooked the possibilities of "The NOAH GENERATION" of 500 years before the 3 sons came along, and how that may have a tie to the Trinity. You think? :winking0071:

Don't you think it has to do with the seven times Cain would be avenged and the seventy seven times of Lamech?

It reads: "And Cain became citybuilder and he called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch"

It means that Enoch is the name of any city, all we citizens do live in Enoch.

If you read "culture" for "city" it comes close to René Girards theory; Any culture is based on primordial murder.

http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/05/06/rene-girard-who-is-this-guy-anyway/


All desire, teaches Girard, is mimetic. That is, one does not develop a desire for an object unless he first sees another person desiring that same object. But when two people desire the same object, they inevitably fall into a rivalry. In the intensity of the rivalry, the two forget the object and focus entirely on their rivalry. Of course, this process is not limited to only two individuals, and eventually, it will infect an entire society. Society at that point becomes a mob and suddenly fixates on one particular individual as the source of the entire problem of unstoppable mimetic rivalry. That person is then murdered, and his murder brings peace and reconciliation. He is then sacralized as both the cause of societal chaos and the solution to that chaos. From this “founding murder” proceeds all human culture. Girard sees examples in the story of Cain and Abel (after murdering his brother, Cain founds a city, and his offspring invent music and metallurgy) and Romulus and Remus (Romulus murders his brother so that he can found Rome).

This founding murder is also the basis of ritual and religion, which seek to reenact the event which gave rise to community and thus ward off the mimetic chaos removed in the beginning by the founding murder.

[sylvius]

And what about the seventy sevens of Daniel?
I bet they are about the same :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Book of Enoch

I have started this thread so that all the information we can find and all our opinions can be stated in this thread concerning the Book of Enoch. I hope you will contribute your thoughts.

Jude makes reference to Enoch (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.

The concern is not about when this prophecy of Enoch applies, rather when was the Book of Enoch written and by whom? Are all the writings in the book are actually the writings of Enoch back in the time pre the Flood? What evidence is there for any written scriptural books dating back pre the Flood?

Hey there David,

I think it is great that you want to discuss this question, but you are beginning with an assumption that directly contradicts reality, namely, that there was a Flood as described in the Bible. I really can't think of anything more ironic than speaking of "evidence" while assuming the truth of the Biblical flood.



The first five books of the Bible are credited to Moses as the author. The first five books are referred to as the Pentateuch and the basis of the Torah.

In the interest of accuracy, I note that the Pentateuch is not the "basis" of the Torah, but rather IS the Torah. They are one and the same thing.

As for the attribution of the Torah to Moses, I don't know of any credible scholar who holds to that opinion.



They contain much factual information after the Flood and in the time of Moses and the Children of Israel in Egypt and of their Exodus from Egypt. How did the facts concerning The Creation, Adam and Eve, and what happened pre the Flood come to be written by Moses? How much came from preserved writings (if any) kept by Noah? How much would have come down from generation to generation orally? Or was much of the information divinely inspired? The apostle Paul had no doubt that the ancient scriptures going back to the time of Moses were divinely inspired. (2 Tim 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Again, I can't think of anything more ironic than using the word "factual" while assuming the truth of all the mythology about the Creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, and Exodus. But that's OK ... whatever floats your ark.

And when you say "all scripture" which Christian canon are you talking about? The Catholic? If not, why not? How about the Ethiopian canon? It contains the Book of Enoch. So should we assume it is true because it is contained in a Christian Bible? If not, why not? What standards are you judging by? Most Christians try to argue that the NT books are confirmed because they quote OT books. If we use that standard, then Enoch should be included in the canon because Jude quoted from it and many of the early Christians believed it was Scripture.

I think the most important starting place for a conversation like this is "What principles should we use to judge?" If we follow the principles you appear to be using, our conclusions would be no more trustworthy than those of a Muslim or Mormon who assumed the truth of their holy books.



Here are some of specific questions we have to ask about the reference of Jude to Enoch and maybe the other New Testament authors also referred to some other work, which is thought to be the book of Enoch.

Q1. Is; “the seventh from Adam”, the actual words of Jude, or has someone wrongly made that connection by adding those words to Jude’s letter?
Q2. How were the words of Enoch (the 7th from Adam) preserved from the time before the Flood?
Q3. If Jude and others were quoting from a book attributed to Enoch, was the book they were quoting from the same book as it is in the form the book is now?

It's good to clearly layout the questions for discussion.

Q1: The first thing to check is if there are any copies of Jude 1:14 that show any textual variation. I checked Metzger and the Majority Text and found none. And it is very important to realize that the Book of Enoch refers to Enoch as the "seventh from Adam". This adds weight to the evidence that Jude was familiar with the whole book as we have it today.

Q2: This question is meaningless because there was no flood.

Q3: I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that Enoch was changed after Jude quoted from it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I doubt it. Unfortunately, this indicates that you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading by looking for an excuse to reject the most obvious implications that follow from the evidence, namely, that Jude read and believed the Book of Enoch in the form we have today.



Richard’s table showing the correlation between the writings of Jude and Peter with the Book of Enoch is shown below. If the Book of Enoch contained myth and folklore, just because Peter and Jude are thought to quote from a book of folklore, does not prove they believe the folklore. Quoting folklore can be just a way of getting one’s own message understood by those who could only relate to what they already believed superstitiously. In everyday speech I often refer to Gremlins being the reason for when the technology has problems. The fact is; I do not believe in Gremlins, though I use the term.

I agree that quoting folklore (like using common figures of speech), is a good way to make a point. We could use that idea to understand how Jesus could quote the folklore about Noah and the Flood while not actually believing it (since that would imply that he was wrong).

And I agree it does not "prove" that they believed it, but is does lend credence to that conclusion. You have not presented anything as yet that would make a reasonable person doubt that conclusion.



When was the Book of Enoch written?

Here is what Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch)

The dating of the Book is 300 BC. Moses, who wrote the first 5 books and all that is contained concerning what happened pre the flood, lived around 1391–1271 BCE; over one thousand years before the oldest part of the Book of Enoch was written. If the oldest part of the Book was not written until 300 BC, how could the writings be attributed to Enoch who lived pre the Flood?

Your comments reveal a profound incoherence in your thinking. You are assuming the truth of the scholastic date of Enoch while ignoring the scholastic conclusion that Moses did not write the Torah. You can't have it both ways. If you reject the scholastic conclusions about the Bible you have no reason to accept the scholastic conclusions about Enoch.



Here is Richard’s table showing the correlations. A study as to whether the correlations are exact or remotely similar can be discussed in your replies.

I'm glad you posted that. I look forward to the discussion it sparks. There are many other correlations I didn't bother to list. For example, Michael the Archangel figures prominently in the Book of Enoch and is mentioned in the little book of Jude.



It should be stated at this time, that although Richard is presenting the table as his evidence, he had (in the days he was a “Christian”) posted this;


Hey Bob,

I was beginning to follow the same line of thought, but now I see it as backwards. Enoch is obviously not Scripture. As mentioned by Rose, it has a "totally different feel and flavor" about it. It has all the earmarks of an error ridden man-made book. It professes all sorts of "secret knowledge" such as the exact names of the leading angels that fell and"all the secrets of the heavens ... the secrets of the lightning and of the thunder, and the secrets of the winds ... and the secrets of the clouds and dew" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So given the fact that we KNOW that 1 Enoch can not be trusted, it would be pure folly for us to infer anything from it that is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This means that we can not conclude that angels and humans produced children, since there is no unambiguous witness to that idea in the Bible.

But what about Jude's beliefs? If he believed in angel/human procreation, shouldn't we?

NOT IF GOD DID NOT PUT IT IN THE BIBLE!

You see, all the writers that God used to produce Scripture were humans like you and me, and their minds were filled with errors to a greater or lesser degree. So we must distinguish between what God explicitly revealed in Scripture from what we can infer that the human writer may or may not have believed.

This then leads to the big question: Why did God allow Jude to quote from a faulty human book?

I don't have a good answer to that yet, but I do know that God did not intend for us to import doctrines from the Book of Enoch into the Bible.

There's lots more to say on this, but the essential point is that I am not even slightly bothered by the teachings in the Book of Enoch. The idea of angel/human procreation is not explicitly taught, nor even strongly implied, in the Bible. Granted, it is a possible interpretation of Gen 6/2Pet/Jude, but without importing very questionable ideas from extra-biblical books, it will remain ambiguous.

That's where I currently stand, anyway. Of course, you will probably point out some essential point I've missed and I'll be tossed right back in the center of the maelstrom of ambiguity and unanswered questions.

But you wouldn't do that to me, would you, Bob? :lol:

Richard

I actually agree with what Richard wrote. The Book of Enoch should not be trusted as scripture. What evidence have we that Jude was quoting from that book when he is supposed to be quoting Enoch the 7th from Adam and the book was not written until 300 BC? Was the saying that Jude used from the Enoch pre Flood that which had come down through oral tradition?

Do you really agree with what I wrote? Look again: I said that God allowed Jude to quote from a faulty book!

I think your "agreement" is superficial. I doubt that you agree with the reasons I came to that conclusion. I was holding to the presupposition that the Bible was the Word of God. Without that presupposition, there is no reason to reject the evidence that shows Jude believed the crap in the Book of Enoch.



I have presented the facts as presented by Richard and from Wikipedia and posed some questions for you to consider and so I wait for your replies.

Great post David!

Thanks,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard


Hey there David,

I think it is great that you want to discuss this question, but you are beginning with an assumption that directly contradicts reality, namely, that there was a Flood as described in the Bible. I really can't think of anything more ironic than speaking of "evidence" while assuming the truth of the Biblical flood. I am not going to let what you think detract from what the Bible says. OK, so if there was not a flood there would be a greater chance of oral tradition continuing or written manuscripts surviving.


In the interest of accuracy, I note that the Pentateuch is not the "basis" of the Torah, but rather IS the Torah. They are one and the same thing. I accept that; just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.


As for the attribution of the Torah to Moses, I don't know of any credible scholar who holds to that opinion. OK, so there is a difference of opinion between scholars. Jesus told the Pharisees to do what Moses had told them to do. It was the writings of Moses that Jesus was referring to. So what were the writings of Moses?


Again, I can't think of anything more ironic than using the word "factual" while assuming the truth of all the mythology about the Creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, and Exodus. But that's OK ... whatever floats your ark. We have to discuss this based on what the scriptures say, not on whether you think it is true or not.


And when you say "all scripture" which Christian canon are you talking about? The Catholic? If not, why not? How about the Ethiopian canon? It contains the Book of Enoch. So should we assume it is true because it is contained in a Christian Bible? If not, why not? What standards are you judging by? Most Christians try to argue that the NT books are confirmed because they quote OT books. If we use that standard, then Enoch should be included in the canon because Jude quoted from it and many of the early Christians believed it was Scripture. You know I mean the original Hebrew writings that were written down at the times these things were revealed to the prophets. How many writings might have been hidden away and forgotten about we do not know. What if another document came to light that would prove the Bible correct? We have to reason with what we have and not what might be.


I think the most important starting place for a conversation like this is "What principles should we use to judge?" If we follow the principles you appear to be using, our conclusions would be no more trustworthy than those of a Muslim or Mormon who assumed the truth of their holy books. We stick to the text that is in the Bible and refer to the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic texts where necessary. The Quran or the Book of Mormon are not ancient Hebrew scriptures which for the sake of argument we take the ancient Hebrew scriptures as the foundation. The ancient Hebrew scriptures have more in common with a divine author as do the Book of Mormon or the Quran which are the suspect revelations of one man.



It's good to clearly layout the questions for discussion.

Q1: The first thing to check is if there are any copies of Jude 1:14 that show any textual variation. I checked Metzger and the Majority Text and found none. And it is very important to realize that the Book of Enoch refers to Enoch as the "seventh from Adam". This adds weight to the evidence that Jude was familiar with the whole book as we have it today. I am less worried about textual variation with Jude, if he is referring to Enoch the 7th from Adam. There appears to be a problem with dates as given in Wikipedia.


Q2: This question is meaningless because there was no flood. Flood or no flood, the words of Enoch getting written down around 300 BC is a problem.


Q3: I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that Enoch was changed after Jude quoted from it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I doubt it. Unfortunately, this indicates that you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading by looking for an excuse to reject the most obvious implications that follow from the evidence, namely, that Jude read and believed the Book of Enoch in the form we have today. I have no proof, it is a suspicion, because parts of it are not in harmony with what we call scripture. What proof do you have that it has not been added to? Even Wikipedia tells us that parts of the the book were written at different times.


I agree that quoting folklore (like using common figures of speech), is a good way to make a point. We could use that idea to understand how Jesus could quote the folklore about Noah and the Flood while not actually believing it (since that would imply that he was wrong). What we disagree on is the fokelore. Jesus, the Son of God, is not going to lie about the Flood as though it was folklore.


And I agree it does not "prove" that they believed it, but is does lend credence to that conclusion. You have not presented anything as yet that would make a reasonable person doubt that conclusion. I do not need to provide evidence for my conclusion, since you have agreed; "it does not "prove" that they believed it".


Your comments reveal a profound incoherence in your thinking. You are assuming the truth of the scholastic date of Enoch while ignoring the scholastic conclusion that Moses did not write the Torah. You can't have it both ways. If you reject the scholastic conclusions about the Bible you have no reason to accept the scholastic conclusions about Enoch. We have to get through the minefield of scholastic thinking. I will look for harmony with God's word, but you want to concentrate on finding discrepancies with God's word. There is a dating problem with a book associated with Enoch the 7th from Adam getting written 300BC. How were Enoch's words 1,000 years earlier preserved?


I'm glad you posted that. I look forward to the discussion it sparks. There are many other correlations I didn't bother to list. For example, Michael the Archangel figures prominently in the Book of Enoch and is mentioned in the little book of Jude. It does not matter how many correlations there are. On close examination, the correlations are not as close as you think they are. That requires closer examination and can be dealt with separately.


Do you really agree with what I wrote? Look again: I said that God allowed Jude to quote from a faulty book! I know what you wrote, so why should a faulty book become a reliable book? It is better to discard the book. I do not need the Book of Enoch to support the Bible. It is useful to those who want to discredit the Bible.


I think your "agreement" is superficial. I doubt that you agree with the reasons I came to that conclusion. I was holding to the presupposition that the Bible was the Word of God. Without that presupposition, there is no reason to reject the evidence that shows Jude believed the crap in the Book of Enoch. Unfortunately, we cannot ask Jude directly what he thought. I would just go with the few words Jude quoted and finding the harmony of those words with the scripture. Forget the rest of the Book that Jude either did not know about or did not quote.


Great post David! I guessed you would respond. I think it would be good for others to think about this and give their thoughts on the matter. That is what we have to do; get all opinions before deciding which to accept or reject on Biblical grounds before coming to any conclusion. You and I have polarized opinions and so we need to get more opinions from others and for them to deal with the questions and problems.


Thanks, You are welcome.

David

[sylvius]

Don't you think it has to do with the seven times Cain would be avenged and the seventy seven times of Lamech?

It reads: "And Cain became citybuilder and he called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch"

It means that Enoch is the name of any city, all we citizens do live in Enoch.

If you read "culture" for "city" it comes close to René Girards theory; Any culture is based on primordial murder.

http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/05/06/rene-girard-who-is-this-guy-anyway/

The seven times Cain would be avenged must have to do with the seventh day of creation.

There is not written: "And it was evening and it was morning" in regards to the seventh day, which means that the seventh day is our ongoing reality,

Even the ongoing reality of human culture (after Girard).

There is never rest for citybuilders.

Cain's fate was to be נָע וָנָד , "na v'nad" , a restless wanderer on the earth, וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד קִדְמַת עֵדֶן, "yeishev b'erets Nod kidmat Eden" "dwelling in the land of the wanderers (land of Nod), to the east of Eden" , ie, Eden = Utopia.

"And the Lord placed a mark on Cain that no one who find him slay him." - must be the same as the mark of the beast,
since it is about not being able to enter into the Sabbath = into the rest.

(666 being gematria of "yom shishi" = sixth day to which no letter "hey" was added, the letter forming the entrance ("hashishi" being 434th ( and last) word of Genesis 1, 434 being "delet", door)

[Charisma]

Hi sylvius,

Your 'seventh day of creation' comment with regard to the avenging of Cain is only vaguely connected through the idea that trusting God completely is 'rest'; that to have trusted in Jesus Christ, being dead with Him, is a full deliverance from 'the sin' against which we strove unsuccessfully/and do overcome in Him.

Daniel 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

19 Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego:
therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.

22 Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

And who was in there with the young men?

Daniel23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

When a man sees the Son of God, he knows who he is seeing.


Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.



I don't know what this does to your numbers, but it makes sense to my spiritual understanding.

[David M]

I have added my comments alongside Richard's table. I do not find a strong correlation between Jude and this Book of Enoch. There are only the words that Jude was quoting which is the one correlation that stands.



Jude

Book of Enoch
Comment



Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,
The name of the book!
No book inferred



Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Enoch XII.4 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven [angels] who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:
The word watchers occurs twice in the OT. Jeremiah 4:16 Daniel 4:17 neither of which indicate God's Angels as the watchers.



Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Enoch X.4: And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel [of the fallen angels] hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.

A few similar words and ideas, but none that would indicate a copying and agreeing the same thing.



Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Enoch XII.4 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of heaven [angels] who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:
Watchers of Heaven is not in the Bible.

I see very little similarity between Enoch and Jude other than a couple of words



Jude 1:14 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.
Enoch I.9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
These are the words Jude is quoting the man Enoch, so this correlation stands.




Great play has been made on the word "watchers". Here is Strong's comment; 5894. 'iyr, (Chald.), eer; from a root corresp. to H5782; a watcher, i.e. an angel (as guardian):--watcher. Even if we take this sense of watcher as an angel, these watchers are guardian Angels and are in keeping with Angels being (Hebrew 1:14).. ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? These are sent by God to minister, they do his will; not disobey. The word "watcher" in Jeremiah is speaking of those who come from a far country. This is not suggesting God's Angels but could be referring to humans in the form of messengers (angels) reporting on what they find.

Some of these writings attributed to the Enoch and which Jude was quoting are not scriptural. To answer Richard's question; "Why did God allow Jude to quote from a faulty book?" my reply is this: First of all, we do not know, and cannot be certain, Jude was quoting from a book that had been attributed to Enoch. Assuming he was, then all we can say is that Jude was quoting words that were true (as opposed to all the other untrue words). The words Jude quoted have a similarity with the passage in which Moses uses the exact same phrase (Deut 33:2); and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I am not going to let what you think detract from what the Bible says. OK, so if there was not a flood there would be a greater chance of oral tradition continuing or written manuscripts surviving.

Good morning David,

Your comment strikes me as non sequitur. The question of the survival of manuscripts is based on evidence and nothing more. There either is or is not evidence of a manuscript existing at a certain time. It has nothing to do with the idea of the Biblical Flood for which there is no evidence.



I accept that; just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.

EXCELLENT! :thumb:

This is the kind of discourse that could prove very fruitful. As you know, I have been emphasizing the need for finding a foundation of agreement. We need to find words that we both agree with, like 1 + 2 = 3. If we can't do that, then all other words will be meaningless because they have no foundation, and we will just be "barbarians" to each other talking to the air, like Paul said:
1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
It is interesting that the etymology of "barbarian" is thought to be imitative of the sound of a foreign language "bar bar bar" ... :lol:




As for the attribution of the Torah to Moses, I don't know of any credible scholar who holds to that opinion.
OK, so there is a difference of opinion between scholars. Jesus told the Pharisees to do what Moses had told them to do. It was the writings of Moses that Jesus was referring to. So what were the writings of Moses?

I am constantly amazed at how you put your spin on things to reverse the meaning. Did I say that there was any "difference of opinion between scholars" on this issue? No, I did not. I said the exact opposite! I said that "I don't know of any credible scholar who holds to that opinion."

As for what Jesus said, there is no need to take it so literally. The term "Moses" had simply become a common way to refer to the Torah because he was the presumed author. It doesn't mean that he was agreeing with that point. The technical term for this figure of speech is a metonymy, which is "a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing or concept".



You know I mean the original Hebrew writings that were written down at the times these things were revealed to the prophets. How many writings might have been hidden away and forgotten about we do not know.

Say what? :eek: There is no evidence that the OT books were "written down at the times these things were revealed to the prophets." On the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence that shows they were composed much later than they claim. The evidence is strong.



What if another document came to light that would prove the Bible correct?

It is meaningless to use language like "prove the Bible correct" because the Bible is not even a well-defined book. At best, you might find a document that supports the validity of a some aspect of the Bible. It is this kind of sloppy thinking that makes you sound more like a believer looking to prove his believe (like a Muslim or Mormon) rather than a person actually interested in truth. Believers leap upon a single supporting piece of evidence - say a fragment of pottery that has the inscription "house of David" - and declare that this "proves the Bible" as if that included everything from Genesis to Revelation.



We have to reason with what we have and not what might be.

It's odd that you say that even as you have tried to force me to speculate about the powers of an imaginary god.



We stick to the text that is in the Bible and refer to the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic texts where necessary. The Quran or the Book of Mormon are not ancient Hebrew scriptures which for the sake of argument we take the ancient Hebrew scriptures as the foundation. The ancient Hebrew scriptures have more in common with a divine author as do the Book of Mormon or the Quran which are the suspect revelations of one man.

You identified a very important point. The book of Mormon and the Quran are very similar in many ways. They are both plagiarized mish-mash of the Bible written by one man. The Bible is quite different in this regard since was a collective project written, edited, and collected by hundreds of people over the span of centuries. This is why it is so valuable - it reveals a lot about the archetypal collective psyche of humanity.






Q1. Is; “the seventh from Adam”, the actual words of Jude, or has someone wrongly made that connection by adding those words to Jude’s letter?

Q1: The first thing to check is if there are any copies of Jude 1:14 that show any textual variation. I checked Metzger and the Majority Text and found none. And it is very important to realize that the Book of Enoch refers to Enoch as the "seventh from Adam". This adds weight to the evidence that Jude was familiar with the whole book as we have it today.

I am less worried about textual variation with Jude, if he is referring to Enoch the 7th from Adam. There appears to be a problem with dates as given in Wikipedia.

Your comment makes no sense. You asked if the phrase "the seventh from Adam" were the "actual words of Jude." I understood this as asking if Jude actually wrote those words in his letter. If not, then they must have been added sometime after he wrote his letter, and the only way we could determine that is if there were textual variations.

As for the dates you quoted from the wiki - there are big problems with them because you accept the date scholars give for Enoch but reject the date the same scholars give for Moses. It is this kind of inconsistency that makes your conclusions unreliable.



Flood or no flood, the words of Enoch getting written down around 300 BC is a problem.

Again, the problem is with your inconsistency. You accept the scholastic date for Enoch but reject the scholastic dates the the Torah, which say that it was either written or compiled during the Babylonian exile, long after "Moses" died (if such a man even existed).




Q3: I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that Enoch was changed after Jude quoted from it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I doubt it. Unfortunately, this indicates that you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading by looking for an excuse to reject the most obvious implications that follow from the evidence, namely, that Jude read and believed the Book of Enoch in the form we have today.
I have no proof, it is a suspicion, because parts of it are not in harmony with what we call scripture. What proof do you have that it has not been added to? Even Wikipedia tells us that parts of the the book were written at different times.

You are displaying the difference between science and religion. You start with something you would like to believe and do everything you can to find evidence that supports your pre-conceived conclusion. That is the path to delusion. The path to truth is to look honestly at the evidence and to accept the conclusions that logically follow.

964

Case in point: The world is filled with religious books that are inconsistent with both themselves and reality. They cannot all be true. At best only one of them is true since they all contradict each other to a greater or lesser degree. You would never find which was true or false if you used the idea of "harmony" as your standard by which you judge because you could always make up excuses for any discrepancies you find. Therefore, you need to find OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that apply equally to every religious claim. If you treat the Catholic Bible differently than the Protestant, or the Quran differently than the Book of Moron, then your judgment will be skewed, and skewed judgments are not known for leading people to truth. So this all comes down to whether or not you are actually interested in finding the truth, or if you are simply trying to defend your beliefs.






Richard’s table showing the correlation between the writings of Jude and Peter with the Book of Enoch is shown below. If the Book of Enoch contained myth and folklore, just because Peter and Jude are thought to quote from a book of folklore, does not prove they believe the folklore. Quoting folklore can be just a way of getting one’s own message understood by those who could only relate to what they already believed superstitiously. In everyday speech I often refer to Gremlins being the reason for when the technology has problems. The fact is; I do not believe in Gremlins, though I use the term.
I agree that quoting folklore (like using common figures of speech), is a good way to make a point. We could use that idea to understand how Jesus could quote the folklore about Noah and the Flood while not actually believing it (since that would imply that he was wrong).
What we disagree on is the fokelore. Jesus, the Son of God, is not going to lie about the Flood as though it was folklore.

OK - then neither would Peter and Jude LIE about the angels that sinned by quoting the folklore in Enoch. You have just contradicted your own point!

Your thinking is very inconsistent David. First you say one thing when its convenient to prove your point in one context, and then you say the exact opposite! If Peter and Jude could quote folklore that they didn't believe, why couldn't Jesus?




And I agree it does not "prove" that they believed it, but is does lend credence to that conclusion. You have not presented anything as yet that would make a reasonable person doubt that conclusion.
I do not need to provide evidence for my conclusion, since you have agreed; "it does not "prove" that they believed it".

You missed my point. Read it again. I put the word "prove" in scare quotes to show that the issue was with that word. I have explained to you many times that we cannot conclusively "prove" what Jude privately believed in his own mind. I tried to help you understand this point by explaining that rather than giving "proof" it "lends credence" to my conclusion that Peter and Jude believed God's angels sinned.

I think your confusion is caused by your fundamentalist way of thinking. You constantly speak in terms of "proof" rather than "evidence". Most things in life cannot be "proven" like a mathematical formula. We must weigh the evidence (which is often conflicting) and come only to provisional conclusions that appear to be most likely. This is the essence of science. And it is extremely enlightening to see that your primary complaint about science is that it "constantly changes". You have it entirely upside down. First, science changes because it is always coming closer to the truth. Second, it matters not if the Bible itself is "unchanging" (though it is not) because your theory of what the Bible means changes just like any scientific theory.




Your comments reveal a profound incoherence in your thinking. You are assuming the truth of the scholastic date of Enoch while ignoring the scholastic conclusion that Moses did not write the Torah. You can't have it both ways. If you reject the scholastic conclusions about the Bible you have no reason to accept the scholastic conclusions about Enoch.
We have to get through the minefield of scholastic thinking. I will look for harmony with God's word, but you want to concentrate on finding discrepancies with God's word. There is a dating problem with a book associated with Enoch the 7th from Adam getting written 300BC. How were Enoch's words 1,000 years earlier preserved?

You totally missed my point. There is no problem unless you accept the scholars' conclusion that Enoch was written about 300 BC. But you reject the conclusions of those same scholars when it comes to the dating of the Torah. And so you reveal that you are a "double minded man" whose conclusions cannot be trusted because they are not based on any principles but rather are "like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." This is a perfect Biblical description of what conversations with you seem like to me. And this is not an empty assertion. I have explained why and given evidence.

The "minefield" of which you speak is evidence. It is very dangerous to dogma. Why is it that I see no threat by the scholars whereas you do? What is the difference between us? It is simple: I have no dogmas to defend.

And the problem is not just with the "scholars". Serious, informed, devout Bible believers come to opposite conclusions on nearly everything the Bible teaches, such as the Divinity of Christ, fallen angels, the Millennium, Rapture, Heaven, Hell, etc. ad infinitum ad naseum.



It does not matter how many correlations there are. On close examination, the correlations are not as close as you think they are. That requires closer examination and can be dealt with separately.

If you look at a picture too closely, you can lose the sense of context and so fail to understand what you see. Everyone knows we need to "stand back" and get the "big picture" in order to have a full understanding. The parallels in the table show that Jude shared the "big picture" painted in Enoch. You say they are "not as close" as I think they are. Not true. Look at the table with an open mind and you will see that the evidence is compelling.




Do you really agree with what I wrote? Look again: I said that God allowed Jude to quote from a faulty book!
I know what you wrote, so why should a faulty book become a reliable book? It is better to discard the book. I do not need the Book of Enoch to support the Bible. It is useful to those who want to discredit the Bible.

Your comment is very strange given that you agreed that Jude quoted from a faulty book. And elsewhere you have agreed that the Bible has faults. Therefore, by your logic we should discard the Bible! I always feel like I'm in the middle of a slow motion train wreck when I read your comments. Every words crashes into every other word and nothing makes any sense at all. The train of your thought is totally derailed.

And you are so very confused about the basic meanings of words. To say that Enoch is "faulty" because it contains mythology is not to say that it is unreliable in the sense that it has been altered. Your confusion on this point is inexcusable. I have explained it a dozen times and you continue to repeat the same error over and over and over again. It's like I'm talking to a freaking wall! :banghead:

It is funny that you say the Book of Enoch is "useful to those who want to discredit the Bible" since it has been believed by many who believed the Bible and it is even included in the Ethiopian canon of Scripture. The Book of Enoch does not "discredit the Bible" - it discredits your doctrines concerning the angels that sinned.




I think your "agreement" is superficial. I doubt that you agree with the reasons I came to that conclusion. I was holding to the presupposition that the Bible was the Word of God. Without that presupposition, there is no reason to reject the evidence that shows Jude believed the crap in the Book of Enoch.
Unfortunately, we cannot ask Jude directly what he thought. I would just go with the few words Jude quoted and finding the harmony of those words with the scripture. Forget the rest of the Book that Jude either did not know about or did not quote.

There you go again. You totally ignored my comment: "I think your "agreement" is superficial. I doubt that you agree with the reasons I came to that conclusion." If you don't agree with the reasons I gave, then our "agreement" is meaningless.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting your assertion that Jude did not know about the entire book of Enoch. On the contrary, Jude used the phrase "seventh from Adam" which also is in Enoch and not in the Bible. And there are many other points that scholars have found quite convincing. You reject it because of dogma, not evidence.



I guessed you would respond. I think it would be good for others to think about this and give their thoughts on the matter. That is what we have to do; get all opinions before deciding which to accept or reject on Biblical grounds before coming to any conclusion. You and I have polarized opinions and so we need to get more opinions from others and for them to deal with the questions and problems.

Ha! That's hilarious! "get all opinions before deciding which to accept or reject on Biblical grounds before coming to any conclusion". Like that's what you've done! Ha! :lmbo:

David, you preach an absolute dogma concerning a point that has been debated by Christians for two thousand years. If you had the slightest interest in "evidence" you would know that such a stance is not justified. At best, you could argue that the weight of the evidence is on your side, but that's not what you do. You allow for no doubt whatsoever. You speak in terms of "proofs" and "absolutes" when there are no such things. It is this desire for absolute certainty that makes you vulnerable to cult teachers like Michael Rood who speak with absolutely authority about things that are easily proven false. If there were one thing I could do to help you, it would be to help you open your mind to the scientific methodology and philosophy that thinks in terms of evidence, logic, and probabilities.

In any case, it is good to be chatting with you.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To answer Richard's question; "Why did God allow Jude to quote from a faulty book?" my reply is this: First of all, we do not know, and cannot be certain, Jude was quoting from a book that had been attributed to Enoch. Assuming he was, then all we can say is that Jude was quoting words that were true (as opposed to all the other untrue words). The words Jude quoted have a similarity with the passage in which Moses uses the exact same phrase (Deut 33:2); and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
That doesn't answer the question of why God allowed Jude to quote from a faulty book. Jude could have said the same thing in his own words if God wanted to get the idea expressed without giving an implicit endorsement of the Book of Enoch.

[malachigreenidge]

Im a believer in the Bible, and its authenticity. But I don't know everything about it, nor can I even explain all that I believe. And it doesn't matter to me if Moses wrote the the pentatuech or not. I don't see why it matters to believers to defend such a notion. Whether Moses was the writer or not, it doesn't discredit the history and validity of the Pentatuech. My belief in the Bible is generated from my relationship with Jesus as my saviour, and as a person, who has touched, changed and saved my life. This should always be our testimony as Jesus followers, and the fountain from which we draw our knowledge.
But this is my question to believers and non-believers alike. If Moses wrote the first 5 books, then how is it he recorded his own death in Deutoronomy 34? ANyone?

[sylvius]

Im a believer in the Bible, and its authenticity. But I don't know everything about it, nor can I even explain all that I believe. And it doesn't matter to me if Moses wrote the the pentatuech or not. I don't see why it matters to believers to defend such a notion. Whether Moses was the writer or not, it doesn't discredit the history and validity of the Pentatuech. My belief in the Bible is generated from my relationship with Jesus as my saviour, and as a person, who has touched, changed and saved my life. This should always be our testimony as Jesus followers, and the fountain from which we draw our knowledge.
But this is my question to believers and non-believers alike. If Moses wrote the first 5 books, then how is it he recorded his own death in Deutoronomy 34? ANyone?

Deuteronomy 32:48 is the 5800th verse from the beginning.

And the Lord spoke to Moses on that very day, saying,

Until the end from there are still 45 verses, 45 being gematria of "mah" = What? Which exactly denotes your question here.

58 being kind of structuring number.

58 is gematria of "chen" = favor, grace, the favor that Noach (also gematria 58) found in the eyes of the Lord.

Tree of life, "ets hachayim", having gematria 233, 1/4 of 932, the gematria of the tree of knowledge, "ets hadaat tov vara", while 233 = (4 x 58) +1, both trees to be found in the midst of the garden, "b'toch hagan" -- "hagan" with gematria 58.

The flood took place in the year 1657, 1657 being 2/7 x 5800.


So you can see the five books of Moses as a brilliant = polished diamond with 58 facets.

http://diamondworld.org/education/diamond-grading


http://www.diamondworld.org/img/diamond-anatomy.gif
A classic cut “Round Brilliant” consists of 58 facets (these include the girdle and the culet).

Brilliance = Hebrew "zohar".

Daniel must have known about:

Daniel 12:3,
וְהַמַּשְׂכִּלִים יַזְהִרוּ כְּזֹהַר הָרָקִיעַ, "v'hamashkilim yazhiru k'zohar harakia",
And the wise will shine like the brilliance of the sky

Since he also mentions the "time, times and a half" = 3,5 times, 3,5 x 1657,14285714 being 5800 :yo:



And the Lord spoke to Moses on that very day, saying,

on that very day = "b'etsem hayom hazeh"
occurs two more times in the Torah,
Genesis 7:13,
On that very day, Noach came, and Shem and cham and Japheth, Noach's sons, and Noach's wife and his sons' three wives with them, into the ark.

ark = Hebrew "teivah", can mean also word (as written with letters)

Exodus 12:51,
It came to pass on that very day, that the Lord took the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt with their legions.

cf, Exodus 20:2,
"I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

[Unregistered]

Im a believer in the Bible, and its authenticity. But I don't know everything about it, nor can I even explain all that I believe. And it doesn't matter to me if Moses wrote the the pentatuech or not. I don't see why it matters to believers to defend such a notion. Whether Moses was the writer or not, it doesn't discredit the history and validity of the Pentatuech. My belief in the Bible is generated from my relationship with Jesus as my saviour, and as a person, who has touched, changed and saved my life. This should always be our testimony as Jesus followers, and the fountain from which we draw our knowledge.
But this is my question to believers and non-believers alike. If Moses wrote the first 5 books, then how is it he recorded his own death in Deutoronomy 34? ANyone?

Perhaps Moshe had a "spirit son" by the name of Yehoshua son of Perpetuity who then came down from mount Nebo and continued to lead the sons of Yisrael into the promise land as commanded. The same wrote all the words of the Sixth Rib and placed what he wrote into the Sefer Torat Elohim, (as it is written of him in the Sixth Rib). Only priests were/are allowed to even copy Torah, (much less write "new Torah"). :)

[duxrow]

Im a believer in the Bible, and its authenticity. But I don't know everything about it, nor can I even explain all that I believe. And it doesn't matter to me if Moses wrote the the pentatuech or not. I don't see why it matters to believers to defend such a notion. Whether Moses was the writer or not, it doesn't discredit the history and validity of the Pentatuech. My belief in the Bible is generated from my relationship with Jesus as my saviour, and as a person, who has touched, changed and saved my life. This should always be our testimony as Jesus followers, and the fountain from which we draw our knowledge.
But this is my question to believers and non-believers alike. If Moses wrote the first 5 books, then how is it he recorded his own death in Deutoronomy 34? ANyone?
:thumb: Hi Malachi, Love your point of view (sounds like my own testimony..) and Sylvia has very interesting figures -- my own arithmetic put the beginning of the flood at 1656, so if you add the 5 and 1, you get the 3rd "6", a kind of mark of the beast. hah. I've heard some say that Shem wrote the first five--maybe so, maybe not, but I like to agree with 2Pet1:21 and say that it was written by the Holy Ghostwriter! amen. :yo:

[sylvius]

Deuteronomy 32:48-52,

And the Lord spoke to Moses on that very day, saying,
Go up this Mount Avarim [to] Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is facing Jericho, and see the Land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel as a possession,
And die on the mountain upon which you are climbing and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people.
Because you betrayed Me in the midst of the children of Israel at the waters of Merivath Kadesh, [in] the desert of Zin, [and] because you did not sanctify Me in the midst of the children of Israel.
For from afar, you will see the land, but you will not come there, to the land I am giving the children of Israel.

Nebo, נְבוֹ, "n'vo", also has gematria 58.
Moab, מוֹאָב, "moav", has gematria 49 = 7 x 7, like the 7 x 7 days of the counting of the omer, falling one short of 50.
The Land of Canaan = the land of the merchants, where everything is for sale.

Because you betrayed Me, . עַל אֲשֶׁר מְעַלְתֶּם בִּי, "al asher m'altem bi" -- plural, so relates to both Moses and Aaron.
because you did not sanctify Me, עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדַּשְׁתֶּם אוֹתִי, "al asher lo k'dashtem oti", also plural.


They should have related the meaning of the mist, "ed", of Genesis 2:6, as being the source of all water = time.

Up to the present day it did remain in nebulas.

Which might be the true sense of "chen", favor, grace.

Where Jesus said "“Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” , it might allude to this;

"for what have you forsken me?"

what = "mah", gematria 45, coinciding the 45 verses that exceed the number of 5800 verses.

5845 = 3,5 x 1670 (or 35 x 167, 167 being the amount of verses of the Esther-scroll)

The first chapter of Genesis being written with 1671 letters,

which proves the letter "hey" of "hashishi" to be extra.

Lettervalue of "hey" coinciding the gematria of "ed", viz. 5.

[duxrow]

:anim_32: Sylvie, Wish I understood more of your numbers, but until that time maybe you'd check this father-to-son generation table and tell me what you think?
BTW, the 7x9=63 does NOT depend on the 6x11 arrangement.

http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/GenChrt.htm#6x11

[malachigreenidge]

I dont understand this gematria stuff. How does this answer my question, as to "how could Moses have wrote about his own death?" Was it an addition by Jonathon after his death?
Dux - how could Shem have written it? thats ridiculous. He wasn;t even alive at the time of the exodus and beyond. Where are you getting this stuff from???

[duxrow]

:yo: Malachi -- Shem lived for over 500 years after the Deluge, so I was just throwing out a name who had first-hand knowledge of the pre-Flood situation. We'd been talking about the Enoch-era. Sorry if you thought I meant the Moses-Author issue. Personally I'm with you on that--don't believe it was him, and don't think it matters, but maybe the subject should have been on different thread.
As for the Gematria, it has some exciting developments as I'm sure you'll discover when you check out what's been written here by Richard and others..
Blessings! :pop2:

[sylvius]

I dont understand this gematria stuff. How does this answer my question, as to "how could Moses have wrote about his own death?"

It all comes out of the wellspring of creativity I think, like Bob Dylan says here:

http://s138.photobucket.com/user/suivlys/media/RightoutofthatwellspringofcreativityIthink.jpg.htm l
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/RightoutofthatwellspringofcreativityIthink.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/suivlys/media/RightoutofthatwellspringofcreativityIthink.jpg.htm l)

Interviewer: "I have read somehwere that you did write Blowing in the Wind in just ten minutes. Is that right?"
B. Dylan: "Probably"
Interviewer: "Just like that?"
B. dylan: "Yeah"
Interviewer: "Where did it come from?"
B. Dylan: "It just came. It came ..eeh.. like ...ehm.. right out of that wellspring of creativity (...) you know."

Wellspring = Greek "pègè", with which LXX translates "ed" of Genesis 2:6,
πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς


Picked up by John
(Note that the name John "Y'hochanan"is build from "chen" = favor, grace.)

John 4:14,
ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.


Revelation 21:6,
καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ *)=ω, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν

Even δωρεάν = for nothing = without cause = for no reason (against all rationalism).