How Wicked Were the People of Noah's Day? And Why No Detail?

Everyone did what they wanted to do sin wise, period!

 

We were told about it in what the RCC calls apocrypha and not deuterocanonical either. Enoch is very detailed, Jasher as well. Though neither of these books are in the RCC or some Orthodox,or in the Jewish bible (Talmud) it is fair to say these books were of study by many ancient Hebrews and many Christians today are seeing the value in them . The Ethiopians do include them.
They are all Hebrew, and reference to them is in the Bible ,they are just not placed in many. With that said, as Solomon said :

Ecclesiastes 1:9
9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.

People seem to think the crazy behavior sported by celebs, transgenderism, pansexual, ex........ is some new trend, it is not. Cross genetic design was practiced then and is today. Sheep which produce spider web milk, glow in the dark rats, ex..... this is not new. Contraception is mentioned in the book of Enoch as well. It is said that men were taught how to make tinctures to give women which made them barren , this so they would not loose their 'Comely' forms. I guess they did not like the weight gain which comes from pregnancy. It also speaks of abortion. The Watchers taught people how to 'Dash" the child in the womb.

There is nothing new under the sun only new names for the same old stuff. Now a days man calls demons, devils, fallen angles- 'extraterrestrial', just another deception. It will be the same practices done when Christ returns as then. "As in the days of Noah shall it it be in the coming of the Son of Man". Perhaps if Enoch's and Jasher's writings were placed in the Western Bible people would have a clue. Well, must be God's will, the Elect embrace the Books. God Bless!

 

Couldnt have been much worse than California.

 

Sounds like USA.

 

or the Book of Judges

 

Genesis 6:5-7 NAS77

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 And the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."​

Whatever the evil, it was enough to grieve God's heart and made Him sorry for having created man. Verse 5 is very specific about the extent of evil -that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Inferring anything else is needless speculation without purpose.

 

Well , there is no inferring, these practices were so, and therefore, are so and will be so at the return of Christ. This because as scripture says: "So there is nothing new under the sun". It is need to know - knowledge so the God fearing man knows what he is up against. And if you think about it, as Christ said : "My people parish for lack of knowledge". Many think this genetic altering ,is progress in the name of science. And all this strange sexual garbage is a new fad! But when you read something written some 5,000 yrs. ago and see its relevance today, one with a limited amount of intelligence can be persuaded to think ,these ancient holy men know what they are talking about. There could be an even greater chance of bring someone to the truth because of it.

Not all men can be reached who are not in your run of the mill sin with what we speak in basic terms. These are hardcore times, Enoch and Jasher's words can be an unsettling truth in this present reality which echos the behavior of the past:

Preceding Generations Forgotten Ecclesiates 1:7-9
…7All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. 8All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. 9That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.…

It seems man has forgotten these prophets and sages in more modern times. Do you think if more people knew their writings they could use terms like : "progressive thinking , forward moving, advancements in science"? No they could not, for all has already been done and man would know it is to digress , to go backward, and advance only in the knowledge of evil. God Bless!

 

As I have told everyone, I was fortunate enough to visit the Ark Encounter in Kentucky late last year and it was a fabulous experience! I am saving my money to try and return next year. But to address the question of the thread,

Genesis 6:5 (KJV) 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.

Genesis 6:11-13 (KJV) The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

So God saved Noah, his wife, their three sons and the sons' wives.

But sadly, after the Flood, nothing changed on earth. God had to force people to spread out all over the earth by giving people different languages at the Tower of Babel and a military dictator Nimrod tried to build an empire. Some Christians think that Nimrod was the evil Sargon.

But Noah was good, and here is Scripture about him. I think that we owe the early books of The Holy Bible to Noah, and that is how he gave us rest, but that is a personal opinion.

Genesis 5:28-29 (KJV) And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This [same] shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

 

Why should there be any details?... We probably couldn't understand the scope of this evil even if we read it... I guess you had to be there and if the following did not occur we would all be toast!... Brother Glen

Genesis 6:5 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.

6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

God said that the earth was filled with violence. It still is. Venezuela is an example where people will murder you for food. Adam caused the earth and everything on it to be cursed. After the Genesis Flood, God allowed man to eat meat. Also, the mountains were higher and the oceans were much larger. The old world of Adam was almost all land, but now the land is somewhat isolated into seven continents. The 700 years of Ice Age after the Genesis Flood 4300 years ago left about ten percent of the earth covered with ice the last 3600 years.

Nimrod, perhaps Sargon, tried to make himself world dictator at Eridu, thought to be the site of the Tower of Babel. So the violence began again and has continued to this day. And you are correct to mention abortion as part of the violence. This world is a preview of hell.

 

That may be so but if we avoided all the bad in life how could we appreciate the good?... Brother Glen

 

The only disinformation there is, is what you are conveying in your admittedly lack of knowledge.
Right you will not here Jude get into the deets because it was not Jude's lot to get into the particulars. Why? Because he obviously read the works of Enoch and it was a tool of study for Hebrews, that is why he mentions Enoch.There would be no need to rewrite what was already available and accepted. Enoch covered it all. And if one is not well studied in something your views then are only opinion, conjecture and are not based on knowledge in fact. And since the book of Enoch was not available in its entirety in what is considered to be part of the the Catholic era, or when even the King James version was developed it is false to say the Catholic Church can say this or that concerning it .The Book of Enoch was considered “lost” from approximately through 1773, when it was rediscovered in several Ethiopian manuscripts. Hence, even the King James translators did not have access to any manuscripts of the Book of Enoch and the Catholics only had bits and pieces , which were not possible to piece together. Another thing , there could be NO antisemitism in the book because Enoch is Hebrew as are ALL the recipients of the Word compiled as a tool for teaching, first to the Jew then the Greek, as then in the OT and the NT. You are obviously Catholic . The Catholic Church is NOT the authority over the WORD. The Word is the authority, and predates the existence of the RCC era. The Roman's had no authority to teach Christianity before the foundation. The teachings of the one true God were before they even dominated the scene. And for you to attribute a satanist beliefs to a Holy righteous chosen man of God you are not speaking from God but satan!

AN Objection: “The sons of God are the godly line who have come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain. What you have here now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines, until finally the entire line is totally corrupted (well, not totally; there is one exception). That is the picture that is presented to us here.”

This objection is based on ignorance to the Hebrew language and the context of the meaning of words.


Response: The above thought process is an interpretation of Genesis 6:2 that is not based in reality. The passage states, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” In the above thought process, the “sons of God” are understood to be the descendants of Seth, whereas the “daughters of man” are considered the descendants of Cain, but there are a handful of reasons why this thought process is not accurate. First, the phrase “sons of God” is used elsewhere in Hebrew literature only when referring to angelic beings. Second, the action taking place in Genesis 6:2 was so grievous in God’s sight that it caused Him to say only a few passages later, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground… for I am sorry that I have made them.” Yet this destructive proclamation is on the back of God having commanded mankind to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28) It is inconceivable that God was so grieved by human reproduction that He saw fit to destroy the world.

You may NOT LIKE what Enoch wrote about women, makes no difference to the fact that the women were destroyed along with all the other people, and ONLY eight were preserved. Say what you want the women said yes to the deception and allurement
of the knowledge these fallen ones possessed . To act like this was not possible is to also say Lucifer could not lead into sin
and the offspring of Eve too was not tainted and therefore there was no need for a Saviour, think before you speak. Angels are supernatural therefore, can manipulate the physical and be physical. God allows man and angels to act upon what they choose.
Just because corrupt life came from the Watchers actions is no different than corrupt man came from Lucifer's. The only difference is the Watchers went into woman sexually Lucifer did not, he entered through disobedience. You seem to think supernatural beings can not produce sperm. News flash all the natural world derived from the supernatural no great feet for them to do what they did. And that is not even the real issue, the issue is- they left their estate and rank and did what they did, not because they could not but that they should not have. In this they sinned.

If a freak like Crowley tried to produce a demon offspring then he too practiced what people did in the days of Noah, proving the
sick twisted thoughts of some people. How many more are like him? Enoch is SOLID, his writings HOLY and SOUND. You have proven with your own ignorance they are, and that people do practice the same garbage now as then. With that , you still can not explain how genetic altering is spoken about in Enoch's writings 4,500-5000 yrs ago and is relevant today. Do you know why? Because the writings are authentic and God given. I do not know what books you have happened upon, but I know the Ethiopian text are true. NOT ONE THING GOES AGAINST GOD IN THEM, but does go against everything you said and what the RCC pedals. If the Pope took the books under study he would not be "implying" or joking about baptizing aliens , because he would know they are actually demons. He would not play into the hands of the END TIME DECEPTION. God Bless!

 

Enoch is neither solid, holy or sound. It is not in the Canon of Scripture nor is there any credible history here. You argue that Enoch should bear some credibility because Jude quotes it. I quoted Shakespeare in my message this morning. That doesn't make Shakespeare divine.

Look who Paul quotes, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28 KJV) Again, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." (Titus 1:12 KJV)

Paul doesn't elevate Greek poets to the same level as Scripture either.

NOT ONE THING? Enoch 19:2 states, "And the women also of the angels who went astray shall become sirens."

Sirens? Creatures from Greek mythology?

There is a reason Enoch is excluded from the Canon. It is mythology -albeit with religious tones - from beginning to end.

 

First of all if you read it in the Greek text the word "Siren ' Is inserted for women of beauty , hence "was desired for their Comely Form" So, the Greek interpretation uses what it knows and calls these women Sirens which means they were beautiful but dangerous because what they embraced in practice. In Enoch it says: “daughters of Naamah.” T
The Aramaic of the Targum means “daughters of loveliness” It is written : Na'amah, the mother of the demons (shedim), by whom the first saints were seduced; Naamah was the mother of the demons, and from her originate all those evil spirits which mix with men and arouse in them concupiscence, which leads them to defilement.

This means these women conceded to the defiling.
She [Naamah] by her beauty led astray the “sons of God”, Uzza and Azael, and she bore them children, and so from her went forth evil spirits and demons into the world.

This in Greek is a Siren. I would put it in the Hebrew way of writing but if you can not read Hebrew what is the point- unless you have the gift of tongues, do you? You seem to forget many if not all of the books of the bible and all Hebrew to Aramaic- were then translated to Greek before Latin then lastly English. So, in the Greek the word for these ungodly women - Siren was used.

I am not talking about Greek poets or St. Paul not quoting from them , I am speaking of a Hebrew, whom Greeks translated so that the Greeks could understand what he was saying. YOUR POINT? If you can read Hebrew go get a Hebrew text then come speak to me. Your argument is based upon no facts, just conjecture and opinion and an obvious ignorance of languages .

Enoch my not have been read by all Hebrews or all Greeks but many.

 

I will share this- arguments against and for Enoch from a Jewish brother in the faith. He shares both sides but is for the Writing's of Enoch.

DEFENDING THE BOOK OF ENOCH- TORAH DRIVEN LIFE:

The following are actual objections to the Book of Enoch, along with responses.



Objection: “To the Biblically ignorant reader, the Book of Enoch might have an appeal; but to a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy.”

Response: Many have claimed the Book of Enoch to be “full of heresy,” but few offer any factual evidence to support this claim. The fact is that the Book of Enoch was hidden away from the Roman church for centuries. The result of this is that there is much in the Book of Enoch that did not directly influence the doctrines that make up the beliefs of the modern church. As such, it is not the Scriptures themselves that the Book of Enoch is “contradicting,” but the beliefs of the modern church that were formed over the span of time that the Book of Enoch was absent from the libraries of church literature.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “If the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren’t… In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.”

Response: Contrary to popular belief, the Book of Enoch is referenced in the New Testament at least 40 times. Several of these are even direct quotations, though not specifically attributed to Enoch. One of these instances, Jude 1:14-15, is a direct quotation, attributed specifically to Enoch himself. Several “New Testament” concepts are found to have their source in the Book of Enoch: the springs of living waters, (John 4:13-14 / Enoch 48:1) the new heaven and new earth, (Revelation 21:1 / Enoch 91:16-17) and several of the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5, Luke 6 / Enoch 5:7, Enoch 94:8)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “The Book of Enoch uses unfamiliar terminology, referring to the ‘Lord of Spirits’ and the ‘Head of Days.’ These terms are foreign to the Word of God.”

Response: An avid scholar would understand that the Book of Enoch has gone through several linguistic filters that are foreign to the Hebrew Scriptures. Terms like “Lord of Spirits” and “Head of Days” are found in the Word of God, but in different forms; “Lord of Spirits,” for instance, is translated from the Hebrew as “the Lord of Hosts;” “Head of Days” is likewise found in the Bible translated as “Ancient of Days.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “The Messiah is not directly mentioned… It is worthy to note that Christ’s deity is not evidenced in the Book of Enoch.”

Response: This objection is not remotely true; in fact, huge portions of the text are directed toward exalting the character and personage of the Messiah. The following Messianic titles are referenced in the Book of Enoch:

• Elect One (Enoch 39:6, 40:6, 45:3-5, 49:2-4, 51:1-3, 52:6-9, 53:6, 55:4, 56:6, 61:5, 61:8-11, 62:1)
• Son of Man (Enoch 46:2-4, 48:2, 60:10, 62:5-9, 62:14, 63:11, 69:26-30, 70:1, 71:14-16)
• Anointed / Messiah (Enoch 48:10, 52:4)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “Many terms from the Biblical Book of Revelation are quoted in the Book of Enoch…”

Response: The Book of Revelation was written about 90 A.D. The best of Biblical scholars date the Book of Enoch to the second century B.C.. Even the portion of the book reckoned as being part of the very latest authorship is now considered to predate the New Testament. In the words of James H. Charlesworth in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, “…no specialists now argue that I Enoch 37-71 is a Christian and postdates the first century.” So, if anything, the Revelation of John is quoting from the Book of Enoch. I prefer to think that both the Revelation of John and the Book of Enoch are quoting from God.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “The King James translators, 48 scholarly men skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages, didn’t believe the work was inspired by God.”

Response: The King James translators worked from 1604 through 1611. The Book of Enoch was considered “lost” from approximately through 1773, when it was rediscovered in several Ethiopian manuscripts. Hence, the King James translators did not even have access to any manuscripts of the Book of Enoch.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “The sons of God are the godly line who have come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain. What you have here now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines, until finally the entire line is totally corrupted (well, not totally; there is one exception). That is the picture that is presented to us here.”

Response: The above thought process is an interpretation of Genesis 6:2 that is not based in reality. The passage states, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” In the above thought process, the “sons of God” are understood to be the descendants of Seth, whereas the “daughters of man” are considered the descendants of Cain, but there are a handful of reasons why this thought process is not accurate. First, the phrase “sons of God” is used elsewhere in Hebrew literature only when referring to angelic beings. Second, the action taking place in Genesis 6:2 was so grievous in God’s sight that it caused Him to say only a few passages later, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground… for I am sorry that I have made them.” Yet this destructive proclamation is on the back of God having commanded mankind to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28) It is inconceivable that God was so grieved by human reproduction that He saw fit to destroy the world.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “Jesus and the apostles never called it scripture.”

Response: There is actually a very strong example of Yeshua referring to the Book of Enoch as Scripture. In Matthew 22:29-30, Yeshua first chided the Sadducees for their lack of understanding of “the Scriptures,” then proceeded to teach a concept that is only found in the Book of Enoch.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “A few early church fathers highly valued the book of Enoch but they never referred to it as scripture.”

Response: This statement is simply incorrect. Church father Tertulian writes as follows in his 2nd century work, On the Apparel of Women I 3:1-3, “I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch…” Church father Origen appealed to the Book of Enoch as having the same canonical authority as he does the Book of Psalms in De Principiis IV. Irenaeus, in his work The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 18, records a condensed retelling of Enoch 6-8. Lastly, the author of the Letter of Barnabas (not the Barnabas mentioned in the book of Acts) quotes Enoch multiple times along side the canonical Scriptures. To say that the early church fathers unanimously did not regard Enoch as Scripture is a blatant misrepresentation of historical fact.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Objection: “One reason most Christian do not accept the Book of Enoch is that the Jewish teachers did not accept it as part of the Bible. It is not part of what Christians call the Old Testament.”

Response: This is yet another baseless objection. Of the Jewish sects of the first century, the ideas of what exactly constituted the “canon” of Scriptures varied from group to group. The ancient Pharisees used a set of books that is very similar the books that make up what we call today the Tanakh, or Old Testament, plus perhaps the Book of Sirach. The Essenes, on the other hand, accepted in their sacred library at Qumran an entire collection of holy texts, among which were the books of Tobit, Jubilees, Sirach, and even Enoch. To suggest that the ancient Jews did not accept the Book of Enoch is erroneous; it is better said that while some ancient Jews did not accept the Book of Enoch, others, in fact, did.



This is NOT a discussion about salvation but one of a theological nature. Simply saying : many do not know enough about Enoch's writings to discredit them.

 

The Book of Enoch fails one critical test. It is not scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 KJV

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

There is nothing to discuss if you hold that it is inspired by God and holds equal footing with the 66 books of the Canon. If you use this book to shape your Christian world view you are being deceived.

 

Please, you are quoting from a Protestant, bible there is no discussion in this conversation then for you. You are missing essential books which therefore leaves a historical gap in the message of salvation. And quoting scripture in not discrediting Enoch when it is clear much in the NT quotes directly from Enoch and supports his writings. Anyone can say they disagree with anything, you have provided no truth against Enoch. What you have done is quote from the KJV which as stated did not have access ( those who compiled) to the writings. And since your bible does not hold what many others do your opinion is just that an opinion not the opinions of the apostles who did study his writings. This is evident in the similar language of the gospel and Enoch . Many quotes from Enoch, who saw the Ancient of ancients before the apostles are similar . What exactly has Enoch said that is against the gospel? Your argument holds no weight before Enoch, he holds weight before men and God!