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

[OfLivingWaters]

It is just this simple, the scriptures support Enoch's writings and all should be tested by scripture for no one lay a foundation already laid, that is Jesus Christ. So if Enoch is directly quoted and his words are within the gospel that means the foundation supports his writings. It is that simple. Now tell me what does Enoch say against the foundation?

 

[padredurand]

It is just this simple, the scriptures support Enoch's writings and all should be tested by scripture for no one lay a foundation already laid, that is Jesus Christ. So if Enoch is directly quoted and his words are within the gospel that means the foundation supports his writings. It is that simple. Now tell me what does Enoch say against the foundation?

I Enoch 40:8-9

8. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: 'Who are these four presences which I have seen and whose words I have heard and written down?'
9. And he said to me: 'This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.' And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.
​

The context of this chapter is an introduction to four archangels - earlier described as four voices. Verse 7 describes the fourth voice as, "... the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth." Verse 9 tells us his name is Phanuel and this archangels is "set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life."

Heresy!

• The Bible clearly states, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5 KJV) Not some mythical angel Phanuel - whose name appears in no other manuscript except for this one.
• Angels are created beings. The Bible clearly states,

John 1:1-3 KJV

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

• Angels are servants of God. The ones who claimed equal footing with God have their day coming!
• We are not saved on the basis of belief in a mythical creature but by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. There is no power outside the Godhead whereby man is brought to repentance and the hope of eternal life. There is no one else but Jesus.

Acts 4:10-12 KJV

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.​

The Book of Mormon says some nice religious-sounding things too. Do you accept that as equal as well?

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Mediator meaning:
me·di·a·tor
ˈmēdēˌādər/
noun
noun: mediator; plural noun: mediators
a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.
"the government appointed a mediator to assist in finding a resolution to the dispute"
synonyms: arbitrator, arbiter, negotiator, conciliator, peacemaker, go-between, middleman, intermediary, moderator, intervenor, intercessor, broker, honest broker, liaison officer;
An angel is no mediator but does what is told to do by God.

Not one thing in your quotes says or implies they are mediators. A Cherub or Arch angel is a covering angel it is said of Lucifer before he lost his estate:
Ezekiel 28:14
14"You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
and is why two Cherubs were on the Ark of the OT. Angels have jobs they are to follow what the Word says- the Ancient of ancients. Was Enoch taken up by God ? Are not angels ministering:

The Supremacy of the Son Hebrews 1:13-14
…13And to which of the angels did God ever say: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet” ? 14Are not the angels ministering spirits, sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

There is not one thing in those verses you quoted which put angels above the Anointed One. They are covering angels because no one but the Son could look upon God, and they conveyed to Enoch what the Lord purposed for him to know. Just like Mother Mary.
Maybe it is not just the Mormons who cling to false spirits. Angels have their purpose in God , PERIOD. You proved nothing.
To be set over means to protect those who are repentant not as one who the repentance is given to, hence COVERING ANGEL.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Both Enoch [not written by the Enoch of Genesis] and the book of Jasher [not the book mentioned in Kings/Chronicles] contain much heresy and contradiction to scriptures.

I've read all of Enoch [books 1,2, and 3] and read parts of Jasher. It's shocking the amount of error contained in each.

The Bible AND the modern book of Jasher cannot both be true.

• Jasher 42 says that Joseph spoke with his dead mother when he was discouraged , Rachel, from her grave. Speaking with the dead is an abomination the Bible says.
• The Bible says that Moses left Egypt at age 40 and went directly to Midian and spent 40 years there. Jasher 71 says Moses left Egypt at age 18, went directly to Cush and became their king for 40 years and then went to Midian where he spent 10 years in prison.
• Jasher 43 says that when Joseph was sold into slavery and believed to be dead that Isaac [his grandfather] came to Jacob [his father] to comfort him. The Bible says that Isaac was dead long before this.
• The Bible says, in Exodus and in a Psalm, that Pharaoh and his army died in the Red Sea. Jasher 81 says that Pharaoh saw his men drown and thanked God that God spared him and God sent an angel to take Pharaoh to Nineveh where he became king and reigned for many years.

Are you seeing the problem?

Jasher and MANY other books may have a truth repeated from the Bible - but that does not make the book credible. AND, if they have a contradiction of God's Word to me that is grounds for it to be dismissed.

 

[padredurand]

To be set over means to protect those who are repentant not as one who the repentance is given to, hence COVERING ANGEL.

There is only one covering angel spoken of in Scripture.

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (Ezekiel 28:14 KJV)​

We know how that turned out. Or maybe you do not. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around your emphatic defense of a work that has been specifically excluded from the Canon of Scripture. Excluded to the extent rejected, showing no signs of God-breathed inspiration.

You said earlier that the editors of the KJV didn't have any manuscripts and they weren't uncovered until the 18th Century.

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.

Your not authenticating the validity of Enoch. You are questioning the validity of the Canon of Scripture. You are either arrogant enough to think Enoch was hidden until wiser men came around or God was a bumbling fool who could not keep track of what He had said.

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!

That is the same argument Joseph Smith used when he 'discovered' the golden plates. If you choose to hold fast to the words of Enoch at the expense of the accepted Canon than we are at an impasse. If there is no room for discussing the accepted Canon in your conversation then there no real reason to have one.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 states, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."

I reject your claim of the authenticity of Enoch and all it contains.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

I do see a problem with false books, that which has been misinterpreted, I do not deny there are many erroneous books out there.
I have sought out to find that which is not false. I do not claim they are needed for salvation, but that which has been revealed in the Ethiopian bible does not contradict scripture. I am not suggesting you need to live by the books but they are a useful source of information. Regardless of what you or anyone thinks or says, you can not deny that these books speak to very relevant issues which we see happening today, this in many unheard of ways which an early Christian community would think crazy or science fiction. Today it is creepy how relevant these books are . I am addressing the OP that is all -defending Enoch and bringing to the forefront books ancient Hebrews read and Jews still do read.
The Book of Jasher (also, Jashar) or the Book of the Upright or the Book of the Just Man (Hebrew: סֵפֶר הַיׇּשׇׁר‬; transliteration: sēfer hayyāšār) is an unknown book mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and is within the Ethiopian Bible. The Ethiopian Bible has the oldest written scriptures on earth .
A Message to Ethiopia Isaiah 18:7
7At that time a gift of homage will be brought to the LORD of hosts From a people tall and smooth, Even from a people feared far and wide, A powerful and oppressive nation, Whose land the rivers divide-- To the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, even Mount Zion.

Zephaniah 3:10
"From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones, Will bring My offerings.
Some Bibles are worded this way:
Zephaniah 3:10 From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter …
It is all the same. Ethiopia acquired the scriptures when Sheba was sent back to Ethiopia with them from Solomon. The suppliant
will bring My offerings.

 

[church mouse guy]

Catholicism never teaches that the Book of Enoch is reliable. They classify it as a work of the Gnostics among the Jews before the time of Jesus. Yes, Gnosticism, which Catholicism calls a fungus, predates Christianity.

The original book of Enoch quoted briefly in Jude has been lost. It was evidently saved by Noah.

Enoch contradicts Scripture because God mentions violence as the cause of the flood.

No time for more detail until morning, but here is a link to the cultic Gnosticism from New Advent, the Catholic encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

 

[OfLivingWaters]

I hear a lot of denominational ranting but no concrete proof that the Ethiopian Bible which contains Enoch' s writing's - that they are false. I guess all have read the Books of Enoch here, contained in their bible? You listen to men from Catholicism, and Protestant
sects, but I will bet none of you for sure knows . Talk to me about it when you Newbies have read his writings. And tell the Christian Jews who have and are fluent in Hebrew they do not know what they read, when you yourselves can not read or speak Hebrew.

 

[church mouse guy]

I hear a lot of denominational ranting but no concrete proof that the Ethiopian Bible which contains Enoch' s writing's - that they are false. I guess all have read the Books of Enoch here, contained in their bible? You listen to men from Catholicism, and Protestant
sects, but I will bet none of you for sure knows . Talk to me about it when you Newbies have read his writings. And tell the Christian Jews who have and are fluent in Hebrew they do not know what they read, when you yourselves can not read or speak Hebrew.

Are you a Gnostic?

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Are the Ethiopian Orthodox?

 

[OfLivingWaters]

There is only one covering angel spoken of in Scripture.

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (Ezekiel 28:14 KJV)​

We know how that turned out. Or maybe you do not. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around your emphatic defense of a work that has been specifically excluded from the Canon of Scripture. Excluded to the extent rejected, showing no signs of God-breathed inspiration.

You said earlier that the editors of the KJV didn't have any manuscripts and they weren't uncovered until the 18th Century.



Your not authenticating the validity of Enoch. You are questioning the validity of the Canon of Scripture. You are either arrogant enough to think Enoch was hidden until wiser men came around or God was a bumbling fool who could not keep track of what He had said.



That is the same argument Joseph Smith used when he 'discovered' the golden plates. If you choose to hold fast to the words of Enoch at the expense of the accepted Canon than we are at an impasse. If there is no room for discussing the accepted Canon in your conversation then there no real reason to have one.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 states, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."

I reject your claim of the authenticity of Enoch and all it contains.

You do not have to accept my claim, still makes no difference to your lack of proof his writings are false . Just a bunch of quoting of other men who they themselves have not disproved Enoch's works. I know all the jargon from denominations and all of them are in in lock step. Scripture is Canon and by that I test all apocrypha and any (what is called extra biblical text) by it. Quote dates all you want. As for covering angel, if Lucifer is the only one I guess you know nothing of Ezekiel's wheel.
A Cherub is a Cherub!
Ezekiel 10:9
Then I looked, and behold, four wheels beside the cherubim, one wheel beside each cherub; and the appearance of the wheels was like the gleam of a Tarshish stone.

News Flash.......more than one cherub mentioned in scripture. I am not here to force anyone to believe what they do not want. But if you are going to attempt to edify, know the Word. I would show where else in scripture there is mention of Cherubs, but that would be humiliating for you! So on that note God Bless and Peace in Christ!

 

[Alcott]

Wouldn't we just luvv to know the particulars about the wicked, cruel, dastardly, ungodly things they did in those days?

 

[church mouse guy]

Wouldn't we just luvv to know the particulars about the wicked, cruel, dastardly, ungodly things they did in those days?

Just a thought but since human nature cannot be changed, why were they any more violent before the global flood than we are now? God destroyed all but eight people and all of the non-marine animals except those on the Ark and the land was broken up into seven continents, etc., but how was man changed?

 

[I Love An Atheist]

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.

"Because he obviously..." is your main argument here. If it were so obvious, it would not be so controversial. Obviously.

And if one is not well studied in something your views then are only opinion, conjecture and are not based on knowledge in fact.

But the burden of proof is on you, my friend. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You have to do better than saying, "Because he obviously...".

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.

I did read about this in my brief online research before commenting. Similar arguments have been made about the Dead Sea Scrolls. And maybe other lost scrolls or tablets will turn up some time in the future. Having been lost to history doesn't prove anything in and of itself, though.

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.

I never claimed there was anti-Semitism in the book of Enoch. That is a straw man. Go back and read what I said.

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.

There you go with the word "obviously" again. Nope, I'm not Catholic. Assumptions, assumptions. Next time you have the impulse to type "obviously", try to resist it. It will improve your arguments.

And for you to attribute a satanist beliefs to a Holy righteous chosen man of God you are not speaking from God but satan!

Wow. Just wow.

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're hanging a lot just on interpretation.

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.

So you do believe women are to blame for making the angels fall. Do you also think women should cover their heads so it doesn't happen again?

Jesus was not sexist, and He was the gold standard, not Enoch.

The teaching is to love your neighbor, and there is no fine print saying it is good to hate your neighbor if she is a woman. Just remember that.

Angels are supernatural therefore, can manipulate the physical and be physical. God allows man and angels to act upon what they choose.

You know all about angels and everything they can do, huh?

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.

And you seem to think all kinds of supernatural beings besides God have the creative power of God.

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.

Speculation.

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?

I might have been thinking of Jack Parsons and Ron Hubbard, not Crowley. They got their ideas from somewhere. As you have noted, there is nothing new under the sun. But that was kind of my point. This type of Enoch and similar material can be inspirational to occultists. It is not poles apart.

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.

This is the Chariots of the Gods type of argument. And Graham Hancock, and Ancient Aliens. Enoch is not even needed for this. Do you follow all those guys and believe all their books equal to the Bible, too?

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!

I don't hang my faith on prophecy, because so many end times prophets have been wrong so many times before.

Could it be that people just repeat the same things when they are not being stopped by Judeo Christian belief and culture? After all we can be clever without being wise. It's human nature.

The Pope is irrelevant. I didn't know he joked about baptizing aliens.

I agree the so-called aliens are probably demons, and many alien authors compare them to the fairies of the past or speculate that they could be interdimensional beings. In book stores, alien books are in the New Age section. I think they are widely perceived as being in that category, and the Ancient Alien guys more or less came out of the closet as Theosophists on their show after a while. I don't need to read the book of Enoch to know any of this.

 

[Scarlett O.]

As I said in post #24, I've read Enoch.

I don't know why people today cling to it as truth when it so blatantly lies and contradicts the Bible to the point of heresy.

• In Enoch 69 - it is said that an angel named Gadreel is the one who led Eve astray and he is the one who taught men how to give a "death blow" - meaning to kill someone - and he supposedly taught men how to use swords and other death instruments and the breastplate and shield.
  
• The Bible says the devil tempted Eve. And Cain did not have to have lessons or to be taught by a demon how to give a death blow.

• Also in that same chapter, it says an angel named Penemue brought the "bitter and the sweet" [the good and the evil] to the knowledge of mankind via pen and ink. It says that mankind was meant to be pure and that death would not have come had this knowledge and their use of pen and ink - verse 10 states that the pen and ink is the problem.
• The Bible says that humanity learned about good and evil when Adam and Eve sinned. They were the first to know it and all born after are born sinners. You don't have to teach people how to sin.

• Enoch 10 claims that God blames the "ruination of earth" on the "teachings of Azazel", an angel who taught all mankind to sin [that seems to also contradict Enoch 69] and called for some angels in heaven to write against him "ALL SIN".
• The Bible again says that sin is in the heart of mankind, not in the teaching of a demon called Azazel. Adam and Eve were not taught to sin. Cain was not taught to sin.

There is so drastically much more and I do not have time today to make multiple posts.

It's sad to me that there is a craving today for these types of writings which are obviously not of God. I see it everywhere. Why isn't there a craving for the Bible?

 

[I Love An Atheist]

It's sad to me that there is a craving today for these types of writings which are obviously not of God. I see it everywhere. Why isn't there a craving for the Bible?

I was just thinking I am not as literate in either Enoch or the Bible as you are, but the Bible is definitely the priority on what to read first. (I read it, but I've never read it cover to cover.)

I used to have those cravings, but those kinds of materials are all the same, and they are all stupid. (All the alien books, all the Chariots of the Gods and Fingerprints of the Gods type books, etc.)

The truth is those materials are all sizzle and no steak. If we were to be presented the steak, it would be evil and rotten and terrible.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

It is just this simple, the scriptures support Enoch's writings and all should be tested by scripture for no one lay a foundation already laid, that is Jesus Christ. So if Enoch is directly quoted and his words are within the gospel that means the foundation supports his writings. It is that simple. Now tell me what does Enoch say against the foundation?

Why don't you reply directly to the people who have presented examples of the contradictions of Scripture? You have been told a lot of things that Enoch says against the foundation.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

Just a thought but since human nature cannot be changed, why were they any more violent before the global flood than we are now? God destroyed all but eight people and all of the non-marine animals except those on the Ark and the land was broken up into seven continents, etc., but how was man changed?

Going back to my OP, I was wondering if we changed for the better because the Holy Spirit is contending with us on Earth if we allow and seek it (and sometimes probably if we don't as well).

I don't mean our nature changed for the better, just that we have more help, maybe. It's more of a question than a claim.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

Wouldn't we just luvv to know the particulars about the wicked, cruel, dastardly, ungodly things they did in those days?

Haha, maybe it's better if we don't know. That's what I wonder.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

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.

Interesting, do you have favorite books or links?