budaatum:
Can't say I'm surprised muttley, that you missed everything. Yadayada word diarrhea is usually indicative of blindness and hearing only yourself, though, I doubt you can possibly have been hearing yourself.

MuttleyLaff:
Stale and unoriginal.

budaatum:
Can't say I'm surprised muttley, that you missed everything. Yadayada word diarrhea is usually indicative of blindness and hearing only yourself, though, I doubt you can possibly have been hearing yourself.

budaatum:
It's all I got for you muttley I'm awfully afraid.

MuttleyLaff:
"Confession
My eyes don't work as well as they used to so I have not been reading the books I said I would read. I'm listening instead with the devices below. The beauty is I get to 'read' each book more than once - four five times to be precise, and wherever I happen to go. Nothing beats a 1am walk listening to the Word of God."
- Re: I Am Taking Up Religion. by budaatum: 9:49pm On Mar 30

The internet never forgets. It is simply unforgettable. "Agbalagba arugbo, agba tii nde", it never forgot about your eyes that don't work as well as they used to.

MuttleyLaff:
budaatum, please I think I've missed something,

budaatum:
Instead of quoting out of context mut, and making yourself stupid, remind me again, who said the following?

OkCornel:
Cc: missjo, maamin, gobuchinny, budaatum, nijabazaar, RiyadhGoddess

missjo:

Hello Cornel, apologies for not honoring your mentions till now.

I have not studied The Book of Enoch in-depth, I have a pdf file of it on my PC but haven't quite begun the process of doing an intense truth study of its writings. So i can not really offer much regarding the subject.

However, i am not one of those saying the sons of God are Seth's descendants tho. I have always and still maintain that the sons of God in Genesis are fallen angels.

OkCornel:


Ahn ahn, I didn't know holding onto a single professor's view (Dr. Luginbill) is now the standard for looking into the matter of the book of Enoch thoroughly?

I mean, you discounted and turned a blind eye to the view of other numerous scholars and encyclopedias to hinge onto a funny speculative view that the book of Jude was written before the book of Enoch? As in...who in his or her right senses would conclude the book of Jude was written before the book of Enoch?


Amazing how someone can tell lies comfortably and defend it vigorously.


https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/8#83327413


https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/9#83328261


By the way, there's a certain false teacher that claimed the Holy Spirit withheld some of His gifts from the church since after the Bible era. I'm still trying to recall this false teacher vividly....

missjo:
Hello Cornel, apologies for not honoring your mentions till now.

I have not studied The Book of Enoch in-depth, I have a pdf file of it on my PC but haven't quite begun the process of doing an intense truth study of its writings. So i can not really offer much regarding the subject.

However, i am not one of those saying the sons of God are Seth's descendants tho. I have always and still maintain that the sons of God in Genesis are fallen angels.

Ihedinobi3:

Hello OkCornel.

I have a reason for returning to this discussion with you. Incidentally, that reason is also one of your challenges to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, God Who put on Humanity as well to die for all human sin. You asked,

"Or which of this advice should we adhere to?
Proverbs 24 v 5-6;

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

Both are two halves of one whole. There are times when you do not answer a fool because there is no good answer for him. A fool rejects reason. It is meaningless then to seek to reason with him. However, there are times when a fool's arrogance needs to be challenged, so that he learns humility. It is wisdom to know the difference.

Ihedinobi3:

My policy in general is not to bother with people who reject Scriptural authority, except when they ask direct questions that I consider reasonable. Such questions, like the one you asked above, may be asked in order to trip believers up, but they often provide me with opportunities to demonstrate to young believers that there are really answers to such questions in the Bible. Otherwise, I consider it a waste of precious time and energy to engage in debates with such people. Also, there are times when I am simply unable to bear the emotional burden of dealing with such people, so I don't engage at such times.

Ihedinobi3:

You are clearly determined to do significant damage to believers using this thread - and others like it, I'm sure. You know why it is important to you to do just that. As for me, I think I am up to the burden right now, and it seems to me like your questions and challenges need to be answered.

I'll begin then from where I just left off above:

1. Contradictions in the Bible.
I. You claim that there are contradictions in the 66 books that evangelical Protestants accept as inspired.

a) Why though is this claim any use to you when you argue, not that the 66 books are not inspired, but that there are other books that are just as inspired as them?

Ihedinobi3:

b) Are you changing positions now to claim that the 66 books are not inspired, but rather that the books that you claim that they referenced and quoted are the inspired ones?

Ihedinobi3:

c) Can any inspired literature possess contradictions and internal inconsistency?

Ihedinobi3:

d) If your answer to (c) above is "yes," how can you explain the possiblity that God can lie, because inspiration only means that He endorses the whole message of the literature as reliable and true and worthy of acceptance among all generations of men (that is why the Word of God is living: it endures without fail)?

Ihedinobi3:

II. In answer to your question about 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, I will call to your mind two other passages in the Bible that are similar. One is 1 Kings 22:19-23 and Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7.

Principle I: Nothing happens without God's say-so.

Principle II: All things, including Satan, are tools in God's Hands to serve His Purposes.

Ihedinobi3:

These two principles are apparent in the Scriptures above. God did move David to carry out a census in Israel. Satan did tempt David to carry out a census in Israel. Yes, it was the same census. No, there was no contradiction. Satan merely got God's Permission to tempt David in the manner that He did. God permitted him to do it, because God was angry with Israel and meant to punish them as a result of that census.

Now, there are two things that are important to point out about Satan's temptation of believers and censuses in Israel.

i) Satan does ask for and sometimes obtains special permission to tempt some believers. We have already seen that in the example of Job above. But it bears repeating. In Luke 22:31, the Lord Jesus confirms this in His warning to Peter. So, it can be expected that Satan asked for special permission to tempt David in this matter of the census.

ii) Censuses in Israel were a sacred affair. In Exodus 30:12, God commanded that no censuses were to be carried out without providing a ransom for each male who is counted. Without that ransom, a plague would come upon Israel. So, while it was not wrong for David to seek to know the number of all Israelite males in his dominions - in fact, Moses carried out several censuses of Israel during the time that he led the nation, and so did many other leaders and kings -, there was a divinely ordained procedure that he was supposed to follow to carry out such a census. David did not follow this procedure.

So, the picture to be seen here is that David carried out an unsanctioned census after Satan tempted him to do so, and that provided the Lord with a means to punish Israel at the time. Seventy thousand Israelites died of a plague as a punishment for David's failure, but this too was what the Lord had sought to accomplish by allowing Satan to tempt David.

As to why the Lord would do things this way, He is the King of the Universe. He has every right to do whatever He pleases. However, it is clear that Israel was acting in the manner that Israel usually did whenever they had everything in abundance: they got spiritually lazy. That was proved by David's unusual failure in alertness when he was tempted in the matter of the census. David was usually careful to find out whether the Lord wanted him to do this or that, but we see no signs of this here, even when Joab, a not particularly exemplary character, sought to dissuade him from it. The result is that he carried out an unsanctioned census and brought about the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelites in a manner that woke Israel up from their spiritual slumber.

Conclusion: There was no contradiction between those two passages, just as there was none in the other two that I treated at the beginning of this post.

Ihedinobi3:

III. In the matter of the disparity in amounts paid, in 2 Samuel 24, David paid for the threshing-floor and the equipment and provisions for the sacrifices that he made to the Lord. In 1 Chronicles 21, David paid for the whole site on which the threshing-floor was built to make it a shrine to the Lord at the time. This can happen because the urgency would have led him to pay the 50 shekels of silver first for the threshing-floor and the provisions for the sacrifices just to get the sacrifices done, then later he would have paid the 600 shekels of gold for the whole land because Araunah/Ornan could no longer use the place as a threshing-floor with an altar standing on it.

Ihedinobi3:


2. The Matter of Scholarship.
This is actually a very simple matter. Even in so-called precise sciences like physics, interpreting data, proposing theories, creating new scientific methods each results in plenty enough disagreement in the scientific community. So, that there is dissent on the part of even one member of an erudite community is not really proof of any kind that that member is less than erudite.

For another thing, argumentum ad populum is usually a fallacy. Although, in general, if more people believe something, it is usually because it is true, it is not therefore a universal case. That is, it is incorrect to assume that a given thing is true because more people believe it than don't. That is to say, that something is popular does not automatically make it true. Again, so-called precise sciences like physics have proven this time and again, that popular ideas are often false. So, the fact that you have a great number of scholars touting one opinion is no proof that that opinion is correct. It may be, but it won't be just because so many people believe it.

Finally, I was not quoting a scholarly work. Those were excerpts from personal emails that the Professor exchanged with inquirers who read his Bible-teaching website (you would know this if you actually bothered to check out the link). As such, his tone would have been necessarily different than if he were writing for his peers or as an expert in classical history. This is a very normal thing. Non-initiates in any given field, in general, do not often appreciate exactly how knowledge in that field works, so when experts speak to outsiders, they sound somewhat different than when they speak as authorities or peers. Having said that, as I said before, that someone has an opinion does not automatically mean that their opinion is either false or inadmissible, especially if the person is an expert in the field in which he or she is having an opinion.

Ihedinobi3:

3. Your accusations of me.
Have you looked up the word "travesty?" These are two definitions of it from the Cambridge dictionary online:

i) something that fails to represent the values and qualities that it is intended to represent, in a way that is shocking or offensive

ii) something that completely fails to do what it is intended or expected to do, and therefore seems ridiculous

I said that your accusation of me to have modified my post to Jamesid29 without warning was a travesty. I meant that it was a ridiculous accusation. Not only had I indicated that I edited the second post when I did days ago, but I never edited either post in any other way, much less in the manner that you described. You obviously didn't know what you were talking about, since the "Edited" tag had been there all along while you were making your accusations. I didn't bother to deny that I had modified the posts because you had not accused me of modifying them. You had accused me of modifying them without warning and also of modifying them in a way that I simply did not. As I said, I knew that you didn't know what you were talking about, so I simply waited for you to catch up.

Ihedinobi3:

I'll list the lies in this post (and they're only a sampling in this conversation with you):
3. "I modified my posts to JamesId29." This one's a travesty.

Ihedinobi.3:

I never claimed not to modify my posts to JamesId29.

Ihedinobi3:

I didn't bother to deny that I had modified the posts because you had not accused me of modifying them. You had accused me of modifying them without warning and also of modifying them in a way that I simply did not.

OkCornel:

All this evasion tactics.
You clearly modified your posts to James29id in those links I pasted earlier. Initially those posts had next to nothing in them before you updated them.
Just as you modified the other post you referred me to.
It’s so shameful you’ve resorted to outright lies.
Simple question: Did you modify those posts to Jamesid2.9? Yes or No
Jamesid2.9, hope you’re taking note of this development.

Ihedinobi3:

I wrote those two posts as one post on my Word app, then I copied and pasted it into one post that was too long, so it didn't get published on Nairaland. I broke the post in two and posted them one after the other with nothing else ever posted in the same text boxes before.

MuttleyLaff:
Those that live in glasshouses shouldnt be throwing stones. No, I didnt quote you out of context ma'am, I just reminded you about your "blindness" and hearing/listening to yourself, thats all

Conclusion:
You asked the question, “Why isn’t this wonderful book included in the Bible?” The answer is that Jesus and the apostles never called it Scripture. It is important to note that a few early church fathers highly valued the book of Enoch, but they never referred to it as Scripture. Therefore, we cannot view it as authorative since it is not the Word of God.

budaatum:
You'd see that unlike you I solved my problem. Or did you not get that from what you quoted?

nijabazaar:
Hmmmm. Thank you.

Hmmmm, again......thinking

I never envisaged this topic to be so divisive.

I am also struggling with my own conclusions too.
Chai.

MuttleyLaff:


Refer to 2 Timothy 4:3 and Jude 1:18 coming next below



"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear what they want to hear."
- 2 Timothy 4:3

"How they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.
(i.e. whose purpose in life is to satisfy their ungodly desires)"
- Jude 1:18

Bodydialect57 and gobuchinny, I have this sneaky feeling youse havent at all back to back read the BoE. I say this because first, gobuchinny never gave a response to my questions about him to please give me honest replies to each and every one of my questions I asked him in my previous post.

Number 2, if truly youse two have read the BoE, then youse would have noticed the gaping holes in the BoE, as opposed of thinking it is filling blanks and/or gaps.

gobuchinny, you seem not to want to acknowledge the God Factor in 300 men defeating men as much as the sand in the seashore. The God Factor in the virgin give birth to a man. The God Factor in how a sea divides for people. The God Factor in how the earth got flooded and only 8 survived

The book of Enoch speaks about the gospel? So? Even demons, workers of evil and workers of iniquity speak about the Gospel too gobuchinny. So whats the big deal, saying the BoE, speaks about the Gospel, hmm?

gobuchinny, you said, you're asking me again that, do I think God cannot preserve His words, but you refused to reply to my question that, if the BoE, is truly that revered and a book that commands respect and honour, why isnt it, even if its just once, not directly mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Others books, even the your beloved Book of Jasher, the original is mentioned, mentioned even at least twice, if I am correct, but high and mighty BoE is missing. BoE, seems to be an outcast. Nobody dared directly mention it with their lips, talkess let it be in a way that is visible to the eye, be seen written out in black ink on the Bible's white. This is an indictment, that at the very least, BoE is an accursed book

I am glad for you that you know the truth about RCC. My grouse at the moment isnt with the RCC, so that congratsto you, is all I'll here be saying about the RCC aside again saying here that, if only more christians properly read their bibles there'd be less christians.

gobuchinny, I would rather we stick to this BoE matter at hand, instead to wandering off talking about Israel, the fakery going on with Ashkenazi Jews and whatnot

gobuchinny, you said:
"Please nwannem, let's discuss the Book of Enoch. Tell me one thing in that book that you have an issue with...
Let's discuss your issues with the book. Pls quote it let's discuss. Because if you cant find any thing that contradicts the bible, y do you have an issue?"

Well gobuchinny, guess what? I have countless times made comments about the ridiculousness of the BoE on this thread and elsewhere, but do you know what gobuchinny? You see up there, is a quote from solite3. solite3 has twice painstakingly provided an itemised listing of contradictions present in the Book of Enoch.

gobuchinny, be our guest, munch on away on those contradictions. You're spoiled for choice gobuchinny, which ones you want to first start sink your teeth into, lol. Happy days. lol.

Please jor, biko, my nwanne friend gobuchinny dont let the crew down, let's put this Book of Enoch to bed. At least make solite3 a happy person tonight before solite3 goes to bed too.

PS: I like that "see: Q: #289". Another strong meat that's too tough for some to gnaw their teeth on, lol.

gobuchinny:


Sorry I'm responding late. I have looked at all your submissions. Firstly I beleive Enoch spoke to his son after he had ascended. Methusaleh said that his dwelling was with the Angel's meaning he wasnt on earth. Enoch also said in the same conversation that he has read the heavenly tablets which shows he wasnt on earth. Y is this strange? Didnt Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus and speak to Him?.

Enoch spoke of rain when it hadn't rained. because it hadn't rain doesn't mean there was no rain . Or do you assume that rain was invented just because of the flood. Enoch saw in the spirits so he knew there was such a thing as rain.

An angel was in charge of repentance so replacing the role of Yeshua? That absurd. Angel's are ministering spirits and each has it's own role. How do you think the world is organized. It's like Angel's in charge of ensuring the sun passes its route or Angel's In charge of the souls of men. These r roles of several Angel's brother not in anyway taking the place of Christ. Iz like how a nation has different ministers to ensure progress. And everyone has their roles.

Bible says Noah built the ark, BOE says Angel's helped him build. How is that any different? Do you know that for everywar fought by Israel Angel's would have assisted? Weather it was mentioned or not we assume because Israel was fighting the battle of God. Sometime the bible even says God himself hurled stones. Elisah was surrounded on time and God opened the eyes of his servant to see the host present. If Gehazi never saw it does it mean Angel's were not available to help?

All these points you raised are non issues. I ask again. The devil never invests in what will not blaspheme Elohim. There is no blasphemy but only reinforcement of the gospel which is Yeshua. So if you accomplish the task of God, dont you know you obviously got some help from Angel's weather you saw them or not. Are they not ministering spirit sent to assist those that will inherit eternal life?

Unlike other books that point to another saviour no matter how much they acknowledge God or Yeshua, because the devil must point you away from God and His Son, the BOE points you to Yeshua.

About the temptation of eve, hope you know that Satan fell with alot Angel's. And any activity of these angels will be deemed as an activity of Satan. Besides, these book was translated into several languages and alotta details might have been lost but the idea is to get the general picture.

Why is it strange that a baby spoke at birth but not strange that a donkey spoke to his master . So this is not an issue atall brother.

Like I said. Everything you raised are non issues and only reinforces that the book is good to go. Please I'm not promoting any book as the bible is enough but for more understanding, the BOE fills in alotta gaps along side the BOJ.

You are wrong about it not quoted as Jude and Peter quoted verbatim from the book . Peter said Angel's that kept not their first estate . Please what other proofs do you need. Abeg the estate ma for Omole phase 1 .

Please quote something else from it because I haven't seen anything yet from you that makes the book contradict the bible

MuttleyLaff:


Refer to 2 Timothy 4:3 and Jude 1:18 coming next below



"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear what they want to hear."
- 2 Timothy 4:3

"How they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.
(i.e. whose purpose in life is to satisfy their ungodly desires)"
- Jude 1:18

Bodydialect57 and gobuchinny, I have this sneaky feeling youse havent at all back to back read the BoE. I say this because first, gobuchinny never gave a response to my questions about him to please give me honest replies to each and every one of my questions I asked him in my previous post.

Number 2, if truly youse two have read the BoE, then youse would have noticed the gaping holes in the BoE, as opposed of thinking it is filling blanks and/or gaps.

gobuchinny, you seem not to want to acknowledge the God Factor in 300 men defeating men as much as the sand in the seashore. The God Factor in the virgin give birth to a man. The God Factor in how a sea divides for people. The God Factor in how the earth got flooded and only 8 survived

The book of Enoch speaks about the gospel? So? Even demons, workers of evil and workers of iniquity speak about the Gospel too gobuchinny. So whats the big deal, saying the BoE, speaks about the Gospel, hmm?

gobuchinny, you said, you're asking me again that, do I think God cannot preserve His words, but you refused to reply to my question that, if the BoE, is truly that revered and a book that commands respect and honour, why isnt it, even if its just once, not directly mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Others books, even the your beloved Book of Jasher, the original is mentioned, mentioned even at least twice, if I am correct, but high and mighty BoE is missing. BoE, seems to be an outcast. Nobody dared directly mention it with their lips, talkess let it be in a way that is visible to the eye, be seen written out in black ink on the Bible's white. This is an indictment, that at the very least, BoE is an accursed book

I am glad for you that you know the truth about RCC. My grouse at the moment isnt with the RCC, so that congratsto you, is all I'll here be saying about the RCC aside again saying here that, if only more christians properly read their bibles there'd be less christians.

gobuchinny, I would rather we stick to this BoE matter at hand, instead to wandering off talking about Israel, the fakery going on with Ashkenazi Jews and whatnot

gobuchinny, you said:
"Please nwannem, let's discuss the Book of Enoch. Tell me one thing in that book that you have an issue with...
Let's discuss your issues with the book. Pls quote it let's discuss. Because if you cant find any thing that contradicts the bible, y do you have an issue?"

Well gobuchinny, guess what? I have countless times made comments about the ridiculousness of the BoE on this thread and elsewhere, but do you know what gobuchinny? You see up there, is a quote from solite3. solite3 has twice painstakingly provided an itemised listing of contradictions present in the Book of Enoch.

gobuchinny, be our guest, munch on away on those contradictions. You're spoiled for choice gobuchinny, which ones you want to first start sink your teeth into, lol. Happy days. lol.

Please jor, biko, my nwanne friend gobuchinny dont let the crew down, let's put this Book of Enoch to bed. At least make solite3 a happy person tonight before solite3 goes to bed too.

PS: I like that "see: Q: #289". Another strong meat that's too tough for some to gnaw their teeth on, lol.

OkCornel:



No probs dear.

MuttleyLaff:
You will never find any verse in the Bible, that, in a clear, direct and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, saying fallen angels or said angels are sons of God. I dare you to come up with any verse(s) missjo and let me counter you and take you to the cleaners with them.lol.