CaveAdullam:
In my own black and white paper Bible, Jude and Peter made reference to the book of Enoch.

CaveAdullam, we know that Jude and Peter paraphrased the Book of Enoch, this meaning, they made references to excerpts gleaned from the Book of Enoch. They did this without making any mention whatsoever of the words, the Book of Enoch.

So CaveAdullam, we are not disputing Jude and Peter made references to the book of Enoch or not, but we are saying the Book of Enoch didnt have the respect and honour to be plainly flat out mentioned anywhere in scripture or the Bible. If other books are visibly mentioned in the Bible, then why is the Book of Enoch an exception, hmm?

OkCornel:


Let’s start with the ancient Dead Sea scrolls, what was the book of Enoch doing there alongside other canonised scriptures?

Are you also aware there oldest fragments of the Book of Enoch available dates as far back as 300BC?

Now remind me again, when was the book of Jude written?

I'm not going to waste my time answering that question about the Qumran Caves again. If you have a problem with the answer I gave before, you can simply tell me what it is, and we'll take it from there.

According to whose dating is this information?

The Book of Jude was written in the first half of the first century.

Ihedinobi3:

I'm not going to waste my time answering that question about the Qumran Caves again. If you have a problem with the answer I gave before, you can simply tell me what it is, and we'll take it from there.

According to whose dating is this information?

The Book of Jude was written in the first half of the first century.

What answer did you give me on the questions below?
1)What is your take on the extra books in the first version of the King James Bible (1611 version), are the extra books uninspired?
2)What was the book of Enoch doing alongside other canonized books in the ancient dead sea scrolls?
3)Are the extra books in the ancient Ethiopian Bible also uninspired?

solite3:
bloodofthlamb you are welcome brother, I think the sons of God in genesis were actually fallen angels who might have possessed human males to have sexual intercourse with women, and this process might lead to a bio engineered genes of the resulting children to be unusual, the reason I think this is true is that

1. It was not recorded that humans were prohibited to inter marry among themselves.
2. The wild and sudden total corruption of the human society meant something devilish actually took place.
3.There was no evidence that certain humans were called sons of God while others were not.
4. angels are sometimes called the sons of God.
5. from the book of Jude these angels were imprisoned for their crimes in the book od noah.
6. The unsual children resulting from such union.

But I believe that such sexual union of the sons of God and the daughters of men were not physical but spiritual through human males.

solite3 you're wrong in thinking the sons of God in genesis were actually fallen angels.

There is evidence that certain humans were called sons of God but there is no evidence from the bible of angels ever at any stage being called the sons of God.

solite3, do you have evidence, that is in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, that shows the bible calling angels sons of God?

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) of the text are estimated to date from about 300–200 BCE, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the 100 BCE.

Source: Fahlbusch, E.; Bromiley, G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P–Sh page 411,



Various Aramaic fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as Koine Greek and Latin fragments were proof that The Book of Enoch was known by early Jews and Christians. This book was also quoted by some 1st and 2nd century authors as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Authors of the New Testament were also familiar with some content of the story. A short section of 1 Enoch (1:9) is cited in the New Testament, Epistle of Jude, Jude 1:14–15, and is attributed there to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8 ), although this section of 1 Enoch is a midrash on Deuteronomy 33:2. Several copies of the earlier sections of 1 Enoch were preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.


Sources:

1. Cheyne and Black, Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899), "Apocalyptic Literature" (column 220). "The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic belongs to the last two centuries BCE. All of the writers of the NT were familiar with it and were more or less influenced by it in thought"

2. Barker, Margaret. (2005) [1998]. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. London: SPCK; Sheffield Phoenix Press.




NOW, WHO WAS INSINUATING THE BOOK OF ENOCH COPIED FROM THE BOOK OF JUDE?


Just to add, the book of Enoch was also discussed in detail by early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Athenagoras

OkCornel:




What answer did you give me on the questions below?
1)What is your take on the extra books in the first version of the King James Bible (1611 version), are the extra books uninspired?
2)What was the book of Enoch doing alongside other canonized books in the ancient dead sea scrolls?
3)Are the extra books in the ancient Ethiopian Bible also uninspired?

You want me to go and find an answer that I wrote quoting you as my respondent on Nairaland? You're not serious. If you want to engage my answer, go and find it yourself. Why do I have to keep jumping through hoops for you?

Ihedinobi3:

You want me to go and find an answer that I wrote quoting you as my respondent on Nairaland? You're not serious. If you want to engage my answer, go and find it yourself. Why do I have to keep jumping through hoops for you?

And the dodging game begins;

You gave no direct response to the extra books in the ancient Ethiopian Bible, or why the first version of KJV had extra books as well OR what the book of Enoch was doing alongside other canonized scriptures in the ancient dead sea scrolls.

You merely regurgitated the position of the "Evangelical Protestants" as your basis for what the word of God is... 66 books
https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/4#83311384

Well done...

OkCornel:
The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) of the text are estimated to date from about 300–200 BCE, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the 100 BCE.

Source: Fahlbusch, E.; Bromiley, G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P–Sh page 411,



Various Aramaic fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as Koine Greek and Latin fragments were proof that The Book of Enoch was known by early Jews and Christians. This book was also quoted by some 1st and 2nd century authors as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Authors of the New Testament were also familiar with some content of the story. A short section of 1 Enoch (1:9) is cited in the New Testament, Epistle of Jude, Jude 1:14–15, and is attributed there to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8 ), although this section of 1 Enoch is a midrash on Deuteronomy 33:2. Several copies of the earlier sections of 1 Enoch were preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.


Sources:

1. Cheyne and Black, Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899), "Apocalyptic Literature" (column 220). "The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic belongs to the last two centuries BCE. All of the writers of the NT were familiar with it and were more or less influenced by it in thought"

2. Barker, Margaret. (2005) [1998]. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. London: SPCK; Sheffield Phoenix Press.




NOW, WHO WAS INSINUATING THE BOOK OF ENOCH COPIED FROM THE BOOK OF JUDE?


Just to add, the book of Enoch was also discussed in detail by early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Athenagoras

I have a few quotes of my own from an actual classical historical authority, Professor Robert Luginbill:

"...all of the Apocrypha may post-date all of the New Testament, it may very well be that whatever "allusions" are present (to the extent that there are any in fact; I don't really even see that to any great degree), this may be explained by deliberate aping of New Testament language as in the Enoch example (the later work mimicking the earlier famous literature)."

"Jude 1:9 is only known to us as having something to do with a work called the "Ascension/Assumption of Moses" because of some of the church fathers, Clement, Origen, et al. Most likely this is also a case of the counterfeit following the inspired original. Of course, it would be easy to speculate and expand a very scriptural sounding parallel to Jude 1:9 just on the basis of putting together Deuteronomy 34:6 with Malachi 4:4-5 and Genesis 5:24. This sort of thing happens very frequently in Greek literature and many scholars have been led astray by failing to recognize clever conjecture by ancient authors. For writing of this type was a very common thing in antiquity (e.g., the letters of Plato, the letters of Themistocles, interpolations into Thucydides [3.84], and many a work reputedly by some famous figure but undeniably not in fact). However, since we don't know anything more about the specific pseudepigraphical work in question besides these glancing references, it's only speculation either way."

"I think the best answer is that the Apocrypha either did not exist at the time the New Testament was written, or, that such parts of it that did exist were understood very well for what they were, namely, a secular, pseudo-religious philosophical literature written to lay claim to scriptural authority by human will out of human ambition (and given short shrift by all biblical writers as a result)."

"Most scholars use a range for these writings as they are of widely disparate provenance. The most common range I have seen is "200 B.C. to 100 A.D." which certainly admits of some if not all of the Apocrypha post-dating the New Testament. When it comes to dating such things, that is a highly subjective endeavor in any case. For example, Sirach is often dated as having an ante quem (it should only be good for post quem) of 132 B.C. because of the introduction's reference to Ptolemy Euergetes. But of course any work trying to hype its own authority will claim an antiquity greater than what is actually the truth (and what better way to do so than to drop a famous name of yore?). Given the vast number of Greek writings of this and a similar sort which are not in fact as old as they make out, I retain my skepticism."

Source: https://ichthys.com/mail-Issues-of-Canonicity.htm

Ihedinobi3:

I have a few quotes of my own from an actual classical historical authority, Professor Robert Luginbill:

"...all of the Apocrypha may post-date all of the New Testament, it may very well be that whatever "allusions" are present (to the extent that there are any in fact; I don't really even see that to any great degree), this may be explained by deliberate aping of New Testament language as in the Enoch example (the later work mimicking the earlier famous literature)."

"Jude 1:9 is only known to us as having something to do with a work called the "Ascension/Assumption of Moses" because of some of the church fathers, Clement, Origen, et al. Most likely this is also a case of the counterfeit following the inspired original. Of course, it would be easy to speculate and expand a very scriptural sounding parallel to Jude 1:9 just on the basis of putting together Deuteronomy 34:6 with Malachi 4:4-5 and Genesis 5:24. This sort of thing happens very frequently in Greek literature and many scholars have been led astray by failing to recognize clever conjecture by ancient authors. For writing of this type was a very common thing in antiquity (e.g., the letters of Plato, the letters of Themistocles, interpolations into Thucydides [3.84], and many a work reputedly by some famous figure but undeniably not in fact). However, since we don't know anything more about the specific pseudepigraphical work in question besides these glancing references, it's only speculation either way."

"I think the best answer is that the Apocrypha either did not exist at the time the New Testament was written, or, that such parts of it that did exist were understood very well for what they were, namely, a secular, pseudo-religious philosophical literature written to lay claim to scriptural authority by human will out of human ambition (and given short shrift by all biblical writers as a result)."

"Most scholars use a range for these writings as they are of widely disparate provenance. The most common range I have seen is "200 B.C. to 100 A.D." which certainly admits of some if not all of the Apocrypha post-dating the New Testament. When it comes to dating such things, that is a highly subjective endeavor in any case. For example, Sirach is often dated as having an ante quem (it should only be good for post quem) of 132 B.C. because of the introduction's reference to Ptolemy Euergetes. But of course any work trying to hype its own authority will claim an antiquity greater than what is actually the truth (and what better way to do so than to drop a famous name of yore?). Given the vast number of Greek writings of this and a similar sort which are not in fact as old as they make out, I retain my skepticism."

Source: https://ichthys.com/mail-Issues-of-Canonicity.htm

1) So how did the book of Enoch make it alongside other canonized books in the ancient Dead sea scrolls?

2) What business did early church fathers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement e.t.c have to do with the book of Enoch?

3) How on earth is Professor Robert Luginbill suddenly an actual classical historical authority whilst this source existed way before him?
Cheyne and Black, Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899), "Apocalyptic Literature"

4) How exactly does the bolded give us the precise date of the oldest manuscript of the book of Enoch available? One scholar's view against numerous other scholar's views... quite interesting! Pay special attention to your quote I bolded in red. That shows you his own point of view.

OkCornel:


And the dodging game begins;

You gave no direct response to the extra books in the ancient Ethiopian Bible, or why the first version of KJV had extra books as well OR what the book of Enoch was doing alongside other canonized scriptures in the ancient dead sea scrolls.

You merely regurgitated the position of the "Evangelical Protestants" as your basis for what the word of God is... 66 books
https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/4#83311384

Well done...

I gave no direct response? Given that you have several times misquoted me and pretty much interpreted my posts like someone with a reading disability, and given also that the link up there is not the one I made in answer to your continuous badgering about the Dead Sea scrolls, I would say that I don't need to take you seriously.

I made the post in response to your question about the Dead Sea scrolls at 8:44pm. Find it, if you please. I really couldn't be bothered to do it for you.

And, believe me, I have never wasted time worrying about accusations like "dodging." You really are better off when I "dodge" your challenges.

Ihedinobi3:

I gave no direct response? Given that you have several times misquoted me and pretty much interpreted my posts like someone with a reading disability, and given also that the link up there is not the one I made in answer to your continuous badgering about the Dead Sea scrolls, I would say that I don't need to take you seriously.

I made the post in response to your question about the Dead Sea scrolls at 8:44pm. Find it, if you please. I really couldn't be bothered to do it for you.

And, believe me, I have never wasted time worrying about accusations like "dodging." You really are better off when I "dodge" your challenges.

That's great to know, after modifying your post.

Lemme go and read it.

OkCornel:


1) So how did the book of Enoch make it alongside other canonized books in the ancient Dead sea scrolls?

2) What business did early church fathers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement e.t.c have to do with the book of Enoch?

3) How on earth is Professor Robert Luginbill suddenly an actual classical historical authority whilst this source existed way before him?
Cheyne and Black, Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899), "Apocalyptic Literature"

4) How exactly does the bolded give us the precise date of the oldest manuscript of the book of Enoch available? One scholar's view against numerous other scholar's views... quite interesting! Pay special attention to your quote I bolded in red. That shows you his own point of view.

1. You can keep typing this question until you cramp your fingers. Not going to answer it again. Go find the answer where I made it and come and say whatever you have to say.

2. Aren't you the one that just claimed that the church fathers quoted your book of Enoch?

3. I think you should never ask such a question in public again. He is a historical authority because he is an erudite scholar of classical history. I would sooner take his word about historical questions over yours.

4. As for the question of numbers, I would sooner accept the testimony of one person telling the truth than that of a thousand telling lies. Who would you rather believe: the eyewitness or those who heard something secondhand? Scholars are not always unanimous in their position on questions in their field. It is up to you why you believe who you believe. I happen to believe Professor Luginbill because his arguments actually make sense.

As for "his own point of view," you are true to type. If you had not pointed that out, I would have thought that you are a wiser person than I believe you to be. Of course, it is his point of view. Does that make it a wrong point of view?

OkCornel:


That's great to know, after modifying your post.

Lemme go and read it.

LOL. I rarely modify my posts without warning. I have not edited any response to you. I have edited my responses to another poster here, to correct my grammar, but not a single response to you. That would be a grand waste of time.

Ihedinobi3:

I'm wondering if there is any point in continuing to talk to you. Do you have a problem understanding what you read?
I said to you that books that are inspired are recognized by the presence of life in them. That's it. I did not say that books that are inspired are recognized by the Evangelical Protestants' acceptance of them.
I said that there are only 66 such books, and those are the ones that are accepted by Evangelical Protestants. That is, I said that the books that are inspired are in the collection that Evangelical Protestants have universally accepted. That is merely identifying which books are inspired, not telling you why they are inspired. Please, don't waste any more of my time asking me to repeat things I have said in writing.

And the Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic churches also see the presence of life in those extra books beyond the 66 books accepted by the Evangelical Protestants. Any act of blasphemy here?

Ihedinobi3:

As for the Orthodox, Coptic, and Roman churches, I don't see any reason why their say matters. The Bible was known as it was written. The Jewish nation knew what the Old Testament was right as it was being written (Jeremiah 36). They certainly did not need the Orthodox, Coptic, and Roman churches to tell them which book was inspired and which book wasn't. In the days of the apostles, it was the same (2 Peter 3:15-16). No one has ever needed the Orthodox, Coptic, and Roman churches to tell them which book was inspired and which book wasn't. Any living conscience can recognize the Word of God when it is spoken.

Of course their say also matters. Afterall, they existed before the Evangelical Protestants came into existence. Isn't it worth thinking why their versions of the Bible is more than 66 books...till the Evangelical Protestants whittled it down to 66?

Ihedinobi3:

As for what business the Bible has referencing uninspired books, it's exactly the same business that it has referencing creation to prove the Existence of God and His Character (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1-6). Wherever there is any truth at all, it belongs to God. Only God defines Truth. Whatever He says is true. Therefore, when He built the world, He filled it with witnesses of His Truth, so that everyone who wishes to hear His Truth will find it by listening to them. If a reasonably accurate account of history is written, it will bear testimony to the veracity of the Bible. That is why the Bible references the books that it does.

This still does not answer my question. The portions of these "uninspired books" the Bible made references to, are they now suddenly inspired because the Bible made reference to them? Does that mean these "uninspired books" can now be referred as "partially inspired"?

Ihedinobi3:

As for the King James Bible, I am not going to repeat myself again.

You've not made any point at all on the 1611 KJV Bible, why do we have more than 66 books there?

Ihedinobi3:

Whatever the Book of Enoch was doing there is probably what every other preserved bit of literature is or was doing wherever it is found. That does not mean that every preserved bit of literature is God's Truth. Are you going to call the Roman tax records inspired because they still exist? Or are you going to say that it is only documents found in the Qumran caves that are inspired? Why? Because the caves are holy ground?

As for the Ethiopian Bible, please don't waste my time.

Oh please tell us how and why Jude and Peter made references to the book of Enoch in their writings...if they did not consider it inspired.

Oh wait, I guess it's only the part the made reference to, that is the inspired part...

Ihedinobi3:

LOL. I rarely modify my posts without warning. I have not edited any response to you. I have edited my responses to another poster here, to correct my grammar, but not a single response to you. That would be a grand waste of time.

Dude, stop lying abeg. I've seen you modify your posts on another thread last we both commented on last week.

You modified that post you just referred me to.

Ihedinobi3:

1. You can keep typing this question until you cramp your fingers. Not going to answer it again. Go find the answer where I made it and come and say whatever you have to say.

2. Aren't you the one that just claimed that the church fathers quoted your book of Enoch?

3. I think you should never ask such a question in public again. He is a historical authority because he is an erudite scholar of classical history. I would sooner take his word about historical questions over yours.

4. As for the question of numbers, I would sooner accept the testimony of one person telling the truth than that of a thousand telling lies. Who would you rather believe: the eyewitness or those who heard something secondhand? Scholars are not always unanimous in their position on questions in their field. It is up to you why you believe who you believe. I happen to believe Professor Luginbill because his arguments actually make sense.

As for "his own point of view," you are true to type. If you had not pointed that out, I would have thought that you are a wiser person than I believe you to be. Of course, it is his point of view. Does that make it a wrong point of view?

Awww... I just love how Professor Lunginbill is suddenly now the supreme authority on scholarly and classical history, whilst all other scholars can have their views burn to ashes

Increase your sample size and see how you'll fall short eventually

OkCornel:


Dude, stop lying abeg. I've seen you modify your posts on another thread last we both commented on last week.

You modified that post you just referred me to.

I can understand how you think that I must be like you, looking to deceive and trick others into joining whatever madness you like. I'm not like that. If I modify my post in a way that changes its meaning significantly, I always include "Edited" at the end to warn that I changed it. Whenever I don't, it is in error that I don't, and I don't remember any instance when I forgot to.

Whenever I edit my post for grammar or similar adjustments, I don't bother to warn that I edited it. I did the same thing twice or three times in my exchange with solite3 here. There is no dishonesty in that, since I didn't change anything significant in the post.

In the post in question, there isn't even a grammatical correction made. I couldn't really care less if you claim that I edited it, but clearly you don't pay attention to the discussions you get into. You are too blinded by the lies that you want to sell to the world that you cannot see anything clearly. You have read posts I made and quoted them to read completely differently than what I said, so how could you not miss an entire post and then turn around and claim that it was edited?

OkCornel:


Awww... I just love how Professor Lunginbill is suddenly now the supreme authority on scholarly and classical history, whilst all other scholars can have their views burn to ashes

Increase your sample size and see how you'll fall short eventually

I didn't know that you were assigning places to scholars.

For those of you fruitlessly arguing that the sons of God in Genesis & Job are the male descendants of Seth;

Please have a look at Josephus Flavius' Antiquity of the Jews; I don't think Josephus Flavius needs introduction here as famous first century Jewish historian he was.

Flavius Josephus of the Antiquities of the Jews — Book I
Chapter 3 v 1;

1. Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations: but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their fore-fathers; and did neither pay those honours to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shewn for virtue, they now shewed by their actions a double degree of wickedness. Whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many Angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married. So he departed out of that land.


Check out how this reconciles with the verses posted from the book of Enoch earlier;

Enoch Chapter 15 v 1-7;

1 And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: 'Do not be afraid, Enoch you righteous man and scribe of righteousness.
2 Approach and hear my voice. Go and say to the Watchers of heaven, for whom you have come to intercede: "You should intercede for men, and not men for you."
3 Why and for what cause have you left the high, holy and eternal heaven, and had sex with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of the earth, and begotten (as your) sons?
4 Though you were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten children with the blood of flesh, and as the children of men, you have lusted after flesh and blood like those who die and are killed.
5 This is why I have given men wives, that they might impregnate them, and have children by them, that deeds might continue on earth.
6 But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, immortal for all generations of the world.
7 Therefore, I have not appointed wives for you; you are spiritual beings of heaven, and in heaven was your dwelling place.

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

Ihedinobi3:

I didn't know that you were assigning places to scholars.

I didn't also know you were hinging all your hopes on one scholar to arrive at a conclusion that Enoch was written after Jude...

OkCornel:


And the Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic churches also see the presence of life in those extra books beyond the 66 books accepted by the Evangelical Protestants. Any act of blasphemy here?



Of course their say also matters. Afterall, they existed before the Evangelical Protestants came into existence. Isn't it worth thinking why their versions of the Bible is more than 66 books...till the Evangelical Protestants whittled it down to 66?



This still does not answer my question. The portions of these "uninspired books" the Bible made references to, are they now suddenly inspired because the Bible made reference to them? Does that mean these "uninspired books" can now be referred as "partially inspired"?



You've not made any point at all on the 1611 KJV Bible, why do we have more than 66 books there?



Oh please tell us how and why Jude and Peter made references to the book of Enoch in their writings...if they did not consider it inspired.

Oh wait, I guess it's only the part the made reference to, that is the inspired part...

Right. I'm done discussing with you. I don't have the antidote either to dishonesty or to stupidity.

Ihedinobi3:

I can understand how you think that I must be like you, looking to deceive and trick others into joining whatever madness you like. I'm not like that. If I modify my post in a way that changes its meaning significantly, I always include "Edited" at the end to warn that I changed it. Whenever I don't, it is in error that I don't, and I don't remember any instance when I forgot to.

Whenever I edit my post for grammar or similar adjustments, I don't bother to warn that I edited it. I did the same thing twice or three times in my exchange with solite3 here. There is no dishonesty in that, since I didn't change anything significant in the post.

In the post in question, there isn't even a grammatical correction made. I couldn't really care less if you claim that I edited it, but clearly you don't pay attention to the discussions you get into. You are too blinded by the lies that you want to sell to the world that you cannot see anything clearly. You have read posts I made and quoted them to read completely differently than what I said, so how could you not miss an entire post and then turn around and claim that it was edited?

Dude, again stop lying.

Do you want me to refer to the posts you edited by posting large volumes of information subsequently on the other thread? I can't believe you'll stoop this low to telling lies here.

Ihedinobi3:

Right. I'm done discussing with you. I don't have the antidote either to dishonesty or to stupidity.

Ah yes, it's time for them to beat a hasty retreat when further evidences keep cropping up.

Looking at the bolded in your quote, perhaps that explains a lot why you keep displaying such in large doses... isn't it? Poor fella, you'll be alright much later.

I really had a good laugh at your discovery today though. The book of Jude was written before the book of Enoch, and copied from it. Smh

OkCornel:


Ah yes, it's time for them to beat a hasty retreat when further evidences keep cropping up.

I really had a good laugh at your discovery today though. The book of Jude was written before the book of Enoch, and copied from it. Smh

Don't let my "hasty retreat" stop you from posting all your "further evidences." You've been doing that on this thread regardless.

I just don't waste my time on discussions with people like you. I have already repeated myself too many times here. To continue in the conversation, I would have to just repeat things I have said before. Since, I wasn't responding to convince you of anything, I would be a fool to do that. Best that I leave now and give my time to more productive tasks. My witness here is made. Those who have ears will hear. Others like you...well, as Paul put it you are the

[18][ones that] keep [trying to defraud] [us] of [our] prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking [your] stand on visions [you have] seen, inflated without cause by [your] fleshly mind,
[19]and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
Colossians 2:18-19

Can't waste time on people like that.

OkCornel:


Dude, again stop lying.

Do you want me to refer to the posts you edited by posting large volumes of information subsequently on the other thread? I can't believe you'll stoop this low to telling lies here.

I dare you to.

Ihedinobi3:

Don't let my "hasty retreat" stop you from posting all your "further evidences." You've been doing that on this thread regardless.

I just don't waste my time on discussions with people like you. I have already repeated myself too many times here. To continue in the conversation, I would have to just repeat things I have said before. Since, I wasn't responding to convince you of anything, I would be a fool to do that. Best that I leave now and give my time to more productive tasks. My witness here is made. Those who have ears will hear. Others like you...well, as Paul put it you are the

[18][ones that] keep [trying to defraud] [us] of [our] prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking [your] stand on visions [you have] seen, inflated without cause by [your] fleshly mind,
[19]and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
Colossians 2:18-19

Can't waste time on people like that.

Story for the gods. After lying you never modified your post you just referred me to. Or hinging your entire hopes on a single professor to conclude Jude was written before the book of Enoch.

Don't mention this nonsense you just said about the book of Enoch to any seasoned Jewish historian, lest you make yourself a butt of jokes.

1) No answers as to why the book of Enoch was found alongside other canonized books in the ancient dead sea scrolls.
2) No explanation as to why the ancient Ethiopian Bible and the first version of the KJV bible have more than 66 books.

Merely hinging hopes on the speculative view of one professor to hastily conclude the book of Jude was written before Enoch.

What a waste of time.

Ihedinobi3:

I dare you to.

My pleasure, co-incidentally...it was on this thread

Did you modify these posts of yours below to Jamesid29? I recalled those posts had next to nothing in it, before those large volumes of information (copy and paste I presume) later cropped up. Yes or No?

https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/3#83179902
https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/3#83179929

I have being going via all the debates here. And it seems a few think they reserve the moral authority to deem what is inspired and what isnt.?

One commenter, went as far as to make it seem other denominations' view of the Bible is in consequential to His own view of the books the bible. I dont know. But i think is isolating....intellectual arrogance perhaps.

This is the problem with we Christians. Those who claimed to have been saved, suddenly start thinking like the Pharisees, they now cant afford to look beyond their noses. T

With the debate this Book has ensued here, one wonders, if this is the reason why the early Christian fathers refused or where reluctant, to include it with the final compilation of the Bible.

I am almost getting way pst the last chapters of the book of Enouch. I will add my findings as soon.

I am a catholic, i must say.... I am fairly annoyed by a comment above that seem to put up a nose. But that is irrelevant to the issue here.

The book was surely part of the Dead Sea scrolls. Other sets of Books, discovered alongside, were allegedly stacked away under heavy several concrete-deep vaults in the Vatican. Why??

nijabazaar:
I have being going via all the debates here. And it seems a few think they reserve the moral authority to deem what is inspired and what isnt.?

One commenter, went as far as to make it seem other denominations' view of the Bible is in consequential to His own view of the books the bible. I dont know. But i think is isolating....intellectual arrogance perhaps.

This is the problem with we Christians. Those who claimed to have been saved, suddenly start thinking like the Pharisees, they now cant afford to look beyond their noses. T

With the debate this Book has ensued here, one wonders, if this is the reason why the early Christian fathers refused or where reluctant, to include it with the final compilation of the Bible.

I am almost getting way pst the last chapters of the book of Enouch. I will add my findings as soon.

I am a catholic. And I may have discovered a cover up. The book was surely part of the Dead Sea scrolls. Other sets of Books, discovered alongside, were allegedly stacked away under heavy several concrete deep vaults in the Vatican. Why??

I eagerly await your findings.

MuttleyLaff:
solite3 you're wrong in thinking the sons of God in genesis were actually fallen angels.

There is evidence that certain humans were called sons of God but there is no evidence from the bible of angels ever at any stage being called the sons of God.

solite3, do you have evidence, that is in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, that shows the bible calling angels sons of God?

I think this verse refers to the angels of God, I may be wrong but I have my reasons to believe it refers to the angels.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Ihedinobi3:

This could be true, but given that Jude was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, and that Enoch was not a Jew, so that his prophecies would necessarily be important to Jews, and given also that Enoch's prophecies are mentioned nowhere else in this body of Jewish sacred writings called the Old Testament, it is unlikely that Jude's quote was ever common knowledge among the Jews. It is very possibly what was shown to Him by the Lord, just like Moses was given to see the entire history of Creation up to the point of the Exile, including the very words of ancient prophets like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is really not an unreasonable or particularly difficult conclusion to draw.

I think you are right. The Holy Spirit might have revealed to Jude the prophecy of enoch, and also note that the devil might have also revealed a corrupted version of the prophecy of enoch midst other books to in secret so as to counter the word of God.
Do you know that the Egyptian account of creation is similar to that of moses, so that one might think moses learnt it from the Egyptians just as some think jude got the prophecy from the book of enoch.


In 1933 and 1934, Yahuda identified several similarities between Genesis 1-2 and ancient Egyptian texts. He also identified Egyptian influence throughout the Pentateuch.2

In 1982, Cyrus Gordon showed similarities between the Egyptian and Hebrew traditions of the creation of man.3 He drew several parallels between the creation tradition of Khnum, the potter-god, and Genesis 2:4-25.

In 1983, James Hoffmeier also identified several striking parallels between Genesis 1-2 and ancient Egyptian cosmology.4 First, he discussed the state of the cosmos at the time when God began His creation. The Egyptian and the Hebrew share similar concepts although the words used are unrelated etymologically.5 Second, Hoffmeier mentioned similarities between “the initial acts of creation.”6 Third, Hoffmeier examined the similarities of man’s creation shared by the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts.

MuttleyLaff:
What a total load of codswallop, I just wasted my time to read up. You must be high on dry moin-moin leaves to think that circumcision is a Jewish myth or legend. Is it possible to unread the obfuscated garble and claim back my time used reading the senseless write up?

You clearly dont read to understand . I explained y its JEWISH myth and not gentile myth. So apostate jews started deceiving early christains with stories of either their genealogy or stories that they cook up to ensure the gentiles are ensnared to them. Or how they were related to King David by Blood or to Yeshua by blood. This was very common in their days. The circumcision part is just one of the ways they tried to control the gentile christains. Do I have to break things down everytime to you like I'm talking to a 4 yrs old . Cant you read btw d lined

Another one was the common myth that the resurrection had already occurred or that the gentiles could not attain salvation without works of the law. How is it that you dont know this things dear mutteylaff. This discussions are slowing me down cause you r so ignorant of history. Please read more let's have a balanced discuss