₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi3:
About Enoch, I agree completely with you and thank you kindly for clarifying.

As for reading additional info, the trouble, I suppose, is how to know that the information that you are reading is actually true if it is not in the Bible. Those who are arguing so vociferously for the Book of Enoch here and elsewhere claim that the age of the book and the fact that it was read by early believers prove that it is reliable. Neither of these claims is either sufficient or necessarily true. But my point for raising them with you is that Enoch is a part of the story that God tells us in the Bible. Where then could anybody get any more information about him outside the Bible?

Enoch was of the seventh generation from Adam, which means that anything that he may have written or which may have been written contemporaneously about him is unlikely to have survived this long. That is without even accounting for the worldwide Flood of Noah's Day. Assuming that human beings had begun to write during Enoch's time so that any information about him was written then, Noah would have had to preserve it from the Flood. Then generations after him would have had to preserve that writing in the changed physical conditions of the world since that time. None of these things is very probable or particularly possible without the Lord's Own Involvement.

In fact, the Lord was not concerned with preserving anything for us that way. His Plan was to give us the Truth through the nation Israel, so the first time that the Truth was written down for preservation for believers was when Moses wrote the Pentateuch at God's Command. Moses, just like Jude later on, was given revelations of the past to write about: that was how he knew about Enoch. He didn't learn about Enoch merely from any previously written sources. How do we know that? Because the Bible makes quite clear to us that Moses wrote what God told him or showed him (Exodus 24:4; 34:1; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22). The nation Israel began only through Abraham who was the first Hebrew (the sign of circumcision that marked out the Hebrew was given when Abraham was 99). Enoch was not a Hebrew or a Jew, as someone here has claimed, nor was Noah, nor, in fact, any patriarch before Abraham. Abraham was the first.

So, how could we possibly have any additional information about Enoch outside the Bible? Honestly, I can't see how. Clearly, the Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch - those who are making so much noise about it here admit that it wasn't written before 300 BC (it was actually written much later, not earlier than perhaps the second century AD), and Enoch lived around 3400 BC. The book does present itself as written by Enoch too, so how could it have been written so much later than Enoch lived? But they don't care that they are lying. As for any other source of information about Enoch, it must of necessity be prophetic, since, as I have said, no writing could have survived so long from Enoch to us without God's Own Involvement, and if God was involved in preserving it, it would be part of the Bible, but it isn't, because it isn't God-breathed at all, which also means that it isn't prophetic at all (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Please understand me. I am not insisting that you agree with me. I am just explaining what I believe to be true. You are free to reject what I say.

What I can say for Enoch is that the Lord made a point of noting him to encourage believers who will live to see the Second Advent. He was a demonstration of the living Resurrection (not that he was resurrected, no, he was only translated, but he was a demonstration to us of the Lord's Power to exclude physical death for believers). This is important because believers of Enoch's Day knew that physical death was part of our punishment from the Lord, but they very likely had no idea what would happen to those who lived and believed until the Return of the Lord to retake the Earth from Satan. It is significant to note that both his translation and the only prophecy attributed to him by the Bible point to the Second Advent. That was what the Lord wanted us to see about him. It is not wise then to go beyond what is written in the Bible because then we would lose the precious truth that the Lord is graciously giving to us through Enoch's example.

Edited.

Sir,
I completely understand what you are saying about the danger of reading sources outside of the Bible.
It really is extremely dangerous.
The Bible interprets itself.
One has to be extremely prayerful and discerning when choosing even some Bible commentaries, cause nor all authors are led by Christ' spirit to write.
I had only read one outside source which basically just expounded on Enoch's righteous life.
I've never read this "Book of Enoch" and don't ever intend to..
I think this only causes more confusion and deception.

MuttleyLaff:
The Enoch featured in the Book of Enoch, is not the same Enoch mentioned in Genesis, Luke and Hebrews. How can we know this I hear you, ask under your breath Eviana. It is because no mention of Enoch, in the entirety of the "The Book of Enoch" was made about him, as in reference to being a man of faith (i.e. this was not done, like as done with Hebrews 11:5) nor is there any reference to his genealogy (i.e. like as done in Luke 3:37), instead the book of Enoch, obviously a work of fiction, made a complete glaring birth position order mistake. The mistake stands out when compared and contrasted with the two real Enochs of the Bible birth order position in their genealogies.

The Enoch in the BoE is not the same Enoch that was translated on Genesis by God and neither is he the same other Enoch in the other part of Genesis.

Sir,
We now have (2) Enochs....aside from the fictitious "Book of Enoch" Enoch?
Sounds like confusion to me.
I can agree, however, that this book allegedly written by Enoch, is not inspired by God.
I am more inclined to believe that that "book" is faulty and not connected to the Holy Bible.
Not aware of (2) different Enochs in Genesis, unless you're talking about another character named "Enoch" listed in a geneology..which I have never read before.
I am only concerned about the Enoch of Genesis 5 who lived a Godly life and was translated.

gobuchinny:
Well said brother and that's been my school of thought. I only get angry when people bash the book because they dknt understand it . Focus on the 66 books as its more than enough and if you want more then read Enoch, or Jasher and if not DONT. but dont keep looking for reasons to bash it because under the microscope, the book stands the test of scripture and always passes

Never even seen a copy of the "Book of Enoch" before, but I've heard the endless debate about it.
I have always been fascinated with how Godly this man must have been to be "taken up" with God...and not see death.
I read some additional info on him though.
I'm a "sister"..

Ihedinobi3:
Hi.

Forgive me, but could you please clarify your comment? Are you saying that because "Enoch was mentioned in the highest manner," the Book of Enoch is therefore endorsed by the Bible? Or are you saying that we don't need a Book of Enoch since the Bible has given us all that the Lord wants us to know about Enoch, namely, that he was a most exemplary believer and a prophet who foresaw the Second Advent before the Flood?

I am asking so that others will not stumble over your input. I'm not even completely sure that I understand it myself.

Hi sir,
I was saying the we do not need a "Book of Enoch", included in the Bible because the manner in which he was mentioned as an "exemplary believer...." in Genesis 5 is sufficient.

What God ultimately wanted us to know about Enoch was written there in Genesis...and short but extremely powerful.
There's a reason that a snippet of Enoch, rather than a "whole book" of him, has been included in the "66" books that compose the Holy Bible.
If God wanted "his book" in the Holy Bible, then it would have been there.

I see no problem, though, with reading additional info --from reputable sources--on the life if Enoch (in fact I have read some awesome info on him).

My apologies that I wasn't quite clear enough.

Divineappo,
I am not quite sure how your connection between Kanye's song lyric about "going on strike" comment, connects to trade union strikes/ freemasonry comparison (although that is interesting).
I do agree with you about such a powerful music label such as Universal, producing and financing an alleged gospel album (which I haven't heard) that should speak against the very culture that uplifts/mimics the enemy and tramples on Christ being somehow incongruent.
See the two cannot mix.
The world hates Jesus Christ and isn't and has never, and will never promote Him.
So, apparently Kanye still has to play by the rules of Hollywood...he is the one that has to compromise not them.
If he truly lifts up the name of Christ, Kanye will be hated and black-balled from the industry..
Maybe he is on his way to being black-balled.
Makes me think, however, that there might be an agenda...on one side or both.


I was shocked about Fred Hammond though.
I used to be obsessed with him way back during his "Pages of Life" album..which one could tell that many of those songs were Holy Spirit led..
I could tell that Fred knew Christ.
His songs were very powerful and anointed.
Prayer for him and Kanye...cause it's a dangerous thing to "straddle" the fence.
Hopefully, he's not playing around cause true warfare exists..and he can't battle the enemy without truly being covered in Jesus Christ.

Do you have a keen understanding of the "66" books already present in the Bible?
Just the first five books of the Bible, known as the books of Moses, would keep me engrossed for days.
Enoch was mentioned in the highest manner..in Genesis, so I think that was sufficent enough.
I think what's in the Bible is what God wanted in there and for us to focus on...not what's "not" there.

Any time a soul is won for Christ' kingdom, Heaven rejoices.
Those, however, that proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour need to seriously pray for Kanye.
I'm skeptical at the moment..something seems "off" to me.

Representing Christ and claiming to be winning souls for His Kingdom is not a thing to play with.
It is supposed to be sacred and Holy Spirit led.
Whether he is sincere (which I hope is the case) or not, one thing is for sure:
There is a battle for this man's soul.
He may not even know the gravity of this.
He needs our prayers.

Interesting OP how you have shown two sides to "grace" if I can phrase it that way.
Grace that is afforded us based on Christ' death and resurrection power...so we live a life accordingly.
Yet the other side, which we tend to fall into...trampling on His grace because He is such a long-suffering God .
Perhaps it's safe to say that there's a "limit" to God's grace if we choose to continue to abuse it by living a rollercoaster life of sin...resting on the crutch of feeling that God will forever continually excuse that in our lives.

Bereanway,
I'm not quite sure I get this, but I'm gonna try.

Are you saying that we Christians should pray for a specific type of enemy to die?
If so, I don't quite think that was what Christ had in mind.
I have prayed for an "enemy" to be destroyed personally by God..although the person didn't "physically" kill anyone.
I wanted that person gone, and in a "suffering" sort of way.
I tried hard to justify my desire..BUT had to repent on how I was feeling. I knew that wasn't Christ' way.
No matter how justified I felt...I placed myself in a guilty light (before the Lord) for wishing death on someone.
I had to pray very hard (for a period of time) in order to release that desire for vindication.
I also had to contact that person and gain closure (which included a lot of humility, regardless of whether the person reciprocated).
Even Stephen, who became a matyr for Christ, prayed for the people stoning him..people who thought they were doing the will of God.
I know this is very tough to digest, but Christ even wants the ritualists/occultists (who you say kill repeatedly with no conscience) and demonically-possessed folks etc., to come to repentance..
That doesn't mean, however, that death may not come because someone repents. Sometimes actions have grave consequences, either through the law or other instances but you still (as a Christian) shouldn't be wishing death on ANY type of enemy (no matter who actually carries it out) regardless of their mentality...in my humble opinion.

Jhaytee4all:
Okay... Tomorrow is Sunday and I'd be tithing already. After doing 'philantropic' giving to some friends, should I still remove the percentage of what I gave my friends and add to my tithe? Because that's part of my income. The remaining is my tithe, but I feel it's not complete.

What do I do? Should I ignore that percentage and pay what remains?

Mark 12:17
17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

What you gave to your friends was a kind gift from your heart (if not a loan)..an offering of sorts.
It's no different than me giving a friend some money because he needed it and I had it to give.
However, that gift/offering has nothing to do with what's owed God..His full 10 percent.
The tithe should not be linked to anything outside of God's house.