gobuchinny:
2 Peter 2 vs 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.

These verse came as Peter had previously explained in Chapter 1 vs 19 -21 about the sure word of prophecy and how God spoke to them on the mountain with Yeshua. He also said how God has been speaking through Holy men to birth scripture. Bear in mind that the apostle knew that their letters were scripture becaus e they understood how God works. The only piece God wrote Himself were the 10 commandments everyother scripture were written by God through man.

He then explained that as they are true prophets and scribes of God, they were also false prophets that will bring in damanble heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them

2 Peter 2:1-3 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not"

And that many shall follow their ways.....he then likened the false prophets to the fallen angels . @okcornel are you seeing these. Now what did the fallen Angel's do? They brought damnable heresies, and denied the lord that bought them by copulating with fleshy and earthy man and producing offsprings, evil giant offsprings and brought upon themselves swift destruction because right now those Angel's are locked up in their hell and chained unto the end of days. @okcornel you dey see these rev .

And many humans follow their perilous ways . Did you see how everything fitted with the verses above? How and why Peter used the fallen Angel's and false prophets as mirror image for both destruction and apostacy?.

My friend if you are not seeing these things then you are stiff necked and i cannot help you. Because you have chosen to beleive lies infact the damanble heresies here is you saying that there were no fallen Angel's. I can imagine apostle Peter will slap your face if you were alive in His days. .

You have alot to learn bro. Be humble. You are not bigger than God. Everybody dey learn. I love to learn and would learn from you if I feel what you r saying is right. But clearly you are perverting scripture and I worry for you. Be careful the devil is real and is looking for who to devour. Sin is lurking at the door bro. Lets all be humble.

I would have done the jude analysis but no need.

MuttleyLaff:
The book of Enoch and other variants of it, are best flushed down the toilet, where they belong. If you start, you won't last five minutes into reading the book, before you'll shove it away, from finding the content, being ludicrous and a waste of even idle time.

The book of Enoch was written by the person self styling himself as Enoch. It is not different to the Otum series, done by our own resident "Enoch" version guy here, on Nairaland

Except from the Book of Enoch, where in the Bible, where else, have you read that God revealed stuff to Enoch nijabazaar?

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s3/images/EnochMuttleyLaff.jpg[/img]

budäatum, a mere read of the above and especially taking notice of the red underlines should enlighten you, perhaps

budäatum, please when discussing the genuineness of the Book of Enoch, please learn to quote from the Bible and reference the scripture directly, as opposed to quickly finding and taking solace in this accursed Book of Enoch

Also please stop this prooftexting bad habit you've taken a shine to and employed to use on this thread

MuttleyLaff:
nijabazaar, you'll be absolutely spot on and right to acknowledge that Jude, in his letter, (i.e. Jude 1:3-4) was warning about individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago that have secretly slipped in among the believers, and that these are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord, but most importantly, the missing part of the whole Book of Enoch jigsaw puzzle nijabazaar and that great missing jigsaw puzzle piece most people usually ignore and/or leave out, is about the issue of circulating myths, which are combinations of old wives' tales, fables, made-up stories, fiction from creative and imaginative writing, fake news, alternative fact, fairy tale, exagerrated made-up stories, like that of the fictional prose first century bestseller literature, that the Book of Enoch is.

Continuing from Jude 1:4, nijabazaar are you aware or better still, did you notice that Jude in Jude 1:4 (i.e. with saying, For certain men have crept in among you unnoticed—ungodly ones who were designated long ago for condemnation. They turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ) was actually quoting Apostle Peter, hmm? By this, I mean, Jude was with Jude 1:4, quoting Apostle Peter's 2 Peter 2:1-2, yeah?

nijabazaar, do you see the slight variation and/or edit to 2 Peter 2:1-2, that Jude made when he referenced 2 Peter 2:1-2, with his Jude 1:4 version of event, hmm?

"¹Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies that even deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
²Many will follow in their depravity, and because of them the way of truth will be defamed."
- 2 Peter 2:1-2

"³Beloved, although I made every effort to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt it necessary to write and urge you to contend earnestly for the faith entrusted once for all to the saints.
⁴For certain men have crept in among you unnoticed—ungodly ones who were designated long ago for condemnation. They turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
- Jude 1:3-4

nijabazaar, did you notice how Jude, in Jude 1:4 switched from Peter's 2 Peter 2:1 writing, that the false teachers were coming, to him Jude now writing that the false teachers etcetera had arrived.

nijabazaar, also did you importantly notice in Jude 1:8, how Jude mentioned how these false teachers with their fabled stories were slandering angels and/or heaping abuse on celestial beings, hmm? Compare with 2 Peter 2:10 too.

2 Peter 2:11, was saying, angels, although much greater (i.e. than these false teachers), do not dare bring an accusation against each other celestial beings, and Jude 1:9 corroborates this even with saying, Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, only saying to the devil, “The Lord punish you!,” meanwhile, these false teachers have the gall to falsely accuse angels of sexually sleeping with female human beings.

Peter and Jude said, these charges made, are human slander against heavenly beings, and that real angels would never make any such accusations to each other or otherwise. In short, angels themselves do not get involved in making false spoken statement(s) damaging to each other's reputation. This is aside from the fact that angels dont do sex and Jesus emphatically saying that angels dont get married.

¹And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth.
². And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their crying up to the gates of heaven.
³ And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause before the Most High.
⁴. And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings,〈and God of the ages〉, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages!
⁵. Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee.
⁶. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn:
⁷. And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates.
⁸. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins.
⁹. And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness.
¹⁰. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are wrought on the earth.
¹¹. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these
- Book of Enoch 9:1-11

². And behold, the names of those Angels: – The first of them is Semjaza, and the second Artaqifa, and the third Armen, and the fourth Kokabiel, and the fifth Turiel, and the sixth Ramiel, and the seventh Daniel, and the eighth Nuqael, and the ninth Baraqiel, and the tenth Azazel, and the eleventh Armaros, the twelfth Batriel, the thirteenth Basasael, the fourteenth Ananel, the fifteenth Turiel, the sixteenth Samsiel, the seventeenth Yetarel, the eighteenth Tumiel, the nineteenth Turiel, the twentieth Rumiel, the twenty-first Azazel.
³. And these are the chiefs of their Angels, and the names of the leaders of hundreds, and their leaders of fifties, and their leaders of tens.
⁴. The name of the first is Yequn; this is the one who led astray all the children of the Holy Angels, and he brought them down onto the dry ground, and led them astray through the daughters of men.
⁵. And the name of the second is Asbeel; this one suggested an evil plan to the children of the Holy Angels, and led them astray, so that they corrupted their bodies with the daughters of men.
⁶. And the name of the third is Gadreel; this is the one that showed all the deadly blows to the sons of men. And he led astray Eve. And he showed the weapons of death to the children of men, the shield and the breastplate, and the sword for slaughter, and all the weapons of death to the sons of men.
⁷. And from his hand they have gone out against those who dwell the dry ground from that time and forever and ever.
⁸. And the name of the fourth is Penemue; this one showed the sons of men the bitter and the sweet and showed them all the secrets of their wisdom.
⁹. He taught men the art of writing with ink and paper, and through this many have gone astray, from eternity to eternity, and to this day.
¹⁰. For men were not created for this, that they should confirm their faith like this, with pen and ink.
- Book of Enoch 69:2-10

From the above, at least Book of Enoch 9:1-11 quote for starters, and according to Enoch, the star fictitious character from this "the Book of Enoch", apparently Michael and three other archangels, accused Semjaza and Azazel of going into the daughters of men upon the earth, and sleeping with the women, but on the flip side and according to Peter's testimony, angels (i.e. Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel etcetera) do not dare bring accusations as ludicrous as this against each other celestial beings, and even Jude added that, Michael would not dare accuse the devil himself. So, in short, and on the strength of the assertions of Peter and Jude, the story, in the Book of Enoch 9:1-11, of Michael, making an accusation against those two angels is false. Now, if the story of the accusation is false then equally false so, is the story of the angels' sexual sin. The evidence is piling up against the Book of Enoch to be a best-selling work of fiction of a first century "Dan Brown" The Book of Enoch is littered with so many Book of Enoch 69:2-10 mumbo-jumbo that are readily and easily observed, noticed and/or seen. Too many to much mention nijabazaar.

nijabazaar, did you further notice, what Jude said about these men, in Jude 1:10 that, "Whatever these people do not understand, they slander. " and that "Like animals, which are creatures of instinct, they use whatever they know to destroy themselves, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and so they bring about their own destruction." Fyi, they circulate stories that nephilims being angels, celestial beings, had sexual intercourse with female human beings and ended up married to them? Compare with 2 Peter 2:12

nijabazaar, did you notice how Jude or Peter, never quoted anywhere in the Bible, like Genesis, for instance, of any example of any angel(s) sleeping with women?

Listen nijabazaar, let me put my cards on the table, straight faced up open for you with these comments to see:
1/ Angels are not what are called the sons of God.
2/ Angels did not have sexual intercourse with female human beings.
3/ Angels did not marry the daughters of men.
4/ The Enoch featured in the Book of Enoch, is not either of the Enochs nor is he the same Enoch, the patriarch mentioned in Genesis, Exodus, 1 Chronicles, Luke or Hebrews (gobuchinny, Eviana, missjo, LoJ etcetera, please take note of this very important comment about the Enoch in the BoE, lol.)

MuttleyLaff:
Let me correct you. I dont do arguments sir. I only discuss what I know to be facts, if I am discussing opinions, I beforehand do announce I am or have advanced one

Now that I have corrected your wrong perspective of me and have put the record straight, it is safe to say to you that the sons of God that came down to sleep with the earthly women then, were human beings, just as same as you and I

Oh, c'mon now, stop being all of a sudden, you developed a funny bone and gone comical on me. Are you the 21st century Enoch? Maybe you're getting ready in authoring a 21st Book of Enoch version, hmm?

Why is this misunderstanding always happening? nijabazaar, please can you provide proof beyond reasonable doubt and supporting with chapters and verses proving where or when the Bible showed that the sons of God are angels

Yes, I can clarify, but I wouldnt be doing the heavy liftings without you too, yourself raising not so much of a little finger, meaning you have to be prepared and ready to get your hands dirty, be ready and quick to give answers to questions asked you etcetera

nijabazaar, I am now used to guys, like you've just done with this comment, who always use and play the "there is no concrete proof, at least you did not present one" card.

I usually do not oblige, because they're trying to force a disclosure, without having proved themselves and seen to be worthy enough to have that information exchange, but I am making an exception with you nijabazaar

nijabazaar, now in order that you dont charge me of not responding to your "... but there is no concrete proof, at least you did not present one" accusation, let me show you a few proofs that the book of Enoch, is a first century bestseller fantansy/fiction pack book.

1/ "... as it is written in the book of the law of Moses," - Joshua 8:31
2/ "... behold, it is written in the book of Jasher," - 2 Samuel 1:18
3/ "... as it is written in the law of Moses" - 2 Chronicles 23:18
4/ "... as it is written in the law of the LORD." - 2 Chronicles 31:3
5/ "... as it is written in the book of Moses" - 2 Chronicles 35:12
6/ "... as it is written in the book of this covenant," - 2 Kings 23:21
7/ "... as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God..." - Ezra 3:2
8/ "... as it is written in the law" - Nehemiah 10:36

1/ ".. But He answered and said, It is written," - Matthew 4:4
2/ "... Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." - Matthew 4:7
3/ "... Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." - Matthew 26:31
4/ ""For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms: "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "'May another take his place of leadership." - Acts 1:20
5/ " Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people" - Acts 23:5
6/ "Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.”" - 1 Corinthians 2:9
7/ "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" - John 10:34
8/ "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." - Romans 9:13
9/ "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." - Hebrews 10:7
10/ "Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." - 1 Peter 1:16

The first, one to eight above, is part of the remarkable proof, that whenever you're reading about texts or books of undisputed origin and not something like the nature of the Book of Enoch, you'll find the Bible or the prophets in the Old Testament making the connection with saying like "as it is written". Fraudulent books like the book of Enoch is deprived of this.

Equally in New Testament (i.e. the other one to ten listing) with the Johannine, Pauline or Petrine letters and even Jesus Christ too, you'll find in their letters and/or when discussing texts or books of undisputed origin and not something like the nature of the Book of Enoch, again use the familiar phrase or similar "as it is written".

nijabazaar, Jude nor Peter NEVER used "as it is written" when paraphrasing the Book of Enoch because it is a popular well known best selling fantansy/fiction book that was well circulated up to and around the first century. The Bible doesn't generally quote books of questionable and/or profane sources, like the Book of Enoch is, this is why the Bible too, never has "as it is written" or "... it is written" as a form of certification and accreditation of the book anywhere in the Bible. The book was never treated as being inspired by God and why so it wasnt ever authoritatively used or referenced.

The Enoch featured in the Book of Enoch, is not the same Enoch mentioned in Genesis, Luke and Hebrews. (gobuchinny, Eviana, missjo, LoJ etcetera, please take note of that just forgone very important comment, lol.) How can we know this I hear you, ask under your breath, it is because no mention of Enoch in the entirety of the "The Book of Enoch" was made about him, in reference to being a man of faith (i.e. 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, obviously a work of fiction, made a complete glaring birth position order mistake when compared and contrasted with the two real Enoch of the Bible birth order position in their genealogies.

nijabazaar smh, may I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? Will the real Slim Shady Enoch please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Slim Shady Enoch please stand up? We're gonna have a problem here. Y'all act like you never know ... Lol, smh.

I know you arent playing difficult and this is why I felt inclined to intimate you with the "as it is written" above persuasion and to explain that Peter and Jude, only used the book of Enoch as source material and not in any shape or form endorsed it as scripture that is God-breathed.

I love healthy, matured, meaningful, informative, educative and edifying discussions too.

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.

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

Eviana:


Never even seen a copy of the "Book of Enoch" before, but I've heard the endless debate 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"..

MuttleyLaff:
What is the meaning of all this gobuchinny that you've put up here, huh?. I am flabbergasted that you're trying still very hard to remain permanently confused. If you're not confused, then, it means you've not and you are not paying attention. Smh.

I can't be forever running back and forth and keep on repeating myself like a broken record, so in order not to waste space, waste internet ink like my brother from another mother, CaveAdullam will say, waste my valuable and precious time to reply to this, I have used my better judgement to reproduce starting from the second page of this thread, my earliest responses in advancing incontrovertible facts, backed with figures, various appropriate and relevant bible verses

You see the above MuttleyLaff mentions, I just singled out those few, there are more, trust me, lol, they are evidences of me previously telling what is was, Peter discussed in his letter, and what also Jude discussed in his own letter, before they each began to begin lambast the false teachers etcetera and denounce the BoE. Your problem gobuchinny, is you hardly and/or at all, don't read long posts and even if you do, you dont understand whats in it and you are abysmally forgetful. What a shame, what a waste of talent, what a way to squander the potentials God gifted you with gobuchinny, smh.

Eviana:
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"..

Eviana:


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.

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 are 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 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, and Enoch lived around 4000 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.

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 are 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 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, and Enoch lived around 4000 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.

gobuchinny:


All you guys that speak with so much authority like God consults you before He does His will.

Enoch was not a Hebrew? If you were well read you would have known that the first language was hebrew before babel. Or do you think it was English or Igbo? The book of Jasher which was also mentioned in the bible enlightens us on this. All you guys dat wont read but just act as Gods mouth piece like you and God existed together since inception. Lol.

Whatever makes anyone sleep at night. Truth cannot be hidden. Who were d Angel's Peter spoke of? Which sin and who reserved them in hell?

These bible you guys are talking about lol do you know the men that canonized it? Lol. Iz like saying herod's renovation of the 2nd temple were from God. Lol. D man did it for personal reasons and God was not part of it. It's amazing how people think that some books put together by man is all God has said since inception of Man. Same man that now tells us what the church is about?

If you follow the system of man on how to relate with God we will quickly find out that the devil has infiltrated the church and is changing times and seasons. Even the church as we have it now is not what the NT apostles preached. The Catholics diluted it and every other denomination is simply an offshoot of the traditions of man.

At last God knows them that are serving Him. No one has monopoly of knowledge. Read and read more to understand by books. Even Yeshua had to read to understand His assignment. Yeshua had to apply himself to understanding scriptures as He always quoted from it.

Please I'm not trying to convince anyone to read it. In fact pls dont. But the truth should not be distorted. If you cannot say anything that BOE said to contradict d bible then pls let's hold our peace and stop judging after appearances. Our minds are limited to human understanding. We are not God and cannot think like Him. The bible with 66 books remains the authority and foundations/marking scheme for other books like BOE and as today, the book passes with flying colors when mirrored with the bible. Lol.

I

Ihedinobi3:

I'm afraid I don't see how you have been speaking with any less authority with your very large claims and no proof.

As for your claims about Enoch's nationality, neither your argument about language nor your appeal to the book of Jasher is any kind of reasonable proof. For the first, the Bible is clear that God created nations only in response to the Tower of Babel debacle in Genesis 11. The people that existed before that time were never called a nation or Hebrews. We are not even told what the language they all spoke was. Of course, it is my thinking too that it was very likely Hebrew because of Isaiah 19:18, but that is not at all proof that anybody who existed before Abraham was any kind of Hebrew. The nation Israel did not exist then because nations did not exist then (see also Genesis 12:2).

For the second, I might as well quote Alexander Fleming or Ghandi or Buddha to prove that something that the Bible does not say at all is true. Why should it matter to me what your book of Jasher says? Did God inspire it? If it says that the Hebrew nation existed before God created nations, then it most definitely contradicts Genesis, since Moses wrote that the nations only came into existence after Nimrod's rebellion with the Tower of Babel (Genesis 10:32; cf. Genesis 11:1-9), which occurred a century after the Flood, for that matter.

As for the angels that Peter spoke of, they were those that took human women in Genesis 6 to produce the Nephilim with. That was their sin. They, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, "went after strange flesh." It was the Lord God Himself Who had them chained up in the Abyss for that wickedness. Moses, Peter, and Jude witness to this. I don't need an extrabiblical source to help me believe or understand it.

As for the canonization of the books of the Bible, I did make this comment that it suited you to ignore, so I don't see the sense in answering you again here. I think that, just like your comrade OkCornel, you care nothing for whether you lie or tell the truth as long as you can seduce and bully others into your rebellion against the Lord. If this were not true, I'm sure you would give more attention to the claims that you make and make sure that they are actually true.

I'm not sure what your comments about churches are about. I don't believe that I have said anything in that regard here.

As for reading, by all means do. It is always best to read the Bible, that is, actual Scripture, not merely pretend Scripture, though. So, although I have read a lot of things and still do, the Bible decides for me what is true and what is false. I don't pretend to the ability to tell what is true and what is false without the help of the Bible. So, I lean very heavily on the Bible to say anything that I say. I certainly don't demand that you believe the Bible. Believe it, if you want. Don't, if you prefer. It's your gain and your loss, not mine.

As for all your accusations of arrogance, saying that no one has the monopoly of knowledge is just a sneaky way of trying to hide all your own claims to that monopoly. Are you not the one who has been mocking "us" (whoever you meant by "you guys" ) for not reading like you? Your great knowledge from books is apparently supposed to be emulated by "us," not least because it is just as "Yeshua" was. I am almost never surprised or deceived by your likes with your accusations of arrogance while you yourself are being unspeakably arrogant and your claims to knowledge when you are abominable ignorant.

OkCornel:


Interesting to note you didn’t point out where God, Jesus or the Apostles pegged God’s words to a set of books.

Your standard is “feeling life” in those books.

Feelings.


An eternal God who has been in existence and speaking to men before ink and paper was invented suddenly has all His words limited to a set of books.

Greatest joke ever.

I wonder what you will call prophecies/revelations from God given to those with the gift of prophecy in our time that came to pass. Since these are not canonised, they’re not the words of God too abi?

Ihedinobi3:

Per the first part of your post, I already answered this and all your other similar tantrums here: https://www.nairaland.com/5450889/why-book-enoch-removed-bible/12#83379471.

As for the second part of your post, I already answered them here: https://www.nairaland.com/5368368/jesus-saw-same-drawn-eight/5#81469073, and in similar comments on the same thread. Also, there are these two examples in the Bible among a vast number of other proofs that Satanic miracles can be just as convincing as divine ones sometimes:

[8]Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying,
[9]"When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, 'Work a miracle,' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.'"
[10]So Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and thus they did just as the Lord had commanded; and Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent.
[11]Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts.
[12]For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.
Exodus 7:8-12 NASB

[16]It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling.
Acts 16:16 NASB

As for your other post, on the thread I quoted from above, you will also find a conversation you and I had about that. I know you don't care either, but you should know that I won't let you waste my time and energy again on this board.

Ihedinobi3:

No kidding. The English Bibles were the earliest manuscripts?
I'm saying that some foreign elements that are not truly part of the Bible were inserted into the text over the time that we have had the Bible.
And I'm saying that everything after verse 8 in Mark 16 is not part of the Bible.

Ihedinobi3:

I'm afraid I don't see how you have been speaking with any less authority with your very large claims and no proof.

As for your claims about Enoch's nationality, neither your argument about language nor your appeal to the book of Jasher is any kind of reasonable proof. For the first, the Bible is clear that God created nations only in response to the Tower of Babel debacle in Genesis 11. The people that existed before that time were never called a nation or Hebrews. We are not even told what the language they all spoke was. Of course, it is my thinking too that it was very likely Hebrew because of Isaiah 19:18 and Zephaniah 3:9, but that is not at all proof that anybody who existed before Abraham was any kind of Hebrew. The nation Israel did not exist then because nations did not exist then (see also Genesis 12:2).

For the second, I might as well quote Alexander Fleming or Ghandi or Buddha to prove that something that the Bible does not say at all is true. Why should it matter to me what your book of Jasher says? Did God inspire it? If it says that the Hebrew nation existed before God created nations, then it most definitely contradicts Genesis, since Moses wrote that the nations only came into existence after Nimrod's rebellion with the Tower of Babel (Genesis 10:32; cf. Genesis 11:1-9), which occurred a century after the Flood, for that matter.

As for the angels that Peter spoke of, they were those that took human women in Genesis 6 to produce the Nephilim with. That was their sin. They, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, "went after strange flesh." It was the Lord God Himself Who had them chained up in the Abyss for that wickedness. Moses, Peter, and Jude witness to this. I don't need an extrabiblical source to help me believe or understand it.

As for the canonization of the books of the Bible, I did make this comment that it suited you to ignore, so I don't see the sense in answering you again here. I think that, just like your comrade OkCornel, you care nothing for whether you lie or tell the truth as long as you can seduce and bully others into your rebellion against the Lord. If this were not true, I'm sure you would give more attention to the claims that you make and make sure that they are actually true.

I'm not sure what your comments about churches are about. I don't believe that I have said anything in that regard here.

As for reading, by all means do. It is always best to read the Bible, that is, actual Scripture, not merely pretend Scripture, though. So, although I have read a lot of things and still do, the Bible decides for me what is true and what is false. I don't pretend to the ability to tell what is true and what is false without the help of the Bible. So, I lean very heavily on the Bible to say anything that I say. I certainly don't demand that you believe the Bible. Believe it, if you want. Don't, if you prefer. It's your gain and your loss, not mine.

As for all your accusations of arrogance, saying that no one has the monopoly of knowledge is just a sneaky way of trying to hide all your own claims to that monopoly. Are you not the one who has been mocking "us" (whoever you meant by "you guys" ) for not reading like you? Your great knowledge from books is apparently supposed to be emulated by "us," not least because it is just as "Yeshua" was. I am almost never surprised or deceived by your likes with your accusations of arrogance while you yourself are being unspeakably arrogant and your claims to knowledge when you are abominably ignorant.

gobuchinny:


Do you know the book of Jasher was quoted atleast twice in the old testament? . And anyone who reads that book will see how it fills in gaps in the bible? The bible is after all a historical account brother.

That you r scared of other books that are not in your conventional bible shouldn't make you run down the books. Atleast allow other read and discern. The only way to know if a book is inspired or not is to atleast read it . That's y we have d Holy Spirit. He will teach you all things.

Atleast you r not muttey dat is hopelessly blinded . You beleive in the fallen angels story and it makes me know you beleive in the bible. That's all that matters. Leave others who wanna go d extra to gain understanding by way of BOE or Jasher because that bible you holding is not ALL of the words of Yeshua .

The important thing is to love God and His son Yeshua and it matters not if you read Jasher or Enoch. The 66 books are more than Enuff mate. I respect people who respect d bible as you clearly do by acknowledging what Peter and Jude said. Muttey is lost .

Please ill try n make this my last post here because the bible is enough and promoting a book is not the gospel however, it's also wrong to knock down a book esp if there r no evidences to prove its apostasy. All the issues raised here on Enochs apostasy have been answered. Truly, if Enoch is an inspired word, it must mirror the known word which it does.

No blasphemy, and every issue raised can be examples from the bible

Ihedinobi3:

A book of Jashar was quoted in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, but I see no reason to believe that it is the same as the book you are so crazy for. Why should I believe that they are the same? Also, the book mentioned in the Bible was not quoted by the Bible at all, nor was it endorsed by the Bible as inspired at all. So, even if that that book exists today and is accessible, we have no reason to believe that it is inspired. As for filling gaps in the Bible, I'm sure you are free to believe in such fictions, if you please.

As for being scared of other books, I'm not sure how I have communicated such a thing, although it is certainly wise to be wary of anything that is not afraid of pretending to be words of God. It is a terrible thing to put words in God's Mouth. Those who do it have a very bad end waiting for them. So, I would be very happy to not be in their midst. None of that means that I haven't read books like the Book of Enoch. In fact, I sampled it a bit just for the conversations here. Growing up, we had a Catholic Bible at home that had the Apocrypha in it. I did try to read them, and I got deep enough into them to wonder why they were even in the Bible, and I was a kid then. I don't remember anyone telling me that anything was wrong with having those extra books then, but it was clear to me that they were different from the other books. So, try to stick with what you actually know to be true so that you don't make bogus claims.

As for letting anyone do this or that, I am sure that I have said it multiple times that anyone who wants to can read anything they want. I don't even care if you want to write stuff and call it Scripture too. That's your own business. But if you try to persuade the children of God that have been given to me to protect that it is Scripture, then I will oppose you. Even so, I fully recognize that I can't stop even those in my charge from reading things that will only harm their faith in the Lord. So, there is no "letting" or "preventing" happening here except in your own head. I'm not stopping you or anyone from reading whatever you want to read. I can't even stop you from pretending that it is Scripture. But you cannot persuade me or anyone who is willing to listen to me to join you in that madness.

You are right that the taste of the pudding is in the eating. You can tell if something is inspired by reading it, but if we must read everything before we can be sure what is inspired and what is not, then we will never be sure what "all the Truth" that the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into is (John 16:13). Thankfully, we don't have to read everything to know what is inspired. As I told you in another post, Scripture was known as it was being written. From that time on, it was collected together and distributed authoritatively. We have today the literature that believers received from Old Testament prophets and New Testament Apostles and preserved for us to learn from too. We know not only that it is all Scripture, but also that it is complete. Anything outside of those 66 books and letters may be illuminating for understanding them, for example, the writings of pastor-teachers, but nothing else is Scripture at all. If you want to pretend that it is just because there are so many books in the world, some of them fraudulently bearing names and titles stolen from the Bible, that is really your own kettle of fish. It's not the believer's problem at all.

You are like many others on here that I have met and discussed with. You know very little of Truth, but you take that little and foul it up with a vast amount of lies that essentially lead you into perdition and then proceed to make yourself a stumbling block to those who believe. I am not on your side, because you really do not believe the Bible at all. You make stuff up and you listen to made-up stuff that you proceed to try to mix into what the Bible actually says, and it is a very heady mix that drops you straight into Apostasy. So, yes, I do believe the Bible, but you clearly don't. That is why you want to put words in God's Mouth.

If you really believe, as you say, that the Bible is more than enough, you should quit adding stuff to it. As I have said, if fiction is your thing, by all means, enjoy it, but don't call it Scripture just because you like it. If you love God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, not only will you respect Them enough to not put words in Their Mouth, but you will also care for the welfare of Their Church and not put believers bought with precious Blood at spiritual risk with lies.

As I said, I don't see any reason why anyone would claim that the Book of Enoch is inspired at all. It is obviously a work of fiction that pretends to have something to do with Jude.

Not sure what your last paragraph means.

Edited.

Ihedinobi3:

Hello.

For what it is worth, I don't think that either you or Praivit0 can prove your rather big claims about the believers of the first century. I'm quite confident that you are both wrong.

Of course, the 66 books of the Bible were not bound together in one volume at the time, but that was because the technology did not exist. Books were written on scrolls that had a physical limit to their size. You could only "bind" so many scrolls together into a "book." For that reason, the early believers actually kept copies of all the books of Scripture in their meeting places for public reading when they assembled. Then, if anyone could afford it and had the ability or could afford the services of a reader, they made copies of any given book that they wanted to own and read or have read to them privately.

As I have argued several times on this thread (and elsewhere), every writing of Scripture was clear to believers to be Scripture right from the moment that it was written throughout history, including during the time of Moses. No believer with any spiritual common sense and a heart open to Truth has ever been confused about what is Scripture and what is not. It is immediately obvious. The Bible itself says as much. Paul and Peter were still alive obviously when Peter affirmed that Paul's writings were Scripture. Paul himself commanded the churches that he wrote to to share his letters to them with other churches and to make copies of his letters to other churches for their own selves. He did that because he was full aware that he was writing Scripture to them. In the Old Testament, Moses consciously wrote everything he did on God's direct orders. Jeremiah did too. Even when King Zedekiah burnt the first uncompleted book of Jeremiah, his officials knew that it was Scripture and tried to persuade him not to.

As for the 66 books being available to the Church of the Apostolic Age, the New Testament was completed by the middle of the first century. Not only was it completed, it was also very quickly distributed as it was being written. So, believers throughout the world had access to the full Bible when the Apostles finished writing the New Testament. Nobody lacked for the Truth at any time.

Of course, many other books were traditionally preserved in perhaps many assemblies, books that were clearly known not to be Scripture, but which believers loved to have read to them and which some of them thought had some spiritual value. Among these perhaps would be the histories like the books of the Maccabees. Eventually, things like this became a snare when apostates who thought too highly of themselves assumed licence to teach falsehoods that violated what the Apostles taught.

This is what led to the agitation for a Canon. The whole business of defining a Canon was not because anyone was in doubt of what was Scripture and what was not, it was entirely because false teachers in the church visible began to create confusions in the church visible especially regarding the Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ.

Even so, the binding of all the books of the Bible into a single physical volume did not occur until new book-making technology that allowed the creation of large volumes came about. As I said, this did not stop Christian churches from collectively owning a full collection of all 66 books. If you could afford it then, you could even privately own a copy of this collection. Judging by the vast array of manuscripts from so long ago too, it seems clear that many copies of the collection existed in varying degrees of completeness too, certainly because of private ownership of copies made according to affordability.

As for the Book of Enoch, as I've said, I don't presume to decide for anyone what to believe and what not to believe. But the Book of Enoch is a late production. It was a copy-cat project designed to draw legitimacy from what Jude wrote. There is absolutely no inspiration in the work. Jude himself made reference to no book at all. He only quoted Enoch himself, something that can be explained by his status as a prophet (that is, one who declares God's oracles). A prophet obtains information through various divine means including visions and dreams. Jude was writing of something that had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, not of anything he had read from any book.

Nonetheless, you need not receive this as any kind of rejection or challenge to your right to believe anything you want. I completely and wholeheartedly believe in your right to exercise your free will. The rewards and consequences of your choices are between you and the Lord. My part is merely to teach the Truth to anyone who might listen.

Praivit0:





So you mean the early believers had copies of the scriptures from Genesis to revelation in all assemblies?

Are you trying to say there was nothing like the epistle of Barnabas in the early church?

Since you said Jude quoted Enoch by inspiration of the Spirit, Did Jude also quote Peter by inspiration of the Spirit?,
Was it also the Holy Ghost that inspired you to say the BOE was a copycat project?

Stop confusing yourself with the opinion of men. As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

I don't listen to so called teachings of truth from people like you, cos you're confused. When you've learnt enough yourself, then you can come and teach me.

Praivit0:





So you mean the early believers had copies of the scriptures from Genesis to revelation in all assemblies?

Are you trying to say there was nothing like the epistle of Barnabas in the early church?

Since you said Jude quoted Enoch by inspiration of the Spirit, Did Jude also quote Peter by inspiration of the Spirit?,
Was it also the Holy Ghost that inspired you to say the BOE was a copycat project?

Stop confusing yourself with the opinion of men. As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

I don't listen to so called teachings of truth from people like you, cos you're confused. When you've learnt enough yourself, then you can come and teach me.

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.

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.

Empiree:
Mission Of Jesus The Son Of Mary
https://www.facebook.com/2061464137489016/videos/2416579228585383/UzpfSTE1ODUxMDUyNjM6MTAyMTQzMTcwMjI3OTExODQ/?id=1585105263

To Our Christian Brethren

Eviana:
Sir, We now have (2) Enochs....aside from the fictitious "Book of Enoch" Enoch?

Eviana:
Sounds like confusion to me

Eviana:
I can agree, however, that this book allegedly written by Enoch, is not inspired by God.

Eviana:
I am more inclined to believe that that "book" is faulty and not connected to the Holy Bible.

Eviana:
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.

Eviana:
I am only concerned about the Enoch of Genesis 5 who lived a Godly life and was translated.

Ihedinobi3:

A book of Jashar was quoted in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, but I see no reason to believe that it is the same as the book you are so crazy for. Why should I believe that they are the same? Also, the book mentioned in the Bible was not quoted by the Bible at all, nor was it endorsed by the Bible as inspired at all. So, even if that that book exists today and is accessible, we have no reason to believe that it is inspired. As for filling gaps in the Bible, I'm sure you are free to believe in such fictions, if you please.

As for being scared of other books, I'm not sure how I have communicated such a thing, although it is certainly wise to be wary of anything that is not afraid of pretending to be words of God. It is a terrible thing to put words in God's Mouth. Those who do it have a very bad end waiting for them. So, I would be very happy to not be in their midst. None of that means that I haven't read books like the Book of Enoch. In fact, I sampled it a bit just for the conversations here. Growing up, we had a Catholic Bible at home that had the Apocrypha in it. I did try to read them, and I got deep enough into them to wonder why they were even in the Bible, and I was a kid then. I don't remember anyone telling me that anything was wrong with having those extra books then, but it was clear to me that they were different from the other books. So, try to stick with what you actually know to be true so that you don't make bogus claims.

As for letting anyone do this or that, I am sure that I have said it multiple times that anyone who wants to can read anything they want. I don't even care if you want to write stuff and call it Scripture too. That's your own business. But if you try to persuade the children of God that have been given to me to protect that it is Scripture, then I will oppose you. Even so, I fully recognize that I can't stop even those in my charge from reading things that will only harm their faith in the Lord. So, there is no "letting" or "preventing" happening here except in your own head. I'm not stopping you or anyone from reading whatever you want to read. I can't even stop you from pretending that it is Scripture. But you cannot persuade me or anyone who is willing to listen to me to join you in that madness.

You are right that the taste of the pudding is in the eating. You can tell if something is inspired by reading it, but if we must read everything before we can be sure what is inspired and what is not, then we will never be sure what "all the Truth" that the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into is (John 16:13). Thankfully, we don't have to read everything to know what is inspired. As I told you in another post, Scripture was known as it was being written. From that time on, it was collected together and distributed authoritatively. We have today the literature that believers received from Old Testament prophets and New Testament Apostles and preserved for us to learn from too. We know not only that it is all Scripture, but also that it is complete. Anything outside of those 66 books and letters may be illuminating for understanding them, for example, the writings of pastor-teachers, but nothing else is Scripture at all. If you want to pretend that it is just because there are so many books in the world, some of them fraudulently bearing names and titles stolen from the Bible, that is really your own kettle of fish. It's not the believer's problem at all.

You are like many others on here that I have met and discussed with. You know very little of Truth, but you take that little and foul it up with a vast amount of lies that essentially lead you into perdition and then proceed to make yourself a stumbling block to those who believe. I am not on your side, because you really do not believe the Bible at all. You make stuff up and you listen to made-up stuff that you proceed to try to mix into what the Bible actually says, and it is a very heady mix that drops you straight into Apostasy. So, yes, I do believe the Bible, but you clearly don't. That is why you want to put words in God's Mouth.

If you really believe, as you say, that the Bible is more than enough, you should quit adding stuff to it. As I have said, if fiction is your thing, by all means, enjoy it, but don't call it Scripture just because you like it. If you love God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, not only will you respect Them enough to not put words in Their Mouth, but you will also care for the welfare of Their Church and not put believers bought with precious Blood at spiritual risk with lies.

As I said, I don't see any reason why anyone would claim that the Book of Enoch is inspired at all. It is obviously a work of fiction that pretends to have something to do with Jude.

Not sure what your last paragraph means.

Edited.

gobuchinny:
Do you know the book of Jasher was quoted at least twice in the old testament?

gobuchinny:
And anyone who reads that book will see how it fills in gaps in the bible? The bible is after all a historical account brother.

gobuchinny:
That you r scared of other books that are not in your conventional bible shouldn't make you run down the books. At least allow other read and discern.

gobuchinny:
The only way to know if a book is inspired or not is to at least read it . That's y we have d Holy Spirit. He will teach you all things.

gobuchinny:
At least you r not muttey dat is hopelessly blinded .

gobuchinny:
You beleive in the fallen angels story and it makes me know you beleive in the bible. That's all that matters. Leave others who wanna go d extra to gain understanding by way of BOE or Jasher because that bible you holding is not ALL of the words of Yeshua .

gobuchinny:
The important thing is to love God and His son Yeshua and it matters not if you read Jasher or Enoch. The 66 books are more than Enuff mate. I respect people who respect d bible as you clearly do by acknowledging what Peter and Jude said. Muttey is lost .

gobuchinny:
Please ill try n make this my last post here because the bible is enough and promoting a book is not the gospel however, it's also wrong to knock down a book esp if there r no evidences to prove its apostasy. All the issues raised here on Enochs apostasy have been answered. Truly, if Enoch is an inspired word, it must mirror the known word which it does.

gobuchinny:
No blasphemy, and every issue raised can be examples from the bible

Eviana:


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.

gobuchinny:


From the beginning, the one thing that has been attacked is the word of God. Man has been working hand in hand with the devil to truncate the salvation plan of God just like God has been in cooperation with man to retain it.

Let's leave these books and speak on the bible as we know it. Do you even beleive or know the doctrine of Christ. Are we to take whatever has been handed down to us as authentic even in the light of scripture? Everyone has the bible but do we understand the doctrine of the NT testament? We r still talking about BOE and Jasher that were not included, what about the books that have been included that the doctrine has been perverted by Man?

Do you know that the church as we have it is not what the early apostles left behind? That the enemy has fully infiltrated the church and is spreading it's own doctrine?. If you have read the NT you will quickly discover that what you read is not what you hear on the pulpits. These early apostles were sold out to God . There were not carnal minded but now all the messages are on how God will enlarge you, bless you, give you that job e.t.c we have substituted the great God for mammoth. Now, a beleiver wakes up in the morning and all he thinks about is that shell job, or nnpc contract, that husband she needs, that car she asked God for.....forgetting that Yeshua said TAKE NO THOUGHTS.....in Roman's it states that Carnal mindedness is enemy with God . Do you know what that means. It means that you cannot equates carnal thing to service of God. Now in church people share testimonies of how God blessed them with cars, spouses, jobs . Like that's the gospel?

In the early church these men were losing their lives and possessions but we r being taught to gain our lives and possessions . My brother did you know that Yeshua did not come to die to give your riches . He came that you may have life and have it more abundantly? What is that life? A life of wealth and splendour like these men have made us beleive? Yeshua had disciples who had to leave ALL to follow Him? And now we are being thought to gain ALL and follow Him?.

You are so scared to question man thinking you will be questioning God whereas Gid wants you to reason with Him not man . Now we have In the church, one man who always brings the word and God only speaks to Him whereas the gifts of God have been given to all and we are all to admonish one another. Paul even thought that if ANY has a word.... . That God has given to ALL in different measures and we are not to dominate ourselves but that all are equal before God? That the eye cannot say to the ears that he is more important, that all the members of the body are equal?

The whole foundation of the church has been corrupted bro. We live in the last days friend and its perilous times. Now men of God preach peace and prosperity but the picture Yeshua paints is directly opposite . That the last days will be filled with destruction and perilous times. That at the end so many false prophets will arise. That the way is narrow. Abeg from all the churches in this world does it seem like the road is narrow? Doesnt it look like all is well?. That alot of folks are going to heaven?

Now we have carnal minded christains who have forgotten that the main message of the Bible Is the salvation of the soul for eternity. All the early church pointed us to was eternal life . That faith is the substance of things hoped for.....everytime you see hope in NT its talking about hope for eternity....the evidence of things not seen. What we dont see is heaven my friend. Scripture says "while we look not at the things that are seen but at the things not seen, for the things seen are temporal but the things not seen are eternal". Faith is not the substance of carnal things hoped for. . It's not the evidence of your car or job or house or yacht . Dont forget to be carnality minded is enmity with God and he that worship Yahweh must worship Him in Spirit not carnality or flesh but Spirit and truth.

Mature sons of God who are eating meat knows that you are not subject to man. After all we are called into liberty but the traditions have taught us to be subject to a select few who administer the oracles of God forgetting that we are not under the old guard but New. That you cannot mix old wine in new wine skin. Besides we were all gentiles who had to learn salvation.

Now we have men who say that the Spirit of Elijah and Elisha are greater forgetting the words of the Lord that everyone born of woman, none has been as great as Jojn the Baptist but he that is least from the Kingdom of God is greater than John . And someone will still take us back to when Elijah was alive? Forgetting that Peter says these men of Old wondered at the type of salvation that the world will see at the time of Yeshua because they saw the coming of the messiah. Yeshua also told the apostle that their eyes are blessed because prophets of old longed to see what they see but could not.

So now we have scared and carnal Christian's who are scared to be independent from man and fully dependent on God.

I'm saying all these so that you see that even the 66 books that we have have been perverted in doctrine by the devil so it shouldn't be strange to you if some books are left out all together.

Tell your pastor to stop lieing to you. The world will be destroyed and for those who acquire wealth and think godliness is gain it will be a surprise. Like in the days of Noah so shall it be. For men shall be building and expanding . False doctrines shall be In abundance and the prophesy of peace will be loudest but the foundation of the Lord stand the sure. Dont be to trusting of man my friend. Man is evil but Hod is supreme. Dont be scared to question man. Because questioning man is NOT questioning God infact questioning man is really pleasing God.

We have really not heard the gospel my friend. What is being preached is not what Yeshua nor the apostles died for. Never think all is well for we have to always press into the Kingdom. It's not given on an platter. We have to discover it. Remember Yeshua words, it like a man that finds treasure, y will you. Be finding treasure if its given you on a platter. We must dig to discover the true gospel as man in collaboration with Lucifer has hidden it .

I'm saying all these but I perceive you wont get my points but it's also for posterity. For anyone who has questioned the rot and decadence in the church but ofcourse the prosperity is well known forgetting that Lucifer is the God of these world. Now we are taught to first look out for wealth before we look out for grace . Grace of God is measured by the scale of dollars and naira .

It's a personal race my friend, a race to escape the coming doom and destruction of this present world. Because the wicked will do more wickedly as the wicked days unfold until full consummation of this wicked earth