Is Eschatology based on the Book of Enoch like a "Flat Earth"?

Jipsah · Aug 21, 2018

SeventyOne said:
No, and it wouldn't have been accurate either. The point of it is this, there are answers out there for people who really want to know. I won't hold anyone's hand on this particular topic. I don't care how much some may whine about it.

here’s the bottom line - the flat earth idea is the most ridiculous kind of nonsense, based on a combination of ignorance and bad scripture exegesis. You can’t supply answers because you have none , so you flap your arms splutter.

SeventyOne · Aug 21, 2018

Jipsah said:
here’s the bottom line - the flat earth idea is the most ridiculous king of nonsense, based on a combination of ignorance and bad scripture exegesis. You can’t supply answers because you have none , so you flap your arms splutter.

In your opinion, of course. Reality is a bit different.

Again, to anyone reading this who are even slightly intellectually honest and curious, rather than be like the three or four ignorant blowhards on this thread, there are answers out there as to why so many are converting to this and turning away from all the garbage we've been told we must believe all our lives. Aren't you even slightly curious as to why that's the case?

Then one day you can be like me, dealing with clueless ones who demand things of you with no other intent than to ridicule and try to feel smart. These are the same types of people as the evolutionists who look at creationists as stupid and ridicule what we say, because "science". Neither group has the real thing and I won't feed their ignorance.

jgr · Aug 21, 2018

SeventyOne said:
In your opinion, of course. Reality is a bit different.

Again, to anyone reading this who are even slightly intellectually honest and curious, rather than be like the three or four ignorant blowhards on this thread, there are answers out there as to why so many are converting to this and turning away from all the garbage we've been told we must believe all our lives. Aren't you even slightly curious as to why that's the case?

Then one day you can be like me, dealing with clueless ones who demand things of you with no other intent than to ridicule and try to feel smart. These are the same types of people as the evolutionists who look at creationists as stupid and ridicule what we say, because "science". Neither group has the real thing and I won't feed their ignorance.

There have been, and continue to be, Christian astronauts in the American space program.

Have any of them ever claimed to have seen a flat earth?

Or have they all been deceived as well?

Jipsah · Aug 21, 2018

SeventyOne said:
Again, to anyone reading this who are even slightly intellectually honest and curious, rather than be like the three or four ignorant blowhards on this thread, there are answers out there as to why so many are converting to this and turning away from all the garbage we've been told we must believe all our lives. Aren't you even slightly curious as to why that's the case?

The gullible we will always have with us.

Then one day you can be like me, dealing with clueless ones who demand things of you with no other intent than to ridicule and try to feel smart.

Knowing that you have nothing to offer as evidence for your claim but ridiculous youtube videos.

These are the same types of people as the evolutionists who look at creationists as stupid and ridicule what we say, because "science". Neither group has the real thing and I won't feed their ignorance.

More arm-flapping and spluttering.

BTW, you wanna try your hand with why I can turn my beam antenna 180 degrees away from the place I'm trying to talk to and have it work? Makes perfect sense in the world is spherical, none at all if it's flat. If the real world, "long path" radio transmission makes sense, in a flat world, the signal should be radiating out into space to be heard by no one.

Of course, you know the answer, but just refuse to share it, right? Right.

Riberra · Aug 24, 2018

Jipsah said:
If you have the hardware, it, as they say, ain't no thang. The same side of the moon is always facing us, so it's a bit easier to hit a given spot. Doing Earth-Moon-Earth is a different game since you're just wanting to hit the moon, and manage to get that tight beam back to earth where someone else will hear it. That means you call CQ (any station) a lot. But yeah, a phone mode conversation between the earth and the moon would have been no big deal even in '69, especially with the hardware NASA had at their disposal. Video would have been tougher, and in fact I don't think they did any real time video. Could be wrong about that, though.

Live feeds have been done since Neil Armstrong’s historic first steps ....
How was NASA able to telecast live video from the first moon landing?
Full details :
https://www.quora.com/How-was-NASA-able-to-telecast-live-video-from-the-first-moon-landing
To televise Neil Armstrong’s historic first steps, the camera was mounted on a panel in a LEM storage compartment. The panel was opened with a tug on a release cord while he was still on the ladder.

camera main-qimg-cac8798f017dbad1b17f1f058d2366d3-c.jpeg

The low frame rate, low-resolution (even for the time) video was transmitted back to Earth via S-band radio and picked up by one of the giant dish antennas operated by NASA at strategic locations around the world. There, is was decoded and transferred to standard broadcast television using a custom-made machine that housed a standard TV camera in side a sealed housing, focused on a special, high-fidelity display tube.

appollo live feeds main-qimg-9bbd16fd84eda28e9ace5db274c69eb5-c.jpeg

The signal was then relayed back to Houston and distributed to the networks. Unfortunately, it wasn’t widely appreciated until many years later that the signal was seriously degraded during that last leg of the journey, having made it in pretty good shape all the way from the moon.

FredVB · Oct 6, 2018

Because of one mention, that of Jude quoting a prophecy credited to Enoch, there is this support for believing in what is found known as the Book of Enoch.

In verses 14 and 15 of the epistle of Jude, he said:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

All sorts of things come to be believed based on an understanding of one mention of something in scriptures. This is not good witness for a teaching from scriptures.

We have hardly anything for certainty that a Book of Enoch we have available now (there are different ones) is the same as what Jude had the prophecy of Enoch from. Jude did not even say it was from a book. There was this prophecy in common, and any other things that are not said in the scriptures of the Bible, and there are a great many of such teachings, were likely added in a composed book named as the Book of Enoch, later than any of the old testament books of the Bible. What we have available for it does not/do not qualify as scripture, with so much questionable about it.

There is not basis then for claiming with use of a Book of Enoch that angels were actually mating with humans.

If there is the claimed flatness of our earth, how do those with a model of such a shape of the earth explain this?

I found this Youtube video was posted elsewhere in CF.

SeventyOne · Oct 11, 2018

FredVB said:
Because of one mention, that of Jude quoting a prophecy credited to Enoch, there is this support for believing in what is found known as the Book of Enoch.

In verses 14 and 15 of the epistle of Jude, he said:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

All sorts of things come to be believed based on an understanding of one mention of something in scriptures. This is not good witness for a teaching from scriptures.

We have hardly anything for certainty that a Book of Enoch we have available now (there are different ones) is the same as what Jude had the prophecy of Enoch from. Jude did not even say it was from a book. There was this prophecy in common, and any other things that are not said in the scriptures of the Bible, and there are a great many of such teachings, were likely added in a composed book named as the Book of Enoch, later than any of the old testament books of the Bible. What we have available for it does not/do not qualify as scripture, with so much questionable about it.

There is not basis then for claiming with use of a Book of Enoch that angels were actually mating with humans.

If there is the claimed flatness of our earth, how do those with a model of such a shape of the earth explain this?

I found this Youtube video was posted elsewhere in CF.

A roadblock to that kind of thinking is in Matthew 22, when the Sadducees posed a question about a woman who married seven brothers and whose wife will she become in the resurrection.

Jesus responds that they were wrong because they didn't know the scriptures or the power of God as there will be no marriage but we will be like the angels in heaven in that regard.

The only place I know of where it explicitly states the angels in heaven were not given wives is in Enoch 15. Nowhere in our traditional OT does it state this information, but Jesus states that information comes from scripture. If you know of a place in the traditional OT where both Jesus and the Sadducees would have drawn that information from beforehand, I'd like to see it.

Biblewriter · Oct 12, 2018

There can be no doubt that "The Book of Enoch" referred to in Jude 1:14 was indeed scripture. But there is considerable doubt that the book which currently goes by that name is even the same book.

FredVB · Jan 19, 2019

FredVB said:
Because of one mention, that of Jude quoting a prophecy credited to Enoch, there is this support for believing in what is found known as the Book of Enoch.

In verses 14 and 15 of the epistle of Jude, he said:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

All sorts of things come to be believed based on an understanding of one mention of something in scriptures. This is not good witness for a teaching from scriptures.

We have hardly anything for certainty that a Book of Enoch we have available now (there are different ones) is the same as what Jude had the prophecy of Enoch from. Jude did not even say it was from a book. There was this prophecy in common, and any other things that are not said in the scriptures of the Bible, and there are a great many of such teachings, were likely added in a composed book named as the Book of Enoch, later than any of the old testament books of the Bible. What we have available for it does not/do not qualify as scripture, with so much questionable about it.

There is not basis then for claiming with use of a Book of Enoch that angels were actually mating with humans.

If there is the claimed flatness of our earth, how do those with a model of such a shape of the earth explain this?

SeventyOne said:
A roadblock to that kind of thinking is in Matthew 22, when the Sadducees posed a question about a woman who married seven brothers and whose wife will she become in the resurrection.

Jesus responds that they were wrong because they didn't know the scriptures or the power of God as there will be no marriage but we will be like the angels in heaven in that regard.

The only place I know of where it explicitly states the angels in heaven were not given wives is in Enoch 15. Nowhere in our traditional OT does it state this information, but Jesus states that information comes from scripture. If you know of a place in the traditional OT where both Jesus and the Sadducees would have drawn that information from beforehand, I'd like to see it.

I am thinking the problem here is that you are reading something into Jesus's answer. I mean that Jesus telling the Sadducees that they did not know the scriptures did not mean they did not know where it was said that angels were not given wives. They did not know from scriptures that there is resurrection still and those resurrected to life will be among angels. And Jesus explained that angels were not given in marriage. The book of Enoch is not needed for this.

Biblewriter said:
There can be no doubt that "The Book of Enoch" referred to in Jude 1:14 was indeed scripture. But there is considerable doubt that the book which currently goes by that name is even the same book.

I think that anything given as scripture, really from Yahweh God, is always there for believers then, and does not become lost from them through most generations. Others think differently, I know. I think then there was some preserved writing from Enoch, then. But in centuries that were recent and contemporary for the new testament writings, there was more than one book, as you note, they came out from other writers enhancing what there had been originally with a lot more material added to what was actually the writing that was from Enoch.

SeventyOne · Jan 19, 2019

FredVB said:
I am thinking the problem here is that you are reading something into Jesus's answer. I mean that Jesus telling the Sadducees that they did not know the scriptures did not mean they did not know where it was said that angels were not given wives. They did not know from scriptures that there is resurrection still and those resurrected to life will be among angels. And Jesus explained that angels were not given in marriage. The book of Enoch is not needed for this.

And I think the problem here is you aren't taking His response seriously enough. He explains in the resurrection we are neither married nor given in marriage, just as the angels in heaven. That is the part they should have understand from the scriptures already.

Again, if you can show me where this bit of information is contained in the traditional OT where the angels in Heaven do not marry, I'd appreciate it, but don't bother trying to just write it off if you want to take what was said with any kind of seriousness.

In contrast, I can show you exactly where it is found:

1 Enoch 15:6-7 But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.

FredVB · Jan 21, 2019

FredVB said:
I am thinking the problem here is that you are reading something into Jesus's answer. I mean that Jesus telling the Sadducees that they did not know the scriptures did not mean they did not know where it was said that angels were not given wives. They did not know from scriptures that there is resurrection still and those resurrected to life will be among angels. And Jesus explained that angels were not given in marriage. The book of Enoch is not needed for this.

I think that anything given as scripture, really from Yahweh God, is always there for believers then, and does not become lost from them through most generations. Others think differently, I know. I think then there was some preserved writing from Enoch, then. But in centuries that were recent and contemporary for the new testament writings, there was more than one book, as you note, they came out from other writers enhancing what there had been originally with a lot more material added to what was actually the writing that was from Enoch.

SeventyOne said:
And I think the problem here is you aren't taking His response seriously enough. He explains in the resurrection we are neither married nor given in marriage, just as the angels in heaven. That is the part they should have understand from the scriptures already.

Again, if you can show me where this bit of information is contained in the traditional OT where the angels in Heaven do not marry, I'd appreciate it, but don't bother trying to just write it off if you want to take what was said with any kind of seriousness.

In contrast, I can show you exactly where it is found:

1 Enoch 15:6-7 But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.

Alright. That passage of 1 Enoch 15:6-7 convinces me that angels are not given in marriage, to concern the subject of the resurrection. I needed to hear that.

Not really. Jesus said it and that is the basis for why I believe that.

There is no problem at all taking his response seriously, that is read into it. Sadducees were answered that they erred, about the resurrection, because they didn't know the scriptures. I know passages in old testament scriptures that depend on there being resurrection to be true. I believe that in the resurrection we will not be given in marriage, which I believe because Jesus explained that, though it makes sense because the church of the saved believers will be his bride, and with us being among them, we would be as angels in that way, which I can already understand are not given in marriage, for with how angels are described, they are not like us.

I don't have to convince you, but I show the explanation, that is good enough for others as it is for me.

SeventyOne · Jan 21, 2019

FredVB said:
I don't have to convince you, but I show the explanation, that is good enough for others as it is for me.

Fair enough, but I personally require an explanation with substance to be convinced. Jesus said their ignorance came from not knowing scriptures they already had. All I asked you to do is to show me where in the OT where they would have derived the knowledge concerning angels in Heaven and marriage. But it's fine, I already know you can't, because its not in there.

Biblewriter · Jan 21, 2019

SeventyOne said:
Fair enough, but I personally require an explanation with substance to be convinced. Jesus said their ignorance came from not knowing scriptures they already had. All I asked you to do is to show me where in the OT where they would have derived the knowledge concerning angels in Heaven and marriage. But it's fine, I already know you can't, because its not in there.

he book of Enoch was indeed "scripture," and was so recognized by the early church, as well as in the Bible. But it was omitted from the canon by the early church because they did not have even one copy that they felt was reliable.

And there is considerable question as to whether or not the document currently called "The Book of Enoch" is even that same document as the one mentioned in scripture and recognized by the early church.

SeventyOne · Jan 21, 2019

Biblewriter said:
he book of Enoch was indeed "scripture," and was so recognized by the early church, as well as in the Bible. But it was omitted from the canon by the early church because they did not have even one copy that they felt was reliable.

And there is considerable question as to whether or not the document currently called "The Book of Enoch" is even that same document as the one mentioned in scripture and recognized by the early church.

Since it claims to be exclusively written for the final generation, it's no surprise prior generarions would find ways to dismiss it.

Biblewriter · Jan 22, 2019

SeventyOne said:
Since it claims to be exclusively written for the final generation, it's no surprise prior generarions would find ways to dismiss it.

This observation does not even answer the question. The question is not whether or not the book of Enoch mentioned in the Bible was scripture. The question is whether or not the document that is currently called by that name is actually the book written by Enoch. And until that question is answered, nothing it says can even be taken seriously.

I have not examined this book thoroughly, but the few parts of it I have read do not disagree with any real scripture, which has been the case for every unquestionably counterfeit "scripture" I have ever examined. So I feel that there is a distinct possibility that it is actually a copy of the original Book of Enoch, but we cannot be certain, and therefore it is inappropriate to elevate its status to that of Isaiah, for instance.

SeventyOne · Jan 22, 2019

Biblewriter said:
This observation does not even answer the question. The question is not whether or not the book of Enoch mentioned in the Bible was scripture. The question is whether or not the document that is currently called by that name is actually the book written by Enoch. And until that question is answered, nothing it says can even be taken seriously.

I have not examined this book thoroughly, but the few parts of it I have read do not disagree with any real scripture, which has been the case for every unquestionably counterfeit "scripture" I have ever examined. So I feel that there is a distinct possibility that it is actually a copy of the original Book of Enoch, but we cannot be certain, and therefore it is inappropriate to elevate its status to that of Isaiah, for instance.

Technically, you didn't ask me a question to be answered. So, I'm not sure what question you are referencing that I didn't answer.

It seems you are currently in that place where you have to decide if what we have now in the form of 1 Enoch is legit or if God allows the 'losing' of some scriptures over a period of years. He has done it before, in 2 Kings 22, then allowed it to be found again and applied by a future generation. So, the concept is quite legit.

Either way, I can't help you with your conclusion on the status of the book. Just understand I'm not bound by the assumption of others in this matter.

Biblewriter · Jan 22, 2019

SeventyOne said:
Either way, I can't help you with your conclusion on the status of the book. Just understand I'm not bound by the assumption of others in this matter.

I concur with this. I am undecided on this, but tend towards rejecting it completely.

SeventyOne · Jan 22, 2019

Biblewriter said:
I concur with this. I am undecided on this, but tend towards rejecting it completely.

Before you do that, consider it is in Enoch where we get a lot more detail concerning the incursion of the angels which Genesis 6 briefly touches on.

It also elaborates on the nature of stars being angelic, rather than what we are told as being huge balls of gas. It also tells us that in the last times, the nature of these stars will be hidden from sinners and they will be thought of as gods. This is exactly what we are told today, that the stars created us out of their dust over eons of time. It is spot on in that prophecy.

It also speaks of the location and characteristics of a mountain so high it literally reaches Heaven, which is likely the place the devil took Jesus to show Him all the kingdoms of the world. It does so in several places, and describes it as the middle of 7 mountains, that which when viewed collectively resemble a throne.

1 Enoch (and 1 Enoch only) interweaves itself with other scripture in many areas. I suggest some serious personal study before just dismissing it.

Edit:

I forgot to mention that it makes several references concerning the Righteous One, a Son of man who stands before the Ancient of Days, who will rule the earth. That's quite the interesting read.

FredVB · Jan 29, 2019

FredVB said:
Alright. That passage of 1 Enoch 15:6-7 convinces me that angels are not given in marriage, to concern the subject of the resurrection. I needed to hear that.
Not really. Jesus said it and that is the basis for why I believe that.

There is no problem at all taking his response seriously, that is read into it. Sadducees were answered that they erred, about the resurrection, because they didn't know the scriptures. I know passages in old testament scriptures that depend on there being resurrection to be true. I believe that in the resurrection we will not be given in marriage, which I believe because Jesus explained that, though it makes sense because the church of the saved believers will be his bride, and with us being among them, we would be as angels in that way, which I can already understand are not given in marriage, for with how angels are described, they are not like us.

I don't have to convince you, but I show the explanation, that is good enough for others as it is for me.

SeventyOne said:
Fair enough, but I personally require an explanation with substance to be convinced. Jesus said their ignorance came from not knowing scriptures they already had. All I asked you to do is to show me where in the OT where they would have derived the knowledge concerning angels in Heaven and marriage. But it's fine, I already know you can't, because its not in there.

I haven't said Sadducees could have found information from the scriptures then about angels in Heaven not marrying. I have read the old testament scriptures, as well as the new testament scriptures, many times, I don't remember seeing that, but believe it mainly because Jesus spoke about this.

But in fact, what is shown for this?
"1 Enoch 15:6-7 But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven."
I don't see this is about angels, and I don't know what anyone could have concluded from that then, and I wouldn't believe Jesus would have had such a teaching from that, which he would have said anyone reading should understand, as I don't see it. The interpretation actually seems forced into that. The subject of the matter that Jesus addressed, that hearers should understand from scriptures, is certainly about there being the resurrection, and this is central in the gospel.

I won't though keep going on about it. I in fact will really want to take a break from CF.

I will express concern, still, appropriate through this as the eschatology forum, that we don't have very much longer, the world is just about to go through great changes. We could be more ready, we should still make changes in how we live.

SeventyOne · Jan 29, 2019

FredVB said:
I haven't said Sadducees could have found information from the scriptures then about angels in Heaven not marrying. I have read the old testament scriptures, as well as the new testament scriptures, many times, I don't remember seeing that, but believe it mainly because Jesus spoke about this.

But in fact, what is shown for this?
"1 Enoch 15:6-7 But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven."
I don't see this is about angels, and I don't know what anyone could have concluded from that then, and I wouldn't believe Jesus would have had such a teaching from that, which he would have said anyone reading should understand, as I don't see it. The interpretation actually seems forced into that. The subject of the matter that Jesus addressed, that hearers should understand from scriptures, is certainly about there being the resurrection, and this is central in the gospel.

I won't though keep going on about it. I in fact will really want to take a break from CF.

I will express concern, still, appropriate through this as the eschatology forum, that we don't have very much longer, the world is just about to go through great changes. We could be more ready, we should still make changes in how we live.

In order for you to see the subject of that passage if you don't want to take my word, you would have go check out the context for yourself. Only takes a few seconds.

Is Eschatology based on the Book of Enoch like a "Flat Earth"?

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads