The Book of Enoch

[Open Heart]

The flood happened some 1000 years after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. We are told it did not rain prior to the flood (cf. Gen. 2:8)

Yet Enoch says it did. (cf. 1 Enoch 3:3)

Now there are only 2 options here.

1. Either Enoch is correct and it did "rain" prior to the flood, thus rendering scriptures unreliable.
2. Or, scriptures are correct, and Enoch is in error.

Now you an say what you want about my logic, but I provided scriptures from both the Bible and Enoch.

And they contradict each other.

And that, friend, is a fact!

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm open to being correctetd. It could be that you are remembering a verse I have forgotten. but it's not Genesis 2:8, which doesn't say ANYTHING about rain.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm open to being correctetd. It could be that you are remembering a verse I have forgotten. but it's not Genesis 2:8, which doesn't say ANYTHING about rain.

"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." -Gen. 2:6 (KJV)

Excuse me, wrong verse.

In the Hebrew:

Genesis 2:6 Interlinear: and a mist goeth up from the earth, and hath watered the whole face of the ground.

No rain.

A mist came up from the ground, and that watered the ground.

No rain.

Now either Moses was wrong when he wrote that, or Enoch is wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

But, I can see where this is heading.

So before I am branded something, I'll bow out.

You think I'm wrong, that's fine, that's not the first time that has been said about me. Nothing new there.

I will leave with this thought.

Read the book, it does on numerous occasions contradict what the scriptures teach.

So I'll take my "heresy" and leave now.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." -Gen. 2:6 (KJV)

Well, I'd say that's absolutely amazingly awesomely accurate scientifically speaking. To the best of what I can remember from my youthful days in the university geology department, as the earth cooled and the molten rock hardened, it gave off steam, which formed clouds, and rained.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, I'd say that's absolutely amazingly awesomely accurate scientifically speaking. To the best of what I can remember from my youthful days in the university geology department, as the earth cooled and the molten rock hardened, it gave off steam, which formed clouds, and rained.

Geology trumps scripture.

Got it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

Geology trumps scripture.

What are you talking about? I don't go to a Geology book for information about salvation, just as I don't go to the Bible for information on science.

 

[DeaconDean]

What are you talking about?

You said:

as the earth cooled and the molten rock hardened, it gave off steam, which formed clouds, and rained.

That means geology trumps scripture.

Information we need to know.

I'm not gonna argue.

Thanks.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

That means geology trumps scripture.

No it doesn't. I hate repeating myself, but you need to read me again. Slow down this time, and try for higher comprehension:

I don't go to a Geology book for information about salvation, just as I don't go to the Bible for information on science.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The flood happened some 1000 years after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. We are told it did not rain prior to the flood (cf. Gen. 2:8)
Yet Enoch says it did. (cf. 1 Enoch 3:3)
Now there are only 2 options here.

1. Either Enoch is correct and it did "rain" prior to the flood, thus rendering scriptures unreliable.
2. Or, scriptures are correct, and Enoch is in error.

Now you an say what you want about my logic, but I provided scriptures from both the Bible and Enoch.
And they contradict each other.
And that, friend, is a fact!
God Bless
Till all are one.

I'm going to act like you are engaging in a two-way conversation this time and post a reply. There is a problem which exists both in Hebrew and Greek. The same word is used for both "land" and "earth" in Hebrew. Which of the two connotations to use in English translation is determined by that word's immediate context. Depending on the context that word is translated in the English as either "land" or "earth".

Here is the wider passage to which you refer:

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (ESV)

Now, you'll remember in chapter 1 of Genesis we learned that vegetation was created on the third day and man on the sixth. Yet here we are told Adam is created and then vegetation arises. Why? Because the focus is upon "the land", not "the earth". The land is the location of the Garden of Eden. Yes, there was already the possibility for seasons. Yes, there was already rain on the earth, just not in the land from which Adam would be taken and the garden planted.

I know a lot of Protestant Bible expositors are invested in the "no rain before the flood" theory. But its faulty conjecture.

 

[SummaScriptura]

By the way, most English translations use "earth" which muddies the water so to speak. This causes unnecessary confusion for the reader because of the seeming contradiction that plants spring up after man. And also the seeming teaching about there being no rainfall anywhere on the planet at all.

The "land" or "ground" is used by the ESV, AMP, NLT, and HCSV.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I mentioned that Greek also presents this dilemma to translators. But notice how the translators are nicely consistent when dealing with this...

"But the meek shall inherit the land."

David is clearly talking about the land of promise, which is the heritage of the righteous meek. Then when Jesus quotes David in the N.T. we read,

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

The promise of Christ is viewed in a universal sense as the goyim will also be included in the promise. The translators rightly choose a more universal connotation.

 

[gordonhooker]

People often quote Jude quoting from Enoch to give evidence/support that it should be included in the canon.

Paul often used Greek poetry and it is recorded in scripture. Should we include those works Paul quoted, rather, reworded from?

Clement of Alexandria also uses the illustration from Greek mythology of the Phoenix for our resurrection. (cf. 1 Clement 25)

My point is, if you read Enoch, I have, read it carefully. It can lead you down a path that may have you arguing against scripture.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The way you read anything can lead you down an alternative path and sometimes that is a good thing.

 

[gordonhooker]

The flood happened some 1000 years after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. We are told it did not rain prior to the flood (cf. Gen. 2:8)

Yet Enoch says it did. (cf. 1 Enoch 3:3)

Now there are only 2 options here.

1. Either Enoch is correct and it did "rain" prior to the flood, thus rendering scriptures unreliable.
2. Or, scriptures are correct, and Enoch is in error.

Now you an say what you want about my logic, but I provided scriptures from both the Bible and Enoch.

And they contradict each other.

And that, friend, is a fact!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Are you saying that it must not have rained on this planet prior to the time of Noah because rain isn’t mentioned in Genesis before then?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Are you saying that it must not have rained on this planet prior to the time of Noah because rain isn’t mentioned in Genesis before then?

Yes. That IS what he is saying. To be more precise he is saying, many Bible commentators believe there was no rain before the flood, so I do too.

 

[gordonhooker]

Yes. That IS what he is saying. To be more precise he is saying, many Bible commentators believe there was no rain before the flood, so I do too.

Fruitcake alert - you do realise that this the Traditional theology forum and that sure isn’t traditional theology. I believe there is a fundamentalist form elsewhere in CF.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yeah I'd like to know who it was that started that idea, the idea there was no rain before the flood. I have a friend who defends that view to the nth degree. He also is a young earth subscriber with dinosaurs on the ark with Noah. He says "as babies of course". In this view the waters of the firmament above, fall to the earth during the flood and thus there is the promise in the rainbow. Rainbows too did not exist prior to the flood.

 

[DeaconDean]

Are you saying that it must not have rained on this planet prior to the time of Noah because rain isn’t mentioned in Genesis before then?

Either we take God at His word, or we do not.

There is no middle ground.

"but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -1 Pet. 1:21 (KJV)

Are you saying that Moses was not inspired to write the Pentateuch as the NT writers were?

Gen. 6:2 says it did not rain but a mist rose from the ground to water it.

Yet the book of Enoch says it did.

I chose to believe what Moses wrote rather than what some pseudo-Enoch wrote some 3000 years after the fact.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[SummaScriptura]

For the record, the Hebrew word translated as "mist" in Genesis 2 is better translated "stream". Godly Jews who translated the Bible into Greek about 300 BC, translated it this way, "God had not sent rain upon the land, and there was not a human to work the land, but a spring came up out of the land and watered all the face of the land." (Lexham English Septuagint)

 

[SummaScriptura]

A

Either we take God at His word, or we do not.

There is no middle ground.

"but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -1 Pet. 1:21 (KJV)

Are you saying that Moses was not inspired to write the Pentateuch as the NT writers were?

Gen. 6:2 says it did not rain but a mist rose from the ground to water it.

Yet the book of Enoch says it did.

I chose to believe what Moses wrote rather than what some pseudo-Enoch wrote some 3000 years after the fact.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Aha! You got me! Shame on me, I actually thought you were going to engage in discussion and dialog! :-(

 

[gordonhooker]

Either we take God at His word, or we do not.

There is no middle ground.

"but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -1 Pet. 1:21 (KJV)

Are you saying that Moses was not inspired to write the Pentateuch as the NT writers were?

Gen. 6:2 says it did not rain but a mist rose from the ground to water it.

Yet the book of Enoch says it did.

I chose to believe what Moses wrote rather than what some pseudo-Enoch wrote some 3000 years after the fact.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Exactly you read and interpret scripture in the light of genre in which it was written. As I said there is a fundamentalist section of the CF go there and push your barrow there.