veiling and the book of enoch

razeontherock · Mar 6, 2012

TamaraLynne said:
what about the angels who fell? did they also wear veils when they wanted forgiveness? I can not remember.

There is no forgiveness for angels. I don't think any books, (deutero-canonical or otherwise) specifically state that this pre-flood issue is the original fall of satan, but if any such thing happened, it was done by angels that were fallen.

Wally Cleaver · Mar 6, 2012

If one wants to read the authoritative/best copy of Enoch, maybe you should consider this version as this 'editor' is probably the greatest person I've ever come across imo:

King of kings' Bible - Enoch

TamaraLynne · Mar 6, 2012

razeontherock said:
I share your wow moment and never considered it that way either. While every fiber of my being rejects the notion, I've never been in a society that "veils," let alone part of it. It might be interesting to hear opinion on this detail from those who were born and raised in such a culture ...

Can we examine this? If the culture really thought the tale (recorded in Genesis 6, even w/o any input from Enoch) to be literal, would that equate to women having something to be ashamed of? Or could it be something else like mere protection? And could this in any way equate to modesty?

Honestly I do think that is contained in Scripture, but I readily admit that might just be my own bias towards women having long hair

I think you might be more right...cover the women so this does not happen again to us...that would makes sense to.The fear factor.

razeontherock · Mar 6, 2012

TamaraLynne said:
I think you might be more right...cover the women so this does not happen again to us

I just noticed your avatar. Almost like you picked it out just to participate in this thread!

razeontherock · Mar 6, 2012

Wally Cleaver said:
If one wants to read the authoritative/best copy of Enoch, maybe you should consider this version as this 'editor' is probably the greatest person I've ever come across imo:

King of kings' Bible - Enoch

Hey, I should link Summa Scriptura's version here, so anybody that wants to can see if they're the same or what ...

Wally Cleaver · Mar 6, 2012

razeontherock said:
Hey, I should link Summa Scriptura's version here, so anybody that wants to can see if they're the same or what ...

Sure, a comparison could be interesting.

(hmm, my linked site appears to be having problems atm and it wont scroll down, perhaps they are doing some maintenance as he's been messing with that area recently. It worked yesterday...so perhaps just this browser..idk..)

ViaCrucis · Mar 6, 2012

Wally Cleaver said:
If one wants to read the authoritative/best copy of Enoch, maybe you should consider this version as this 'editor' is probably the greatest person I've ever come across imo:

King of kings' Bible - Enoch

I don't know if a website saturated in .gif images is particularly the best place to find this sort of thing.

Here's a perhaps slightly more scholarly source.

-CryptoLutheran

merryheart · Mar 6, 2012

Wally Cleaver said:
How are veils interesting?

To me the interest is not in the veils themselves, but rather in the origin and motivation. The majority of the people who practise veiling, hair covering, seclusion of women today are Muslims although historically it is much wider than that.

I used to have a huge chip on my shoulder whenever I saw a woman in 'covering garb' of any sort. In conversations with Muslim men (mostly coworkers) they would insist that it is for the women's protection - and that insistence seemed to be very sincere, and not from men who believe it is their right to harass women. It always seemed incongruous to me, and I would always try to convince them of it. I'd use many of the arguments I have seen here - like why cant men just be taught self control. The insistence went beyond sincere to the point of a deeply held belief that women need this protection, which i have to admit caused an intense feeling of hostility in me.

Now here is the part that makes it very personal to me. A little over 3 years ago several things happened to change my mind - not my religion - but my attitude. One of them began with a conversation about the Book of Enoch I had with my mother. In the middle of the conversation I was suddenly standing in a place where the men were standing - with dread and horror in their eyes - in front of their women who were bending down and pulling cloths over their heads. I could feel their fear. I heard a voice say to me "This is why men of the middle east cover their women and do not mention their names." Since then I have learned that indeed - the culture of the middle east is that men do not discuss their women with non-family members.

I don't expect a revelation of mine without any historical or outside corroboration to have much affect on people in a forum who do not know me, I share it to show why it is interesting to me. This event combined with some other similar events, caused my attitude to be suddenly and completely reversed and allowed me to view Muslim men and women with compassion rather than hostility.

razeontherock · Mar 6, 2012

merryheart said:
Now here is the part that makes it very personal to me. A little over 3 years ago several things happened to change my mind - not my religion - but my attitude. One of them began with a conversation about the Book of Enoch I had with my mother. In the middle of the conversation I was suddenly standing in a place where the men were standing - with dread and horror in their eyes - in front of their women who were bending down and pulling cloths over their heads. I could feel their fear. I heard a voice say to me "This is why men of the middle east cover their women and do not mention their names."

Can you clarify, was this an actual event, a vision, or?

merryheart · Mar 6, 2012

razeontherock said:
Can you clarify, was this an actual event, a vision, or?

vision

completely not in the same room anymore - but only inside my head.

razeontherock · Mar 6, 2012

Thank you That was the impression I got upon first read. Funny how that works

It seems as if that understanding has been key for you in more than one instance since then, too ...

razeontherock · Mar 8, 2012

bad link

razeontherock · Mar 9, 2012

Above link is bad. Here:

The Book of Enoch, Translated by Robert H. Charles, 1912

To link to Chapters use this convention:
The Book of Enoch, Translated by Robert H. Charles, 1912

To link to Verses use this convention:
The Book of Enoch, Translated by Robert H. Charles, 1912

He corrected chapter and verse breaks, making it much more readable, and also spaced the poetry sections to reflect that. Quite a bit of work ...

razeontherock · Mar 9, 2012

Duplicate. Stoopid computers!

SummaScriptura · Mar 11, 2012

Booko said:
I'm not following the "son of man" reference here. "Son of man" is a title used in the Tenakh for prophets, Ezekiel being the poster child for that sort of reference.

The Son of Man
This title for the heavenly one in Enochs vision, is found in Enoch only in The Book of the Parables, where it occurs 16 times. This title is echoed throughout the four gospels in the New Testament, where Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.

"There was great joy amongst them, and they blessed and glorified and extolled because the name of that Son of Man had been revealed unto them." (Enoch 69:26)

Of the more than 100 places in the Hebrew scriptures in which the term son of man is used, only one in the Book of Daniel is clearly referring to the Messiah,

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

Even in this the single messianic use of the term son of man in the Hebrew scriptures, the indefinite article a is used by translators to show the term is not so much a title, rather a description of how Messiah appeared to Daniel; Messiah had something that looked like a human nature when Daniel saw him. All other references to the term son of man in the Hebrew Old Testament do not refer to Messiah; more than 90 of these occur in the Book of Ezekiel and refer to Ezekiel himself.

If you were to ask the average Bible-believing Christian to whom does the Bible refer when it uses the term 'the Son of Man'? you will surely get the answer, Jesus Christ. How is it that a description of Israel's Messiah-to-come used once in the Hebrew scriptures, became one of the most common titles used by Jesus Christ for himself in the New Testament? In Matthew's gospel the term is used nearly 30 times, in Luke's Gospel, more than 25 times. Mark's and John's gospels also use the term, but slightly less frequently. In total, the gospels refer to Jesus as the Son of Man more than 80 times; in almost every case, the term is used by Jesus to refer to himself. It is notable that Jesus does not appear to make an effort to explain what the term means. From this we gather, the term had some commonly shared meaning among his listeners.

This raises an interesting question, how would Jesus' hearers have understood the term which he was in the habit of using for himself, if Israel's Messiah is referred to as one like a son of man only once in the Hebrew scriptures? Is it possible that both Jesus and his hearers shared another source by which they understood the term?

As it turns out, there was such a source, a book containing many references to the Son of Man, a book which we now know was in fairly wide circulation in Jesus' day, which is not currently found in the Old Testament of Western Bibles based upon the Hebrew Scriptures. Popular familiarity with the prophecies contained in the Book of Enoch may have been the reason Jesus did not need to explain His use of the term.

Consider these amazing examples:

"I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: this is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever." (Enoch 46:2-3)

"At that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Head of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits. And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before him, before the creation of the world and for evermore." (Enoch 48:2-6)

"The angel came to me and greeted me with his voice, and said unto me 'this is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over him, and the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.' And he said unto me: 'he proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; for from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, and so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever. And all shall walk in his ways since righteousness never forsaketh him: with him will be their dwelling-places, and with him their heritage, and they shall not be separated from him for ever and ever and ever. And so there shall be length of days with that Son of Man, and the righteous shall have peace and an upright way in the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.' (Enoch 71:14-16)

Scattered throughout the Book of the Parables, are many passages concerning this heavenly person called the Righteous One, Elect One, Anointed One and Son of Man.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns
All rights reserved

SummaScriptura · Mar 11, 2012

brinny said:
Interesting post, but the Bible does not refer to the "book of Enoch"

No, it does not refer to the Book of Enoch as "the Book of Enoch", but Jude quotes it and refers to it as many as seven times. Peter refers to it in his 2nd epistle. I can also argue that the rest of the NT writers show influence from it.

Booko · Mar 11, 2012

SummaScriptura said:
“The Son of Man”
This title for the heavenly one in Enoch’s vision, is found in Enoch only in The Book of the Parables, where it occurs 16 times. This title is echoed throughout the four gospels in the New Testament, where Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.

Thank you, Summa!

Now I'll have to reread Enoch again. It's only been, um, 30 years at least. I don't remember that much about it.

razeontherock · Mar 11, 2012

While Enoch is beyond controversial, there is absolutely no question that it was written well before Jesus' birth. And even though a very sincere believer here has called Enoch "the anti-thesis of all that God is," we see that Enoch Prophesied Jesus. He also did so more clearly than anything else in the OT.

It is also true that some sections of Enoch made pretty much no sense, and we don't have them as they were intended to be read. It's also true that a great majority of it has no bearing on us.

None of that removes that worth of those sections that are good.

SummaScriptura · Mar 11, 2012

brinny said:
the bible verse you posted is speaking of Enoch the prophet, not quoting from a "book of Enoch".

It stretches reason to say that Jude would include a part in his letter which is verbatim from the Book of Enoch which was well-known and widely read in his day, but then say he wasn't intending his audience to understand he was referring to that book at all.

BTW, Jude alludes to that book seven times in his letter, not just that one part.

SummaScriptura · Mar 11, 2012

merryheart said:
<snip>It states that the giants born from the union of human woman and fallen angel were 300 cubits... I find that a bit tough to believe literally...<snip>

Newer translations of Enoch, (Olson, Nickelsburg I have on my shelf) correct Enoch 7:2, based upon the best textual evidence. The verse says nothing about how tall the giantes were, in fact.

veiling and the book of enoch

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

bookworm nerdgirl

Well-Known Member

bookworm nerdgirl

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Forever Newbie

Forever Newbie

Poultry in Motion

Well-Known Member

Forever Newbie

Forever Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency