You are hereBlogs / Starlight's blog / What About The Book of Enoch?

What About The Book of Enoch?

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Starlight - Posted on 25 February 2010

What About The Book of Enoch?

By Bill Moore

Until Laurence published his English translation of 1 Enoch in 1821, hardly anyone had ever heard of the Book of Enoch. Today, little has changed. Many have heard of 1 Enoch, but not too many have read it (even among those who are preparing for the ministry). Part of the problem is purely logistical: Bible bookstores do not stock copies of 1 Enoch; translations with critical notes are expensive; and many Christians do not know where to order a copy. But the real problem has to do with a lack of interest. What can be gained from studying 1 Enoch has not been adequately communicated, even among those who stress the importance of reconstructing the life and times of Jesus (i.e. the First Century A.D.). Indeed, there was hardly anyone who had not read 1 Enoch at the time of Christ. This alone should be reason enough to want to study it, even if we accept the classification that Christendom has seen fit to give it: Pseudepigrapha, a term used to describe a writing that claims to be written by someone other than its real author. Such was the practice among those who wished to make public what they believed to be new revelation (so it is theorized) after the Old Testament had been “officially” canonized. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica has this to say about such books:

“Pseudepigraphical books ... are not accepted in their entirety by any church, only individual books being considered sacred by the Eastern churches, particularly the Ethiopian. The most important are the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Adam and Eve, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.”1.

1. Wigoder, Geoffrey, ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” Leon Amiel Publisher: New York, 1974, p. 35.

Regardless how the book of Enoch is classified, the real issue is what influence it had upon those who wrote the New Testament. That it helped shape their expectation of the Messiah’s triumph at the end of the “last days” of the Judean economy is strongly suggested. To what extent 1 Enoch helps us to better understand the New Testament, will determine its value.

For the benefit of those who have not yet read 1 Enoch, a brief description of the text seems apropos considering that 1 Enoch’s 108 chapters might lead one to think that it is a much larger volume than it is — actually about 1100 verses divided into five sections (or books). That 1 Enoch was written at least one-hundred years before Christ seems indicated (among other things) by numerous references to it contained in the Book of Jubilees. For example:

For thus I have found it written in the books of my forefathers, and in the words of Enoch, and in the words of Noah. (Jub 21.10)

While certain parts of 1 Enoch, such as “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” can be traced to Chasidic origin in the 2nd Century B.C., most Bible scholars admit that certain parts narrated by Enoch and Noah could have been written much earlier. While fragments indicating a Semitic original have turned up at Qumran, modern translations are based on the several dozen Greek, Latin, and Ethiopic copies discovered at various locations during the last two centuries. By identifying a number of corrupted passages and suspected interpolations, textual critics have made considerable progress in determining what might be called a fairly reliable text. As is the case with the New Testament, no major teaching of the book is seriously affected by any of these “textual variants.”

Regarding contents, 1 Enoch includes a somewhat fragmented mixture of narrative descriptions, dream visions, celestial journeyings, parables, apocalyptic warnings, allegories of religious history, pronouncements of woe, and diverse exhortations, all of which may be related to the book’s dominant theme: the final judgment of the ungodly at the consummation of the age, at which time the righteous receive their reward.

One has only to read a little beyond the first five chapters to realize that 1 Enoch expands on the account in Genesis concerning the “sons of God” who lusted after the daughters of men (Gen. 6.1ff). According to 1 Enoch, these were angels (or Watchers), two-hundred of them (6.6). Their leaders (19 in all) are listed by name. That these angels took many wives is only part of the reason for their condemnation. The other part has to do with their teachings — through which the entire race of men became corrupted:

Semjaza taught enchantments, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal astrology, Kokabel the constellations.... (1 Enoch 8.3)

While Semjaza is mentioned as being over all the other angels, he is in no wise to be considered the worst of the lot. The angel named Azazel earns that distinction for teaching men to make instruments of warfare and for teaching women the art of jewelry-making and “the beautifying of the eyelids” (8.1-2). Furthermore, “Azazel ... taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven” (9.6). Thus, “to him ascribe all sin” (10.9). Azazel is therefore first to be bound hand and foot, and cast into darkness for the duration of “seventy generations,” at which time “the judgment which is forever and ever is consummated” (10.4,6,12-13). But all the righteous would be delivered. What then follows is a very sensuous picture of Messianic bliss (10.17-22), the same kind of “prophetic idealism” that often appears in other Old Testament writings.

Further descriptions of the final judgment, the punishment of the angels, and the rewards of the righteous, are repeated numerous times throughout the remaining chapters, including many chapters which focus upon the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. Hence, “be hopeful ye that have died in righteousness” (102.4). For “I know a mystery,” says Enoch, “the spirits of you that have died in righteousness shall live” (103.2,4).

Enoch’s relationship to the angels that sinned is that of a messenger (cf. Hermes in Greek mythology). Sent by God to the angels who had already been cast into darkness, Enoch is told to preach unto these imprisoned spirits their doom. He also is required to send their petition to heaven where it is denied (12.3-14.6). Enoch is also given to see all that is contained in the holy books (91.2; 103.2; 106.19), about which he is instructed to teach to his son (Methuselah) and also to write everything that had been revealed to him in a book, a book addressed to a righteous generation that should rise up in the last days, prior to the consummation of the age (82.1; 38.1).

1 Enoch also expands on the giants, or “men of renown,” spoken of in Genesis 6. These are the offspring of the angels. While the giants are destroyed by the flood, evil spirits proceeding from their bodies are permitted to have free rein over the surface of the earth until the final judgment, at which time they would be destroyed along with the angels (15.7-16.2). It is also worth mentioning the numerous woes pronounced against the wicked who were to be overthrown on the great day of judgment. The long woe section (94.6-103.15) provides a detailed description of the wicked, characteristics by which they could be easily identified by the righteous who would be living at the time of the end: among them John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude.

These men appear to have been quite familiar with 1 Enoch. Indeed, nothing in the New Testament would indicate that they ever questioned its genuineness or its integrity. But regardless of what anyone might think about the canonicity of 1 Enoch, the fact remains that at least one New Testament writer (Jude) regarded it as Scripture. If he did not, we have to ask why he quoted an entire passage from it saying that “Enoch” said these things:

And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14-15)

Compare the above with the text from 1 Enoch:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly; and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. (1 Enoch 1.9)

According to Jude, there were “certain men crept in privily ... who were of old, written of beforehand unto this condemnation” (Jude 4). Written of beforehand? Who wrote about their condemnation beforehand? According to Jude, Enoch did. In other words, Jude is saying that Enoch wrote about an event that was to take place, not in his own time, but in Jude’s time, the time of the New Testament. In fact, that is how 1 Enoch begins, with God opening Enoch’s eyes, enabling him to see what should befall the elect, “not for this generation,” Enoch is told by an angel, “but for a remote one which is to come” (1 Enoch 1.2), at which time “there shall be a judgment upon all men” (1.7).

According to 1 Enoch 10.12, this judgment was to occur “seventy generations” from Enoch, during which time the angels who sinned were to be kept in bonds “until the day of the consummation, the great judgment in which the age shall be consummated” (16.1-2). It should be noted that according to Luke (who claims to have “traced the course of all things accurately from the first” in Luke 1.1-4), there are exactly seventy generations from the generation of Enoch to the generation of Jesus Christ (Luke 3.23-37). In other words, it would not have been presumptuous for Jude to claim that 1 Enoch addressed the concerns of the Christians to whom he wrote. The generation of Jesus Christ had not yet passed away.

From a preterist perspective, 1 Enoch adds considerable weight to the many passages in the New Testament which clearly indicate that the consummation of the age together with Christ’s second coming took place in A.D. 70 (in the destruction of Jerusalem). This being the case, it should not surprise us to learn that 1 Enoch was banned by Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine and was subsequently lost to Western Christendom for over a thousand years. In short, it was suppressed. Why? Because it could not be made to fit their idea that Christ’s coming had not yet been fulfilled. 1 Enoch’s “seventy generations” was too problematic. It could not be made to stretch beyond the First Century. Copies of 1 Enoch soon disappeared, and were it not for the fact that a number of copies have since been discovered and translated, we would have no knowledge of 1 Enoch outside of the references made to it in the Book of Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (many of whom regarded 1 Enoch as Scripture: i.e. Barnabas, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian).

That Jude regarded 1 Enoch as Scripture can hardly be doubted, not simply because he quotes from it, but also because he makes no distinction between 1 Enoch and other Scriptures. “Now I desire to put you in remembrance,” Jude writes, after which he alludes to two events recorded in the Old Testament and one recorded in 1 Enoch:

...the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them...in like manner...are set forth as examples.... (Jude 5-7)

That Jude would tell his Christian readers to remember something recorded in 1 Enoch is significant. First of all, it indicates that Christians were familiar with 1 Enoch; second, it shows that Christians regarded the contents of 1 Enoch as historically reliable. In other words, it cannot be consistently maintained that Jude’s believing 1 Enoch to be authoritative was an isolated case among the first century Christians.

Others believed it as well, for instance, Peter (as his reference to events outside the official OT/NT canon shows):

For if God spared not the angels when they sinned, but cast them down into hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. (2 Peter 2.4)

To what extent other New Testament writers regarded 1 Enoch as Scripture may be determined by comparing their writings with those found in 1 Enoch. A strong possibility of influence upon their thought and diction is evidenced by a great many references found in 1 Enoch which remind one of passages found in the New Testament. The procedure for identifying these closely associated parallels is no different from that used to count the four-hundred allusions to the Old Testament in the book of Revelation.

In closing, we will list a few of the more significant statements in 1 Enoch which have close parallels in the New Testament writings. We believe these need much closer examination in the interests of not only seeing the intertestamental background of the New Testament writings, but to help understand the preterist view as well.

Read full article here.

http://www.preterist.org/articles-old/book_of_enoch.htm

markedward's picture

Regarding the book of Enoch (at least, the version we have now), there are several reasons I believe it should be rejected.

1. It if was actually originated with Enoch, it would predate the entire Old Testament. Yet not once in the entire Old Testament is there even a hint of the contents of this book. That makes it somewhat dubious.

2. The book teaches that the nephilim were over 450 feet tall, as tall as the Washington Monument. Why do no remains of these giants exist anywhere in the world (even though we have plenty of ancient bones from dinosaurs, etc.)? Also, how in the world did human women give birth to creatures of this size? That makes it biologically and archaeologically unsound.

3. The book has Enoch living to see the birth of Noah... By the account of Genesis, Enoch was "taken" by God nearly 70 years before Noah was born. That makes it Scripturally contradicting.

4. The book teaches that an angel named Phanuel "is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life", and this angel Phanuel is clearly described as equal with three other angels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael). This is plainly contradictory to Scripture, for Christ alone is the overseer and mediator of who will inherit eternal life. Even if "Phanuel" could be interpeted as another name for Jesus (similar to "Immanuel"), it is contradictory that Michael and Gabriel (and Raphael) could be considered equal with Jesus. This makes it Scripturally contradicting.

5. The book claims that God sent the flood upon the world because of the wickedness wrought by the fallen angels. Genesis says that God sent the flood upon the world because of mankind's wickedness. (Just count the number of references to mankind in Genesis 6, and count the number of alleged references to angels, and see which one is more, and which one is attributed to the reason for the flood.) This makes it Scripturally contradicting.

I simply cannot accept the book of Enoch as inspired or prophetic because of its contradictions with Scripture. If a version of the book of Enoch turned up that did not contradict Scripture, and it was proven beyond any doubt that this was the original text, I might accept that. But as the book is now, it simply cannot be taken as authoritative. The passages of the book of Enoch that do appear to be in the New Testament (whether in Jude, 2 Peter, or alluded to in other parts) do not contradict the rest of the New Testament. Likewise, as has often been pointed out, just because the authors of the New Testament may have quoted the book of Enoch for its grains of truth, does not necessarily mean they considered the entire book as canonical anymore than Paul considered the writings of Epimenides to be canonical simply because he quoted them for their grains of truth.

Virgil's picture

Not that I believe Enoch should be "canonized" (that's kind of an oxymoronic statement), but many of the arguments you listed can be made about some parts of what we call the Bible today. There are seeming contradictions, discordant numbers, and inconsistencies. Atheists make these arguments all the time in order to prove the Bible wrong...

JL's picture

Yes, for example, our Hebrew Bible claims the giant Goliath was 6 cubits and a span. A little over 9' 8". We could say the same as Mark did above, "Why do no remains of these giants exist anywhere in the world (even though we have plenty of ancient bones from dinosaurs, etc.)? Also, how in the world did human women give birth to creatures of this size? That makes it biologically and archaeologically unsound."

By contrast, the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls say 4 cubits and a span. A little over 6' 8". One big dude. An All-star Left Tackle among a tribe of NFL linesmen.

Where did the 6 cubits come from? A scribble error no doubt. (Unless the 4 cubits was the scribble error. But then, as Mark asked, "Why do no remains of these giants exist anywhere?")

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Sam's picture

Mark,

Yep......

JL's picture

Mark,

The giants were 450 ft tall? Do you mean 300 cubits?

If I showed you two pre-flood numbering systems, one of which used a certain symbol for 100, and another which used the same symbol for double, would you retract that objection?

That is, if I showed you how someone 5000 years ago could have written "three double cubits" and someone after Babel could have reasonably mistranslated it into "three hundred cubits," would you reconsider that one issue?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

markedward's picture

I would take back that objection if I felt the counterpoint was a stronger argument... but that still leaves four other irreconcilable points.

JL's picture

Are they irreconcilable? You thought there were five irreconcilable points.

Your point 1 applies to several OT prophets. Does that mean they should be tossed from the canon?

Your point 3 can also be explained by this same numbering system translation problem.

There were a couple old posts on Planet Preterist showing that Michael was Jesus. Your point 4, in it's entirety will cause problems, but it is not obviously irreconcilable.

And the Greek angelos, means messenger. It can and often refers to humans. This causes no end of confusion in our New Testament. Is that really a serious consideration with Enoch?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

markedward's picture

1. All of the OT prophetic books were written within a few hundred years of each other... and many of them do refer to each other in some form or another. Likewise, all of the OT prophetic books refer in some form or another to books written before them, both canonical and non. But, as stated, none of them refers to any sort of book of Enoch. I never said that the book of Enoch should be "tossed" out for this single reason... what I said was that this point alone made the book dubious.

2. You still didn't produce any of the evidence you mentioned before. So this point remains as far as I'm concerned, which keeps it at five points.

3. Since the numbering system you have referred to has not yet been shown to me, I have reason to doubt that it even applies to ages, let alone heights.

4. I have read the two old posts, and they by no means "show that Michael was Jesus". They fall under the category of "unprovable speculation"... and even if Michael actually was Jesus, that would cause even one more contradiction, because Phanuel is explicitly described in Enoch as an individual distinct from Michael. Jesus can't be Michael and Phanuel and those two still remain distinct.

5. Putting semantics aside, the two books contradict each other on who was to blame for God sending the flood... Enoch clearly blames fallen members of the heavenly host ("angels", "watchers", whatever your choice word for them is), and Genesis clearly blames sinful human beings.

JL's picture

1. Not all of the OT prophetic books meet the standard you've given. Most do, but not all.

5. You can not demonstrate that these "watchers" are non-human.

2-3. From your response, it doesn't seem to me that you are interested. You are convinced that the other issues are irreconcilable. I won't waste your time further.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

Hi JL,

If you're still reading this thread, I've found many of your comments very intriguing. I presume the numbering "error" you're referring to is the same that Don Stoner mentions, i.e. the Sumerian & Akkadian numbering systems, that possibly (or probably) have a link to the tower of Babel incident?

Even if others find your comments unpersuasive, be aware that I'm just one example of "trolls" who have found much to think about. [I've also read many of your articles on PP, as well as your postings on American Vision]

Richard G.

BTW, how come you or Tim don't ever update the BCS blog?

JL's picture

Richard,

You might be interested in this.

I looked up Cherub in Strong's (Gen. 3:16, #03742

Word Origin: of uncertain derivation

According to Wiseman, the original text was in Sumerian, so I turned to my Sumerian Lexicon

kar: n., embankment; quay-wall; mooring-place; harbor; marketplace; port authority.

rib: to be higher in rank; to go away (Akk. rabbu).

kar-rib: Ranking port authority.

It looks like the ancient Sumerian term for what the Romans would call a lieutenant centurion.

Any thoughts how many more Hebrew words have Sumerian roots?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

< Any thoughts how many more Hebrew words have Sumerian roots? >

That's an interesting question, JL, however, I've never actually studied Hebrew nor Sumerian (nor Greek, nor Latin, etc.). How did you arrive at "kar-rib" = cherub? I'm not too sure I understand how that lexicon (you linked to) works; I found "rib", but not "kar". Also, if we know the english (or hebrew) word, how do we find the corresponding Sumerian word (& spelling)?

BTW, in light of this possible meaning of "Cherub", do you think that Cherubim are humans? Yes/no/sometimes? What do you make of the winged Cherubim in Exodus, covering the Ark of the Covenant?

Oh, and if anyone is interested in Don Stoner, here's an interesting commentary from his website, "The Historical Context for the Book of Genesis". http://www.dstoner.net/Genesis_Context/Context.html Fascinating stuff! If I'm not mistaken, he gave a presentation on this topic at the last conference, right? [Which reminds me, I still have to get the CDs (or hopefully DVDs!) of that conference.]

Richard G.

JL's picture

Richard,

I got kar-rib from Don Stoner. He knows a bit of Egytpian, Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew. But not enough.

Basically, Wiseman's hypothesis is that Genesis was written sequentually over 2000 years. Gen. 1-11 were originally written in ancient Sumer in Sumerian and contain features consistent with that hypothesis. Gen. 12-36 were originally written in ancient Akkad in Akkadian and contain features consistent with that hypothesis, and Gen. 37- was originally written in Egpyt about the time of Joseph.

Wiseman identifies some standard Sumerian and Akkadian features that occur in Genesis, but occur nowhere else in Scripture. Sumer was gone by the time of Moses. Why would Moses (or a later scribe) put archaic features into a text he wrote?

Wiseman is frequently quoted by people who claim Moses wrote Genesis by compiling ancient texts. But these people ignore Wiseman's actual case, that Genesis is these ancient texts.

I'd like to see some of the contemporary ANE people tell us why we should ignore Wiseman's case.

The BCS conference is on one CD-ROM. PDF files and MP3's. So you can play the audio and watch the slides.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

Hi JL,

Thanks, but I was hoping for your thoughts on "...in light of this possible meaning of "Cherub", do you think that Cherubim are humans? Yes/no/sometimes? What do you make of the winged Cherubim in Exodus, covering the Ark of the Covenant?". ;-)

< I'd like to see some of the contemporary ANE people tell us why we should ignore Wiseman's case. >
Yeah, me too.

BTW, do you know if Don Stoner has exchanged info with Robert Best? http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/feedback.htm I know that Don quotes him, but has he ever communicated with Mr. Best on the things that he feels are errors/biases by Mr. Best? Just curious.

Mark Edward, if you're still reading this, the possible, nay, probable, mistranslation of some/all of the numbers/ages in Genesis are examined by Robert Best:
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ages.htm
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/adam.htm
http://www.flood-myth.com/images/PDF/Genesis5Analysis.pdf

Also, see the Don Stoner link in my previous post.

Could some of the possibly/probably exaggerated numbers in the Book of Enoch have similar reasons? This may be more difficult to determine, because as JL mentioned in a previous post, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that "Enoch" was written in Sumerian/Akkadian.

JL & Tim: FYI, I just noticed that on the BCS blog, there are over 3500 comments of x-rated spam!

Richard G.

JL's picture

Richard,

If you accept both Best's explanation for the "probable, mistranslation of some/all of the numbers/ages" and you accept Tim Martin's explanation for the ages in Chapter 16, then Cherubim as lieutenant centurions and separately as angelic beings should be no problem. Who/what guarded the way to the Tree of Life in Matt 27? In Matt. 28?

I'll ask Don if he's contacted Best.

We've removed the blog. Thanks.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

JL,

I do find Best's explanation persuasive, however, I don't know what Tim's explanation is, as I haven't yet read/purchased BCS. :-0 Is it the same or similar to Best's? Is it your take that in some passages Cherubim are human, & in other passages they are spirits? If so, which ones are which? If not, could you elaborate on what you mean, please?

You mentioned Matt 27 & 28, but I don't see any verses referring to the Tree of Life, nor of guardians; are you referring to the angel at the tomb? Could you elaborate on this too, please?

Oh, and I do intend to get the BSC book & conference discs, it's just that I can be quite the procrastinator. :-(

Richard G.

JL's picture

Richard,

Sorry, I assumed too much and was trying to be clever.

Tim's explanation of the ages is absolutely nothing like Best's. Best's explanation comes from comparison's external from Scripture. Tim's is purely internal. Completely orthogonal. Basically, how does Scripture use the long ages.

In Matt. 27, who is guarding the tomb? A centurion and 100 soldiers. What kar-rib in Sumerian appears to mean.

In Matt. 28, who is guarding the tomb. Two angels. What the Hebrew cherubim appears to mean.

I think it is interesting.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

JL,

Yes, it is interesting. So I guess the term "Cherubim" (or "Cherub") can refer to either humans or spirit-beings? Much like "angel" can be a spirit-being messenger, or a human messenger?

Regarding Tim & Mr. Best's explanations: I'm not sure I undertand your answer. Do you mean to say that even though they use different methods, they arrive at more or less the same conclusions? I ask because you had said earlier, "Richard, If you accept both Best's explanation ... and you accept Tim Martin's explanation ... then Cherubim as lieutenant centurions and separately as angelic beings should be no problem". To me, this implies that we can accept both positions as valid, and not contradictory. Is that what you're saying? If not, could you please clarify? [I hope I'm not being a pest!]

BTW, I see that your also commenting on the "Adam is Israel" article at http://biologos.org/blog/adam-is-israel. Some interesting discussions going on there. Maybe Dick Fischer will read your book?

Wouldn't it be cool to get Fischer, Best, Walton, etc. in the same room as you, Tim, Norm & Don? ;-)

Richard G.

JL's picture

Richard,

Not quite like angel. Each particular angel is either/or. (Or is it?)

Concerning numbers in Gen. 5,

Best's answer is an attempt to understand the numbers in modernist literal terms.

Tim's answer is an attempt to understand how Isaiah and John understood and used those numbers.

A Fundamentalist would assume those understanding are the same. But if Isaiah and John did not think in modernist literal terms, then those understandings would necessarily be different, possibly even unrelated.

No bother.

On his first broadcast on Preterist Radio, Al Persohn said that you need to put together a list: People you are willing to spend $1000 to have a cup of coffee with. He said Don Preston and William Bell should be at the top of that list. Fischer, Best, and Walton are on mine.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

JL's picture

Thank-you Rich,

Yes Don Stoner is an important source. It's nice to have a personal friend who knows more than I do on almost everything.

If Enoch wrote any of the book that bears his name, it was first written in Sumerian. The Sumerian pictographs were then translated/transliterated into Akkadian or possibly a later Semitic language.

Unlike Genesis 1-11 which bears many strong markings of Sumerian origin, Enoch has very few, all questionable, and is missing the strongest markers of all, the colophons that were always used on Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets.

So if Enoch was originally written 5000 years ago, it has undergone severe changes. Either extensive additions, rewriting, and editing. Not the trivial changes that Genesis has suffered. Massive changes at every transliteration into a new writing style.

But it is still very troubling to me that a book with such a seemingly poor pedigree is quoted and alluded to over a hundred times in the new testament. R. Grant Jones used to have a great site on Geocities that listed many of those instances. Always in a prophetic sense. Enoch prophesied that Jesus' generation would be the generation in which heaven and earth would end. The book is filled with countless prophecies that all became fulfilled from AD 63-70.

We need to take this book seriously.

Hey Tim, how come we never update the BCS blog?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

Hi JL,

I presume this is the R. Grant Jones website? http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm There's lots of stuff there; it'll take me forever to go though it! ;-)

Richard G.

JL's picture

Thanks, I searched for it a few weeks ago. Now it's back up. Yehaw

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Too many irons, not enough fires.

Sam's picture

Jeff,

I suppose the angels stories are real? You know, in my studies of Enoch (the book, not the man), he affirms a global flood. He also affirms that Adam was the first man. He appears to affirm a literal reading of Genesis, too. What would be your response to this? And the apocalyptic destruction of "heavens" and "earth" in I Enoch 83?

Starlight's picture

Sam,

I’ve already debunked your supposed destruction of the Heaven and Earth at the flood in Enoch and you’re still trying to pass that misdirection off as valid. Secondly Enoch is heavy apocalyptic language as I shall illustrate for the readers and so you’re trying to interpret it literally is just a joke. Why don’t we just read Revelation the same way that you are trying to pawn off a reading of Enoch? You’re picking and choosing by trying to confuse the uninitiated concerning Enoch with selected literal interpretations to foster your misleading purpose. It should also be pointed out that first man is correct in the context of Covenant Creation or have you forgotten that. It’s all about context Sam and not brushing aside the important details with contrived exegesis.

Here is a nice morsel for others to see from Enoch that you say demands global earth destruction. Apocalyptic Cows and all are included and need I remind the readers that Earth is most often more properly translated as “Land” without a global mindset that we think of.

Enoch 88:1 Then one of those four went to the white cows, and taught them a mystery. While the cow was trembling, it was born, and became a man, (98) and fabricated for himself a large ship. In this he dwelt, and three cows (99) dwelt with him in that ship, which covered them. 2Again I lifted up my eyes towards heaven, and saw a lofty roof. Above it were seven cataracts, WHICH POURED FOURTH ON A CERTAIN VILLAGE MUCH WATER. 3Again I looked, and behold there were FOUNTAINS OPEN ON THE EARTH IN THAT LARGE VILLAGE. 4The water began to boil up, and rose over the earth; so that THE VILLAGE WAS NOT SEEN, WHILE ITS WHOLE SOIL WAS COVERED WITH WATER. 5Much water was over it, darkness, and clouds. Then I surveyed the height of this water; and IT WAS ELEVATED ABOVE THE VILLAGE. 6It flowed over the village, and stood higher than the earth. 7Then all the cows which were collected there, while I looked on them, were drowned, swallowed up, and destroyed in the water. 8But the ship floated above it. All the cows, the elephants, the camels, and the asses, were drowned on the earth, and all cattle. Nor could I perceive them. Neither were they able to get out, but perished, and sunk into the deep.”

Sam's picture

You didn't debunk anything Norm. Everyone that read my article "II Peter and I Enoch" clearly, clearly saw that Enoch wrote "the heavens collapsed and the earth was destroyed." Classic apocalyptic language used to describe Noah's flood. How you can claim that Enoch DIDN'T use these words to describe the Flood is, well, a sad case of denial.

Starlight's picture

Ok Sam for the about the 3rd or 4th Time let me point out to you how you have grabbed a section of Enoch out of its context for your proof text and failed to read the rest of the stories context.

Now here is the first vision that speaks of a collapse of the Heaven and a destruction of the Earth. But like Paul Harvey likes to say “Page 2 and the rest of the story follows”.

"I saw in a vision how the heaven collapsed and was borne off and fell to 4 the earth. And when it fell to the earth I saw how the earth was swallowed up in a great abyss, and mountains were suspended on mountains, and hills sank down on hills, and high trees were rent 5 from their stems, and hurled down and sunk in the abyss. And thereupon a word fell into my mouth, 6 and I lifted up (my voice) to cry aloud, and said: ' The earth is destroyed.'…"

However a reprieve is sought by Enoch that “God May Not Destroy the Whole Earth” and then a Prayer is offered up and is written down and so Enoch seeks this acquittal from total destruction and the covenant lives on. A remnant is to remain on the earth and so it cannot be destroyed.

And now Page 2 and the rest of the story.

"And now, my son, arise and make petition to the Lord of glory, since thou art a believer, THAT A REMNANT MAY REMAIN on the earth, and THAT HE MAY NOT DESTROY THE WHOLE 9 EARTH. My son, from heaven all this will come upon the earth, and upon the earth there will be great 10 destruction. After that I arose and prayed and implored and besought, and wrote down my prayer for the generations of the world,…"

"And when I had gone forth below and seen the heaven, and the sun rising in the east, and the moon setting in the west, and a few stars, and the whole earth, and everything as He had known it in the beginning,.."

"And throughout all generations Thy dominion
And all the heavens are Thy throne for ever,
And the whole earth Thy footstool for ever and ever…."

However there is still to be a destruction of the guilty on the earth and they will not escape. This is what happened at the flood and it is typology also for what happens at the Parousia.

"And now the angels of Thy heavens are guilty of trespass,
And upon the flesh of men abideth Thy wrath until the great day of judgement.
5 And now, O God and Lord and Great King,"

Here now is the specific part of the Prayer seeking not a destruction of the Total earth and in fact to leave a posterity on the Earth. Sam this is exactly what happened in the Genesis flood. A remnant posterity was saved even though God was sorry that he had made man

"I IMPLORE AND BESEECH THEE TO FULFIL MY PRAYER,
TO LEAVE ME A POSTERITY ON EARTH,
AND NOT DESTROY ALL THE FLESH OF MAN,
AND MAKE THE EARTH WITHOUT INHABITANT,
SO THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ETERNAL DESTRUCTION."

Here below is also the same story from Genesis, all Enoch is doing is telling the same story we find in Genesis 6 from a different story angle using Enoch’s vision and prayer as the spokesman.

Gen 6:
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
(7) So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
(8) But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

"Enoch 84:6 And now, my Lord, destroy from the earth the flesh which has aroused Thy wrath,BUT THE FLESH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND UPRIGHTNESS ESTABLISH AS A PLANT OF THE ETERNAL SEED, And hide not Thy face from the prayer of Thy servant, O Lord.'"

Notice that the eternal seed will continue for redemptions sake and so the covenant is sustained.

Sam, how many times am I going to have to demonstrate to you that you need to read the total story in context instead of jumping on a literal reading of apocalyptic literature and taking it out of its overall story and context.

In Enoch’s next sections visions we have the apocalyptic cows and animals getting on board the vessel that saves them from the other cows and animals drowning when the Village is flooded from top to bottom.

Sam's picture

Duuuhh....Norm, that's the WHOLE POINT OF THE APOCALYPTIC DESCRIPTION!!!!! the PHSYICAL was not LITERALLY destroyed.....but, through the apocalyptic description, it is described as destroyed! Sheesh.....get with it, man....Preterism 101.

Starlight's picture

No Sam you’re trying to sidestep the discussion and your problem again. The point is that you said that the Heavens and Earth were destroyed and took it from this section of Enoch. Well yes just like in Genesis God considered destroying all mankind then changed his mind. In Enoch’s story it simply goes on and says that the earth was not COMPLETELY destroyed as there was a remnant left. Do you not get it Sam the Earth was NOT Destroyed because it is the covenant people “Preterism 101 as you like to say”. If there had been no remnant covenant people left then the Heavens and Earth would have been destroyed. The H & E are God and his Covenant People, not God and the Physical World as you mistakenly want to think.

You are doing the same thing here that you do in 2 Peter 3 by trying to switch back and forth between a physical Heavens and Earth and a covenant one. Just as it has been demonstrated conclusively that you don’t know what you’re talking about in 2 Pet 3 you don’t here as well. You are using the futurist arguments by trying to switch back and forth between that shiny physical planet and a covenant understanding. Yours is completely a contrived and artificial argument just like something a futurist comes up with. You need to go back to Enoch and show where there are Two different H & E under discussion as you seem to want now. You simply like to invent H & E when your need arises.

You’re big problem is that you do not want any of the patriarchs before Mt. Sinai to be the covenant people and the H & E because you can’t tolerate recognizing that Covenant Creation is correct. You are fighting against the covenant genealogical seed line tooth and nail and would do anything to keep from having to recognize that the Ark was to save the covenant people just like the water at the Sea did for them and finally Christ does for them. The bible is typologically all about Christ and your trying to abandon them prior to Mt. Sinai is a pure mess for you theologically. As Gomer likes to say “Shame, Shame, Shame”.

Sam's picture

So, let me add up the fruits of Covenant Creation view. 1. The old covenant began in Gn. 1.1 which is the Sinai covenant. 2. Not all men are made in God's image or have the breath of life in Adam. 3. Evolution. 4. Enoch was a real book. 5. So was Barnabas. 6. The old testament is only concerned with Israel. got it....(coo coo)

Starlight's picture

Sam, what a work of Art you are. You can't discuss exegetically so you distort and fabricate. Did anyone ever tell you that is bordering on dishonesty. I'm sorry to be so frank but your playing fast and loose with facts is getting a little old.

When are you going to quit messing and answer Tim's questions to you regarding Heb 1:10-11?
Where's the Beef?

flannery0's picture

Norm, you are being very gracious. I admire you for it.

Sam's picture

where am I being dishonest, Norm? You deny the image of God in Gn 1 as a historical fact. It's prophetic. We have discussed this. You wrote the Forward to BCS. 2. Jeff Vaughn really believes the biblical Enoch wrote Enoch (not as we now have it, but somewhere in there is the real underlying Ur-text (written in Sumerian), so he says. Three, you have admitted to evolution. Five, I have seen where you more or less argue for the canonization of Barnabas, claiming it as a piece of BCS "history" and champion it as being basically what you teach (though it's not). And, when I bring anything from biblical scholarship in on this matter, it is dismissed because it's not "preterist". I mean, really? That's the way we approach things? I could read a history of the KKK written by a civil rights leader, only to have it "debunked" by a member of the KKK in one fell swoop: "Well, he ain't KKK is he?!"

So, no, I am not being dishonest. Just pointing out where you guys are heading with all of this stuff.

As I have said before - and say now - BCS has some merits of agreement - but I can't swallow the whole kool-aid, and for some reason that pisses you guys off to no end.

Starlight's picture

Sam said … “So, let me add up the fruits of Covenant Creation view. 1. The old covenant began in Gn. 1.1 which is the Sinai covenant.”

I’m not going to speak for others Sam as you know that is a red herring you’re throwing out there along with the following.

#1 Where have I or any other CC ever stated that the Sinai covenant begin in Gen 1:1? There were covenants with God’s people before then so that’s the first inaccuracy that your putting forth and the problem is that you should know that if you would pay attention instead of running off with half truths.

#2 where has any beside myself stated a belief in Evolution? I think most are simply Old Earth adherents and I’m not sure any have stated a preference to Evolution besides me. So trying to tie everyone to my beliefs is the second fallacy you present and again you should know better.

#3 Where have all CC came down on my side concerning Christ as the beginning of the Image of God instead of Mortal man. See I’m writing to influence other CC that may disagree with me there also. So that is your third fallacy of trying to implicate all CC adherents with my investigations although some of them have seen the merits of this argument from the Preterist perspective.

#4 Concerning the Book of Enoch: Yes you are correct that there will be differences between some of us on the Merits of its usefulness. Now how do those differences do you any good except to rant about them and highlight them so that somehow you are the credible one? Many of us are looking at Enoch to see it’s usefulness as we don’t think Sam Frost deserves to have the last word on Enoch.

#5 Barnabas Lets take a look at how the early church viewed it before extensive futurism and Hellenization set in. Just like Enoch it grew out of favor as Christians lost the ability to read in a Hebrew mindset and turned to futurism.

“In the early church, the Epistle of Barnabas was read in some churches and several of the Church Fathers accepted it as scripture. Toward the end of the second century Clement of Alexandria cited the Epistle as authoritative, as did Origen. By the beginning of the fourth century, however, the "Letter of Barnabas" was in the process of being rejected from the books of the emerging Christian canon. By the time of Eusebius (c. 325), the canon was fairly well established, though not yet formalized, and Barnabas was not included in the lists of canonical books. Eusebius considered it as "spurious" (H.E. iii.25.4) and rejected it. The first complete list of New Testament scriptures, by Athanasius of Alexandria (367 C.E.), also omitted Barnabas. It also failed to make the authorized list of the Third Synod of Carthage in 397.[1]

Thus, the epistle ultimately disappeared from the scriptural canon.
However, its place, along with the Shepherd of Hermas, at the end of the Codex Sinaiticus (330-350 C.E.) shows that the Epistle of Barnabas was highly regarded in some Christian communities.”

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Epistle_of_Barnabas

So what is your point about Barnabas? You might be correct to an extent with my views but again how do you get off trying to turn all CC as following my lead. That is where the dishonesty arises Sam in being flippant and over generalizing to make quick emotional points. I don’t have a problems with pointing some of these issues toward me but you can’t throw everyone in the same pot that see the truth of CC as we are all investigating it. My plea to you is to stop the propensity to play fast and loose with the facts and learn to be more accurate.

Were still waiting on Heb 1:10-11!!

Sam's picture

Norm

This is getting tiring. I wrote, "the fruits of Covenant Creation view." Didn't say, Norm, ALL CC now did I? Did I Norm? Did I? Huh? Did I? No, I didn't. I mentioned SPECIFIC PEOPLE, Norm. And, in case you have not read, I am supposed to debate Jeff Vaughn on the OLD COVENANT beginning in Gn 1. that's what the DEBATE is about on PreteristDebate site.....come on, Norm....

I have written this a quadrillian times, that I DON'T lump you all together....I get along with many who adhere to some form of BCS (but not all of it). Don't have much of a problem there, buddy. It's SPECIFIC people who distort things. Thank God only a few are dim enough to go the path to deny that God made Adam in his image!

Let's see....."near" means "near" Remember that one? Real simple. "And the LORD made man in his image"....."no, no, let's complicate the hell of that simple statement....it doesn't say that....God did NOT make man in his image....no, instead, Barnabas, Enoch, covenant life, imagery symbols, covenaf. aedn;lzmvm va v wowooobb" Get it?

Sheesh.....bout done, sorry for wasting everyone's time......

Just not worth it anymore......

Starlight's picture

Well Sam you need to be a little more careful in your addressing me. If you want to address my understanding then have at it and name me but make sure you are specific instead of using the collective Covenant Creation view.

And yes I’m getting tired of this back and forth as well. Why don’t we let up and give you an opportunity to deal with Tim Martins request of you to explain Heb 1:10-11 which you keep ignoring.

Unfortunately though you don’t even understand how the term aw-dawm is utilized in Genesis and OT literature. It is very rarely used as singular Adam but is most often used to designate collective Adam or the Covenant people Israel. I have written on this subject but you don’t have enough curiosity to check it out and even discuss it as an intelligent and curious student of the bible.

http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/adam-and-english-translat...

I quoted James Jordan again on his analysis of (adam) in which he clarifies how the word should be often understood. Your applying a singular assignment to adam in Gen 1:26-28 is on the ludicrous side of exegesis. It is undoubtedly a plural and collective usage and has nothing to do with singular adam’s story in Gen 2:7. You’re continuing to deceive people with your insistence upon it as fact is gross negligence scholarly speaking and is inexcusable. Your ad hominem attacks toward me notwithstanding are simply your lashing out in frustration over your inability to mount a biblical defense for your naked understanding of Genesis literature and theology. I’m sorry to say it but your thoughts on Genesis are about the last thing I would encourage a Preterist to read for any help in properly understanding it as they are typically rambling messes mixed with literal applications and philosophical extrapolations well outside the Hebrew biblical design.

Begin Jordan quote concerning understanding the OT usage of adam.

1. “Adam” is used when there is some kind of association with the ground (‘adamah) from which human beings (‘adam) were made. Genesis 2:7 reads, “And Yahweh God formed the man (‘adam) of dust from the ground (‘adamah); and He breathed into his nostrils breath of life, and the man (‘adam) became a living soul.” 1 Corinthians 15:47 reads, “The first man is from the ground, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.”
‘Adam as used in the Hebrew scriptures seems to connote mankind as considered united to Adam: human beings in their first phase of existence, and often connotes human beings as sinners united to fallen Adam. It does not quite mean “human beings in general.” To avoid an awkward translation, such as “human beings in their first and fallen phase,” I have simply put the word into English as “adam” and “adams.”

End quote.

Here is the link to the full article by Jordan.

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-142-leviticus-...

Sam's picture

You can have the last insult, Norm.

offskooring's picture

seems like someone is trying to get you to address something you don't want so you are picking at things you can(that very well you may be right about)to avoid his requests...then you just say...well i'm done...

Sam's picture

No, that's not it at all. I know Hebrew fairly well. And, I know Jordan is a six day creationist, so whatever point Norm is trying to make using Jordan falls on deaf ears. As for Hebrews 1.10, dealt with that a long time ago. They don't like the answer. So, yeah, I'm done. We are just going to have to chalk this one up to "can't get along." It's part of the human drama. It's rare in my life, but it does happen. But, when I see myself drawn into something that brings out the worst in me, chances are, God is saying to me that something is out of wack - let it go, move on, I'm in charge. And, so, that's what I am doing for my own health. Moving on.

JL's picture

As for Hebrews 1.10, dealt with that a long time ago. They don't like the answer.

Sorry Sam, but I somehow missed it. At least I don't remember it. Please provide a link. That will prove 1) you dealt with it, and 2) if we responded, that we knew it, didn't like it, and conveniently forgot about it.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Starlight's picture

See Sam, there you go again saying that Jordan is a six day creationist. Yes and he is a partial Preterist futurist too and so that disqualifies anything he says to be used by full Preterist when it makes sense. Poor thinking there Sam and that is why I get exasperated by you. Someone of your knowledge and skills instead of using them starts down the same path as the ignorant when you don’t have the answers by saying things like “Jordan is a six day creationist”. Man just learn to deal with the issues and quit throwing out these diversions.

If Jordan’s point about the usage of adam in scripture is not valid then just make the case for it being wrong or demonstrate to me how I’m misapplying this principle. How difficult is that to do. No you take the cheap out and talk about Jordan’s creationist views to support your non answer. And people wonder why I get upset with you. I have little patience with people who should know better by pulling these kinds of tricks out of the bag continually like you do.

spiderich's picture

Hi Sam & Norm,

I'm just an irregular reader/poster, but I hope that we all can let our emotions simmer down a bit. Not one of us has all the answers, so, to denigrate someone else's position, or to be condescending, is not beneficial, IMHO. I realize that this can be difficult, but could we at least try? :-)

If someone doesn't "get" what you're saying, c'est la vie!

Richard G.

Sam's picture

Oh, I'm pretty much done. I don't see any productivity in it. I am just going to write and do what I do. It's a waste of time going round and round and round ad nauseum.

JL's picture

Yep,

Sam is done. He compares us to the KKK then runs away.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Sam's picture

Jeff,

This is why I am done. Because you are stupid and cannot read. I did not in any way, shape, or form compare you to the KKK. That is why I am done with you and Norm. I can only take so much stupidity, twisting and manipulation. Good God, man, can't you even comprehend a sentence?

Jer's picture

These exchanges are embarrassing. You are all educated, Christian adults. Interaction should be filled with reason and charity. But you already know that. What you may not know: This (habitual) behavior alienates others and marginalizes the people involved. FWIW, it is why I no longer participate here. I suspect there are others who share similar sentiments.

Sam's picture

Jer,

I appreciate that. I do. And, I do publically apologize for my recent tone. I don't apologize for stupidity, though. I certainly do not own up that I am "comparing" Jeff, Tim and Norm to the KKK. I just finished having a "dinner date" with someone who has been reading this, and they saw the point of my analogy. The analogy was between the forms of argument, not the subject of the argument Jeff took it as. I certainly don't compare people in here to the KKK. I guess what I expected is that people would know that....ESPECIALLY educated people....

Sam

JL's picture

analogy
One entry found.

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century

1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology
synonyms see likeness

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

JL's picture

This should be bolded

Regardless how the book of Enoch is classified, the real issue is what influence it had upon those who wrote the New Testament. That it helped shape their expectation of the Messiah’s triumph at the end of the “last days” of the Judean economy is strongly suggested. To what extent 1 Enoch helps us to better understand the New Testament, will determine its value.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43