For a Text-to-Speech rendition of this webpage, see the audio player below:
It's really not hard to tell when a book lies. Look for the derision against God: when you find it, you'll know immediately the book (or idea, claim, etc.) needs to occupy a TRASHCAN, Gal6:7. Then pray for those who still believe the falsehood, because no one ever means to malign God.
Whenever you study Bible, you first have to account for its whys. Else, you don't know the meaning of the whats you have. Here, the problem is, "why the 1000 years?" Why not 2000, 3000, or some other number? Why does it signify End-Time Judgement, As Well As Deliverance? In short, until we establish when this "1000" first was revealed to mankind, we don't actually know why God uses it, so we'll screw up interpretation. And from what I can tell, this "1000" first was used, as the time period to warn mankind of the coming Flood. Because, Enoch named his son, "Methusaleh". My pastor translates that name as follows (which I was able to verify): "when he dies, it [the Flood] comes." Notice how "it" is in the meaning, so "it" was well known already. We always substitute pronouns when the nouns are so well known, we take them for granted. That's the case here.
So right away, I know Enoch had been warning the world about the Flood a lot longer than "Methusaleh" would live. And the latter, lived 969 years. So that probably means a warning period of 1000 years, especially since "Day of the Lord" is a warning, and it too lasts 1000 years. The 1000 years itself, is analogized as an investiture sacrifice by David for his son Solomon, in 1Chron29:21. And that, because David was to be the progenitor of Messiah (2Sam7:11-13). So here you see the tie between end, 1000, Messiah, Deliverance, and Judgement: 1000 years, Deliverer will arrive on a Day that is also Judgement for those who reject Him.
The true first usage of this "1000" might be in Deut32, but I'm not certain; it's allusive, about knowing the end. The "day" usage is explicitly first in David: Ps90:4. Isaiah picks it up next, beginning in Chapter 2 (allusively, but full-blown term is used beginning in Isa13). Thereafter, the term is used more and more frequently, as the Bible's books are given to the succeeding prophets. Therefore this specialized significance of "1000 years", was AT least known since David. And may derive its precedence from, the pre-Flood warning by Enoch.
So now I have to verify Enoch's role. Other than his son's name, I'm not finding much in the Bible to clarify it. Thus, on 11/02/05 I began auditing the non-Biblical "Book of Enoch", since Jude quotes Enoch (Jude, v.14). Just because he quotes Enoch, doesn't mean he's referencing a book. God quotes someone in the past to Moses, all the time in Genesis. More on the Jude quote, follows in #14 of this webpage. (Briefly, Jude's Greek is ambiguous about whether he quotes Enoch the person from the Holy Spirit; or whether he's quoting from a book by Enoch.) Further, no other quotes are attributed to Enoch anywhere in the Bible. There are strong reasons to suspect NO such valid book exists. So: initial audit results follow below. Given that audit, it seems clear no further review of Enoch as a possible Bible book for ANY reason, is warranted. But.. you be the judge for yourself. I'm sure that if God wants me to review this alleged Bible book again, He'll cause me to know about it. Maybe, using you...
So: just because Bible quotes a person, doesn't mean it quotes a book allegedly written by that person; doesn't mean that who/what it quotes, it's approving. It may be reporting, it may be showing us why the person is in error -- again, apart from the whys, you can't discern the whats. So: we have no idea whether the Book of Enoch was actually written BY Enoch; and given its DERISIVE tone (deriding God and Bible heroes He makes); given the number of anachronisms seemingly in it (same problem as Book of Mormon), I doubt any Divine Origin behind the words. Demonic origin, maybe; but Divine, well.. let's be careful. Old doesn't mean Divine. Just because Bible TOPICS are in it, doesn't mean it is from God.
So, you have to find out from God, whom HE appoints as your right pastor (no two people are matched the same way; it's NOT a denomination question). So your pastor is your God-Assigned teacher, whom the Holy Spirit will use especially for you; but under the Holy Spirit, you must use what you learn under your pastor, in God's System. You are to do this, 24/7. Because you are in training to be a King, and Kings don't have 9-5 jobs.
Hoaxes are many. Genuine articles are few. So you tell a hoax by looking for its lies. If I pretend I'm age 21 but am 16; or if I pretend I'm 39 when I'm really age 52, well -- there will be LIES evident in my speech, my carriage, my face. So you look for the same sorts of things in a book.
So if a book is claimed to be from Enoch -- Jared's Enoch, born in 3050BC, not Cain's born much earlier -- and if this Book is claimed Biblical, then: Bible Terms Which Did Not Yet Exist, SHOULDN'T Be In The Text. The native language of it, can be dated -- if you have that native language. So if Bible terms which couldn't yet exist are in the Book, the text is a fraud; its true age is revealed by the very words in it. Immaturity cannot be hidden by makeup; Wrinkles cannot be hidden, by creme. Not, anyway, to a good detector. They are as obvious as a hand in the cookie jar.
Here's how all this works with respect to Bible. Until a few centuries ago, the Bible has never been bound up as we moderns know it. It existed in pieces, as it was a Gradual Revelation of God. So it was collected, and people have always differed over what books to collect. Furthermore, Bible was written over a period of 1500 years. During that time -- as you can Prove From The Original-Language Text -- God gradually revealed Himself, So You Knew What To Collect, What To Throw Out. In short, Every Book Could Be Compared To The Others, And Then Tested for all those hands in cookie jars. For if God writes a Book, and God is always the same, there will be a Consistency from one Book He authorizes, to the next. So Taken Together, These Books Will Fit Together. No hands in cookie jars.
Counterfeits betray themselves in their own words. Counterfeits which aim to replace or skew Bible's importance will ape Bible words -- but the TIME those Bible words were used the same way as the counterfeit, doesn't MATCH the alleged TIME the counterfeit was written. Well, there are many variations of mismatch, not only with respect to time. But here's one you should be able to trace: "sabbath" is not a term used until Exodus. Because, the "sabbath" was a gift to national Israel. It's a technical term. So also, "King of Kings" was never used of God until the New Testament, and then for the Humanity of Christ. (In the OT, the term is used of higher-than-normal potentates, all of whom were human. God's Kingship is evidenced by other terms.) So if the Book of Enoch uses a term which existed in the Old Testament PAST his 'time', then Enoch looks suspicious: especially, since no version of his language, survives.
And that's the problem here: there were No Jews Prior To The Flood, but Enoch is full of Jewish terminology; Abram is the ninth generation after the Flood (Arpachshad is 1st post-Flood), and AbRAHam is the first Jew, by faith (evidenced by circumcision, see Rom4). Yet you'll find commentators frequently observe that the Book of Enoch was translated from Hebrew (text doesn't exist in Hebrew, but is supposedly full of Hebraisms). Well, Hebrew didn't exist, until after the Flood. So it's not Enoch's native tongue. There shouldn't even BE anything Jewish in the book. Abram was the first Hebrew, the first one circumcised. His 6th-generation-back 'father' Eber (from which many think "Hebrew" is derived) -- was born 65 years after the Flood. Are you beginning to get the impression something is amiss with this Book?
The very name "Enoch" is Hebrew, and that, because MOSES wrote the name that way. It is really "Chanuch" or "Chanoch" (guttural soft ch sound, not "chat"room). Name means "Dedicated", "Devoted", idea of being Totally Set On God. "Chanukah" comes from the same root. But we don't know the original actual name for "Dedicated" in that language. Moses is TRANSLATING, and he's getting the information Directly From God. So any "Book of Enoch" is by definition a translation, not an original-language text. Just the same, it shouldn't be dealing with things Jewish AT ALL.
But let's pause now to test what you've learned, using a Bible-debunker favorite, the claim that Moses&Co. didn't cross the Red Sea; the Bible contradicts itself. Oh, what a perfect test this is. Look: it's true that "Sea of Reeds" is used in the Hebrew OT to designate what WE know as the Red Sea. For the Jews wandering in the wilderness, only knew it as the Sea of Reeds. (Yama Suph, first occurrence in Exo10:19.) However, sometime afterwards, the Sea was renamed, owing to what happened in it WHEN the Jews crossed it. We can trace that renaming, historically and etymologically, in the changes of Greek language. For the story spread everywhere, and as people are wont to do, they rename places which had famous events, with names related to those events. So by the 3rd century BC, when the (OT) Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek -- called the LXX, and based on an earlier original Hebrew OT than we have, -- the same sea was called the "Red Sea" (=Erythraean Sea, a term also used in Enoch 32:2's translation, also in Exo10:19 of LXX, "eruthran thalassan"). Because, By The Time the LXX Was Written circa 273BC, the Greeks had long baptised it with that name, owing to the drowning of Pharaoh's entire army. Etymology is important, especially for dating and validating some book claiming to be from God.
Notice how there is no contradiction. Notice how it's valid for a book TRANSLATED in the 3rd century BC to Use A Term In Its Own Time. No hand in the cookie jar, no anachronism. Notice further that "Sea of Reeds" is also not an anachronism, for the HEBREW OT. By contrast, IF instead the Hebrew OT had used the term "Red Sea".. we'd know someone long AFTER Moses, adulterated the text. Oh, Hand in cookie jar! Hoax: at least, with respect to that term. Now you know why a pastor's job is so exacting. Ideally, this Counterfeit detection is part of his job, like "CSI" on American TV. For a Pastor Is Supposed To Study Bible In Its Original Languages, NOT in translation. That's why God preserved the original-language texts, and gives us HIS Brains, to learn them. That's the ONLY "gift of tongues" which remains after 70AD. [I really wish the tongues crowd would read Bible someday. Paul reminds his audience in 1Cor14 that tongues are for the Jewish unbeliever, giving them the Gospel, quoting Isaiah 28 -- parallel to what happened to Samaraia, tongues were a Judgement Announcement of Impending Destruction which -- standard procedure -- lasted 40 years before the Judgement came. Peter did the same announcing using Joel 2, in Acts 1. See: if you don't know what the Bible says, you're a sucker for anything some fake book or ignorant-but-sincere teacher, claims. Most people involved with Bible are very sincere, and sincerely ignorant. Which means, all of us.]
So too, here in the Book of Enoch, you'll find in translation "sabbath", "Sinai", "King of Kings", and literally dozens of other keywords which did NOT exist at the time Enoch lived; we know that, because those terms were Invented BY God, i.e., due to Abram, due to Israel becoming a nation; they were Gifts Never Given Before. It's not that people didn't rest on the sabbath before: but "sabbath" in Hebrew means Promised Day, FIRST. Promise of Messiah. Term "Messiah" is a Jewish Term related to His Role to Israel. Means "Anointed One", "King" -- and only of Israel, not some other nation. "Savior" is the general term. So "sabbath" is a technical word for a special USE of the Rest Day, given to Israel. If you read Hebrews 4 even in translation, you'll see the author play on this Promised Day, Promise meaning of "sabbath".
But we don't have any original-language Book of Enoch: we only have later translations in language forms which didn't exist back then. That is our first potential Red Flag, that this book is NOT from God. God preserved the Bible we know, so if this were His Word, He'd have preserved it in the ORIGINAL languages, just as He has all His Other Books. God preserved 66 validatable books in the original languages, copied down through the centuries: but not "Book of Enoch"? Hmmm. This red-flag criterion is part and parcel of the science of textual criticism. Dating a book depends on the Use Of Language At The Time, NOT on the age of the written medium. So if you don't have the original-language texts, you Cannot Validate The Book. Again, because in translation, updated terminology will be used for the contemporary audience. God never gives a book you cannot validate, because then in effect He'd be LYING. Can't demand you test something, but then deny what you need for testing!
So the fact that the Greek OT is a translation from an even older Hebrew OT than we know we have, is valuable. But notice that the Hebrew text also exists. So, the two can be COMPARED. The Septuagint was widely used by the Lord and the NT Scripture writers, who quote from it frequently. You have to figure that the Lord would not be regularly quoting from a Book which isn't valid. So the LXX deserves to be regarded as Divine Writ, but tested on a verse-by-verse basis; because again, we have copies of it made over and over again, since that time. Same, for our Hebrew OT texts. Because, God knows where the copying (or translating) errors are, and thus you can distinguish between "spirits of error" and "spirits of truth" by means of the Spirit of Truth, John 4:23-24, utilized via 1Jn1:9. So you'll see me often use both the Hebrew OT and the LXX in these websites, since the NT is written in Greek, and uses LXX keywords.
It's positively appalling. Passages which are incomplete in the Hebrew OT we have, could be fixed by reference to the LXX.. but are not. So your Bible translations of the OT, don't include anything the LXX has to offer. No wonder people have so much trouble seeing Trinity in the OT -- it's blatant in the Hebrew and Greek inspired texts! But not, in translation. So think of the angst you have, when some Bible debunker says the Bible didn't say Trinity existed, in the OT.. you have no answer, and your faith is very shaky. It need not be so!
Volumes of meaning in the NT thus go unnoticed, untaught, unrealized. All because, the Hebrew texts aren't taught, properly translated, and the LXX isn't amalgamated with. This lack of amalgamation is positively fatal in certain passages, such as Isaiah 52:13-54:1. There, you have a blow by blow explanation how sins got paid for ON the Cross. So we don't know how: and what we don't understand, we will doubt. It won't be a pleasure, to believe in Him, because there is so much ignorance. Which ignorance persists, since you aren't being taught what is really IN the Bible.
So instead of learning the truth, you get fed speculations, and stupid ideas like Christ's physical death is what paid for sins; which idea fails even logic; since sin is a thought, so would have to be paid for with thought; which that Isa passage, proves in the LXX, the most (some of the Hebrew text is known to be missing). But you won't know the proof even EXISTS. So you have to plead the Blood, imagine some stupid Grail cup somewhere, call it a "mystery". Yeah, right under our noses! Hiding in plain sight.
This lack of counterfeit detection is fatal to your spiritual life. Everyone talks about being "Filled with the Spirit", yet who knows what it means? The holy rollers think you feel it. So they froth at the mouth. The workaholics think your works are infused, in some magical way. Yet 1Jn1:9 in the Greek, makes it clear how: he uses katharizw, a Temple-purifying verb; You are God's Temple, so if you don't name your sin to GOD, you are a Defiled Temple. And the Temple in the OT was never filled while it was defiled. So if you aren't habitually breathing 1Jn1:9, you don't have the Holy Spirit filling you; which is why John USES that word, "katharizw". But you can't know John uses that word, if you don't read it in the original-language text. And you can't know what John means even if you do read that word, if you don't also search on it in the LXX. This isn't rocket science, k? It took me only five minutes to see that meaning, by doing just such a search. Maybe back in medieval days, it was hard to know this information; but it's a cinch, now! Yet ask around: who knows this fact? Not one Christian, in a million.
So look at the huge damage: literally millions of Christians are spiritually comatose in every generation, doing scads of dead works they themselves don't even like (let alone, God): simply because they do not know the usage of 1Jn1:9. Which, almost no pastors, teach. Because, the pastors don't know. Because, the Bible is not translated from the LXX as well. Because, the pastors don't study in the original-language texts. So, then: how could they KNOW that the Book of Enoch is a fraud? They can't. Took me but an hour to know, simply because I was taught Bible in the original-language texts so I know what its Real Doctrines are. Anyone on the planet can likewise know: it's the Holy Spirit's Brains, not a human's (God won't accept lesser-quality than Himself, which is why we needed a Cross in the first place).
Expensive Extra Comment: so you MUST depend on God, in order to be sure you a) are really using His Word, not a counterfeit, and b) are properly interpreting What Word you have. Whether you had only some books, or all of them. This takes a lot of time, and is the primary job of a pastor. But we who study under such pastors, must understand that we too must do our homework. For a pastor must necessarily simplify what he teaches to a group. It's not like grade school, where you get assigned homework and a gold star if you do it. No, We Are Training To Be Kings. So must take our own initiative, and work through what we learn. Without needing a gold star or a pat on the back. Kings don't get gold stars. They get gold CROWNS. And the guillotine, when they misuse those crowns.
So those who don't use 1Jn1:9, will not be able to discern between a fraudulent book like the Book of Enoch, and a genuine Bible book. And they will not be able to properly interpret even real Bible. So will be easily choked by similar sounds in the fraudulent book, in religion, in pulpits -- Mistaking Sounds For Substance. That is why you have so much disagreement over the centuries about what doctrines, books, ideas, are "Biblical." And such poor research. Very expensive mistake. For which, God will allow NO excuses, at the Bema. Because, we really have this Legacy from Christ to be trained as Kings under the King of Kings.
But we have no such 'counterfeit detector' to verify the Book of Enoch. ALL the texts are in translation, and all of them in languages which are post-Flood. So if God really had Enoch write a Book we were supposed to get, then He'd have preserved what ENOCH wrote. What words Enoch himself actually wrote: not, a translation. That's what He's done with respect to all the other authors He Empowered. Moreover, much-earlier versions of what we call Hebrew and Greek did exist back in Enoch's day, and we have preserved texts of those; but not of Enoch. So the fact that God didn't preserve the original, means He DIDN'T commission Enoch write a book for us. So whatever book we have, is NOT from God. By the time you finish reading this page, you'll probably realize why.
True textual criticism involves seeking anachronisms in the original text, to decide the validity and date the text was written; but in translation, the translator might use anachronisms, for the sake of audience comprehension. So you know nothing certain about the date of a book's text (holy or not), unless you have the original-language text. Doesn't matter that it's a copy; does matter that the original words were PRESERVED.
So maybe the only valid preservation of Enoch is in the Jude quote. You'll find a lot of books referenced in the OT which we also don't have. If those books were corrupted, such that no valid original-language text remains even in scraps, then God will have preserved the VALID parts He wants, in the Bible itself. So, in the OT accounts you'll see that done. Thus you immediately know two things: 1) God preserved what He WANTED, and 2) anything else out there is a fake. However, as with everything else in Bible, you can't use that rule as black-and-white. You must still do your homework with whatever "witness" you have. [The term "witness" is here used technically; it's a theological term for a book of antiquity.]
So this #1 by itself is pretty conclusive, because God Is Consistent. He consistently Preserved the Very Words He had Isaiah pen; some of those words are provably preserved via the LXX, and some, via the Hebrew text we have. Same is true, for every other author. God breathed what He wanted communicated into the authors; it's not automatic writing, but understanding. Then they, from their Spirit-run understanding, exhaled exactly what God wanted written. Those people. Not the translators. Those people in THEIR languages. Not, later ones. Again, the LXX seems an exception, and that still on a verse-by-verse basis, and only because that's what the Holy Spirit had the Lord and the NT writers, quote. Which means, He was there back in 273BC (or whenever it was, 280-180BC being the consensus). So He knows how much HE was involved in making that translation. Knowing in advance, how it would be used. God thinks of everything.
Still, let's give the Book of Enoch the benefit of the doubt; let's Examine What It Teaches, and note anything which contradicts the genuine Bible we have. In short, we'll pretend that well.. the Holy Spirit coulda handled the translation of Book of Enoch, too -- after all, He'd know in advance, what would happen to it. So as you read what follows, ask yourself: Would the Holy Spirit, have authorized this book we have? He'll answer. You'll see...
Chapters 6ff relate a contradictory relationship between men and angels, versus the Bible. Example: Enoch 9:3 has men pray to angels. Scripture prohibits that -- it's idolatry. You always pray to God, alone; to pray to someone else is to acknowledge that substitute as god/idol. Bible never deviates from this: search Bible for yourself. God is never inconsistent. [For that same reason, Bible prohibits the praying-to-saints stuff, because it violates the First Commandment: see PrayProc.htm or GodSystem.htm and John 17, Eph1:15-21, 3:15-21, and even the disciples' prayer (aka "The Lord's prayer", which is not even a prayer, but an outline He used in teaching.)]
Other problems with the Flood account in Gen6 versus Enoch take too long to explain, but if you review them both, especially with respect to all that silly angel behavior in Enoch, you should see how 'off' the latter is. [The demons being mentioned by names the Bible never mentions, the crying for forgiveness -- all that is downright slapstick. Even Enoch reports their activity as premeditated, so how penitent will they be? Notice how nasty God looks in the Enoch text, for not forgiving those poor angels who just wanted to have a little fun. Sheesh. You know who wrote that stuff, huh. By the way, demonic cohabitation DID happen; whether the Book of Enoch accurately describes it (i.e., with only 200 angels involved), well.. I doubt it. Genesis 6 is laconic, but the Hebrew is deft; the doctrine is much referenced in the NT (almost constantly, because Gen6 was the demon-counter plan to God's spiritual begetting of 'sons', a counterplan they still employ now, but via soul 'fornication'). Gen6 says angels co-habited with women; it's not symbolic or figurative. Christianity is historically squeamish about admitting that. Well, then might as well be squeamish about God Himself, k?] In short, anything that contradicts the Bible is not from God, so you always have to be sure what "Bible" is. And you can never be sure of what "Bible" is, in translation. So any appearance of contradiction, is a big red flag warning you to investigate the original text. Which, you should just flat do anyway, for there may be masked contradictions DUE TO translation, which would be revealed by comparing the original texts. Again: this kind of function is part and parcel of the science of textual criticism.
Enoch Chapter 32 [R.H. Charles' translation] is downright hysterical. God's Tree, the "Tree of Life" (which prolonged LIFE, not knowledge) is not mentioned by name (a form of derision, idea of a thing not deserving mention). But ho! look what IS mentioned, and in a complimentary way! Whoa -- that "Tree of Knowledge", which is Satan's tree, in Genesis 2:7 and Chapter 3! But oh, here in "Enoch32", it's in the Forbidden Garden (off-limits, since the Fall, per Gen3); and yet everyone magically can get in there anyway and EAT from it and get Wisdom (verse 3 compared to v.6)? What a stitch -- so wisdom is FORBIDDEN?! That's Exactly The Same Accusation Made Against God As In Genesis 3, and no one who believes this Book is divine, notices God being maligned again in exactly the same way? Oh, the last verse in that chapter lies against God just like Gen3:11 does!
Tree of Knowledge is Satan's tree; it, not God's Tree is named; it, not God's Tree is delicious for wisdom (same language as Gen3, allusively), well.. who do you think would be interested in cutting God out, but grafting Satan in? Would the Holy Spirit do that? Or an evil spirit?
Lots of what looks like blah-blah-blah gnostic stuff from Chapter 52 forward (gnosticism has many flavors, and its animistic roots began well before the first century AD). The gnostic stuff isn't even clever, so could just be human ego-tripping (or a bored demon who's deriding our ability to discern valid and meaningful metaphors, from mere sound-alikes). Just seeing these Chapters makes me want to reject the whole Book, but noooo God doesn't like such sloppy scholarship. (The text kinda reminds me of the goofy FAKE ending after Mk16:14 or 15, which clearly someone added, but not Mark. Mark's whole theme is that the generation getting this Gospel re-telling, is just as negative as the generation which saw Christ face-to-face; not believing in Him, directly proportional to the miracles He did. So Mark is not going to end his Gospel book with an exhortation or claim that those telling the Gospel will DO miracles. God is never inconsistent in His Message! Furthermore, this is not the only place the "Great Commission" exists. It's been the Great Commission, since Adam, sheesh. That's why we have an OT, to begin with! So I don't know that Mark would end with v.15; v.14 is more consistent with the book's theme (and pointed, lol). Verse 16 flatly contradicts Scripture -- it's always and only been, "believe": see Gen15:6, compare to like verses in the NT.)
Book of Mormon has this screaming as its salient feature; it alleges to be written just after the destruction of the First Temple, but uses thousands of NT references which did NOT exist in the OT Bible. And derisively twists those NT references as well. [I particularly like the derision against Acts 4:12, which in the Book of Mormon says you "MIGHT (not the Bible's "must") be saved."] In SatStrat.htm there's a "Book of Mormon" example, as well as "Section 85" example. Wish I had more time to spend on what I feel is one of the most brilliant demon-authored books of all time (of equal wit is the Koran).
Do ya notice how careful the Enoch text is? People don't know these things about Bible. Most can barely SPELL "Bible". The fact that the OT plainly records prophets writing books at the end of their ministries, so that's why the Gospels are also, well.. people always debunk Bible because of those late writing dates, claiming those dates make the accuracy wrong. So they prove they didn't learn that pattern of revelation by God is His Policy. But the writer of 2Enoch, sure knows. So while 2 Enoch is slapstick, yet the precise awareness of Bible is cultivated. Which again, begs the question of the 'age' of 2Enoch. Can't be aware of a Bible which didn't yet exist. And if you're a demon, you'll advertise the YOUNGER age of the book you're feigning, by pointing to the BIBLE'S structure. Because it really DID exist at the time the demon wrote the book, and you're a fool for believing in that book if you didn't do your homework IN the Bible which then existed.
They do this very thing with all fake holy books. It's bald. Whether it's some other fake Gospel or pseudopigrapha, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, you name it. There's this same pattern of derisive pointing. So you are the fool, if you don't see it. They hate us with all their hearts and souls and minds...
But the future is 'hidden', in the sense that it has not yet happened. So the Church was a contingent FUTURE event, known therefore only to God. And the Church would not happen, had Israel not rejected Christ. And Israel would not have rejected Christ, if there WAS no Christ. So until Christ came, all that future was a MYSTERY. So as, not to coerce free will. So as Paul exhaustively explains in Romans 9-11, what was 'hidden', was the future existence of Messiah, since He wasn't born yet; it was up to HIM to decide how He would live, so once He came, He was no longer hidden. So what was hidden, was Israel's future rejection of Him, since it was up to them to decide. So what was hidden, was Church's future existence, since it was Contingent Upon Israel's Rejection. So what was hidden, was how God would still fulfill all HIS goals, being as the contingency hadn't yet occurred. But it was NOT hidden to God (this is the theme of Eph1, readable enough even in translation).
So the "mystery of God", which is an OT term, referred to the revelation of Messiah, and the fulfillment of the promise of saving the Gentiles. But since Israel did reject Messiah when He came, the "mystery" changed to Church, Matt16:18 (trace all "mystery" verses in Bible, see for yourself). Part IVa examines the salient legal precedence factors giving rise to this change. Israel is NOT replaced by Church. Only the part of her future (hence "mystery") potential covenant changed. She rejected the marriage contract, essentially. So now Esther must be found. So the "mystery" of Church, is.. will it complete? This is the focus question of Part IV.
By succeeding at the Cross, Christ forever secured salvation. Now, it's only a question of Time. That's pretty critical, since we are the hidden, now. In the eyes of the world, we Christians are goofballs. That is true. But goofball or not, the very continuance of Time depends on the very few among us who grow up under the Spirit from goofball to greatness. Which, clearly only He can do. So the very spiritual life of Christ is our legacy (I love Peter's wry term "hupogrammos", CopyBook). And it's a "mystery" to those uninterested to learn it, but it's no mystery to God.
And what is that CopyBook material? You can know God Himself better, more intimately, than any other covenanted group of humans who have ever lived or ever will live. For Church is the Body of Christ. As close as one can get. Higher and real knowledge. Knowledge you won't regret; knowledge you take with you. Togetherness with God in THINKING. Nothing in this world, compares.
This intimacy achievement of Christ -- and the resultant formation of Church -- really riles Satan&Co. They want the status which goes with our intimacy, and they are rabid about us puny getting what they consider, rightfully theirs. So they are obsessed with advertising us. So they bang the drum, just as they did back in the Lord's Day (see Mark's Gospel) on hidden hidden hidden mystery hidden hidden.. like "Hal" in the movie "2001", run amok. The "hidden knowledge" which was wrong to get in the Garden, was knowledge of sin. Now flipped into "hidden knowledge", the "mystery doctrine" in the NT, which -- lol! -- is no mystery any longer, but PUBLISHED! Paul has no end of fun with that ironic outcome. But Satan&Co. use the theme derisively everywhere they can. Marvelling at their own cleverness. And we hapless, nonetheless favored, well.. we truly are a mystery, even to ourselves, bypassing this Unique Covenant. Which is 'hiding' in plain sight, in every hotel room drawer. Bible: Being fulfilled, Eph1:15-21.
So every fake holy book turns the above true definition of "hidden" into malicious derision, cheapening the definition to sorcery, magic, mysticism, tongues, and knowledge of the universe. None of which definitions, are at ALL secret! So that's what you have here in Enoch: it's definitely a post-Canon burlesque. Oh, Enoch, you are better than the angels, you get all this banal earthly information. Thereby putting down the angels who obey God, angels who KNOW God -- so notice -- knowing God is put on a LOWER plane than mere dead earthly information! Is there greater hating derision than this? Worse than even given to the woman in Gen3 -- oh, God is withholding information, but if you eat from the tree, you will get it, aren't you special. Morphed versions of Gen3 accusation, here updated with "hidden", are used to bait you into buying the lie. At which point, God is accused and you bought it. Whether you know it or not.
A lot of Christians don't know it. A lot of Christians think that mass or scholarly human opinion of the pseudopigrapha in the past, justifies the material as 'godly'. Ok, then a whole lot of murders were done in the past, too: should we thus murder, because so many others have? Sheesh. These Christians have their eyes on people and things, so God's Word being maligned by each of the pseudopigraphic books, goes unnoticed by them. The quintessential proof of a demonic book, is that it derides God. But we just praise the book anyway, ignorant of its import. Because, we can't read it. It totally boggles my mind how many Christians argue FOR these terrible books. Because, they don't read them. What they read, is public opinion. Selectively.
You just have to look up this stuff on the internet. It's sheer Twilight Zone. If they spent a sliver's worth of the same time in the real Bible, they'd never go back to that snouting tripe. I mean, look: Enoch was pre-Flood. There were no Jews pre-Flood. But they don't notice that, either, and continue to pound away about Jewish stuff in Enoch, so therefore it's divine writ? Amazing. I guess the moon is made of green cheese, too...
Well, what's left they can use to justify this book? They usually justify the Book of Enoch, based on other pseudopigraphic books which recognize it. Why no BIBLE book? No Bible book recognizes any pseudopigraphic book. What, is the Bible we can prove from God, which never contradicts itself -- of lesser value, than the lurid pseudopigrapha which routinely malign Our Savior and flagrantly contradict Scripture? Come on: you can't say the Bible endorses a book if only one quote in the entire BIBLE, Jude 14, is from Enoch. And in the Greek, all that Jude uses, is "legwn". That's no where near as strong as "it stands written" (latter is always a quote from a BOOK, "gegrapti"). Greek "legei" can be used for indirect discourse, direct discourse, quoting a person's remark. Not necessarily, some book.
There are a lot of folks in Mexico named Jesus. If one of them wrote a book, should we jump up and down, saying it had to be from the Lord? Sheesh. Well, "Enoch" isn't only the Enoch. Anyone can read a Bible, mess with the facts a little, and pretend to be him. Plus, the Book of Enoch allegedly dates from the inter-testamental period of the Jews (which I now doubt, too many post-Christ NT references in it). That inter-testamental period was the time when God left them: the Temple was not filled. The Maccabees were in power for most of the time from 160's BC onward, and once entrenched, they usurped royal power (no sons of David among them, but they were of the priestly caste). It was an apostate time, in Judaism, worse than prior. Last book God gave them was Malachi, about 434BC. So why no quotes from Enoch, in the OT? So this Book was held as sacred by the quasi-Kabbalic Essenes -- an odd bunch, if ever there was one. Much of what they believed was anti-Bible. Oh, heck: just anyone can write anything and claim any famous name wrote it, never mind the claim is made two millenia later? Whatever happened to forensic examination compared to BIBLE doctrine?
So: Satan&Co. want to help us poor hapless believers, who'll believe anything is Bible, if it SAYS so. Hence, to make sure you have no excuse for your ignorance of Bible, the fake holy books always take unimportant earthly knowledge which titilates the sin nature, and glorify it. Like, knowing a whole lot of facts, is not knowledge. You just have a good memory.. but what deft use can you make of the information? And what would it matter, if you didn't know GOD? Do you think, on your deathbed, that it will matter at all what human praise you got? What abilities you had? You're dying now. What's all that past stuff mean? Means BUPKIS, that's what. But so long as you can be distracted from really evaluating what kind of knowledge is important (Hosea 4:6 warning), well.. you can be palliated with the fantasy that the number of facts in your head makes you a smart person.
Hence "Secret knowledge" is the cornerstone of gnosticism, which goes back easily to 500 BC or more. "Enlightment", "Nirvana", all those Eastern religious concepts are expressions of this. But think: at least in the Eastern religions, the "secret knowledge" you work so hard (i.e., at body positions) to attain, is at least the sharing of Godness, at some level. It's certainly NOT knowledge about science stuff like metallurgy, agriculture, astronomy, etc. So note how in Enoch the so-called wisdom is NOT about God Himself, but rather about the physical universe. Big whoop. God uses that knowledge in Job, to argue; so Job already knew, as did his friends, and they talk fluently about it, no one ooohhhing and ahhhing over his being special. So big whoop, that you know earthly things: but what about, the Mind of God? Now THAT is something to get excited about. But the Book of Enoch assigns NO importance to learning His Mind; no, a different "m" is stressed: the miracle transport, the eye stuff. Not, the mind. And any sane Christian thinks this book is even possibly Divine? Ok: then they never read the Bible, either.
Per gnosticism, all the stuff you see is infused with magical, mystical qualities. As in Buddhism, the goal of gnosticism is enlightenment; the two are sibling 'faiths'. So in gnosticism, your goal is to play all these games with these qualities, so you become WISE about this stuff. So you try to harmonize with these forces, in order to have POWER to get what you want in this life. Variantly, they'll tell you these forces are Divine Powers -- and the language here in Enoch is quintessentially Kabbala/gnostic, with the seven this, three that, personification of forces, giving them names as if gods. Fake holy books are all about power, just like in Genesis 3.
So you tap into these forces -- in the name of God, of course, floating up like Thetans to the Light! -- with ritual, special words you say at specific times and positions in relation to sun and moon. But notice: No knowing-God as a Person in all that.. just fancy. God Himself is not important, see: only His POWER is important. He Himself, means nothing.
Now: would the Holy Spirit authorize astrology and magic writing? Ya think? Or did He not CONDEMN it, in both OT and New? So is there not a huge doctrinal contradiction between what Bible teaches as the spiritual life.. and this 'special knowledge' which everyone already had, in the Bible? Which contradiction, by the way -- is being played on and referenced, in 2Enoch? So how old is this 2Enoch, anyway? Certainly not 3119 BC! Again, Hebrew of the Jews was not a language, pre-Flood. But allegedly the ninth heaven is called in the Hebrew, "Kuchavim" (2Enoch 21:8). Of course, Enoch is only in translation. But here the text is saying "is called in the Hebrew" -- at a time when that language did NOT exist. Hoo-boy!
Again: if relationship with God is just so much ritual and incantation and knowing how the universe works, well.. how deep a relationship is that? Isn't that like marrying someone for his money? And when les bon temps stop rouler'ing, well.. bye bye! Yeah, an Infinite God who doesn't need us, would want the relationship to be like Stepford wives and warlocks. Right.
Note further, that the job God gave Adam pre-Fall, was a scientific job: taxonomy, a kind of Dr. Doolittle. Naming the animals. So: does it look like God wanted to withhold knowledge? And what value was that job? Well, he could learn to draw parallels about God that way, to gain in rapport. God created him, and the first thing God does is give him a Rulership Job. So he could learn how much God His Ruler, loved him; even as, he probably grew to love all those animals: preview of what would become, Rom5:8. Nothing mystical about it. But it's altogether a personal, one-on-one, Relationship. So: either the Enoch intentionally derides Genesis, or at least it contradicts Genesis, for whatever (pretend unknown) reason. Would God contradict Himself? So how could the Holy Spirit who did all the action in Genesis, authorize a supposedly-earlier creation account which contradicts Genesis?
You've just got to check out of the library, books on UFO visits, ghosts (i.e., by Frances Kermeen), and The Mothman Prophecies to see the same material as here in the Book of Enoch. It's just as slapstick, uses nearly the same lingo, same speaking pattern even -- oh! And these books are THIS generation (1960's et. seq). But the Book of Enoch, is supposedly dated something like 200BC (whether media or language, I couldn't tell from the websites). Now think about that for a second. No actuarial table I know of posits that man can live for 2000 years. But look -- 2000! Years later, the SAME behavior is reported by people 'visited', as is recorded in the Book of Enoch? Same slapstick style? All this 'hidden knowledge' talk? There's NO guesswork about who wrote this book, and who those 'visitors' are! THEY live longer than 2000 years! Alien=strange +'spirit'=demon, get it? Sure, they're ghosts and extra-terrestrials, too! Just as 'Enoch' describes! Offering the same promise of 'hidden' information to make you feel special! LOL!
But look: Book of Enoch claims he's getting 'secrets' about the construction of the universe -- NOT, about a closer relationship with God. That's pure demon derision, sorry. Closeness to God is absent throughout Enoch. God is cast as Sugar Daddy or Petty Judge; He's capricious, too chatty, malevolent and vile. Would God cast Himself as the Book of Enoch depicts?
Look what Paul says (New Revised Standard) : 1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
What's not generally known, since no one cross-references the keywords, is that "Love" here means BIBLE, Christ's Thinking ("head" analogy began in 1Cor1:5, but you can't see that in translation). See also Rom5:5. So it looks like Book of Enoch is "nothing". Outhen, there in 1Cor1:2. All that knowledge, baby -- worthless. Outhen: Attic Greek word -- my pastor spent DAYS explaining its use. It's the strongest, most dramatic word for "Nothing!" So much for the value of 'secret' knowledge, huh.
So Book of Enoch (both 1 and 2, maybe only parts of 1 are corrupt, not sure yet) -- is a derision against both God and Enoch. Oh, your relationship with God is DISTANT, but you can know all the earthly goodies. Big whoop. And what earthly goodies did he get, for being so faithful? Oh, 'secrets' about what anyone can already observe! But hey: the book calls the knowledge 'secret', even though it's not; calls the reader an initiate (read: special), even though he's not. So the one believing in THIS book, craves flattery. It compliments the reader -- oh, with THIS BOOK YOU HAVE SECRETS! -- doesn't matter that claim is patently UNtrue. So hungry for a compliment, even if based on a patent lie -- to think of self as being 'special'! So if a book says you're 'special' if you know it, well.. then to call yourself 'special', you'll seek to know the book. Because then you can justify calling yourself special, because this book says so. Guess who ends up looking the special fool!
Religion specializes in flattery. Harlots are like that, it's their trade. Just like advertising. They tell you you're special, you deserve this product -- so you'll buy it. Are we humans too dumb to live, or what!
This much derision cannot be caused by bad translation. You have to think about the text, to realize how insulting it is. Sure, there are wordplays on the allegedly not-yet-existing, Bible; as well as, contradictions against it. But even if we disregard all that, look what relationships are painted. Shallow ones. Enoch's relationship to his sons, is all about what they can know, but NOT about who they can know. God is distant. Things are close. People relationships are shallow, too: relationships with the angels, Enoch to his sons. Sterile, like clods of wood. It's not possible for a translation to be SO far from the original, that ALL of what's painted here is mistranslated. Bible mistranslation does wooden-ize the 'feel' of the Bible, versus the vibrant original text, so we'll allow some 'blame' on mistranslation. But the contradictions, the flat obviousness that this 'secret' knowledge is no secret at all, the goofy face put on God, well.. all that can't be blamed on the translation, sorry. [Bible in the original-language texts is a pure joy to read. It makes perfect sense, the wordplay is phenomenal, and you're soon exhausted -- not because of scripture, but because of the pettifogging lexicons (and they have to be so boring, it's essential to good research). Nothing wooden about Bible. Translations reverse out ALL the personality, to make God stern, to make man a workaholic. So I have to allow for the idea that some of that same bleaching, is done to the underlying non-English text in Enoch.]
Oh, this is priceless. See, if you accept the lie that he begat Methusaleh 100 years later, then sure, you'll accept the LIE that he himself would be writing this thing up! Oh, a miracle! Yeah, God can do that; angels can do that. But -- just because a miracle is alleged, doesn't mean a) it is true, nor b) it came from God. But if you want to believe the first lie, you'll want to believe the second. Bible is way secondary, to lies which are FIRST fun to believe...
So we shouldn't be surprised that Chapter 2 verse 1 contradicts the ending of its own Chapter 1. The angels just finished telling him they were taking him to heaven. But notice what he does with that information: he lies to his kids? For 2:1 says, "Listen to me, my children, I know not whither I go, or what will befall me"! LOLOL!
Bible gets accused of being mean to people quite often. No one bothers to IDENTIFY the people God commands be destroyed. The Canaanites, for example, were very heavy into drugs; into rape, orgies (to the sound of children screaming as they were burned ALIVE to their god Molech); they habitually invaded nearby villages and torched everything, stealing the women and kids. Genghis Khan was more civilized. But oh, because God is supposed to execute criminals, and does.. well, it's God Who's wrong? Puleese. [Only in the last few years has the scholarship on ancient societies begun to admit how drug-dependent and orgy-dependent they all were. Seems I hear about a new documentary or National Geographic article on the topic, monthly (or slightly less often). Whether it's Sparta, or other parts of Greece, the Americas, Egypt, Asia, etc. We have so white-washed the past. Nice to see some honesty creeping into these documentaries. My pastor gave us the more sordid truths beginning in the 1950's or '60's, from what I can tell in his audiotapes. It wasn't a secret. But it wasn't routinely taught, either. Indian civilizations were just the same. Just visit the Indian ruins in New Mexico, etc., buy the books. They too are more honest, now.]
It IS possible for an entire populus to be so evil, that even the women and children should be wiped out, so sick they are with evil thinking. We need look no farther back than the population extant at the time Hitler took power. We need look no farther back than daytime 'court' TV, or even the night's news: notice the glee with which accusations are flung! And how quickly we believe the accusations true! Heck, we need look no farther than the mirror. Read the Gospel accounts of Passion Week carefully: note that it's Only Because The People Voted For His Crucifixion, that He got crucified. So you can't blame a clique in the Sanhedrin. It's all of us.
Quintessential proof of our evil: we think it right to sue the airlines whose misfortune it was to be hijacked on 9/11. So we buy the lie that we are good; we buy the lie that some guy can be writing while alive, telling you he's already "completed" his life (see Chapter 1). We want to buy that lie, because it makes us feel powerful. So after that, other lies are needed to keep that power "fix" going. So, it doesn't matter that the book contradicts the Bible flagrantly. We'll still lie to ourselves, and claim the Holy Spirit 'inspired' this Book. Just as gets done daily, with the Mormons. Just as gets done daily, with the prolifers, the ritual people, the tongues crowd, etc. who claim true what Bible says is false. Bible (and biology) proves life begins at birth, but we make laws as if it began in utero; Bible says rituals are meaningless, but we say they are spiritual; Bible says tongues is demonic, except during 30AD-70AD, but we say it's the Holy Spirit who makes us blither. And on and on and on. The viral variations are too many to number.
And why do we all think so vilely? Endless Genesis 3! We want to call 'holy', what makes us feel good. That's the 'knowledge' we want. And thus the lies of a hitler, nest in ripe soil. While God's Word, is ever mocked.
If you know your Bible, you recognize derisional parallels against it; so you see God didn't write the Book of Enoch. For in their fake holy books, demons just love REVERSING similar stories in Bible.. point by point. Making plain, they NOT God, wrote these books. But if you don't know your Bible, their counterfeit will SOUND holy, so will sound like it makes one special, so it will sound like it's from "God." NOT!
But in religion, as in politics, it's real important to MOUTH feel-good words and buzz words. So if you mention "Mom" and "apple pie" and "Bible" and "angel", well you must be of God. Just by mouthing those magic words. Never mind, no one really knows what those words MEAN. Never mind, that the REST of your words and plans will HURT "Mom" and "apple pie" and "Bible" principles. You mouthed the words. That makes you a hero. A fake Bible book mouths the same words you find in Bible. That makes it divine, however DERISIVELY those words are used.
No offense, but if the Book of Enoch is supposed to be about the secrets of the universe, well.. they're pretty childishly told. Adam was no dummy. Adam's firstborn, Cain, ran out and built a city for his firsborn son who also was named Enoch. So these humans were not childish in their understanding, from the get-go. No hunter-gatherers, here. So why is Enoch so childish? Genesis, Job, many other passages in Scripture are far more precise about rotation, gravitational pull, the galaxies, how empty space is what unifies (the "unifying theory" everyone pants after and misses, is based on vacuum, not mass). scads of real information. But Enoch reads like a kindergartener's explanation. The real Enoch was not so stupid, k? He was superior to all his own generation (which by the way, included the smartest of the lot -- Adam -- most of the time), which is why God took him home EARLY. So, come on: these are 'secrets'? LOL.
So Genesis is far superior to the Book of Enoch. More importantly, Moses is explaining God's Thinking the whole time -- but Enoch doesn't have a clue. Enoch's list in Chapter 40 is about earthly things, whoopee. The stress in Enoch is the miracle manner of getting that knowledge; but Moses with deft wit.. stresses the Thinking of the Creator. To Moses, the earthly stuff is but a metaphor, however tangible, to use for Seeing Him Who Is Invisible (see also Heb11). Whereas Enoch talks about PAIN at meeting the creator (chap39), Moses had to be veiled because he was so happy. Does no one see God and Moses being mocked, in 2Enoch? Oh well. It's not as though there weren't blatant contradictions, throughout. Satan&Co. did their level best to advertise their authorship, here. So if we still buy this book as from God, well.. our blood is upon our own heads. You can even compare translations and see this. Its proof isn't sequestered in the lonely cell of the academic.
One lie leads to another. LOL. When people differ over Bible and accept pseudipgrapha, they often smooth over the disagreement with some bland "everyone has a different opinion" bandaid. Sorry: if you believe that text, it's not a 'different' opinion, it's a foolish opinion. Making a fool out of, the one believing it. And Satan&Co. make fools of us all. We differ only on what topic we are proven the fool.
Demon-sponsored stuff always manages to keep the topics to angels and the world. You don't get much info about God. God comes in as an extra, says an idiotic line or two, and then exits. 2Enoch is in that same lurid style. Nice touch, its derision against the meaning of "mystery" in the NT, since that Greek term (musterion) means knowledge known only to those IN the group, and is a moniker for Church. Get the pun?
This Book was no more written pre-Canon's completion, than I was born in Caesarea. So of course, the lie gets an accusation to go with it: real cute, God WITHHOLDING information again from the angels, but telling it to Enoch for the first time in Chapter 24 (putting down the angels, see -- Exact Same Accusation as made to Adam and the woman in Gen3). Don't people ever read the Real Bible, to see how different it is? Guess not. This is Laurel and Hardy stuff, Biblically speaking.
OK, I get it now. This is another blah-blah-blah gnostic tract, but as if "secret knowledge" was something about the world which God WITHHELD; what a crock. Sheesh. Chapter 24ff is a parody on Genesis, and is written POST-Canon completion, given the vocabulary. God is sure chatty. The God of Genesis just says "Light, Be!" and it is. But this 'god' has to get real specific, and is malevolent; so he tells something/someone else to make light, etc. Yeah, this is the gnostic format of personification, typical stuff: translation can't be SO far off, to yield this rendering -- but I'll recheck, pending the Greek and Latin versions; maybe the scurrilious translation is reversing what's in those texts. No wonder this Book was outlawed from Canon: it's sheer slapstick. But why did'nt they notice it's treating Genesis as a first creation, instead of the Biblical text which says it's a RESTORATION? Funny, how a Book of Enoch could help Christians MISinterpret Genesis, all these years?
Oh, Chapter 33! This is where so many Christians get the idea of a seven-thousand-year limit for history! Sheesh! So don't they wonder why the BIBLE doesn't repeat this format? Especially, if the Book of Enoch was SUPPOSED to be the first book? The First Book of Bible is the Precedenting Book. Every Bible book must tie back to all the Bible books which went before it, to PROVE the VALIDITY of the 'new' book. It's a kind of signature. That's why you have Four Gospels written successively, and the ones later always have elaborative comments on the ones prior, to ATTEST to them as well as PROVE that the new Gospel, IS from God. So here the Book of Enoch, were it valid, would have to be quoted in all subsequent Bible books -- either allusively (incorporation by reference, a legal requirement) -- or directly. So here's the quintessential proof that when you first believe in Christ, your brains are doo-doo from that day forward: Christians 'buying' this 1000-year chapter, didn't even CARE to examine Genesis-Revelation for other usages of the 1000 years, and since Genesis-Revelation don't refer to Book of Enoch, then the latter is a FRAUD. Real easy proof, so our brains aren't working, and we don't care, either. It feels good.
Why all this focus on Chapter 33 (usually used to try to predict the Rapture, lol), yet no focus on Daniel 9's perfect timeline? Which tracks all the way back to Adam and forward to the end of time, so you can exactly date events using Bible's own verses? It took me a year to do the Daniel timeline. It wasn't hard, but it was tedious. As a result, I can prove mathematically why the Rapture cannot be predicted, for the Tribulation is a Balance Sheet Item Belonging to Christ as MESSIAH. Not, to anyone else (see "Jesus the Christ" link and "To be or Not to be" table and "David" link in Mirroring.htm). The entire timeline balances consecutively: it's just a question of whether you move it all up 3 years, beginning with Adam; this resolves our longstanding BC/AD problem when we switched calendars 3 times (from pre-Julian to Julian to Gregorian, lots of date messups occurred). [I'm not doing that yet; need to see if there is some other way to resolve the problem. Never go for the easy solution. It is usually the wrong one.] So all I gotta do, is understand the "1000" piece better. So why don't all my other fellow believers, many of them doggedly into Bible, know this? I'm not smarter or better than them. Centuries of confusion have attended these questions, but it only took a year with BibleWorks and a calculator, to get the answers? Using 1Jn1:9, that is. Ahhhh. That's the difference. Oh well. He caused me to understand and write about it. Hope someone else will be spared yet more confusion. For this is independently provable. Don't need a Chapter 33.
Honestly: the difference between the real Bible and fake texts such as 'Enoch', is like the difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and The National Enquirer. That tabloid always has like-kind lurid stuff. And we Christians don't notice. But when we do notice and try to SHOW the difference to people, then we are accused of being biased. Because only information which MALIGNS God and the Bible, is 'objective', you see...
This is a wild thought: the -1 nesting function (piggybacking day 1 of the new year on the sundown of the same solar day), might have more meaning. What if an extra day gets inserted due to the Flood, so our year runs a day longer? Yeah, it's a wild thought, but God does do this with Time itself. Daniel 9 is about a "490" count of years; but is given to Daniel FAR EARLIER than 490BC. So God inserted time, get it? That's how I learned of God's accounting system, because I wanted to see how time continued for more than the 490 years God 'alloted'. Only a debit-and-credit system for Time can BE the answer, when "490" is used, broken into accounting components (each piece of which must have a meaning).. and then justifying more than 490 years of history.
See, again the Bible is SUPERIOR, because the Book of Enoch LIES (or is stupid) about how God's Accounting System works; for this Chapter 33 (etc.) claims a consecutive measure of time. But we know that's not true. Look: let's pretend for the sake of argument -- especially, since demons DO put significant truths in their fake holy books -- let's pretend, that Chapter 33 IS talking about a plan of 7000 years. Let's ignore the fact that this Chapter is blatantly Mosaic Law, and pretend it is prophetic. Let's ignore the fact that throughout the text, allusions going all through Revelation are used, so of course the Messiah promise to David (viz., Ps90:4, 1Chron29:21, Ps110:1, 2Sam7:11-13), would be known as PAST information, not predictive. So let's just pretend that the original plan for time was 7,000 years, consecutive. That's not how it stays. For if this data is (pretend) Biblical, then its real play must follow the same debit-credit accounting system for time which God uses in the Real Bible. The latter, you can prove. You can prove why the insertions of time, the deletions of time, and why Church is an open-ended insertion of time, off-balance sheet.
So, then: this initial 7,000, is also in debit-credit components. The insertable components would be functions within the 1000: 20, 50, 40. The 40's always nest, so 20 and 50. And smaller functions within them (2, 5, 10, etc). So you still don't know how long time will last, and the demons laugh their heads off at all those drooling Christians who keep trying to make Enoch's 7000 year passage, balance to Bible! We should be seeking the relationship with God, not titillation about how long we'll be here before the Rapture comes: so they get to write false books like this one, since only those who are tied up in the titillation -- not in God -- will believe this rot. We are all so frail; some get hooked here, others somewhere else; we are all satanfodder. We ALL need lots of prayer support!
Yet more inaccuracy in Enoch is baldly demonstrated if you know from BIBLE, God's Accounting System. Look: Christ died at the end of the 3rd '490' since the Exodus (literally, at the very last minute); which means, the 4th '490' since Abram, the 5th '490' since Noah. The civilizations are not the same. Two '490' periods are esconced in each "1000", so that makes seven sets of '490', by the end of the Mill (remember, Church time is off-balance sheet). That's seven 490's, not 7 1000's. The 1000-year period is not the 'soul' of time, the 490 is. So as usual, Satan&Co. reverse soul and body: and they do it also, here. More: we also know that Christ completed the 6th "1000", if there were initially seven of them to allot -- but we also know elapsed time to 30AD, is less than 6000 years. So again, Enoch is inaccurate.
In reality, only a SINGLE "1000" remains, the Mill itself; the leftover seven years on Christ's 40 years, to parallel the same remaining ruling time as David had, is the Trib. Book of Enoch thus belies that, and its usage of New Testament concepts means the demon authors meant to deceive post-CROSS people about that fact. Going by how Peter and Paul excoriated believers who got goofy about the Rapture (i.e., Thessalonians and 2nd half of 2Pet), well.. looks like the demons did a pretty good job.
So maybe this Book of Enoch "7000" is both right AND wrong. Demons always tell the truth in order to DECEIVE. And what has been the deception all these centuries? People have interpreted the 7000 consecutively, as if elapsed time. So they have been blinded to the fact that the earth is not young (though mankind is); they have been blinded to the Daniel 9 timeline's debit-and-credit nature (despite the blatant breaking down of time into accounting pieces, since those pieces ARE consecutively-run). If you are on the wrong thinking path, you derive wrong conclusions in other areas. So all this doctrine about Time itself, has been missed. So the "redeem the time" concepts and verses in the NT, get missed. We smile, feel important for a minute.. and then go back to whatever we were, prior. Because we are ignorant of the meaning. Because we looked at Chapter 33, INSTEAD of the Bible. Yeah, that makes so much sense!
So not only is Enoch inaccurate, derisive, reversing of the True Time Element which is the Promise (the 490); but it's IRRELEVANT, to figure out how the (not-true) prior six "1000" pieces are accounted. They aren't real values, and even had they been, they are mirrored or otherwise used up. It's tempting but facile to suppose that since the time ELAPSE has not been 7000 years -- technically, here in 2006 we are in Adam's Fall Year 6112 or 6106 -- that somehow some of this is reserved for Church, and we're on a deadline. Frankly, given all the apostacy, it could well be He subtracted from that 6000, with the result that all we have left is the Mill. But that's not how God did the 490, so that's not how He's doing the 1000's. God is consistent.
So I can account for everything, totally absent Enoch. God doesn't waste time when writing Bible books. No older Bible book has been rendered redundant because of a later one. Bible books don't contradict each other, either. Daniel timeline contradicts this 7000 thingy at every turn, since Time Runs Out when that last 490, plays; no guarantee of 7000 years, but only of that last 490. Which you know for sure, because Christ had to come then, or we'd all not be here, as the math of Mirroring.htm demonstrates: especially, in its "To be or not to be" table link. Which you also know for sure post-Cross, since Christ told the apostles in Acts 1:5 that no one can predict the Rapture.
So this Book of Enoch, is meant to deceive people into TRYING to predict the Rapture, thus DISOBEYING the Lord; and it has admirably succeeded in that goal; lots of crazy stuff on the internet about this 7000 year thingy. For even if someone caught onto God's Accounting System for Time, he would still be tempted to do the calcs above and imagine that Church is 'secretly' being alloted the remainder. Which, of course, people do anyway (it's not hard to add up the begats in Gen5). Yeah, a maligning-God book's words carry more weight than the Lord's, har har har see the stupid xians!
Okay, I'm done. This exercise was very helpful. For decades, my pastor has harped at us about how Church extends Time itself. For decades, I didn't really understand what he meant. So I just rocked along, enjoying learning Bible under Him, crazy with curiosity to know God better.. still dumb as a stump about this Time structure. Guess the Holy Spirit got tired of me being dumb, for I'm sure aware, now.
Upshot: Enoch Chapter 33 (etc.) cannot be written prior to David, since the 1000 years is based on David being King, for That's The Amount Of Time Needing to Be Reimbursed THEN. So it's a fake book with a fake claim of an early author. Really bald. Further, there's zero prophecy value to Book of Enoch; it wasn't relevant pre-Flood, and post-Flood it didn't become relevant, UNTIL David became King. That's why the promise wasn't made of a King forever -- until there first, was a King to GET the Promise. Notice how the King Promise began only with The Real King of Israel, God -- back in 1440BC. God Himself Being the King, IS the Prophecy FULFILLED. So no need to say anything, there's no contingency on which to elaborate. BUT -- Israel Rejected Her King, so God Makes From David, a Replacing King; and David, doesn't reject God. Again, Book of Enoch data on 1000 and 7000 is sidelined, never needed. For We already know how much scheduled time, remains. But it hasn't started yet, and cannot start, until we Church are completed. And that criterion, is volitional, not time-based. Just as it was, for Christ.
Bible text on Enoch is always terse. Remember, in accounting you must First Account For The Why. So, then: Why is it terse, since this is one of the biggest OT heroes IN the Bible, if not the biggest one? Enoch didn't even DIE, but was so quickly mature spiritually, God just flat took him home. My pastor spent a good two weeks exegeting the "begats" in Genesis 5, showing how the names tell you all about the Divine Assessment of the person. He spent time comparing the long phrasing of the others in the Genesis 5 roster, versus the short phrasing of the sentence on Enoch. Marking him out as different, above even all those greats! So, then: WHY isn't more said about Enoch, since God is obviously stressing his spiritual growth?
Well, let's think: maybe the reason Bible text on Enoch is so terse.. is to warn AGAINST anyone giving credence to the many "books" of Adam, Seth, Enoch which abound. I've read the ones allegedly by Adam and Seth -- they were gnostic pieces. Puerile junk, much like the fake Gospels. So maybe it IS true that one verse in fake "Book of Enoch" versions got preserved. So something of the story is true, but God didn't have Moses write Canon on Enoch's ministry. Which would have been necessary, if a true Book of Enoch were out there, but lost. But not good to do, if the only extant books were false. Bible always acknowledges other Canon books. Jude quotes Enoch himself; Jude doesn't say he's referring to a quote in some BOOK of Enoch. Omniscience can give you the quotes, so the quoter doesn't need a book to quote from. They don't have to be in a book. Read Genesis sometime, see how much Moses quotes people he never knew. [Greek phrase using lego can be used to quote from a book, or from a person. "It stands written" is definitely intended to mean the person is quoting from a book. But Jude doesn't use that expression, and Bible doesn't claim that there IS a book of Enoch anywhere in the Bible. Which, it would have to do, if such a valid book existed. Else you'd have no way to know it was Canon. Again, you always proof God's Word WITH God's Word. That's how Constantine's people came up with the list, frankly; there was (and still is) much debate about what to include, based on what is in the Word everyone already could prove. Same procedure should be followed today. But isn't. We are too uninterested, now.]
Try doing just that with the other wanna-be-bible books, like "Book of Jubilees", the "Book of Jasher". You can download these from the web. Notice how each one satirically insults both God and every Biblical hero, just as the Koran does -- same kind of mind is behind each one -- and that mind is not God's. God doesn't author insults, but Satan&Co. sure do. And they go outta their way to sign whatever they author. Just as one of them did here, with the Book of Enoch. [SatStrat.htm explains their seven-charactered signature. Those characteristics are summarized in the "Micro Tactics" link of the same page, beginning with the text, "The Seven Signature Elements are". There's also a link of similar name at SatStrat's pagetop. You can spot the signature. It takes practice. Just breathe 1Jn1:9 'play' what amounts to conceptual, Biblical Scrabble...]
