Talks on the book of Enoch: IF BUT POSSIBLY!

Posted: May 1, 2011 in Book of Enoch
Tags: , , , , , , ,

This comes from someone who likes to refer to himself as a minister. This is his defence of the book of Enoch and the subject that the sons of God were fallen angels. His response is almost typical full of “IF”, “BUT”, “POSSIBLY”, attitude.

I don’t hold Enoch to be scripture so it’s not really something I worry about. However it does reflect that the belief in angels having sex with women and creating hybrid offspring dates back to long before Christ. Parts of the Book of Enoch were in the Septuagint, but not the whole book in it’s current form. People make a big deal about skeletons as if stuff can’t be hidden or destroyed. The Catholic Church destroyed lots of stuff during their reign. We know the governments of the world hide stuff all the time. How would giants help their case for evolution? It wouldn’t. With that said, I asked some of these researches that go overboard to show me a reference to a 36ft. tall pre-flood giant and so far nothing… I asked for the reference because some of them like to make fools of them selves in an attempt to be sarcastic by saying “I don’t see 36ft. tall giants walking around like they were before the flood.” The fact is, no where in the Bible does it mention 36ft. tall giants. As you’ve correctly stated, 13.5 feet is the biggest number the Bible gives. However it does refer to the Amorites being as tall as the cedars, and that was post flood. We also have to take into account that the flood destroyed tons of stuff and altered natural formation… with that said, I don’t think they were 450 ft. tall. What I think probably happened is that people tampered with the translation in order to make it sound non-credible. Not really something I’ve spent a lot of time on. What I can say for a fact is that Goliath was 9.9′ tall and Og was at least 13.5′ tall. Beyond that I don’t know how big they got. When the supernatural is involved almost anything is possible.

 This ministers opening salvo should make any Christian very concerned. “I don’t hold Enoch to be scripture so it’s not really something I worry about”.  If this man was a genuine believer he would be concerned.  The fact that the Book of Enoch contradicts the testimony of the scripture means we should reject it as false.  But this minister in his efforts to support some of these wild claims is prepared to cling to this book.  His unbelief goes on to say “it does reflect that the belief in angels having sex with women and creating hybrid offspring”,  So he is saying even thought it contradict scripture and is not inspired he will choose to believe in it.  Further more he rejects the obvious discrepancies.  The ideas of giants which are 36 feet tall are simply ignored as exaggeration.  Yet even with this contradiction he wants people to embrace this heretical book.  The terrible issue is that if you just happened to be on the tall side then your DNA has been tampered with by demons.  This is nothing but the height of ignorance towards people who are tall.  I know Christians who lead worship and are very tall.  Their parents were Christians. Yet to imply that demons, contrary to scripture had sex with a Christian woman. What an indictment on anyone with a tall child. Plus where are these very very tall giants today, they are nowhere to be found.

In order to get around the obvious embarrassing questions concerning the high of these giants, his response is:  “I think probably happened is that people tampered with the translation in order to make it sound non-credible” 

Now if the book has been tampered with as he claims, who is too say that the whole book is just one made up fabricated piece of rubbish.  The fact that he wants people to believe in the Book, and yet simply overlook the obvious falsehoods in the book is the height of incredible foolishness.  When all else fails he throws in the supernatural card “When the supernatural is involved almost anything is possible.”  As if we should be impressed.  This is still the “If but maybe possible”  A giant leap of the imagination demanding that people should be gullible enough to embrace these fantasies.

HOW DID ABEL SACRIFICED.?

 Gen 4:4   And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Hbr 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Book of Enoch, chapter 69:4-6And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men] the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons.

 Now according to the book of Enoch demons gave man the ability to kill, so where does Abel get his wisdom from when he sacrificed a sheep.    If he got it from demons then his ability to sacrifice his sheep was directly based upon the occult (demons).  So why would God then recomend Abels sacrifice  if the wisdom came from demons?

WHAT IS WRITTEN IS NOW FORBIDDEN?

We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:8-12

“8 …And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the 9 children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to 10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation 11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power 12 it is consuming me.”

“What … man’s wisdom came from a demon named Penemue? That’s crazy! Did ink and paper cause the fall of the human race? Whoa … I’d better throw all my fine-point pens away immediately! It was Adam’s sin that brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12); not evil literature. Mankind is inherently evil of himself, prone to the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Men and women sin because they are sinners! (Romans 3:10,23). Although demons definitely influence mankind to do evil, the ultimate decision is OURS. The Devil cannot force anyone to sin. People need to stop blaming demons and the Devil for their sins, and start looking into the mirror. God has promised to help His children live right… “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1st Corinthians 10:13). No excuses”

men were created exactly like the angels” Where in the Bible are we told that that men were created in the image of angels.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The fact that man was not created “exactly” like the angels, but in the image of God. So again we have this contradiction, and yet we are expected to take this book as being historical.

DEMONIC COPULATION WITH COWS.

 Enoch 86.3-4  And, again, I saw in the vision and looked up at Heaven, and behold, I saw many stars, how they came down, and were thrown down from Heaven to that first star, and fell amongst those heifers and bulls. They were with them pasturing amongst them.  And I looked at them and saw, and behold, all of them let out their private parts, like horses, and began to mount the cows of the bulls. And they all became pregnant and bore elephants, camels, and asses.

Suddenly we have angels not just having sex with women but also animals (cows) which then brought forth “ elephants, camels, and donkeys” So now animals which obviously survived the flood and were even taken onto the ark were the product of demonic copulation.  Now if God intended to destroy this demonic copulation then it would seem he not just failed but he also encouraged the continuation by allowing them onto Noah’s ark. Now can you see the absolute stupidity of believing such tripe?  Can we honestly believe that elephants camels and donkeys came because of demonic copulation?

Not only does this go against the Biblical order that every creature would reproduce after its own kind. We somehow are to believe that angels were able to circumvent Gods divine order and God stands back powerless to stop it.  Then GOD goes out and punishes those who were the victims of such crimes.   This would present us with a God who is a vindictive inept brute that punished victims of someone else’s disobedience.

 Now even worse is written in the book of Enoch that at times I am not even sure the drivel which is written is even readable

Chapter 89 starts talking about a white bullock that becomes a man who made for himself a large vessel, who lived in this vessel with three other  bullocks.  I can only presume they are talking about Noah here.  But Noah was never an animal. Now we are told that the elephant’s camels and donkeys  (asses) were “ALL” drowned in the flood, which makes it even stranger that we see such animals today.  Now we are then told that these  “bullocks came out of this vessel (ark) one was white , red and black. 

Enoch 89.10 And they began to beget wild animals and birds, so that there arose from them every kind of species: lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, hyenas, wild-boars, foxes, badgers, pigs, falcons, vultures, kites, eagles, and ravens. But amongst them was born a white bull.

This type of thinking may be more in line with some aborigional fork lore than any historical validity.  We are somehoe supposed to believe that Noah and his children physically produced all the animals that we know see, including those animals  which were the product of demonic copulation.

Compare this with scripture.  We are told who and what went into the ark.

Gen 7: 7, 9 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Gen 7: 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life.

This tells us that God took animals into the ark of ALL Flesh.  That would seem to discount animals being the product of demonic copulation.  It was these animals which emerged from the ark.  They certainly did not arise because Noah or his family physically  birthed them.

It should be noticed that righteousness is not even mentioned in Enoch 89.   We are simple told that a bullock became a man and lived with three other bullocks.  It should be noted that there were Noah , his wife, three sons and their wives and that makes “8”.  So where does these three bullocks come into this story.  Again it would seem that the book of Enoch is at odds with scripture.

The notes that go with this are even more confusing. because they now say that the white bull was Abraham?

“The white bull at the end of 89.10 is Abraham (possibly 2166 – 1991 BC). At 89.11 there is Abraham’s son Ishmael (2080 BC) the wild ass, and Isaac (2066 BC) the white bull.  Isaac has a wild boar, Esau, and a white sheep that is Jacob (2006 BC). At the end of 89.12 Jacob has twelve sons – the patriarchs of the 12 tribes. At 89.13 Joseph is sold to the Ishmaelites or Midianites (asses) and then (1898 BC) to the Egyptians (wolves), see also Genesis 37.25 and 39.1″

But this simply does not fit the story line that is expounded in Enoch 89.10- and begeting all these animals .  Not even Abraham could take that title. As far as I can see someone is making things up as they go along.  Basically they have absolutly No idea what it all means , so shove something in and maybe the more guliable among us will believe it.

 We can only imagine that anyone who claims to be a minister teaching such confusion must be very confused himself.  I would also go so far as to say that even his own respose undermines his position.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s