"Thinking" (LordvSatan) webseries & Related Links: |Home Page| |God's System| |Introduction, assumptions| |Part I, Overview| |II, 'then'| |III, 'NOW'| |IVa: Church Alpha basis| |IVb, 'Body'| |IVc, Conflict| |IVd, Destiny| |V, Trib-Mill| |App: Satan's Strategy| |Trial Sum: Paradox of Merit| |Kingship: Due.Dilig.Disclosure| |Infinity-finity Dichotomy| |DDNA solves Dichotomy| |Spir.Pathology (viral dDNA results)|
Book of Enoch, Testing its Validity for Daniel Timeline in Part IVa, The Lord vs. Satan: SupCtHeaven
aka, the Trial of Human History.. aka, Did God err?


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...

At the moment I'm using two versions of 1Enoch, and one version 2Enoch in English translation (by Charles and Laurance), which is NOT good to do. However, no translation can hide DERISION and flagrant contradiction which is widespread. Hence the bullets below constitute an initial reconnoitering. A later version of BibleWorks than I have, includes this Book in its earliest Greek and Latin texts, as well as in English.

So let's test this Book of Enoch as we should. It's incredible how much garbage exists on the web regarding this Book. Man loves titillation, so whenever a book offers controversy or titillation, That is how people view the book, never stopping to ask the right questions. The right question is, "IF this if from God, how do I prove it, versus a counterfeit lie from the demonboys or ranting humans?" You prove the Word of God WITH the Word of God, always. And IN the Holy Spirit, breathing 1Jn1:9 in God's System, as you do so. Very simple procedure. Very time-consuming. But good scholarship is always time-consuming. You don't operate on hearsay in the courtroom, so you don't operate on hearsay (what others say about a holy book) here. God's Word is always on Trial.

The "Enoch" books we have are NOT Biblical, because
  1. Many of the terms didn't exist until Moses or the NT. So the Book of Enoch might betray a younger 'age' than it claims. Hi, I was written VERY LATE but I'm PRETENDING to be early. This is very much like catching a child with his hand in the cookie jar; so when the child denies he was taking a cookie, you just smile...

    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.

      So it's a flat lie that a group of men decide what is and is not Canon. GOD decides. All too many councils and religious leaders take credit over the centuries for what only GOD can prove. Debates never ended, either. So yeah, a bunch of guys back in Constantine's day really tried to separate the sheep from the goats, and they were very sincere about it; but.. they didn't pick ALL the books properly. And ever since, stupid people just let the 'scholars' tell them what is and is not Holy Writ. But they always make mistakes, they always debate, and they always forget that the Holy Spirit can empower anyone He wants to WRITE Divine Writ (which is why they keep arguing -- they aren't asking the Right Person). Because, only God is Perfect. So you verify everything with HIM. The Real God really knows His Word And Can Really Prove It To You. All you need, is to be positive, in His System. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. And if you start doing it, He'll respond. So then HE is proving it to you, as always. God and God alone! There's only ONE Go-Between, Christ. So now that you're saved, you get communication from God directly.

    So, you can TRACE that gradual revelation, by the Bible terms used and later UPGRADED (e.g., Rev17 is an upgrade on the harlotry-of-religion image, in the OT). You won't find "computer" in any Bible book. You won't find "telephone" in any Bible book. And You Won't Find What God Didn't Give To Earlier Generations, In Genuine Bible Books FOR those generations. Because God is not going to talk about, say, "computers" -- until the generation that will be needing or using them.

      Even when speaking prophetically, the Bible uses Terms You Can Date In Their Own Time. So Revelation, for example, doesn't talk tanks, but does pictorially describe what we TODAY would recognize as tanks. So if the word "tanks" was IN the original-language text of Revelation (in Greek), we'd know that word in the Book was a FRAUD of the 20th century; for that's when tanks were invented. See? The hand would be in the cookie jar!

      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.

    However, translations use terms which are familiar to current readers. So those translated words might not be in the original. So you can't tell if you've got a fraud, from a translation. This is the problem we have with the Book of Enoch: we don't have the original-language texts. We know we don't, because the texts' languages we have, did not EXIST back when Enoch existed. That fact is a RED FLAG, as you'll soon see.

    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".

      Gratuitous Extra Comment: A lot of Bible debunkers thus make fools of themselves when looking at later books of Bible which change place (or people) names, not knowing the 'update' rule. For example, in the OT, "Mt. Moriah" is later designated "Mt. Zion"; because the name changed, you know WHEN to date the writing AND HOW TO USE the text doctrinally. So it's not a contradiction. Bible debunkers also don't know the fallacy of dating a book based on media age: so they exclaim the Bible is LATER than other religious books, because lo! The manuscript's AGE, is 400AD! How embarrassing for them. [Also, Bible will call the same place by an older or later name To Reference What Time Period Applies. So when the writer of Hebrews says "you have come to Mount Zion", he refers to the Doctrine about the Change of Status in Mt. Moriah. It's kinda like the difference between saying "Abram" (pre-circumcision, pre-Isaac) and "Abraham" (post-Isaac, promise fulfilled).]

    So you have to find out whether the original text of the Book of Enoch, used such anachronistic terms. So I'd have to see the Book's original-language texts, to find that hand in the cookie jar. I can't tell from the translation, whether or not the translator was revising the text for the convenience of his contemporary readers. That's a valid thing to do. But it signifies fraud if the underlying original text, also uses such "anachronisms".

    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!

      The Bible we have, is in languages we can date. The OT was originally in Hebrew (and several other old languages, mixed with the Hebrew); and we not only can prove that, but copies OF that very ancient Hebrew, have been preserved. Same, for the NT's multiple-Greek tongues.

      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.

    Here's why these facts about the original-language texts, are critical to your spiritual life. Not just interesting, but a life-and-death matter. You need Counterfeit Detectors against false teaching and false translation. If you don't have the original-language texts to check, you have no clue whether you are getting the TRUTH. Think of it as Freedom-of-Information.

      For example, there's a great deal of both false translation and false teaching, and you can prove all of it is due to not using the original-language texts properly. Even the higher-ranking Biblical scholars have been terribly remiss in not noticing how often the Septuagint is directly quoted in the NT. It's not as though the lexicons, didn't spend a lot of time COMPARING the Hebrew and Greek counterparts, because the Lord and the NT writers used the LXX so much. But those lexicons, just gather dust. And the dust, chokes our understanding of Him. We are dead men, walking in a whirlwind of swirling darkness (metaphor in 1Jn1), even though saved. Thinking we are in the Light.

      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...

  2. Next problem category, Book of Enoch's CONTRADICTING account of same things Bible already explains. For example, "Enoch" Chapter 2 versus the Bible account of the Flood in Gen6, seems very contradictory. Book of Enoch provides a rather bizarre scenario which is nowhere in Scripture. On smaller details, there are also contradictions. For in Genesis 6, God says that rain had not come upon the earth until the Flood; but Enoch 2 (and elsewhere) in translation, says there was always rain. There's also the problem of "seasons" being claimed in Enoch, which aren't discussed in Bible until after the Flood: takes too long to explain this problem.

    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.

  3. There are Disconsonate Differences In The Writing Style, Suggestive Of Different Authors, so maybe part of the Book is valid, but part is corrupted (adulterated). Chapters 1-4, 39-51, are kinda like Bible's: sorta laconic, using stock imagery for the sake of deft economy of communication. In these chapters however, the writing style -- again, this is a tentative observation from a translation! -- isn't as metaphorically-dense as I'd expect, for an OT book. It's more abstract, like an NT book, though it's also like Job (which is the oldest version of Hebrew we know of, if I remember my pastor's comments correctly). Well, that's yet another major category of analysis, in textual criticism.

  4. There are Math Errors. Ok, but math errors are claimed in the Bible all the time: yeah, but on closer inspection, it's the one crying "Error!" who's mistaken. So maybe that's true here, as well. Enoch Chapter 58 it says Enoch got a vision in his 500th year. Well, that's impossible. Enoch lived as many years as the solar calendar has days, 365: see the Gen5 roster. However, maybe the "500" in the Book of Enoch we have, is a textual error or a typo; I'm only scanning the translation I got from reluctant-messenger.com, thus far. It's also possible that this whole Book of Enoch is really the Book of Noah, misnamed, and with corrupted text; so maybe Noah is recounting the story back from the days of Enoch and the vision given him: for we know God made a contract with Noah when Noah was 500 years old, per Genesis 5 (compare to "Book of Enoch" chapter 10, v.1). If God gives you something to write, you didn't have to be there to properly report it. No humans but Adam and the woman were in the Garden, but Moses could write accurately about them. So it's possible we have adulterated text, some of which is genuinely from God. Research in Bible or maybe-Bible stuff, is never simple. Nor should it be. It's always a house-to-house fight, when it comes to validating what is from God. Our sins weren't paid for with ease, and our learning of Bible isn't easy, either. If it were easy, then it would be humanly possible. But God is out to prove that He doesn't want what is humanly possible, which is why works never save anything. Not even, your own daily life: notice how you gotta keep taking a shower over and over? Hint hint!

  5. There are many other anti-Bible problems with the text; but you shorten search time if you first look for DERISION. Obviously God will not deride Himself nor the heroes He makes. But demon-sponsored stuff derides God, and pointedly, too. First signature characteristic of their stuff will be incredibly witty, slapstick derision in the text. Well, "Enoch" Chapters 5-17 (and passim after that, especially Chapters 32, 52ff!) are flagrantly anti-Biblical, derisively-lurid in the style of the fake Gospels and other against-God tripe. Chapter 5-17 contradicts Bible in its Doctrine: God doesn't send men to rebuke angels, even as He forbids men pray to angels (all the idol passages in Bible, are described as demon-sponsored, so that's why you pray to no one but God Himself). Read Jude on the rebuke issue. Worse, these "Enoch" chapters basically deride God and deride Enoch, which is a classic sign of satanic sponsorship of a holy book (make God and the heroes He builds, look like fools). Read the Koran also, because the Chapter 12-17 style of "Enoch", is very similar to the Koran (i.e., "Jesus" passages in the Mary sura and elsewhere, plus Iblis passages). The Koran was written far later than "Enoch", and yet the style is so alike? Hmmm. Humans don't live that long...

      In all fake holy books, the angels are particularly chatty. Bible's angels, by contrast, are to-the-point, even laconic in communication. Chattiness is nearly a litmus test, because it so quickly predicts the ultimate 'guilt' of demonic origin. Chattiness is an inferior quality. Concept of running-at-the-mouth, of being controlled by a demon (etymologically). [Isaiah 28's "tsav lasav" quotes are designed to mimic Gentile/drunken/mindless speech and also roteness-of-religion. Demon possession or influence results in "lalew", Greek verb of the engastrumuthos demon controlling your vocal chords. So you blither. Since Satan&Co. obviously know this theme in Bible, they practice and mimic it to 'advertise' their sponsorship.] Ok, then: the angels in the Book of Enoch are incredibly chatty. Koran's "Gabriel" is verbose. Moroni, in Book of Mormon, can't shut up. Fluff phrases abound, etc. So the chattiness index of the Book of Enoch, renders it suspicious.

      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!

        I have to explain Gen3:11, or you won't get the joke. That verse is mistranslated in every Bible language and every Bible version I can read, going all the way back to 1550. In the Hebrew, "nagath" means to DENOUNCE, but it's translated "tell". See for yourself. Now: compare the meaning if the correct "DENOUNCE" is used, versus the "tell" you have in translation, with the surrounding text beginning at Gen2:24. Do you see how the mistranslation, denounces God? For it makes Him look as if He either a) withheld information, or b) lied to them (about being naked). Ok: but then how could they be naked and not ashamed, if they didn't know they were naked? Can't be 'ashamed' or not, unless you know something. So now: compare to the end of this Enoch Chapter 32! Do you see? Surely this chapter is demon authored. Only demons are clever enough to realize the screw up in the translation of Gen3:11, to write Enoch32 as they do. Which means, translations of Genesis EXISTED at the time this "Enoch 32" was written. So that part of the text was NOT written pre-Flood, or even pre-Israel, get it? Funny how knowing the original-language texts of Bible causes you to be able to detect counterfeits in other books, huh.

        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?

      And just for added fun, the text makes it appear as though Adam and Eve were Enoch's parents! Well, maybe the original text is more precise, I'd have to check. Do ya notice how Enoch is DROOLING over Satan's Tree? Would a guy so great a hero, do that? Do you see how the angel he's talking with, makes fun of him? Do you think the Holy Spirit had anything whatsoever to do with this chapter?

      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.)

  6. The (variant forms of the) "Book of Enoch" we have is awfully clever; it's a cut above human intelligence, in some of its usages, particularly with respect to allusive play on BIBLE verses. Which matters, because this "Book of Enoch" would be, if valid, actually the first-written book of the Bible. So it shouldn't be ALLUDING to other Bible verses which didn't yet exist. That's a serious RED FLAG to investigate. Just as in #1, late vocabulary proves false a claim of early authorship; so also books alluding to 'future' Bible verses, scream: Hi, I was written LATE but I PRETEND to be EARLY; but since you're too bored to learn Bible, you'll mistake my obviously LATE writing date.. for 'prophecy'. Because you want to believe it's early so you can call yourself special because you know this. Hoax, like 'Piltdown Man'! And we are the fools! Phony as a lead nickel. But someone will try to spend it anyhow...

    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).

  7. Book of Enoch has uncharacteristic specificities. Chapter 36 of 2Enoch claims God took him 30 days after giving him the revelation to pass on -- you don't find Bible giving "30 days" notice. It's either much longer, or unstated, or "tomorrow". Bible goes by precedence. So if Book of Enoch were valid, it would set Precedence. In which case, we'd have a whole lot of 30-day-notices in the Bible. But, we don't. So, that's a Red Flag, too. Here, we also know the warning began before "Methusaleh" was born, since "Methusaleh" IS the Living Warning, and Enoch lived another 300 years after that; but see Chap82 of Book of Enoch, which sounds a bit more sensible. It IS common for a departing prophet to put in writing at that time what he learned from God AS a legacy for future generations; that's why the Gospels are in writing a generation later. But the reduction to writing, isn't the first warning, but the last one; it generally occurs after a lifetime of prophesying in person. Pick any OT prophet you like, to see that pattern play in the OT (usually at beginning or the end of a prophet's books will be some command from God telling him to put the revelation in writing).

      So "30 days"? Well, it could be allusive of 300 years (day=year) in deliberate metaphor, but Methusaleh was only born then. So why, in 2Enoch, is our Dedicated prophet talking to a newly-born child? Makes him look like a fool (derision, again). Or, why is he given only 30 days' notice to communicate and teach what he wrote? Doesn't make sense; God is thus derided, for being so perfunctory about what's supposed to be an eternal teaching aid for the kids. And most importantly, this specific-notice-period isn't echoed in what are supposed to be later Bible books: not one OT prophet is given a specific notice like the one in Book of Enoch. So if the Book of Enoch were valid, then every OT prophet's write-a-book command, would likewise have a dated 'notice'. So this Book of Enoch is likely INvalid, k?

      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...

  8. The so-called Book (Apocalypse) of Noah, Chapter 60, says Enoch's vision began Year 500 (again in translation, who knows if that's what the original says) -- but that date doesn't work either, because Enoch wasn't even born until 622 years after Adam's fall; Noah was born 69-70 years after Enoch's death, so that wipes out the Biblicity of Chapter 65, too. Naturally, both Chapters deride both Noah and Enoch. Demon-authored books are like that.

  9. But hey: in Chapter 65 (like Chap32, #5 above), the same accusation is made, as in Gen3 -- oh, God is WITHHOLDING information from mankind, and punished the angels for giving that WITHHELD information TO mankind! Naughty Naughty God, huh. For in Chapter 65, God is supposedly punishing mankind due to angels giving him forbidden knowledge of metallurgy, etc.? Does no one read Genesis 4-5, which explains how that knowledge was derived by man? So oh no -- God unfairly punishes, because useful knowledge He had ordered HIDDEN, being revealed. Contrast that with the real reason Real God mentions, at the beginning of Genesis 6. We must have cotton for brains, to just accept any old book as Holy Writ because it sorta sounds like Bible. Sure, there might be some scraps of lost Bible verses in here; and no doubt some valid truths (demons skew truth, so they use truth); but this Book is absolutely NOT Canon -- well, it's part of the canon of demons, that's for sure. Different "c", for "circus": there's a sucker born every minute, as P.T. Barnum would say. It's all downhill from Chapter 65.

      God is Truth. So to accuse God of hiding anything, is to call Him a liar, and a sadist. Your typical Fake holy book which alleges to be Biblical or updating the Bible, ALWAYS ACCUSES GOD Of HIDING something. This accusation will be couched in flowery language, and play off Bible verses: oh, you special person, you get this Hidden Manna, which others were denied. That's a blatant reference to the term "mystery" which is in the NT, and the fake holy book is deriding the term. With the poor sop who's told he's special, too impressed with himself to recognize he's being ridiculed. (Same kind of thing happens with fake visions, 'UFO Visitors', 'ghosts', etc. You're supposed to feel privy, so you will just swallow the lies told you.) The Biblical term "mystery" Is Greek "musterion" which means doctrine only known to a select group. Now, think: the NT is a published book. Anyone anywhere in the world can get it. So nothing is hidden. In fact, the Greek word for truth, "aletheia", literally means "nothing hidden".

      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!

  10. Oh, LOL! The 'secret knowledge' presented in Enoch, ISN'T EVEN SECRET -- even if you fantasized the physical as representing the unseen. For anyone can look up or around, and observe how things work. Genesis 1, inter alia, Tells you the physical is DESIGNED to communicate what you can't see, so you can understand GOD better (see parallel passage, in Rom1). It, like all Bible books, goes to some trouble to precisely explain (in the Heb and Greek texts) how the universe is constructed; so much so, you can actually resolve current cosmology conundra (see Evolshort.htm "Key to Solution" link). So what's secret? So HOW is God hiding anything? You can bleeping look up at the sky and learn a lot! God reveals all before your eyes: that's how we learned these sciences -- by OBSERVATION. Again: what's the secret? Where is anything hidden? Again, the demon boys play with "hidden" because of the richness of satirical wordplay, compared to wordplay in Bible (which isn't supposed to exist when Enoch is written). But even so -- nothing is hidden. Again, the alpha-privative negative, a+letheia (unhidden, aka "the truth").

      Of course, many of these secrets in Book of Enoch, don't agree with either science or Genesis. There aren't nine heavens, but three, per Bible. Science can't detect any of them. No bad angels are imprisoned in heaven, but under the earth, per Bible. The other stuff which doesn't contradict, yet supposedly secret is prosaic; and already IN Bible. And already observable, Bible or no Bible. Big whoop.

      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.]

  11. 2Enoch begins anti-Biblically, saying Enoch was 165 (versus the Bible's age 65) when Methusaleh was born. Worse, it's in first person, and he says how long he LIVED, past tense! Now how can he write while still alive, and say how long his lifespan WAS? Do you see who's being ridiculed, here? The reader! Oh, this is classic! For obvious DERISION is a hallmark characteristic of demon-sponsored stuff. Yet Christians believe in this book? Yet Masons USE this book? LOL! See how they are being made fools for not knowing their own Bibles?

    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!

      Book of Mormon is rife with stuff like this, too. The trip to America from Jerusalem starts with the Holy Spirit playing the role of an engastramuthos demon inside Nephi, faking Laban's voice -- AFTER having commanded Nephi to MURDER Laban and don his clothing. You realize, of course, that makes the Holy Spirit a demon, a liar, and a murderer with no decency (desecrating the victim, afterwards). If that's how 'God' delivered his people to America, then THAT 'God' is no god. It's clear that Mormons don't know their own holy writ, either. Mormons are some of the nicest people on earth. So are many Muslims. And both groups tend to be smart and hard-working. So how is it, that they are so fooled? Breaks one's heart. No wonder Christ yearned to go to the Cross (Luke 22:19, Heb12:2). Anything, to save these people!

      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.

    Oh! In Chapter 3 Enoch's DEAD! So who is writing? Oh, Enoch is still writing! Yeah, we believed the other lies, so what the hey. Who remembers Chapter 1:3, when he says he "COMPLETED all the years of my life" as of the day the angels come for him? This is not the same as Paul's being stoned to death and then resuscitated, yet it's in a similar format (see 2Cor12). Of course, Paul's experience wasn't supposed to exist yet. Note more parallels: in Enoch Chapter 36, God sends him back and THEN gives him only 30 days to tell his sons, what took Enoch himself months to learn. Then Enoch is to die (per Chapter 36). And we are supposed to believe God would be so unfair. Yet Paul got years of life after his post-death experience in the third heaven (the highest level, in BIBLE), and was NOT supposed to talk about it, when resuscitated. And his downtime was all on the same DAY (he was stoned to death, and then suddenly seemed alive, Acts 14:19). [My pastor taught extensively about this. If you have the same pastor, get the "Paul's Fall" tapes from May 1999 et seq., 92SD.]

    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.

  12. In sum: lots of fluff in Enoch, but no substance. You learn nothing of value. By Chapter 40, 'Enoch' is supposedly telling his children all wisdom. But look what that 'wisdom' was: mere stuff (supposedly) about the construction of the heavens and the earth, how they got there, and he saw the Lord face to face. Well, sheesh -- that's all better stated, in Genesis and Job. Not at all secret, but EXPECTED knowledge. God is INSTRUCTING you, and you are expected to know, Romans 1! This knowledge wasn't secret before Genesis was written, either: because Genesis is written axiomatically; so Moses is just putting in writing, stuff people already knew. And why? Oh, because the Exodus just occurred, and now it's important the Nation Set Straight What Really Happened From The Beginning, stripped of all the gossip-barnacles which accumulated over the centuries! And why is that? Because due to the Exodus, people started recognizing the Real God; and their Enquiring Minds, wanted to really know! First-hand information, not the child's game of telephone (pssst pssst change story pssst pssst reverse details pssst pssst cat-becomes-dog).

    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...

  13. However: in that 2Enoch Chapter 33, its Chapter 16, and 1Enoch Chapter 71ff, 'he' talks about stuff related to God's Accounting System for Time (the two books seem to contradict each other, but I'm only skimming). Reading between the lines, one might find useful information. Chapter 71ff description is replete with intercalation and the -1 nesting function (which is why the year is reckoned as 364 days, not 365). Even a demon-authored book will have truth in it: just be careful how you use the data. You use the data to find the WORDPLAYS, for they will be playing on BIBLE verses. When you figure out which wordplays, then you can search in BIBLE. At which point, you will find the right version. That would save me time, else I have to go looking for soundplay and wordplay on end-times, 1000 years, in Psalms, Isaiah, etc. Would take me decades, absent some litmus. And this kind of parody offers a great litmus. Every time.

    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.

      Prophecy is about the Fulfillment Of A Promise PREVIOUSLY Made, always. That's why you get the prophecy, in the first place. So back in Gen3:15, the first prophecy was based on the previous promise that Adam and the woman would be saved: so the "head..heel" clause was prophetic, yet stating the promise again. Ok: but Adam and the woman weren't promised how that would be done. Abel sacrifices lambs, so they knew that much. We know from the Genesis 5 roster that all those believers knew eventually their Savior would be born from their loins, culminating in Abraham. But Abraham wasn't told where his not-yet-existing-kids, would be going for the 400 years of slavery. So we see that the promise was gradually clarified (same thing happened to Noah, compare Gen6 and covenant after Noah landed back on earth). Jacob's deathbed blessing, added some. And why? Because until an Individual Existed to Get More, more could not be given. You don't prophesy what cannot be told (i.e., the injunction for Paul not to say what he saw in the third heaven, what John heard the thunders say). And you cannot tell more, until there is a recipient: um, a person has to be ALIVE, to hear a prophecy. All Bible's covenants are to Individuals (i.e., even the lone Conditional Covenant to Israel was crafted based on Moses, see Jochebed link in MisTrans.htm). So if that individual is not yet ALIVE, there's no one to tell.

    So we need Bible, not pseudopigrapha; Book of Enoch is at least overkill (if we gloss over its derision). So it will only be useful to find derisive wordplays to shorten my search in BIBLE for more "1000" info, etc.

  14. Most importantly: if there was a genuine Book of Enoch, Moses would have mentioned it, for then Moses would not have been the first one to write Canon. It's sheer garbage-talk scholars make about some Bible writer 'compiling' prior material, to get what he wrote. God never works that way, never claims to work that way, but always gives the information directly to His prophets. So you always find refrains in the Bible, "thus says The LORD"; not, 'thus says the compilation I dredged up.' Sheesh. Scripture is what God says about a subject. So only GOD can be the source. You might know I have a house, I might know you have a house, and yes we can compile data about each other's houses. Whoopee. Two mouths. But what GOD says about the houses, would be important. Else, you and I can just blab all day together, wasting time. Sheesh.

    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.]

So you read fake holy books the way a CIA agent used to read Pravda newspapers -- Pravda="Truth" in Russian, what a cynical name -- back during the days of the Soviet Union. Between the propagandic lines, you learn things. All the news you hear on television is partly skewed away from the truth; it's designed to get you to 'buy' a certain opinion. You're better off scanning the AP wire, the Reuters wire, watching CSPAN. So too, with Bible: Go To The Source. So, too, with the holy books which are fake. Especially because, whenever Satan&Co. author a tract, they DO use truth. So their stuff helps you recognize truth in BIBLE you didn't know or overlooked. See: they know Scripture better than any of us. So they make running commentaries on it, via their own fake stuff. So if you learn to read between their lines, you'll see them reference valid doctrines (which they burlesque) -- doctrines you maybe didn't see, prior. They always point at Christ, yelling how True He is.

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...]