Excerpts from Enoch

[atpollard]

@pinacled

Now wait just a minute there!
Who doesn’t like the “The Irish Rovers” and the Unicorn Song?
That’s unnatural.

 

[NathanH83]

Excerpt Two
Enoch 7:1-5
And the women became pregnant and bore great giants of three thousand cubits, who devoured the labors of people. And when the people were not able to sustain them, the giants dared (to attack) them, and they devoured the people. And they began to sin with birds and wild animals and reptiles and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink blood. Then the earth appealed against the lawless ones.

In this text the women give brith to giants who are 3000 cubits. These giants were so large and ate so much that there was not enough food to feed them so the giants resorted to eating the people who fed them.

Just for comparison the ark was only 300 cubits long. If we accept the standard length of a cubit as 18 inches, then t300 cubits would be equal to 4500 feet. The worlds tallest being is the Burj Khalifa (Dubai, United Arab Emirate) and it is only 2,722 feet tall.

My copy says 3,000 ells, which is even longer than a cubit.

Whatever the case, the Ethiopian version has this ridiculous number for the height of the giants. But there is also a Greek version of Enoch found which does not contain this measurement. It says nothing about 3,000 cubits, or ells, or whatever.

The most likely conclusion is that this is an exaggeration that was added to the text. Probably wasn’t in the original. So I really don’t see that as being a big issue.

 

[Origen]

Whatever the case, the Ethiopian version has this ridiculous number for the height of the giants. But there is also a Greek version of Enoch found which does not contain this measurement. It says nothing about 3,000 cubits, or ells, or whatever.

The most likely conclusion is that this is an exaggeration that was added to the text. Probably wasn’t in the original. So I really don’t see that as being a big issue.

Allow me to fill in the many gaps left and correct misleading comments with accurate and honest information. It is the only way to truly understand any issue.

First, the figure 3,000 cubits is found in Codex Panopolitanus. This codex dates to the 5th or 6th century and is the oldest Greek source we have on that section of 1 Enoch.

Second, the figure 300 ells is found in the Ethiopian manuscripts. It is the majority reading in those manuscripts.

Third, the Greek version of Enoch mentioned above is not a manuscript of 1 Enoch or anything like that. It is an 8th-century document titled Chronographia Universalis by the Byzantine historian George Syncellus. The fact is we simply don't know why Syncellus does not mention their size.

Now from a text critical point of view, both the oldest Greek and the majority Ethiopian manuscripts favor a larger number, either 3000 or 300. The fact that Syncellus does not mention their size means nothing.

 

[pinacled]

My copy says 3,000 ells, which is even longer than a cubit.

Whatever the case, the Ethiopian version has this ridiculous number for the height of the giants. But there is also a Greek version of Enoch found which does not contain this measurement. It says nothing about 3,000 cubits, or ells, or whatever.

The most likely conclusion is that this is an exaggeration that was added to the text. Probably wasn’t in the original. So I really don’t see that as being a big issue.

Heheh, why make such a big deal about a mountain.

 

[pinacled]

Please named the Greek manuscript.

No need to ask such a question.

Now is the time to turn the table of fire good sir

 

[NathanH83]

How about a less subjective argument against 1 Enoch:

Who built Noah’s Ark?

Who built Solomon's temple?

Did Solomon himself build it? Or did his forced laborers build it?
One place in 1 Kings says Solomon built it. But in another place it says his forced laborers built it.

"The temple that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high."
-Kings 6:2

"So Solomon built the temple and completed it."
-Kings 6:14

"Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the Lord’s temple, his own palace,..."
1 Kings 9:15

SUCH A CONTRADICTION!!!

In the same way...

Genesis says Noah built the ark. But Enoch says angels built it.

CONTRADICTION!!!

Really?

Give me a break. These arguments are ridiculous.
What's the contradiction? What, we can't say that Noah built it because the angels were helping him? In that case, then we can't say Solomon built the temple since he had slaves helping him.

Is this really the best evidence against the book of Enoch? I mean, seriously. Are there any REAL contradictions in the book of Enoch?

I know of at least 3 obvious, clear, and undeniable contradictions in the book of Jasher, because that book is an obvious fraud. But what contradictions can we honestly say are in the book of Enoch?

 

[pinacled]

Who built Solomon's temple?

Did Solomon himself build it? Or did his forced laborers build it?
One place in 1 Kings says Solomon built it. But in another place it says his forced laborers built it.

"The temple that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high."
-Kings 6:2

"So Solomon built the temple and completed it."
-Kings 6:14

"Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the Lord’s temple, his own palace,..."
1 Kings 9:15

SUCH A CONTRADICTION!!!

In the same way...

Genesis says Noah built the ark. But Enoch says angels built it.

CONTRADICTION!!!

Really?

Give me a break. These arguments are ridiculous.
What's the contradiction? What, we can't say that Noah built it because the angels were helping him? In that case, then we can't say Solomon built the temple since he had slaves helping him.

Is this really the best evidence against the book of Enoch? I mean, seriously. Are there any REAL contradictions in the book of Enoch?

I know of at least 3 obvious, clear, and undeniable contradictions in the book of Jasher, because that book is an obvious fraud. But what contradictions can we honestly say are in the book of Enoch?

You know who builds a temple to ole sh'lomo and ignores wisdom.

Its the 33rd step to masonry.

 

[NathanH83]

Allow me to fill in the many gaps left and correct misleading comments with accurate and honest information. It is the only way to truly understand any issue.

First, the figure 3,000 cubits is found in Codex Panopolitanus. This codex dates to the 5th or 6th century and is the oldest Greek source we have on that section of 1 Enoch.

Second, the figure 300 ells is found in the Ethiopian manuscripts. It is the majority reading in those manuscripts.

Third, the Greek version of Enoch mentioned above is not a manuscript of 1 Enoch or anything like that. It is an 8th-century document titled Chronographia Universalis by the Byzantine historian George Syncellus. The fact is we simply don't know why Syncellus does not mention their size.

Now from a text critical point of view, both the oldest Greek and the majority Ethiopian manuscripts favor a larger number, either 3000 or 300. The fact that Syncellus does not mention their size means nothing.

I’m pretty sure my printed copy at home says 3,000 ells. It’s the Ethiopian one. I’ll have to wait till I get home to check.

Then I also have this app on my phone of the book of Enoch. It says 300 cubits. That’s about 450 feet, going by an 18 inch cubit.

I think you may have switched those.

 

[pinacled]

I’m pretty sure my printed copy at home says 3,000 ells. It’s the Ethiopian one. I’ll have to wait till I get home to check.

Then I also have this app on my phone of the book of Enoch. It says 300 cubits. That’s about 450 feet, going by an 18 inch cubit.

I think you may have switched those.

3000 serpents (leviathan) are upheld by the ark per sei,?

 

[pinacled]

Doesn’t that argue for the 1 Enoch being by someone other than Enoch?
The stories of Enoch had to be transmitted through NOAH’s family which would suggest a Job or Genesis writing style for the tales rather than a later Greek/Roman literary style.

It means that Andrew has a kink in armor

 

[pinacled]

No need. Others reading this thread know what mean.

Focus

 

[atpollard]

Who built Solomon's temple?

Did Solomon himself build it? Or did his forced laborers build it?
One place in 1 Kings says Solomon built it. But in another place it says his forced laborers built it.

"The temple that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high."
-Kings 6:2

"So Solomon built the temple and completed it."
-Kings 6:14

"Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the Lord’s temple, his own palace,..."
1 Kings 9:15

SUCH A CONTRADICTION!!!

In the same way...

Genesis says Noah built the ark. But Enoch says angels built it.

CONTRADICTION!!!

Really?

Give me a break. These arguments are ridiculous.
What's the contradiction? What, we can't say that Noah built it because the angels were helping him? In that case, then we can't say Solomon built the temple since he had slaves helping him.

Is this really the best evidence against the book of Enoch? I mean, seriously. Are there any REAL contradictions in the book of Enoch?

I know of at least 3 obvious, clear, and undeniable contradictions in the book of Jasher, because that book is an obvious fraud. But what contradictions can we honestly say are in the book of Enoch?

So God commanded Noah to build an Ark, and Noah pressed angels into indentured service to do the actual work … just like King Solomon and workmen that built the Temple.
Got it.
No issues at all with THAT explanation.
No wonder more of the Apocrypha is not read at Sunday Service.

 

[pinacled]

So God commanded Noah to build an Ark, and Noah pressed angels into indentured service to do the actual work … just like King Solomon and workmen that built the Temple.
Got it.
No issues at all with THAT explanation.
No wonder more of the Apocrypha is not read at Sunday Service.

Keen eyes

 

[atpollard]

Psalms 92
A Single horn is defined as uni'corn. Also known as a shofar, new moon, and or shabbat.
Only An elementary linguistic comprehension is needed to understand in spirit.

וַתָּ֣רֶם כִּרְאֵ֣ים קַרְנִ֑י בַּ֝לֹּתִ֗י בְּשֶׁ֣מֶן רַעֲנָֽן׃

You raise my horn high like that of a wild ox; I am soaked in freshening oil.

I have to admit that a lot of your posts seem pretty cryptic. However, I invested some time trying to decipher this one and may have some clue of the point you were making.

You we’re responding to the KJV reference to a “unicorn“ and the literal meaning of uni-corn as “one horn”.
Your reference is to Psalm 92 (“A Psalm, a Song for the Sabbath day.”) with an emphasis on Psalm 92:10 …

• Psalm 92:10 [KJV] But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
  
  
• Psalm 92:10 [NKJV] But my horn You have exalted like a wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil.
  
  
• Psalm 92:10 [CSB] You have lifted up my horn like that of a wild ox; I have been anointed with the finest oil.

From this, you have drawn three related parallels to the single lifted horn.

1. Shofar: a single horn from a bull that is blown as part of the worship celebration and has a long OT history connecting it to God delivered victory. The “one horn” was blown by many and the Walls of Jericho fell. The “one horn” was blown by 300 and an enemy too great to count was delivered into the hands of the army of Gideon to the glory of God. The shofar is blown to call the people to worship on Sabbath.
2. New Moon: I admit that I do not know the OT well enough to know the significance of a new moon to “one horn” or a “sabbath”.
3. Sabbath: As mentioned earlier, the shofar calls the people to worship on the sabbath. I believe that it marks the start of a sacred time and the sabbath meal.

The quoted verse speaks of the (KJV) unicorn as raising “one horn” and the verse opens with David raising his One Horn (the shofar) to celebrate victory and call to worship God, in a Psalm about the Sabbath, that ends in “refreshing oil” … a spiritual anointing.

So it is the single horn of celebration of the single blessing of the One and Only God. It isn’t about the animal, the animal just represents strength and power and victory.

Is that close?

 

[pinacled]

I have to admit that a lot of your posts seem pretty cryptic. However, I invested some time trying to decipher this one and may have some clue of the point you were making.

You we’re responding to the KJV reference to a “unicorn“ and the literal meaning of uni-corn as “one horn”.
Your reference is to Psalm 92 (“A Psalm, a Song for the Sabbath day.”) with an emphasis on Psalm 92:10 …

• Psalm 92:10 [KJV] But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
  
  
• Psalm 92:10 [NKJV] But my horn You have exalted like a wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil.
  
  
• Psalm 92:10 [CSB] You have lifted up my horn like that of a wild ox; I have been anointed with the finest oil.

From this, you have drawn three related parallels to the single lifted horn.

1. Shofar: a single horn from a bull that is blown as part of the worship celebration and has a long OT history connecting it to God delivered victory. The “one horn” was blown by many and the Walls of Jericho fell. The “one horn” was blown by 300 and an enemy too great to count was delivered into the hands of the army of Gideon to the glory of God. The shofar is blown to call the people to worship on Sabbath.
2. New Moon: I admit that I do not know the OT well enough to know the significance of a new moon to “one horn” or a “sabbath”.
3. Sabbath: As mentioned earlier, the shofar calls the people to worship on the sabbath. I believe that it marks the start of a sacred time and the sabbath meal.

The quoted verse speaks of the (KJV) unicorn as raising “one horn” and the verse opens with David raising his One Horn (the shofar) to celebrate victory and call to worship God, in a Psalm about the Sabbath, that ends in “refreshing oil” … a spiritual anointing.

So it is the single horn of celebration of the single blessing of the One and Only God. It isn’t about the animal, the animal just represents strength and power and victory.

Is that close?

A horn is like inclining an ear with strength
A whip in air without a stone

 

[pinacled]

I have to admit that a lot of your posts seem pretty cryptic. However, I invested some time trying to decipher this one and may have some clue of the point you were making.

You we’re responding to the KJV reference to a “unicorn“ and the literal meaning of uni-corn as “one horn”.
Your reference is to Psalm 92 (“A Psalm, a Song for the Sabbath day.”) with an emphasis on Psalm 92:10 …

• Psalm 92:10 [KJV] But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
  
  
• Psalm 92:10 [NKJV] But my horn You have exalted like a wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil.
  
  
• Psalm 92:10 [CSB] You have lifted up my horn like that of a wild ox; I have been anointed with the finest oil.

From this, you have drawn three related parallels to the single lifted horn.

1. Shofar: a single horn from a bull that is blown as part of the worship celebration and has a long OT history connecting it to God delivered victory. The “one horn” was blown by many and the Walls of Jericho fell. The “one horn” was blown by 300 and an enemy too great to count was delivered into the hands of the army of Gideon to the glory of God. The shofar is blown to call the people to worship on Sabbath.
2. New Moon: I admit that I do not know the OT well enough to know the significance of a new moon to “one horn” or a “sabbath”.
3. Sabbath: As mentioned earlier, the shofar calls the people to worship on the sabbath. I believe that it marks the start of a sacred time and the sabbath meal.

The quoted verse speaks of the (KJV) unicorn as raising “one horn” and the verse opens with David raising his One Horn (the shofar) to celebrate victory and call to worship God, in a Psalm about the Sabbath, that ends in “refreshing oil” … a spiritual anointing.

So it is the single horn of celebration of the single blessing of the One and Only God. It isn’t about the animal, the animal just represents strength and power and victory.

Is that close?

Excellent reveal sir hoseah

 

[NathanH83]

So God commanded Noah to build an Ark, and Noah pressed angels into indentured service to do the actual work … just like King Solomon and workmen that built the Temple.
Got it.
No issues at all with THAT explanation.
No wonder more of the Apocrypha is not read at Sunday Service.

How did I know that you were going to suggest that Noah enslaved the angels? Good grief. This is just like the illogical nonsense that atheists present.

Do you have any legitimate reason to believe that it is unbiblical for angels to help humans do things?

“Some have even entertained angels unaware”

Please show the scriptural or doctrinal reason why it is unbiblical for angels to help a man build a boat to preserve life. Please tell me how that is “so heretical” and contrary to the Bible.

Is there something in the Bible that says “angels can’t build things”?

I mean, seriously. What’s your argument?

 

[NathanH83]

Allow me to fill in the many gaps left and correct misleading comments with accurate and honest information. It is the only way to truly understand any issue.

First, the figure 3,000 cubits is found in Codex Panopolitanus. This codex dates to the 5th or 6th century and is the oldest Greek source we have on that section of 1 Enoch.

Second, the figure 300 ells is found in the Ethiopian manuscripts. It is the majority reading in those manuscripts.

Third, the Greek version of Enoch mentioned above is not a manuscript of 1 Enoch or anything like that. It is an 8th-century document titled Chronographia Universalis by the Byzantine historian George Syncellus. The fact is we simply don't know why Syncellus does not mention their size.

Now from a text critical point of view, both the oldest Greek and the majority Ethiopian manuscripts favor a larger number, either 3000 or 300. The fact that Syncellus does not mention their size means nothing.

You said the Greek one says 3,000 cubits, and the Ethiopian one says 300 ells. It’s actually the inverse.

The Greek one says 300 cubits, and the Ethiopian one says 3,000 ells.

I wonder what other mistakes you have made.

Whatever the case, I’ve heard that there is a Greek version of Enoch that doesn’t contain either of these measurements. So I’m not so sure it even was in the original.

 

[NathanH83]

This could be a possible explanation:



Taken from this website:

Were the pre-flood giants REALLY two miles tall?!? No! Read on...

ells.thebookofenoch.info

Myth: The giants were hundreds, if not thousands of feet tall

How tall were the pre-flood giants, really?

Actually, the Book of Enoch originally probably did not say how tall the giants were. Contrary to Charles, Schodde and Laurence, Enoch 7:2, contains a scribal corruption in the Ethiopic.

On this point, I agree with some modern textual scholars that the Greek version of Enoch 7:2 is closer to original.

Nickelsburg/Vanderkam translates verse 2 from a Greek text which says nothing about the height of the giants.

“And they conceived from them and bore to them great giants. And the giants begot Nephilim, and to the Nephilim were born Elioud- and they were growing in accordance with their greatness”.

Bottom line is, originally, the Book of Enoch very likely did not say how tall the giants were.

What was the basis of the mistake in Enoch 7:2? It is a known fact that proper names (like “Elioud”) and numbers (for example 3,000 ells) suffer the most from scribal copying and translating over the millennia. Presumably, in ancient times a scribal copyist did not understand the proper name for Elioud, and assumed it was referring to the “ell” telling us how tall were the giants.

To be clear, “3,000 ells” in the Charles translation, is not an error of English translation. It began with an ancient copyist's mistake which changed a verse about the “3” races of Watcher offspring, (one of those races was called “Elioud”), into a comment about the giant's height. “Elioud” became “ells” and “3” became “3,000” in my understanding. George Nickelsburg and James Vanderkam (as do Daniel Olson, and John Baty) translate a Greek fragment (Synchellus) for the verse to restore a more original reading. The only mistake by translators was in not discerning the ancient scribal error and ferreting out the better reading. Perhaps the scribal /copyist error WAS a translation error if when the error was introduced the scribe was not able to translate the verse and erred in that way. But in the English translations they do not seem to be in error, just in poor selection of their underlying, eclectic text for use before translating to English.

It is interesting to note, that John Baty, in his 1839 translation of Enoch, very early on detected and solved this textual problem!
How Enoch 7:2 has Suffered in English Translation from 1883 to the present:

John Baty had it right in 1839

“And there were born unto them three sorts, the first were great giants, and to the giants were born Nephilim, and to the Nephilim were born Elioud.”

Robert Henry Charles reverted to the problematic text in 1883

“And they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells.”

Nickelsburg / Vanderkam asserted the fix again in 2004

“And bore to them great giants. And the giants begot Nephilim, and to the Nephilim were born Elioud.”

Besides all this, in Biblical interpretation, we believe every significant matter should be substantiated by two or three witnesses— I see no reason to believe the pre-flood giants were different in size than the post-flood ones

 

[atpollard]

I mean, seriously. What’s your argument?

Moses (who wrote Genesis) and WHOEVER (but not Enoch) wrote 1 Enoch stated completely opposite and mutually contradictory accounts of the construction of Noah’s Ark.

• Moses claims Noah and his family built it (with no outside help)
• 1 Enoch claims angels built it for Noah (with no outside help).

Since BOTH cannot be true and GENESIS has been affirmed beyond any shred of doubt, it is obvious to any OBJECTIVE reader which account MUST BE INCORRECT.

That is my argument without any subtle sarcasm or humor.