วีดีโอ

I never said they weren't. I said the 4,500 foot giants of the Book of Enoch were fiction. They are also unimaginably ridiculous.

@BrotherBill The Jewish spy's said they were like grasshoppers compared to them That sounds a lot bigger than Goliath

We have found the skeletal remains of humans considerably larger than Goliath, but we have never found remains taller the the Burj Khalifa (a mere 2,722′)! If you want to believe in the Book of Enoch, you are free to do so, but you can't say you haven't been warned about it.

@BrotherBill God protected the book of Enoch for 1950 years in the dead sea caves I don't think we should be so quick to judge it If it says something that goes against the Bible it's false But you have bigger problems John 6 39 40 44 54 Jesus says at the LAST DAY four times I don't know where Mystery Babylon convinced you the rapture was The church rapture is at judgement day Revelation 20 shows two resurrections Jesus put the wise Virgins at the end of the story every time Daniel 12 2 sounds like the LAST DAY John 5 29 sounds like the LAST DAY The church rapture is after the thousand year reign That's why you can't find one Bible verse that promised the thousand year reign to the church Revelation 20 4 thousand year reign

In the US, any book published prior to the early 1920s is currently in public domain...that includes the King James Bible. The rules in the UK are slightly different, but it is likewise in the public domain there. "Copyright protection doesn't last indefinitely-it expires after a certain length of time. If copyright protection to the original work has expired, that work is considered in the public domain. Anyone may use a work that's in the public domain. If you take a work in the public domain and modify it somehow, the modified work is a derivative work that's entitled to copyright protection. Others may still use the original work in the public domain, but they may not use it with your modification." (www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law). I said nothing of 10%. The legal requirement of what is considered "significant changes" is ambiguous, but if you were to print a copy of the KJV with only the thees and thous changed, it would not qualify for a copyright. If you took the NIV, ESV, or any other copyrighted version and made similar minor changes you would be sued for copyright infringement. In order to get the copyright, you have to change it much more than that. The different versions do NOT say the same things. With the Johannine comma, there is room for discussion there (I support its inclusion, but there are differences in the manuscripts that do bring it in question), but that doesn't justify any of the other hundreds of changes they make.

If I understood your comment correctly, we are in agreement one this. We are saved by the grace of God through faith. After we are saved, we are to live for God and the law still teaches us what is right and wrong. We don't live right to be saved but because we are saved.

Hello Gregory! I have never read the Book of Jasher, so I don't know what is in it to say for certain.This is why I would be leery of it anyway. First, it was never included in the canon of Scripture by the Jews or Christians. It is mentioned as a reference in Joshua and 1 Samuel, but it is questionable if the book of Jasher as we know it is the one referred to or even if it was truly written by Jasher. Even if the book is the legitimate one referred to in Scripture it was given as supporting documentation, not as inspired of God. There are several books like that mentioned in Scripture. These include the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29). Also, there are the Acts of Rehoboam and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29). We also know that Solomon composed more than a thousand songs (1 Kings 4:32), yet only two are preserved in the book of Psalms (72 and 127). Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, Paul included a quotation from the Cretan poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12) and quoted from the poets Epimenides and Aratus in his speech at Athens (Acts 17:28). Since these works are quoted in the Bible, at least these quotes are of value, though God chose not to include them in the Scriptures so we cannot be assured of their value beyond what is quoted. If the legitimate books were found, they might be interesting resources, but the would be of no more value than a book written by someone today. If of course the books we found were not authentic, they would be of little or no value.

@BrotherBill if you have read it please do and let me know what your thoughts are.. It is called the book of the righteous upright.. from Creation, Abram to Joshua it explains what happened to them in their lives, how Abram Knew God all his life time before he became Abraham in the book of Genesis, The book of Jasher is the book of Genesis, May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit Amen.

@@BrotherBill the word jasher ( the upright ) or the truthful ... this book was called the book of TRUTH ! Jasher was not a person ! Again they mistranslated the title ! same as the bible was not called the bible ! as well as the word bible = History ! so if they translated the word bible then all would say history in your native language ! .. the christian sect is very picky and choosey over which words they translate as the words are from african dialects so often they do not have equivilencey as well as complex thought are woven in by knowing the original hierglypohs for the word which contain a deeper meaning and translation ! ... thre people of different period were in different cultures so the writing styles are different ! sometimes they are egyptian based and other they are acadaian / Sumarian based phrasing and sometime they are Sanscrit based words ( ie the word rabbai is actually the sanscrit version of Iman the arabic hebrew version ? why was the word Rabbai in the bible when the word was iman hence iman u el ( teacher chosen by God ) ! ?? jesus was also the teacher . so when the angel said people would call him imanuel ( or holy teacher ) ie imanuel why did peter call him Rabbai or raboni ! ( because the greeks did not want to add african or arab words to the bible hence hebrew ois a generated language !)

Fair enough. We can disagree on the 1%. Thanks Ramon!

@BrotherBill Cool. I respect that and your reply. I've shared your video with many of my peers who are being lead astray by the alleged book of Enoch. Thanks for video!

Agreed. This was about the book of Enoch, not Enoch the man. I don't believe the history of the book allows it to have been genuinely written by Enoch who lived in the seventh generation from Adam. Enoch did live and walked with the Lord until the Lord took him to Heaven without ever dying.

I am aware of that. Is there a point to that?

Also my friend enoch is a part of the larger book of melchesedek .. which contains 7 other books !

You are free to do that, despite anyone's warnings. I have read some of them...1 and 2 Maccabees for instance. As a former Catholic, I used to recite the Apostle's Creed. While you are at it, why don't you throw in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita. After all, they also claim inspiration. (Incidentally, I have also read the first two of them.) I am not afraid of other writings. I have read enough of them to discern what meets the biblical standard for being of God and they do not. 1 and 2 Maccabees, for instance contain some good history, but also contradict much of Scripture and so are not inspired. In April, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church added the apocrypha (though not all the ones you listed) in for two reasons. First, they wanted to differentiate between theirs and the "Protestant" Bible. Second, those books support their teachings such as Purgatory and prayer/alms for the dead. Both are unscriptural apart from the apocrypha.

The Book of Jasher as included in the apocrypha also lacks the antiquity required to be authentic (dating only to the inter-testament period and not the times of Joshua and Samuel. In Genesis 6:4 the word "nephilim" is translated giants, but the term is not used in reference to the children born to the daughters of men. Adherents to the Book of Enoch apply the term to the offspring of the relationships, but the Bible does not. I have not gone into detail on the "nephilim" because that will be the subject of a separate video I am working on. The Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved by the Essene sect of Qumran and not mainline Jews of the day. They were considered a fringe group that held views that the majority of the Jews found heretical. The Dead Sea Scrolls preserved many other non-canonical and secular writings, so even the fact that they preserved them really means nothing more than that it existed during the time they were residing in the region and it was something they felt worthy of preserving. It in no way indicates whether or not they included it in their canon.

@@BrotherBill First off I discovered a typo in my prior response Joshua 19:13 should read Joshua 10:13 sorry. Other than women the bible does not give us any other source for the giants/nephilim than women being their mothers. "Sons of God" are indicated in Job before humans walked the earth so the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 are clearly elohim that are later found in the Bible. Ha satan later called Satan was of the same source. NO angels who are obedient do not marry and neither does it appear there would be a source for them to marry to. the book of Jasher as I pointed out earlier cam from sources in scritpure that long pre date inter testament times. Claiming that the Jews of the time of Christ's crucifixion were 'the source' for mainline theology of the time is not a good course either. It was the mainline Jews sophistry that deemed Jesus was an heretic and should be killed. The calendar of the Essene's was more in line with the calendar of when Passover was first given to the Hebrews to observe by some accounts.. I never suggested the Book of Enoch was canon and neither did I state anyone I know of did either. The book of Jasher was brought up to render the concept that the Torah or Septuagint were not the books that held Hebrew history. There are other scriptures that indicate that God employed angels, whether good or bad in man's eyes, to achieve God's purposes in his war against the rebel devils.

Chapter and verse please.

@@BrotherBill Enoch is mentioned in the Bible in the books of Genesis, Luke, Hebrews, and Jude

I am not talking about Enoch the man, but the alleged Book of Enoch...any of the three. You said the Lord Jesus quoted from it. Where?

@@BrotherBill If you had done your research, sir and not copied and pasted your "exposé" from some biased source, you would not need to ask this question, considering the quotes are multiple. I suggest you acquire Joseph B. Lumpkin's reference book to Enoch. Here's a few to get you started: Luke 20:23 (see Eno 15:7) directly discussing the angels and their married state. Jhn 14:2 (see Eno 41:2) discussing the "mansions" in heaven. It's not only obvious that Yahshua was referring to Enoch's account in a number of places, but also that He taught the "unlearned" apostles from Enoch because many of them make similar statements that can only be attributed to the info in Enoch, such as the fallen angels and we shall judge angels.

yes we should accept scriptures as these one specifically are connected to other books such as Jude whom quoted enoch verbatum ! and jesus whom quoted the book of jasher verbatum !.... Both we have . both written at different times ! the book of enoch is a part of the book of melchesdeck

@@xspydazx No no... I don't mean that. And thanks for commenting. Any record is what my comment was referring. Not just records Germaine to Abrahamics. Take the totality of the written record and weight it, is what I'm getting at. If we look at different parts of the world, over time, we reveal each has it's own deeper interpretation of these matters. In the end, they almost always have some correlation. If that is the case, and it seems to be for sure, then it is an emergent property of mankind to compose them. So, that invalidates one's writings authority over any other record, and vise versa. Our sum collection of scripture from all faiths and religions is the aggregate of mankind's attempt to explain itself relative to the cosmos is what I'm getting at. They are either all equally valid, or all equally invalid, because there is no authority given to anyone that isn't just given by man - so what man has greater power than that which he chooses to declare himself subject to?

@AtomkeySinclair your right

Who can say which storys are over the other storys ? Which doctrine is over the other doctrines ? In truth we cannot . We can only choose to have faith . For me it's the most high god and jesus the lamb of god . But this only male sense to me . (Also the holy spirit ) .. it's my faith . But each must find Thier own faith and not being forced to believe any doctrine which does not make sense to them . Or it's futile . Hence people jumping all the time from one philosophy to another

@@xspydazx Very well said. Thanks for commenting.

Who’s the author of Hebrews?

The author of Hebrews is unnamed, but most consider it to be Paul. The Book of Enoch claims to be the work of Enoch but is not. That is the difference.

@@BrotherBillJesus is the author of all scripture.

@@BrotherBill who says that Noah couldn’t have taken texts written by Enoch or maybe rewritten them or preserved them? Only thing we know is that the DSS is a copy of Enoch’s writings

@MomKimHub, I was speaking in terms of the human authors. You are correct, the Lord is the ultimate author of all Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Peter 1:21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Dead Sea Scrolls only date back as far as the period between the Old and New Testament (300BC-100AD). The Scrolls also contain other non-canonical and secular books, so their preservation through them only proves that they existed at the time of the Qumran community. The Essenes, who preserved the Scrolls were considered heretical by the Jews of their day anyway, so that also proves nothing. Showing up out of nowhere, not as a new writing, but something written 3,000 years before is quite the flight of fancy, especially considering all the other apocryphal writings that were written in the same era in the same region.

@@BrotherBill By this argument there are no truly inspired ancient writings as these are the oldest copies of all our Old Testament books. The fact being they are copies of copies etc. To pretend a copy is an original is consistent with liberal scholars and is used to doubt the reliability of scripture in general. The fact is, it was the Pharisees and the Sadducees who were the heretical groups denying any and all scripture they did not agree with. Had they held on to the writings of the ancients which taught of the death burial and resurrection of Mesiah, maybe they would have recognized Jesus when He came the first time. Also, the writers of the scrolls do not identify themselves as Essenes, but they do identify themselves as Zadok priests who were the authorized keepers of the scroll library going all the way back to Aaron. They were reauthorized by Ezra as the High Priests within the Jerusalem temple. They would later be exiled by the corrupt Sadducees with the help of the Greeks. As the Zadok Priests fled the temple, they carried the complete scroll library with them. All these scrolls were once part of the complete scroll library held by the sons of Zadok, the priests who kept the covenant.

Wow well done! There are so many that are blinded by the narratives that have been set up. You may be interested in a channel I found 'follow the lamb today' that exposes the narratives.

So I disagree with that.

Absolutely! This info is so wrong - indeed the the completed book of enoch is in the Dead sea scrolls.Who is this"Brother Bill"? Not a very studied brother, if he indeed is that.

That's nice, @boonedog4460. The Dead Sea Scrolls include many non-canonical and secular writings. That is is no indication of whether the Essene sect of Judaism in Qumran considered them part of Scripture. Additionally, the Essenes were seen as a radical fringe group by the Jews of the day, so their opinions aren't highly relevant anyway. As for my level of study, I leave that for the Lord to vindicate me. @44spangle, Jude was written in the first century. Portions of the Book of Enoch were definitely written prior to that time, but not all of it. The similarity of the verses in Jude and the Book of Enoch may have been from having a common source or from Jude being the source for the Book of Enoch. A date of 200AD (or even a few centuries earlier) still falls 3,000 years short of the time of the biblical Enoch. If it does not have that antiquity it cannot be legitimate. If it is a false text, then it was certainly not the source for Jude though it could be copied from Jude.

Just a small correction @spangle, the DSS are actually dated to around 200BC not AD thus could never have been "copied from Jude" as @BrotherBill suggest and it is only speculation that the Essenes were those who wrote the DSS who were clearly a group of Jews who wanted to be separate from the Jewish hierarchy and were waiting for the eminent Messiah as the Book of Enoch prophesies. @BrotherBill uses the word "non-canonical" as though the RCC is the ones who decided on what is canon and the only "secular writings" are their own accounts

@@2besavedcom-7 Well said! Jude 1 quotes from Enoch 1 word for word. So many people with yt channels that speak of what they do not understand...

@@edbaker7490 Michael Steven Heiser was an American Old Testament scholar and Christian author with training in ancient history. He supported the first book of Enoch, he warned the others were most probably written/influenced by Gnostic's.

The King James Bible was translated by 47 scholars at Cambridge, Westminster, and Oxford. Francis Bacon was not among them. Neither he nor King James took any part in the work. Here is a list of the translators: thekingsbible.com/Library/KJVTranslators. The allegation about Bacon's involvement was first surfaced in the 1905 book, "The Mystery of Francis Bacon" by William T. Smedley. Smedley also suggests that Bacon was also the author of Shakespeare's plays. Smedley offers no evidence for these claims and admits in the book that they are “extravagant theories.” Quit believing everything you read in a FaceBook meme. Mark was written before Luke and Acts which written before the Apostle Paul died in 67AD. Mark would have been written between 50-60AD, likely on the earlier side. The Lord Jesus died somewhere around 30AD. Matthew was written either just before or after Mark but in a similar time. John was likely the last Gospel written, but had been completed before 70AD because the temple was still standing at the time of his writing. It was destroyed by the Romans under General (later became Emperor) Titus' siege of Jerusalem that occurred in 70AD. At most that was 40 years later by a person who was an eye witness and one of the twelve disciples.