Heretical bullshit that contradicts what's already in the Bible, and calls God a liar by proxy. Follow me, here: if the book of Enoch was truly a legitimate part of the Bible, and God promised to preserve His Word, then Enoch would not have been excluded for hundreds of years. If Enoch is a legit book, and it is not in the Bible, that means that God was either unwilling or unable to preserve His Word thus making Him a liar.
Plus, it justifies people's ayy lmao boners and makes them think they can reconcile "muh aliums" with "but I wanna be sorta-Christian too, just in case!"
"The Word" represents unchanging truth that governs our existence. Its not the Bible itself. Hence "In the beginning was the Word...". The Word existed before the events/stories of the bible even took place or were formed.
It refutes the claim that "if the book of Enoch was truly a legitimate part of the Bible, and God promised to preserve His Word, then Enoch would not have been excluded for hundreds of years.". Man is imperfect and corruptible and will change the bible to suit its bidding. That does not mean the word of god changes.
view the rest of the comments →
20594597? ago
I'll bite. Learn what?
20595078? ago
Heretical bullshit that contradicts what's already in the Bible, and calls God a liar by proxy. Follow me, here: if the book of Enoch was truly a legitimate part of the Bible, and God promised to preserve His Word, then Enoch would not have been excluded for hundreds of years. If Enoch is a legit book, and it is not in the Bible, that means that God was either unwilling or unable to preserve His Word thus making Him a liar.
Plus, it justifies people's ayy lmao boners and makes them think they can reconcile "muh aliums" with "but I wanna be sorta-Christian too, just in case!"
20595865? ago
"The Word" represents unchanging truth that governs our existence. Its not the Bible itself. Hence "In the beginning was the Word...". The Word existed before the events/stories of the bible even took place or were formed.
20597713? ago
Yes, John 1:1-2
How does that prove the validity of the book of Enoch?
20598236? ago
It refutes the claim that "if the book of Enoch was truly a legitimate part of the Bible, and God promised to preserve His Word, then Enoch would not have been excluded for hundreds of years.". Man is imperfect and corruptible and will change the bible to suit its bidding. That does not mean the word of god changes.