Enoch according to Jude.

[Ricky W]

Protecting me Allah(God), from the evil(satan) that You already cursed.In the name of Allah(God), Most Gracious, Most Merciful.("kriss")
I understand what you are saying but it seems that they count In GenerationsAdam and Eve..... 1st generationCain, Able, Seth.... 2nd GenerationEnoch and Enosh... 3rd generation Kenan........ 4th Generation Mahalalel...... 5th Generation Jared.......... 6th generation Enoch .........7th generationit seems it has to be counted this way to make the 1st Enoch 3rd and the second Enoch 7th as scripture says I never thought about it much but I guess "from" wouldnt be exactly the right word but it may have been the closest English word with a simillar meaning.
What becomes confusion for me, is not what in the OT, but what it says in Jude Chapter, like the previous questioned of mine. It should be enoch was the 6th from Adam not the 7th from Adam.If you guess "from" was not to be the exactly, my opinion is not. You can check the scripture using greek below.Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,The seventhG1442ἕβδομοςhebdomosheb'-dom-osOrdinal from G2033; seventh: - seventh.FromG575ἀπόapoapo'A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.AdamG76ἈδάμAdamad-am'Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam.So what it's says in the scriptures was indeed using the word from, and it's different from what you has explain to me, as well the logic should be.So I wonder which one was 7th from Adam actually ? Is it the enoch or others ?Or perhaps it should says the 6th from Adam not the 7th from Adam ?So what do you think Kriss

?I do believed that, every thing that inspired by God it must not has any kind of mistake in every way. So thats why I questioned it, where was the real Enoch actually regarding on Jude chapter ?Best regards,Ricky WisnadriGod(Allah) Knows Best

 

[Christina]

Ok if they didnt count it that way it would have been to confusing for example what if I ask you who was first Generation of man? We have to answer Adam to be correct. So thats why when we write it we have to write1st generation..... Adam then you might ask who was next? We would say Cain,Able,Seth2nd generation..... Cain Able SethIf we said Cain Able Seth was #1 from Adam it would get to confusing by the time you got too 200 gen. Even now if you do a generation chart it is that way. You cant have two #1'sSo the rule is Adam 1........ Cain Able Seth......2 Now for the word "from" it was not greek that the original is Hebrew word "Apo" and it can mean separation, separation from a whole, or of the original. So in this case Apo would be a correct word it is the English defenation of "from" that makes for the confusion.Hebrew word Apo: 1) of separationa) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...

of separation of a part from the whole1) where of a whole some part is takenc) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyedd) of a state of separation, that is of distance1) physical, of distance of place2) temporal, of distance of time2) of origina) of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken

of origin of a causeIf it were proper in english it might read:Adam the origin (1)................ Cain, Able, Seth a part of the origin (2)So the bible is right in saying Adam (1),Cain Able, Seth (2).......it is the English word "from" that cause's the confusionAgain God right, people's translations wrong.

 

[Ricky W]

Protecting me Allah(God), from the evil(satan) that You already cursed.In the name of Allah(God), Most Gracious, Most Merciful.(Kriss)
Ok if they didnt count it that way it would have been to confusing for example what if I ask you who was first Generation of man? We have to answer Adam to be correct. So thats why when we write it we have to write1st generation..... Adam
If you Questioned like that of course i will agree with you and it's a logically as well. Because what you have questioned was on the man(a whole human kind). But when you asking unto certaint object, the answer would be different, and i think you will agree with me on that.So again the problem is not on the how what is in the OT. But problem is what it said on the Jude 1:14.If the word on the Jude was not Adam but man, that I understand, and your question above will be match, and certaintly i wouldn't questioned about it. But this was point on certaint object, it's the word Adam.(Kriss)
If we said Cain Able Seth was #1 from Adam it would get to confusing by the time you got too 200 gen. Even now if you do a generation chart it is that way. You cant have two #1's
Not really, what you have to focus on is the word "from" that being used.It can be two or perhaps three or etc on #1s, it depends on the word "from" you used.I give you a logical sample. This is Family chart of Adam.AdamSethEnoshKenanMahalalelJaredEnochetc...Who was the first ? I would answer it could any body to be the first. How come ? It depends where do you put the word "from" on the numeric word.If you want Seth to be the first, then you just give this kind of statement :Enosh was the 1st from Seth.If you want Enosh to be the first, then you just give this kind of statement :Kenan was the 1st from Enosh.Etc....So you see, by the time you use the word "from" on the certaint object that is not general, then the object will be the directive of it.Another example to youThere are four people who has stand facing on you.From the left theire names are for example A, B, C, D.By the time you asked, who is the 1st from left ?Ofcourse we will say A.But by the time you questioned on the certaint object, for example A.Who is the 1st from A ? I believe we will say, it is B who was the first from A. Am I correct Kriss

?And if we questioning who is the 1st from B ? I believe we will say, it is C and A who are the first from B. Am I correct Kriss ?(Kriss)
Now for the word "from" it was not greek that the original is Hebrew word "Apo"and it can mean separation, separation from a whole, or of the original. So in this case Apo would be a correct word it is the English defenation of "from" that makes for the confusion.
1st. I don't know how you can said apo was Hebrew, because apo was taken from Strong Greek No. 575 so I concern

, and it was on Jude that I believed was on NT(greek). 2nd. If I follow your term also, if the word from was stand by itself then what you has said was correct, but by time it follows others word that has certaint object that is known or not general, then the meaning will be different, and i do believe you will agree with me on this.(Kriss)
If it were proper in english it might read:Adam the origin (1)................ Cain, Able, Seth a part of the origin (2)So the bible is right in saying Adam (1),Cain Able, Seth (2).......it is the English word "from" that cause's the confusionAgain God right, people's translations wrong.
Actually it is not the point that i want to asked, but on the Jude 1:14 that what I concerned

.Best regards,Ricky WisnadriGod(Allah) Knows Best

 

[Christina]

You are correct Ricky my mistake it is Greek not Hebrew I was thinking Genisis Adam Hebrew I see by your examples what you mean if you count on your fingers backward from Enoch (in Jude) to Adam you still have 7 Generations. Adam and Eve..... 1st generation(7)Cain, Able, Seth.... 2nd Generation(6)Enoch and Enosh... 3rd generation (5)Kenan........ 4th Generation(4)Mahalalel...... 5th Generation (3)Jared.......... 6th generation (2)Enoch .........7th generation (1)what other way could you say Enoch is the 7th Generation.would "after" perhaps be better?I see where you could get 6 and that would not necessarily be wrong if you use context "from" but neither is 7 wrongif Apo means origin or part of origin(or a distance from origin)We have to assume we are counting from the originalWould we number the Origin (0) ? that would be incorrect. As Adam was 1stSo we have to number the Origin (1 or 1st) :using definition of Apo Origin (Adam)Cain, Able, Seth a part of the origin or a distance from the OriginalEnosh,a part of the part, a part of the origin, or a greater distance from the OriginalIf you wrote it like the above it would be more correct but who would understand it after several Generations? So it seems what they have done is define the distance as a Generation used "from as the connection to the original. And assigned a number to each with the Origin as 1 there fore the next after origin has to be 2. Even though (2) is also the 1st fromI think we have to conclude that tectonically both 6 & 7 could be correct but In asking the question: who was the first,we have to Answer Adam.So if you said in Jude1:14 Enoch was the sixth from Adam you would have to assign Adam a number of (0) Seth (1) then if I ask who was the first you would have to answer Seth, thus that would be the wrong AnswerSo you have to Assign Adam as the first Generation.(1)It still seems to me the connecting word "from" is the problem as there is No English word that means apart of the origin and/or a distance from the origin.the closest you could get is maybe Adam ...1stafter came Seth After Seth came Enosh but by the time you get to Enoch we are still at 7As I said both 6 and 7 could be technically correct but 7 fits the best in most the important fact/question Who was the first(origin) Adam(1st) and after came Seth (2) I see no way to conclude Jude 1:14 is wrong but rather that it is correct but not necessarily the only way.to count it (perhaps just the easiest)The greek Apo is the most correct, that was the orginal word used in scripture so that makes the Bible right. As it speaks only to the orgin and parts of it/or distance from it.It is the lack of a comparable word in other languages or in the translation and the assigniment of the numbers that we run into this problem. Wouldnt you agree:)P.S.I had to laugh a little at our thread I think others would be wondering what in the world we are talking about:)

 

[Ricky W]

Protecting me Allah(God), from the evil(satan) that You already cursed.In the name of Allah(God), Most Gracious, Most Merciful.Matthew 4:4 (on the word men)G444ἄνθρωποςanthrōposanth'-ro-posFrom G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.(kriss)
You are correct Ricky my mistake it is Greek not Hebrew I was thinking Genisis Adam Hebrew I see by your examples what you mean if you count on your fingers backward from Enoch (in Jude) to Adam you still have 7 Generations. Adam and Eve..... 1st generation(7)Cain, Able, Seth.... 2nd Generation(6)Enoch and Enosh... 3rd generation (5)Kenan........ 4th Generation(4)Mahalalel...... 5th Generation (3)Jared.......... 6th generation (2)Enoch .........7th generation (1)
Just as I said previously, if you using the word Generation, you are correct and I do agree with it. And what you have mention above I do agree. But what is become a questioned, this is not talking about the word Generation that being used, but the word of Adam, the word Adam has certaint meaning and it is not General word, it's different when you using word generation. Adam does not have the same meaning with the word generation, Infact Adam was one of the generation it self.Adam has certaint meaning, meanwhileGeneration has general meaning.(kriss)
what other way could you say Enoch is the 7th Generation.would "after" perhaps be better?I see where you could get 6 and that would not necessarily be wrong if you use context "from" but neither is 7 wrong
Yes i do agree He was the 7th Generation. But you see Kriss, if the word that you use, you added so become Enoch was the 7th Genaration From Adam, is it correct ? Or which one tobe the correct one with this sentences, Enoch was the 7th Generation of men / from men / from human.The word men or human has a general meaning. Meanwhile if you using Adam, that mean you already must focus on that one. And the sample that you gave actually would be the samething as the example that I gave you before, on how using the word left.(Kriss)
if Apo means origin or part of origin(or a distance from origin)We have to assume we are counting from the originalWould we number the Origin (0) ? that would be incorrect. As Adam was 1stSo we have to number the Origin (1 or 1st) :using definition of Apo
FromG575ἀπόapoapo'A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.(Kriss)
Origin (Adam)Cain, Able, Seth a part of the origin or a distance from the OriginalEnosh,a part of the part, a part of the origin, or a greater distance from the OriginalIf you wrote it like the above it would be more correct but who would understand it after several Generations? So it seems what they have done is define the distance as a Generation used "from as the connection to the original. And assigned a number to each with the Origin as 1 there fore the next after origin has to be 2. Even though (2) is also the 1st fromI think we have to conclude that tectonically both 6 & 7 could be correct but In asking the question: who was the first,we have to Answer Adam.So if you said in Jude1:14 Enoch was the sixth from Adam you would have to assign Adam a number of (0) Seth (1)
Yes it is, but Adam was not something to be counted. Why ? If you using others example : Enoch was the thirdth from Kenan. In the counting, Mahalalel would be the first, and Kenan was the thing as a base for counting it.My opinion, the Jude verse would be the precisely if the verse says:Jude 1:14 ... the seventh from men/human. That would be the right thing, rather then what it says in Jude is. It is more precisely if you using word anthrōpos (see the greek on the top of my response).("Kriss")
then if I ask who was the first you would have to answer Seth, thus that would be the wrong Answer
Well opinion is, I don't think so. Now take a look on the example that I gave you below. If i'm asking like this wayEnoch was the thirdth from Kenan. Who would be the first ? And does it says wrong ? I think you will agree with me the first is not Adam, but Mahalelal would be the first, does Kenan on Count ? No. Why ? Because Kenan was a foundation on the counting the number it self. Does this belong to the exist or not exist, my opinion is not at all. (Kriss)
So you have to Assign Adam as the first Generation.(1)It still seems to me the connecting word "from" is the problem as there is No English word that means apart of the origin and/or a distance from the origin.the closest you could get is maybe Adam ...1stafter came Seth After Seth came Enosh but by the time you get to Enoch we are still at 7
And I do agree if you said so, but again it doesn't say about the word generation at all in the meaning of the Jude.(Kriss)
As I said both 6 and 7 could be technically correct but 7 fits the best in most the important fact/question Who was the first(origin) Adam(1st) and after came Seth (2) I see no way to conclude Jude 1:14 is wrong but rather that it is correct but not necessarily the only way.to count it (perhaps just the easiest)

.(Kriss)
The greek Apo is the most correct, that was the orginal word used in scripture so that makes the Bible right. As it speaks only to the orgin and parts of it/or distance from it.
Sorry i don't what you has said is similiar with the meaning apo it self. It is not only to the orgin.FromG575ἀπόapoapo'A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.The word apo was only one of the prefix word.
It is the lack of a comparable word in other languages or in the translation and the assigniment of the numbers that we run into this problem. Wouldnt you agree.P.S.I had to laugh a little at our thread I think others would be wondering what in the world we are talking about:)
Well perhaps I do the samething as you did, laugh little

.Best regards,Ricky WisnadriGod(Allah) Knows Best