Talk:Enoch (ancestor of Noah)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Saints Enoch (ancestor of Noah) is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

Contents

[edit] People of Nod

Who was Enoch's mother. Where did the people of Nod come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.138 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Nod is a typo, it comes from a hebrew root meaning wandering, i.e. Cain went to the land of wandering, having been condemned to wander. There weren't any people there because it isn't a place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Nod is not a typo, it is a term for the "Land of the Nomads" which, reasonably could be called so as a result of Cain's arrival (ie he is the original Nomad). What is not so clear is where the woman came from who was to be his wife and Enoch's mother. God had created Adam and Eve, who begat Cain and Able - that's it. No female children. So where did she come from? Also, how can Cain have become the founder of a City when it could only have consisted of three people? Begs the question, "Where did the people of Nod come from?" - women to marry and enough other folk to justify the term "City". -- RobinsonN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.250.65 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Nod is a typo. It cannot mean "land of the Nomads", Nod is a proper noun and comes from the root wandering, it is very contorted to make it "Nomads".
As for Cain's wife, Classical Rabbinical sources said that Cain's wife was either Lilith or Lilith was her mother. Thus neatly avoiding the problem.
Also note that the bible has a tendency to avoid mentioning daughters whether or not they exist (due to ancient attitudes towards women), so there could be thousands of daughters and it still wouldn't mention them. Also note that the longevity of the ante-diluvians would mean that Cain was still alive and able to found a city in the time of Lamech, when there were many more individuals.
Also note that "found a city" does not require there to be a substantial population in their time. Romulus supposedly founded Rome, despite being a singular individual.
The Pilgrim Fathers founded America, but there really weren't that many of them at the time, just one boat's worth at most. --User talk:FDuffy 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It may be a translation error, but the idea of a 'typo' in Biblical scripture is a little anachronistic. I still maintain that the Land of Nod, once translated as the "Land of Wandering", indicates a place where one would wander. Whether it is named this because Cain wandered through it after being expelled, or because there were already wanderers there is unclear and would help clarify whether there were other people at that time.
Rather than avoiding the problem, the Lilith option can be used to solve another problem, namely where, if the Jews are Gods chosen people, the Gentiles came from. The implication is that anyone not descended of Adam and Eve is part demon.
This tendency to selectively mention women is problematic in the extreme. There are those who suggest that women were once far more prominent, if not dominant, but references have been systematically removed from records since before Moses' time.
I accept all points made on the subject of founding the City. -- RobinsonN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.250.65 (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Reference Necessary?

Is the Star Trek reference really necessary? Even were it the same name, I'd wonder if it were worth including on the page. But since it's a name that just sounds similar, it seems too trivial to keep here. --William Pietri 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the star trek reference is completely unrelated. --PhilipW 02:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose for "pop-culture" trivia, the star trek reference is important. Unlike the two previous opinions, I don't find it to be a distraction; rather, as informative (admittedly, trivial) as it is intended to be. --RobertsJ--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.228 (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ADAM had Daughters

It helps if you know or read the bible. Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters SO yeah, Adam was alive for 900 odd year so he had PLENTY of daughters. Only key children are mentions in the bible. -astenb

[edit] Category

People have placed this article in category:Jewish history. Are we suppose to believe that someone who lived 365 years and was taken by God to the sky was a historical character? --JLCA 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical text?

How is it that the biblical text concerning Enoch walking with God that is quoted is not referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.54.50 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the relevant citation. The portion you refer to is Genesis 5:22 through 5:24, but the relevant information in the article's introduction includes information through to 5:29. By the very fact that you're here writing on a Talk page means that you likely have some interest in the subject, and the info is right at the beginning of the Book, so remember to be bold! :) --Thisisbossi 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious omissions

I find it interesting that the article does not so much as nod towards Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelley, not to mention masonic lore. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the church (and pronouns)

The article states that the book has "been rejected by the church". Shouldn't that be A church? And it would be nice to know which one(s) reject it.

That little portion of it is probably more encyclopedic than Wikipedic... "persuade us"? Who is "us"? I'm not going to go looking for the WP:xxx thing for this but I think it's generally frowned upon to use first person pronouns in any form?125.236.211.165 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] last paragraph, rabinnical literature, original research? relevance? Citations?

and other stuff

The Enoch son of Cain (Genesis 4:17) is not grandson of Adam. As Cain is not mentioned in the generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1-18) in the original text nor in any of the translations. This coincides with ancient documentation that Cain was never seed of Adam, pointing to a deeper and sinister origin of Cain in the Garden of Eden. The fruit that Lucifer tempted Eve to partake of in the Garden was not a fruit but carnal knowledge. Trees (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) have been always a reference of "people" in the bible (as "Descendants" are also referred as "Seed").

This is a very interesting passage, and personally I think it may be important to clarify it. "The Enoch son of Cain is not grandson of Adam."... What? Were Cain and Abel not sons of Adam? I'm not really disputing it, I'm no bible scholar... "As Cain is not mentioned in the generations of Adam" -- ahh, now we are getting clearer. Does that indeed necessarily negate the possibility that he is Adam's son? Sorry to shake the tree here. "nor in any of the translations" .. wait... what?? ANY of the translations? According to who exactly? How many translations are there? Original Research? WP:NOR "The fruit that Lucifer tempted Eve to partake of in the Garden was not a fruit but carnal knowledge." ... Again, according to who? The Bible in front of me (heavily translated as it may be) merely claims that the apple was an apple, no more, no less. Perhaps something in the way the original text is rendered shows that it is more than a mere apple but I don't think it's our job to deduce, speculate or assume this. Besides, if it were our job to do so, we would be researching or calculating the will of God - and not by inspired works, but by human effort. One could argue that the nature of the fruit is irrelevant and all that matters is their sin in disobeyed God's instruction to not eat it. In any event, I'm sure that this is discussed in the article where it is actually even relevant at all. "Trees (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) have been always a reference of people in the bible" -- with all due respect, how do you know, and what does said tree exactly have to do with Enoch at this point?

So we have: - a discussion of Cain's origin, which is of questionable relevance - a discussion of botany, which is of questionable relevance - a question of metaphor, also hard to see how it relates to Enoch - no citations - possibly a lot of speculation

I don't really mean to point the finger and accuse ;-) .. If I thought that I could do better, I would. I was just passing through.

I think that a big first step would be to check all the "External Links" for relevance and try to use them as citations where appropriate. Then citations should be added to any other wanting parts of the article as this would help clarify it. Following that an editor (me!? oh no) could verify the relevance of each portion of the article.

It's a wonderful article, I'm very pleased to see it represented and learned a lot from it.. Thanks for your attention, I hope I haven't overly restated the obvious, stepped on anyone's toes, offended anyone etc.125.236.211.165 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: If an external link is a reference, then it should be indicated as a reference and not as an external link 125.236.211.165 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)