Originally posted by
Nothing
See to me, there is no need to reconcile old manuscripts, and progressive revelation (by what it looks to be defined as), is easily a mechanism of control. I find no reason to have what seems like apologetics and an attempt at constructive reasoning in order to explain away any variations between the Enoch revelation and the New Testament revelation. That in itself is to me a fingerprint created as a result of the Roman bastardisation and hijacking of the 'story'.
Though that is already getting too far into the tangle of it all for me, and I'm not really interested in it enough to debate any further than that. But it would be maybe interesting to hear others discuss it.