Have you ever heard about the book of Enoch. The fact that it is quoted in the Bible should give it the same authority as Bible scripts, or what say you?

Jude 1:14 - Show Context
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,

Ge 5:22 - Show Context
After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters.

Ge 5:23 - Show Context
So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.

Ge 5:24 - Show Context
And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

umm... i know enoch's mentioned in the Bible, but i don't know anythign about a specfic "book of enoch"....

I wouldn't trust it. The early church chose not to canonize it for a reason. It might have traces of biblical truth, but that doesn't mean it should be trusted. Example- The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of phrases that Jesus said, but there are all sorts of tiny changes in the script that give the sayings a gnostic feel. Gnosticism was early Christianity's biggest enemy. Just because it has a few good sayings does not make it true.

There are actually a ton of apocryphical books out there. Satan tried REAL hard to squeeze into and damage the final canon of the Bible.

umm... i know enoch's mentioned in the Bible, but i don't know anythign about a specfic "book of enoch"....


exactly, i could write a nbook called "moses" and have it be about him, but that doesn't give it authority or truth. i'm heard the name Enoch, but i am unfamillar with it's contents. anyone know?

I will try to get an extract from the book. You have to read this book to see how powerfull it is. It talks about Jesus so purely. Remember that it was written long before Jesus came to earth. It doesn't mention his name, but it tells of things like The Chosen One that is with God forever before, being with God. I think it was taken out because, Enoch went into the heavens and saw a lot of strange things/angels, that the wisdom of this world can't explain. It is not a book that leads away from God, no. It calls sinners to repent and turn to God.

I will try and find a www copy.

Why was it taken from the canon? See below
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/enoch_book_of_history.html

OK Here's apiece that is close to my heart.

Enoch 48
1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.
2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.
3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.
5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.
6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.
7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.


See that Jesus is prophesied?. This book isn't a copy of Bible books. No, it is dated way back before some of the books have been written. See the above link.


I attached the whole book of Enoch. If you are interested. Just don't take this book as Bible authority... yet. Maybe one day God will bring this book back so we can study the gems of the prophecies again.

Instructions: Download the file to your PC and rename the file to a .ZIP extention. (I couldn't post the .zip extention!) The format, when unzipped is a Microsoft Word 97 Document. You can PM me for other formats.

Just because the bible quotes it doesn't mean its scripture I mean Moses quoted the Egyptian book of the dead but that doesn't mean it shud be in the bible.

I think the reason the bible quotes alot of non biblical stuff is cause God tried to reveal himself to everyone but only the Jews got it. Other things do have elements of truth in them but the doesn't make them God inspired.

I want to take a stab at something. Nowhere in the Bible, does it say that there is no other books, than the 66 that is in the Bible. And doesn't it make it tradition that ppl will not allow other scriptures to the Bible also.

For instance the Book of Enoch. This isn't just an apocraphic, book. There was some versions of the Bible that included Enoch. The book of Enoch complies witht he Bible. It has no other way of salvation than through repentance and trusting God.

The reason why the church of clergy 'closed' the bible, was to stop untruth from going into it. But you know, they didn't just close the Bible, they rejected a lot of the books the apostles themselves used. If you read Enoch, you see the visions of revelation, daniel, the end times. And I want to remind that it was written long before ne of those books.

Read the book, and you will find gems of prophecy, that is in line with the scriptures in the Bible. This wasn't just another story book.

Jude 1:14 - Show Context
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints...

See the above verse. It says that Enoch prophesied. These words that are quoted from Enoch, means that what was said, was from God. So why can't we accept the rest of Enoch's prophecy.?? It was definately studied by the writer of Jude and he took it as prophecy. Why can't we?? We accept Jude's words, but we don't accept his source of words. There seems to be a contradiction here.

The book wasn't just a literature book that was quoted. The Bible states it is prophecy.(See quoted verse). Can't we then eccept the book of Enoch.??

Dunno. Creation Evolution is a bit more my thing. I personally don't care what books are in the bible... Well I do but you know what I mean. The 66 thats there are there for a reason. If God wanted more in he prolly wuda put them in. Maybe alot of Enoch is truth I'm not questioning that but there's prolly sumfin iffy about it.

Dunno. Creation Evolution is a bit more my thing. I personally don't care what books are in the bible... Well I do but you know what I mean. The 66 thats there are there for a reason. If God wanted more in he prolly wuda put them in. Maybe alot of Enoch is truth I'm not questioning that but there's prolly sumfin iffy about it.


See you can't just judge a book by its cover. You can't just say maybe there is something iffy about it. Won't that be prejudice? Most ppl don't understand revelation, does that make it unsciptural?

Dunno what ur getting at.
What I meant was that God gets the final say here. If he wanted the book of Enoch to be in the bible it would be in the bible. Its not. So there's gotta be something wrong with it. I sorta know sumfin about that it mentions a woman created before Eve that wanted the same authority as Adam and God destroyed her for asking. Maybe thats it? :S

You can't judge the book if you have not read it. BUt there's not really a argument here. If the writer of Jude read the book, we may read it also, may we not?

Sure. I don't have a problem with reading extra biblical books (I think thats what u call the book of Enoch and the Aoocrypha n stuff)

What I'd do though is if I see something in an ExB (extra biblical) that contradicts something in the 66bk canon I'd believe the 66bk Canon before the ExB.

I'm not saying it shud or shud not be in the bible. I don't know enough about ExBs to make a judgement on them. I'm a programmer not a theologian or an historian.

hey, i think we're forgetting a few MAJOR thoughts here:
1) God is all powerful
2) He's all loving

If God is all powerful, he'd be able 2 protect his holy bible from anything, put those books into it that should be in it, and keep those that shouldn't be in it.
If God is all loving, he would care enough about us to preserve the bible as a lifeline through which we can get to know him much more personnally.

God is all powerful, so he can protect the bible; he's all loving, so he has the motive to protect the book. you totally cannot blame the cannonizers for what's in the bible, nor can anyone suggest that the writers put there own stuff in; to suggest those would be to suggest that God is either not all loving, or that He's not all powerful. Take it back 2 the basics folks.
tater

well said tater.

xon- does the bible as it is not satisfy you? Does Enoch reveal things that you think bring more glory to God and reveal more of His character?

If so, go ahead and champion the book of Enoch. If not, then drop it immediately. It's not worth it- there are too many apocryphas out there that tried to get into the canon, but are ultimately works of men who wanted to influence things towards their own way, and not God's.

Does Enoch reveal things that you think bring more glory to God and reveal more of His character?


exactly. this was why many books were left out during the canonization of the Bible. the books themselves were good in their theology & doctrine, yet they added nothing that the other books didn't already have.

i'm not talking Matthew vs. Luke vs. John ... it's more like taking the stories of Joshua & Judges & making a different book out of them. there would be no point in putting it in the Bible.

if what's written in Enoch is also stated in various other books, putting Enoch in simply as a conglomerate or summery of those ideas is not the best use of oil skin paper.

The issue with Enoch was this-the Ethiopians have an enormous Canon(exact number escapes me at the moment, I will ask my Christian history Prof) and there is no real way of determining the Authenticity of Enoch(oral traditons of the Church passed on other books). On that note, 1, 2, and part of 3 Macabbees are historical, and theologically relevant, yet only a few Churches actively use them(Catholic, Orthodox, some Lutherans)

i think that the major reason we can trust the compelation of the bible is that the cannonization process looked at all the OTHER books, like those in the aporcifa and all the others, perhaps even like this book of enoch, and decided, under the influence of the Holy Spirit that it should be included, so in this trust we shouldnt be trusting it as God's word.

The Bible was put together by men. Yes you may say that they were inspired and that it was God, but can you really say that it was God who did it, with no human intervention?

I believe that the Bible is legit, but I also believe that the book of enoch is very true to what is already written, although it is not the same. The legitamacy of the book of Enoch has been proven as part of the manuscript has been found with the deadsea scrolls.

I don't say add it to the Bible. I just say some things are answered in it, that is not recorded in the Bible. A lot of prophecy in it is about what God showed to enoch about the end times. So it is very interesting to see that a lot of ppl who study the scriptures and are led by the Spirit speak the prophecies without ever reading Enoch.

I'm not attacking the Bible in its authority, I'm just saying that God didn't just inspire the books in the Bible, there was and is more, although we test it on Bible scripture, there definately was more prophets who heard from God. It's just narrowminded and prejudice to think that God has not revealed more than what is in the Bible pages.

Should we trust Muhammed's Quran, Xon? He stated that he was just another prophet, inspired by God- Muhammed used the Old Testament- why don't we accept his teachings as well? John Smith said that he was inspired by God. Should we trust his book of mormon, then?

John Smith said that he was inspired by God. Should we trust his book of mormon, then?

*whispers* Wasn't it Joseph Smith? ;)

John Smith said that he was inspired by God. Should we trust his book of mormon, then?

*whispers* Wasn't it Joseph Smith? ;)


yes it was, you smart aleck. ;) nice to see ya Chrish. :)

i think invaded has a good point. even if "prophets" use the Scriptures (New/Old), we don't really know if they are truly of God. we really need to give it up to God. if we truly give Him the choice, let Him decide for us how to take these "new" revelations, then we can't go wrong.

Xon, you said ..you may say that they were inspired and that it was God, but can you really say that it was God who did it, with no human intervention?
true, there was human intervention. but when isn't there? God, for some reason, likes to use us frail & imperfect beings to do His work. God physically wrote the commandments down on stone, so why couldn't He have just done that with all the 66 books we collectively call the Bible? he coulda, but He wanted to use us to further illustrate His glory. (look up 2 Cor. 4.7 to back that up). i think the same goes for putting the Bible together. it was done by humans, with some human error involved, but that we have now what we do just further illustrates God's Providence.

Should we trust Muhammed's Quran, Xon? He stated that he was just another prophet, inspired by God- Muhammed used the Old Testament- why don't we accept his teachings as well? John Smith said that he was inspired by God. Should we trust his book of mormon, then?


It's diffrent with those books, cause
1. They teach different than the Bible scriptures
2. They deny the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ
3. They deny that Jesus came in the flesh, died and rose again, poured out his Spirit as the promise, to all who believe, no matter what situation your in, no matter what class, no matter who your parents are or aren't.

So they can't be of God, they make him a liar. But as far as I've read Enoch, he acknowledges the Messiah (who is with God from all eternity), he acknowledges the Ancient of days and the Spirit.

I'm not trying to get ne one to turn away from the Bible. It contains all the truth we need for salvation, which is Jesus Christ. NE thing that contradicts the Spirit, is not of God and we know the Bible scriptures was inspired by God. So as long as prophecy acknowledges Jesus Christ (Having His character) , it is spoken by the Spirit of God.

"No one can say Jesus is Lord, unless the Spirit helps him"

Joseph, John, Josh, Jeremy, Jack, Jim, Jose, same difference.

It's diffrent with those books, cause
1. They teach different than the Bible scriptures
2. They deny the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ
3. They deny that Jesus came in the flesh, died and rose again, poured out his Spirit as the promise, to all who believe, no matter what situation your in, no matter what class, no matter who your parents are or aren't.


that's true. i forgot about the fact that Islam & LDS have both changed parts of the Bible. (Islam says Jews made the OT less favorable towards their side of Abraham's family & more towards Isaac's side. Mormons made John 1 to say "In the beginning was the Word & the Word was with God & the Word was a God." emphasis mine.)

you are right Xon. :)

Joseph, John, Josh, Jeremy, Jack, Jim, Jose, same difference.
*chuckle* Okie doke.

Good to see you too, Mike. ;)

Joseph, John, Josh, Jeremy, Jack, Jim, Jose, same difference.


I'm trying to sound educated, and here you come and make fun of me... >:( ;D

Posted by: theinvaded Posted on: October 20, 2003, 06:58:49 am
does the bible as it is not satisfy you?

I don't understand why you are so desparate to defend this book. I've never read it, so I won't say anything against it, but if you find that it encourages your faith, then why not read it? I read a lot of modern books and get wisdom and revelation out of them, even if they aren't in the Bible. They quote from the Bible, they are based on the truths of the Bible, and I learn from them. However, I still weigh up everything that I read to make sure that it lines up with the scripture, so that I'm not letting bad teaching get into my head inadvertedly. Same with your book of Enoch. If you read it, and it encourages you to live in a Godly way, and gives you revelation, then go ahead and read it. But make sure that it lines up with everything in the Bible; trust the Bible above that book (which you seem to be doing ;) )

bex

THNKS Beth, just this book is prophecy, so it is a lot harder for ppl to just read it as another ordinary book. But I get your point. I think that is good advice for ne book we read.

Xon, I haven't read the book. So I'm wondering, have you read any extrabiblical revelation in it as far as prophecy? If so are you trusting in it? It is one thing to read a book that encourages us in our walk; it's another to trust in a book that wants to add to the final Revelation of the bible.

It was actually the Jehovah's Witnesses that changed John1:1. Mormons use a different book altogether.

It was actually the Jehovah's Witnesses that changed John1:1. Mormons use a different book altogether.


from what i've heard (& i have a friend who's a pastor in Utah. that's what i call living in the land of sin), Mormons still use our Bible, it's just that they also have added on their own book of mormon. another friend of mine roomed with a mormon & the roomie agreed that whenever they discussed religion that he wouldn't bring up the book of mormon, they'd both just go with the Bible. if JW changed the Bible as well, tho, i wouldn't be surprised.

but, back on subject. :)

Mormons still use our Bible, it's just that they also have added on their own book of mormon.



Fair enough.

Ultimately I look at extrabiblical books like this. If God wanted them in the canon, they'd be there. They're not, so he must have a reason for it. Just because we don't understand that reason doesn't mean there ISNT one. It just means we don't understand it!

i used to be mormon and they do have a Christian Bible along with their other books. but it has to be the king james version only. (just so you know) :)

i used to be mormon and they do have a Christian Bible along with their other books. but it has to be the king james version only. (just so you know) :)


i forgot about that part. :) thanks for the reminder. (just curious, do you know why KJV only?)

one of the mormon articles of faith says that they believe the bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. they think that the king james version is the only version that fits that criteria.

we have the bible as it is today becaus God lead the church leaders who were in charge of 'canonizing' scripture. they didn't pick the best sounding books or the ones with the most wisdom. they picked the ones God led them to pick.
Other than that, another important reason for the book of Enoch to not be canonized, as well as some other wisdom books, history books, and even a letter from paul to the laodiceans (mentioned at the end of colossians) is because it could not be proven that the books were written by their supposed authors or even at the supposed times. While the book of Enoch may contain valuable information and may have been written by Enoch, the original scripts could not have been intact even during the 6th century (or so...) when scriptures were canonized. thus it couldn't be dated. so they don't know, even if enoch wrote it in the first place, that it hadn't been tampered with and rewritten since he wrote it.

The Book of Enoch, also known as Ethiopic Enoch, I Enoch, and The Book of Henoch" was revered by the Jews and Christians alike but fell into disfavor among powerful theologians because of its controversial descriptions of the nature and deeds of the fallen angels. The Enochian writings like others such as The Books of Tobias, Esdras, and others, were omitted (or lost) from the Bible. Once it was considered to be among the biblical apocryphal writings by the early church fathers.

To better understand the possible reason for the omission of the Book of Enoch from the Bible, the term "apocryphal" must be considered. Apocryphal is derived from the Greek and means "hidden" or "secret." Originally it was a complimentary term, and when applied to sacred books it meant that their contents was considered too exalted to be made available to the general public. Gradually the idea was accepted that such books were only to be read by the wise. Therefore, the term "apocrypha" began taking on a negative meaning because the orthodoxy felt as if they were being kept in the dark by not being told the teachings of these books. The apocryphal books were just read among esoteric circles of the devout believers. The clergy that was not admitted into such circles because they were thought not to be enlightened soon banned apocryphal material heretical, which were forbidden for all to read.

The Book of Enoch was banned as heretical by later Church fathers mainly because of its theme concerning the nature and actions of the fallen angels. In fact, the material infuriated some Church fathers. And, some rabbi even would not give credence to it. Probably it was considered such a sacrilege that it was denounced, cursed, banned, and no doubt burned and shredded. As a result the book was conveniently lost for a thousand years. But, with ironical persistence the Book of Enoch eventually reappeared.

Although the Book of Enoch was banned, the reasons for doing so became more illusive after it was discovered once again. Rumors of a surviving copy of the book in 1773 sent the Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant Ethiopia in search of it. There he found the Ethiopic church has saved the book and kept it alongside of the other books of the Bible.

Bruce was able to secure not one, but three copies of the Ethiopic book that he brought back to Europe and England. In 1821, Dr. Richard Laurence, an Oxford Hebrew professor, produced the first translation that gave the world its first glimpse of the forbidden Enochian mysteries.

Speculation of most scholars place the original writing of the Book of Enoch during the second century B. C. with its popularity lasting at least five hundred years. The earliest Ethiopic text was apparently made from a Greek manuscript of the book, which itself was a copy of an earlier text. The original text appears to have been written in a Semitic language, now thought to be Aramaic.

Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in obscurity. It is, in a word, old.

There is a consensus that the book does not contain the authentic words of the ancient patriarch Enoch, since he would have lived (based on the chronologies in the Book of Genesis) several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the book attributed to him.

Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch.

Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"--the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.

Two of these phrase are in the Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly…" The time difference between Enoch and Jude is approximately 3400 years. Therefore, Jude's reference to the Enochian prophesies strongly leans toward the conclusion that these written prophecies were available to him at that time.

Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milan also approved of and supported the Enochian writings. Even St. Augustine (354-430) suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. A.G.H.

hmmm...i didn't know all that...

well, i guess i still have a few things to say (nothing original, just agreeing with what others said). it may or may not be a good book (i haven't read it), and reading it may even help you in your walk with God. but the Bible is written by God using the hands and ink of those he spoke to. it is not currently known if the book of Enoch is, so it cannot be treated as scripture. just like reading a devotional book, such as "the unquenchable worshipper," may help you in understanding scripture, but it is not infallible.

another initial thought is that it was banned for a reason. it was not banned by roman soldiers or nazis or anything - it was benned by church leaders. and they may have had good reason to (again, i haven't read the book). so i would also suggest to anyone reading it to be very careful to not regard it as scripture in any way, because the early church leaders may have been right.

also, i think that if God wanted this to be canonized, it would be canonized. since there is no scheduled committee to recanonize scriptures in order to include new things or exclude old things (because such a committee would be rejected by most churches in the world), i highly doubt that at any point it will be regarded as scripture. if God had wanted it to be, He would have moved the committee (the one that canonized in the first place) to include it, even though it had been considered heretical.

it's still up to you, but you have my opinion.

Xon,
That's a nice essay on the book of Enoch. It does seem to me that there was plenty of reason to not cannonize it. But more importantly was my question: Are you trusting in it as holy scripture?

And what was your motivation for studying it? An assignment in school, learning why it wasn't cannonized, or what?

The reason for studying: I read about it in the Bible and later I found out that the book actually existed.
Yes I do accept parts of it as scripture, cause it may not be added to the Bible, but it is quoted and when they quote it in the Bible they say that it is prophecy.

So why can't I accept it as prophecy, when the Bible says it is? I am just looking at the facts here. The Bible says that it is prophecy. or what is the meaning of the following verse:


Jude 1:14
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints...

the only way that it can be quoted, is that they studied the book of enoch, which was actually studied at that time (historic fact). Please see that the author says that what was written, was prophesied, so I can take the rest of the book as prophecy.