Book Of Enoch?

[A-Omega]

The Book of Enoch directly contradicts Scripture in several places and thus should be rejected on that basis alone.

 

[Mediate]

Scripture was chosen by men who thought all the books mostly complimented each other. Just cause they left it out, doesnt mean it's wrong.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Scripture was chosen by men who thought all the books mostly complimented each other. Just cause they left it out, doesnt mean it's wrong.

You must not know much about canonization.

 

[Mediate]

You must not know much about canonization.

Indeed I mustn't.

Again, I congratulate you.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Indeed I mustn't.

Well, given that you prefer not to serve Christ, but rather choose for yourself your own path of "enlightenment", no, you really don't need to know much about canonization if you seek to continue with your own path. Which is part of why you proclaim things to be true concerning the matter, that are not.

 

[Mediate]

Well, given that you prefer not to serve Christ, but rather choose for yourself your own path of "enlightenment", no, you really don't need to know much about canonization. Which is part of why you proclaim things to be true concerning the matter, that are not.

You must be right. I am a deadly sinner. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

again, I congratulate you.

 

[jimmydiggs]

You must be right.

It is silly to assume that I, or anyone else for that matter is "right" by their own accord.

I am a deadly sinner. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

I don't recall saying anything about you being "deadly".

again, I congratulate you.

I don't see what for.

 

[Mediate]

It is silly to assume that I, or anyone else for that matter is "right" by their own accord.

vs

Well, given that you prefer not to serve Christ, but rather choose for yourself your own path of "enlightenment", no, you really don't need to know much about canonization if you seek to continue with your own path. Which is part of why you proclaim things to be true concerning the matter, that are not.

Indeed, I congratulate you a third time.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I'm sure there are many threads created for the gnostics somewhere but a fair word of warning to you, sister - the content in these books may often sound similar to passages and verses found in Scripture. However, the danger lies in the minor nuances.

A friend once tried to convince me to read them and take it for truth. He used the witness testimony analogy - that if Jesus went up to a bunch of women to say, "Good morning," witnesses might record the incident as "hi" or "greetings." His point is that the gnostics (such as the Gospel of Thomas) is merely one viewpoint from a witness. My response is that what if it's recorded as, "Hey, babe, lookin' hot there"? It's still a greeting but now we've introduced a sexual overtone. That's what the gnostics are like - they introduce minor differences that are difficult to sift out.

CARM published an excellent summary of points: Gnosticism|What is Gnosticism? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. My recommendation: solidify your base with proper systematic theology - the tried and true understandings - so that you'll be equipped to detect the nuances. Then go back to the gnostics if your heart so desires. The gnostics will always be there and I know your heart yearns and desires to learn everything and anything about our Lord. However, there's no point in heading down that path and paying for it in some way because of impatience. Even learning requires patience! It's just not worth the trouble of grieving the Holy Spirit.

Katy-Follower, what this poster says about gnosticism is true you can bank on it.

However, the poster errs on two serious points regarding this thread:

1. The Book of Enoch is not a gnostic work, it contains no gnostic ideas. The Book of Enoch was composed and compiled before the Church dealt with the threat of Gnosticism.

2. This is not a thread about Gnosticism, nor did your post infer or relate to Gnosticism in any way.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Book of Enoch directly contradicts Scripture in several places and thus should be rejected on that basis alone.

Can you cite an example from your own research and explain why you feel it contradicts Scripture?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The point is often made that since The Epistle of Jude merely cites a single passage from the Book of Enoch, Jude cannot be seen as endorsing the Book of Enoch as a whole.

Upon closer examination of Jude’s letter, however, we can see there are at least seven places where Jude either directly quotes or refers to the contents of Enoch. Jude does not merely cite a passage from the Book of Enoch, Jude was a veritable Book of Enoch expert!

There are at least 7 places in his letter in which Jude, through the inspiration of God, either quotes directly or refers to 1 Enoch (aka The Book of Enoch, or Ethiopic Enoch):

1. First, Jude calls Enoch a prophet, despite the fact no explicit prophecy (though some see an implicit prophecy in Methuselah's name) and no book of the prophecies of Enoch can be found in our 66-book Bible common in Western Christendom. Jude alone, among the 40 or so writers in the Bible seems aware of this fact. However, the Book of Enoch everywhere records the prophecies of Enoch, so we can see Jude agrees with the Book of Enoch on this point. Enoch is to be numbered among the prophets.
2. Jude 1:6 refers to, "angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling". This is a reference to Enoch 6:6, "They were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it."
3. Further, Jude 1:6, relates these were angels which, "he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day" We see this outlined for us later in the book in Enoch 10:12, "Bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever."
4. Jude also tells us in verse 6, the angels are bound, "...until the judgment of the great day", which is also described in Enoch 54:6, "Michael, and Gabriel, and Raphael, and Phanuel shall take hold of them on that great day, and cast them on that day into the burning furnace, that the Lord of Spirits may take vengeance on them for their unrighteousness in becoming subject to Satan and leading astray those who dwell on the earth."
5. In Jude 1:7, the apostle says the sin of these angels was sexual immorality and that Sodom's sin was of the same class as those angels, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh"; the sexual nature of the angels' sin is corroborated in Enoch 7:1, "All the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them"
6. Then there's Jude 1:14 which oddly calculates Enoch was the 7th from Adam, "It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied". But to reckon it this way, Adam's generation has to be counted too; Enoch 60:8, reckons the generations in the identical fashion where Noah says, "where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam"
7. Finally, Jude 1:14-15 caps it off by quoting The Book of Enoch directly as being the source of a prophecy regarding the 2nd-coming of Jesus Christ, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." This quote can be found in Enoch 1:9, "Behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

For those keeping score, Jude alludes to and/or quotes from not just Enoch 1:9, but also from Enoch 6:6, Enoch 7:1, Enoch 10:12, Enoch 54:6, and Enoch 60:8. Besides this, the Epistle of Jude confirms the underlying thesis of the Book of Enoch, that Enoch is to be numbered among the prophets.

P.S. There may be other references I have missed.

P.P.S. As an added bonus, in 2 Peter 2:4, Saint Peter gives us a confirming witness to the Apostolic usage of the Book of Enoch.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns
(Excerpted from the "The Book of Enoch: Messianic Prophecy Edition")

jude saying that enoch prophesied does not imply jude's endorsement of the book of enoch...there is a -huge- gap in your logic there...

jude is actually paraphrasing second peter for most of the verses you mention... jude 6 is not an allusion to enoch but an allusion to 2 peter 2:4...

peter is referring to the fall of satan and his angels and -not- the unbiblical second angelic rebellion from the book of enoch...

the reference to wicked angels being bound in chains in jude 6 is also a paraphrase of 2 peter 2:4...where peter indicates that these angels were bound in tartarus and -not- 'in the valleys of the earth' as the book of enoch claims...

jude's mention of the 'great day' is an allusion to the great day of the lord that is mentioned in similar terms in several canonical books...see isaiah 30:25 and hosea 1:11 and joel 2:11 and joel 2:31 and zephaniah 1:14 and malachi 4:5 and acts 2:20 and revelation 6:17 and revelation 16:14... there is no need to suppose that jude referenced the book of enoch here...

jude 7 is not saying that the angels' sin was sexual...jude has moved on to another example of ungodly people being punished...the similarity jude is illustrating is not that their sins were similar but that they were both punished for sin... the sins of both groups are actually listed in reverse order in jude 8...in hebrew literature this is known as a chiastic structure... specifically the sin of the angels stated in jude 8 is that they rejected authority...they followed satan in his rejection of God's authority...

jude 14 is just an instance of the hebrew method of counting which was usually inclusive...adam is counted as first...down to enoch who is counted as seventh... since the book of enoch was also hebrew literature it is natural that it would have counted the pre flood generations in the same way... there is no need to suppose that jude borrowed that enumeration from the book of enoch...

the two quotations you have given from jude 14-15 and enoch 1:9 cannot prove that jude was quoting from the book of enoch... the similarity of two quotations does not prove that one came form the other...it can also mean that -both- were taken from a common source... as i said previously the book of enoch is just one book from a whole genre of enochian literature...so variations on this saying of enoch were probably circulating in the body of tradition of that time period... the fact that jude's quotation and enoch's quotation fail to line up exactly makes it more likely that they were -both- paraphrasing a saying of enoch that was common knowledge in those days... this would be similar to the way that paul mentions jannes and jambres as the names of the egyptian magicians that opposed moses in 2 timothy 3:8...a fact that is not contained in the book of exodus but was widely known among the rabbis in paul's time...

finally...even if you -could- prove that jude had quoted from the book of enoch...the act of quoting a single line from a book does not imply an endorsement of the entire book and its content... paul quoted from the pagan greek writers menander and aratus and epimenides...though obviously not endorsing the rest of the works he was quoting from...works which openly professed paganism...

 

[SummaScriptura]

jude saying that enoch prophesied does not imply jude's endorsement of the book of enoch...there is a -huge- gap in your logic there...

jude is actually paraphrasing second peter for most of the verses you mention... jude 6 is not an allusion to enoch but an allusion to 2 peter 2:4...

peter is referring to the fall of satan and his angels and -not- the unbiblical second angelic rebellion from the book of enoch...

the reference to wicked angels being bound in chains in jude 6 is also a paraphrase of 2 peter 2:4...where peter indicates that these angels were bound in tartarus and -not- 'in the valleys of the earth' as the book of enoch claims...

jude's mention of the 'great day' is an allusion to the great day of the lord that is mentioned in similar terms in several canonical books...see isaiah 30:25 and hosea 1:11 and joel 2:11 and joel 2:31 and zephaniah 1:14 and malachi 4:5 and acts 2:20 and revelation 6:17 and revelation 16:14... there is no need to suppose that jude referenced the book of enoch here...

jude 7 is not saying that the angels' sin was sexual...jude has moved on to another example of ungodly people being punished...the similarity jude is illustrating is not that their sins were similar but that they were both punished for sin... the sins of both groups are actually listed in reverse order in jude 8...in hebrew literature this is known as a chiastic structure... specifically the sin of the angels stated in jude 8 is that they rejected authority...they followed satan in his rejection of God's authority...

jude 14 is just an instance of the hebrew method of counting which was usually inclusive...adam is counted as first...down to enoch who is counted as seventh... since the book of enoch was also hebrew literature it is natural that it would have counted the pre flood generations in the same way... there is no need to suppose that jude borrowed that enumeration from the book of enoch...

the two quotations you have given from jude 14-15 and enoch 1:9 cannot prove that jude was quoting from the book of enoch... the similarity of two quotations does not prove that one came form the other...it can also mean that -both- were taken from a common source... as i said previously the book of enoch is just one book from a whole genre of enochian literature...so variations on this saying of enoch were probably circulating in the body of tradition of that time period... the fact that jude's quotation and enoch's quotation fail to line up exactly makes it more likely that they were -both- paraphrasing a saying of enoch that was common knowledge in those days... this would be similar to the way that paul mentions jannes and jambres as the names of the egyptian magicians that opposed moses in 2 timothy 3:8...a fact that is not contained in the book of exodus but was widely known among the rabbis in paul's time...

finally...even if you -could- prove that jude had quoted from the book of enoch...the act of quoting a single line from a book does not imply an endorsement of the entire book and its content... paul quoted from the pagan greek writers menander and aratus and epimenides...though obviously not endorsing the rest of the works he was quoting from...works which openly professed paganism...

I'd have to say this is just about the best refutation to my assertions I've read. I find it refreshing and rare to find people like yourself who approach subjects such as this analytically. Thanks for taking the time. Maybe I will take some time to reply later on, but I have to admit I think once a person's stance is based not on heresay and innuendo, I am fine with leaving it there. I hope this comes across as a compliment, it is.

 

[jonrambo]

I like the book of enoch. its pretty crazy but i make sure it does not change anything i have learned from the bible. so long as it doesnt over ride the bible i cant see a problem with researching all ancient scripture associated with God. Maybe pray about it first. If you get a bad feeling from anything you read stop. I had a look at the kabala and stopped before i got very far because it tried to go against things i learned from the bible. Its funny to look at alister crowleys satanic books and see just how much satan lies manipulates and controlls people. but i would never keep one in my house thats for sure. will happily burn one

 

[jonrambo]

I am not encouraging even researching alister crawley unless you are ABSOLUTLEY COVERED in the blood of Jesus because like alot of things in this world its a pretty bloody evil.

 

[Onehope]

Yes. No one disputes the translation of Enoch from Greek into Geez (Ethiopian) is the only whole copy in existence.

The Geez version (and the Greek) are predated by the Aramaic version the majority of which survives. It has been dated to the 3rd century BC. Geez was not even spoken in the 3rd century BC.

The Ethiopian copies are quite late, though highly reliable, but late nonetheless. Not one of them is even 1,000 years old. Aramaic Enoch is older than most Biblical texts being 2,300 years old.

Hello SummaScriptura- The part of this quote I would like to address is where you say the majority of the Aramaic version exists.

I do not know if it is deemed to be missing, or never was a part of the Aramaic text, but I have heard Enoch 1:9 is not included. Do you know if that is true?

Also, if the Aramaic version is the oldest known copy, is there a word for word translation somewhere of this text from Aramaic directly to English?

One other question. The dating of at least some of the Dead Sea Scrolls is said to be around 300 BC to 100 BC, but do you know if the Book of Enoch is included in this range of dates, and what criteria was used to determine that date?

I have heard there were some random coins found, and there no mention of the destruction of the Temple, and some carbon-14 dating methods were used.

Thanks- Gary

 

[SummaScriptura]

Wrong. Please cite one historian who asserts this.

 

[pckts]

Wrong. Please cite one historian who asserts this.

The post you indirectly referenced was made 5 years ago, don't expect a response.

I heard enoch was taken out about 500 years ago from The Bible. Is this true? I haven't done the research yet but if it was "canon" for 1000 years, that lends it credibility.

 

[SummaScriptura]

and?

I'm not recommending your canon be amended.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The apostates have always been happy to add to scripture, what is not scripture. The wolves don't mind either.

You seem quite well versed on the subject of canon which you continue to insert into this thread. Let me ask, where in the Bible is this doctrine of the canon of Scripture? It must be really spelled out since per you people who do not believe like you about the canon are apostates.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I'm sure there are many threads created for the gnostics somewhere but a fair word of warning to you, sister - the content in these books may often sound similar to passages and verses found in Scripture. However, the danger lies in the minor nuances.

A friend once tried to convince me to read them and take it for truth. He used the witness testimony analogy - that if Jesus went up to a bunch of women to say, "Good morning," witnesses might record the incident as "hi" or "greetings." His point is that the gnostics (such as the Gospel of Thomas) is merely one viewpoint from a witness. My response is that what if it's recorded as, "Hey, babe, lookin' hot there"? It's still a greeting but now we've introduced a sexual overtone. That's what the gnostics are like - they introduce minor differences that are difficult to sift out.

CARM published an excellent summary of points: http://carm.org/gnosticism. My recommendation: solidify your base with proper systematic theology - the tried and true understandings - so that you'll be equipped to detect the nuances. Then go back to the gnostics if your heart so desires. The gnostics will always be there and I know your heart yearns and desires to learn everything and anything about our Lord. However, there's no point in heading down that path and paying for it in some way because of impatience. Even learning requires patience! It's just not worth the trouble of grieving the Holy Spirit.

There is no gnosticism in Enoch. The poster you are warning is referring to 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch is not a gnostic work.