The Book of Enoch and other books not included in KJV

[Just_Jo]

Hello,

i would like to start with a discussion on the book of Enoch,which I've just read.

Why do you suppose King James left it out of the Bible he compiled?

Does it have any spiritual value to the believers walk?

King James was protestant,he gave account in the book of Genesis ( written by Moses?) ,where it speaks of Enochs Adamic genology and his translation to be with God! Gen 5:23/24



I read one opion on this book that declares if we read it ,it will lead us into mysticism,socercy divinations and the new age movement.



Just curious to your thoughts.

 

[tourist]

Hello,

i would like to start with a discussion on the book of Enoch,which I've just read.

Why do you suppose King James left it out of the Bible he compiled?

Does it have any spiritual value to the believers walk?

King James was protestant,he gave account in the book of Genesis ( written by Moses?) ,where it speaks of Enochs Adamic genology and his translation to be with God! Gen 5:23/24



I read one opion on this book that declares if we read it ,it will lead us into mysticism,socercy divinations and the new age movement.



Just curious to your thoughts.

These are my thoughts.

If the opinions you have read are accurate then this book should be avoided.

King James did not personally exclude that book but rather just sponsored its publication with the necessary funds.

In scripture it is stated who has been trusted with the authority of establishing the canon. Apparently, this book was excluded as possibly being extraneous or misleading, and added nothing scriptural to what had already been established.

I never read the book so I have no opinion to offer as to content or the scriptural value for edification. It is my opinion however, that the bible is sufficient in itself in content leading to salvation, repentance and the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Glad to have you onboard with us. Welcome to CC.

 

[Just_Jo]

Thank you @tourist , I appreciate your candor.
In some of the book it talks about the giants in Gen.,and the description of heaven and God are pretty close to Rev.
I'm just curious and I believe God could bring His love and mercy to us even without the Bible .

 

[Lanolin]

I have read Enoch but I dont think you are missing out too much if you dont read it, if its not in your Bible.

I dont remember too much of it though it was mostly about angels. I didnt keep the copy of it so, while it was interesting I think Revelation is the more important book. Enoch was more about the time before creation, which doesnt concern us so much.

I think it wasnt included in KJV because it was regarded as apochyra although there apparently are copies of the KJV that do include it (and the other extra books)

 

[tanakh]

A large number of books that are not in the Bible were in circulation in the first century. They were used by both Jewish and Christian
groups. In the case of Enoch Judes epistle quotes from it. Copies were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some people appear to have had a more laid back attitude about what makes for scripture than we have now.

 

[Magenta]

This Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was an ancient Jewish writing known within Jewish culture. It exists in full today only in Ge'ez, the religious language of Ethiopia, though it likely existed in Hebrew or Aramaic prior. It is believed the early portions of it existed from about 300 BC while the later portions were added by the first century BC.

The writer of this work is unknown. It is based on the biblical character Enoch who is listed in Genesis as the great-grandfather of Noah and was noted as the "seventh from Adam" (Jude 1:14). Along with Elijah and Jesus, Enoch is noted as leaving this world alive and ascending to God. Genesis 5:24 says, "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5 reiterates that Enoch did not die but was rather taken up by God.

Because the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude, some have wondered whether it should be considered a book of the Bible. However, the following reasons stand against this view. First, the Book of Enoch existed *before the New Testament period and was not accepted as authoritative by the Jewish leaders who affirmed the Old Testament writings. *known as the inter-testate period.

Second, the Book of Enoch was not authored by the biblical Enoch. While there are biblical books whose author is unknown, there is no biblical book whose authorship is knowingly attributed to a false author.

Third, quoting a book in the New Testament does not require that the book be considered part of the Bible. For example, Paul quoted Greek poets (Acts 17; Titus 1:12) and surely did not consider these sources "biblical sources" or inspired. He instead used these sources to illustrate an idea with his audience. The same was true of Jude's use of Enoch. His Jewish readers would have been familiar with the Book of Enoch. Jude used this quotation concerning judgment as a warning to his readers, but did not do so to help prove that the Book of Enoch should be in the Bible. source

 

[Just_Jo]

Yes,I have perused the sources available on the web.
As has been pointed out King James sponsored the compilation,but a panel of men compiled the books.
The way some dispute with others about the 66 books we do have, makes me question if they are holding to the word of God or some doctrine.

 

[Lanolin]

I think its the other way round those that hold there are more than 66 books (i.e catholics, mormons) are holding to THEIR pet doctrines, and using those books to support it. For example the doctrine of purgatory for catholics, and extra terrestial marriage for mormons, which is kinda strange.

Because it actually contradicts all other scripture, so the compliers did not think they were inspired or Holy spirit breathed, but just peoples on opinions. eg often Gnostics bandy about the 'gnostic gospels' to support their doctrines as well. But those gospels were not the eyewitness accounts that the four gospels were.

I think you need to make up your own mind about that and ask God. If you do want to read them, but you not missing out on much if you dont.

 

[Magenta]

Yes,I have perused the sources available on the web.
As has been pointed out King James sponsored the compilation,but a panel of men compiled the books.
The way some dispute with others about the 66 books we do have, makes me question if they are holding to the word of God or some doctrine.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "inter-testate"? They are uninspired.

 

[Magenta]

The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon, and none of the writers lay any claim to inspiration. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there were no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

 

[Just_Jo]

Do you understand the meaning of the word "inter-testate"? They are uninspired.

i could find no def of such word.
intestate means having left no will and the succession of heirs by law.

 

[Billyd]

If you are really interested in how the books made it into the scriptures, I recommend F F Bruce's book, "The Cannon of Scripture". It's available in most bookstores.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

These are my thoughts.

If the opinions you have read are accurate then this book should be avoided.

King James did not personally exclude that book but rather just sponsored its publication with the necessary funds.

In scripture it is stated who has been trusted with the authority of establishing the canon. Apparently, this book was excluded as possibly being extraneous or misleading, and added nothing scriptural to what had already been established.

I never read the book so I have no opinion to offer as to content or the scriptural value for edification. It is my opinion however, that the bible is sufficient in itself in content leading to salvation, repentance and the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Glad to have you onboard with us. Welcome to CC.

You're correct - that's how I feel about the book, too! And I use some of the same reasoning as you use too, against it!

 

[MyrtleTrees]

The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon, and none of the writers lay any claim to inspiration. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there were no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

I've heard that the writers of the King James Bible (and other Bible translators) rejected the Apocrypha, as not being inspired of God. I believe that assumption is correct - otherwise it would have been accepted. Also, I've looked through the Apocrypha some, and see nothing in it as worthwhile and with - and having the appearance of being directly from God - as the scriptures we have in typical Bibles that hold to the original well - such as the King James Bible. The word, "Apocrypha" means "hidden" - too, I've read online.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

I think its the other way round those that hold there are more than 66 books (i.e catholics, mormons) are holding to THEIR pet doctrines, and using those books to support it. For example the doctrine of purgatory for catholics, and extra terrestial marriage for mormons, which is kinda strange.

Because it actually contradicts all other scripture, so the compliers did not think they were inspired or Holy spirit breathed, but just peoples on opinions. eg often Gnostics bandy about the 'gnostic gospels' to support their doctrines as well. But those gospels were not the eyewitness accounts that the four gospels were.

I think you need to make up your own mind about that and ask God. If you do want to read them, but you not missing out on much if you dont.

I agree with you! And it's very important to me always to be the the most acquainted with the most reliable scriptures available. I think the King James Bible seems to be the most trustworthy translation of the Bible that there is. It is the kind I use the most.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

This Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was an ancient Jewish writing known within Jewish culture. It exists in full today only in Ge'ez, the religious language of Ethiopia, though it likely existed in Hebrew or Aramaic prior. It is believed the early portions of it existed from about 300 BC while the later portions were added by the first century BC.

The writer of this work is unknown. It is based on the biblical character Enoch who is listed in Genesis as the great-grandfather of Noah and was noted as the "seventh from Adam" (Jude 1:14). Along with Elijah and Jesus, Enoch is noted as leaving this world alive and ascending to God. Genesis 5:24 says, "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5 reiterates that Enoch did not die but was rather taken up by God.

Because the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude, some have wondered whether it should be considered a book of the Bible. However, the following reasons stand against this view. First, the Book of Enoch existed *before the New Testament period and was not accepted as authoritative by the Jewish leaders who affirmed the Old Testament writings. *known as the inter-testate period.

Second, the Book of Enoch was not authored by the biblical Enoch. While there are biblical books whose author is unknown, there is no biblical book whose authorship is knowingly attributed to a false author.

Third, quoting a book in the New Testament does not require that the book be considered part of the Bible. For example, Paul quoted Greek poets (Acts 17; Titus 1:12) and surely did not consider these sources "biblical sources" or inspired. He instead used these sources to illustrate an idea with his audience. The same was true of Jude's use of Enoch. His Jewish readers would have been familiar with the Book of Enoch. Jude used this quotation concerning judgment as a warning to his readers, but did not do so to help prove that the Book of Enoch should be in the Bible. source

I agree - the book of Enoch is not to be trusted as being true Bible scriptures. They would have been included if so. I've read through it before. I didn't see anything in it that seemed any more worthwhile than anything in the scriptures I already know. I also saw that the claim that the "sons of men" who married women and produced giants, were angels - sounded highly unlikely. Also, the term, "sons" of God is used to describe God's people sometimes, in the Bible. Also, Jesus was sometimes called "the Son of God."

 

[MyrtleTrees]

A large number of books that are not in the Bible were in circulation in the first century. They were used by both Jewish and Christian
groups. In the case of Enoch Judes epistle quotes from it. Copies were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some people appear to have had a more laid back attitude about what makes for scripture than we have now.

I've studied church history. Yes, I know there have always been doctrinal errors throughout history. And it seems likely that some of the ancient erroneous doctrines may have found it easier to take hold compared to modern times, due to lack of availability of Bibles and Christian printed materials, and a lack of the speed of the spread of knowledge, as compared to modern times.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

Yes,I have perused the sources available on the web.
As has been pointed out King James sponsored the compilation,but a panel of men compiled the books.
The way some dispute with others about the 66 books we do have, makes me question if they are holding to the word of God or some doctrine.

Yes, I would think it must be common for those that dispute the King James Bible, for example, to choose not to trust the reliability of the King James Bible. Not all who question it's reliability have wrong motives - but I think the majority who question it, do have wrong motives. And are not willing to accept the full truth of all of the scriptures.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

These are my thoughts.

If the opinions you have read are accurate then this book should be avoided.

King James did not personally exclude that book but rather just sponsored its publication with the necessary funds.

In scripture it is stated who has been trusted with the authority of establishing the canon. Apparently, this book was excluded as possibly being extraneous or misleading, and added nothing scriptural to what had already been established.

I never read the book so I have no opinion to offer as to content or the scriptural value for edification. It is my opinion however, that the bible is sufficient in itself in content leading to salvation, repentance and the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Glad to have you onboard with us. Welcome to CC.

Yes, I believe the scriptures are sufficient! And God was behind the writing of the Bible, and I believe He has also been behind it's preservation! I've read that book, called "the book of Enoch" - but it looks fake to me. And I saw some errors in it (such as the claim that angels impregnanted women, and that it created giants). And nothing in the book was as spiritually refreshing and with a ring of truth to it like the Bible!

 

[Hungry]

Hello,

i would like to start with a discussion on the book of Enoch,which I've just read.

Why do you suppose King James left it out of the Bible he compiled?

Does it have any spiritual value to the believers walk?

King James was protestant,he gave account in the book of Genesis ( written by Moses?) ,where it speaks of Enochs Adamic genology and his translation to be with God! Gen 5:23/24



I read one opion on this book that declares if we read it ,it will lead us into mysticism,socercy divinations and the new age movement.



Just curious to your thoughts.

When do you think language was created? Do you think God taught men to speak, read and write? Even in the 1800s many were illiterate. That’s several of thousands of years after the invention of writing. There weren’t even many symbols to make such expressive language as found in the book of Enoch. One would have to almost imagine what he was trying to express. My thoughts are if Enoch wrote a book, first what did he write it on? Second, did Noah take it on the ark to preserve it? Third, who could even translate it? In my opinion it’s a work of fiction. Perhaps if there was a scroll or story it wasn’t the same one told today.