The Book of Enoch

[amessenger4god]

What is your opinion on the Book of Enoch? I recognize that it isn't part of most Biblical canons, and I think that is probably a good thing, but I guess my question revolves around four points:

1.) Jude 1:14-15 is taken directly from it.

2.) Enoch's vision is said to be for a future generation to come (v. 2-3).

3.) Enoch is considered by many Christians to be one of the two witnesses in Jerusalem (the other being Elijah, since these are the only two men in the Bible who didn't taste death).

4.) The Book of Enoch is filled with imagery and descriptions of the "Son of Man"... how could this book, which we know was written at least 200 years before Christ's coming, have known this, as Daniel did, if it is purely false?


Just curious...

[Abiding in His Word]

Holly's post may answer your question.

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=27513

[Cantaress4Him]

Here are some really good online videos from Prophecy in the News regarding the Book of Enoch. J. R. Church and Gary Stearman go into great detail explaining the different parts of the book.

What stood out in my mind the most from listening to this series is that they said the very first sentence of this book states that it was written for those that will be living in the tribulation period! If you look at an online copy of the book, it really does say that in the very first line! Could this be the reason why it's gained such popularity lately -- because we're close to the period of time that it was specifically written for?

Very interesting study. Enjoy!

http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6002-B.wmv (Part 1)
http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6003-B.wmv (Part 2)
http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6004-B.wmv (Part 3)
http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6005-a.wmv (Part 4)
http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6005-e.wmv (Part 5)
http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6005-f.wmv (Part 5b)
- Not available on site - (Part 6)
http://174.37.86.219/video/Dsl/6006-c.wmv (Part 7)

[christian_m0mmy]

I have often wondered the same thing. I wonder why it was left out, but then still held together. If this was supposed to survive for us, then what of the other supposed books? Like the book of Mary and such?

While I have always been interested in Enoch, I have always been afraid only because it isn't included. Obviously it is referenced in the New Testiment, so it should be ok, but why was it left out?

I read that it was common before, but it pointed too much to Jesus as being the Messiah so they took it out. Maybe it wasn't available to the "makers" or "put togetherer's" (lol) of the Bible as we know it. But then again, that can't be right because the Holy Spirit who guided them would have made it possible. That's why I'm afraid to read it. Is it God's word or not?

[nike]

It's my understanding that though the book of Enoch did include actual writings of Enoch, it also included writings of men who were contemporaries of Christ or at least written during the first century. So the book is not simply Enoch's writings. It would be as if I added my own writings to Shakespeare and used the name "Shakespeare" in its publication. So I think it wasn't included in the cannon because it was not written solely by one author, the author whose name was on the book. And technically, Enoch lived more than 200 years before Christ, because he lived before Noah's flood, therefore any writings he had done would have been on the ark...kind of cool...

[WallDoctor]

Nike: Have your personally read the Book of Enoch?


WallDoctor

[nike]

No, Walldoctor, I haven't read the whole thing. WIth my study of Genesis, Enoch has been a character of interest, so I did a bit of study on him and delved a bit deeper into the origins of book of Enoch. Dan Hayden was the head pastor at our church at the time and he helped me with the information about why the book of Enoch was not cannonized...since then I have found the same information in other commentaries as well...but I do think that for the book of Jude to quote Enoch, and knowing the context of Enoch's life (pre-flood), it is cool that his actual writings would have had to been on the ark to survive the flood. Enoch's son's name, Methuselah, means "when he dies, judgment" and the math points to his death being the same year as the flood. And the famous verse in Hebrews 11 - for without faith it is impossible to please Him - is in the context of Enoch's life. For a guy with only a few verses to his name, he has quite a presence in scripture! Unfortunately, it is not possible to separate his writings from the other men who added to his book, so I guess that's why I haven't the whole thing...

nike

[slick]

Hello Gang, (Wall & Nike),

These types of threads amaze me, I responded to one similar recently, where people grasp anything but THE BIBLE for answers to what is going on or what is to come.

II PETER 1:3

" SEEING THAT HIS DIVINE POWER HAS GRANTED TO US EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO LIFE AND GODLINESS,THROUGH THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM WHO CALLED US BY HIS OWN GLORY AND EXCELLENCE."

when people question the current compilation of Scripture as it stands to me it seems that they hold a low view of GODS power to maintain his word effectively. I know the argument can be stated that there are obvious perversions to the Bible, but the key is "obvious" God has placed together what He has chosen for us as his word and by far and large nothing can pervert that thread of truth due to his "DIVINE POWER"!

GOD-BLESS,
THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION ROARS!
Clarence

[JohnE]

Hello Gang, (Wall & Nike),

These types of threads amaze me, I responded to one similar recently, where people grasp anything but THE BIBLE for answers to what is going on or what is to come.

II PETER 1:3

" SEEING THAT HIS DIVINE POWER HAS GRANTED TO US EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO LIFE AND GODLINESS,THROUGH THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM WHO CALLED US BY HIS OWN GLORY AND EXCELLENCE."

when people question the current compilation of Scripture as it stands to me it seems that they hold a low view of GODS power to maintain his word effectively. I know the argument can be stated that there are obvious perversions to the Bible, but the key is "obvious" God has placed together what He has chosen for us as his word and by far and large nothing can pervert that thread of truth due to his "DIVINE POWER"!
GOD-BLESS,
THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION ROARS!
Clarence

Hi Clarence,
I understand what you are saying because I too believe the bible is the literal word of God.
That being said, I do not have a clear understanding of the actual meaning of Daniel 12:9. Does it just mean the meaning is closed and sealed, or that there is more to come (the New Testament and Revelation), or what? I am not familiar with original language and interpretations of original language, I know there are many here that are. Hopefully someone will chime in on that.
Specifically what I have wondered is why there are 66 books in the bible most of us use. It seems odd to me that 7 (a number representing completeness) is not related to the number of books we study as the complete word of God. The apocrypha (sp?) is 11 books - totals 77, then again the Old Testament at the time of Jesus here on earth was actually only 22 books (had all the same writings as our 39, but was "grouped" differently) and that plus the 27 New Testament books equals a total of 49. I sure don't know if it means anything, and I am not trying to say that there is definitely more that was intended to be there. I was very hesitant to even post this for fear of misleading anyone.
That being said, the statement in Jude - "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:" is what started my much deeper study of prophesy almost 20 years ago now. I wondered why a prophecy was quoted that was not in our Bible, I wondered, if they were studying this, did Jesus?, should we be???
All that being said, I also want to state that Rev. 22:18 scares the daylights out of me!
What I do believe is that we are very close to the time of the end, as stated in Dan 12:9, and suspect that the words have been, or will soon be, opened up and unsealed.
Looking forward to learning from "your guys" responses to this. Love in Christ, John

[lamb7]

Hello Gang, (Wall & Nike),

These types of threads amaze me, I responded to one similar recently, where people grasp anything but THE BIBLE for answers to what is going on or what is to come.

II PETER 1:3

" SEEING THAT HIS DIVINE POWER HAS GRANTED TO US EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO LIFE AND GODLINESS,THROUGH THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM WHO CALLED US BY HIS OWN GLORY AND EXCELLENCE."

when people question the current compilation of Scripture as it stands to me it seems that they hold a low view of GODS power to maintain his word effectively. I know the argument can be stated that there are obvious perversions to the Bible, but the key is "obvious" God has placed together what He has chosen for us as his word and by far and large nothing can pervert that thread of truth due to his "DIVINE POWER"!

GOD-BLESS,
THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION ROARS!
Clarence

I agree. If Enoch was to be included in the Bible in the first place, by God's divine power...it would be there. It isn't, and that is what I would question...why isn't it. And since it is NOT, then I would not dwell upon it pertaining to my spiritual well-being within my studies of the TRUTH.

That being said, I'm sure there is no harm in a healthy curiosity about it, but I wouldn't place anything more on it than that.

In Christ,
lamb

[slick]

Hello John,

Thanx for your honest questions! In the context of Prophetic scripture very often the Holy Spirit opted to use poetic, allegorical or otherwise information that did not hold clear meaning for the human agent who was receiving it, many times the information was given clarity by an angel or other agent as to what was the meaning of the prophecy,but at times as in this case no clear interpretation was being offered to Daniel by the ANGELIC messenger, instead He was told that he was to never mind the intended meaning would be sealed up until the generation or people whom it was meant for saw the events taking place.

It was not in any way a reference to further or expand the cannon after its close. GOD is sovereign in his rule and HE alone allows, in deed determines what man does or can do, nothing happens or exists outside of HIS AUTHORITY which includes the tampering or putting together of his word. the concept of "FREEWILL" is a gross lie of the devil that was purported in the garden of Eden. thus nothing can or will thwart the authority of GODS written word in the accepted compilation of scripture. if what I am saying is true, and it is then GOD chose the right agents at the right time to gather and compile his word in the way that HE desired! thus the strict warning of REV 22 " paraphrased " its my way or the highway"!!

GOD-BLESS,

THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION ROARS!

Clarence

[WallDoctor]

I never question the authority of Scripture. I do not think anything should be added to Scripture. I also think there are a lot of heretical writings out there. I guess my biggest question is, is the Book of Enoch worth reading as the faithful writings of the early church or are they heretical teachings that will mislead. In that sense, I wonder if it's any different reading a book by Charles Spurgeon. The fact that there are several authors from what you have said causes me worry. Was it understood to be a compilation of several authors or was there a purpose to deceive people into thinking it was by Enoch only?

WallDoctor

[nike]

Walldoctor,

I can't speak to their intent...it may be possible that the compilation was after Jude was written...I don't know the specifics of the history of the book, but I did find this word associated with Jude:


pseudepigrapha |ˌsoōdəˈpigrəfə|
plural noun
spurious or pseudonymous writings, esp. Jewish writings ascribed to various biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Jesus Christ.
DERIVATIVES
pseudepigraphal |ˈsudəˈpɪgrəfəl| adjective
pseudepigraphic |ˌsoōdˌepiˈgrafik| |ˈˈsudˈɛpəˈgrøfɪk| |-ˈgrafɪk| adjective
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: neuter plural of Greek pseudepigraphos ‘with false title’ (see pseudo- , epigraph ).

[Abiding in His Word]

.....it belongs to a category of books known as "Pseudepigrapha" which means "false writings." These books are claimed to be written by authors who didn't write them. In this case, it is claimed to be written by Enoch of Genesis 5, even though it wasn't actually written until about the first century B.C. When the early church faced heresies and persecution, they wanted to know which books were authoritative and worth dying for. That's when the canon was formed. The Book of Enoch was never accepted as Scripture by Catholics or Protestants. It was, however, respected by the Jews of Jesus' day, which explains why it is quoted in Jude. But the inclusion of this quotation in Scripture doesn't make the entire Book of Enoch Scripture. Consider that Paul quoted pagan writers in Acts 17, but that doesn't make their writings Scripture either.

I think books that aren't Scripture can provide helpful background to Scripture, but they certainly aren't without error. And if they distract people from a pure and simple devotion to Christ, then they could do more harm than good.

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=27513

[amessenger4god]

Hey Slick, I definately agree with you that the Bible is God's word, literally true, God-breathed. But, unfortunately the issue of the Book of Enoch is not so cut-and-dry. Yes, it is not in the post-Anglican, English canon, but it IS in some Christian canons (such as several Orthodox Christian Bibles).

The first complete Bible, as I understand it, was Jerome's Vulgate, which has endured to this day. I tend to agree that God's word has 73 books, including the deutero-canon/apocrypha. The apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament and was used by Christians until the 16th century. Remember, it was the Palestinian Jews (around 90 AD) that removed the apocrypha from the Old Testament (because they felt it supported the Christian sect too much), not the early-Church. The canonization including those books. And this might seem silly, but 7 and 3 are holy numbers.
Also consider that the Bible is a history from beginning to end, but if you exclude the deuterocanon there is a 300-400 years gap, a gap that is important for setting the stage for the Messiah.

[slick]

Hey Slick, I definately agree with you that the Bible is God's word, literally true, God-breathed. But, unfortunately the issue of the Book of Enoch is not so cut-and-dry. Yes, it is not in the post-Anglican, English canon, but it IS in some Christian canons (such as several Orthodox Christian Bibles).

The first complete Bible, as I understand it, was Jerome's Vulgate, which has endured to this day. I tend to agree that God's word has 73 books, including the deutero-canon/apocrypha. The apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament and was used by Christians until the 16th century. Remember, it was the Palestinian Jews (around 90 AD) that removed the apocrypha from the Old Testament (because they felt it supported the Christian sect too much), not the early-Church. The canonization including those books. And this might seem silly, but 7 and 3 are holy numbers.
Also consider that the Bible is a history from beginning to end, but if you exclude the deuterocanon there is a 300-400 years gap, a gap that is important for setting the stage for the Messiah.

Hello Messenger,

the problem wasnt that the apocryphal writtings supported christianity, they contain known historical error, they arent quoted in any of the other cannon. There dating and authenticity are in question.I have them all in various collections and there is very well some potential value in reading some or all of them but they are not SCRIPTURE.

GOD is omnipotent and thus by his "DIVINE POWER" has kept his word intact.

GOD-BLESS,
THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION ROARS!
Clarence