Why hasnt onyone read the book of Enoch??

[[email protected]]

The Book of Enoch is interesting, and I don't see anything wrong with reading it. Although it is not canonized, I think it does contain some elements of truth, which is why Jude quoted from the book. The Jewish people knew of its existance, but they also did not canonized it.

Comic books and episodes of the TV series X-Files and Twilight Zone have elements of truth too, although that is stretching things a bit.
When one begins to absorb the ideas into one's theology it becomes misleading and dangerous.

The Truth Is Out There...
X-Files slogan

Is there really a conspiracy between the government and invading aliens from outer space?
^ This is the same notion as expecting demonic/human hybrids to make a reappearance (without the technology).

"I am the way, the light and the truth."
-Jesus Christ

The truth is that the Kingdom of God is looking for a few good recruits.

 

[l33tace]

It’s just not essential, really. It does not add much to what is already canonized. There are, I’m sure, many documents that were left out and that have faded out of existence since. What we do have is enough for what we need it seems, or I suppose if too much than it would just add more confusion.

I mean, we can hold up the bible to make positive confessions towards it. We can accumulate volumes and volumes of church doctrines outlining our traditions to lay upon it. We can hide our holy spirit power super-soaker squirt gun under it. But open and read the bible let alone study the existing 66 books in their entirety? ? So very rare it seems.

However, Enoch probably would have been a better choice to canonize in the protestant bible compared to Ecclesiastes which somehow made it in. Although we are presented with excerpts to it’s text as has been pointed out. So don’t be afraid to read it, but don’t put it before reading the gospels and their studies. Study to show yourself approved.

 

[aspen]

Can you imagine not having Revelation? Strange thought.

Luther did - along with James and Hebrews.

 

[SummaScriptura]

why? because it is a gnostic book that wasn't the truth and wasn't published till about the 2 century AD.

You have two of your two facts wrong.

Please cite 1 example of Enochan gnosticism from 1 Enoch. Don't bother, you can't, its not there.

The copies of the book which were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls have had their copy dates determined to about the 3rd century B.C. Sorry if you'd not heard this, but the Dead Sea Scrolls were only just discovered more than 60 years ago.

#1. please prove that jude quoted the book of enoch and not vice versa, with credible evidence. it is well known that cultic writings edited their own works to make it appear as if the disciples copied from them.

#2. i did get the date wrong it was 2 century BC not AD

http://www.newworlde...y/Book_of_Enoch

#3. prove that the book of enoch was written by the original enoch, with credible evidence. keeping in mind anything written pre-flood was destroyed.

you need to remember that prophecying does not mean written all the time and there is a reason why the bookof enoch is not in the canon. think about it.

Question: can't you answer your first question yourself? I mean you state in your second point that the Book of Enoch is a B.C. book, how could it quote Jude?

Another question: honestly, if someone were to ask you (assuming you are a person of faith, which I grant you might not be) "please prove that Moses wrote anything that is in our Bible, with credible evidence.", how would you do it?

 

[Jon-Marc]

I haven't read "Enoch" because it isn't in my Bible. I've often wondered how men (by the Holy Spirit's guidance, maybe?) knew what writings were from God and what wasn't. Some of what Paul wrote was just his opinion, and he said so. I've often wondered what purpose much of what is in what we call the Bible serves--like the Song of Solomon, which seems a bit sexual in nature. Although I've read the entire Bible through many times (the New many more times than the Old), I find the Old Testament to be rather boring in the way it was written. Giving every little detail about how to build the temple is extremely boring to me. Reading about sacrifices (except the final one for our sins) is also boring. Reading about the different rituals the Jewish people were commanded to observe is boring to me since it doesn't concern me. No, I don't find most of the OT very interesting. I did enjoy the books of Ruth and Esther and other OT writings, but too much of it wasn't written to be interesting.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I haven't read "Enoch" because it isn't in my Bible.

Sounds like you have a short reading list.

<snip>I find the Old Testament to be rather boring in the way it was written. Giving every little detail about how to build the temple is extremely boring to me. Reading about sacrifices (except the final one for our sins) is also boring. Reading about the different rituals the Jewish people were commanded to observe is boring to me since it doesn't concern me. No, I don't find most of the OT very interesting. I did enjoy the books of Ruth and Esther and other OT writings, but too much of it wasn't written to be interesting.

So you only read the Bible and much of it is boring. Forgive me, but that seems a bit bleak.

 

[SummaScriptura]

just so you know, the following is taken from The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, pg. 545: "

The differences they display concern partly the structure of the work, e.g. the astronomical section is more developed in parts than the text from which the ethiopic enoch (72-82) was made, while the book of parables (37-71) with its son of man speculation is completely lacking at Qumran"

thus the way it plays out is that Jude quoted the real enoch not the book of enoch itself and the book was edited after jude's writing to make it seem like he quoted from it instead.

for further reading:

http://www.jesus-is-...ok_of_enoch.htm

http://reluctant-mes...r.com/enoch.htm


http://en.wikipedia....cript_tradition

I too have that book. If you think the quote you present from that book is sufficient to settle this question, you're mistaken. If Martinez and Tilgelchar thought someone believed that quote made the point you're suggesting it makes, they would tell you otherwise.

The total fragments of what survives of the DSS represents an estimated 5%-10% of that which was originally deposited there. No serious scholar today argues that Esther or the Book of the Parables was never at Qumran in the first place.

That the Astronical Book is more expansive in the DSS does not in anyway mean that the Astronmical Book which we have complete in Ethiopic is unreliable. There was an short expansion to the Book of Samuel found in the DSS, yet no serious scholar is suggesting the Books of Samuel which we have are not the same book found in the DSS. To the contrary, by use of the DSS it has been determined by textual scholars that the complete version of TBoE which survives in Ethiopic is an essentially faithful formally-equivalent translation of TBoE as it existed in the 1st century AD.

it is invisible because it is not inspired nor scripture and can be rejected without problems.

I'm not prepared to throw down on the question of inspiration and the Book of Enoch.

I am not prepared to argue questions of canonicity. The Church has never had a single canon of Scripture to which all of the Church universally subscribed. There never has been, nor is there now a single universally accepted canon of the Bible for all Chrisitians.

However, I will throw down on this question, I am prepared to argue in favor of Book of Enoch being the authentic writing of the Biblical Enoch, 7th from Adam. If you disagree, cite specitific reasons and I will reply.

 

[Pelaides]

I think the book of enoch was omitted from the Bible because it says the sun revolves around the earth which is inaccurate.But it gives one of the most fantastic descriptions of heaven i have ever read.It also goes into great detail about why God caused the great flood.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think the book of enoch was omitted from the Bible because it says the sun revolves around the earth which is inaccurate.

Really? I've been reading it for a few years now and have not read that, and your the first person I have ever heard say that. Can you cite where? I suspect you cannot.

 

[Pelaides]

Really? I've been reading it for a few years now and have not read that, and your the first person I have ever heard say that. Can you cite where? I suspect you cannot.

The book i have is written{translated}by R.H.charles,in the chapter called "the heavenly lumanaries"it says this "2 And this is the first law of the lumanaries:the lumanary the sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven,and its settings in the western portals of the heaven." Now we know that the sun is stationary,and does not move,everything else in the book appears to be correct.How could primitive man have known these things?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think the book of enoch was omitted from the Bible because it says the sun revolves around the earth which is inaccurate.

The book i have is written{translated}by R.H.charles,in the chapter called "the heavenly lumanaries"it says this "2 And this is the first law of the lumanaries:the lumanary the sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven,and its settings in the western portals of the heaven." Now we know that the sun is stationary,and does not move,everything else in the book appears to be correct.How could primitive man have known these things?

It is my contention that almost any "problem" you can detect with the text or message of Enoch, the same class of problem can be found in some book of the Bible. The verse you cite from Enoch 72:2, is a case in point. Psalm 19:6 reads,

"Its (the sun's) rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat."

If using this type of language expalins the reason Enoch's book was left out of most Bibles, why were the Psalms included?

But perhaps more to your point it should be pointed out that its not quite true to say that either the Psalmist or Enoch is "inaccurate".

That these and other Biblical writers perspective of the cosmos was thoroughly geocentric does not either mean they are inaccurate, nor that such a perspective should mitigate against the divinely inspired nature of their books.

Rather, the geocentric perspective of the cosmos we see relflected in the writings of David, Enoch and elsewhere in the Bible speaks to us of the love of God in that he should condescend to us in love so as to make his words understandable, just as he condescends and expresses his love toward us in his incarnation.

 

[Pelaides]

I read the Bible literally so i am concerned if i see an inaccurate statement.Your verse from the book of psalms was very interesting i did not notice it before,King David was not considered a prophet like most of the other authors of the bible so maybe he made a mistake.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Each of the Kings of Israel during the united monarchy were considered prophets by the Jews, that's Saul, David and Solomon.

Acts 1:16

Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

 

[Pelaides]

I never thought of David as being a prophet even though he was a man of God.

 

[differentDemocrat]

I read it and it was fascinating. I highly recommend it. It is truly the last book for the last generation and the End Times...

Best Washer Repair Las Vegas
Sub Zero Refrigerator Repair Los Angeles
Commercial Appliance Repair 24 hours
Commercial Refrigerator Repair Los Angeles
San Jose Heating and Air Repair