The Book of Enoch Yay or Nay

a reply to: randyvs

I had a feeling there were two books of Enoch. I understood they were popular up till about 300 AD when for some reason they went out of fashion.

I did read them a long time ago, but from what I remember didn't Gabriel give Enoch a book to write down either God's words or what he saw in up the mountain (or wherever they were). It very much reminded me of some of Sitchin's work.

I would give it a Yay because it tells an interesting story about Enoch and the early days of God, the Archangels and a person from the Bible. We do know that Enoch did not die and was taken into heaven which makes him special in some way although I suspect we could do with more books linked to Enoch to really understand his story.

a reply to: randyvs

Yay.

Without Enoch you don't have Noah. Noah is central to the Genesis story line. Enoch's story/book is also more in depth.

a reply to: Shiloh7

We do know that Enoch did not die and was taken into heaven which makes him special in some way

This turned a light bulb on inside my head. Weren't the first
time niether. But I wonder if this was actually more reason
for prejudice then what people think?

First count

Yays 8

Nays 4

I think yay.

It explains a lot:
It explains how we were taught a lot of non sense (idol worship, make up, jewelery, war, weapon making, charms, drugs, lustful sex, architecture, etc.), how the pyramids and other monuments came about, it gives more credence to the great deluge and why it happened more detailed about the motive, it explains where giants fit in the picture, where all those people "from the stars" or "those from the heavens came" many cultures speak of, it explains the holy war that is going on now. The book starts with stating that it is meant for a future generation far away from when it was written, a future generation that is repeating the unrighteous acts that were in Noahs days, ie present day, gene merging/manipulation, cloning, destroying Gods creations, GMO, etc.

Scripture says that Enoch walked with God and was spared death, the book of Enoch says the same. Another cool aspect is the book explains areal views of river channels and volcanoes, it describes the river channels like veins on the human body ,this is interesting considering when the book was written if this is true, how could they know this?

In the end it all broils down to......faith since we can't prove when and who wrote it. I just find it makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of the holes we have in our history.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

That was very well said. I concur.

a reply to: randyvs

Significant chunks of Enoch evidently found their way into the NT . . . though not labeled as such. No. I don't have a list of examples. I just believed the doc that I read that asserted that.

And it is overtly mentioned some in the Bible.

I'm quite comfortable with it not being in the Canon. We can't seem to be certain as to which version, if any now available are the true and authentic BOOK OF ENOCH, TRULY AUTHORED BY . . . Enoch. So, it seems reasonable to keep it out of the Canon.

Nevertheless, there are clearly major chunks which are congruent and consistent with the Bible.

Some assert that the Jews realized that the coming Messiah figure in Enoch was obviously The Christ of the NT and so they insured that it was not in the Canon at that point. Up until that point, it evidently was revered on a par with the Canon.

I think it's worth reading . . . I forget the best version. Maybe I have it handy . . . let me check . . . I can't seem to find it. It's not one of the more popularly listed and it's the more expensive one. But evidently the quality is better.

Certainly I believe Enoch in terms of much of what he has to say about the END TIMES and the fallen angels' part in this dramatic era.

OK, here's the most highly respected and most scholarly version:

THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA VOLUME 1

Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments

Edited by
James H Charlesworth

Doubleday

The Anchor Bible Reference Library

a reply to: randyvs

yay. it inspired many authors, books, and games.

peace

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
I think yay.

It explains a lot:
It explains how we were taught a lot of non sense (idol worship, make up, jewelery, war, weapon making, charms, drugs, lustful sex, architecture, etc.), how the pyramids and other monuments came about, it gives more credence to the great deluge and why it happened more detailed about the motive, it explains where giants fit in the picture, where all those people "from the stars" or "those from the heavens came" many cultures speak of, it explains the holy war that is going on now. The book starts with stating that it is meant for a future generation far away from when it was written, a future generation that is repeating the unrighteous acts that were in Noahs days, ie present day, gene merging/manipulation, cloning, destroying Gods creations, GMO, etc.

Scripture says that Enoch walked with God and was spared death, the book of Enoch says the same. Another cool aspect is the book explains areal views of river channels and volcanoes, it describes the river channels like veins on the human body ,this is interesting considering when the book was written if this is true, how could they know this?

In the end it all broils down to......faith since we can't prove when and who wrote it. I just find it makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of the holes we have in our history.

Nay. Not as scripture...

But, for the reasons you listed, I believe it should be read by believers as it can help give a reasonable explanation to some very interesting questions and mysteries.

a reply to: BO XIAN


So was that a Nay for Bo or are you remaining neutral?
Either way as always, I enjoyed your response and your
educated view my friend.

originally posted by: randyvs
...We have a book...that seems like more of a miracle than all others. That we
even know of it's existence let alone have a translation?
Considering the fact that being authentic puts it to a
time before the flood and was brought to this world, by
none other than Noah himself? In my mind stamps this
as Holy Scripture indeed.

And it's wholly fascinating even if it's only deep antiquity
sci fi to some. That alone holds tons of interest. It just has
to be scripture.

I do agree with you in many of these regards.
In my mind, the concepts are brilliant.
The abstractness of thought required to construct such a tale (among tales) is worth a second look - whether you believe it to be "God-breathed" or not.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

I just want to underline something from my post I don't think architecture is non sense, just that we were taught this knowledge by the watchers.

I found it a great read and reference it a lot more in my discussions than any other book of the bible. That being said, I rarely quote anything from the bible accept to show a correlation between various religions the world over.

I vote Yay

a reply to: randyvs

Its a yay for me, a very interesting book. It has a lot of interesting info in it. Well worth delving into. As with any of the ancient books translation is important, do your own if you can.

a reply to: randyvs

I support that version of the book of Enoch as worth prayerfully reading with Holy Spirit discernment.

Particularly in terms of learning about the serious reality of the fallen angels and their roles in history and in the END TIMES.

Is that more what you wanted in terms of yay or nay? I don't have a blanket approval or rejection of it.

Thanks for your kind words.

a reply to: randyvs

I do think there are politics involved in the bible as we have it today and its putting together by the original church fathers. They would, as educated religious men know exactly what literature was about in the early days of Christianity and as they were intent on carving themselves out a niche, acceptable and with the patronage of a somewhat needly Emperor, who had persecuted many of them till his 'conversion', they would have got rid of and given bad press to any books that did not concur with the way they intended Christianity to develop.

Th Bible authors borrowed genesis from earlier cultures and of course once the ancient library tablets from places like Lamech were discovered and translations begun, like Nag Hammadi, a whole new spectrum of information suddenly became available. Kharsag could easily be replaced by the Garden of Eden because after the flood, starvation and getting the food supply up and running would have been the first priority. In the Kharsag version the 'We and Us" from the bible makes actual sense, rather than just God walking round the garden in the evening referring to himself in the plural.

I think the more one reads from the ancient books from those early times, the more fascinating religion actually becomes because its one hell of a leap from then to what we have today.

All belongs to God. We can see his message in everything.

Though he does not author evil, he makes it serve his purpose in the end.
So whether some men deem this, this or that, like this or that, it does not matter. For one should always bear in mind the truest truth which lies within. You know what I speak of.

It's not the things we put into us that defiles us. It's the things we give from us.

So, read what you will, do what you will but not like f.ex. how Crowley put it. Rather how Paul put it. Do what thou wilt, but keep that which is good and let off that which is bad.

With this in mind, everything is canon/cubit/meter(well what have you) which bears the good news of Christ in it.

Yay, if I will.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Is that more what you wanted in terms of yay or nay? I don't have a blanket approval or rejection of it.

Alright Bo, I'm gonna leave you in nuetral for now. You can still
designate if you choose.

ATS

I've absorbed every response and yay or nay, you people have
helped me put up a fascinating thread with info at great lengths,
on what I deem to be a most worthy subject.

RIGHT HERE ON ATS!

The OP describes apocryphal texts as being sometimes historically accurate, as if contrasting that with the 'infallible' bible...that's where I was lost...

originally posted by: TheJourney
The OP describes apocryphal texts as being sometimes historically accurate, as if contrasting that with the 'infallible' bible...that's where I was lost...

Alright TJ, I certainly tried not to lose anyone. Any suggestions
on how I might of put an OP together that wouldn't have lost
you? Considering my own perspective of course. I mean how
can it be helped and why post a reply saying why I lost you?

Does my perspective, cause you to lose interest in the subject
entirely? I would think that clicking in the first place, shows
you have interest. Or did you simple mindedly just click to make
me feel stupid? Which is a task that takes far more effort, than
your weak little display, here above.

a reply to: randyvs
I wouldn't take it to heart bro...

Anyone who uses the words "infallible bible" likely doesn't have a clue anyways

Unless of course they're mocking the silliness of the idea