Why isn't the book of Enoch in the Bible?

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: stormbringer1701
I love how scholars are full of crap because you don't agree.

well they often are. need i go into the various peoples, persons and states and cities "scholars" claimed didn't exist because at the time there was no known archaeological or documentary evidence only to be squished by developments in the field? Or likewise the Horscht kritic school's similar demise based on their arguments of earliest extant manuscripts available at the time?

Being a scholar does not mean being capable of good scholarship or being right about their pronouncements. I remember when doctors labeled ulcers as psychosomatic or recommended milk as therapy for it. or this or that is good- no bad! no good! again all the time. being an expert or scholar is sure way to end up being not only wrong but obstinately wrong and subsequently debunked and embarrassed.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
I love how scholars are full of crap because you don't agree. Ya your not ignorant no. Your to smart to be foiled by the pesky truth. Forget that millions of people know it, you don't believe it ,so it's not true. Impressive logic, what university did you attend?

Cause we just make it up as we go

originally posted by: Xeven
Cause we just make it up as we go

"jesus seems similar to horus so he must be a fiction based on horus." yes they do just make a pronouncement that could be uttered in the depths of a pot induced stupor and insist it's a true fact.

a reply to: stormbringer1701I just think it's hilarious that you still think Isaiah is talking about the fall of Satan. I explained that Judaism has no such story, and the Jewish Satan is not the satan portrayed by Christianity. I can state with certainty this is a fact. Were I to debate you further I would just be making fun of you for ny own entertainment. Ill spare you.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Xeven
Cause we just make it up as we go

"jesus seems similar to horus so he must be a fiction based on horus." yes they do just make a pronouncement that could be uttered in the depths of a pot induced stupor and insist it's a true fact.

Ultimately and undeniably with all religions, some near stone age human decides long ago what you have faith in today.

a reply to: Xeven

Indeed. All the major religions connect

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

It's in the Ethiopian Bible I believe.

Also just a note. Both Peter and Jude call Enoch a prophet. A prophet from God should be listened to.
I guess you have to then boil it down to is the current one available genuine?

I personally believe it is, howeve. Without it I became to Christ

Regards

david

a reply to: drevill

True, and b.o. jude quotes the book of Enoch. That makes it scripture in my eyes

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
It's so prophetically messianic I can't understand why anyone would take an anti book of Enoch stance. It's a stunningly awesome valuable piece of scripture I get angry when people bash it.

a reply to: Ghost147

It's called lying by submission

I think that the answer to a lot of these questions resolve themselves by default, upon understanding some of the differences in Second Temple Judaism and what we know as Judaism today. The beliefs of the Hebrews changed significantly around the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD

a reply to: Punisher75
It's got as much right as any other book to be in there. It would answer a lot of questions and it's entertaining, and not implausible. A lot of Jewish tradition was oral for a long time, and giants are a recurring theme in the ancient world. It reveals that God destroyed the earth to preserve humans, it wasn't a punishment like the church teaches. The bible brushes past Enoch and the Nephilim with no explanation, and 1 Enoch, which was found at Qumran btw, clears it up and it having been quoted from in Jude is all the proof I need.

Allah bless America everybody

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Punisher75
It's got as much right as any other book to be in there. It would answer a lot of questions and it's entertaining, and not implausible. A lot of Jewish tradition was oral for a long time, and giants are a recurring theme in the ancient world. It reveals that God destroyed the earth to preserve humans, it wasn't a punishment like the church teaches. The bible brushes past Enoch and the Nephilim with no explanation, and 1 Enoch, which was found at Qumran btw, clears it up and it having been quoted from in Jude is all the proof I need.

Eh, you have an opinion, as do I.
I don't agree that it has as much "right" to be there as any other book, simply because the founders of a religion get to make those choices not the books themselves. If the founders did not think it should be there I feel pretty safe in trusting they had a reason to, being much much closer to the text and what people thought of the text at the time.

If they felt it was an entertaining yet fictitious account then why would they want it to be canon?

It would not be dissimilar to adding a Tom Clancy novel to American history, under the pretense that America is a real place, and the USSR was a real place. The Soviet Union had Submarines, therefore we should add the Hunt for Red October to World History.

It being quoted from Jude, gives it at best recognition as text that was known about, by the people in the area. If Jude is making a historical claim, they would want it to be understood by their audience, and using a well known text to aid in that purpose does not by necessity make the text authoritative.

I don't think the Bible Brushes past the nephilim at all. I would contend that a huge part of the Old Testament is largely about destroying them, as seen in the many wars Israel has with its enemies, and who those enemies are reported to be in the Old Testament.

a reply to: Punisher75I disagree with everything u said

a reply to: Punisher75I stand by my previous statement.

a reply to: Punisher75Enoch is scripture. I'd never let anyone decide for me what's scripture or canon. I got no canon.

originally posted by: cooperton

cooperton: that's whats so alluring about these texts. It's not like scribes were a dime a dozen, they were likely writing something meaningful, perhaps of a realm we cannot fathom in our contemporary limited world view. When I read what seems like nonsense, I presume there is something deeper beyond my current comprehension. Or maybe it is nonsense, but what ancient scribe would waste his valuable time writing such?

They; the scribemonkeys were paid by the letter (this is why the French language has too many added [nonsensical] letters). One word explains it all: pronounced Kernal spelled as Colonel (one extra letter) and just enough to throw everyone off.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Punisher75Enoch is scripture. I'd never let anyone decide for me what's scripture or canon. I got no canon.

Someone needs to edit a new or newer testament to augment the New Testament as an edit; including the NagHammadi texts is all; what stands in the way of this publication (creation). I know what it is.