The Book of Enoch

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
What does everyone think of the book of Enoch? I watched a documentary and it got me interested. I've been reading it and wow, its interesting. During the early Christian movement, Ethiopian Christians adopted the Book of Enoch into their Old Testament, which remains today. Only since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has the book peaked in interest, since 12 copies of the book were found in the caves at the Dead Sea. That convinced a lot of people that at least it wasn't some made up book over the years, and that early Christians actually read it. It doesn't say anything against the Bible that I have seen.

And since we're on the subject, what do you guys think about the canonization of the Bible? Was the judgement of the books to be included/excluded "perfect", as in, God's choices? Or do you think some important books, or at least true, could be excluded? I believe the latter, but it doesn't change my believe in the books currently in the Bible.




posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Here's some links if you're interested in reading it:
reluctant-messenger.com...

King James Version:
wesley.nnu.edu...



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
What do I think? I think the books that mankind decided to leave out of the bible, are much more telling and interesting, than those they decided to put into it.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Wanted to add this link for you

www.andrewcollins.net...



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I have not gotten around to reading the Book of Enoch, although it does seem like it would be interesting and I would like to get around to it eventually. Anyway, I can't comment much on the Book of Enoch specifically, but I would like to make a few general comments on you questions concerning the canonization of the Bible...

First off, I personally think both the first and second options you offered are true. They certainly are not incompatible with one another.

The purpose of the Canon of Scripture (whether you agree with it or not) was to lay out an official list of books that were divinely inspired. The purpose of the canon was NOT (contrary to some people's misinterepretations) to say that books not included in the canon were untrue or unimportant. The Book of Enoch, for example, was considered by many leaders of the early Christian Church to be an important book, and a number of allusions to it can be found in some of their writings. I don't know exactly why it was left out of the canon, but I don't think it was because it was deemed contradictory to other widely accepted works that were included. If a book didn't make the canon, that just means it didn't pass muster as a book that was definitely divinely inspired with the members of the Church council that officially set the canon.

I don't know if you meant to imply by offering those two choices that they were two incompatible options. Anyway, I don't think they are, and it certainly was not the purpose of the Canon of Scripture to discredit books that didn't make it in as being untrue or unimportant. You might be sitting there thinking, "Well duh, I already knew that," but I figured I'd throw it in just in case.

Also, in response to LadyV, not to be argumentative, but just out of curiosity, you said you think the books that were left out of the Bible are "much more telling and interesting" than those that are in it. Specifically which books did you have in mind, and what is it about them that you find "much more telling and interesting" than the ones in the Bible?



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Chrisshack phrases things in a way I agree with.

I read the book of enoch about 4 years ago. Hafta pull it out again.

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus quotes from the book of enoch in one of the gospels. Luke I think. Anybody certain?



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I do not hold the ethiopic version as high as the aramaic one. It is odd that it was part of the Jewish "cannon" till around 160AD. I do think that it is relevant in todays world. It explains so much. Did you know that it names the 4 arc angels?



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
ive always had a deeper interest in scriptures which were hidden..



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I've been reading parts of the book of Enoch for quite a while now, and while it may be fake or crap or whatever, it strikes me as the real thing.

It speaks about how "spiritual beings" came and taught mankind much of their knowledge back before the flood. This is the most striking portion of the book because it fits with many myths from around the world.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
My copy of Enoch is not the ethiopian or the Aramaic; it was translated from Old Church Slavonic in the 19th century. Does anybody know where I can find the Aramaic version on line?


ME

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
What I think about the Books of Enoch . . .

I think they support the theory that angels are celestial beings and not only spiritual but quite physical. They also support the theory of intervention of celestials as opposed to man totally evolving into modern man.

What I think about the canonization of the Bible . . .

Well, lemme ask this. Were the writtings canonized in the same way saints are?

What I mean is, the church itself (RCC) believes it made mistakes in the canonization of many saints.

Personally I think they left out certain writtings for ungodly reason and not divine. If even Enoch would have made it, people today would have a different view of religion. One that would devistate modern belief of the gods and angels.

. . . Michael



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Chrisshack phrases things in a way I agree with.

I read the book of enoch about 4 years ago. Hafta pull it out again.

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus quotes from the book of enoch in one of the gospels. Luke I think. Anybody certain?



It's supposedly Jesus' brother who quotes Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14:1.
There are parallels in Luke that point to Jesus having read Enoch but there are no direct quotes.

As for the Aramaic? As far as I am aware, Enoch only exists in Aramaic in fragments found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It should also be noted that there is a great deal of speculation as to whether or not Enoch was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Both sides have equally good arguments to make their claims.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

It's supposedly Jesus' brother who quotes Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14:1.
There are parallels in Luke that point to Jesus having read Enoch but there are no direct quotes.

As for the Aramaic? As far as I am aware, Enoch only exists in Aramaic in fragments found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Leveller]



As far as the book of Jude goes, it doesn't have 14 chapters. It only has one.

True, enoch is mentioned by name there, in verse 14. I was thinking of a quote in the gospels, where Jesus himself quotes. But I may have been mistaken.

Allow me to introduce you to the Ethiopic and Slavonic "Sayings of Enoch," quoting form this article in JewishEncyclopedia website:

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

.....about 300 the Christian Church began to discredit the book, and after the time of the Greek fathers Syncellus and Cedrenus, who cite it (ninth century), it was entirely lost until (1773) the traveler Bruce discovered in Abyssinia two manuscripts of the book. In the nineteenth century several editions and translations were made, and many critical inquiries into its contents published....

AND:

II. Slavonic Enoch:
A book called "The Book of the Secrets of Enoch," preserved, so far as is known, only in Slavonic, was introduced to the scientific world but a few years ago, when certain manuscripts found in Russia and Servia were edited, and subsequently translated into German and English. Following is an analysis of its contents: . . . .


Apparently, Jesus may not quote 1Enoch or 2Enoch directly, but several websites I just googled conclude that Jesus was heavily influenced by the enoch material. Here's an examble:

reluctant-messenger.com...

which concludes:

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch. Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the
transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him." The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One" - the one promised in the Book of Enoch.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Very interesting strangelove... The Book of the Secrets of Enoch is also known as 2 Enoch while the more well known book of Enoch is known as 1 Enoch. Many people are still unsure on the book of 1 Enoch however many scholars believe that the book of 2 Enoch is partly true but mostly a fraud. In the Other Bible by Willis Barnstone he says in reference to 2 Enoch "It was probably written by a hellenistic Jew in the first century AD"

Check out his info on 2 Enoch here:

www.amazon.com...=sib_dp_pt/002-9893059-6588868#reader-page



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
That is consistent with what I've been reading. Funny how you think you know a thing, and then you start to google . . . .

I had originally purchased the copy of Slavonic Enoch (2Enoch) because it was different from 1 Enoch. I filed it away after browsing through it, and forgot until someone posted here about it's existence; i'd also forgotten that the two texts contain different material.

Does some of the material overlap? Is it a similar genre, such that they show a common influence? Or do they share similar worldviews? . . .

. . . now, where did I put that copy of Abul Alhazred's translation? Hmmm.





posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I believe that the main reason that the book of Enoch wasn't included in the Bible is that there appears to be more than one author, and they are unsure of who the authors are.

The book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch.

Jude 1:14-15
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."


Still we can't say that this means Enoch should be included as part of the Bible based on this fact alone. Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12. Epimenides was a poet and prophet of Crete, and lived in the 6th century B.C. and is famous for the quote "Cretens always lie". (A paradox since he himself was a Creten.)

Titus 1:12
A prophet from their own people said of them "Cretens are always liars, wicked brutes, lazy gluttons.


That these sayings were quoted in the Bible simply mean that this portion of someone else's writing was true. I could quote from Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and probably find something that was factual and true. However, this doesn't imply that the entire movie is factual and true.

For a book to be included in the Bible it has to pass the Canon test. This topic is much to in depth to discuss in this post so if you choose to look further, then click here

Edit: Book of Enoch... not the Bible, but worth reading.


[Edited on 3-8-2004 by dbates]




new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join