The Book of Enoch

[SavedOnebyGrace]

In the 15th Chapter of the Book of Enoch, verse 8 explains the origin for the giants mentioned in Genesis, and the origin of demons which are not the same as angels (watchers) as the majority of people nowadays believe.  Reading the first Book of Enoch clears up a lot of speculation Christians have about creation and Noah's Flood.  I haven't seen any conflicts yet.

[OldCoot]

Even a close look at Genesis 6 gives the same idea, only a synopsis compared to Enoch.  And Jude expounds on this a little in his letter.  

[Willa]

Godquestions.com

Question: "What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible?"

Answer: The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah; that is, Enoch son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). Enoch is also one of the two people in the Bible taken up to heaven without dying (the other being Elijah), as the Bible says "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24; see also Hebrews 11:5). Most commonly, the phrase "Book of Enoch" refers to 1 Enoch, which is wholly extant only in the Ethiopic language.

The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 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.’” But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible.

Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Recommended Resource: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce
 

[other one]

You are making a mistake in putting 1 Enoch in the same group as other books. 2 and 3 I would agree.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

15 hours ago, other one said:

You are making a mistake in putting 1 Enoch in the same group as other books. 2 and 3 I would agree.

When the subject of the Book(s) of Enoch come up, people here immediately think of the person bringing it up as advocating its addition to the 66 books of the Protestant Canon.  This is a mistake on their part.  By not advocating its inclusion into the 66 books of the Canon, doesn't mean there is not truth to be found there.  Jewish Rabbis, Apostles, and writers in the New Testament have found truth in 1 Enoch.  Why is that so hard for people to see?  Are these people unteachable, too rigid in their thinking, the Pharisees/Sadducees of our day?

2 Enoch and 3 Enoch are another matter.  The commentary I am reading suggests there is some truth in 2 Enoch, but quite a lot of it has been added/changed at a later date.  So how much truth is there is questionable.  3 Enoch even has more tampering, if indeed it was ever penned by the Biblical Enoch.  It is sad, but other one, we have to accept that some people have a non-Biblical rigid viewpoint and cannot escape the errors in their own theology.

[Reinitin]

On 5/9/2017 at 11:41 AM, Guest said:

To understand the Catholic and Protestant Bibles we must know what books the Biblical authors considered important and divinely inspired during the time they wrote the biblical manuscripts. Books outside the traditional 66 have been mentioned in the Bible in three different ways: by name, quotation, or alluded too. So what books did the biblical authors consider important? Here is a list:

1) The Book of Jasher

2) The Annals of Jehu

3) The Treatise of the book of Kings

4) The book of Records, Book of Chronicans of Ahasuerus

5) The Acts of Solomon

6) The Sayings of Hozai

7) The Chronicles of David

8) The Book of Wars of the Lord

9)The Chronicals of Samuel, Nathan, Gad

10) Samuels Book

11) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite

12) The Treatise of the Prophet Iddo

13) The Book of Enoch

Both OT and NT writers of the Bible considered the Book of Enoch to be divinely inspired, and it is included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible which is actually 88 books.

If a book is mentioned, quoted, or alluded to is it worthy of study if it expands the understanding of the Bible and why Jesus Christ came to earth? The theory of the book of Enoch is that it was written prior to the book of Genesis and then before that was kept through verbal oral tradition. Our earliest manuscripts date to the 2nd to 3rd centuries BC but scholars believe this is not the original date of the Enochian canon. The first century Christians considered the book of Enoch as inspired canon if not authentic.

Thoughts?

There are some question to authenticy because of differences in available manuscripts. I studied it along time ago and you might look into alexandria library. cant remember if they were perverting books there or the originals were destroyed there that proved the fakes.

[fixerupper]

There are far more inspired books and writings than you think.  I think, as far as BOOKS go, there should be 77, NOT 66 books in the bible.  AND> An entire book doesn't have to be inspired in order for it to have inspired writings.  I think were missing out on a lot because of this.

 

[other one]

11 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

As far as "The Book of Enoch" or any other "inspired" book that is not in the Bible goes: if the Lord wanted them as part of Scripture, He would have made sure of it.

maybe he has brought it to our attention at the time of his picking.  since you are relatively new I should make it clear that I do not believe that 1Enoch should be in the Bible.....    but I do think it is pretty much true....   and very important to know about.   There are many things in the Bible that  makes it known that the knowledge of the information of 1Enoch was known during the time periods that the New Testament was written......   You can check books written by Michael Hiser to get the details of that for it's much too detailed for me to type here.

[Sister]

43 minutes ago, other one said:

maybe he has brought it to our attention at the time of his picking.  since you are relatively new I should make it clear that I do not believe that 1Enoch should be in the Bible.....    but I do think it is pretty much true....   and very important to know about.   There are many things in the Bible that  makes it known that the knowledge of the information of 1Enoch was known during the time periods that the New Testament was written......   You can check books written by Michael Hiser to get the details of that for it's much too detailed for me to type here.

other one

I have "The Book of Enoch" (containing 5 sections /108 chapters) H.R. Charles Oxford:

and

"The Secrets of Enoch" (containing 68 chapters) From "The Forgotten books of Eden" by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr., [1926]

They both harmonise, and do not contradict.  They both speak about Jesus, his coming, salvation of the saints, hell, creation, and a deep insight into the world of the fallen angels, and their hybrids which matches with Genesis 6.

 

So which book is 1Enoch?

 

Also Enoch wrote 366 books.  I don't know how many chapters make a book, or if each different topic and vision is considered a book? 

So it appears there are books missing.

Are the books I mentioned above the only ones available?

 

3 He wrote all these signs of all creation, which the Lord created, and wrote three hundred and sixty-six books, and handed them over to his sons and remained on earth thirty days, and was again taken up to heaven on the sixth day of the month Tsivan, on the very day and hour when he was born.  

The Secrets of Enoch, Ch LXVIII.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 0:41 PM, Guest said:

To understand the Catholic and Protestant Bibles we must know what books the Biblical authors considered important and divinely inspired during the time they wrote the biblical manuscripts. Books outside the traditional 66 have been mentioned in the Bible in three different ways: by name, quotation, or alluded too. So what books did the biblical authors consider important? Here is a list:

1) The Book of Jasher

2) The Annals of Jehu

3) The Treatise of the book of Kings

4) The book of Records, Book of Chronicans of Ahasuerus

5) The Acts of Solomon

6) The Sayings of Hozai

7) The Chronicles of David

8) The Book of Wars of the Lord

9)The Chronicals of Samuel, Nathan, Gad

10) Samuels Book

11) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite

12) The Treatise of the Prophet Iddo

13) The Book of Enoch

Both OT and NT writers of the Bible considered the Book of Enoch to be divinely inspired, and it is included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible which is actually 88 books.

If a book is mentioned, quoted, or alluded to is it worthy of study if it expands the understanding of the Bible and why Jesus Christ came to earth? The theory of the book of Enoch is that it was written prior to the book of Genesis and then before that was kept through verbal oral tradition. Our earliest manuscripts date to the 2nd to 3rd centuries BC but scholars believe this is not the original date of the Enochian canon. The first century Christians considered the book of Enoch as inspired canon if not authentic.

Thoughts?

I believe you may have missed one prophetic book, The Ancient Book of Gad the Seer.  Dr. Ken Johnson has written a book on it.  While the above books may not warrant inclusion in the Canon, they are helpful explaining various prophecies.  Peter and Jude accepted the book of Enoch and in their writings, they assumed who they were writing to also knew the book of Enoch.  The Apocalypse of Ezra is another, fascinating book explaining Revelation confirming a pre or mid-Tribulation Rapture and filling in the details of the prophesies of John, hundreds of years before they were written.  Of course those with closed minds will only believe and accept what their closed minds allow.