The Book of Enoch

[SavedOnebyGrace]

16 hours ago, other one said:

if you have some serious time to invest you might do a youtube search for REVERSING HERMON - 1 Enoch, the NT, Watchers, Nephilim & Antichrist - Dr. Michael S. Heiser

it's about an hour and a half and you will want to view two others for base input to this one.

It's a very interesting take on 1 Enoch

You can also read the book of the same name by Dr. Heiser.  I haven't read it yet.

[other one]

8 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

You can also read the book of the same name by Dr. Heiser.  I haven't read it yet.

The video is a seminar by the author.  Covers most of the book and it's free.  But the book has all the background of where to check thoughts that you might disagree with. 

[daughterofGrace]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 3:46 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

So it was only after 200 years or so that the Book of Enoch was removed from the Canon.  Shall we strike out the Book of Jude too?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

The fact that some of the early church fathers used the book doesn't make it part of the Biblical canon.  Some of the early church fathers also mention the Didache, the letters of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermes in their writings.  They weren't part of the canon either. 

One of the criteria for inclusion in the canon was this -- a book had to be used by the majority of churches for public teaching.  Books that were only used by individuals were excluded.

My point was this:

The Book of Enoch was NEVER part of Hebrew Scripture.  It was written in the second century B.C. which means Enoch could not have written it and it was written AFTER all the books of the Tanakh, that is, the Hebrew Bible. 

And, as I said, it was NEVER included in the canon of either the New Testament or the Old.  Therefore, it was not removed from the canon because it was never part of the canon.  

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by daughterofGrace
correction and addition of information

[daughterofGrace]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 3:35 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

It is within the topic of the Book of Enoch on this thread.  The Nephilim were alive before and after Noah's Flood.  That's what Genesis says.  So what did Noah's Flood accomplish?  As to the reasons Peter, Jude and others quoted from Enoch, let's not try to second guess their writings.  It's in the New Testament so deal with it as we would with other scriptures.  As for what Jesus says about angels, He doesn't say they cannot have sex.  He says they are not married.  That could be because they were all masculine.  Angels then could breed with human females as the Bible states.  So the Book of Enoch helps in interpreting the OT.

You're right.  The statements Jesus made about angels and marriage don't say anything about sex.  Thank you for correcting me on that.  Still, given that angels and demons are spirit beings, many question the idea that they might engage in sex even if they take on human form. 

I also think it's backwards to interpret the Bible using non-biblical books.  We should be interpreting non-biblical books using the Bible. 

[daughterofGrace]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:14 PM, Sister said:

You're welcome Daughter of Grace.

Enoch was written before the flood, as he testifies, and the translation, long after, so two different things there.  All one has to do is read how Enoch warns that a great deluge was coming upon the earth (flood), so he wrote it in that time period...in the old world.  All who listened to Enoch and repented died before the flood and his only remaining descendant who believed was Noah.  God could of given Moses an account of all the fine details, just like he did with Genesis, but who better than Enoch himself, to testify to men then, and us today what God has showed him.  We have something written that we can search into as additional information if we are hungry for more.

Just because no man in authority took Enoch's writings seriously before, or even man now, doesn't mean it's not true and didn't happen.  Enoch was provided for them then, so that Seth's descendants could return to God.  Every one has a chance, even those before the flood.  Enoch warned that they would all fall away from the living God, and his record kept testifies what God forewarned from the beginning.

I was not introduced to God through the book of Enoch, but through the Canon, and through my own personal experiences that lead me there.  The canon rules supreme, and provides our guide to salvation, but that doesn't make Enoch invalid, for those who want to add to their knowledge, or confirm it.

If you have not yet discovered from the Canon that there were fallen angels and that they mingled with the seed of men producing a half breed spirit/flesh type of children who started the nephlim race, then I suggest going back to the Canon, and searching with all your heart in Genesis 6, that these things really did occur.  Also go to other parts of the OT and read about the giants, and the measurements given.  Even David fought with a giant.  These giants did not come out of nowhere, as they go against nature, their beginnings must of started at a certain point. 

I see it that Satan started mingling with the seed of animals first..then man....not that he created anything out of nothing, but had the knowledge how to tamper with the genes like they do today in the lab.

 

 Genesis 6:4   There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

  Numbers 13:33   And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

  Deuteronomy 2:11   Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

  Deuteronomy 2:20   (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

  Deuteronomy 3:11   For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

  Deuteronomy 3:13   And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

  Joshua 12:4   And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

  Joshua 13:12   All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.
 

The only question this would raise is;   if all the giants were destroyed in the flood, then how did they re-appear after the flood?

The answer is quite simple if you put your mind to it.

 

 

 

 

 

The Book of Enoch was written in the second century B. C.  Therefore, it could not have been written by Enoch or anybody who knew Enoch.  It was never part of Hebrew Scripture.  It is listed among the pseudepigraphical works because its author was unknown, its writing was late, it was not used by the church as a whole and it was not considered to be inspired of the Holy Spirit.  In other words, it didn't meet the criteria used for the canonization of books for the Bible.  Therefore, I do not put it on par with the Bible.

I am familiar with the passages about the Nephilim.  The idea that fallen angels had sex with women and created evil offspring is only one interpretation of those passages from Genesis.  There are scholars who offer compelling explanations as why they were NOT fallen angels.  Here is a discussion of the various understandings:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/

I am of the opinion that the Bible is NOT talking about fallen angels mating with humans, but about evil men. 

 

 

 

[Sister]

1 hour ago, daughterofGrace said:

The Book of Enoch was written in the second century B. C.  Therefore, it could not have been written by Enoch or anybody who knew Enoch.

Hi daughterofGrace

You mean a translation or copy was found in 2nd century B.C.?  Are you claiming that they are the originals?

There are no originals, not even of books in the Canon.

 

Enoch was before the flood,...he was 7th from Adam and was warning of the flood to come.

Who would pretend to be Enoch writing after the flood?  That would be stupid.

You are leaning towards scholars to guide you.  That in my opinion is not seeking for the truth, but relying on man to steer you.  Man is is easily corrupted, but the Word of the Lord can be tested true.  The message is not about Enoch, how great he is, but Enoch is shown what the Father has done and planned with all the wisdom he possesses, with his majesty and glory of how great he is, the Almighty Father. 

All the prophesies in there are spot on.  An imposter could not have had all that knowledge back then, and even Satan is blocked from all truth.

If the book is not for you that's fine, but there are going to be a lot of red faces when all things are revealed.

And if the Hebrews didn't have Enoch's writings, then why was Enoch mentioned in the NT?  Some were obviously familiar, or else Enoch wouldn't of been quoted.

 Hebrews 11:5   By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for *before his translation*   he had this *testimony*, that he pleased God.

What testimony?

The testimony many love to reject.

 Jude 1:14   And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Don't you think there's a hint there to search where Enoch wrote this?

By the way, you wont find it in the Canon, so it must be somewhere?

and don't you think that God left a copy for us to find? 

God doesn't send us to no thru roads, but through the narrow road where many don't travel.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Sister

[daughterofGrace]

36 minutes ago, Sister said:

Hi daughterofGrace

You mean a translation or copy was found in 2nd century B.C.?  Are you claiming that they are the originals?

There are no originals, not even of books in the Canon.

 

Enoch was before the flood,...he was 7th from Adam and was warning of the flood to come.

Who would pretend to be Enoch writing after the flood?  That would be stupid.

You are leaning towards scholars to guide you.  That in my opinion is not seeking for the truth, but relying on man to steer you.  Man is is easily corrupted, but the Word of the Lord can be tested true.  The message is not about Enoch, how great he is, but Enoch is shown what the Father has done and planned with all the wisdom he possesses, with his majesty and glory of how great he is, the Almighty Father. 

All the prophesies in there are spot on.  An imposter could not have had all that knowledge back then, and even Satan is blocked from all truth.

If the book is not for you that's fine, but there are going to be a lot of red faces when all things are revealed.

And if the Hebrews didn't have Enoch's writings, then why was Enoch mentioned in the NT?  Some were obviously familiar, or else Enoch wouldn't of been quoted.

 Hebrews 11:5   By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for *before his translation*   he had this *testimony*, that he pleased God.

What testimony?

 Jude 1:14   And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Don't you think there's a hint there to search where Enoch wrote this?

By the way, you wont find it in the Canon, so it must be somewhere?

and don't you think that God left a copy for us to find? 

God doesn't send us to no thru roads, but through the narrow road where many don't travel.

The book of Enoch was not just discovered in the second century.  It was written in the second century.  That is why it could not have been written by Enoch or anybody who knew him.  Most scholars are in agreement about this.

People down through the centuries have written books and ascribed them to recognizable authors rather than put their own name on them.  This is true of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary, etc.  They put other people's names on them to give them a bogus credibility and to get people to read them.

As for believing the word of scholars -- yes, I believe it when scholars who have studied these matters tell me these things.  That's what history is all about -- studying things from the past.  And I believe that God expects us to use the information we are given to make intelligent decisions about those things under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I am leery of people who ignore scholarship and say they only listen to the Holy Spirit as it frees them from having to base anything they say in reality.

The Book of Enoch comes to us through the Ethiopian church which is the ONLY church to consider it God-breathed.

Yes, the New Testament speaks of Enoch based on what it says about him in Genesis, not based on the Book of Enoch.

Here is a very lengthy discussion of the book which confirms the date of its writing:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html

Here is a comment from another scholar in an article on canonization:

Pseudepigrapha

These are religious books written under the assumed name of a biblical character such as Moses, Enoch and others. These books were written in times of national emergencies, as in the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus. Their purpose was to encourage the morale of the people. The four types of literature found in this category were apocalyptic, legendary, political and didactic. They were never recognized as canonical.

In Jude 14-16, the pseudepigrapha book of Enoch is quoted. This book of Enoch never claimed canonicity. It is, however, quoted as a true statement.

The apostle recognizes truth in this writing as we today would recognize it in a poem by Robert Frost or in the writing of C. S. Lewis. As this truth may be quoted in a sermon, so Jude found truth in the Book of Enoch and quoted it.

https://bible.org/seriespage/part-va-canonization-chapter-six-collection-begins

 

The book of Enoch did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the canon.  Its unknown authorship and late date combined with the fact that it was never included in the Hebrew canon or the Christian one (outside of Ethiopia) and it wasn't in common use by the church (only quoted by a few individuals) make me dismiss it as what it is -- a fanciful writing not meant to be in the Biblical canon.  Its purpose may have been to entertain or to discourage sexual sin and warn of judgment because of sin, but that doesn't make it Scripture -- and I'm not going to take it as such.

Edited May 20, 2017 by daughterofGrace
correct typos

[other one]

while I do agree with you that the book of Enoch should not be within the canon, I have to ask who wrote it.....   if you know that it was written in the second century BC then we should know the author.

BTW the book of Enoch was widely recognized as part of the world cosmology from before the second century through at least 100 AD and it is quoted by the Bible itself and many of the early church Fathers      Just because we don't want to include it into the 66 books does not mean that we consider it not true....   and if it was so much common knowledge that the Bible uses it for context of it's writing we probably should pay some attention to it.

Dr. Michael Hiser has written several books about the world cosmology and its effects on the wording used by Bible writers to get their points across.

[daughterofGrace]

2 hours ago, other one said:

while I do agree with you that the book of Enoch should not be within the canon, I have to ask who wrote it.....   if you know that it was written in the second century BC then we should know the author.

BTW the book of Enoch was widely recognized as part of the world cosmology from before the second century through at least 100 AD and it is quoted by the Bible itself and many of the early church Fathers      Just because we don't want to include it into the 66 books does not mean that we consider it not true....   and if it was so much common knowledge that the Bible uses it for context of it's writing we probably should pay some attention to it.

Dr. Michael Hiser has written several books about the world cosmology and its effects on the wording used by Bible writers to get their points across.

We don't always know the writers of the literature produced down through the centuries.  We don't know the authors of the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas or Mary, etc. and they were written a couple of centuries after Christ.  We don't have copies of these things with the name of their authors on them.  We DO know that the writer of Enoch wasn't Enoch because he wasn't alive to write it. 

Secondly, I did NOT say that we couldn't get something true out of a non-Biblical ancient text.  In fact, I stated the opposite in a couple of my posts.  The statement that Jude made in reference to Enoch was true.  But that doesn't mean that everything in the book is true.  I don't buy into the whole fallen-angel having sex with women, etc.  I don't find most of the names of the angels listed in it in the Bible, etc. 

I am not familiar with the work of Hiser so I can't comment on that.

 

 

[other one]

1 hour ago, daughterofGrace said:

We don't always know the writers of the literature produced down through the centuries.  We don't know the authors of the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas or Mary, etc. and they were written a couple of centuries after Christ.  We don't have copies of these things with the name of their authors on them.  We DO know that the writer of Enoch wasn't Enoch because he wasn't alive to write it. 

Secondly, I did NOT say that we couldn't get something true out of a non-Biblical ancient text.  In fact, I stated the opposite in a couple of my posts.  The statement that Jude made in reference to Enoch was true.  But that doesn't mean that everything in the book is true.  I don't buy into the whole fallen-angel having sex with women, etc.  I don't find most of the names of the angels listed in it in the Bible, etc. 

I am not familiar with the work of Hiser so I can't comment on that.

 

 

Just a note.....

Matheusala lived about three hundred years with Enoch until God took Enoch away.   

Noah lived at the time of Matheusala for nearly 600 years before Matheusala died.

Shem, Noah's son lived at the same time as Matheusala for about a hundred years.   So the first two generations after Matheusala died (the same year as the flood) would have first hand information from the son of Enoch.

Now we come to Abraham.     Abraham was about 58 years old when Noah died, and Shem lived longer than did Abraham by about 35 years.

Then Issaic and on to Jacob....     Jacob was about 50 years old when Shem died.

Enochian teachings through Matheusala would have been first hand knowledge through the lives of all the patriarchs to Jacob.

Did they have written language the time of Noah....    Sumerian tablets do go back that far, so we know that there was writing at the time of Nimrod and the tower of Babel.   That happened during the time of Peleg which was  during the time of Noah.

There is no real reason to believe that there was not written language prior to the flood and there is no reason to think that Enoch could not have left his son the book of 1Enoch.   At the very least first hand knowledge given to Noah by Matheusala which could easily have been penned from that time period.

 

I see no reason to believe that these transcripts that we have of 1Enoch could not be copies of those brought through the flood by Noah....    at the very least the knowledge contained within the teachings of Enoch himself.