Book of Enoch

[dr3032]

Do you consider it canon or non-canon? Why or why not?

[ENOCH2010]

It's not in the canon, should it be, maybe. Was it read and studied during Lords first advent, I think so. Should it be read and studied today, I think so, I have read it many times. Some things in it, I think are not correct but a lot can be learned from it.

[R. Hartono]

Thats the only book that records world history be4 the flood, a very precious one more worthy than diamond.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by R. Hartono

[Willa]

Unfortunately most of the book was probably added after the time of Christ, and it is not the Enoch that was recorded in the Bible.  It is definitely not cannon.  Got Questions says:

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.

(edited)

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 If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.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]

9 hours ago, dr3032 said:

Do you consider it canon or non-canon? Why or why not?

There is vert strict rules as to what was decided to add to the canon....    I don't think we can answer all those questions that it has to muster to add it to the canon....   However that does not make it untrue as some people are want to do.....     it was within the general knowledge of the people during Jesus time and during the first century when the New Testament was written.

It has always been part of the Ethiopian bible and there are fragments of many copies within the dead sea scrolls....     It's also referenced by the writers of the New Testament and many of the first century church fathers....

Should it be canon....   no I don't think so, but I do believe 1Enoch is mostly true and should be understood so as to grasp some of the context of the Bible itself.

2 Enoch is a very bad translation and 3 Enoch is basically Jewish Kabbalistic mysticism and should be totally rejected...

Just my two cents.

 

[The_Patriot21]

Should probably be burned for the heresy that it is.

[other one]

as a citizen of this great constitutional republic, you have the right to think and express whatever you want.  I would never attempt to take that away from you even though you have to know that I do greatly disagree.

[Called Out One]

Personally, It does not make sense to me that Jude would have quoted from the Book of Enoch if, in fact, it were heresy as some claim.  Particularly in light of the fact the whole point behind his letter was to warn us against those who infiltrate the church and undermine it. 

[enoob57]

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/hebrews-revelation/jude-14-quotes-book-enoch-it-scripture

[Justin Adams]

To a student of Hebraic writings, ancient and modern, there are many quotes that can be traced back by the apostles' use of them (sometimes almost word for word). Some scrolls we have and some we do not have. They are sometimes mentioned in the Tanach.

The most interesting point to be observed about all this is that the 'bible' that the apostles had was mostly ancient Hebraic texts and other books we can dimly discern. They did NOT have a 'new testament' yet so they compiled that by first hand knowledge and by revelation.

What is very clear is that there is not a lot that IS clear. As Saul said; 'if the had known they would not have killed the King of Glory...'

Not everything the 'church fathers' said is correct either. Though much of that has been edited.

As stated, linguistic scholars CAN tell the difference between true text and doctored text.

It can be shown that even the complete text we have (AKA the KJV 1611) has some translation errors that were just part and parcel of the 'kingly' doctrines of the day.

The Papist influence did away with the seventh day Sabbath along with other things because they really believed they had the right to do so. Even the Reformist ideas mostly adhered to the RCC although they did change somethings for the better. Rome actually sneered at the Reformist for following their dictates in one of their Vatican Briefs.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Justin Adams