Book of Enoch?

[Marathoner]

6 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

There are hundred of second temple literature quotes by the apostles, including 1st Enoch, The Book of the Giants, the War Scroll and others as the Qumran texts show us. Nobody seems to quibble over the other quotes and allusions - maybe they just have not read them..?

Yes. There are many parallels between the Book of Enoch and portions of the New Testament (Hebrews, Romans, Revelation, et. al.) and I understand that most are not familiar with these since they haven't read the Book of Enoch. 

[missmuffet]

1 hour ago, FrankIeCip said:

Just wondering your thoughts on this. Paul referred to it so do you think it’s inspired or not? Thanks, Frank ??

We should treat the Book of Enoch(and other books like it) in the same manner we do other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true but some is false. I stay away from it. 

[leah777]

I read apocryphal with interest, but it is not the Bible. I stick with the Bible. It contains all I need. 

[johnthebaptist]

4 hours ago, FrankIeCip said:

Just wondering your thoughts on this. Paul referred to it so do you think it’s inspired or not? Thanks, Frank ??

It depends on what you mean by "inspired." If you mean, "Does it belong in the Bible?" I would say no. That doesn't mean it doesn't have useful information.

[Dennis1209]

1 Enoch is one of many pseuseprapha's, written in the inter-testament period. When the author of a writing is unknown, it's common to title the book from the main character. It is in some denominations canon Bibles but was rejected as uninspired by most. IMHO it's definitely not inspired and has errors; but is useful for a number of logical reasons.

There's various thoughts about why Peter & Jude reference / quote a portion of 1 Enoch; my personal thoughts and opinion? 

Peter and Jude both Jews, were writing and speaking to Jews. Many Jews back then were literate; read other literature and knew ancient Mesopotamian myth and history of their cultures and others. Perhaps Peter - Jude quotes Enoch to bring their attention to something they already know and are aware of. Perhaps they quote the source to fill in some of what the Bible doesn't go into detail about? The point is, they direct the audience to a source for a reason.

If one takes the supernatural view of passages in the Bible as being literal, and not a metaphor [i.e. Deut 32; Ps 82; Gen 6:1-4; etc.]; the events and players in the Bible comes into sharper focus. The Lord has two families adopted in, the spiritual realm and humans. As in Heaven as on earth; God ordained spiritual and human government. Both spiritual and humans have free will and have rebelled. Ah, this is turning into a lecture....

Edited November 3, 2020 by Dennis1209

[Jayne]

4 hours ago, Marathoner said:

The connection between Jude and the Book of Enoch is established because Jude quoted from that book, Jayne. Jude 14-15 is a direct quote and as @Saved.One.by.Grace pointed out, the apostle Peter quoted from the Book of Enoch as well. Will you share what is false about 1 Enoch with us so we might learn what you know?  

Look carefully.  The two quotes are not quite "exact".  Why couldn't the both have quoted oral tradition?

What's false about 1 Enoch?

• The Bible says that Noah built the ark.  1 Enoch says that God sent word for Noah to hide and that the angels built the ark.
• The Bible says that Enoch was translated by God and was seen no more.  1 Enoch says he was taken to live with the fallen angels and was a mediator between them and God.  They wanted to repent and asked Enoch to write a statement for them and take it to God so he would forgive them.  1 Enoch also says that Noah's father panicked when Noah was born because he didn't look like a normal human baby [having supernatural features and talking to God from the moment he came out of the womb] and he went to find Enoch and ask him about it. 
• The Bible says that sin came to world through Adam.  1 Enoch says sin came to the world through an angel named Penume [sp?] and taught people how to sin with his paper and ink.

There are multiple upon multiple more examples like this.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, leah777 said:

I read apocryphal with interest, but it is not the Bible. I stick with the Bible. It contains all I need. 

So is the bible you read the one the Roman Catholic Church defined around 400 years after Jesus, or the one determined to be the bible by the reformers during the Reformation?

[leah777]

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

So is the bible you read the one the Roman Catholic Church defined around 400 years after Jesus, or the one determined to be the bible by the reformers during the Reformation?

I am not getting into a "what Bible is correct" discussion.

I use the KJV, NKJV  and ESV. 

I do not know what you mean by your second option.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, leah777 said:

I am not getting into a "what Bible is correct" discussion.

I use the KJV, NKJV  and ESV. 

I do not know what you mean by your second option.

That's not what I asked.  The books the reformers came up with to be their Bible is different than the official bible decided by committee in A.D. 390-405 - Saint Jerome translates the Hebrew Bible into Latin and completes the Latin Vulgate manuscript. It includes the 39 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament books, and 14 Apocrypha books.  This is essentially the Roman Catholic Bible that remains the Bible until the reformers revolt.  A.D. 1381-1382 - John Wycliffe and associates, in defiance of the organized Church (RCC), believing that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, begin to translate and produce the first handwritten manuscripts of the entire Bible in English. These include the 39 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament books, and 14 Apocrypha books.  This is way before Luther's Bible in German and the King James Version which was produced in two versions (KJV & KJVA), with and without the 14 books of the Apocrypha.  So if you don't know your history, just say you don't know instead of weighing in on subjects you don't have a background in.  This is not a slight against you at all.  I'd be surprised if 10% of the people who post here know the history of how the bible came to be. 

[Daniel Marsh]

8 hours ago, FrankIeCip said:

Just wondering your thoughts on this. Paul referred to it so do you think it’s inspired or not? Thanks, Frank ??

 

Are those books like that on CD? sound?