Jude quotation of Enoch

Jude 1:14
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Prophesied - Propheteuo "to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict"

This quote from Enoch is believed to be taken from the [url=http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe004.htm]Book of Enoch[/url]

Chapter 1 verse 9 "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

If Jude says that Enoch spoke words that were given to him by divine inspiration. We have the book attributed to Enoch, so why do we not consider the Book of Enoch to be scripture.

Any thoughts?

bro Jaysaved
now you know we've talked about this... :-P anyhow i find it interesting that this subject keeps coming up. the book of Enoch is canon in the Ethiopian Church (they have a few weird beliefs) and some of the eastern ones.

personally i attribute to the enemy, the absence of that book in the canon of the western church. There are some things in there which explain certain concepts found in the canon as we know it which have little explanation in the canon. for example, hades, tartarus and the lake of fire. Hades being the holding place of the dead, with Abraham's bosom being a part of it holding the righteous, mentioned by Christ in the gospels but nowhere else. Tratarus, also mentioned in jude as the place where certain angels which sinned are bound in chains.

anyhow this should be interesting...

God bless you bro

This is from The General Epistle of Jude Commentary by A. R. Faussett

As to the book of Enoch, if quoted by Jude, his quotation of a passage from it gives an inspired sanction only to the truth of that passage, not to the whole book; just as Paul, by inspiration, sanctions particular sentiments from Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander, but not all their writings. I think, rather as there is some slight variation between Jude’s statement and that of the book of Enoch, that Jude, though probably not ignorant of the book of Enoch, stamps with inspired sanction the current tradition of the Jews as to Enoch’s prophecies; just as Paul mentions the names of the Egyptian magicians, “Jannes and Jambres” (2Ti_3:8), not mentioned in the Old Testament. At all events, the prophecy ascribed to Enoch by Jude was really his, being sanctioned as such by this inspired writer. So also the narration as to the archangel Michael’s dispute with Satan concerning the body of Moses, is by Jude’s inspired authority (Jud_1:9) declared true. The book of Enoch is quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Bruce, the Abyssinian traveler, brought home three copies of it in Ethiopic, from Alexandria, of which Archbishop Lawrence, in 1821, gave an English translation. The Ethiopic was a version from the Greek, and the Greek doubtless a version from the Hebrew, as the names of the angels in it show. The Apostolic Constitutions, Origen [Against Celsus], Jerome, and Augustine, pronounce it not canonical. Yet it is in the main edifying, vindicating God’s government of the world, natural and spiritual, and contradicting none of the Scripture statements. The name Jesus never occurs, though “Son of man,” so often given to Messiah in the Gospels, is frequent, and terms are used expressive of His dignity, character, and acts, exceeding the views of Messiah in any other Jewish book. The writer seems to have been a Jew who had become thoroughly imbued with the sacred writings of Daniel. And, though many coincidences occur between its sentiments and the New Testament, the Messianic portions are not distinct enough to prove that the writer knew the New Testament. Rather, he seems to have immediately preceded Christ’s coming, about the time of Herod the Great, and so gives us a most interesting view of believing Jews’ opinions before the advent of our Lord. The Trinity is recognized (Enoch 60:13, 14). Messiah is “the elect One” existing from eternity (Enoch 48:2, 3, 5); “All kings shall fall down before Him, and worship and fix their hopes on this Son of man” (Enoch 61:10-13). He is the object of worship (Enoch 48:3, 4); He is the supreme Judge (Enoch 60:10, 11; 68:38, 39). There shall be a future state of retribution (Enoch 93:8, 9; 94:2, 4; 95; 96; 99; 103); The eternity of future punishment (Enoch 103:5). Volkmar, in Alford, thinks the book was written at the time of the sedition of Barchochebas (a.d. 132), by a follower of Rabbi Akiba, the upholder of that impostor. This would make the book Antichristian in its origin. If this date be correct, doubtless it copied some things from Jude, giving them the Jewish, not the Christian, coloring.

I found this fascinating, since I read the non-canonical literature kept by the Rabbi's. However, I missed this quote that speaks so specifically of the end times.

In regard to the Book of Enoch not being in the canon, the Holy Spirit was choosing the books through many men, that all had to agree on what was to be considered holy, the inerrant word of God, as opposed to imformative writings of the same times, and probably those that duplicated the holy scriptures.

I believe that we should read the Apocryphal books, with the Holy Spirit guarding us, so that we may enjoy the flavor of the Judaic belief system Christianity is a part of. The Book of Jasher is another book quoted in Joshua 10:13.
[color=CC3300]So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. [/color]

Jasher is also mentioned in Samuel 1:18.[color=CC3300] and he told them to teach the children of Judah the Song of the Bow; indeed it is written in the Book of Jasher.[/color]

Enoch was also mentioned in Hebrews by Paul. [color=CC3300]Hebrews 11:5. By faith Enoch was translated so that he did not see death, "and was not found because God had translated him''; for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.[/color]

Although not in the canon, the Rabbinical writings outside the Torah and Prophets are valuable for a better understanding of the times and the basis for our beliefs, and we should at least take a serious look at them. I'm sure Jesus knew them well, and how much emphasis to place on them. The Holy Spirit will keep us from placing too much importance on these extra-canonical books.

Blessings,

I believe that we should read the Apocryphal books, with the Holy Spirit guarding us, so that we may enjoy the flavor of the Judaic belief system Christianity is a part of.

I think this is a very wise thing to do.

What intrigued me about the Book of Enoch was what I found in the commentary:

The Apostolic Constitutions, Origen [Against Celsus], Jerome, and Augustine, pronounce it not canonical. Yet it is in the main edifying, vindicating God’s government of the world, natural and spiritual, and contradicting none of the Scripture statements.

sis UWR

In regard to the Book of Enoch not being in the canon, the Holy Spirit was choosing the books through many men, that all had to agree on what was to be considered holy, the inerrant word of God, as opposed to imformative writings of the same times, and probably those that duplicated the holy scriptures.

indeed this is true, the question then would be how come in the eastern churches, the book of enoch and the apochryphal books are canon? what is God up to?

Although not in the canon, the Rabbinical writings outside the Torah and Prophets are valuable for a better understanding of the times and the basis for our beliefs, and we should at least take a serious look at them. I'm sure Jesus knew them well, and how much emphasis to place on them. The Holy Spirit will keep us from placing too much importance on these extra-canonical books.

certainly we ought to seek Holy spirit in these things to illuminate whatever it is we need to know.

God bless

Do you really believe God would allow the enemy to successfully excise a [i]true[/i] Canonical book? In order to logically uphold this theory, you would need to base it off a similar withholding or denying. What logical reason would there be for it? Brethren, I humbly believe the 66 books which is our Holy Bible is complete and final and eternally sealed. There are no other books drifting around, in other churches or laying beneath mounds uf gypsum in subterrainean caves. I propose [i]anything[/i] found outside of the contents from Genesis to Revelation is apochryphal at best.

To even [i]speculate[/i] beyond this, you walk a thin wire extending over a dark chasm. One good breeze would be all it takes to lose footing and plunge to utter destruction. This speculation is of the same spirit that fuels the gnostic gospels and other writings God has locked out of Canon.

It's locked out for a reason. Let it stay locked out.

Be careful, brethren.

Brother Paul

Bro Paul
welcome to the fray!

Do you really believe God would allow the enemy to successfully excise a true Canonical book? In order to logically uphold this theory, you would need to base it off a similar withholding or denying. What logical reason would there be for it? Brethren, I humbly believe the 66 books which is our Holy Bible is complete and final and eternally sealed. There are no other books drifting around, in other churches or laying beneath mounds uf gypsum in subterrainean caves. I propose anything found outside of the contents from Genesis to Revelation is apochryphal at best.

well the question would be, why is it canon in the eastern churches? perhaps they worship a different God? why would God allow that? why would God create knowing full well the havoc which would be caused throughout creation by the hand of one of His own cherubs, a chief cherub at that? God has reasons of His own for doing what He does which oft defy our own logic...why would God use the useless when the useful are there?

why would Jude quote from this book if it were not of any value?

To even speculate beyond this, you walk a thin wire extending over a dark chasm. One good breeze would be all it takes to lose footing and plunge to utter destruction. This speculation is of the same spirit that fuels the gnostic gospels and other writings God has locked out of Canon.

i disagree. the gnostic books have in them things which are clearly heretical and go against what we know to be the canon (western and eastern churches) the book of Enoch in no way violates this. i think it is worthy to mention again for the purposes of this discussion that in the books of Enoch, there is mention and description of things which are found nowhere else in the O.T. the Abraham's bosom Christ mentions in the gospel is not a place in a parable but is the paradise which Christ told the one thief about. Christ said he would be with Him that day in paradise. now Christ as we know didn't go to heaven right away but descended to the nether regions of the earth wherein the dead up to that point )save for Enoch, not ELijah coz JOhn the baptist was Elijah come again) were held. When Christ rose from the dead, many of them were seen walking the earth before they ascended to heaven. in the book of enoch, this place is described, as is Tartarus which is the place in which the wicked angels who went into the daughters of men in Genesis (fathers of the Nephilim) were bound in chains and await their day of judgment.

i guess whether we consider them canonical or not there seems to be some value in those books which would be of some benefit, assuming we would seek God to illumine those things for us.

God bless

Do you believe the book of Mormon? Do we believe that the Pearl of Great Price is canonical. Read and study the book of Jude and you will see it is a Gnostic piece of literature. Enoch is a little better when it comes to the capacity of the Old Testament. Is this the Enoch that God took? Not according to the date of the Enoch manuscripts. Satan can make books that are religious and Mormon or JW's or any other religious group that adds to the Bible as we have it, even the Greek Orthodox eastern Church. Neither book has anything to add to the Gospel that we know have. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ given to Paul, which Paul says is his Gospel. The Gospel Jesus preached in Mathew, Mark and Luke were pure law, perfectly kept until Jesus began to bridge the gap between Grace through Faith and The Gospel of Moses, being the Law and sacrificial works of animals to cover sins. Not the only sacrifice that takes away sin for ever for those that believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He came that world might be saved.

Born Again in Christ is the new Gospel of Paul and Part of John and Peter in his later epistles, not in Act 2.

Born again in Christ by the Father and the Incorruptable Seed of God, making us birthed son's of God: Phillip

In Christ: Phillip

well the question would be, why is it canon in the eastern churches?

The reason Enoch is canon in the eastern churches is because a group patriarchal priests decided to go ahead and canonize it. The reason Tobiah is canon in the RCC is because the same. But the reason Enoch and Tobiah and a host of other spurious writings are locked out of the Holy Bible shows us the Holy Spirit alone has the final word on what is canon and what is not.

Now, I humbly ask you: What is wrong with submitting to that? Is the Holy Bible as we know it incomplete without Enoch? If Enoch is missing, surely there must be other manuscripts missing as well, and what you have now started is a deadly spiral where there are no limitations as to what can be canon and what can't be. What is the criterion for a book to be canon? To have writings about events that coincide with things written in the [i]known[/i] canonical collection? The fact that these books are accepted by eastern churches doesn't instantly qualify them, just as the books in the Catholic Bible are not legitimized because Rome approves of them. Jude indeed mentioned what Enoch saw, and this all God decided we needed to know.

This may sound hideously intolerant, but I'll say it anyhow: In the eastern countries you mention (i.e. Ethiopia), the true gospel is preached through the scriptures of the Holy Bible, the Bible of Wesley, Hudson Taylor, Livingston, John Sung, Watchman Nee, Gladys Aylward. The Holy Bible is the true Bible of the true church and what God has included is locked in, and what God has excluded is locked out.

If a man repudiates this simple truth, his ministry is instantly brought to naught, he loses God's holy unction if he ever had it, and the resulting fall is tragic. It has happened before. It's like when a holy preacher stops believing in a literal hell...he instanly loses all authority as the Spirit departs. I don't know of [i]any[/i] minister in the Roman Catholic church or any eastern church that the Spirit of the Lord is upon.

Do you?

Brother Paul

hey bro Phillip
thanks for your response as we reason this out.

Do you believe the book of Mormon? Do we believe that the Pearl of Great Price is canonical. Read and study the book of Jude and you will see it is a Gnostic piece of literature. Enoch is a little better when it comes to the capacity of the Old Testament. Is this the Enoch that God took? Not according to the date of the Enoch manuscripts. Satan can make books that are religious and Mormon or JW's or any other religious group that adds to the Bible as we have it, even the Greek Orthodox eastern Church. Neither book has anything to add to the Gospel that we know have. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ given to Paul, which Paul says is his Gospel. The Gospel Jesus preached in Mathew, Mark and Luke were pure law, perfectly kept until Jesus began to bridge the gap between Grace through Faith and The Gospel of Moses, being the Law and sacrificial works of animals to cover sins. Not the only sacrifice that takes away sin for ever for those that believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He came that world might be saved.

if Jude is a gnostic book and God allowed it to be in the canon, what do we make of that? well as far as the date of the maniscripts from which the book of Enoch was transcribed, the manuscripts are relatively new. however i would ask, the manuscripts from which we have the O.T. part of the canon are how old? are they the ones from the days of moses? probably not but i could be wrong.

just as surely as the enemy can make things which are lies to be true, he can also smear the truth to make is seem as a lie. we should be on watch for both.

God bless

bro Paul
thanks for your response as we work through this.

The reason Enoch is canon in the eastern churches is because a group patriarchal priests decided to go ahead and canonize it. The reason Tobiah is canon in the RCC is because the same. But the reason Enoch and Tobiah and a host of other spurious writings are locked out of the Holy Bible shows us the Holy Spirit alone has the final word on what is canon and what is not.

one could argue the same about the canon we have. some men gathered together and chose the books to be included and to be excluded. we know better though. so i ask was the canonization of the books of enoch and so on somehow a thing which slipped by God or was He aware? and if so, why did He allow that to happen?

Now, I humbly ask you: What is wrong with submitting to that? Is the Holy Bible as we know it incomplete without Enoch? If Enoch is missing, surely there must be other manuscripts missing as well, and what you have now started is a deadly spiral where there are no limitations as to what can be canon and what can't be. What is the criterion for a book to be canon? To have writings about events that coincide with things written in the known canonical collection? The fact that these books are accepted by eastern churches doesn't instantly qualify them, just as the books in the Catholic Bible are not legitimized because Rome approves of them. Jude indeed mentioned what Enoch saw, and this all God decided we needed to know.

nothing at all. who hasn't submitted to that? you assume too much of me bro, perhaps i have not made myself clear though. the books of enoch are not canon in our churches and that's ok, but evidently they seem to have some value if Christ mentioned something which is found only in those books and nowhere else in the O.T. (Abraham's bosom) and Jude quotes from it also. like i said earlier, whether we see them as canon or not is not so much an issue with me, but it seems there is something which we may want to have illumined in them. they don't go against what is in the word. i do believe though that the enemy has made a book (canonized or not) which may hold some truths appear to be a lie, the reverse of what we are used to him doing. i wonder, if God only wanted us to know that Enoch saw something, how come this turned up which seems to expound on that and some other things? trying to figure it out...

This may sound hideously intolerant, but I'll say it anyhow: In the eastern countries you mention (i.e. Ethiopia), the true gospel is preached through the scriptures of the Holy Bible, the Bible of Wesley, Hudson Taylor, Livingston, John Sung, Watchman Nee, Gladys Aylward. The Holy Bible is the true Bible of the true church and what God has included is locked in, and what God has excluded is locked out.

i wouldn't expect for you to respond any other way bro! i don't dispute that the bible is the word of God and that is that. i'm not so much concerned about canonizing it.

If a man repudiates this simple truth, his ministry is instantly brought to naught, he loses God's holy unction if he ever had it, and the resulting fall is tragic. It has happened before. It's like when a holy preacher stops believing in a literal hell...he instanly loses all authority as the Spirit departs. I don't know of any minister in the Roman Catholic church or any eastern church that the Spirit of the Lord is upon.

ok neither do i, how many are there in the western churches? i don't see where Enoch contradicts anything in the word, perhaps i'm wrong though.

God bless

Okay, brother. It's looking better! I guess what threw me for a loop (and motivated me to post - usually I stay out of these discussions) is when you said you believed the reason Enoch was exluded from our Bible is because the enemy took it out. This basically stunned me. I am of the belief that the reason other churches have included Enoch in their canon, if anything, is because the enemy put it [i]in![/i] And if he could, he would try to put it - and other books - in our Bible, knowing God's Spirit left it out for a good reason. It's not our business to know the reason God didn't include Enoch in the Holy Bible; we just have to accept the exclusion with thanksgiving and concern ourselves with the books that [i]are[/i] included.

ok neither do i, how many are there in the western churches? i don't see where Enoch contradicts anything in the word, perhaps i'm wrong though.

In the previous post you said you disagreed about my assessment of walking a tightrope when a man begins to question what should have or shouldn't have been included in the Holy Scriptures and the New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing has been settled centuries ago by God. This is how I keep my mind clear and protected against ruinous speculation. Not many of us realize that when we begin tampering with the Word and casting speculative thoughts on what God has already sealed, it is like a baby taking a loaded .45 and putting the barrel in his mouth. Satan is there to inject thoughts instantly, and it doesn't matter how strong or how smart you think you are - Satan is stronger and smarter. He can brainwash you in an instant, and so subtle will it be that you won't even know you're infected. Others will know, but you won't. If you begin flirting with the "what if's" and "why did God allow this" and start filling in the blanks in reference to the Word of God...dear brother, I don't know of anything more dangerous to a saint. It's different than from falling into sin - most people [i]know[/i] when they fall into sin, but when hell creeps in and plants mendacious seeds concerning the Word of God, most people never find their way out of the devil's labyrinth.

I didn't mean Enoch was gnostic, I just meant that even [i]considering[/i] that Enoch may be legitimate canon or was taken out of our Bible by the devil is the beginning of the road I described. These thoughts are not come of God's Spirit, but of the confuser and accuser. The Holy Bible as we have it, as compiled and completed by God to the end product we have today is all there is. We have the right Bible, and in it the right Canon - everything else is wrong, and I would strongly urge everyone reading this post to [i]not even waste their time[/i] reading the other books the Spirit of God has excluded. Why divert from God's original and Holy Spirit-inspired 66?

how many are there in the western churches?

More than you think, brother! But they are hidden and humble and lowly. But there's a remnant. Many of them are right here, on SermonIndex! Wilkerson, Daniel, Poonen, Katz, Washer. Take your pick! The Spirit of God is on these men, and none of them, I'm sure, would even [i]entertain[/i] the thought of an extra divinely-inspired book or epistle existing outside our blessed Holy Bible.

God bless you for our gracious discussion!

Brother Paul

bro Paul

Okay, brother. It's looking better! I guess what threw me for a loop (and motivated me to post - usually I stay out of these discussions) is when you said you believed the reason Enoch was exluded from our Bible is because the enemy took it out. This basically stunned me. I am of the belief that the reason other churches have included Enoch in their canon is because the enemy put it in! And if he could, he would try to put it - and other books - in our Bible.

the enemy i feel did make this book out to seem like a lie though i feel. but at the end of the day, i don't see where the book of enoch takes away from the word or would cause anyone to question the validity of the word of God. if you look at what bro Jaysaved posted after i responded to him you will see that in the assessment.

In the previous post you said you disagreed about my assessment of walking a tightrope when a man begins to question what should have or shouldn't have been included in the Holy Scriptures and the New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing has been settled centuries ago by God. This is how I keep my mind clear and protected against ruinous speculation. Not many of us realize that when we begin tampering with the Word and casting speculative thoughts on what God has already sealed, it is like a baby taking a loaded .45 and putting the barrel in his mouth. Satan is there to inject thoughts instantly, and it doesn't matter how strong you think you are or how smart - Satan is stronger and smarter. He can brainwash you in an instant, and so subtle will it be that you won't even know you're infected. Others will know, but you won't. If you begin flirting with the "what if's" and "why did God allow this" and start filling in the blanks in reference to the Word of God...dear brother, I don't know of anything more dangerous to a saint. It's different than from falling into sin - most people know when they fall into sin, but when hell creeps in and plants mendacious seeds concerning the Word of God, most people never find their way out of the devil's labyrinth.

i guess i can see how that enemy could easily ensnare people with the gnostic books. With the book of enoch, i don't see how because nothing in there contradicts anything in the word. anyhow it seems that those books have some value else what was in them would not have been of enough consequence to mention in the word, especially since some of those things aren't mentioned anywhere else. They were indeed part of the Jewish traditions then they got discredited, perhaps because of the mention of the coming messiah in terms which would indicate that the messiah was Jesus. the rabbis would probably not want that kind of info floating about. anyway it's all good, my relationship with Him is in no way diminshed though i will say some things seem much clearer.

More than you think, brother! But they are hidden and humble and lowly. But there's a remnant. Many of them are right here, on SermonIndex! Wilkerson, Daniel, Poonen, Katz, Washer. Take your pick! The Spirit of God is on these men, and none of them, I'm sure, would even entertain the thought of an extra divinely-inspired book or epistle existing outside our blessed Holy Bible.

i wasn't asking how many you knew as though i didn't think there were any spirit-filled men in the western church. i was just curious to see how many you knew :-D

anyhow let God set us all straight.AMEN.

A few thoughts on what I have read from some:

Christinyou wrote:

Satan can make books that are religious and Mormon or JW's or any other religious group that adds to the Bible as we have it, even the Greek Orthodox eastern Church.

It is true that Satan can make books that are heretical and can mislead. It is unfair to lump the book of Enoch in this category though because Jude and possibly Peter reference it in their writings. They surely did not consider it a work of Satan.

Paul West wrote:

Now, I humbly ask you: What is wrong with submitting to that? Is the Holy Bible as we know it incomplete without Enoch? If Enoch is missing, surely there must be other manuscripts missing as well, and what you have now started is a deadly spiral where there are no limitations as to what can be canon and what can't be. What is the criterion for a book to be canon?

No one is advocating bringing more books into the Holy Bible. What we are asking is why isn't the book of Enoch included. I do submit that there are limitations as to what extra books are worth study. The book of Enoch would be one such book because it does not contradict scripture and it is referenced by scripture.

Christinyou wrote:

Read and study the book of Jude and you will see it is a Gnostic piece of literature.

Did I read this correctly?

Paul West wrote:

I don't know of any minister in the Roman Catholic church or any eastern church that the Spirit of the Lord is upon.

Brother I don't personally know any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priests, but I dare not make an presumption of this magnitude.

quote:

I don't know of any minister in the Roman Catholic church or any eastern church that the Spirit of the Lord is upon.

I don't personally know any either, however that doesn't say their aren't any. I had to leave that up to God after reading several books by Madam Jean Guyon and Francios Fenelon. If these catholics weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit, if not filled, I don't know who is.

[color=9900FF]Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit. [/color]

Although the Book of Enoch *may* be good, I also think there is risk that it detracts our attention from reaching the things that God most desires in our lives, and that Satan fears. None of the recent revivals depended on readings from the Book of Enoch.

I view Bible code in a similar way. I'm confident that it is God's doing, along with an infinite number of other mysteries He has embedded into his Word, however I choose not to delve too deeply into this while the literal, open meaning of scriptures is largely misunderstood or ignored by humanity, and most of humanity hasn't seen a powerful Acts-style revival - including myself.

What's the point of knowing exactly how Satan and others fell from their positions, if we fail our own calling?

PassingThru

I asked the same question to many people, and one man said this to me concerning the book of enoch:

"Is there not enough wisdom and knowledge contained in the scriptures already? We can't even figure out what we have, and we are seeking more knowledge? Of which I might add may or may not be scripture? I have read the book of Enoch, and it added nothing to my faith, and it took nothing away. I see no purpose in trying to gain more knowledge from it when we won't even gain the knowledge from the book we already have."

(He didn't say it quite that elegantly, I just kind of used some bigger words to make it flow more smoothly, writers license I guess.)

I think both PassingThru and BenWilliams have made a lot of sense. If we concentrate on allowing the word of God penetrate our hearts and change us we will be busy enough.