I am not interested in reading or purchasing this book, I am just curious as to what exactly is it and what is it about? Could anyone share any insight on this matter for me-thanks. :-)
Funny that you ask this. I have also come across this question in the last few days as well.
I too am interested.
Interesting. I read through the article. It sounded like a pro-Enoch article. Is there anything that someone can point to (besides a biased example for or against it) article on how the book of Enoch came to leave the bible? I am not sure if it exists and do not wish to run through all of Google to find something.
Also, do people view this book as a complementary tool to the bible? What are opinions about its usage altogether?
Very interesting. Thanks in advance for the replies and patience.
Here is the book:
http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM
You can browse through all 5 chapters
Jude quoted Enoch in verse 14-15.
His main topic is the bliss of the righteous and the dammnation of the sinners. I can imagine his burning righteous indignation against the ungodly just 7 generation after Adam. He shared 308 years with Adam, and Adam must have told all his living siblings about his walk with God before the fall. Enoch must have been fascinated with Adam's description of the paradise and must have asked Adam everything about God. When his own son Methuselah was born, he developed the walk with God that Adam had lost.
Result: His Great...great Grandfather Adam was kicked out of paradise.
Enoch experienced the reverse, he was TAKEN without tasting death, a fate that was only granted to Elijiah afterwards.
Some say that Enoch and Elijiah will be the 2 witnesses in Rev. 11. Both lived through times of great apostacy and have a proven track record as God's spokesman.
I found a striking clue in the name of his son Methuselah. Check this bible timeline:
http://www.wordsight.org/usg/000_usg-fp.htm
Seth's great-great-great grandchild, Enoch, son of Jared was born. Enoch lived 365 years and fathered sons and daughters. ("The Arabian name of Enoch is Edris, and their traditions of him are that he was an eminent astronomer, mathematician and prophet of God.")
Seth's great-great-great-great grandchild, Methuselah, son of Enoch was born. Methuselah lived 969 years, making him the oldest of the ancient ones, and the oldest man to ever live. (Methuselah's name means, "At his death, it will come." Methuselah died the year of the flood.) Methuselah fathered sons and daughters.
After Methuselah's birth, the Bible records that Enoch developed an especially close relationship with God leading to his translation to heaven at the age of 365. "And Enoch walked with God 365 years and begat sons and daughters," Gen. 5:22 "And he was not for God took him." Gen. 5:24
Is Enoch inspired? Perhaps. I find Enoch one of the most fascinating characters in the bible. Unlike all the other giants of the faith, not a single flaw is recorded about this man. Being the seventh from Adam, which is a symbol of completenetss and born in sin he is a forerunner of a saint completed in Christ.
Gen 5:22 And he was not for God took him."
This is the consummation of Gal 2:20
"No longer I live but Christ in me"
narrowpath
I have been slowly reading through the book of Enoch that I found online. If I had to choose between Hinn, Swindol, Stanly, or Enoch, Enoch wins because he was respected enough by the Apostles to be called a prophet in their writings, so that is enough for me.
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 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.
Blessings Greg
The one thing that I will say about Enoch; (and Elijah) is that yes I believe he was "translated" and "taken"-but I do not believe that he was taken to Heaven, as in where God dwells. The reason I say that is because of Jesus words in John 3.
John 3:13 [color=FF0000][b]And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven
I know in the account of Elijah's life, it mentions the chariots of fire taking him to heaven-but after reading Christ's words in John 3:13, I have often thought maybe this only spoke of the 2nd heaven, and not the 3rd Heaven where God dwells. I believe that Christ himself, had to be the first man to ascend into heaven because to him was given the Premeninence of all things.
Christ's words seem very clear to me: "[color=FF0000]And no man hath ascended up to heaven...[/color]"
To me, this would even include Enoch(and Elijah).Because it is even very clear or evident, that even the righteous after Enoch, such as Abraham, Joseph, David, Isaiah, Job, Jeremiah upon death did not ASCSEND up into heaven, but as it spoken of Lazurus in Luke 16, it is believed they went to Abraham's bosom. I also find it strange, that the Bible actually never says that he was translated up to heaven-it just said that he was translated-it never said where God took him, it just said that God took him. Considerably, you could even say that Job had the same testimony as Enoch. Enoch walked with God, Job was a perfect man and eschewed evil-yet even Job died and it is not accounted that he ascended up into the heavens.
Just some of my thoughts....again, I do belive the Bible account of Enoch, I just also think some of the things we have attributed to it, does not line up with the rest of Scripture. Maybe God took him (and hid him) like he did with the body of Moses
Rom 5:14 [b]Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses
It said death reigned from Adam to Moses-is not Enoch in between Adam and Moses?
Perhaps even Heb 11:13 gives us some insight. Many of my close collegues do not agree with me on this point-but Heb 11 lists all the heroes of faith, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarai, etc...then in verse 13 it says:
Heb11:13 [b]These ALL DIED in faith
Would not verse 13 even include Enoch spoken of in verse 5?
:-) Just curious...just something to possibly think about.
BlazedbyGod,
You make some good points that I have thought about in the past as well. In fact, I have used John as well in other converstations.
Granted I am not well versed in Enoch or its meanings, but I think you did a good job of explaining it better than I can :-)
Abraham's bosom...Now there is a fun topic discussion!
Enoch didn't "leave" the Bible...it was never there to begin with.
And just because Jude "quoted him" doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't even mean there was a book. Secular poets and philosophers are quoted by Paul and that doesn't suddenly inspire them.
Interesting, but not part of canon.
BeYeDoers wrote:
Secular poets and philosophers are quoted by Paul and that doesn't suddenly inspire them.
Where in the New Testement did Paul quote from sources that are not in our own scripture? And in what context? I mean, did he quote simply to quote so he has reference or does he quote in agreeance with those documents like Jude did to expand on and support his point?
Titus 1:12
we start questioning the completeness of the canon which has been accepted for thousands of years, where will it stop?
The canon is complete.
also Acts 17:28
Who wrote the book of Enoch?
When was it written?
There is no evidence such a book even existed at Jude's time (the earliest ms is dated to 4th century, and nothing else suggests it existed earlier), Jude never mentioned a "book of Enoch" or that he was even quoting from anything.
Even assuming that there was such a thing and that Jude [i]did
Guys, I'm not trying to start something, and my choice of words could have been better. I stated something to the effect of "when did the book leave the Bible"... this statement by me was wrong and inaccurate. I appologize for any confussion it may have lead to.
I was trying to get a feel for the book of Enoch, hence the questions before about a non-biased pro or con article on Enoch. Just looking for straight facts, if there are any.
Thanks again for the time to share :-)
Even assuming that there was such a thing and that Jude did quote it, he says nothing about it being inspired, and as far as I know, no church father thought such a thing either.
I think we should try to be objective in our analysis of Enoch. When Isaiah was quoted from, no one stated that was inspired either. Perhaps we might say such points are assumed. Also, earlier in this thread there are links that point out that some early church fathers received the book of Enoch as Scripture. If Jude references a quotation from Enoch, it obviously exists prior to the 4th century. However, I do not think the book of Enoch should become a controversy. If the book of Enoch contains anti-Christian errors, let us expose them, otherwise it may well be compatible with Scripture. Perhaps the reading of it will be at least as good as many of the other books recommended on this forum. There are fine, balanced, and conservative men of God in our own day who believe the book of Enoch to be inspired. My point is not to say that it is, but to ask if we need to battle over whether it is or not. "Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind" Paul says, as long as there is nothing in it that will harm Christ.
When Isaiah was quoted from, no one stated that was inspired either
When Isaiah is quoted from, it is usually plainly treated as inspired (tought from, etc.) and has always been considered so dating thousands of years back to our Jewish ancestors. Several criteria had to be met for our fathers to consider something scripture, and "Book of Enoch" never fit the bill. Sure, there have been a few to dissent, but Luther thought James wasn't scripture either. A few people in late history can't negate thousands of years of acceptance. If it does, it better be pretty strong evidence and there better be proof of a huge gaffe or conspiracy on the part of our Fathers to reject or "remove" this work. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, quoting something does nothing to make it inspired, since Paul quoted true statements from non-inspired sources. Why don't we treat those pagan sources as scripture, while we're at it? This reference from Jude (NOT necessarily a quotation) is just a statement of agreement or fact. Nothing else is mentioned on whether Jude considered anything else from this "source" inspired.
If Jude references a quotation from Enoch, it obviously exists prior to the 4th century.
Correlation does not infer causation. How do you know that the "Book of Enoch" didn't quote Jude to give credence to it?
"Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind"
I don't think Paul was talking about adding to scripture.
I have no problem if people want to read this book. But if it goes beyond, "hmm, this is interesting" into considering it equal with scripture, we move into dangerous territory.
Correlation does not infer causation. How do you know that the "Book of Enoch" didn't quote Jude to give credence to it?
A perfectly valid and logical question, of course. We need to ask ourselves what source Jude quoted from. Naturally, we could say that God just revealed those words to him and indicated they were spoken by Enoch. However, I think the record of the early church fathers indicates that this was not a new work. They treat it as a text that was written before Christ, being part of the Jewish and not the Christian era (pre-Christ).
This discussion is locked.
