The Books of Enoch.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Would the book of Enoch enhance one's spiritual understanding, or cause confusion questions?

  • A) help

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • B) Add Confusion

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • C) There's a reason God kept it out of the Bible

    Votes: 13 65.0%

  • Total voters
    20

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
People boo hoo and cry about how todays church is so far from what the first century
church was. Guess what? In the first century, Enoch was not considered Scripture.


Why people claim it is inspired is beyond me :unsure::censored:

Of the Apocrypha, Josephus says: “We do not possess myriads
of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books,
those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty
[the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures
according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.”

It may be because of what Josephus wrote in Antiquities chapter three about the "angels of God" and them accompanying with women which he says produced giants ect. He said it was their tradition that these resembled what the Greeks called giants. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html it seems though that Josephus as well as many other Jews at least in about ad95 believed that the angels of God did accompany women.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,815
29,195
113
It may be because of what Josephus wrote in Antiquities chapter three about the "angels of God" and them accompanying with women which he says produced giants ect. He said it was their tradition that these resembled what the Greeks called giants. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html it seems though that Josephus as well as many other Jews at least in about ad95 believed that the angels of God did accompany women.
It was taken for granted in New Testament times, without argument or qualification, that a commonly understood body of books was in existence which the Jews recognized to be the sacred and authorized Scriptures. Enoch was not counted among them.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
Hi iamsoandso!

From what I know, of the angels (plural) that took human wives, though Satan deceived Eve as a serpent and is referred to as 'that ancient serpent' in Revelation, he is not mentioned as being among those 200 angels that took wives, else I suppose that he would also be among those angels who are now in Tartarus. In addition, if he had been one of their number, Peter wouldn't have written about him saying 'your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.'

Peter states 'the angels that sinned' and Jude states that they did not keep (abandoned) their heavenly positions of authority. From what I understand, both Peter and Jude are speaking about the same group of angels, the ones who took wives and beget giants. Enoch also confirms what both Peter and Jude wrote, regarding their punishment:

===============================================================

Enoch 10:1-5
Then the Most Hight, the Great and Holy One spoke; and sent Arsayalalyur to the son of Lamech (Noah), saying: Say to him in My name; conceal thyself. Then explain to him the consummation (flood) which is about to take place; for all the earth shall perish; the waters of a deluge shall come over the whole earth, and all things which are in it shall be destroyed. And now teach him how he may escape, and how his seed may remain in all the earth.

Enoch 10:6-9
Again the Lord said to Raphael: Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and opening the desert which is in Dudael, cast him in there. Throw upon him hurled and pointed stones; covering him with darkness; There shall he remain for ever; cover his face, that he may not see the light. And in the great day of judgment (white throne judgment) let him be cast into the fire (Matt.25:41).

Enoch 10:15
To Michael likewise the Lord said: Go and announce his crime to Samyaza (the leader of the 200) and to the others who are with him, who have been associated with women, that they might be polluted with all their impurity. And when all their sons shall be slain, when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth (Tartartus) even to the day of judgment, and of the consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last forever, be completed.

Yes that's the point of my question in that he(the serpent,devil,Satan) cannot be in the number of the 200 or else he would then be bound in Tartarus pre-flood(2 Peter/Jude) . And so if he exist in the garden, in Job after the flood and all the way until the millennial (he is of another group separate from the 200 in Enoch)...
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,375
113
People boo hoo and cry about how todays church is so far from what the first century
church was. Guess what? In the first century, Enoch was not considered Scripture.


Why people claim it is inspired is beyond me :unsure::censored:


Hell Magenta!

That is not correct. the writings of Enoch was a part of the scriptures up till the 4th century, which is why Jude quoted Him, saying "And Enoch also prophesied of these." If something is a prophecy, its origin is from God. Remember, Enoch walked and talked with God and God took Him. The writings of Enoch describe His travels with the angels and all that they showed him.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,815
29,195
113
Hell Magenta!

That is not correct. the writings of Enoch was a part of the scriptures up till the 4th century, which is why Jude quoted Him, saying "And Enoch also prophesied of these." If something is a prophecy, its origin is from God. Remember, Enoch walked and talked with God and God took Him. The writings of Enoch describe His travels with the angels and all that they showed him.
Not according to first century historian Josephus. Where do you get your information?

"Enoch also prophesied these." Any number of people probably said the same.

Claiming Enoch said something is not proof the book of the same name is inspired.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
People boo hoo and cry about how todays church is so far from what the first century
church was. Guess what? In the first century, Enoch was not considered Scripture.


Why people claim it is inspired is beyond me :unsure::censored:

Of the Apocrypha, Josephus says: “We do not possess myriads
of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books,
those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty
[the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures
according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.”
And also Jesus Commented on Gen 6:2 in Matthew 24:38 He says that as in the days of Noah they were marrying, right before the flood came, they will be doing that when Jesus Comes suddenly and they will be taken by surprise. No one misunderstood who the they were, MEN. So what verse was he referring to in the days of Noah when they were doing that? Only Gen 6:2 This means that Jesus interpreted the sons of God as men not angels. It is very clear if you concede that Jesus was referring to something that was written. I discovered this when I asked myself the question "Did Jesus ever comment on this verse?" and sure enough He did.

I don't know why it is not common knowledge. It should be.

It cannot be dismissed. 1) either Jesus was referring to something in the OT or he wasn't. It is most likely that when he said this "in the days of Noah" every one of his disciples were trying to remember what the scriptures said about those days. And if they turned to the scrolls they would have discovered a reference to the sons of god marrying wives of all which they choose right before the flood took them all away. This is the marrying they were doing that Jesus is referring to, and Jesus is talking about what men will be doing before Jesus comes again and takes them by surprise. That is His point. We get that. But what people are missing is that he is referring to Gen 6:2. LIGHTBULB!!!! Mystery Solved. Sons of God are men. The lineage of Seth who called themselves by the name of the Lord until they married over into the camp of Cain and the beautiful women that enticed them and adopted the wickedness of that culture until only Noah and his family were left of the sons of God.

And so it will be when the Son of God returns the vast majority of mankind will be persueing their own pleasures, and finding their satisfaction in the things of this world, a total horizontal world view, marrying people who are just as wicked as them and who also want to heap up worldly pleasures as their goals in life. Making their wealth, cars, houses, and childrens welfare their only purpose in life. with no vertical world view of relationship with God, faith in a returning son of God or any concern for anything but their own pleasures. And suddenly they will be destroyed.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
It was taken for granted in New Testament times, without argument or qualification, that a commonly understood body of books was in existence which the Jews recognized to be the sacred and authorized Scriptures. Enoch was not counted among them.

Yes I am aware that the Jews did not see the books like Enoch,Matthew,Mark Luke(the whole NT) as sacred,authorized,Scripture ect.
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,375
113
Yes that's the point of my question in that he(the serpent,devil,Satan) cannot be in the number of the 200 or else he would then be bound in Tartarus pre-flood(2 Peter/Jude) . And so if he exist in the garden, in Job after the flood and all the way until the millennial (he is of another group separate from the 200 in Enoch)...
You would be correct!

A third of the angels rebelled against God, siding with Satan. But only those 200 were guilty of taking wives from the progeny of mankind. These are the ones in chains of darkness in Tartartus. The other fallen angels are described as 'the principalities, the powers and as the spiritual wickedness in high places.' It is the rest of the angels who rebelled against God who are those who will be involved in that war that takes place in the middle of the seven years (Rev.12:7-9), where they and Satan will be cast out of heaven and restricted to the earth, which by the way is the result of the 7th trumpet and is the 3rd woe. Though it does not state it in scripture, when Satan is thrown into the Abyss, I believe it will include all of his angels as well. Otherwise they would still be able to deceive the inhabitants of the earth during the millennial kingdom and there would be no peace.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
What is tragic about this topic is that those who insist on the angel theory miss the point that the Holy Spirit intended and never preach the great message about the importance of the great battle we are in since the foundation of the world God calls a holy people to Himself and to separate from the ungodly. If people preached that message from Gen 6:2 they would awaken many who are being lulled asleep and leaving the camp of God as they are falling for the enticement of the world that is seducing them right now.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,815
29,195
113
Yes I am aware that the Jews did not see the books like Enoch,Matthew,Mark Luke(the whole NT) as sacred,authorized,Scripture ect.
The Book of Enoch is a collection of books written by multiple authors and during various time periods that extend from 300 BC to 100 AD. Grouping in it with books written post resurrection is somewhat misleading as far as what Christ rejecters accepted as Scripture.
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,375
113
Not according to first century historian Josephus. Where do you get your information?

"Enoch also prophesied these." Any number of people probably said the same.

Claiming Enoch said something is not proof the book of the same name is inspired.
Well, Jude quoted Enoch for one. The preface in Ethiopic Enoch (in part) states the following:

===========================================================================

For more than a century, scholars and church officials debated as to whether or not certain gospels, epistles and apocalypses should be included. For instance, it was long debated which to include in the canon, the book of Revelation or the book of Enoch, which had been accepted as Scripture by Jesus and Paul and the whole Christian church, for several centuries. Revelation finally won out and became the last book of the Bible. The book of Enoch, under a stigma because deemed uncanonical, gradually dropped out of use, and finally disappeared.

As time went on, scholars of the more intelligent sort desired more and more to see a copy of it. But there was none to be had. Centuries passed. A student of Arabic, on James Bruce, Scotsman, cherished the idea of the book of Enoch still existed in an Ethiopic version. In 1768, he went to Ethiopia and six years later returned to London with three manuscripts of the Ethiopic Enoch, one of which he left to the British Museum.

It goes on to say: This precious book throws much light on the thinking of our Lord Jesus, also St. Paul. Both regarded it as sacred scripture and quoted from it. Our gratitude to the Ethiopians could be expressed by restoring it to its proper place in our Bible, this important and extremely valuable Ethiopic Enoch.

===================================================================================
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,375
113
Not according to first century historian Josephus. Where do you get your information?

"Enoch also prophesied these." Any number of people probably said the same.

Claiming Enoch said something is not proof the book of the same name is inspired.
Yes, but the scripture does not say "any number of people." It says Enoch prophesied of these."
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
The Book of Enoch is a collection of books written by multiple authors and during various time periods that extend from 300 BC to 100 AD. Grouping in it with books written post resurrection is somewhat misleading as far as what Christ rejecters accepted as Scripture.

I'm not referring to 2 Enoch or 3 Enoch only 1 Enoch(your combining them together I think)
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
You would be correct!

A third of the angels rebelled against God, siding with Satan. But only those 200 were guilty of taking wives from the progeny of mankind. These are the ones in chains of darkness in Tartartus. The other fallen angels are described as 'the principalities, the powers and as the spiritual wickedness in high places.' It is the rest of the angels who rebelled against God who are those who will be involved in that war that takes place in the middle of the seven years (Rev.12:7-9), where they and Satan will be cast out of heaven and restricted to the earth, which by the way is the result of the 7th trumpet and is the 3rd woe. Though it does not state it in scripture, when Satan is thrown into the Abyss, I believe it will include all of his angels as well. Otherwise they would still be able to deceive the inhabitants of the earth during the millennial kingdom and there would be no peace.

In Matthew 24:28 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24.htm Jesus quotes the ending of the speech that began in Job 38 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 39&version=KJV
 

Tararose

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2020
753
564
93
Uk
www.101christiansocialnetwork.com
Enoch was undoubtably a remarkable and exceptional man of God.

The book of Enoch that is readily available online however, is not THE book, of THE Enoch Jude quoted in scripture. I would be keen to read the real thing, but the Lord has chosen not to preserve any such writings as far as we can tell.

The Ethiopian one, the oldest known complete example of this book, is dated to be from the 15th century... 15 000 years After Christ.

Yet Enoch was just 7 generations after Adam... LONG before Christ.

Then take into account that we have existing manuscript material backing up the New Testament gospels as early as the 2nd century.... and we have portions of the the Old Testament dated at being written centuries before Christ.

A giant question mark sits on the late date of the oldest example of the book of Enoch, and an even bigger one regarding its contents.

Of course we have later examples of many portions of scripture, but they often align with other fragments of scripture written thousands of years ago! The supposed book of Enoch aligns only with it's oldest known copy, and certainly not with the genuine scriptures.

You can read it if you like of course. I have, and I don't recommend it at all. It presents as fact, but is mostly fantasy and the writer frequently incorporates elements of suppositions, assertions and angelic mythology as if they are solid and reliable historic truths. They are not.

Similar contradictions to scripture, and unbiblical theology, can be derived from the other apocryphal books that contain both factual errors and unbiblical teachings.

Apocryphal - means of uncertain or of dubious sources or origin. The apocrypha, as it is known, was a set of books included in bible versions such as the early KJV. They were placed in the earlier KJV, between the old and the new testaments, and were intended to add another segment, along with the historical, poetical, prophetical and law portions of the bible. They were to be taken as fictional writings relating to or based on actual and fictitious people, biblical and imaginary events, taking place in a similar time and setting to many portions of scripture.

As for the Catholics choosing the cannon, it should be noted that they did all they could to prevent anyone knowing what it said for themselves, and the main reason being, is that those 66 books state many things that are contrary to, and condemn many of, the Catholic teachings. It is not as some suggest - that they chose those books because it suited there own purposes.

The books of the bible frequently oppose the purposes of the Catholic Church.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,495
113
The Sons Of God were human men, that married human women


Nope.....
Yep!

The Sons Of God were human men, that married human women

Teaching Angels have sex with human women, and maintaining human sperm is a fairytale in mythology, and false teaching.

Look There, Elimelech's Sons Took Human Wives Toooo :giggle:

Ruth 1:3-4KJV
3 And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

Genesis 6:1-6KJV
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

"The Sons of God" took wives, Angel's don't marry humans, it's that simple.

Matthew 22:30KJV
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
What is tragic about this topic is that those who insist on the angel theory miss the point that the Holy Spirit intended and never preach the great message about the importance of the great battle we are in since the foundation of the world God calls a holy people to Himself and to separate from the ungodly. If people preached that message from Gen 6:2 they would awaken many who are being lulled asleep and leaving the camp of God as they are falling for the enticement of the world that is seducing them right now.

In the modern world who would you see them as are they those who make mobile phones and computers? Are they the CEO"s of the companies who are the giants? Is it incorrect that we marry and give in marriage? Tell us how to identify the children of Cain so we can separate ourselves from them.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,815
29,195
113
What is tragic about this topic is that those who insist on the angel theory miss the point that the Holy Spirit intended and never preach the great message about the importance of the great battle we are in since the foundation of the world God calls a holy people to Himself and to separate from the ungodly. If people preached that message from Gen 6:2 they would awaken many who are being lulled asleep and leaving the camp of God as they are falling for the enticement of the world that is seducing them right now.
Amen. Front to back the Bible warns the godly not to mix with the ungodly, for they are to have no fellowship. Plus there is not one instance in the Bible where any angel took on human form aside from carrying out the express will of God. The same people who claim, oh it was never done before so this naming of someone cannot be a parable, will claim something that was never done was!
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
Well, Enoch is a collection of books. The fact remains that it was not considered part of the OT.
Still though Magenta my friend, those same Jews did not acknowledge the Lord Jesus as the Messiah so their opinion just isn't trustworthy in regards to which writings are in reference to him. Would you expect them to acknowledge anything with even a hint to Christianity?