[CS-FSLUG] The Book of Enoch - Seven's question.

[steven vollom]

On Saturday 11 July 2009 05:44:30 pm Fred A. Miller wrote:
> I didn't know all of the history associated with The Book of Enoch, and
> wanted an accurate thorough answer regarding it, so asked my brother
> about it. Here's his answer.
>
> Fred
>
> The Book of Enoch was very popular in the first couple centuries of the
> Church, but its popularity then declined, so it was excluded from the
> Canon of Scripture when it was adopted by the Fathers at the Ecumenical
> Councils held at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth
> centuries. At this point, only the Ethiopians consider the Book of Enoch
> to be canonical. I’m going to borrow from Dr John Oakes to explain why.
>
> First of all, the Jews, who chose the books of the Old Testament by
> consensus, did not include Enoch. They did not leave behind a record of
> how they chose the books we have in our canonical Old Testament. A good
> guess is that Enoch was written well beyond the date of the last book
> which ended up in the Old Testament. Scholars have placed the book in
> the second century BC–about three hundred years after the canonical Old
> Testament was completed. The Jews were not adding to their Canon of
> Scripture at that time. It was considered by many to be closed (although
> some would have argued this point). Another possible reason Enoch is not
> in the Old Testament is that it is not inspired by God. Remember that,
> although God used human beings to write and to collect the books of the
> Bible, ultimately, God had a hand in both the writing of the books, and
> presumably in the process by which they were collected. II Peter
> 1:19-21 talks about the inspiration of the Old Testament, as does II
> Timothy 3:16. But the Book of Enoch is pseudepigriphal. This is a fancy
> word which means that the book was written as if it were from Enoch,
> when anyone reading the book knows that Enoch had nothing to do with
> this book. It is hard to imagine a book which is falsely attributed to
> an author ending up in the Bible and this was, in fact, one of the
> criteria applied by the Fathers for admission into the Canon of Scripture.
>
> So, you’re probably wondering why Jude quoted from (or, more precisely,
> allude to) the Book of Enoch? Is Jude imputing inspiration to Enoch? It
> is not at all unusual for preachers to quote from non-inspired books in
> sermons in order to make a point. We do not always carefully remind the
> reader that the quote is from a non-inspired book, but rely on the
> knowledge of our hearers to make the distinction at times. It is
> possible that the things referred to in Enoch are true, while the book
> itself is not inspired. It is also possible (though not likely in my
> opinion, for what it is worth) that the Book of Enoch is in fact
> inspired, yet never made it into the Hebrew Canon of Scripture. It is
> hard to say. What we do know is that Jude referenced a story in Enoch as
> if it were a true story. Whether he does so simply to make a point or to
> actually imply that this is a factual event is a bit hard to say.
>
> One last comment about Enoch and apocryphal books in general. The Jews
> did not hold the identical view to most of us on the idea of
> inspiration. They saw inspiration (to use a word they would not have in
> their vocabulary, as far as I know) on different levels. The Pentateuch
> (the first five books) was held in highest regard. The former and latter
> prophets were considered inspired, ie, from God, but of lesser weight,
> while the writings were perhaps even a step down from there. The Jews
> may have considered such books as I Macabees, Judith, Ecclesiasticus and
> perhaps I Enoch as useful–carrying some weight from God as well. It is
> possible that they saw things more on a continuum, while we, with our
> Western mindset, tend to see things more as ones and zeros: totally
> inspired, end of story, or definitely not considered inspired
> at all. Which is the correct perspective, I am not absolutely sure, but
> it is worth bearing in mind that we think differently on this than the
> Jews in the time of Jesus.
>
> I pray this answers your question.

At this point, I believe the book as scripture.  I have read it many times and 
don't find anything which conflicts with other written scripture, it just 
contains history from times nearer Adam.  Some is attributed to Noah and some 
to his great grandfather Methuselah.  The book of Job is considered the oldest 
of the texts that we have.  Enoch is dated before that.

I read the Book of Mormon and did not have a peaceful spirit.  I concluded it 
was not scripture.  But a Mormon who confesses Jesus as LORD and confirms that 
he is referring to the same Jesus as others of the Christian faith and also 
believes the virgin birth and that GOD raised Jesus from the dead, I consider 
him a Christian too.  Same with Jehova's Witnesses.  If Buddha were alive and 
claimed Jesus as LORD and believed, I would call him brother.  If my spirit 
did not give me peace, I would believe they were lying and trust the Holy 
Spirit.  I fall into the same problem as I did with you before.  I believe 
what I read that I get a comfortable spirit from the Holy Spirit and don't 
worry about what men have said about the words.

I read everything I can find written about Biblical times and let GOD be my 
conviction.  Sometimes when people take their instructions from other people 
it is a mistake.  I am willing to listen, up to a point.  If the spirit starts 
yelling at me (its spiritual equivalent) I cease to pursue the issue.  As long 
as I am at peace, I receive as true.  Books that are eluded to in the 
scripture, that everyone accepts, are always going to get my ear.

Enoch and Noah were both considered Righteous, or the Bible cannot be trusted.  
Since Enoch is older than Job, it only makes sense that it is relevant.  It is 
the only book that includes conversation about creatures that could be the 
dinosaurs we have physical evidence of.  It is the only book that talks of 
fallen angels the size that is referred to by the gods of Greece.  It is the 
only book that talks of fallen angels the size that could build the pyramids.  
It is the only Book that talks of creatures that are different but similar to 
the Leviathan and sea monsters talked of in the scripture we accept.  Enoch is 
the only book that was written in the time of the fallen angels and describes 
and talks about their function as beings, their capabilities.  It is the only 
book that explains the origins of magic and death arts and astrology, all 
which are condemned in the accepted texts.  Enoch is the only book that has 
prophecy about the occurrences before the prophets.  And Enoch accurately 
prophecies all of history accurately which took place after the time of the 
fallen ones all the way to the end of the age, now.  It is a book that 
contains history that may have been written by Adam, and does it make a 
difference if inspired by GOD.

If the Book of Enoch had conflicted with other known scripture, my intellectual 
side might have given me a warning, but I did not find that to be the case.  
Still, maybe not, I don't have any respect for my intelligence except what I 
get from scripture.  Only people rejected the book of Enoch.  And like you say 
if the 66 books are correct, then is Jude suspect?  Because of our 
conversation, I am going to read Enoch again.  It has been a while.  I will 
test the spirit once more.  It is not proper to use the Rabbis to confirm your 
contentions and reject the Rabbis when they disagree with you.  They are the 
same both times. 

Thanks for the inspiration to review.

In CHRIST,

Steven