News:

Buy things on Amazon? Please go to gracecentered.com/amazon FIRST and we'll earn a commission from your order!

Main Menu
+-+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 80068
Latest: LonnieyrgytreaRom
New This Month: 5
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 890044
Total Topics: 89476
Most Online Today: 246
Most Online Ever: 2999
(Fri Jan 13, 2023 - 21:20:46)
Users Online
Members: 4
Guests: 200
Total: 204

Anyone read the book of Enoch?

Started by mommydi, Wed Dec 13, 2023 - 23:25:21

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mommydi

If you did, what do you think about it?

Rella

Quote from: mommydi on Wed Dec 13, 2023 - 23:25:21If you did, what do you think about it?

Great question. ::clappingoverhead::

I have not, other then bits and pieces, because too many disregard it's viability for a myriad of reasons... either that it could not have been authored by one person, or as some would challenge... viability or lack of trustworthiness.

I have some commentaries and a copy of The Book of Enoch
(105 chapters; also referred to as "Ethiopian Enoch" or "The Apocalypse of Enoch") Translation: Robert Henry Charles, Oxford, Clarendon, 1897

as well as

https://ia601001.us.archive.org/19/items/TheCompleteBookOfEnochStandardEnglishVersionJayWinter/The%20Complete%20Book%20of%20Enoch%2C%20Standard%20English%20Version%20-%20Jay%20Winter.pdf

THE COMPLETE
BOOK OF ENOCH
Standard English Version
Dr. Jay Winter

I have read many things that say there are 3 books of Enoch, yet this later one suggests 5 books...

And this one also includes a Book of Giants and Evidence of Giants  which I was going to selve into as Enoch has been said to mention giants and before this forum went down last June, and we had those discussions on Giants I found this and then did not read because there was no where to
comment.

And as there still is no specific thread, I forgot all about it until you mentioned the book of Enoch.

Thank you so much mommydi and I will now wait to see what others have to say about it.


Rella

I pretty much did.... read it yesterday and until now , to the extent of cancelling a morning car appointment  to do so and still get done what needs to be done by noon.

My opinion is this.

I think there is a lot of validity, by way of Enoch, on giants.

I think that , contrary to my poopooing the idea that God took him... apparently ... if this book is real... there is some evidence he was taken for a time.

Now I say IF this is real (I am leaning that way) because we know Revelation was , even with some now discounting it was John who wrote it  ::eek::  and we know Daniel was... so I see no reason, given the oddities and confusions that were presented in those two books to
think that the Book of Enoch was not real.

In the chapter(4) of Intercession of Angels is written this....

22 Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him.
And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones.

If you read this book, you will know the why, I still maintain he was not taken to heaven to avoid death.... But he was taken or obviously moved to somewhere where these things could be recorded.

Daniel had his phrophetic visions. John had his Revelations.

Why should we suppose that Enoch would not have had?

Question: Could it be that what is told in the book of Enoch is factual as Enoch saw it?

We have been told that Enoch was and then was not as he was taken by God and never seen again. (I paraphrase)

If that is true then where did the things recorded in the book of Enoch come from?  How did they get back to earth?

It has been said that it is not included in the bible because it is believed Enoch did not write all of it, or maybe none of it so it is untrustworthy.

Jude 1 says...14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Alrighty then...I digress and am rambling, so will continue briefly.

I repeat then where did the things recorded in the book of Enoch come from?

If Enoch was taken from the face of the earth by God... how did the stories attributed to him come into knowledge?

Right there in the book it says "Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men
knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him.
And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones."

So could he have been hidden, given his visions, recorded them to be found later, and then removed from earth or to a part where he would be unknown?  It is only guess work by all of us.

One other thing that is in the book, before I go....

In another debate there was a large debate going on eating and drinking in heaven... some say yes, others say no.

Well.... looks like there is a reference right here inthe book of Enoch.

Chapter 7

35 Then I said: "How beautiful is this tree, and fragrant, and its leaves are fair,
and its blooms very delightful in appearance."
36 Then answered Michael, one of the holy and honored angels who was with
me, and was their leader.
37 And he said unto me: "Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance
of the tree, and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?"
38 Then I answered him saying: "I wish to know about everything, but
especially about this tree."
39 And he answered saying: "This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose
summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the
Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the
earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch
it till the great judgement,
when He shall take vengeance on all and bring to its
consummation for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit
shall be for food to the elect:
it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the
temple of the Lord, the Eternal King.

AND

56 And I came to the Garden of Righteousness, and from afar off I saw
numerous trees, and these great−two trees there, very great, beautiful, and
glorious, and magnificent, and the Tree of Knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat
and know great wisdom.


Okay... later



mommydi

Thanks for your input, Rella. I haven't read it but happened upon an online discussion on it that was pretty interesting.

Cobalt1959

I have it but have not read it.  I am conflicted as to whether I should or not, since it is not considered part of the cannon.

Rella

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Jan 01, 2024 - 04:06:02I have it but have not read it.  I am conflicted as to whether I should or not, since it is not considered part of the cannon.

I would.

I have.

There are areas in there that tie well with some of the debated had over the years.... i.e. Giants and mention of something to eat in heaven.

If you read Daniel, and Revelation... it is not entirely unlike the confusions that both of them bring to the table on a first reading....



Jaime

I have always been leery of the canonization process. It seems that only the stuff that agreed with previously approved Catholic dogma was ever "let in".

yogi bear

Yes I agree with Jaime it does make one wonder considering the state of the RCC today maybe they are not the wise one to have been in charge of the canonization process

Cobalt1959

Quote from: Jaime on Mon Jan 01, 2024 - 09:14:41I have always been leery of the canonization process. It seems that only the stuff that agreed with previously approved Catholic dogma was ever "let in".

If that were true then the Protestant Bible would have the Apocrypha in it.

Jaime

#9
Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Jan 01, 2024 - 09:36:09If that were true then the Protestant Bible would have the Apocrypha in it.

The only Bible available for centuries was the Catholic Bible. The protestant Bible is likely canonized similarily with what agrees with the protestant powers to be. Obviously the Apochryphal books did not to those powers. Holy Spirit inspired canonization? I have often wodered.

The book of Revelation or the Apocalypse of John wasn't canonized for over 300 years.



Rella

#12
Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Tue Jan 02, 2024 - 09:34:48I realize that the Apocrypha is added to some versions.  I am not that dense.  It is added as an adjunct, not because Protestants think it is inspired.  The "King Jimmy" comment is perplexing and un-necessary.

No you dont.

I will call the man who gathered together those who did their interpretation of the KJV who used the word Easter in their interpretation.... And that bible being the mother influencer since completion above all.... so the KJO people claim... Jimmy if I want.

This is partially why....

https://historycooperative.org/eostre/

Eostre, also called Ostara or Eastre, is a Germanic goddess associated with spring and the dawn. She is particularly known in Anglo-Saxon and Old High German traditions and is believed to be the namesake for the Christian holiday of Easter.

and even if Easter would have been proper here... does anyone think that
the "powers that be" would have celebrated anything Christian.

Paul and Silas were to be in jail until after the weekly Sabbath.

If there were Pagan holidays celebrated at the time, it is still doubtful that they would have been referred to in such an important area of the baptism of the jailor and his family also.....

NKJV corrected things.

So he will always be King Jimmy to me. At least I still call him king.

Just like I call the Pope, Pope Frankie.... and that would take too long to explain, but if you read enough around here you will understand.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh

Quote from: Jaime on Mon Jan 01, 2024 - 09:14:41I have always been leery of the canonization process. It seems that only the stuff that agreed with previously approved Catholic dogma was ever "let in"
I understand this hesitancy where it comes to those books which were considered for canonization and rejected.  That isn't the case with Enoch.

Enoch was simply LOST to most of the church.  The only early church that retained a copy was the Coptic church, who DID canonize it as part of their Bibles.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Tue Jan 02, 2024 - 09:34:48I realize that the Apocrypha is added to some versions.  I am not that dense.  It is added as an adjunct, not because Protestants think it is inspired.  The "King Jimmy" comment is perplexing and un-necessary.
You have it backwards... the apocrypha isn't "added" to some Bibles.  The Apocrypha has been subtracted from most Bibles.

When St. Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin, the books of the Apocrypha were part of what was translated.  At the time, he did put an asterisk on them, by putting them into their own section, and labeling them as being of lesser importance than the other sections.

When King James commissioned the translation of the Bible into English, again the Apocrypha was part of that Bible.  The original Geneva Bible also included these books.

As nearly as I can tell, the British Bible Society was the first major publisher to print Bibles without the Apocrypha.  The reason?  They wanted to reduce the cost so they could print more Bibles.  We see the same thing today with the Gideons and other groups printing New Testaments without the Old.

Powered by EzPortal