Book of Enoch

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Tricky Sam, Feb 26, 2019.

  1. 20
    5
    3
    Tricky Sam

    Tricky Sam New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Preface- I am not suggesting that the book should be considered Canon.

    But, I listen to audio books at work and the book of Enoch came up. And I found it interesting to note that it seems to be rejected primarily due to it's description of Jesus. Jews rejecting it for putting such a clear depiction of the "son of man" in the Hebrew scriptures, and Catholicism rejecting it for so specifically clarifying that "the Son of Man" is a specific and unique being compared to "the Ancient of Days"/"Lord of life."

    The relationship depicted being quite in line with the JW interpretation of how the Canon Bible depicts Jesus and his Father and "the world to come" which we refer to as "the new system."

    I just find it interesting that it's primary reason for being rejected from Canon is for spelling out precisely the major points we believe mainstream Christianity misinterprets.

    There are certainly some sections that can be interpreted as problematic... But this could plausibly be due to a poor choice of words in translation, which can be said about certain translations of canonized scripture as well. For example "The Lord of Spirits" seems to have a "strange" implication if one interprets "spirits" as in ghosts. But the context could refer to either "spirit" as in ruach, as in "life" (which would fit Jehovah) or "Spirits" as in "Spiritual/heavenly beings" i.e. the heavenly realm (which again fits).

    Just pondering things to invite discussion. Again, not campeign in for people to accept it... But it's interesting to compare with Canon scripture, for those that can maintain a skeptical eye and keep up their spiritual guard.
     
  2. 3,793
    707
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    A conversation on this book can be found here: -LINK-
     
  3. 20
    5
    3
    Tricky Sam

    Tricky Sam New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thank you. I wasn't sure if it was more acceptable to bring up such an old conversation or start a redundant one.
     
  4. 20
    5
    3
    Tricky Sam

    Tricky Sam New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Late to the conversation, but I was directed here rather than starting a new one... SooOo...

    1- Given that the inspiration of the book of Enoch is at best "not confirmed." If one were to read it, one should keep their spiritual guard up. However, it is considered Canon by the Ethiopian church, and some Jews, and it's at the very least quite widely read among the Jews.
    The book of Jude doesn't just reference a well known writing (as the Bible does sometimes quote secular references), but Jude 1 is essentially a summary of the book of Enoch as a whole and verse 14 specifically claims Enoch was a legitimate prophet.

    So... There's at least some validity that there had been a legitimate book of Enoch at one point... The problem is that we don't have old enough texts that are complete enough to confirm that what we currently have is a legitimate representation OF those original texts. There are a few chapters in particular describing the mechanism of the movements of the sun and moon and stars and weather that's simply observably wrong. The moon is not it's own luminary that is the same size as the sun, but 1/7th as bright that comes out of a gate on the East end of Earth toward a gate on the West end, and then traveling around the north to get back to the East gate. ... But... This is also described as a parable based on a vision. There are many biblical prophecies from dreams that have spectacular sights that are not literally true... But we're used to illustrate something from a perspective that could be understood by humans. I.e. we don't believe Jesus will take people up into the literal clouds to hang out on a clump of water vapor.
     
  5. 20
    5
    3
    Tricky Sam

    Tricky Sam New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    The portion I found most interesting was chapters 46-48. So long as one keeps in mind that "The Elect One, the Son of Man, and Messiah" refer to Jesus (all names used elsewhere in Canon scripture) and the "Ancient of Days, and Lord of Spirits" refers to Jehovah (which seems to be an alternate translation of "Lord of Hosts" in most translations, which the NWT translates "Jehovah of Armies."). ... It's a rather spot on representation of exactly Jesus' role from his relation to his Father to his role as Messiah to his return for the Great Tribulation (which is translated in Enoch as the "day of trouble.")... And at least that can be confirmed to have been written at least 200 years before Jesus was born on Earth.

    The other one that stuck out particularly was chapter 88 which seems to be a sort of fast forward representation of all of human history, describing different groups of people as animals. Sheep clearly being Jews, Wolves clearly being Egyptians, Bulls likely being biblical patriarchs prior to the Jewish covenant, etc. But there's not a good way to confirm if it originated with Enoch, therefore being a spectacular prophecy, or if that part was written after the fact to prophecy something that already happened.
     
  6. 20
    5
    3
    Tricky Sam

    Tricky Sam New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Another potential problem mentioned in another thread is how Enoch seems to ascribe sin to people other than lucifer... But even that may not actually be a discrepancy. lucifer is a Latin word for "morning star," and was the one to deceive Eve, and was arrogant toward God. Enoch consistently refers to those from the spiritual realm as "Stars" (for lack of a better term for celestial/heavenly entities). Enoch describes the star to have deceived Eve as "rameel" (meaning "morning of God"), after which has name was changed to azazel, and all sin was to be ascribed to him. azazel meaning "arrogant toward God." ... All of which could describe the same individual to be named lucifer in Latin. If he was one of the watchers, it would make sense as to why he would have been strolling around the Garden of Eden, observing earthly life.

    The more significant biblical problem is that Enoch seems to describe the rebellious angels as having been chained and bound at the time of the flood, and to remain so until judgement (which is anti-biblical IF we assume that judgement to be mankind's final judgement in the future, after Jesus' return). However there's still a plausible explanation for this considering the context of the book was primarily concerning the flood as an judgement to cleanse the earth. If that was the extent of their first imprisonment, after which they could spiritually affect the earth, but were prevented from manifesting as flesh again, like angels can... Well... Then it fits with the rest of scripture.

    There are plenty of questionable details... But most of which can be explained by similarly troublesome verses used by trinitarians... By misinterpretations of a mistranslation. ... It's still not something that can be trusted as scripture... But I also wouldn't dare condemn it.
     
  7. 3,793
    707
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    It's certainly fine to open a new conversation on this subject; I just wanted to make sure you had a head start on other comments. I merged your comments to here.

    I'll look over your posts and respond soon... :)
     
  8. 3,793
    707
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    A couple of thoughts to offer...

    When I read the book, I don't get the feeling of an inspired work. Inspired works of the Word have a certain structure that is identifiable. The book of Enoch seems to me to be a work from someone who wrote out the Torah by hand, which was a common practice for young Jewish men.

    With that said, the writer goes on and on in formal languages that go beyond what inspired works do; such as overly setting up his statements to come. The writer can go paragraphs commending the source of the information before getting into the information itself. The Bible does this, but usually no more then a sentence or two.

    It also seems evident to me the style of writing is from the 400 years BCE. I really don't feel as though the grammatical structure could be any older then this.

    It also seems as though some of the names and inspiration could be taken from an older writing, but who knows what that source is.

    If any apocryphal book should be given any consideration in my view, it would be Maccabees; however, I see it as a historical account, rather then inspired. Although some things written in it are of Biblical significance.

    My final summation is that the writer of the book of Enoch is claiming inspired, with visions and words of angels and God. I find this highly speculative, and disingenuous. I also personally don't find any useful information within it.

    My opinion...
     
    Orchid and Tricky Sam like this.

Share This Page