- This topic has 284 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Just scanning over that and not fully digging into it. (I will in the near future as times allows.) The author fails to realize that the book of enoch is corrupted and has several fragments not actually part of the original book attached to it.
“I see most of his concerns stems from the Noah content”. An apocrypha book known as the “Testament of Noah” is pasted into the text of Enoch. I have never denied that the book has corruption. Scholars all agree that the book has been compiled with writings from other sources.
Quote Scholars all agree that the book has been compiled with writings from other sources.
I thought it claimed to be from Enoch. If it is not, then what would that mean?
If apocrypha is a part of the book of Enoch, then doesn't this too largely discredit it? If parts of it are wrong, how do we know what to believe?God's Word is truth.
Again, I'll point out that no one on here, or any of the other Enoch threads has really attempted to defend the criticisms cast against it.
Yet, there are some on here who “love” this book, and want to cling to it. I believe we should seriously consider the reasons most reject this book.david
this link is to the Book of Enoch on amazon.com
I seriously encourage you to purchase it and read it. Then you will see that one of the following apply:
1) It was used by early christians to create christianity in a secular sense.
2) It was inspired.
It contains fullfilled prophecy.
It records visions of the Son of Man being begotten (invoked) by God.
It is quoted directly and indirectly throughout the new testament.Read this book for yourself and then you will know.
Yes, several apocryphal books are tacked onto the end of the book.
(1) The Book of the Watchers (chaps. 1-36);
(2) The Book of the Similitudes (chaps. 37-7l)-,
(3) The Book of Astronomical Writings (chaps. 72-82);
(4) The Book of Dream Visions (chaps. 83-90); and
(5) The Book of the Epistle of Enoch (chaps. 91-107).There are actually 5 books put into one book. Read book 1 and book 2, these are the books quoted by the new testament writers. Nothing in these first two book contradicts scripture.
Due to uncertain content in some areas it cannot be used to establish doctrine. But truths can be gleaned if your prepared with a knowledge of scripture.
I only use it as a comfirmation of doctrine I glean from the canon. Mainly:
1) Angels came unto the daughter of men
2) The Messiah was begotten, is not part of a trinity, and that Messiah is Jesus Christ who came 70 generations after Enoch. (read the geaneology of Luke)David,
Here is some on the son of man in enoch.
48
1
And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.2
And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.3
Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.4
He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.5
All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.6
And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.From reading the JW booklet I got I know that they believe that angels did indeed leave their first estate and come into the daughters of men.
Has anything contradicted your beliefs in the book of enoch David?
Other than Jesus is not michael, because it lists multiple archangels.
an article from here ; http://www.sherryshriner.com/church-coverup.htm
Since it's English translation in the 1800's from texts found in Ethiopia in 1768, The Book of Enoch (known today as 1st Enoch) has made quite a stir in academic circles. 1 Enoch has been authenticated as existing and in wide use before the church age (most scholars now date it at 200 BC). Multiple copies were discovered in 1948 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This of course has caused many to wonder why it is not included in modern Bibles…
“Thou has seen what Azazyel has done, how he has taught every species of iniquity upon the earth… Samyaza also has taught sorcery… They have gone together to the daughters of men, have lain with them… The women likewise have brought forth giants…”
Enoch 9:5-8Particular to this site, parts of The Book of Enoch tell the story of wicked angels who abducted and mated with human women, resulting in the hybrid race known throughout secular and Biblical history as the Nephilim (giants, KJV).
While this account encompasses only the first four verses of Genesis 6 (but see also Genesis 3:15, 2 Peter 2:4-6, Jude 6-7), Enoch 1 relates this story in great detail. It lists the names of 18 “prefect” angels – of 200 – who committed this sin. According to the text, these angels also taught mankind the “making of swords and knives, shields and breastplates (metallurgy); … magical medicine, dividing of roots (medicinal and hallucinogenic use); incantations, astrology, the seeing of the stars, the course of the moon, as well as the deception of man.”
By Noah's time, “The earth also was corrupt (wasting – KJV notation) before God, and the earth was filled with violence… all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Gen 6:10-11. Afraid of the consequences, these angels appeal to Enoch to intercede with God on their behalf; God instead uses Enoch to deliver a message of judgment against them. Aside from the “taking of wives,” God states that he would not forgive them for teaching mankind magical arts and warlike ways. As summarized by Pastor Chris Ward:
“According to the Book of Enoch (Not a Canonical Text), God judged the angels for producing the Nephilim. God decreed that the fallen angels (Watchers) were to be cast into Tartarus. The Nephilim were also judged and it was determined that their bodies were to return to the earth in peace but their souls were doomed to wander the earth forever (as) wandering spirits…” (Visit Pastor Chris's Enoch page which reprints this dialogue between God and Enoch, and The Origin of Demons for more.)
The increasing acceptance and popularization of this important book among theologians helps cast light on the extra-terrestrial hypothesis (ETH) in general. Enoch is an ancient writing which states that angels (not true space aliens, as stated by many UFO cults, and popular modern authors Erich Von Daniken and Zechariah Sitchin) visited ancient Earth and polluted mankind's DNA. While this case can easily be made solely from the canonized Bible (see Relevant Bible Verses), Enoch is yet another witness against these bad interpretations of Earth's predelulvian era (i.e., before the flood of Genesis 6). The fact that they also gave mankind technology which supposedly “advanced our race” (but which we actually used to destroy each other, and to incur God's judgment), lends itself to a more sinister understanding of today's UFO phenomenon…
Genesis 6 / Book of Enoch
Today / Any episode of the X-FilesSupernatural Beings identified as angels Supernatural Beings identified as ET's
Took as wives “any whom they chose” Abduction Phenomenon
Hybrid Race of Nephilim Missing Fetuses, Hybrids, Cloning
Introduced Destructive Technology: Weapons of Warfare / Psychotropic Drugs / Astrology & Sorcery Hitler's Foo Fighters / Roswell Crash / “Back-engineering” of Stealth Bombers, etc / Occult Arts, New Age Doctrines
Worshipped as Gods (Annanuki) /
Nephilim hybrids were “heroes of old, men of renown…” Gen 6:4 – the factual basis for Greco-Roman deities Zechariah Sitchin / UFO Cults / Immunity for Abduction Crimes /
Called “Spirit Guides, Ascended Masters and/or “Space Brothers”
“And the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the Earth … but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Genesis 6:7-8
“As it was in the days of Noah,
so shall it be at the coming
of the Son of Man…”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 24:37FAQ:
What other evidences for Enoch's authenticity (as a sacred text) are there?
Why isn't it in the Bible today?
Jesus said that angels can't have sex, proving this book's falsehood…The idea that Jesus said that angels cannot have sex is a very common objection to The Book of Enoch and the angelic understanding of Genesis 6 in general. However it is also a very common misinterpretation of what he actually said. Go Here to read what he said (Matt 22:30), and to study this topic. Beyond that misunderstanding, there is no doubt today that The Book of Enoch was one of the most widely accepted and revered books of Jewish culture and doctrine in the century leading up to Jesus' birth.
It is usually noted first that New Testament author Jude directly quotes from 1 Enoch – “Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgment …” (1 Enoch 2, Jude 14-15). Additionally, “the citations of Enoch by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs… show that at the close of the second century B.C., and during the first century B.C., this book was regarded in certain circles as inspired” (1).
Aside from Jude, Peter and Paul's affirmations of the angelic/hybrid interpretation, recognition of 1 Enoch “… is given amply in the Epistle of Barnabus, and in the third century by Clement and Irenaeus” (1). The Catholic Church's Origen – known as “the father of theology” – affirmed both the Book of Enoch and the fact that angels could and did co-habitate with the daughters of men. He even warned against possible angelic and/or Nephilim infiltration of the church itself. Oddly, while thousands of his writings are still considered by them as “sacred,” this very issue got him labeled as a heretic when the faulty Sons of Seth “doctrine” was conceived! (2)
Additionally, the Coptic Orthodox Churches of Egypt (est'd appx 50-100 A.D.) still include Enoch as canonized text in the Ethiopic Old Testament (2). This fact alone should carry great weight for Western Christians when honestly studying the “case” for Enoch. Given their 1900+ year history, the fact that they were never “ruled” by Rome's theology, and that they currently number over 10 million – this is a VERY significant portion of The Body of Christ that has historically esteemed 1 Enoch as inspired doctrine.
Some today (who do not seem to believe in the inspiration of scripture) claim that most major themes of the New Testament were in fact “borrowed” from 1 Enoch. “It appears that Christianity later adopted some of its ideas and philosophies from this book, including the Final Judgment, the concept of demons, the Resurrection, and the coming of a Messiah and Messianic Kingdom” (3). No doubt, these themes are major parts of 1 Enoch, and appear there as complete theologies a full 200 years before any other NT writings.
Christian author Stephen Quayle writes, “Several centuries before and after the appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, this book had become well known to the Jewish community, having a profound impact upon Jewish thought. The Book of Enoch gave the Jews their solar calendar, and also appears to have instilled the idea that the coming Messiah would be someone who had pre-existed as God (4).” Translator RH Charles also stated that “the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than all of the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphi
cal books put together” (3). The conclusions are somewhat inescapable given Enoch's dating and wide acceptance between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. – either Christian authors, and especially the Nicene Council, did plagiarize their theology directly from Enoch, or the original version of Enoch was also inspired.James H Charlesworth, director of Dead Sea Studies at Yale University, says in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha & The New Testament (Trinity Press International),
“I have no doubt that the Enoch groups deemed the Book of Enoch as fully inspired as any biblical book. I am also convinced that the group of Jews behind the Temple Scroll, which is surely pre-Qumranic, would have judged it to be quintessential Torah — that is, equal to, and perhaps better than, Deuteronomy….Then we should perceive the Pseudepigrapha as they were apparently judged to be: God's revelation to humans(2 & 5).”But perhaps the most telling argument for 1 Enoch's “inspiration” may well be that the Jewish understanding of the term “Son of Man” as a Messianic title comes – not truly from our Old Testament canon – but from the Book of Enoch! Ever wonder why Jesus refers to himself in the gospels as the “Son of Man” rather than the Son of God? (2) Of over 100 uses of the phrase “son of man” in the OT, it refers almost always to “normal” men (93 times specifically of Ezekiel, and certainly not as Messiah!), but is used only one time in the entire OT, in one of Daniel's heavenly visions, to refer to divinity. Despite the Old Testament's frequent lack of divine application of the phrase, 1 Enoch records several trips to heaven, using the title “Son of Man” unceasingly to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ. Of particular Messianic significance, Enoch describes the following scene (2):
The angels “glorify with all their power of praise; and He sustains them in all that act of thanksgiving while they laud, glorify and exalt the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and ever… Great was their joy. They blessed, glorified and exalted because the name of the Son of Man was revealed to them (1 Enoch 68:35-38).” Both His disciples, and especially the Sanhedrein knew what Jesus was claiming – 84 times in the gospels! – when referring to Himself as the “Son of Man.” This claim was considered an obvious blasphemy to the Pharisees & Saducees, but it is eternal life to all who confess that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, the Son of Man, The Messiah, God in the flesh, The Holy One of Israel, God's Christ – the Lord of All to whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:8-10).
Using “normal rules” of scriptural interpretation, we are never to draw firm doctrine from only one passage of scripture. Right? Daniel's single use of “Son of Man” (in a “night vision” at that – Dan 7:13), would not be sufficient to claim that the phrase is indeed Messianic, especially given the other 107 times it is not used in that way. 1 Enoch is the missing “second witness” needed (according to all other rules of interpretation) to understand the phrase's double meaning as an enduring Messianic title. It has been argued ever since Enoch's first English translation, that by using this title so familiar to the Jews, Jesus was actually affirming the truth of this book, that the prophet was taken on many trips to heaven before his “final” translation, and that HE WAS THE ONE whom Enoch saw there – the pre-existent Son of Man, whom Enoch prophesied would judge the souls of all men.
Interestingly, Daniel is ALSO the only OT use of the term “watcher” to ever refer to angels (Daniel 4:13, 17, 23 KJV). Strong's Concordance defines a watcher as a “guardian angel” (Strong's 5894). “The distinguishing character of the Watcher (opposed to other angels in the canon) appears to be that it spends much time among men, overseeing what they are doing. It is also interesting to note that both times one of these angels appeared to Daniel, he took pains to note that it was “an holy one,” suggesting that some Watchers are not aligned with God while others are (4).” Found nowhere else in the OT canon but the book of Daniel, “watcher” is patently Enoch's term for these angels. Likewise, Daniel alone used Enoch's term “Son of Man” to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ, adding further intrigue to the case for 1 Enoch's inspiration, and an overall understanding of it's doctrinal acceptance among both Old and New Testament writers.
What we lose out on today by not examining 1 Enoch – even if only for its historical significance – is that it is actually more splendid than ANY OTHER book in our canon in its exultation of Christ as King! It also gives clear, stern and oft-repeated warnings to the unsaved of swift destruction at the Coming of The Lord, but is also full of amazing promises of future glory for the elect! We are of course wise to stay clear of dangerous heresy, but… ask yourself if the below sounds like false doctrine? Keep in mind, this was written at least 200 years before Christ walked the earth, and perhaps before Noah's birth:
Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth,
glorify Him who has dominion over all things, Him who was concealed;
for from eternity the Son of Man was concealed,
whom the Most High preserved in the presence of
His power and revealed to the elect.He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect;
and all the elect shall stand before Him in that day.
All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule
over the earth shall fall down on their faces before Him,
and shall worship Him.
They shall fix their hopes on this Son of Man…Then the sword of the Lord of Spirits shall be drunk from them (the lost);
but the saints and the elect shall be safe in that day; nor the face
of the sinners and the ungodly shall they thence-forth behold.
The Lord of Spirits shall remain over them;
And with this Son of Man shall they dwell, eat, lie down,
and rise up for ever and ever…Enoch 61:10-13
Literally Translated from the Ethiopic by Richard Laurence LL.D.
Archbishop of Cashel
Late Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford———————–
“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…”
Liberty Magazine – December 7, 1935 (1)OK! OK! So why is it not in the Bible?
Uncertain as well as multiple authorship, and several slightly varying texts are among the main reasons cited for Enoch not “making it” into the generally recognized canon. In truth, the spiritual agenda(s) of the early Roman Church is most likely the ultimate reason however, and we will examine this agenda here as well. Let's begin with the first two though, before moving to the more incredulous, but quite valid “conspiracy theories.”
“The Book of Enoch, like the book of Daniel, was originally written in Aramaic, and partly in Hebrew (1).” While there may have been Hebrew translations during the centuries B.C. (which early church leaders may or may not have had access to), today only the Ethiopic manuscripts exist, as well as some incomplete Greek and Latin translations, plus one Aramaic fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls. By the time of Jesus' birth, “average” Jews were reading mainly the Greek Septuagint translation of their own Torah (completed 200 B.C.), as a result of their years of foreign captivity and then-current Roman occupation. To coin the vernacular, they had been assimilated. So unless an authentic Aramaic version appears miraculously today, there will never be any completely indisputable way to argue for a modern “canonization” of 1 Enoch, as the originals are lost, probably forever.
The honest problem facing the infant Roman Church of 390 A.D., when first assembling today's Bible, was that the
existing copies of 1 Enoch varied, albeit in minor ways. “Unlike the (rest of the) Bible which was carefully copied and checked for errors by Jewish and Christian scribes throughout its history, The Book of Enoch is available in a number of ancient manuscripts that differ slightly from one another… and many errors have crept in… There is no way of knowing which versions are (exactly faithful to) the original and which are the errors. While this doesn't change its stories in any substantial manner, it does make it impossible to anchor beliefs or arguments on any given section… (4).”Even to those who will rightfully argue that Enoch was unjustly banned, this alone IS a legitimate reason to exclude it from the holy writ. When faced with the task of declaring what is and what is not the “inspired, infallible Word of God,” erring on the side of caution and certainty must be the case every time! (Only those who do not believe in the divine inspiration, and modern integrity, of scripture will be dissatisfied with this reasoning. That topic is too far off the subject for this writing, but please at least read this before writing me nasty notes. Also, here's a great site with a history of the English Bible from 500 B.C. to present, for those interested.) So, while 1 Enoch is almost beyond doubt an “inspired” text, the translated copies available (presumably) in 390 A.D., and especially those we have today, could not with any certainty also be classified as “infallible.”
Another less important but quite “legitimate” issue is that 1 Enoch is actually a collection of at least four different “books,” possibly written by various authors over many centuries, and possibly not by the true Enoch of Genesis 5.
The Artisan Publishers' introduction to The Book of Enoch says “there can be no shadow of doubt” that there is a diversity of authorship and perhaps even time periods represented across the span of 1 Enoch, but that there is also “nonetheless, uniformity.” They attribute this to the very possible idea that as God raised up prophets (after Malachi…?), they published under the safety of a revered pseudonym, to avoid persecution and possible death at the hands of the religious powers-that-were, who wanted no “fresh words” from God (1). This could well be the case, but would make the book(s) of Enoch no less inspired of God if true. However, only the NT Book of Hebrews (written centuries closer to the Bible's assembly, with multiple matching manuscripts) has been accepted as canon with such uncertain authorship – without even a good solid guess agreed upon, that is.
Since “the real” Enoch of Genesis 5 was transported to heaven – permanently – it would be no stretch to imagine that it was also a normal experience during his lifetime. After all, the Bible says he walked with God for 300 years! (Genesis 5:22) The first 36 chapters (detailing the watchers' fall) are sometimes only reluctantly attributed to Enoch (given their pre-deluvian history), but there are varying theories regarding the rest of the book(s). For much of the 1800's, it was argued that the remaining chapters were actually the work of an early Christian scribe, but these claims were decisively put to rest with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as were JT Milik's claims that chapters 37-71 were Christian. Charlesworth says “The consensus communis is unparalleled in almost any other area of research; no specialist now argues that I Enoch 37-71 is (written by a first-century) Christian and (that it) postdates the first century… (2) and (5).” With this in mind, we must again face up to the very real dilemma of stating that that either the entire New Testament was “drawn” in a natural, secular way from 1 Enoch – with no supernatural inspiration – or that 1 Enoch and The New Testament are both from God.
It is also considered that possibly a single author assembled older prophets' inspired works around 200 B.C. and simply added Enoch's name to them all, to ensure widespread acceptance – “Hardly a practice that inspires confidence in the text (4).” But in reality, it is no secret academically that certain canonized OT books, as well as Mark's gospel, may have been originally written by another – or even multiple – inspired author(s) and later were also assembled under the inspiration of God by a single author, who put either his own, or the original author's name, to the work. For example, most agree that Moses actually wrote Job's story from other existing texts (or that he knew him personally), before he even wrote Genesis. Most of the Major Prohets and historical books contain clear breaks in the time period, and were finally assembled many years later – as the author “was carried along by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 2:21).” Christians need to get over the idea that “inspiration” means the writer went into some mystical trance, while God “possessed them” and wrote the Bible. Inspiration simply means they were obedient to God's leading, and wrote what He said OR supernaturally revealed to them, or even that he guided their research, helping them discern truth from error, for the purpose of writing “an orderly account (Luke 1:3).” Here, Luke states that his gospel was an extended research project!
In that vein, I.D.E. Thomas has recently suggested one other possibility perhaps not considered in academic circles before the 1986 publication of The Omega Conspiracy. “Thomas suggests that the compiler may have written his book from texts originally written by Enoch himself. In such a case it would make perfect sense for the compiler to attach Enoch's name to the book for which he had provided the material (4) and (6).”
Even with all of this said, there is still no “clean” explanation for Enoch's 1000-year disappearance from even popular literature though. Despite the above reasons for not canonizing the book, it is painfully apparent that the church did in fact supress The Book of Enoch. Only in studying both the goals and motives – positive and negative – of the Roman Church do the truest reason for Enoch's “fall from grace” become apparent.
(But despite the arguments presented here, please note that I have no intention of bashing the early Roman Catholic Church. Always remember, they have done the world an incredible service by assembling and preserving God's Word for the 1600+ years yet to follow. To make a distinction, the greatest sins and travesties they often stand accused – and guilty of – were not the work or intent of the earliest Church fathers, but of the corrupt political system that grew up in the centuries after the Roman system's formation. “It was not until hundreds of years later (5th – 7th centuries), that the first vestiges of this church government rose where there was a Roman bishop as the head of the Church, making it an official Roman Church functioning similar to today's.” (7))
Realistically however, there was also a “point” to the canon. The goal and even eternal function in assembling the earliest Bibles was NOT merely sorting out what was inspired of God and what was not. They also had the specific intent of promoting and preserving a solid doctrinal foundation for all believers in Christ. Like Paul, they had to passionately argue against Gnosticism – “the doctrine of salvation by knowledge (8),” or the idea that gaining “superior” and/or “hidden” knowledge ensures one some higher spiritual position – opposed to a simple obedient faith in Christ.
Arguing for 1 Enoch's “proper place” today, one (seemingly) Gnostic apologist states “Enoch had found and experienced God face-to-face, something which Gnostics strive for. The Church opposed Gnostics… Experiencing God was taboo… Putting a stamp of approval on such a wild tale (Enoch) would have too many people believing that they could experience God for themselves, instead of going into a church and being told what to believe… Those who experienced visions or personal insights became dangerous to the church. They could lead people astray by supp
orting independent thought and actions (3).” It's quite difficult to seriously consider this argument however, in light of the fact that a more common criticism of Catholocism is that they “worship,” or at least perhaps TOO highly esteem, those who have had profound mystical experiences with God! For that matter, the Bible is NOTHING BUT a collection of “those who experienced visions or personal insights.” It would quite a thin book if all such stories were left out!The truth is that Gnostics “strive(d) for” experiencing God without knowing and submitting to Christ or His Body, the church. Even today, the wish to “experience God face-to-face” without Christ's mediation (1 Timothy 2:5) is not just an honest effort to avoid false religion (of which there is much), but to not submit to any spiritual authority at all – whether it be God's Church, God's Word or even God's Christ! It should always be kept in perspective that “the church” was not Rome's, or even man's idea. Jesus said “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mt 16:18).” The early church rightly opposed Gnosticism, but beginning with Paul's letters, not with the Roman Church. Many who passionately promote (or just reprint and sell) 1 Enoch today do so not with the intention of promoting a deeper faith in God's inspired Word, but more with the intent of undermining the Bible's authority – and especially the church's. 1 Enoch's clear historical integrity but “lack of inclusion in the Bible” is often used to “springboard” arguments for other “favorite” heretical books, left out for all the right reasons. Modern Gnostics are often fond of several other “gospels” (such as Thomas and Mary, both of which have statements and theologies that clearly contradict the more reliable works by John, Matthew, et al, proving they were NOT inspired by God). In short (oops – too late for that!), the typical Gnostic and New Age arguments have nothing to do with why The Book of Enoch was not included in the Bible, or not preserved with other ancient works. (The true “reasons why” are actually more sinister…)
The forming church also had to publicly refute and stand against (from within!) the heresy of modalism, which in part suggests that Jesus Christ is a created being – eternal nonetheless, but inferior in substance to God the Father. The Council of Nicea was expressly interested in making sure that the doctrine of the Triune Godhead was clearly expressed by the canon, and especially that it would not be misunderstood by those who would read the Scriptures. Another “motive” was to refute “Pneumatomachians – who accepted the deity of Christ but said the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force… And so it was, and we are indebted today to a 4th century Luther that stood up to define the nature of Christ and God against a flood of falsehood (8).”
To be honest, in reading Enoch there seems to be in the multitude of heavenly trips a physical distinction sometimes made between The Father and the Pre-Incarnate Son. The phrases “Lord of Spirits” , “Ancient of Days,” and “Son of Man” are used so often (perhaps interchangeably, perhaps not) that even a careful reading sometimes infers the (doctrinally acceptable – 1 Cor 15:24) separation of the eternal Godhead. On earth, “… all the fullness of the deity” was present in Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God.” But 1 Enoch can at minimum cause confusion to the understanding of the Godhead – hard enough to grasp even today – in a way that other authors (Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul and John) do not when speaking of their face-to-face encounters with God. (Did any gnostics still in the audience catch that phrase?) Even without the conflicting manuscripts or possible multiple authors coming into play (which careful examination of the rest of canon shows could have been worked out actually, if they so chose), I sincerely believe that if there was a legimate, excusable motive for not including Enoch in the Bible, this was it.
This does not excuse why we had to wait 1000 years to re-discover this book however.
So finally, with the general integrity of the Holy Scriptures, and the legitimate reasons the early Roman Catholic Church may have rejected 1 Enoch covered respectfully (and in a way palatable for modern Christian academics), let's critically examine the real reasons behind the indisputable censure of 1 Enoch. There are many texts that – while not included as canon – have nonetheless retained their “postion of honor” and even reverence among the (Western) historical Christian church. Among these are the Apocrypha (still included of course in modern Catholic Bibles – and, just FYI, even included in the original King James Bible), as well as The 12 Patriarchs, and writings too numerous to name by various “Church Fathers.” All of these have remained in a relatively high-profile position throughout church history, more or less available for both scholars and laymen to draw from when studying the ancient origins of the Christian faith. Not so with Enoch.
Yes, ANY of the above are certainly “good enough” reasons to have disqualified Enoch from canonization. But only assuming you wanted to in the first place …
With all of the evidence in, we have to own the fact that 1 Enoch was not merely “rejected for canonization.” It was buried. Flat out suppressed. It was quite intentionally lost to history, with all copies destroyed or left to rot 10 stories deep under the Vatican. Enoch was not merely “left out of the Bible.” It was dropped like a bad habit.
Okay, only for those who have come the distance, now let's talk dirt…
Point blank, Origen was right. Enoch was suppressed and labeled as heresy specifically to hide the truth of the fallen angels' past, present and future activity on earth.
Forget Roswell. Forget the X-Files. The most successful, enduring and damaging cover-up of “The Truth” about our planet's frequent visitors – has come from within The Church.
As said in Part 1, the Church itself is responsible for perpetrating the most enduring and damaging cover-up in regard to abductions.
Beyond this, in accordance with prophecies made by Peter, Paul and Jesus Christ himself, they invented a completely false doctrine about the “proper interpretation” of Genesis 6. This heresy has robbed both the churched and unchurched from any hope of understanding the truth behind abductions. In short, Jews and early Christians knew full well that angels did, could and would abduct humans for the purposes of sex and hybridization, BUT these same texts also gave safeguards against such assault.
This rogue element of the early church (sort of an early Catholic Majestic 12, if you will) has left moderns at the mercy of a phenomenon they have no hope of understanding or defending themselves against. Today's society is doomed to repeat the errors of our ancient ancestors, by once again falling prey to the Watchers' sorceries and claims of divinity. Already, far too many are under the sway of UFO cults, claiming that they are led by “spirit-guides here to help humanity.” Many more “normal” individuals in the world of scientific UFO research and supposedly the world's governments merely defer to their technology, by assuming the Watchers are a superior race from the stars. Citing Ezekiel 3:18 (while I'm making enemies anyway) allow me to also charge that the blood, the wrecked lives, and the eternal damnation of all souls who have fallen victim to either abductions or deceptive philosophies is on the hands of those who perpetrated – and today with knowledge maintain – these deceptive doctrines.
I realize these are astounding and damning claims, and I would not make them without offering sufficient proof. Because of the incorrect (but widely taught in seminaries) “Sons of Seth” interpretation of Genesis 6 introduced around 400 A.D., Christians start out at a disadvantage when studying the topic. For this reason, these arguments will be offered in a way meant to challenge and convince the Christian believer of these claims. Then, we'll look over other texts which received “the Enoch treatment.” As made clear elsewhere on this site, I still maintain a belief in and respect for the integrity of scripture (the original languages that is) as God's inspired word. The problem here is that God's inspired word has been intentionally misrepresented by those entrusted to teach it.
The Sons of Seth Heresy
Beginning around 400 A.D., portions of the church began to take an unusual stand against the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6. Rather than teaching what the text clearly says (especially when examined in Hebrew, below), and what had been the Orthodox Jewish and early Christian view for all time previous, the idea was introduced that this passage “really” referred to the lineages of Cain and Seth, the surviving sons of Adam. They said it simply means that the “rebellious” lines of Cain were marrying the “faithful” descendants of Seth. The unfounded presumption of this theory is that ALL of Seth's descendants were godly, while ALL of Cain's were rebellious. While a sketchy pattern can be drawn from Genesis, it is really a ridiculous injustice to the concept of free will and of God's dealing with individuals to dogmaticly hold to this position. It further implies that Sethites were somehow immune to the effects of the Fall itself.
Conspiracy aside, the angelic interpretation itself rather assaults the sensibilities of even those good men throughout the ages who would be tempted to apologetically shirk from believing and teaching God's word as innerrant truth. As J Timothy Unruh says “Modern Christians have often attempted to make this passage in Genesis more palatable intellectually by explaining the 'sons of God' as Sethites and the 'daughters of men' as Cainites, with their union representing the breaking down of the wall of separation between believers and unbelievers.” (1) Ultimately, this position simply does not “hold water” under even casual study. (A brief but in-depth analysis of the Sons of Seth theory is online here, posted by researcher and author Chuck Missler. Because of this, I will only touch on the relevant points continuing from Unruh's book, published earlier and available to be read online in it's entirety here.)
Those who hold to the humanistic Sethite explanation have never been able to suggest a sufficient reason (or even a lame one actually) as to why the children of one “immoral” parent would be physical giants however, IF both parents were otherwise normal humans. While the angelic abduction scenario seems more like science fiction to today's intellectual Christian, the Sethite doctrine is actually easily revealed to be the fantasy!
The exact term “sons of God” (B'nai haElohim in Hebrew) used in Genesis 6:1-4, is used also in Job 1:6, 2:1 & 38:7 always referring to angels. Unfortunately, many competent Bible scholars of today still believe the “sons of God” are of human lineage. This is simply because it has been taught in seminaries for centuries, thanks to the deceptive and radically unsound doctrinal shift introduced by the church at this point in history.
Unruh continues, “The actual expression 'sons of God' occurs explicitly three other times (in Job, above)… and in each case the term refers indisputably to angelic beings…. There are as well implicit references to these sons of God in a number of other passages. There is no doubt in these passages the meaning applies exclusively to angels… A very similar term bar elohim is used in Daniel 3:25, and refers either to an angel or a theophany (ie, an appearance of God before the incarnation in Christ). The term 'sons of the mighty' (bene elim) is used in Psalm 29:1 and also Psalm 89:6, and again refers to angels. The sons of Elohim the mighty creator are confined to those creatures made directly by the Divine hand, and not born of other beings of their own order.” (1) Any amount of honest research into this topic will turn up the same findings, that someone (or some being…) from within the 3rd – 5th century church did a great violence to the literal reading of the text in concocting the Sethite theory.
Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, reknowned Judaic scholar and one of the foremost authorities on the nation of Israel, agrees almost ver batim with this assessment, in his work Messianic Christology. While many who support the Sethite doctrine argue that the ENGLISH phrase son(s) of God is referred to in the Bible as simply meaning “believers” in general, there is a world of difference between the Old and New Testament use of this term. In the New Testament sense, the term is applied to those who have become “sons of God” through their faith in Christ, but by adoption (Romans 8 ; 1 John).
Fruchtenbaum writes “The term 'sons of God' is a general term which means 'to be brought into existence by God's creative act.' Because the term carries this meaning, it is used very selectively. Throughout the Old Testament the term 'sons of God' is always used of angels. But some want to make Gen 6:1-4 the one exception, and there is simply no warrant for making an exception here. In the New Testament the term 'sons of God' is expanded. Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38) because he was brought into existence by creation. Believers are called sons of God (John 1:12) because believers are considered to be a new creation (Galtians 6:15). But in Genesis, the text is dealing with a specific Hebrew expression, benei elohim, and, as it is used in the Hebrew Old Testament, it is a term that is always used of angels. The distinction in this passage then is not between Sethites and Cainites, but between humanity and angels.” (2)
Fruchtenbaum, Unruh, Huie, Missler and other modern authors all offer similar academic works on these subjects, all citing the same Old & New Test passages to put forth sound
and extensive rebuttals to many other objections frequently offered in defense of the Sethite interpretation, or other claims of some “human lineage.” The point here though is that the Sethite theory introduced to (unleashed upon) the Christian mindset by the Church at this time clearly denies the truth of Scripture. As Missler rightly asserts “There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants… The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support…“The “Sons of Elohim” saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive? … If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?” (3)
Implanting these false doctrines, which survive to this day, was a long battle which some determined force from within the Church finally accomplished, and Origen and other faithful men paid the ultimate price by being labeled heretics, exiled and/or even publicly burned to initiate and execute this great “cover up.” (This tragic history is catalogued in E.C. Prophet's Fallen Angels & The Origins of Evil; Why Church Fathers Supressed The Book of Enoch, but see also my disclaimers to her work in the review at right).
This pseudo-theology eventually succeeded in becoming the official church dogma however, surviving even to today's Bible institutions, despite the fact that the rest of the canon affirms the angelic interpretaion many times over.
It is worth noting before moving on, that the Bible is far from the only ancient source that makes the argument that angels interbred with humans. The entire pantheon of Greco-Roman mythology is the same story retold, but romanticized by cultures who were deceived by these so-called “gods” who mated with human women to produce Hercules, etc. “The Book of Antiquities” (which you'll find in the study of almost any pastor you ask) by ancient historian Flavius Josephus also tells us that angelic hybridization produced the “Titans” of Greco-Roman culture, as shown from this research posted online by Bryan T. Huie (btw… that Greek word “Titanos,” which was eventually translated from the Greek version of the Hebrew OT to give us “giant” in the King James Version, can also be translated “grey.” Just some food for thought). Josephus writes:
“…they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, for many angels* of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did…”
Continuing from Huie's webpage – * “This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.
As you can see, Josephus believed and recorded that “the sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. As Whitson's footnote acknowledges, this belief was standard in the ancient world.“Another well-known first century Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria, shared Josephus' views on this topic. In his work “On the Giants,” Philo wrote: “And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all them whom they chose.' Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels…”
(The Works of Philo, “De Gigantibus,” translated by C.D. Yonge, p. 152)“As shown above, the evidence that “the sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 are fallen angels is substantial. By their sexual immorality, these angels produced offspring which were strong and violent. The concept of a race of giants which resulted from the union of gods and humans is virtually universal in the world's early civilizations.” (4)
The “conspiracy” from within the Church quite literally changed the history of the world – both it's past, and it's future. Julius Africanus, St. Augustine and many others debunked and destroyed every document relating to the angelic invasion to successfully promote their “weather balloon / crash dummy” Sethite fallicy. Before long Christianity itself would eventually erode from being a dynamic, living, supernatural faith in a miracle working God to become merely “the new intellectualism,” whose seat had moved from Athens to Rome.
The errors and ungodliness of the political elite who succeeded the 1st and 2nd century church's apostles, evangelists and martyrs are lamented elsewhere. But as this system began to promote the “mediation” of the priesthood (1 Tim 2:5), and as the doctrines of men (?) came to replace belief in the Word of God (Mark 6-8, 13), the then “Western world” spiraled downward into it's Dark Ages. The carefully chronicled histories of the ancients became known first as mythology, then finally as Saturday morning cartoons, and our race quite simply forgot about the truth.
But it's out there. In July 1947, about an hour outside of Roswell, New Mexico, the gods of old returned to find a basicly God-fearing, Mom & apple pie loving kind of 1940's Americana culture – but one that had also just harnessed the most destructive force the world had ever seen, and who now held the undisputed title of “world champion superpower.”
And thanks to the old church's now forgotten “cover-up” of the truth behind fiery chariots and abductions, we'd have NO CLUE as to what had just landed in our back yard…
But God did.
On the other side of the world, among a nearly forgotten people group that was – by destiny's clock – just seconds away from rejoining the fray of the mighty nations of the world, a goofy little kid chased his pet sheep into a cave. And on an otherwise normal hot summer's day in 1948, he walked out with the archeological find of the millenium.
A clay jar filled with some scrolls. Among them of course, were fragments from the book of Enoch.
As a matter of course, the Vatican paid top dollar for them.
“And I heard, but I understood not: then I said,
Oh my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?“And the angel said, Go thy way Daniel:
for the words are closed up and sealed
till the time of the end.“Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried;
but the wicked shall do wickedly;
and none of the wicked shall understand;but the wise shall understand.”
End of the book of Daniel (ch 12 v 8-10)
Blue Strand
Jubilees Chapter 10: 4-5 And Thou knowest how the Watchmen (fallen angels), the fathers of these spirits, acted in my day; And these spirits also which are alive, cast them into prison and hold them in the places of judgment, And let them not destroy the sons of thy servant, my God, For they are terrible and created for destroying; and may they not rule over the spirits of the living; For Thou alone knowest their judgment. And let them have no sway over the children of righteous from now on and to eternity.
According to the Book of Jasher
Chapter IV:18
And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force (rape) from their husbands according to their choice, And the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, In order to provoke the Lord.
According to Pastor Ward's “Origin of Demons” page,
“Demons are the disembodied spirits of the Giants (Nephilim). The 'Mighty Men of Renown' ar
e the Gibborim created by the Watchers when they left their heavenly abode and came down to the daughters of men as recorded in Genesis Chapter 6:4 of the Old Testament. They are half breeds, angelic hybrids, the Titans.
The word in Greek – “titanos” – means greys.When fallen angels shape-shift into a form of human being they can have intercourse but not without some aberrant genetic changes. The union of these beasts with humans produced children that were different in many ways. The first apparent difference was that they developed giantism. They were giants or Nephilim. Og the King of Bashan had a bed that was 13 to 15 feet long; and Goliath was 6 cubits tall (9 feet). The second aberration was that they had six fingers and six toes…
“The aberrant genetic tendencies of the Nephilim were unfortunately cloned into the D.N.A. of mankind. According to the Bible, only Noah escaped this genetic intervention at the time. There are no records of these perverse tendencies prior to the intervention of the Watchers. These dormant genetic tendencies still surface today at times in different people … The Watchers are a guardian class of angels that were assigned to watch over the earth and protect mankind from just this sort of thing happening.
According to the Bible, the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, and Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs, they rebelled against God and attempted to enslave the whole world and provoke God.
According to the Book of Jasher they not only tweaked with the D.N.A. of mankind but also with the animals. They may have produced such beasts as the Pegasus, Minotaur, the unicorn, and the dinosaurs.
There are some scholars that speculate that one day this will happen again to produce the antichrist. Fallen angels will make love to women and back breed until they have genetically produced a creature that is fully fallen angel and fully man. A bastard angelic incarnation. This may be an explanation for the reported cases of 'alien' abduction. If alien abductions are really happening then we know the source and the purpose. The source is fallen angels and the purpose is to breed the antichrist — Satan incarnate.
Jesus said, “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37). How were the days of Noah? They were violent and according to 2 Peter verse 2 these are the days that the angels fell and were judged. According to Jude 6 these are the days that the angels fell and some were chained in Tartarus.
Some of my rebuttals to that website, David.
1:5 It names “Mt Sinai”. Let's remember that Enoch lived before the flood, and was “translated” (Heb11:5) about 700 years before the flood. Most of earth's current geological features came about because of the flood. Thus, did Sinai even exist before the flood?
This is prophetic. And he is speculating.
2:3 Mentions “summer and winter”. The seasons did not come to be until after the flood. (Gen8:22)
That verse in Genesis does not say what he is trying to make it say. It is a promise that the earth will endure since God won’t flood the earth.
2:3 Speaks of “rain”. Again, before the flood, it did not rain, but a “mist” watered the earth. (Gen2:5-6)
“3change, but all the works of God appear to you. Behold the summer and the winter, how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it” This is the passage is referring to. Is it saying it is raining? Or is it saying that it is lying on the ground like the dew from the mist? Regardless, this book was written “prophetically” for a future generation. Enoch would be witness to many things over the course of his immortal undying life.
6:6 Names “Mt Hermon”. For the same reasons as Sinai (above); did it yet exist during Enoch's time? Thus, the notion that it was not written by Enoch, but by people after the flood.
Yes I am sure the Mountain existed in Enoch’s time. The name might not have though. But this once again is written by a man who walks with God and his sending a message to a future generation.
10:20 God telling angels (Michael) to cleanse the earth from sin…not Jesus? It is “..the blood of Jesus Christ His Son” that “cleanses us from every sin.” (1Jn1:7)
This guy does not know his scripture on this point. Jesus doesn’t cleanse angel sins. And cleanse in this verse is more like ethnic cleansing. This was a battle.
Hebrews 2:16
16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.David,
I could go on and on this guy is not very accurate on his acussations.
Hi Wm,
I've read a little bit about the forum member answer about Enoch book. It is more and more interesting to know. How Lord God has given to Enoch some secrets where no other prophets received them. The secrets of the Almighty God and Power God that out of human understanding but I am sure it solely meant for praising and adore Him by human that has learned the book. I am very happy that I have known the book nevertheless I will not be proud so much. I'll keep on reading this topic and its relationship with other before write my opinion here and what I have understood and what part I have not.Thanks..
Rgds,
Concerning the book of Enoch the confussion actually starts at the first council of Nicea where statements of faith and canon start at 325 A.D. After which the book banning and burning also starts up once again.
The book of Enoch was well known and well used up to that point, as for the date of which it was first written would be impossible to assertain because of its antiquity. The modern organised church had claimed its authorship to be in the fifth century A.D. however the find of the scrolls at Qumran proved the date to be much earlier, sometime B.C. Something else to note is the mention of the writings of Enoch in the book of Jubilees which was written 200 B.C. which determins a date prior to Jubilees. In a word the book of Enoch is very old.
The fact that Jude quotes it and Peter aludes to it and many others parallel the content of Enoch is significant. The messianic teachings within the book of Enoch are many none of which are contrary to the bible. Something else unique is that the book of Enoch seemingly prophecies the return of his writings and that people will read them in their own languages, pretty kewl !!
Chapter 104
And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and pervert the words of righteousness in many ways, and will speak wicked words, and lie, and practice great deceits, and write books concerning 11 their words. But when they write down truthfully all my words in their languages, and do not change or minish ought from my words but write them all down truthfully -all that I first testified 12 concerning them. Then, I know another mystery, that books will be given to the righteous and the 13 wise to become a cause of joy and uprightness and much wisdom. And to them shall the books be given, and they shall believe in them and rejoice over them, and then shall all the righteous who have learnt therefrom all the paths of uprightness be recompensed.'sandy
I noticed on an earlier page someone mentioned that Enoch was written in Aramaic which suggests a late date, it was also suggested that the books of the bible were written in Hebrew. Not one copy of the Old testament (Tanak) written in Hebrew exists today, zero, none, nada. The oldest copy of the Tanak that exists is the Septuagint also known as the LXX which is written in Greek. Something to keep in mind is after several and many diaspora the Hebrew people no longer spoke Hebrew. Hebrew spoken today in Israel is Sephardic which has been reintroduced purposely to restore and maintain it as the language proper. After the 2nd century AD when the Roman Empire exiled most of the Jewish population of Jerusalem following the Bar Kokhba revolt, Hebrew gradually ceased to be a spoken language, Hebrew was reintroduced in the nineteenth century. Aramaic as a language itself is highly influenced by Hebrew.
Sandy
Hi Nick
Thanks for indirectly bringing this gem to my attention:
Mercy (in one of his briefer posts!) wrote:
Quote Most of earth's current geological features came about because of the flood. Thus, did Sinai even exist before the flood?
The Noachian flood didn't happen and no one knows for sure where the biblical 'Mt Sinai' is. Did it ever exist? You guys and your fantasy delusions just crack me up!Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
