Zone1 The Book of Enoch...How should Christians think about it, and why does it matter?

[buttercup]

I was just saying that they seem to be very selective when considering which ones carry validity.

That's because when one is a believer they have already done the seeking, and already had a life-changing revelation (or epiphany, or realization) that the Bible IS true. So, at that point, of course they're going to view other religious texts in a different way than a non-Christian would.

But like I said, there's often some overlap, because a lot of those extrabiblical texts are talking about the same events that actually happened historically, but through different perspectives.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that it's wrong for Christians to give more weight to the Bible, when there are conflicting narratives out there among different religious texts.

There are actually a lot of good, valid reasons to believe the Bible. And valid reasons to not automatically believe everything in texts from other religions. But at the same, I fully realize that truth can be found anywhere, so like I said before, I don't think it's wise to throw out everything that is outside the Bible, as if no truth at all exists in extrabiblical texts.

Well, that's what I said. They're seen as ''cool'' when they corroborate accepted doctrine but they get a sourpuss face when they don't, or when they perhaps add context that is frowned upon.

Heh....no, again, you're acting as if Christians have no valid reasons for believing that the Bible is true, and you seem to be implying that they reject everything else ONLY because it's outside the Bible. No, in that case too, there are valid reasons for not believing what some other religions teach... and those who have already gone through the process of seeking the truth have already established those things. In other words, when one seeks the truth (before believing in any religion) and does so in an honest and critical way, they can weigh all the evidence and eventually see which one stacks up as reliable and actually true.

So at that point, when one already has done the seeking... why do you expect them to give more weight to other texts that they have already determined are not the entire truth? (but may contain some truth.)

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's because when one is a believer they have already done the seeking, and already had a life-changing revelation (or epiphany, or realization) that the Bible IS true. So, at that point, of course they're going to view other religious texts in a different way than a non-Christian would.

But like I said, there's often some overlap, because a lot of those extrabiblical texts are talking about the same events that actually happened historically, but through different perspectives.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that it's wrong for Christians to give more weight to the Bible, when there are conflicting narratives out there among different religious texts.

There are actually a lot of good, valid reasons to believe the Bible. And valid reasons to not automatically believe everything in texts from other religions. But at the same, I fully realize that truth can be found anywhere, so like I said before, I don't think it's wise to throw out everything that is outside the Bible, as if no truth at all exists in extrabiblical texts.




Heh....no, again, you're acting as if Christians have no valid reasons for believing that the Bible is true, and you seem to be implying that they reject everything else ONLY because it's outside the Bible. No, in that case too, there are valid reasons for not believing what some other religions teach... and those who have already gone through the process of seeking the truth have already established those things. In other words, when one seeks the truth (before believing in any religion) and does so in an honest and critical way, they can weigh all the evidence and eventually see which one stacks up as reliable and actually true.

So at that point, when one already has done the seeking... why do you expect them to give more weight to other texts that they have already determined are not the entire truth? (but may contain some truth.)

I'm just saying that selectively seeking anything isn't really, in my view, seeking anything but confirmation. And to contend that anyone has already gone through a process of seeking the truth and have already established it is very arrogant.

I don't have all of the answers. And I certainly don't claim that I do and that therefore no further questions are necessary. That's humility.

But anyway. My only interest in the thread was to say that extrabiblical writings shouldn't just automatically be labeled pseudepigrapha, or ''fiction.''

If people wanna be selective in their studies and for the mere purpose of seeking confirmation of what they already believe, then that's fine. It's none of my business. I'm speaking merely as an observer of people. People are very provincial in their ways. Some more than others. Some less than others.

 

[buttercup]

I'm just saying that selectively seeking anything isn't really, in my view, seeking anything but confirmation. And to contend that anyone has already gone through a process of seeking the truth and have already established it is very arrogant.

I don't have all of the answers. And I certainly don't claim that I do and that therefore no further questions are necessary. That's humility.

But anyway. My only interest in the thread was to say that extrabiblical writings shouldn't just automatically be labeled pseudepigrapha, or ''fiction.''

If people wanna be selective in their studies and for the mere purpose of seeking confirmation of what they already believe, then that's fine. It's none of my business. I'm speaking merely as an observer of people. People are very provincial in their ways. Some more than others. Some less than others.

You seem to be conflating two things here. There's: 1) seeking the truth in order to figure out which religion is true in the first place and 2) Christians giving more weight to the bible than other extrabiblical texts. Those are two entirely different things. The first one happens BEFORE one becomes a believer / Christian.

I don't want to twist your words if this isn't what you're saying, but you seem to be assuming that the seeking in #1 was done "selectively"..... don't you think that is a bit arrogant? How could you possibly know what was in the mind / heart of every person who has searched for truth in order to determine which worldview / faith is correct? When people genuinely care about the truth, they're not going to seek it in the way you've described, what would be the point of that? Why would I want to believe anything unless it was the actual truth?

So, getting back to Christians giving more weight to the Bible than extrabiblical texts... again, that comes AFTER one has already determined and had a life-changing revelation that the Gospel is true and the Bible is authoritative.

This doesn't mean that one stops learning new things or discovering new things. You kinda implied that Christians believe they have all the answers. No... there's still tons to learn. And even within Christianity I believe that the church can be wrong about certain doctrines or ideas. And like I said before, truth can be found in many different places, not just the Bible. However, once one has ALREADY searched the truth to figure out what religion is true, of course they're going to give more weight to the Bible at that point, because they've already thought it through and (depending on how long one has been a Christian) had all sorts of experiences that have strengthened their faith.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that Christians are wrong to have a strong faith / belief. I don't think it's arrogant to have a strong belief in God / Jesus, but maybe you're looking at this in an entirely different way.... in a scientific way? You have said many times that science never concludes anything, it's always about asking more questions. A never-ending quest. Well... yes, there's always something more to learn. But where you and I disagree is that one CAN come to some conclusions that are life-changing... and why fault people for that? I can't speak for all Christians, but for me and many others it was based on both doing an actual search for truth and weighing the evidence, but also from a life-changing personal revelation or eye-opening experience, and that comes from God.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's not conflating. I just don't tend to count the hits and ignore the misses. It's deceptive.

But anyway. I'll give you the last word. I've expressed just about all of the interest I really had in the thread already. The one post I'd initially responded to caught my interest. Which is why I responded with my thought on it. I tend to stay out of this section. For some reason, and I could never place my finger on why, I just find it misery inducing. I don't really find it enjoyable or stimulating.

 

[buttercup]

It's not conflating. I just don't tend to count the hits and forget the misses. It's deceptive.

I don't know what you mean by count the hits and forget the misses. But those things I mentioned are two entirely different things, and I really don't see how you can make them one, when the first one in many cases happened years before the second one, and before a person became a Christian.

But anyway. I'll give you the last word. I've expressed just about all of the interest I really had in the thread already. The one post I'd initially responded to caught my interest. Which is why I responded with my thought on it. I tend to stay out of this section. For some reason, and I could never place my finger on why, I just find it misery inducing. I don't really find it enjoyable or stimulating.

It's not just you, this section DOES tend to get combative and intense at times. I'm glad you posted though, it's good to get different people in here than the regulars.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's not just you, this section DOES tend to get combative and intense at times.

No, it's not that. It's something else. Like I said, I can't put my finger on it. It's the tenor of the area. Can't think of a good term. Snooty, maybe? Ah well. Not important...

 

[buttercup]

No, it's not that. It's something else. Like I said, I can't put my finger on it. It's the tenor of the area. Can't think of a good term. Snooty, maybe? Ah well. Not important...

I think I know what you mean. But that goes both ways. Some atheists come in here to mock believers, and sort of send the message that only naive gullible stupid people believe. It doesn't bother me much, but I just wish everyone, regardless of their position, could be more cool and respectful. But whuev.... I actually don't post in this section that much anyway, since I don't post on this site a ton overall.

We do need some fresh new interesting topics though. I don't mean in the religion section, necessarily, just overall in this place.

 

[surada]

Not all Christians ignore extrabiblical texts.

I agree that there are many extrabiblical texts worth reading. For anyone who's interested in the true history (as opposed to the one we've all been taught) you can get other pieces of the puzzle in regard to events that actually happened thousands of years ago.... and what I think is cool is when those other perspectives unintentionally corroborate the Bible. So yeah, I don't like when Christians completely ignore everything that is outside the Bible.

What Is Wrong with the Book of Enoch?

The Book of Enoch has gained popularity in recent years, as indicated by a large variety of recent YouTube videos sporting millions of views. It was also a source of inspiration for parts of Darren Aronofsky’s 2014 film Noah. (You can read our blunt review of that film here.) With a recent...

www.tomorrowsworld.org

Another reason is that the Book of Enoch is a pseudepigraphic work, which, as we’ve seen, means that it falsely used Enoch’s name. Enoch lived more than 3,000 years before the book was written. The Lexham Bible Dictionary confirms that “‘pseudepigrapha’ literally means ‘falsely ascribed writings,’ and refers to works that falsely claim to be written by a specific author.” The very title of the Book of Enoch is a lie.

A third reason is that the canon of the Old Testament was completed by Ezra and Nehemiah in about 420 BC. This is likely 100–200 years before the Book of Enoch was written.

Romans 3:1–2 says that God entrusted the Hebrew Scriptures to the Jews, and according to them, the Book of Enoch is not a part of those inspired Scriptures, which they call the Tanakh.

Additionally, the Book of Enoch contains far-fetched information that the Bible refutes. For instance, it describes fallen angels having sexual relations with human women to produce a race of giants called “Nephilim.” This is a popular but incorrect—even potentially blasphemous—belief that some try to add to Genesis 6. Our telecast titled “Six Myths About Angels and Demons” explains and debunks the concept of fallen angels fathering giants. This is just one example of dubious information in the Book of Enoch that does not align with the Bible.

Lastly, there is abundant evidence that the Bible is a complete book, inerrant in its original form. The Book of Enoch contains material that can pique the interest of those with “itching ears” who want to “hear some new thing” (2 Timothy 4:3; Acts 17:21).

Such “juicy” materials are especially dangerous when they attempt to corrupt understanding of God’s true word.

 

[surada]

But Enoch loved 7 generations from Adam…

So Enoch lived 3000 years???

 

[Woodznutz]

How did he describe it then?

He had little good to say about man.

Mark Twain quotations - Man

 

[Cougarbear]

So Enoch lived 3000 years???

Genesis was written by Moses with Aaron as his scribe. Everything Moses wrote was by way of revelation. Just like it was for Joseph Smith. You don’t believe in God. Admit it.

 

[surada]

Cougarbear

Moses didn't write the pentateush. It was written 800 years after his death.


Enoch is fiction about a character born 4,000 years. ago. He lived 360 years.

 

[Cougarbear]

Cougarbear

Moses didn't write the pentateush. It was written 800 years after his death.


Enoch is fiction about a character born 4,000 years. ago. He lived 360 years.

Liar! That’s just the earliest found. Aaron scribed it. Much was learned orally but was written down.

 

[ding]

He had little good to say about man.

Mark Twain quotations - Man

That's fair, but there's another side of the coin. So it may not be a fair weighing without an accounting of the incredible good that man is capable of and has performed.

 

[Woodznutz]

That's fair, but there's another side of the coin. So it may not be a fair weighing without an accounting of the incredible good that man is capable of and has performed.

Mankind generally wants to do good but somehow can't seem to pull it off. Overall, it's one step forward, two steps back.

 

[ding]

Mankind generally wants to do good but somehow can't seem to pull it off. Overall, it's one step forward, two steps back.

This graphic explains it better than I ever could. It is not only a societal cycle but a personal cycle as well.

 

[surada]

This is how closely these lives were intertwined

Noah lived at the same time as all of these patriarchs except Adam, Seth and Enoch. Adam died 126 years before Noah was born; Seth died just 14 years before Noah. And Noah's great-grandfather, Enoch, was translated about four years before Noah's birth.

Methuselah died just before the Flood.

This is the Jewish year of 5784 since creation. Enoch was from the antediluvian period and he only lived 365 years. He was a son of Cain and father of Irad. So we are looking at 3000 BC at the very latest... A thousand years before Abraham.

 

[onefour1]

This is the Jewish year of 5784 since creation. Enoch was from the antediluvian period and he only lived 365 years. He was a son of Cain and father of Irad. So we are looking at 3000 BC at the very latest... A thousand years before Abraham.

The Enoch of the Bible who walked with God was not the son of Cain but was the son of Jared.

Genesis 5

The generations of Adam are Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch (who walked with God), Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah (who begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth).

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 ¶ And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 ¶ And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 ¶ And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 ¶ And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 ¶ And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 ¶ And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 ¶ And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.
30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Granted there was another Enoch who was the son of Cain but he was not the great prophet of God who walked with God and was taken from the earth by God.

Genesis 4:17-18
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

So we have Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared and then Enoch who walked with God.

 

[talksalot]

Calling extrabiblical texts pseudepigrapha is like Dr. Fauci calling the dialogue of his opposition fake news.

But Christians are equally as guilty in the practice if certain extrabiblical texts don't jive with their doctrine/beliefs.

There are many, many, many extrabiblical texts that are worth reading that have been labeled pseudepigrapha. Or ''fake news,'' as is the latest popular retaliaton invocation for what could be seen by readers as inconvenient truths in these modern times.

Ironically, I'd read The First Book of Adam and Eve a while back. It was an alright read. They're interesting reads, if nothing else. There's a lot of really interesting ones. The only ones that ever get discussed, though, are the ones that Christians think that they might have a use for, or for some specific confirmation of their own worldviews/personal practices/indulgences, therefore rendering or reducing such interest to a very compartmentalized, targeted means of study. Very similar to proof-texting, except from a much broader perspective regarding what constitutes actual study. So, then proof-studying rather than proof-texting.

Of course, that's just...like...my opinion, man.

Okay, then.

 

[sealybobo]

The Book of Enoch is somewhat controversial. Obviously there are different ideas among Christians about the book of Enoch.

I'm going to share a video that's an excellent presentation on the Book of Enoch. But for those who don't want to watch an hour-long video, I'll post a few points that are brought up in this video.

What Christians think about the Book of Enoch can be summed up into 3 basic views...

1. There is the view that the entire Book of Enoch is pseudepigrapha, in other words not actually written by Enoch, and therefore not trustworthy.
   
   
2. There is a second view, on the other extreme, that all of it is actually from Enoch, and therefore authoritative and trustworthy.
   
   
3. And the third view is that some of it (at least the first 19 chapters) is authoritative, because the Bible itself attests to it, and many early church fathers also attest to it.

I personally think the best and safest view is the third view, that some of it, namely the first 19 chapters, IS authentic and therefore authoritative.

Why should any Christian hold that view, if this book was not included in the Canon?

Well, for one thing, many Christians hold an outdated view that the entire book of Enoch is pseudepigrapha, because before 1976, that was the near-consensus position.

However, ever since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that changed. Why? Because before 1976, the Book of Enoch was thought to be newer than the New Testament. But then in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a manuscript was found that predated the entire New Testament, so that showed that the previous position was exactly backwards.

The Epistle of Jude, which previously was thought to be the basis for 1 Enoch is now best understood as a clear testimony for the authenticity of the Book of Enoch.

Also, many of the early church fathers attested to the authenticity of the stories in the Book of Enoch, such as the position that Genesis 6 refers to the angels who sinned and mated with human women, which created the Nephilim (giants.) In their writings, these church fathers treated the Book of Enoch as authoritative.

In fact, although in today's world many Christians hold the view that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to the line of Seth, the view that the Sons of God were angels (who fell from grace) is the view of antiquity, it was the near-unanimous consensus prior to the 5th century, when the Sethite view started. You can read more about that in this article.

There's much more that can be said here, but for anyone who is interested in this topic, I highly recommend watching the video I'm going to post below.

Why does this even matter? Well, the book of Enoch talks about a number of very interesting things, including the Nephilim, and the origin of many practices that people (including Christians) partake in every day, without even knowing the origin of those practices. So, if we hold the position that the book of Enoch is at least partially authentic, which is the most logical position for Christians to hold, since Jude and Jesus Himself attest to it, then I believe Christians should not reject it, or avoid looking into it because they don't know what to think about it.

I don't want to do it now but later I want to bring up something that is referenced in the Book of Enoch that is very important because it has to do with something people do everyday. I'm actually putting together a video on that, so when it's done I'll share it here for anyone who is interested.

I don't expect the non-believers here to believe the Book of Enoch, but for the Christians here... what are your thoughts on the Book of Enoch? Again, I really hope you take the time to watch this video, as Craig goes into it in much more depth, and in a very clear, methodical way.

(The first few minutes is jusIt announcements and stuff, and also waiting for the livestream to start, so I'm going to skip that part and embed this video starting a few minutes into the video)

I'm watching a good UnXplained Mysteries hosted by William Shatner.

"The UnXplained" Mysteries of the Bible (TV Episode 2021) ⭐ 7.1 | Documentary

42m | TV-14

www.imdb.com

Many believe it to be the Word of God, but others claim it contains inconsistencies and contradictions that could only be manmade.

The Giants or Watchers were renagate angels sent to guard us but instead they lusted after women and corrupted mankind. They told women to wear makeup on their faces.