The book of Enoch

I read the book of Enoch, some time ago, and I was curious to ask if anyone knows why it wasn’t included in the Bible? I found it a really interesting read, like Lord of the Rings good, and I’m not saying that to be rude or disrespectful, it’s not considered part of the Bible anyway. But is there something dogmatic about it that makes it not compatible with the Bible? I don’t recall reading it and thinking “ah, that’s why it’s not included”. There didn’t seem to be anything outright that made in not compatible. And, it’s an exciting read even if you’re a believer or not, pretty cool stuff. I can see why the gospel of Judas or the gospel of Mary magdeline (spelling wrong I’m sure) was considered false, but why Enoch?

Posted Jul 28, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

316
thehelper38Non-denominational•

I see your point but we don't just add to the Bible. The Bible is God's Word, breathed out by God, and we best not question it.

2
Enjolras55Jewish•

The Bible has been added to for thousands of years. It's changed every time someone makes a new translation.

0
thehelper38Non-denominational•

Translations aren't adding anything

2
Enjolras55Jewish•

Yeah, actually they are. Translation from one language to another alters meaning all the time. It's why no translation will ever match the original language. We also know translations have been intentionally altered (King James famously ordered his translators to change the Bible to conform to Church of England teaching.)

Here is a simple example: לאכול סרטים, in English it means "to eat movies." That doesn't make much sense does it? But that's not what it means in Hebrew.

Now take that concept and apply it to translation of phrases from a 4000 year old language in extremely complex grammatical and philosophical usage. Sure, you may get the general gist of the concept in most phrases, but nuance will still be lost, and it can lead to misinterpretations.

2
thehelper38Non-denominational•

Fair enough. I read ESV most the time

2
SouIWinner•

It wasn’t included because it destroys Christianity’s false doctrines and it’s packed with clear truth.

Many other books weren’t included or taken out.

What’s amazing is 1/3 if Christ ministry came from Enoch.

2
BigPpForYou•

Catholics thought it was way too trippy for lack of better terms.

1
Cypher1492Anabaptist, eh? 🍁•

Revelation is waaaaay more trippy.

2
BigPpForYou•

I mean Enoch turned into an Arc Angel and talking about the second betrayal of God from the Watchers lol

1
StrikerJolt560•

I do consider the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants Canon.

Jesus Himself referenced Enoch when He talks about Angels not being given in marriage.

The OT references Enoch, so does NT and Revelations.

A lot of NT passages about spiritual warfare are from these books.

1
Smart_Tap1701•
1
anarlote•

I wouldn't use gotquestions if I were you, I've found them a fairly problematic source in my own experience.

1
aaronis1•

The Book of Enoch explicitly says that Enoch is the Messiah.

Enoch 71

13 And the Head of Days came with Michael and Raphael and Gabriel and Phanuel, and thousands and tens of thousands of angels without number. 14 And he came to me and greeted me with his voice and said to me, “You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.”

That's a problem.

1
SeaweedNew2115•

Perhaps the word you're looking for is implicitly. If you want to see someone explicitly called messiah, see Isaiah 45:1. But nobody suggests decanonizing Isaiah over it.

0
aaronis1•

You'd argue a fork was a spoon

1
monposhie•

It is ok to ask the question. The vatican is evil. Once you understand that, things make a lot more sense. We have been slaves for thousands & thousands of years. The truth has been hidden from us 😢😢 Evil people have added/removed things from the Bible. We will all know the truth soon. How luck are we that we will be allowed to bare witness in our lifetime 💕

1