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
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.
The Bible has been added to for thousands of years. It's changed every time someone makes a new translation.
Translations aren't adding anything
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.
Fair enough. I read ESV most the time