| Word of Faith This is a forum for Word of Faith movement members. |
 | | 
7th December 2006, 08:15 PM
|  | Member
34     
| | Join Date: 17th October 2006 Location: Texas
Posts: 74
Blessings: 92,294
Reps: 1,523 (power: 7) | |  Book of Enoch authenticity
Hey all,
Just wondering what your thoughts are on the Book of Enoch. I have looked through some of the "other books" of the bible  and they are trash. (like the gospel of Thomas. It's like Jesus as Harry Potter.  )
The only reason I ask is because it is quoted in the book of Jude which we all believe is Divinely inspired.
I think it's really interesting but I would never preach from it. I also have heard that the Jews and early Church believed it was authentic.
Do you? This should be fun...
</IMG></IMG>
__________________
Inspiration and understanding through art. This is the mission of CREG Creations. |
7th December 2006, 08:57 PM
|  | MY HEART BELONGS TO JESUS
 
 | | Join Date: 22nd October 2005
Posts: 27,624
Blessings: 376,807 My Mood 
Reps: 23,781,182,278,118,932 (power: 23,781,182,278,152) | | | There are some things in the book of Enoch that are not scriptural and IMO alittle far out. It would be in the Bible if the Lord wanted us to believe it was "gospel" truth. We have good books by many great preachers too that we can learn from , but they are not perfect so was not perfectly inspiried as the Bible was, and so we are not to believe every word they say as gospel truth..Its like the book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible, but its not in the Bibile itself. You can learn some historial things from it tho.
Last edited by J4Jesus; 7th December 2006 at 09:03 PM.
|
7th December 2006, 09:02 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 11th October 2005
Posts: 6,518
Blessings: 60,088 My Mood 
Reps: 112,835,592,240,470,960 (power: 112,835,592,240,483) | | It is commonly understood that the book of Enoch is not the same one mentioned in the book of Jude, this one was written much later and was given the name Enoch for authenticity...
http://www.new-life.net/faq013.htm
__________________
Psa. 3:3 But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.
Last edited by PreacherMike; 7th December 2006 at 09:09 PM.
|
7th December 2006, 09:03 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
30 
| | Join Date: 24th August 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 4,155
Blessings: 713,964 My Mood 
Reps: 1,772,425,436,459,532,544 (power: 1,772,425,436,459,542) | | | Enoch is considered part of the pseudographica. As far as I know, the Ethiopian Orthodox are the only ones who consider Enoch scripture and include it in their canon. There was support for the book, namely by Tertullian who accused the Jews of removing it from their canon because it contained prophecies of Christ. After the Council of Laodicea, it was no longer used outside of Ethiopia.
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776. |
7th June 2008, 01:01 PM
|  | Forever Newbie
55   
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,348 My Mood 
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by J4Jesus  There are some things in the book of Enoch that are not scriptural<snip>
You should give examples, right?
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist) |
7th June 2008, 01:05 PM
| | Forever Newbie
55
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,348 My Mood
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by PreacherMike It is commonly understood that the book of Enoch is not the same one mentioned in the book of Jude<snip>
This is factually incorrect.
"The Book of Enoch", aka "1 Enoch", aka "Ethiopic Enoch" has been validated as the one mentioned in the Book of Jude. The portion Jude quotes has been recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fragment upon which that copy was written has been dated to about 2 centuries earlier than Jude.
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist) |
7th June 2008, 01:45 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007
Posts: 895
Blessings: 71,538
Reps: 8,956,690 (power: 8,961) | | | Just because a prophet or apostle cites a writing that is not considered part of the canon does not make it canonical. As an example, Paul quotes various pagan greek philosophers when writing and speaking to people in a greek culture. We wouldn't consider those pagan philosophers to be authors of Scripture, would we? On the same token, Scripture makes no mention of Esther outside of the book of Esther. That lack of citation wouldn't invalidate its authenticity, would it? So whether a book is quoted throughout Scripture or not doesn't make it authentic. |
9th June 2008, 07:57 PM
|  | Legend
62  
| | Join Date: 4th August 2005
Posts: 19,303
Blessings: 105,357,999
Reps: 1,087,471,624,086,758,912 (power: 1,087,471,624,086,784) | | here is your answer about what WOF thinks about the book of Enoch from our FSG's.
2. Concerning the Scriptures, WE BELIEVE all scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished, to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy scriptures. We fully affirm that all scripture, comprised of the 66 Books of the Bible (no apocrypha) from Genesis to Revelation, is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice, and do not accept man's opinion, denominational doctrines, or any other document as equal to or above in authority to the scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2).
|
12th June 2008, 09:39 AM
| | Forever Newbie
55
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,348 My Mood
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by MrSnow Just because a prophet or apostle cites a writing that is not considered part of the canon does not make it canonical. As an example, Paul quotes various pagan greek philosophers when writing and speaking to people in a greek culture. We wouldn't consider those pagan philosophers to be authors of Scripture, would we? On the same token, Scripture makes no mention of Esther outside of the book of Esther. That lack of citation wouldn't invalidate its authenticity, would it? So whether a book is quoted throughout Scripture or not doesn't make it authentic. There is no way to get around the clear words of Jude, "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying..." in doing so, Jude was quoting The Book of Enoch but he did not say he was quoting the Book of Enoch; Jude says rather he is quoting Enoch the man, descended 7th from Adam. 90% of the time, the knee-jerkish retort to this is, "there are other books quoted in the Bible but they're not viewed as scripture either, nyeh, nyeh nyeh". How anyone can resort to this argument never ceases to amaze me! Jude's quote IS NOT at all equivalent to Paul quoting pagans. Its not even equivalent to the Bible quoting other parts of the Bible; unlike the phrase, "it is written", Jude says in effect, "when I read the Book of Enoch I KNOW I'm reading the authentic words of God's prophet, Enoch". The term "It is written" is a less global, less emphatic endorsement it seems to me. Jude really doesn't leave you this wiggle room.
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Last edited by SummaScriptura; 12th June 2008 at 04:36 PM.
|
12th June 2008, 03:04 PM
| | | | Personally I think many of the books of the Bible have been altered to one extent of another.
I know some folks think that God has supernaturally maintained the integrity of the 66 books we call the Bible... but think about it.
Why would God give a warning to not add or remove anything from Revelation if in fact it could not be done? Kind of like the movie "A Few Good Men."
"If the Colonel gave an order and his orders were always obeyed... then why did they have to move Hernandez?"
If the scriptures cannot be corrupted.. then why the warning? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
