I don't honestly feel like making my two cents in this a debate. However, I will merely offer that while the book of Enoch may be included in the Ethiopean Orthidox collection of scriptures, and please realize that I have not researched this... But I think that it more accurate to take on the orthidox scriptures of the nation through which they've been preserved, and through which they were designated to be preserved through until the time of Christ. (the Jews) Further, merely because Enoch was a prophet, that does not make his writings scripture. The Lord could reveal something to me of the future and my writing of it, despite the fact that it is truely from the Lord does not make it scripture. Overall, I think that the book of Enoch has been kept throughout history just as other sacred writings have been. I offer the letter of clemet to the Corinthians as an example. Either way accept of reject it, I just figured i'd try to explain my side of the spectrum in a civil and understandable fashion.
I don't honestly feel like making my two cents in this a debate. However, I will merely offer that while the book of Enoch may be included in the Ethiopean Orthidox collection of scriptures, and please realize that I have not researched this... But I think that it more accurate to take on the orthidox scriptures of the nation through which they've been preserved, and through which they were designated to be preserved through until the time of Christ. (the Jews)
I'm not sure if I understand what you've written... are you saying it should only be considered scripture by the Ethiopians since they canonized it?
Originally Posted by -Z-
Further, merely because Enoch was a prophet, that does not make his writings scripture. The Lord could reveal something to me of the future and my writing of it, despite the fact that it is truely from the Lord does not make it scripture. Overall, I think that the book of Enoch has been kept throughout history just as other sacred writings have been. I offer the letter of clemet to the Corinthians as an example. Either way accept of reject it, I just figured i'd try to explain my side of the spectrum in a civil and understandable fashion.
You could be inspired to speak a truth, you might even wax prophetic, but that would not make you a prophet. A prophetic calling is required for someone to be considered "a prophet" and in that vocation a prophet when speaking for God is considered authoritative, or when writing prophetically, their writing is considered the word of God. That is a very different matter than someone speaking or writing something which for the most part, agrees with scripture, like 1 Clement. So, Enoch being a prophet, in the Old Testament sense WOULD mean his writings were to be considered authoritative.
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Just because a book is mentioned in Scripture...that doesn't make that book Scripture.
__________________ Completely free online seminary - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Just because a book is mentioned in Scripture...that doesn't make that book Scripture.
Yes, but...
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. Usually, 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 this wiggle room.
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Last edited by SummaScriptura; 4th August 2008 at 03:30 AM.
__________________ I am not what I ought to be. I am not what I want to be. I am not what I hope to be. But still, I am not what I used to be. And by the grace of God, I am what I am. ~ John Newton
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. Usually, 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 this wiggle room.
The clear words of Jude do not say that the quote is Scripture, nor do they say that they are from a book.
If Jude was quoting a particular passage from the Book of Enoch, that doesn't mean that he endorses the entire book.
Enoch was a Jewish apocryphal book and was not found in their Scripture.
The book was a creation of different groups of Jews which can be seen by the clear differences in theology (eschatology, sin, etc).
__________________ Completely free online seminary - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The clear words of Jude do not say that the quote is Scripture, nor do they say that they are from a book.
Jude says Enoch prophesied the word of God. He did not "say" its a quote from a book, but in point of fact it is a quote from a Book. Jude quotes verbatim from The Book of Enoch 1:9
Originally Posted by larryjf
If Jude was quoting a particular passage from the Book of Enoch, that doesn't mean that he endorses the entire book.
Please show me an instance where a Bible writer quotes from a book, says its the word of God but is not endorsing the entire book. There are no instances of that in scripture. That 1st century Jews would admit as the word of God a part of a book but not the entire books is nice-sounding theory but not something that can be shown from any example.
Originally Posted by larryjf
Enoch was a Jewish apocryphal book and was not found in their Scripture.
That's like saying 'Christians don't believe in divorce'. To which Jewish groups do you refer? There were differences. The Saduccees didn't accept it but they didn't accept a lot of things.
Originally Posted by larryjf
The book was a creation of different groups of Jews which can be seen by the clear differences in theology (eschatology, sin, etc).
Okay. Now you've gone and made that claim; since you sound so sure, then you must have evidence to support that claim, right?. So, other than quoting an opinion from a secondary source can you cite evidence internal to the Book of Enoch that supports your idea?
Any time a book claims to be from an author but shows signs that it is not, it shouldn't be included as Scripture. Reading the book(s) one can see that different hands were involved in writing it.
The simple fact that it contradicts the Scripture in terms of original sin, and places it at the feet of the sons of God who had relations with the daughters of men, is reason to not include it.
__________________ Completely free online seminary - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Any time a book claims to be from an author but shows signs that it is not, it shouldn't be included as Scripture. Reading the book(s) one can see that different hands were involved in writing it.
The simple fact that it contradicts the Scripture in terms of original sin, and places it at the feet of the sons of God who had relations with the daughters of men, is reason to not include it.
Thank you for citing something specific. The subject of original sin is not what the Book of Enoch deals with mainly. The time frame under consideration in the book are the generations of Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. Though the Book of Enoch does not recapitulate the whole history of what came before the days of Jared, it does not cut itself of from the Genesis account either. It alludes in passing to the sin of Adam and Eve...
Originally Posted by Enoch in 32:6
I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance! Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.
...and to the sin of Cain...
Originally Posted by Enoch in 22:7
And he answered me saying: 'This is the spirit which went forth from Abel, whom his brother Cain slew, and he makes his suit against him till his seed is destroyed from the face of the earth, and his seed is annihilated from amongst the seed of men.'
The sins of the Watchers and mankind are dealt with at length. This story harmonizes well, however, with the traditional biblical view of sin's origin.
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Doesn't the fact that it talks about enoch within the garden which mankind was banned from makes it...well.. Honestly I refuse to accept ANYthing that contradicts in anyway the confirmed inspired word of God. The Spirit being the author would not contradict Himself.
Linear Mode
