The Book of Enoch

[SummaScriptura]

Nice response; thanks for taking the time to type all of that out! I would respond to what you wrote, but there's something else on my mind that I should ask. Why do you trust the book of Enoch? We could probably go for pages about specific issues in there, but I'd rather hear why you trust it.

1. Because of the fulfilled Messianic prophecies in its pages
2. Because it answers so many questions which the study of the Bible raises but does not answer:

• The nature of the sin of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6
• The curious origin of the Old Testament giants
• The origin of demons (which is) not expressly stated in the Bible
• The pervasive use by Christ of the term Son of Man
• The nature of the angels’ sin mentioned in Jude and 2 Peter 2
• The sending of the scapegoat to Azazel in Leviticus 16
• Jude’s classifying of Enoch as one of the prophets which the Bible elsewhere does not
• It shows where Jude got his quote from Enoch 1:9
• The origin and purpose of St. John's enigmatic "Bottomless Pit"
• It provides an ostensible reason for the yet future 1,000-year earthly rule of Christ

3. Because it is demonstrably ancient and was in wide use, respected as valid among the people to whom our Lord came
4. Because its authenticity as the source for Jude's quote has been vindicated by the Dead Sea Scrolls
5. Because of the many external references to it by other pre-Christian Jewish books
6. Because it is the persistent testimony to its worth as Scripture by an ancient community of Orthodoxy
7. Because Jude the half-brother of Christ testifies to its being the very words of Enoch, who Jude classifies a prophet
8. Because I believe the Book of Revelation was truly revealed by God to John, and the Book of Enoch contained many of the same revealed items before John wrote his book

 

[Nilloc]

The pervasive use by Christ of the term Son of Man

Couldn't one make the argument that Christ used the term Son of Man because of its use in the Book of Daniel? Not trying to say that any of your points are wrong, just an honest question.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Couldn't one make the argument that Christ used the term Son of Man because of its use in the Book of Daniel? Not trying to say that any of your points are wrong, just an honest question.

Yes, that is the point usually made in Bible commentaries.

This DOES raise an irritating question though, one which Enoch's book neatly takes care of.

The irritating question which is raised for some of us by explaining the Gospels' usage of the term "Son of Man" as a reference to Daniel is this...

Of the more than 100 times in which the term "son of man" is used in the O.T., all of them are simply pointing to the humanity of the person to whom the term applies. About 100 times referring to Ezekiel alone. Then we have a single reference to Messiah using the term in a very ambigous fashion, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him." (Daniel 7:13)

The ambiguity of its usage here lies in the fact it says "one like a son of man". Note the indefinite article "a"; the passage merely shows a heavenly being who has the appearance of a man. That Messiah would be born a man is less obliquely referred to elsewhere in the O.T.

In this light, here's the irritating question: is it reasonable to assume that Daniel's phrase had over time become so ingrained in the minds of the Jews that they were used to referring to the Messiah to come as (definite article "the") "Son of Man", so that Christ could freely use the phrase without explanation and be so understood by his hearers?

Answering this question in the affirmative, though not impossible, seems implausible to some, myself included. To me it is far more likely, considering what we now know about the Book of Enoch's wide dissemination among the Jews in Christ's day, they simply understood Christ as referring to Enoch's Messiah, the Son of Man.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi Xzeon

The verse you quote about ascribing all sin to Azazel..............is a very telling verse because what we read latter is that these Angels are being punished in the pit for

6 And Michael, and Gabriel, and Raphael, and Phanuel shall take hold of them on that great day, and cast them on that day into the burning furnace, that the Lord of Spirits may take vengeance on them for their unrighteousness in becoming subject to Satan and leading astray those who dwell on the earth.'

Christianity took a turn to simplicity in the 4th century in an attempt to end the disputes of the fourth century their was a desparate search to come up with a middle ground that EVERYONE could agree on a UNIVERSAL belief and that is infact what Catholic means in Latin it means Universal.

One of the things that disapeared from Christianity in the fourth century or I should say one of the things that was created was a joining of the Beast of rev 13 and 17 into the Devil creating One single bad guy..............But when we read it carefully we see that they are not the same.

[10] And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

It is obvious that the beast is different then the Devil.............

Now what we find taught IN ERROR is that the Serpent in the garden is the devil it is not................... the Serpent is the beast.................it is Azazel

that is why the High priest would take all of the sins of the people and place them on on a goat and send it to Azazel, Azazel which has been mistranslated to scapegoat.

The fallen Angels became subject to the Devil...............and they went to earth and taught man the forbidden knowledge represented by the tree of knowledge in gen 2: They bred with women as part of their plan to take control of the Universe and overthrow God.............They intend to use mankind as their army to take on jesus and the armies of heaven.

[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.


Which was their plan from the start.

Enoch 7:........... And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Some time ago I started noticing little errors in the various online versions of the Charles' translation of The Book of Enoch.

Originally I based my own webpage on the text found at this site:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

So my copy also had many places where verses were divided in the wrong places and sometimes verse numbers were missing and verses have been run together.

As an example, just look where the division for Enoch 1:2 comes (from CCEL.org):

[sup]1[/sup]The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be [sup]2[/sup]living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is [sup]3[/sup]for to come.

That's pretty odd, don't you think?

The following sites also evidence the same sort of problems:

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm
http://www.altheim.com/lit/enoch.html
http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiopian/enoch/1watchers/watchers.htm
http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

I have received a corrected digital copy. I also have an old hard copy edition of The Book of Enoch, published by S.P.C.K., with which to compare my corrected digital copy; they are the same. So, I converted the entire corrected digital copy into fully linkable HTML; all chapters and verses are linkable. In this version the verse breaks and numbers are correct

I also made sure it has a proper paragraph format for easier reading, with the poetry sections of the book showning in versified form.

http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm

You may link to any chapter and verse within the text like this:

To link to Chapters use this convention:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#69

To link to Verses use this convention:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#69:26

The # (pound) sign directs the URL to the internal anchors for either chapters or chapters and verses.

Enjoy!

P.S. Coming soon, "The Book of Jubilees" by GH Schodde, which I think is a bit better'n Charles' version.