What you’re ignoring is that the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Christians, who alone receive 1 Enoch in its present form as canonical (other denominations in several cases regard it as corrupted, for reasons pointed out by my dearly beloved Anglican friend
@Jipsah, so that insofar as it was quoted in the New Testament, the version we have is distorted, and furthermore the text in use by the Ethiopians if accurately translated is less remarkable and eccentric than the current sensationalized English translations) - do not interpret it literally.
Rather, the Ethiopians regard the book as Christological prophecy, like the rest of the Old Testament, and if we interpret it this way, it becomes much more acceptable.
The problem here is twofold: you are advocating for a literal interpretation of a book which no one interprets literally, and which furthermore in its present form is probably very poorly translated into English, in an overly sensational way, and which is also very possibly corrupted (since the Dead Sea Scrolls are fragmented and the Greek version is lost, we have a problem in terms of evaluating the degree of the corruption), and which the majority of early church Fathers took a pass on in the fourth century due to these issues, while admitting that St. Jude probably did quote it.
Therefore, while I respect persecuted Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox Christians to the point where I will accept it on the basis of their acceptance of it as being on some level canonical (although my understanding is that they regard it as deuterocanonical - if I recall, it is not read in the church, but is rather present in their Bibles as a supporting text), it would be something else entirely to push for a literal-historical interpretation of the entire work when no one interprets it that manner.
And insofar as it was quoted in the New Testament by St. Jude the Apostle, it was a quotation of a Christological and Eschatological prophecy from 1 Enoch as opposed to a literal-historical reading of the book as being authoritative about past events, and furthermore the quotation excluded those pericopes of 1 Enoch which are highly disputed, and also completely disregards the other Enochic literature, which no one regards as canon.
Lastly I have to ask, why do you display a contemporary Eastern Orthodox icon of the Last Judgement while disagreeing with Eastern Orthodox beliefs on the basis of a literal interpretation of 1 Enoch which the Eastern Orthodox have never subscribed to? I mean, on the one hand, I’m glad you like our iconography, but on the other hand, would you not admit that it is possible that by displaying an Orthodox icon together with a post that radically disagrees with Orthodox doctrine, you might inadvertently cause confusion regarding what we Orthodox Christians believe?
By way of analogy, I wouldn’t display an image of a Roman Catholic icon of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and then express the Eastern Orthodox view, shared by an 18th century Pope who opposed the devotion, that the devotion to the Sacred Heart is somewhat problematic.
Perhaps if you added a text to your signature clarifying that your use of the icon is not intended to indicate you are a Christian of Eastern Orthodox, Byzantine Rite Catholic, or insofar as our Anglican friends are increasingly using Orthodox icons, for example, in the altar at Westminster Abbey, a member of the Anglican Communion, that might perhaps help to avoid any confusion that could possibly result from your use of that icon in your signature.
