Why wasn't Enoch included?

[SummaScriptura]

This one's got some interesting chatter for you to check out...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=3320910

 

[Crazy Liz]

This one's got some interesting chatter for you to check out...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=3320910

Sorry, but most of us aren't allowed there.

Can you give us a summary?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Sorry, but most of us aren't allowed there.

Can you give us a summary?

I know we're venturing off-toipic, but are you serious? Do you mean literally not allowed or practically not allowed because fights break out?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I know we're venturing off-toipic, but are you serious? Do you mean literally not allowed or practically not allowed because fights break out?

It's in a denominational forum that most of us don't belong to.

 

[Absolute truth]

Can anyone tell me? I know that all the books were put up for review and approval during the initial cannonization period but I'm curious as to why Enoch wasn't approved. From what I've heard it's in some copies of the Torah or hebrew versions of the Bible. I really only want to learn about it here or from personal contacts as most info on the net seems fairly sketchy. I figured this was the best place to come for less chance of a biased answer or one with false info.

Could be that Enoch was the son of Cain and was not from the seed line of Seth (which lead to Christ). Its important to read those boring geneologies even though my eyes bleed to read it, lol.

God bless, Dave

 

[SummaScriptura]

Could be that Enoch was the son of Cain and was not from the seed line of Seth (which lead to Christ). Its important to read those boring geneologies even though my eyes bleed to read it, lol.

God bless, Dave

There are two Enochs in Genesis, Enoch ben Cain and Enoch ben Jared. The one that was translated and was the purported author of 1 Enoch, was Enoch ben Jared, and is in the genealogy found in Luke chapter 3.

 

[SummaScriptura]

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.

 

[racer]

Enoch also deals with secret knowledge given only to Enoch and leads the reader to believe in "UFO'S." It deals with fallen angels and etc. It also tells of Enoch walking through seven different levels of heaven.

I hope this helps.

Enoch is a very controversial text, however, it does not lead to or imply existence of UFOs. It speaks of the Nephilim (which are discussed in Genesis) and "the Watchers."

 

[racer]

Enoch walked with God and was not . . . for God took Him.

That verse is still in Scripture. Enoch was a very holy man.

 

[racer]

Here is a good website to read about the book of Enoch:

www.alienresistance.org

No it is not about alien existance or alien abduction. It actually debunks the claims by Zacariah Sitchin and others who assert that UFOs and UFO abductions are referenced in Scripture.

 

[racer]

This book takes you directly to the topic on the Book of Enoch:

The Book of Enoch CLICK HERE It's history, fallen angels, UFO connections

 

[racer]

Another relevant link:

Sons of Seth Theory - How the Church covered up the truth

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is the best online version of the Book of Enoch. It corrects the versification problems which are present on most other sites:

The Book of Enoch

Also, using the linking conventions below all the chapters and verses in this online copy are linkable:

For chapters:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#7

For verses:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#7:6

 

[visionary]

I believe the resurge into the Book of Enoch is because the Holy Spirit believes we are ready to prayerfully study that which is in it, for it contains additional insights valuable for the people of the last days.. God always brings things to light at the proper time.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I believe the book of Enoch to be inspired by God. One shouldn't reject this book if they haven't even read it yet.

If one is really adamant about not considering this book at all then I would like to hear how they would explain to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church why they are wrong about this great book.

Also check out all the Son of Man prophecies too. There is a lot of stuff in this book to talk about. It's amazing how Christian this book is and it was written before Christ! Yet another reason to seriously consider taking a good long look at this book.

 

[ThomasDa]

Why wasn't Enoch included?

Because God's in charge.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Why wasn't Enoch included?

Because it is and was.

 

[katholikos]

Why wasn't Enoch included?

Because it was not inspired Scripture.

Pope Damasus I and the bishops united to him canonized the New Testament through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If Enoch had been inspired Scripture, they would have included it. They did not. The case is closed

 

[visionary]

That authority to make that decision is obviously not holding sway in this thread... Case still open

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Book of Enoch is not a New Testament book.

It is included in the Old Testament of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Though this is so, since the book describes conditions before the flood and before the time of Moses, there is nothing of the two major covenants in it and nothing Mosaic like Sabbath observance. This gives it one of the singularly unique characteristics of any book within all of ancient Jewish literature.