Thread: The Book of Enoch

It was touched on in the 'Azazel the scapegoat' thread and we've had discussions on it in the past. Some feel its the most credible of the noncanonical writings, what are your views on it?

Even Rick Joyner who views parts of it as near canonical thinks that other parts of it are unreliable. This quickly becomes a matter of "what I feel".

The part related to Genesis 6 talks about giants that are exactly 450 feet tall. That is clearly a myth.

I have said before here at LF, scholars have always understood that parts of Enoch seem to have been written later and added, so parts of it are questionable. However, because Enoch is quoted in the Book of Jude, then it is valuable to a degree. There are commentaries written on the Book of Enoch, and Morningstar Ministries (Rick Joyner) has one. The one that I have, which I found invaluable, is found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Books-Enoch-Wa...keywords=enoch

What I like about this book is how Dr. Lumpkin gives commentary and scripture references to make sense of difficult passages. Also, there are footnotes and references to scripture, so the bearing of witness (to scripture) is clear. He also details how understanding which parts of Enoch should be given serious consideration, at the beginning of this work.

I would not recommend just sitting down and reading what is known as The Book of Enoch. I did do that once and again, some of it seems difficult and unclear. But what I found interesting was seeing how much Jesus Himself was pointed to, over and over again. To be honest, that was the part I found most intriguing about The Book of Enoch...the testimony of Jesus.

Again...to repeat...we look at Enoch as a puzzle piece, and not necessarily canon, and understanding that scholars have already poured over it, and written commentaries on it, and sifted the wheat from the chaff, should make people curious. Again, Enoch is quoted specifically with regard to the "angels chained in the pit" in the Book of Jude.

I say what I'm about to say with soberness of mind and humility of heart. Before Colonel starts trying to argue with me about any of this....I am focused on my health and well-being. Frankly, I don't have the time nor inclination to get into a big debate about this. It's simply not a priority in my life. I am merely posting information and people can do with the information what they will. Thank you.

The book of Enoch talks about something similar but Jude doesn't quote any of it. Just the one sentence that he actually attributes to the prophet Enoch, the part about the ten thousand holy ones. We dont really know if it is taken from the book of Enoch or if both rely on an older source.

Here is chapter seven :

1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, 4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. 6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

Verse 1, the first part of verse 2 and verses 5-6 are all employed to construct a history of the Nephilim to superimpose onto the Bible and its gaps in terms of the details having to do with this. They ignore the part about the height of the giants and verses 3-4 which make sense considering the size given. When I say 450 feet I'm being kind, using the 300 cubits given by a different translation, 3000 ells is way more than that.

This is not a matter of keeping some parts or even sections and discarding others, this is a matter of picking and discarding at will, even within the same sentence. Why should we accept this ?

It is my belief and opinion all we need to know is within the Bible and even if parts of Enoch confirm what is there it's odvious it is not a reliable source and should not be considered in our doctrine.

Just as even historical documents can verify scripture but in others oppose it...our beliefs must be solidified within scripture alone and any outside sources that may confirm that belief is nice, it's not essential and should not influence it.

God's word, the Bible, alone must be our foundational source..all else secondary and the scripture are not to be interpreted by these outside sources but the other way around..

The Ask Dr Brown question today:

That video makes a lot of sense. Just because what we know as the book of Enoch today contains several sayings that have been preserved since the actual prophet Enoch, the rest could largely have been added later, or have been altered severely. To use such material to add truth where the Bible is silent, is dangerous.
That is often how Charismatics drift over into New Age, they start seeing all sorts of works as inspired and capable of adding spiritual truth and in time how they see things has been sufficiently affected that not only has their witness been watered down and been replaced by flakiness but the real Christ is watered down and has disappeared, some times without their noticing this consciously, at least most of the way there. In the end, all that is left may be their perception of themselves as "true servants of Christ seeking more truth". They would do better to simply seek Christ Jesus, who is equal to the Word, which is contained in the 66 books of the Bible. The depth is found there, not by going elsewhere.

Pastors and other ministers who are bored from reading the Bible too many times should especially take heed of this, just because some other work seems fresh and interesting doesnt mean it is inspired or that the Holy Spirit lead you there, it just means that you need a fresh anointing for studying the actual Word of God.