You are currently not logged in. Please either:
Sign Up -or- Log In

> 

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." - Psalm 119:105

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Tags
Book of Enoch    

The Book of Enoch, Could it be legitimate?
penguin10916
post Mar 27 2009, 03:10 PM
Post #1


Rocking For God
******

Group: Resident
Posts: 621
Joined: 28-December 08
From: United States
Member No.: 22,329
Gender : Male




I was reading around online, and I read something about the Book of Enoch. So I did some research on it and found that it was directly quoted from in some place of the New Testament, primarily the Book of Jude. I found a copy of it online, and begun reading it, and to me, it seems plausible. In doing more research, I discovered that the only Christain Church that accepts this as legitimate is the Ethiopian Orthdox Church.

I want to know what you think about it, and if there is any chance it could be real. The link is:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiop...noch/index.html

The Book was supposedly written by the grandfather of Noah, and it focuses on the corruption of the preflooded age, and many other things.
Go to the top of the page
 
Social Bookmark:Post to Del.icio.usPost to DiggPost to FacebookPost to FarkPost to FurlPost to GooglePost to SlashdotPost to StumbleUponPost to TechnoratiPost to YahooMyWeb
+Quote Post
dkkev
post Mar 27 2009, 06:10 PM
Post #2


Holy Roller
*******

Group: Resident
Posts: 746
Joined: 6-August 07
Member No.: 12,868
Gender : Male




I did quite a bit of research into this when I saw a couple people on this forum discussing this very subject.

I don't remember exactly how I reached my conclusion, but I decided it isn't a perfectly legitimate source.

Just because it's quoted in the Bible, doesn't mean it's inspired. Paul quoted a couple different sources in Acts 17, but that doesn't mean those sources were "inspired" as well.

This post has been edited by dkkev: Mar 27 2009, 06:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zabby
post Mar 27 2009, 06:10 PM
Post #3


Your friendly neighborhood Catholic
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4,230
Joined: 11-June 08
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 18,565
Gender : Female




Well, I found an article about the book, in this article it is refered to as Henoch instead of Enoch, but it is still the same thing, and it kind of explains the story of the book, but it doesn't explain why it loses credit. Here it is:

QUOTE
Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Jude. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Henoch as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view.

So great was the oblivion into which they fell that only scanty fragments of Greek and Latin versions were preserved in the West. The complete text was thought to have perished when it was discovered in two Ethiopic manuscripts in Abyssinia, by the traveler Bruce in 1773. Since, several more copies in the same language have been brought to light. Recently a large Greek fragment comprising chapters i-xxxii was unearthed at Akhmîn in Egypt.

Scholars agree that the Book of Henoch was originally composed either in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that the Ethiopic version was derived from a Greek one. A comparison of the Ethiopic text with the Akhmîn Greek fragment proves that the former is in general a trustworthy translation. The work is a compilation, and its component parts were written in Palestine by Jews of the orthodox Hasidic or Pharisaic schools. Its composite character appears clearly from the palpable differences in eschatology, in the views of the origin of sin and of the character and importance of the Messias found in portions otherwise marked off from each other by diversities of subject. Critics agree that the oldest portions are those included in chapters i-xxxvi and (broadly speaking) lxxi-civ. (New Advent)


Anyway, I guess if God ment for it to be a part of our current Bible, he would have preserved it, and I'm thinking that maybe it's just that we get the major good points through it's references in the Bible, but it probably is some good noncannical reading if you want to look into it.

EDIT: spelling

This post has been edited by Zabby: Mar 27 2009, 06:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Li'Santo
post Mar 27 2009, 06:21 PM
Post #4


Church Goer
**

Group: Resident
Posts: 71
Joined: 14-August 07
From: Louisiana
Member No.: 13,006
Gender : Male




It was rejected mostly because they are unable to confirm its real authorship and a few other things. I've read and gained much insight on things from the books of Enoch. I do not in anyway hold it to be cannon but it is interesting reading. Do not however hold it above the athority of the Cannon. I can't see it being harmful in anyway, unless someone would put it over the bible. Enoch was a great man of God, so much so that he was taken before his earthly death.
Just my opinion on the books.

This post has been edited by Li'Santo: Mar 28 2009, 12:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
penguin10916
post Mar 27 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #5


Rocking For God
******

Group: Resident
Posts: 621
Joined: 28-December 08
From: United States
Member No.: 22,329
Gender : Male




I'll take it as a grain of salt. But if it is completley true, then it does answer a lot of quesitons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Time is now: 11th March 2010 - 10:01 AM


The BaptistTop1000.com CFS Top Christian Sites