Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ashley-Star*Child

Should Enoch be acccepted?

   44 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Enoch be acccepted?

    • 1. Yes, Enoch, should be included/accepted by the Vatican
      14
    • 2. No, it should not (explain why)
      15
    • 3. I don't know
      3
    • 4. I don't care
      12

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

58 posts in this topic

Now of course this is not going to change anything but out of general curiosity, who here believes Enoch should be accepted either as part of the Cannon again (it was once part of it) or at least accepted by the Vatican (and minues the guesstimate dating)?

Reasons to vote yes:

Without Enoch, the case for Creationism is incomplete and it has historical evidence to back it up proving it IS a genuine document

2. It specifically says that God said He wanted everyone to have and share this book

3. Enoch begins the Bible, but has been left out

4. NOTHING was meant to be left out (and I believe other excluded and or partial books should be recognized and included in it's entirety).

5. The reasons it was left out were pure predjucide and not being able to comprehend what was written (like the accurate astronomy). Also, they didn't want to accept the notion of fallen agels

6. It's part of history, and should be treated as such

Reasosn to vote no:

Oh I'm sure many have reasons, state them, but if it's to do with dating, note I will NOT even read your post, because it's erroneous and irrelevant.

Reasons to vote 'I don't know'/'I don't care':

That's pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I voted "I don't know", because I honestly haven't read the book - I cannot make a balanced opinion.

But I do know that it was originally in the canon, so someone found it useful. Additionally someone stated that Jude quoted Enoch. I cannot find the specific quote, but I'll take their word on it for now...

Without knowing what is in Enoch, I can only speak in generalisations, but I have found the message of the Bible to be wonderfully simple and (paradoxically) frustratingly difficult to understand. I do not think that I personally need anything more from my study of scripture than the saving blood of Jesus Christ. But Enoch may have some points of interest to contribute to my understanding of faith.

Whatever the case, and this is most important for me, I do not need any religious organisations (particularly the Vatican) telling me it's ok to read it or not! Come to think of it, maybe i should have voted something different then? Oh well original.gif

All the best,

Edit - corrected questionable data

Edited by BFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put "I don't know" only because: 1) I haven't read it yet tongue.gif and 2) My Bible teacher said he doesn't think they're a real part of the Bible, since they were left out and the Bible is suppose to be complete. Then again, it could have been left out like you said. Can you give me a link to where I can read it? Thanks! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Don't know' since i haven't read it. Doesn't mean i don't want to, rather i have a lot of other stuff to read at the moment pertaining to my studies/career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Don't know' since i haven't read it. Doesn't mean i don't want to, rather i have a lot of other stuff to read at the moment pertaining to my studies/career.

691485[/snapback]

Yes, it gets very hard to read your Bible, especially when you've got college/ a hard job. You can always find time to read it though, such as a busy kid like me, I've got homework, a buttload of chores, etc etc. But, I can always find time for a break and read a passage or two thumbsup.gif Even if it means ignoring your parents/coworkers for a couple minutes, they'll understand.

Happy hunting! grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read the book but voted yes, because I beleive it is no less important (or accurate) than the other books. HAving not read it I could not judge clearly, but judging purely from what I've heard of it - Put it in yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, for everyone who wants t read it, the best translation of it, and the only one I'd ever reccomend is 'The Old Testament Pseudeipgrapha - Vol 1'. You can read it in parts for free at Amazon.com if you put a credit card in for I.D. They don't charge you (I read many books there like that lol), but there is a limit on how much you can read.

A tip, it lets you read two pages before and two pages after when you search. Search for something on the last page you read (any sentence which stands out) and search for it. It will come up again in the search and you can read two pages ahead, etc etc..

Many books deal with Enoch, from the Testament of Solomon (full version) which deals with the Nephilim, 'Book of Giants/Watchers' in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1 Enoch is also in the DSC), Jubilees, Testament of Moses. etc

In Cannon books, there is reference to the angel Azazel with the Azazel goat in the wilderness (Azazel was bound in the wilderness, and a scapegoat with two other angels for the rest of the 200)in Exodus, Genesis (Nephilim, sons of God daughters of Men, etc), Jude, Hebrews, and I think thre was one other book that made a brief reference to it.

As for a someone saying it's not thre because it's not real, in both Cannon and non-Cannon books (and I've heard Jesuss even mentioned something about it somewhere) Enoch seems to have been a great influence, and WAS part of the Bible until the 4th century when Augustine threw it out along with astrology, and in it's place made up the notion of 'Original Sin' all of his own mind. Certain Hebrew people, while keping it as a sacred text, did not accept the notion of fallen angels, and the Rabbi who made the Zohar put a curse on any of his followers who even uttered a word about these angels that married women. He also did this of his own mind. od specifically said in these texts He wanted everyone to have it, and to share it with every generation. Part of that reason was that God directly spoke to Enoch about Creation (an angel told Moses, in the second account/retelling of Creation in Genesis which came from Jubilees. Jubilees quotes Enoch, the fall of the angels, what they taught, etc, thereby Enoch is the real first book of the Bible, and Enoch was the first to write), man's free will, etc.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Enoch is more about the Creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as an atheist, I don't care grin2.gif

You can find out more about the Book of Enoch, and read a translation of it, here original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who isn't a practicing Christian I guess my input won't matter all that much here, but I voted yes, anyway..

Simply because if it was in there once, it belongs there now, for the sake of completeness. If you're going to base your life around what the Bible teaches then you should have the opportunity to read the entire uncut version, at least..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashley, you have been shown over and over again that (1) Enoch is a forgery and (2) Although popular reading in the 1st century BCE was never accepted in the canon of either the Jews or the Christians. They both recognized it for what it was, the ancient equivalent of a science fantasy novel! You and about 4 more people in the world believe that Enoch is real! - CD thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a forgery, and I've shown you over and over again. The original texts which make up the Bible quote Enoch from the very first book of our Bible, Genesis, which came from a text called Jubilees. CD I'm going to put it this way, if you say that Enoch is a forgery, and the very first book of our Bible quotes it, you're saying the entire BIBLE was a later forgery, and I know damn well that's what you're trying t insinuate. You can't, however, because the historical evidence backs it up. Thoth the scribe of Egypt, WAS Enoch the scribe to the Egyptians, the teachings of the angels are shown in Pre-Dynasty Egypt, etc etc etc.

The dating was a GUESSTIMATE, and, no doubt something to cover their asses for why their had the book thrown out. It is not a forgery, and may I add, Ethiopian Koptics (and don't tell their Gnostics, even if they are, it's irrelevant) still have Enoch in their Cannon. Enoch was Ethiopian remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And on top of that, the Hebrews kept it as a sacred text (hence why it was in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and actually used the angelology taken from Enoch, but somewhere along the line they did not accpet the notion of fallen angels, and this is where the Rabbi put a curse on anyone of his followers who even uttered that an angel married a woman. In short, they were afraid of it, and I will also add, that at the time there WAS a rather sexist attitude amoung some Hebrew/Jewish people. They also blamed the wome for the account, even though IN Enoch it says the women were NOT at fault. In the Haggadah it even suggests that the ONLY woman God had ever spoken to was Sarah, and that God only speaks to women through a interpreter. That was ORAL tradition, and was not backed up by direct words from God or even a prophet.

As a result of Enoch and just about all the texts which refer to him being removed many parts of the Bible are a 'mystery' and people don't understand it. Originally, people DID understand what was written because it hd already been explained in the very first book - Enoch. In fact it became forbidden at one point to even NAME angels in the Bible, another reason and/or because of Enoch.

His calendars were accurate, meteorology, astronomy, order of planets which hadn't even been discovered at that time etc. Even at the date it is being guesstimated at hadn't discovered these planets yet. This book said the Earth and planets were spheres when people thought the Earth was flat!

As for a Rabbi's curse, whose more powerful, a curse, or God? I say God is.

People are afraid of what they don't understand.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The original texts which make up the Bible quote Enoch from the very first book of our Bible, Genesis

I love the way to shoot yourself in the foot....there are no original texts of the bible, the oldest copies are only 2200 years old! You have no way of knowing what the originals said! - CD thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until such time as the Book of Enoch is shown to have the same credibility that the accepted books of the bible have, it should not be considered for inclusion. The bible already suffers from a great deal of negative publicity, and addition of a text that is regarded by the majority of experts on the matter to be a hoax will not help matters any. It would have to be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the book originates from where it is claimed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ignore double post.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CD do you know anything at all about Judaic history? Or can't you follow what I just said. Genesis came from Jubilees, Genesis was taken OUT of Jubilees to becme the first book of our 'modern' Bible, and also the Torah. Jubilees QUOTES Enoch and the events of the fall of angels, teachings of angels etc within it. The Hebrews have kept Enoch as a sacred text, and Judaism is alot older than 2200 years old.

Aquatus, you just don't want it accpeted because you'd like to see the Bible thrown out entirely.

Like I said before, you say Enoch's a forgery, you're saying the entire Bible is, and there is evidence to back up Enoch, Jubilees, etc to prove it most definantly is NOT a forgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashley, I just started reading Enoch, and it's very good! You're sig's right- you shouldn't knock it til you read it thumbsup.gif if I could I'd change my vote to a yes original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Aquatus, you just don't want it accpeted because you'd like to see the Bible thrown out entirely.

Like I said before, you say Enoch's a forgery, you're saying the entire Bible is, and there is evidence to back up Enoch, Jubilees, etc to prove it most definantly is NOT a forgery.

694945[/snapback]

To be blunt, I haven't the faintest interest in whether the bible is "thrown out" or not (thrown out of what?). The simple fact of the matter is that people will always believe in something, and if it isn't gods or spirits, it will be something else. In and of itself, I do not think of this as particularly bad, as long as one can acknowledge the difference between faith and belief.

If a claim is unsupported, and you refuse to acknowledge it is unsupported, then that is a blind faith. Blind faith is, frankly, unworthy of mankind. A dog can have blind faith. As God's greatest creations, we should aspire to more than that. No, blind faith is a poor gift from us to God. What would be a worthy gift, then?

When a person looks at the available evidence, when a person understand that there is no support for their belief, when a person has absolutely no reason to continue to believe as they do, and yet...they continue to have faith...

That is a tested faith. That is a faith that has met the enemy and survived. That is a faith that has been tried by fire. That is a faith in the purest form, a faith that has faced the ultimate objective refutation of its existance, and yet continued to live. No mere animal can do this. This is unique to mankind, and as such, is the only worthy type of faith due to God.

To paraphrase the book of Job: As the sun's rays turn the clay into a seal, so does a weak belief, through adversity, become a tested faith.

That is why I do not object to the bible in general. In as far as having faith in something for no reason, well, there are worse thing out there. Having said that, however, there is a limit to the type of things that can be ignored. It is one thing to follow a book that, to my mind, was born out of primitive attempts to explain the universe. At least this was a well-intentioned, although erroneus attempt. It is quite another thing, however, to willingly accept something that was created for the sole purpose of deception.

Now, I'm not going to bother arguing with you about the credibility of the Book of Enoch. Frankly, I do not think you are physically capable of having a reasoned discussion, and I will not waste my time on a subject I have already said does not interest me to a great extent. However, I will stand by my original statement. Whether you believe Enoch is a hoax or not, the great majority of biblical scholars and experts all agree and are capable of providing support for their conclusion that it is a hoax. Unless you can provide an authoritative refutation of their work (and by that I mean something a bit more substantial than your usual Fallacy of Incredulity "Of course the dates are wrong! Everyone knows dating techniques are a hoax!"), you are simply a somewhat less than credible voice screaming that your beliefs should be regarded as facts.

Until such time as the credibility of the Book of Enoch is confirmed by multiple independant sources, the book should not be included in the bible.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

TaintedDoughnuts,

Glad you likd it. original.gif

Aquatus, you can be excused for not knowing the first thing about scriptual texts because, well, quite frankly, it IS out of your league, and you really aren't equipped to give an informed discussion, which intrigues me as to why you even voted/posted on this subject at all. I've repeatedly explained about Jubilees again and again and again, but with some people it just does't seem to sink in. Kind of like talking to a brick wall, it just bounces back.

However, I have a faint idea that the reasoning behind your sudden interest in voting no is because within Enoch there is further knowledge (and with the Dead Sea Scrolls, describing dinosaurs, etc) that would both disprove Evolution through first hand account, and add credibility and newfound material to work with in Creationism from a perspective which hasn't been looked at yet. That must hurt.

I hope one day I can sue for defamation every person which carries on the myth about Enoch being a 'hoax'. Stranger things have happened....

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't honestly care...adding the book of enoch to the bible really wouldn't alter my take on it as a mythology. However, as Aquatus says, the general opinion of experts on the subject (that's not you, Ashley) is that the book is a forgery. Far be it from religion of course to consciously try and spread misinformation tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does it really matter?

people are free to read enoch whether or not it is bound into version X of the bible.

alone or included, it is just another wonderful myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does it really matter?

people are free to read enoch whether or not it is bound into version X of the bible.

alone or included, it is just another wonderful myth.

695375[/snapback]

True.

Adding this book would not make the bible anymore credible.

However, I voted "yes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You'd be surprised how much of an expert I AM on this subject Searphina. You don't know me from a bar of soap honey. Scoff not.

And yes, in the Bible or out of it people can still read it, and will read it, but being Cannonized would make some people feel a whole lot better about the issue.

Hmm, again, like with another poll I had before, there seems to be a problem. If Amalgamut, and someone else I know just voted 'yes' why is the number still at 9? It should be 11 now.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd be surprised how much of an expert I AM on this subject

'CD bites tongue and doubles over with laughter'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.