Book of Enoch

[Brighten04]

According to Pastor Ward's "Origin of Demons" page, http://www.logoschristian.org/demon.html

"Demons are the disembodied spirits of the Giants (Nephilim). The 'Mighty Men of Renown' are the Gibborim created by the Watchers when they left their heavenly abode and came down to the daughters of men as recorded in Genesis Chapter 6:4 of the Old Testament. They are half breeds, angelic hybrids, the Titans.

Sorry about that last post sis.. Had I kept reading before responding I would have had my answer. lol.

 

[visionary]

Sorry about that last post sis.. Had I kept reading before responding I would have had my answer. lol.

No problem.. I have done it many a time myself.:scared:
:wave:

 

[Brighten04]

LOL! Thanks. :thumbsup:

 

[visionary]

Doesn't Enoch identify the demons as the spirits of the offspring of the wicked angels and not the angels themselves?

The more I study this fascinating subject the more I am coming to the conclusion that demons are the offspring of the wicked angels. Angels do not need to inhabit humans like demons do. Yeshua granted them permission to invade pigs. They hop from body to body. Evil Angels may harass, plant ideas into heads, and have sexual relations, give false reports, and cause sickness but are just not into invading the body of humans.

 

[Brighten04]

This is an old topic, but rather than start a new thread, I reached and got this one because it is related. Do you think the book of Enoch is fringe theology?

 

[tango]

When Lord Jesus appeared to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, there was something about His appearance that set Him apart from the other two angels. Abraham addressed Him right away as Lord. I don't know what the Hebrew says, but it is Lord in the KJV. Some people have said that it is not Lord in the Hebrew but that the translators changed it.

Gen 18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: (KJV)

Interesting, looking at the KJV+ version in e-sword it looks like the Hebrew word is adonay, used as a proper name for God.

 

[visionary]

I think the Book of Enoch is for our time. Just like any interesting commentary, the Jews who wrote this book wrote it from their teachings and understandings. They believe it was handed down from Enoch and it could well have been. Just like the first five books written by Moses were. Not everything written down in scripture was written as it happened.

 

[Alithis]

I think the Book of Enoch is for our time. Just like any interesting commentary, the Jews who wrote this book wrote it from their teachings and understandings. They believe it was handed down from Enoch and it could well have been. Just like the first five books written by Moses were. Not everything written down in scripture was written as it happened.

it is fascinating. and therein lays its danger .think of the expanded synonyms for the word fascinating ... ie -: engrossing, captivating, absorbing, interesting, enchanting, beguiling, bewitching, enthralling and the like .

some endlessly contested doctrines can be traced back to when people have used the unreliable translations (unreliable because we do not have the original text from which to verify ANY present translation of the book ..so any old rubbish may have been added to it by agenda driven fallible men .

but i think a few contested doctrines can probably be tracked back to the book of enoch .
one of which may be the creation evolutionism - which i find to be a doctrine rife with faithless unbelief .
im not sure .
it has been so long since i read it and i have no great desire to do so again .I know there are some measure of truth in the book for it is quoted ..by JUde i think it was . but there is also that enthralling enchanting and beguiling aspect to it which i strongly caution against .

have a browse but dont build a doctrine on it -Get back to the scriptures we know to be the inspired word of God :thumbsup:

 

[Brighten04]

it is fascinating. and therein lays its danger .think of the expanded synonyms for the word fascinating ... ie -: engrossing, captivating, absorbing, interesting, enchanting, beguiling, bewitching, enthralling and the like .

some endlessly contested doctrines can be traced back to when people have used the unreliable translations (unreliable because we do not have the original text from which to verify ANY present translation of the book ..so any old rubbish may have been added to it by agenda driven fallible men .

but i think a few contested doctrines can probably be tracked back to the book of enoch .
one of which may be the creation evolutionism - which i find to be a doctrine rife with faithless unbelief .
im not sure .
it has been so long since i read it and i have no great desire to do so again .I know there are some measure of truth in the book for it is quoted ..by JUde i think it was . but there is also that enthralling enchanting and beguiling aspect to it which i strongly caution against .

have a browse but dont build a doctrine on it -Get back to the scriptures we know to be the inspired word of God :thumbsup:

So, you don't trust the book. But you kind of have an amorphous reason why you don't trust the book. Yes the book is quoted in Jude, and for that reason alone says the book is important. Therefore there is no reason for you to caution against reading it. The whole Bible has an enthralling enchanting and beguiling aspect to it. Do you caution against reading that?

 

[Josiah]

For various reasons, the Book of Enoch was in the canon but later cast out.

Please document.




.

 

[Brighten04]

Please document.




.

Is there particular documentation that is acceptable to you, or will any documentation do?

 

[Josiah]

Is there particular documentation that is acceptable to you, or will any documentation do?

Well, something reasonable that shows that all Christians accepted this specifically as canonical Scripture. But then (it would help to give the date and place) was declared to be NON-canonical in some official manner and after that, all Christians did a "180" and no longer accepted it as canonical.

We all know there were HUNDREDS of religious books (many of which were heretical and/nor gnostic) around .... very few of which were universally or even widely accepted. And we all know that the OOC churches have a larger corpus than the EOC which in turn has a larger corpus than the RCC now has (the corpus of books not necessarily having the same status)... but I'm not sure this book is in any of them (maybe some Coptic or Eyptian).


Thanks.



- Josiah

 

[Brighten04]

Here is a link from Wiki. Seems from this source that the book was excluded around the 4th century A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

 

[visionary]

Coptic Orthodox Church still has it in their canon.

 

[Alithis]

So, you don't trust the book. But you kind of have an amorphous reason why you don't trust the book. Yes the book is quoted in Jude, and for that reason alone says the book is important. Therefore there is no reason for you to caution against reading it. The whole Bible has an enthralling enchanting and beguiling aspect to it. Do you caution against reading that?

slight correction there .. i said " have a browse " but don't build a doctrine on it . the reason is - as i understand , we do not have the original text for any language scholars to compare against the present versions floating around - so we have no idea (save what Jude quotes..being a couple of verses) what is valid and what is added . It has always been known that it is a boom that has been tampered with . so my caution inst against" reading it as a point of interest ".. but against placing any great stock in it . like anything where it agrees with what we do know to be the inspired word of God ..fine .. but where we have no scripture with which to align it . be very wary .

in other words ,we search the scripture to see if these things are so .. if we don't find it in scripture then put it down and move on to what IS in the Scriptures .
don't underestimate the trickery of the adversary .. be circumspect

 

[Brighten04]

Coptic Orthodox Church still has it in their canon.

Yes So do the Ethiopian Orthodox Church who never rejected it.

 

[Brighten04]

slight correction there .. i said " have a browse " but don't build a doctrine on it . the reason is - as i understand , we do not have the original text for any language scholars to compare against the present versions floating around - so we have no idea (save what Jude quotes..being a couple of verses) what is valid and what is added . It has always been known that it is a boom that has been tampered with . so my caution inst against" reading it as a point of interest ".. but against placing any great stock in it . like anything where it agrees with what we do know to be the inspired word of God ..fine .. but where we have no scripture with which to align it . be very wary .

in other words ,we search the scripture to see if these things are so .. if we don't find it in scripture then put it down and move on to what IS in the Scriptures .
don't underestimate the trickery of the adversary .. be circumspect

So are you in agreement with Peter and Jude about the angels that sinned and Enoch's writings about those times when they came down upon the Mount Hermon?

 

[psalms 91]

So are you in agreement with Peter and Jude about the angels that sinned and Enoch's writings about those times when they came down upon the Mount Hermon?

Actually yes, about the angels

 

[Alithis]

So are you in agreement with Peter and Jude about the angels that sinned and Enoch's writings about those times when they came down upon the Mount Hermon?

i agree with the scriptures we Do know to be the inspired word of God .
as i said .there are parts i thee book of enoch which of course are truth .
though i don't believe peters reference to be a reference from Enoch was it ? (he doesn't specify ).. he was speaking of the rebellion in heaven when a third of the angels fell .
but do a objective study and you wil find many little statements in the book of enoch that are contrary to the word of God also .. so again.. be very cautious . read it as a point of interest but Do not build a doctrine on it - we dont have the original text ... to compare to the versions floating out there .
there is a possibility the Vatican may do , God knows but if so they keep it locked away .

also we have to consider .. Jude mentions that it was "prophesied by Enoch " and that prophesy may have been a recorded prophecy being written down after being passed on by word of mouth ..
so it is pure assumption that he is "quoting the book of Enoch " for he does Not say .. "as it is written in the book of Enoch " he simply says .it was prophesied by Enoch..

i'm not saying the book of Enoch is not a valid book , but we simply mustn't say it is the inspired word of god (though we can by its many contradictions of scripture say it is NOT )or take it as such and so, we must NOT build doctrine upon what it written therein -- we must be circumspect . its ok to be critical and objective about such things .

---------
add- i haven't looked up peters reference today. iv prob' got that wrong -later

 

[Brighten04]

i agree with the scriptures we Do know to be the inspired word of God .
as i said .there are parts i thee book of enoch which of course are truth .
though i don't believe peters reference to be a reference from Enoch was it ? (he doesn't specify ).. he was speaking of the rebellion in heaven when a third of the angels fell .
but do a objective study and you wil find many little statements in the book of enoch that are contrary to the word of God also .. so again.. be very cautious . read it as a point of interest but Do not build a doctrine on it - we dont have the original text ... to compare to the versions floating out there .
there is a possibility the Vatican may do , God knows but if so they keep it locked away .

also we have to consider .. Jude mentions that it was "prophesied by Enoch " and that prophesy may have been a recorded prophecy being written down after being passed on by word of mouth ..
so it is pure assumption that he is "quoting the book of Enoch " for he does Not say .. "as it is written in the book of Enoch " he simply says .it was prophesied by Enoch..

i'm not saying the book of Enoch is not a valid book , but we simply mustn't say it is the inspired word of god (though we can by its many contradictions of scripture say it is NOT )or take it as such and so, we must NOT build doctrine upon what it written therein -- we must be circumspect . its ok to be critical and objective about such things .

---------
add- i haven't looked up peters reference today. iv prob' got that wrong -later

Do these verses agree?

Genesis 6:1
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Enoch 7:1. It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

2. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

10. Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees.

11. And the women conceiving brought forth giants,