ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Book Of Enoch Not In Bible

Why was the book of Enoch excluded from the Bible?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---mona on 2/28/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Eloy:

Bible writers often quoted biblical writings. But sometimes they even quoted non-biblical and secular writings. For example, Paul quoted the Greek philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12:
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Evidently, he didn't have the same kind of contempt for non-Biblical writings that you do.

And even after repeated requests (both last year and this year), you still haven't answered the question as to just where Jude got the extra words in his quotation of Enoch.
---StrongAxe on 3/17/11


Many false religions will have their own antiBible, and use "other" nonBiblical books together with their vain bible in order to support their unholy doctrines and sins.
---Eloy on 3/16/11


Eloy:

I did a google search to try to see if anyone else in the world shares your belief that Enoch wrote the Pentateuch, and the references I could find were mainly on these blogs.

Interestingly enough, the VERY SAME question (about Jude and Enoch) came up here almost exactly one year ago. I asked then how Jude could quote words that were missing from Deutronomy but present in 1 Enoch. You didn't have an answer for that then, just as you don't have an answer for it now. (If you DO, I would be more than happy to hear it.)
---StrongAxe on 3/16/11


mona, Actually the book of Enoch was never any scripture in order for it to be excluded from the scripture.
---Eloy on 3/16/11


Eloy:

You can rant about 1 Enoch being a work of darkness all you like, but you still can't explain how Jude's quote includes extra material that is also in 1 Enoch 1:9 but NOT Deutronomy.

You could argue that 1 Enoch was a forgery written AFTER Jude was written, but that is impossible, since a copy of it was found among the dead sea scrolls at Qumran, dating around 100 BC, long before Jesus and Jude were even born.
---StrongAxe on 3/16/11




Nonchristians will follow all manner of nonBiblical books and writings of darkness, but the people that do know their God will be strong and do exploits. We Christians know the voice of our Papa, and we do follow him. And a stranger will we not follow, but will flee from that one.
---Eloy on 3/15/11


Eloy:

No Eloy. You just choose not to reply because I make a valid point that contradicts what you say, and you cannot refute it. Because if you DID have a refutation of my argument, you would provide it for all to see, enlightening everyone else here (INCLUDING me). But you cannot do so.

Remember, there have been a few times in the past when you have proven me wrong and I HAVE acknowledged that you were right and I was wrong. If I must readjust my thinking when I am proven wrong, I am fine with that. I admit I am an imperfect human being. Even Peter and Paul admitted to imperfection.

However, you seem incapable of even considering the fact that you could ever be wrong in anything. This is pride and it is very dangerous.
---StrongAxe on 3/15/11


strongax, as I have posted before, I must cease replying to you, for I am sent to them whom will receive the gospel. And when you decide to become one of these then you too will become gladly communicated by me.
---Eloy on 3/15/11


Eloy:

Try again. Deutronomy 33:2,4 mentions nothing about "executing judgment", yet Enoch mentions it, and so does Jude. So there are three possibilities:
1) Our best manuscripts of Deutronomy are corrupt and missing text
2) Jude was adding words of his own that were not in the Bible - effectively putting words into Enoch's mouth that he didn't say
3) Jude was, in fact, quoting the book of Enoch.

Which of these three possibilities do you believe happened? I suspect that you wouldn't be happy with any of them. Do you have a fourth option that can explain why Jude quotes material that isn't in Deutronomy?
---StrongAxe on 3/14/11


strongax, Jude 14 was quoting the Biblical book Deuteronomy 33:2,4 which was written by Henoch: "The Lord came with 10,000 of saints: Jude was not quoting a NonBiblical pseudepipgrapha which is falsely ascribed to Enoch.
---Eloy on 3/14/11




Eloy:

Once again, you use "simply because they are not Holy Scripture" as a reason why Pseudepigraphia and apocrypha are not in the Old and New Testaments.

Since Old and New Testaments define what scripture IS, this is a circular argument. Saying "they aren't in the Bible because they aren't in the Bible" does not convey any useful information.

AT SOME POINT IN TIME, a decision was made to include Esther, and at some point a decision was made to exclude Enoch. What IS important is to understand how and why those decisions were made - because before there Bible was an assembled cohesive unit, "because it's in the Bible" was meaningless, since NO book was initially there before it was included.
---StrongAxe on 3/14/11


Eloy:

1 Enoch 2:9: Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

Jude 1:14-15: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Jude believed it to be true, and did not not question its authorship as you do. His words are scripture. Yours are not.
---StrongAxe on 3/14/11


mona, If carnal mankind and satan had their own way, the Holy Bible would not have any Holy Scripture in it at all, but be filled with only lies and words which were the opposite of the truth. There is a good reason why the pseudepigrapha and the apocrypha are excluded from both the Old Testament and the New Testament, it is simply because they are not Holy Scripture.
---Eloy on 3/13/11


\\Eloy:

If you don't believe in web sites, why are you on this one?\\

He believes and quotes web sites that support his points, such as his false etymology of "catholic" and "castle."
---Cluny on 3/13/11


strongax, A child knows their own Father's words as different than a stranger's words. Jesus says to the skeptic, "Test me, and see that my words are good." If you give me any writing whatsoever, I can easily tell you whether it is holy and from my God, or else nonInspired and not from my God. And the book of Enoch is proven to be not from the Lord, but is from man. Words can be tested for virtue and known whether they are truly from God or not. Please Read- Psalm 19:7-11+ 34:8+ 119:129-160, Isaiah 8:10,20, Jeremiah 14:14,15+ 23:21,22+ 29:31+ 30:2, Isaiah 55:6-11, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 7:15-20, John 8:47+ 10:3-11, I John 4:6, Galatians 1:8,9, Hebrews 4:12, II Peter 1:21.
---Eloy on 3/13/11


Eloy:

Yes, twice you have listed the currently-accepted list of books in the Bible. But how do you know those books are, in fact, scripture - and others are not? The scrolls themselves do not include a table of contents that says "these books are scripture and none others are".

The reason is tradition - the list that was agreed upon (by men, extra-biblically), and passed down through the generations. If you reject everything that is not actually scripture, you must also necessarily reject the Table of Contents in your Bible as well, since it is the work of men.
---StrongAxe on 3/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Pseudepigrapha are writings that are proven to be false and not authored by the deceased Biblical patriarchs that are used to entitle their books, but are written much later by pseudo-writers. They are plainly riddled with falsehood. And there's a big differnce between Holy Scripture saying, "Thus says the Lord", and Unholy Writings saying, "Thus says a scholar." The Old Testament Scripture was written in the Middle East in ancient Hebrew beginning from the 36th century B.C. by Henoch in 3507 B.C. (ref: Gen.5:1,24+ Ex.17:14+ 31:18+ 32:15,16,19+ 34:1,4,27-29+ Deut.6:4-9), and continued on by certain godly men instructed by God to write down his words up to Nechemiah's time in 458 B.C. (ref: Neh.13:6).
---Eloy on 3/13/11


Hebrew Old Testament: Beginning, Names, Called, Isolation, Words, Yehoshua, Sophtim, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Melechim, II Melechim, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkiel, Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obadiah, Yonah, Michah, Nachum, Habakkuk, Xephaniah, Heggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Praises, Proverbs, Iyob, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Kohelet, Esther, Danyal, Ezra, Nechemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles:
Greek New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation.
---Eloy on 3/12/11


Eloy:

HOW do you know that the Book of Enoch is not from God? Saying "It's not in the Bible because it's not in the Bible" is circular reasoning. There had to be some OTHER reason for excluding it from the Bible in the first place, before the Bible canon was established. Do you know what good reason there could have been for that decision?
---StrongAxe on 3/12/11


There is a reason why the Holy Scripture is called Holy Scripture. God's Word is different then all other words in the world.
---Eloy on 3/12/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Eloy:

If you don't believe in web sites, why are you on this one?

While it is foolish to believe everything one reads (newspapers, books, web, etc.), these often contain useful (if fallible) information we cannot personally witness. If we disregard these, how can we believe anything? Why believe the Bible over other holy books? Because of the WRITTEN testimony of others.

Three almost identical Torah scrolls were found, with slight differences due to copying errors. How to tell which is best? If a passage said something in two of them, they believed that over the different one. You yourself use similar decisionmaking to prefer one set of Bible manuscripts as being more authentic than another, when two differ.
---StrongAxe on 3/11/11


mona, the book of Enoch is excluded from the Holy Bible because it is not Holy Scripture and it is not from God. Just like dictionaries and encyclopedias are excluded from the Holy Bible because they are not Scripture and not from God.
---Eloy on 3/11/11


The Hebrew books were titled thousands of years before any unholy septuagint, also known as LXX, was composed. The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no preChristian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of NT-OT quotation, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text. What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 years after the death of Christ.
---Eloy on 3/11/11


I have often wondered about those books and I still believe that there is much to learn concerning them, I don't for one moment believe that the bible as we know it is complete, yes for salvation.

I believe that we will someday get to know what really happened to the story based on the understanding of those who allowed some books to be available not others not!
---Carla on 3/11/11


Send a Free Holiday Ecard


Eloy:

Considering that the Seuptuagint is ITSELF a translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and agrees with the Mastoretic text for the most part (easily 90%+), it is incredibly misleading to say it has zero relationship to Holy Scripture from God,

The Talmud is not inspired, but it IS a record of writings, commentaries, observations, rulings, etc. by Rabbis throughout the ages. In this vein, it should be treated on par with other books of history and law.

Do you believe there was a person called George Washington? If so, why? He is attested to in history books - but those are NOT inspired scriptures. Yet we believe them, and accept them for what they are - fallible (yet reasonably accurate) records of what went before.
---StrongAxe on 3/11/11


Talmud is lie, for it is not the Holy Scripture. Likewise for all unholy writings like the septuagint, the apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the mythologies, the fables, the stories, all writings which have zero relationship to Holy Scripture from God. I follow God's Word only, and not any postings from wikipedias, encyclopedias, dictionaries, commentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, books, pamphlets, posters, comic books, etc. Lets get back to the Holy Bible people, and get back to the Truth. The fool puts their faith in talmuds, traditions, websites, and books from man, rather than the Holy Bible. No faithful synagogue promotes 3 variant Torah's, but only one. Get back to the Holy Bible people, and get back to the Truth.
---Eloy on 3/11/11


Eloy:

If you look up the Wikipedia article about Masoretic Text, it describes the Talmudic story about the three torah scrolls. Also, right next to this story is an image that shows the tree of how different versions of the Torah evolved, with the Septaguint (LXX) version on the left side of the tree, the Masoretic Text (MT) on the extreme right, and other documents that have been found in other places.

If you google three-torah-scrolls second-temple there are also other articles about this.

(By the way, "still more untruth" is an accusation without proof. If you want people to believe you about historical facts, you need to provide corroboration, not merely your own word on something.)
---StrongAxe on 3/11/11


One of the oldesest tricks of the enemy is to introduce "another" Bible, "this one is New and Improved", "this one is better", "this one is older", "you will like this one more", "try this one, God knows you will be equal to him if you try some of this", "look, this one is shinier", "look, this one will make you the master", "here, have this one, it's free", "go ahead try this one instead", etc. etc. When you already posses the worthy and reliable and proven Truth, then you do not need any other in its place, and especially not an inferior and corrupted nonInspired writing from unregenerate clay.
---Eloy on 3/11/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


One of the oldest tricks of the enemy is to introduce "another" Bible, "this one is New and Improved", "this one is better", "this one is older", "you will like this one more", "try this one, God knows you will be equal to him if you try some of this", "look, this one is shinier", "look, this one will make you the master", "here, have this one, it's free", "go ahead try this one instead", etc. etc. When you already posses the worthy and reliable and proven Truth, then you do not need any other in its place, and especially not an inferior and corrupted nonInspired writing from unregenerate clay.
---Eloy on 3/11/11


cluny, still more untruth.
---Eloy on 3/10/11


What would Eloy say if he were told that there were THREE variant texts of the Torah kept in the Second Temple?
---Cluny on 3/10/11


Eloy:

Many New Testament quotations from the Old Testament agree with the Septuagint and differ slightly from the Masoretic Hebrew. The earliest Masoretic texts we have date from the 9th century A.D., your Aleppo codex from the 10th.

Yet is it VERY curious that among the various Hebrew manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Qumran, dated to the first century B.C., were some Hebrew scriptures whose readings varied from the Masoretic - and AGREED with both the New Testament and the Septuagint. This means there were Hebrew scriptures that both Septuagint and Jesus used that were CLOSER TO THE ORIGINALS than the Masoretic text we currently use.
---StrongAxe on 3/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Actually, Eloy, the Hebrew books were originally NOT given titles, but were simply known by their initial words.

And they did not exist "thousands" of years before the LXX.

And what is unholy about it, since it was translated by Jews before Christ?

BTW--I thought you weren't going to reply to my messages any more.

But I guess I should not expect better of sinuous unsaved dissing clay with no light in him.
---Cluny on 3/10/11


Cluny, untrue again. The Hebrew books were titled thousands of years before any unholy septuagint, also known as LXX, was composed. The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no preChristian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of NT-OT quotation, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text. What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 years after the death of Christ.
---Eloy on 3/10/11


The division into 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings is a convention that has existed only since the LXX, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into a language that used vowels, which made the division necessary.

Obviously, Samuel could not have written the entire book, right?
---Cluny on 3/10/11


I dont suppose you can give specific examples quoting the book of Enoch vs Biblical texts can you, Eloy?
---CraigA on 3/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


cluny, not true. For the books which I have listed are straight from the original Hebrew Bible that I have, the Jerusalem Crown which is taken directly from the Aleppo Codex.
---Eloy on 3/9/11


Cluny:

Actually, in the online Hebrew Bible I had (that came from a Jewish publisher), the books ARE separated out - they are called Shmuel Aleph, Shmuel Beth, Melachim Aleph, Melachim Beth.
---StrongAxe on 3/10/11


\\I Samuel, II Samuel, I Melechim, II Melechim,\\

Eloy, do you realize that I & 2 Samuel are ONE book in Hebrew?

Likewise with 1 & 2 Kings.

Probably not.
---Cluny on 3/9/11


Hebrew Old Testament: Beginning, Names, Called, Isolation, Words, Yehoshua, Sophtim, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Melechim, II Melechim, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkiel, Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obadiah, Yonah, Michah, Nachum, Habakkuk, Xephaniah, Heggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Praises, Proverbs, Iyob, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Kohelet, Esther, Danyal, Ezra, Nechemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles:
Greek New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation.
---Eloy on 3/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Eloy?

What are the contradictions against scripture that come from the book of Enoch?
---CraigA on 3/9/11


What the contradictions in the book of Enoch?
---CraigA on 3/8/11


Saying a book is spurious because it contradicts Holy Scripture is circular reasoning: it presupposes that that the other book is Holy Scripture - yet what criteria were originally used to determine THAT book itself was scripture and not spurious?

If you say "because they were accepted as such by some council hundreds of years ago", that places the decision on traditions of men (that one must accept at face value without question), yet you seem to disdain such traditions when it comes to translation, etc.
---StrongAxe on 3/8/11


Peter the book of Enoch is a part of the body of writings called the pseudepigrapha. Pseudepigrapha are writings written by a person whom fraudulently ascribes their writing to a deceased Biblical patriarch. Yes, I have read the pseudepigraphas and the apocrypha and they are clearly not from God, they contain many falsehoods, and their content contradicts the content of the Holy Scripture. Again, get back to the Holy Bible people, and get back to the proven truth.
---Eloy on 3/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Eloy:

What objective criteria do you use to determine whether a specific writing IS from God or not? One that applies to every book in the Bible we currently use, but to no others?
---StrongAxe on 3/8/11


Eloy: 'already proven to be unholy'.

Eloy: Have you read and understood the proof that it is not holy? Or do you jus assume that if it is not in the Bible, it is not holy.

The first is a 'good' proof' The second is 'prrof by faith in others' - it is acceptable, but not a complete proof that YOU KNOW OF.
---Peter on 3/8/11


The truth of who fallen angels are and what they did to humanity doesnt save anyone. All it can do is educate the believers on how satan has tried to thrawt Gods plan from the beginning.

The truth of Enochs writing wont help the lost world. Theyll never believe it to begin with. They have rejected Jesus Christ therefore the Spirit of God does not reside IN them to help them understand that the book of Enoch is true as well. They are under the great delusion of satan believing in UFOs from other worlds.
---Jasheradan on 3/8/11


When a writing is not from God, it is not from God. period. Do not waist any time with writings already proven to be unholy, and no part of the Holy Scripture. Get back the Holy Bible people, and get back to the truth.
---Eloy on 3/7/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


I believe that it does contain vital information on salvation. That vital information is knowing the characteristics of fallen angels and their mission on earth.
---tonne on 3/6/11


Enoch was the only one in that tribe that walked with God
---mona on 3/4/11


Has anyone read The Book of Watchers?
---tonne on 3/3/11


Because the book of Enoch doesnt contain vital information concerning salvation. That doesnt mean that events recorded in it arent true.

The Bible makes mention of many other books that contain information of events that were only briefly mentioned in scripture.

Strangly, some of the books that were omitted contain bits a pieces of information that would help us understand the origins of mysteries such as UFO's, greek mythology and witchcraft.
---CraigA on 3/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Although the book is not part of Scriptures for most, it need not to be rejected as heretical, but worth reading.
In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 3/1/11

I agree!

Be aware Ignatius is speaking about the "1st book of Enoch". There are a few versions written much later by the Gnostics. So it can get confusing if you go to a bookstore.

Also, there is the orginal version of Enoch that has been found in The Dead Sea Scroll. It is in the orginal Aramaic(which the Ethiopic version was likely copied from) and has nearly all 5 books contained in Enoch.

Also they found another book in the DSS call "The Book of Giants". And some other fragments not contained in the Ethiopic version.
---John on 3/2/11


more excellent way knows nothing about Ethiopian Christianity.
---Cluny on 3/2/11


you are using terms incorrectly,
---Blogger9211 on 3/2/11

Thank you, I stand corrected.
---Mark_Eaton on 3/2/11


It is not Holy Scripture, and the source is not inspired or spoken from God: just like dictionaries and encyclopedias are also not Holy Scripture, and their source is not inspired or spoken from God.
---Eloy on 3/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Mark Eaton, you are using terms incorrectly, pseudepigrapha means a false writing where pseudepigraphic means false authorship.
---Blogger9211 on 3/2/11


Most of the Books in the Bible does not state it's authorship. Everything is based upon tradition. The canonization of the Bible is not as cut-and-dried as most here want us to believe.

Although the book itself was not treated as Scripture by most of the Ancient Fathers/Jews, it was still preserved by the Ancient Jews (some even considered it to be Scriptures) and Early Christians. The book itself preserved some valid ancient Jewish traditions (which is why both Saint Peter alluded to one of it's content, and Saint Jude quoted from it). BTW, the book is consider Scripture by the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. Although the book is not part of Scriptures for most, it need not to be rejected as heretical, but worth reading.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 3/1/11


The "Book of Enoch" is a pseudepigrapha, which means the true authorship of the work is not known and it is attributed to Enoch but cannot be proven to be written by Enoch. Therefore, without substantiated authorship, the work will not be included.


---Mark_Eaton on 3/1/11


Ethiopian "Christianity" is based on Hebrew belief (check "Incident at Antioch" 50 A.D. wikipedia).

In scripture, the Hebrew Christians were taught "milk".

1 Corinthians 3:2
"I fed you with milk, not solid food....AND EVEN YET YOU ARE NOT READY".

Hebrews 5:14
"solid food is for the mature".

Growing to "maturity" in Jesus using the JESUS scriptures ("doctrine of Christ") and a "faith for faith" allows us to have GOD IN ENTIRETY.

2 John 1:9
"he who abides in the doctrine has BOTH the Father AND the Son" (the O.T. devotion was ONLY to the father...the son had not come yet).
---more_excellent_way on 3/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


It was close,VERY CLOSE. It seems to have been considered scripture by some durng the time of Christ. It was one of the most popular books at that time.

The book was also quoted in The Letter of Jude along with the "Assumption of Moses".
---John on 3/1/11


The Ethiopian 'Chritians DO include it in the version of the Bible they have received.
---Cluny on 3/1/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.