jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (80 posts)

Book of Enoch

  1. profile image0
    Audreveaposted 7 years ago

    Any thoughts about the Book of Enoch? I've just started reading - the angels who came to earth and procreated with human women are in big trouble and I've just read pages and pages on the horrible punishment God has in store for them.

    Does anyone have a good knowledge of this text? I'm getting through it but I'm stil a bit lost.

    Why did the angelic/human union produce giants -and why were they bent on destruction? Why was the punishment of the angels so severe?

    1. profile image0
      SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Did you know this book was written approximately 4000 to 5000 years after Enoch lived?

      1. kess profile image60
        kessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you know that neither Jesus nor the Apostles had nor have a problem with it?

        And it is one among many others they referenced?

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The book of enoch was a big seller and a problem to the early church. The passages in 2peter and jude are not quotations, but summaries. Both these verses contradict doctrine and are in the same area as false teachings in these books. The fact that more of enoch is not portrayed or quoted in the bible shows a certain distain toward it. There are lots of contradictions to canonized bible books. If you are to include enoch you really have to get off the fence and decide if you believe in the canonized 66 book bible or the catholic bible of 72 books.
          If you can believe that spirit bodies are capable of the sex act or that spirit minded creatures even think of sex, having no sexual parts or hormones, nor puberty or angel sperm in angel nutsacks or angel ovaries.. then chances are catholicism is where you may be most comfortable.
          Keeping in mind jesus never mentioned anything from the book of enoch and enoch did not write the book of enoch. psuedopigrapha means written by another, this is the practice where "pen names" used by authors originated from. A university student most probably wrote enoch for a class project, between 300bc and 100ad.

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            One thing I really like about you is your bluntness. wink

          2. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Am astounded at the tunnel vision.
            Enoch's writing is in Torah and Talmud -you know- where 95% of all 'biblical scripture' generated.

            Notable notes for 100 please, Alex: The spirit of the Lord conceived a child in the virgin womb of one woman, Mary of the line of David cared for and known by a man of flesh, Joseph, of the line of David through a woman, by the messenger Gabriel.


            It was Moses who wrote also of the these angels, who came to the daughters of men and why the flood actually occurred. Also Enoch -grandfather of Noah, 5th generation grandson of Adam, the first man, spoke of it.

            Just because the 'KJV, NIV or some other V omits it, doesn't make it false -it makes it false to that -and I do quote you- doctrine. There is no contradiction in Peter or Jude statements. If they are, why were they included in the present version? Did someone make a spiritual 'oopsy'?

            Do you know what is even more odd, is the believing who so forcefully push 'old testament' quotes, miss 99% of those expressions actual meaning. Ah, that fuzzy feeling. Why is that? Selective doctrine?  Yup, fancy Jews, indeed. Only thing missing is a golden staff and a priests garment -oh wait, there is a doctrine that has that. My bad.

            1. Deaconess profile image59
              Deaconessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Enoch is not part of the Jewish Torah. As someone else said, it is a story passed down through oral tradition, that got written down, but was not part of the Jewish cannon. It is more of "midrash" like the stories of Lilith (one version of which I have published a hub about, titled East of Eden.) Midrash is not considered true scripture... but more of an exploration of "possibilities."

          3. profile image60
            alpacoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            to brotherochanan you obviousley dont know about jewish tradition the book of enoch was passed down orally and it was a written book,if you read the book you will find out he gave the books he wrote to his children who passed them to Noah and were passed down and the jewish people have these books. so I dont know where you got you info but from what ive learned youre wrong and why would Jude quote it if they werent aware of it? sorry Im so blunt but I personally love the book. a man that never died and Yashua took to heaven is a man I think we should listen to
            God bless you Al

      2. Hub Llama profile image82
        Hub Llamaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think that you have to wait for writing to be invented in order to have a book written.

      3. profile image0
        Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I know - those texts seem to have been passed along and transcribed into a number of different languages (from one of the Semitic languages into Koine Greek into Ethiopian (there's a name for the specific language, but I'd have to look it up) etc.

        Oral traditions are pretty good at passing down the main tenets of stories core to their cultural foundation, so I don't rule it out on that basis.

        There's a lot of repetition in there too - so certain sections are obviously important or favourites to be emphasised.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Chapter 40:9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’

          No where in the Bible is the name Phanuel mentioned except in Luke 2:36  And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

          Of course then you have the problem with an angel being the one who is set over the repentance of men. Jesus is the only one who is over repetance and only through Him can one be saved. 

          This is simply one thing that is wrong with the book of Enoch.

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It's not in the Bible because the stuff was taken out.

            We have Angels that help us keep going.

            Do you know, you're not saved till you endure till the end?
            That's in the Bible you believe in.

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Do you know you can't be saved until you repent, accept Jesus as your Savior and believe that God raised Him from the dead?

            2. profile image0
              SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              Prigin of the species is not in the Bible either. Does that mean it was removed by the church?

              1. profile image0
                Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not here to debate with you.
                Please feel free to believe the way you wish.
                If you disagree, start another hub about it. and see the rules

                1. profile image0
                  SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  So be it.

            3. hgbotoe profile image59
              hgbotoeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              A person can ONLY be saved by accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior and believing that He arose from the grave NOT by 'enduring to the end'.

      4. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If the false Apostle Paul didn't write it, most "Christians" don't believe it.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          A question for you.

          Have you kept every commandemnt from the time of your birth?

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Now, what has this got to do with anything?

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You called Paul a false apostle. It has everything to do with that statement.

    2. profile image59
      bobcat1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Angels are here to protect us. the fallen angels are demons and  are  here to destroy us angels try to help us do Gods will and the demons are here to sway us away from God. We all have free will and God does not want you to be forced to love him but to be loved as your own choice.  Enoch chose to walk with God and was taken to be with him the devil and his demons work real hard to keep us from loving and being  with God ! the devil has no power  over God but through our weaknesses and   deception he can keep us from being with God

  2. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    Fallen angels mixed with human flesh created humans that were huge giants. I think it was the mixture of the two that caused them to be mighty. It could also be so that people would recognize them as such because of what was written in Genesis 3:15 (see below)

    God had promised to bring salvation through Abraham's seed and that it would come through a woman.
    The angels were Fallen angels, so it's believed they did this to either stop Christ's birth or so that one of them could become part of Abraham's seed. At the same time, it does say the angels saw that the daughters of man were fair.

    This is why the Giants (Children of angels and human women) were destroyed, because they could have become a part of Abraham's seed.

    The fallen angels were punished because of their true intentions and so they wouldn't try it again.

    It was stated this would happen in Genesis 3:15
    And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
    thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
    bruise his heel.

    In Corinthians of the KJV of the Bible, it instructs women to cover their head during prayer because of the angels (meaning what they did in Genesis)

    1 Corinthians 11:10 says  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

    1. profile image0
      Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Deborah.   On the face of it, it seemed very harsh but makes more sense in the context of the OT. 

      Why were the giants 'bad' though? Is it simply that only bad things can come from angels misbehaving in this way? In the Book of Enoch they're seen as destructive and the cause of bloodshed. I don't really understand this.

      Enoch also says that the angels taught humanity secret knowledge, including about the use of metals. I found that really interesting.

      Is the old fashioned thing about covering your head in Church connected to the fall of the angels? That sounds like women being blamed again as seductresses (a bit like Eve and the forbidden fruit).

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The Giants were very mean. They fell on people to kill them. There are hints that they actually ate people.
        They always made war against others.

        The Book of Enoch is from the  ancient Jewish religion as the work of Enoch. Scholars state that the section called "The Book of Watchers" is from about 300 BC.
        1 Enoch 1:9 is quoted in the New Testement in Jude 1: 14-15

    2. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So you believe that angels are either male or female? because jesus said they are NOT. Yet they have spiritual bodies. Now if genitalia is ascribed to anything it automatically falls under the category of a male or a female. Since the angels that mated with the DAUGHTERS of men had to be male.. then they would have had to have penis', testicles, sperm, hormones, blood flow and a mind for sex and a drive to procreate.
      I submit that angels have none of these things.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree wi#th BC here. Angels are spirit beings and therefore have no DNA, so a human/angle hybrid is impossible. Now thatt he full human genome has been mapped, when has anyone ever seen a breaking news story telling us that there is a sub-species of homo sapiens with some strange DNA in it, somehow angelic perhaps.

        Jesis said that after the resurection, we will be like the angels - not marrying. Seeing as procreation was considered a faux pas before marriage, we can conclude from His statement that angles do not posses the required bioilogical equipment to make babies.

        Now there is a group of oddballs on Hubpages who like to indulge in succubus and incubus activites, that is having full carnal knowledge with angels/demons. But even these guys acknowledge that angles cannot reproduce with humans because they have no material DNA/Sperm/Eggs. So while sex with and angel may be possible, babies with one is not.

        So we may understand that prior to the flood some angles had sex with humans and were punished by God. We can conclude that no giants resulted from them.

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think it has more to do with the ability to enter this plane of existence and interact with the woman... and certainly taking form would be possible.

        Than they as a spirit being having genatalia... I think they entered this plane and took form... sleeping with the daughters of man, they breed beasts of men into this world. Which were subsequently made to destroy one another and their bodies crushed into the stone of the earth etc...

        And we know thier sires were slain and condemned to the winds... thus human emotions... and the refrences to the spirits of the winds... of course we also know that in the exodus from egypt God commanded the Israelites to oofer sacrafice to the lord of the wilderness, Azazel.

        So it is all inter-linked and I believe a valid book of the testament of the Lord.

  3. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Wow, I gotta check this out!

    1. profile image0
      Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's so interesting, Habee.

      Enoch says that the angels (who were in deep trouble already) sent him into the higher realms to plead their case before God. God tells Enoch to pass on to the fallen ones that it was their job to intercede on behalf of humanity, not the other way around.

      Imagine being on the receiving end of *that* message.

  4. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    It is a fantastic book.
    Why it is often overlooked in an odd thing.
    Here is the great x 4 grandson of the first man, who was still alive when Enoch was here. Father of Methu`selah and Noah's great grandpa. talk about a time to be alive. Imagine what Adam told him about the 'garden' and the events thereafter. My question is -what moved him to such a point that he escaped the sin/death consciousness...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Fantastic is the word all right. wink

    2. Wayne Tilden profile image60
      Wayne Tildenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Noah's generation was the first generation after the death of Adam. The earth was wicked due to not having the first-hand knowledge of the fall. What we don't know about Enoch is that he was such a godly person that he "walked with God then he was no more" the supposition being that God took him directly to Heaven as He did with Elijah and, presumedly, Moses.

      The writings of and about these pre-patriarchal men and their activities are suspect only because of their much later authorship. The only biblically acceptable book of this era would be the book of Job.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wayne, thanks. There are many non-biblical references, including Talmud & Torah. Just a heads up, Noah was Enoch's great grandson. Enoch was Adam's great-great-great-great grandson. Adam was alive until he birth of Noah. Noah's generation was the flood generation. 120 years after Noah came the flood. Fulfilling this: "a man shall be 120 years". Job is accepted to exist in the time of Adam to Noah, which puts him in the Enoch generation... The earth was wicked due to having exactly that, first hand knowledge. The knowledge of good/evil. This is sin at its core: the desire to know the difference between good/evil aka the human consciousness.

  5. profile image0
    Audreveaposted 7 years ago

    I am drawn to know the texts that didn't make it into the Bible. I don't like that feeling that I'm only being told half the story. If there are additional texts available, I want to read them them and decide for myself.

    I wonder what the Vatican has tucked away in their big library?

    1. Pandoras Box profile image82
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Keep reading..

  6. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    Many books were intentionally left out of the Bible, but can still be found today.
    Jasher was found with all the other writings.
    I know it's a real book of scripture because the Old Testament mentions the Book of Jasher

    Joshua 10:13 "Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"

    2 Samuel 1:18 "Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."

    You might be able to find the Book of Jasher online

    The Book Of Jasher mentions Enoch many times.
    Read chapters 3 and 4

    1. profile image0
      Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I've added it to my list! I actually found it online fairly easily, but a nice bound copy might be a more comfortable read.  It is in print.

      Seriously, I'm going to have to live 'til 350 in order to get through everything I want to read.

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi
        Yes, it's in print. I have one.
        Amazing how most don't notice this is the O.T.

        1. profile image0
          Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There's NT apocrypha as well. I haven't even started on that yet.

          I'm just realising how little I actually know about Judaism also. It's one of those things you take for granted that you vaguely understand and then when you stop to think about it - nope, nothing there.

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think I will make a Hub on all the books written about in the Bible. They are mentioning them and teaching out of them in the O.T.
            But why weren't they included??? We'll find out.

            1. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              They were not included because they contradict bible truths, Authenticity and flow. I've read them all and i do not understand how anyone can be decieved by the content in these books. The lost books of adam and eve would be hillarious if it weren't so UNhillarious. God says the bible is his word, no OT and NT.. just one book his word. Canonization was overshadowed by god to form his word. Books were not added, except by the catholic church and we know how accurate they are to the word of god. At any rate the canonization process is closed, books omitted and we are not to add to gods word. This means adopting books and using them for doctrine, not just adding words to the already written bible. If you believe the bible, 66 books was inspired by god then you have no choice to accept that enoch is out of the picture.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Bible mentions several other books.   Apparently for the simple reason of showing how the Bible's words are backed up by other historical or prophetic writings.   It doesn't mean that the entirety of those other books are Gospel!

      1. profile image0
        Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why was this specific series of texts (Enoch) removed from inclusion in the Bible? Do we know why they decided it wasn't to be included?

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, I don't know why they decided it.
          But I understand why God did it.

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Why God did what?

        2. profile image60
          alpacoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          they were afraid the book of Enoch would scare people because of the fallen Angels had sex with people. and for bro chanon the early church did have the book of Enoch and other books that didnt make it. they were later decided not to be put in the canon and like Deborah says the bible itself says that isnt it written in the book of Jasher and so on there are a few books that didnt make it but the fact that theyre in the bible tells you the jews had them!!!!!

  7. sabrebIade profile image83
    sabrebIadeposted 7 years ago

    Really it depends on which church you are in .

    The Roman Catholic Church recognizes Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Greek Additions to Esther, The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.

    The Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches recognize 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151

    The Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize 2 Esdras

    The Georgian Church recognizes 4 Maccabees

    The Anglican Churches recognizes 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

    And the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea recognize The Book of Enoch.

    Even the King James Version of 1611 had a section called "Books called Apocrypha".
    So they thought enough of them to include them in the Bible at that time, even though they weren't part of the Old or New Testament.

  8. Daniel Carter profile image92
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    Song of Solomon is a pretty good example of a very secular text that was included in the Bible. Now I ask, if the Bible is so accurate about it's inclusions and messages, why is *that* book included in a book about God's law and salvation? And then, again, why were other *inspired* texts left out?

    It doesn't appear that God has as much control over these things as some would give him credit. It seems that if you really thirst for truth, however, you can find it.

    Not all about religion or the scriptures are as we are lead to believe, I think.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A good starting point may be the church of Rome or to get a broader understanding, Egyptology, (without the selective reading of course.) smile

    2. profile image0
      SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do you really believe the Song of Solomon is secular?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Only if one believes the Bible is the inspired word of God.

      2. Daniel Carter profile image92
        Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's about the sexual lovers and concubines of Solomon and their musings of their "king". No matter what verse you might find that holds some religious truth, the sexual overtones run the show in that book. There is NO new, or collaborative religious thought in that book.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not really. If you look closely you will see God and His love for His people.

          That is something you must be able to see for yourself. Sexual overtones are only in the mind of those who do not understand or have sex on their minds.

          1. Daniel Carter profile image92
            Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            To not see the sexual overtones would take an asexual person. It's like walking in a strip club and denying there is anything sexual about it.

            1. profile image0
              Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              yet humans are called to take on an asexual nature, yes?

              "it is good for a man to marry, lest he be consumed by desire...
              "He desire is to please his wife, yet not the Lord his Maker"...

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Might be true!  Most of the men I know are more afraid of displeasing their wives than God!

              2. Daniel Carter profile image92
                Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Becoming asexual, or pretending to be asexual pretty much defeats the Godly directive to "go forth and multiply and replenish the earth." I don't think that's what it's about.

                The point of the thread was about the apocraphyl scriptural writings and whether or not they are valid. My point is that there is at least one book in the Bible that is completely secular--Song of Solomon. The issue of sex in this book overshadows any religious or moral value, because the writers, on the whole, are lustful. That's not very inspired, is it?

                1. profile image0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It is highly inspired, but highly non-secular.
                  its inter can range from poetic expression of affection to the unity of the Creator with humans. Hence a parable.

                  The go forth concept was fulfilled even in Adamic to Abram timeline.
                  I see no connection between them, historically.

                  How does the writing suggest or justify a global sexual undertone?

                  1. Pandoras Box profile image82
                    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Makes no sense that sexual morality is to be based on the changing agenda of an out of this world unchanging being.

                  2. profile image0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I've heard it is about God's love for HIS people.
                    However, if it is sexual it is about sex with someone adored.
                    It may also be about Tantra.

                2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I too am surprised the Bible hasn't been edited more than it has.  Reading from those books which were cast out by editors under Constantine and others, you will find out why they were not included.  Even though it is prohibited by God to alter the original in any way, it has been done more than once.

              3. Pandoras Box profile image82
                Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Called? By whom? By Paul?

            2. Pandoras Box profile image82
              Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              What tied up naked lesbians?!! Look, mister, we're republicans..

          2. Pandoras Box profile image82
            Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh I am sure that it isn't anyone's purity of thought which 'reveals' this to them, it's just the standard explanation of the christian churches.

            Nice try, though, to claim glory for yourself which you neither merit nor obtain, while at the same time managing to cast shame onto any who disagree.

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              You seem to be following in the way if other atheists. Insults do nothing good for you.

              A child will sometimes bang his head on the wall many times until he realizes that it hurts.

    3. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is the problem with G/god ideologies -no one knows which name is running the show. I like Enoch, Elijah and Moses approach, the One who needs no name.  Humans are so insistent on title-ship and control that the most beautiful expressions of them become propaganda and the entire relevance of their design becomes a necessity to live by -rather than the living expression of their design.

      As for truth, 99.9% wouldn't know THE truth if it smacked them in the face. Of course they thirst, but when the water is given, they toss it over their shoulder because it doesn't taste they way THEY want it to.

      enoch got it and got it right. Perhaps the parables of his wirting should be read and understood -since he is the first recorded human being in all of literary history to escape the sin/death consciousness and be translated...

      ...just a thought...

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If enoch actually wrote a book it would be way different than the book of enoch we have today. I kinda doubt enoch knew how to write being as that was a priviledged ability not widely used at the time of enoch. Moses knew how to write but he was brought up by egyptians, 400 some odd years later.
        Safe to assume enoch nor adam nor methuselah wrote books and moses pretty much penned the first biblical papyrus.

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There are two works known as the Book of Enoch.
          Enoch 1 that contained the section known as the Book of Watchers in regard to fallen angels and the giants, which was one of causes of the great flood as well as various visions, astrological references and wisdom.The second contains mostly the narrative about Enoch, particularly his visit to heaven.

          Enoch, the Watchers, Jubilees and a few others were omitted from the Tanakh in the early 1-2nd centuries.

          PS, Methuselah, Enoch's son, was married to Edna, daughter of Azrial, chieftain/captain of one of the groups of guardian angels/watchers.

          don't forget, Adam was still alive when Enoch lived and died just before Noah who died just before Abram. The information would not be far off base.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            When the Catholic church omitted some books, one might have a reason to be suspect, but when Judaism ommited books, one would assume for very good reason. So why did Enoch get omitted?

            1. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lemme guess... for a very good reason

            2. profile image0
              Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Hi DH!
              From the Tanakh? I am not certain.
              More than likely, the same premise as Catholicism did.
              But, Babylonian Talmud has the 'lost books' in it.

  9. alternate poet profile image77
    alternate poetposted 7 years ago

    I like his his apparently wild stories - among other things that he was 'taken up' and transported far north where there were 'crystal trees' and then to somewhere that can be matched with Ireland.   He even explains how to make a calender - just like Stonehenge.

    I am running on what is written by others about him here so if I am inaccurate then somebody can come beat me

    1. profile image0
      Audreveaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There were crystal palaces for the angels described vividly but I don't remember the crystal trees. Maybe I'm not up to that yet.

  10. Daniel Carter profile image92
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    Just a final comment about this Song of Solomon thing.
    The book wreaks of lust and self indulgence. I don't find those Godly attributes.

    Sex is obviously not inherently bad despite the bad wrap it gets by most conservatives, however, it's pretty well understood that lust is not a good thing. And for those who are purists, it also talks about interracial sex, which is also very often a big taboo among conservative Christians. Even in Solomon's day, it was definitely a taboo since the Jews were not to co-mingle with gentiles. So the writing is an abomination even to Jewish law, from my understanding. After all, how many other stories are there about the Jews murdering lots of people--whole cities--because God said they were a bad influence on Jewish custom.

    My beef is not about anything else but what Christians preach as "pure" love of the word, and its place in religious teachings. Again, I reiterate, that I am not alone in thinking that Song of Solomon is a secular work which is a round peg trying to fit in a square hole in a work that supposedly teaches morality and God's word.

    So now I'm done. Interesting comments in this thread, most of which I don't agree. And that's perfectly fine.

  11. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    Enoch is the man... the Scribe of God.

    I wish I had that job.

    Many think he is one of the two final witnesses, along with Elijah.

  12. Ellyja profile image60
    Ellyjaposted 7 years ago

    A book entitled "Enoch" would be written about Enoch and his times, all clues to our past as God's children.  All scriptures are God's words. He is everything,  it is the truth that has been hidden from us to test our faith.  We spend too much time trying to figure things out than we do simply believing.  John the Baptist possesses the Spirit of Repentance, as did Elijah, they were one and the same, as the book of Luke mentions, as well as the account of the transfiguration.  John the Baptist baptized in repentance, Jesus Christ baptized in the Holy Spirit.  We need to pay attention to details in the Holy Bible, God's words are there for a reason.  His wisdom trumps our wisdom.

  13. profile image60
    Daewalkerposted 6 years ago

    As usual many argue scripture, verses, text and utterly lose
    the message of the whole, which is God is charge of all that
    exist and we shall answer to Him and be rewarded or punished
    according to what we do here on this earth but as usually we
    strain at a gnat and swallow a camel such is the misguided
    vain filled mind of mankind. These points that people argue over
    have nothing to do with the day of judgment which we all must
    individually face yet many are consumed on these minor points!!!

  14. profile image60
    Daewalkerposted 6 years ago

    Excuse me I did not know the message or gospel of Christ
    hinged on whether one believed in giants, the book of Enoch
    and other such things silly me I thought Christ message was
    we need to repent toward God for sin, breaking His law, through
    faith in Christ and baptism ,boy how wrong could I have been.
    I wonder how many call on the name of Enoch, the giants or
    others and are saved that is forgiven and spared from the
    horrible consequences of sin. Boy I guess I slept too much
    and the Bible scholars, experts and like got it right! I think
    not as Christ's message when boiled down is very simple and
    the giants are irrelevant to that bold message!!! God is in
    charge and God has the final say so, not anyone or anything
    else and that this is what is most important to know!

  15. profile image0
    just_curiousposted 6 years ago

    I started reading it once, but it was so far fetched that I couldn't see how it could be relevant to faith. I got bored very quickly and never finished it.

 
working