• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Apocrypha and Book of Enoch?

D

DeathIsNotTheEnd

Member
Real Person
Male
Ok so, open ended topic here.

I have not done a ton of research on this myself, but I am curious.

What's the deal with the apocryphal books?
I know why, historically, they were omitted, and why, theoretically, they are excluded from current Protestant-branch Scripture accumulations, but...
Then I also know that the current church teaches a whole mess of stuff that is just outright nonsense with plenty twistings of the Scripture even THEY support!

So I'm feeling...uncertain.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?
 
No thoughts from me. I’m sticking with they have historical value but are not equal to the Bible (66 books) for now.

This topic is way down on the bottom of the long list of topics I need to nail down first...
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’d definitely suggest Book of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees. Josephus also if you have plenty of time. Jubilees is the shortest, followed by Jasher then Book of Enoch.
Click to expand...

So, Enoch I am specifically curious what to think about. I seem to remember hearing that it directly contradicts some Biblical principles although I forget which. But I also know that a lot of modern ideas of the War in Heaven and stuff are largely based on it...
 
EternalDreamer said:
So, Enoch I am specifically curious what to think about. I seem to remember hearing that it directly contradicts some Biblical principles although I forget which. But I also know that a lot of modern ideas of the War in Heaven and stuff are largely based on it...
Click to expand...

These are the argument for it contradiction. Not my list but one I found.
  • 1:1 Implies restoration during tribulation - not congruent with scriptures.

  • 1:8 In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross. Also, in the last days tribulation will increase for the righteous - this "verse" seems to dispute that.

  • 2:2-3 Appears to contradict 2 Pet 3:3-7

  • 5:4 Is an admonition to some unknown party - this is very irregular relative to the scriptures (i.e. authentic ancient writings by God-fearing Jews)

  • 6:3 Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural

  • 6:3,8 None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible

  • 8:1 Azazel isn't even listed in 6:8 as one of the angels that fornicated with women

  • 8:3 Araqiel and Shamsiel aren't listed in 6:8 either

  • 10:2 Enoch allegedly wrote about Noah, even though the Bible teaches that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.

  • 10:4-6,12 Implies angels can be bound & hid in holes under rocks. This is contrary to scripture.

  • 10:8 Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural.

  • 10:15-11:2 Seems to imply that permanent restoration took place after the flood - clearly not true. It seems the true author of this book confused scriptures pertaining to the future restoration.

  • 13:5-6,14:4-5,7 Implies fallen angels can't talk to God - this contradicts Job. Also implies that angels were repentant, but weren't received back by God - very strange doctrine.

  • 14 Gives a very strange description of Heaven that conflicts with many scriptures

  • 15:8-10 Very strange doctrine about "evil spirits" proceeding from unredeemable giants

  • 17-18,21,23 Gives a very strange description of the earth & universe which is clearly not true. Also alludes to the ancient model of astronomy that held that there were 7 stars (the closest planets) which burned like the sun (they don't.)

  • 19:3 Discredits all other prophecy about the consumation of the ages.

  • 20 Lists strange angels not in scripture, and incorrectly assigns the roles of Michael (the warrior) and Gabriel (the messenger)

  • 21:7-10 Seems to contradict Biblical descriptions of the present & final judgement places for the fallen angels

  • 22 Contradicts the Biblical descriptions of past, present & future dwelling places for the righteous who die

  • 32:2-6 Seems to imply the Garden of Eden was still in existance after the Flood

  • 33:1-2 Says Heaven rests on a foundation that is at the Eastern edge of the earth

  • 33:3 He claims he counted the stars & individually mapped them, which is impossible scripturally (& scientifically)

  • 34 Says the winds come out of a "portal" at the Northern edge of the earth

  • 36:3 Says the stars come out of portals at the Eastern edge of the earth & move West

  • 38:5-6 Contradicts Daniel & other prophecies about the Mellinial Reign

  • 39:1-2 Very strange implications here about the "seed" of angels dwelling with men at the end... this contradicts the scriptures

  • 40:7 Talks about the "Satans" - plural, different than the Bible, who gives that name to only one fallen angel. Also, implies Satan can't stand in God's presence, contrary to Job.

  • 40:9 Once again mixes up the roles of the 2 Archangels & adds more names in. Michael's role in scripture is related to conquoring nations & fighting spiritual wars, while Gabriel's relates to bringing messages & visions to people.

  • 41:1-2 Says the Kingdom of God is divided - it's not & can't be scripturally. Also describes sinners being repelled from a mansion, which is also not scriptural, unless you look at a parable Jesus told, which was not intended to be literal.

  • 41:4-5 Says the sun, moon, winds, etc. are stored in chambers & released at appointed times.

  • 41:6-7 Implies the sun & moon move opposite of each other

  • 43:1-3,44 Very weird model of the nature of stars & lightning

  • 47:4 Says God requires the blood of the saints... very strange

  • 51:1 Says Sheol & Hell will give back to the earth, which isn't scriptural - also Hell is a NT term, not OT

  • 51:2 Disputes the Biblical doctrine that we are chosen. (We don't have to wait until Christ's return to be chosen.) This isn't scriptural.

  • General: Seems to imply Enoch came back down to earth after being taken up to Heaven, which is not scriptural
 
James R. Brayshaw has done a lot of serious study, and authored a few books. Some of his work touches on the apocrypha and Book of Enoch.
We found them very thought provoking, and well researched. It is hard to argue with scripture, and he does a good job of harmonizing the texts of the scriptures and the apostolic writings as he calls the new testament. Not by throwing anything out, but by digging into how the original texts read, and how those words were understood.
If you look at his stuff on you tube he often offers digital copies of some of his books for free.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’d suggest you read them with a filter and decide for yourself. IMO some have entertainment value and not much else. Others are thought provoking if nothing else.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was about to say. Read them to find out.

However, I would start with the standard apocrypha, ie those books that appear in the Catholic or Orthodox bibles. These books are the most credible and have the most historical acceptance.

After that, look at Enoch, and then on down the list until you get to those books with the least broad acceptance like Jasher etc. If you are still interested, there's no need to go that far, just read new books until you feel you should stop.
 
Broadening your perspective by reading these and other books doesnt mean that you necessarily accept or believe everything in them, it simply means you are exercising a Biblical principle.

Proverbs 18:1. Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.

Hebrews 5:14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1 Corinthians 11:18 & 19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 Timothy 2:15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

Christianity is not supposed to be a clean room of sterilized and approved dogma, but one of desire to know more about Him, about His-story and how everything works together. The process is supposed to cause one to examine everything and exercise their senses to discern between both good and evil. What better way than to examine documents that may or may not have scribal or translator bias and filter them through Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit?

I have been pleasantly surprised to watch baby Christians with no (or little) exposure to doctrine, make the right conclusions and reject wrong “doctrine” without being able to explain exactly how they knew that it was right. Conversely, I have seen seasoned saints dogmatically assert something to be true simply because someone else said it was so.


I have found that my reading thru some of these books, actually caused me to study the Bible more than I normally did. Sometimes I found precepts in them that I believe do not match with my understanding of Scripture, and sometimes I found precepts in them that are not contradicted by Scripture, but rather expose ignorance and assumptions passed down by presumably well meaning men.

IMO, the results of reading these has been a net gain in my understanding of Scripture, though sometimes the gain has come in opposition to what they claim.
 
Arguments like these though:
  • None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible
  • Very strange doctrine
and much of the list are quite unconvincing. The list says more about the compilers biases and misunderstandings about scripture than it does Enoch.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I had to examine my own bias’
Click to expand...

The biggest one for all of us will be the Protestant bias. It's not in our cannon so it can't be scripture, otherwise we'd have to admit the Catholics were right about something, may it never be.

A lot of that list was just hunting for excuses to dismiss it and ends up making bad arguments.
 
rockfox said:
The Jews excluded a lot that we still consider cannon.

I wouldn't be quick to throw out anything that is in any of the cannons. And even if not scripture, I'd certainly consider them more worthy for study than modern works of men.
Click to expand...
Of course, but we accept the Old Testament wholly from the Jews. There isn't a "christian" Old Testament. Obviously I wouldn't accept there commentary on the New Testament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top