Eschatology in the book of Enoch (Gospel, hell, punishment, doctrine)

[svenM]

there have been a lot threads on universalism here, also the book of Enoch has often been mentioned here, the book of Enoch is said to have been used to spread the doctrine of hell, for it is the first book of Jewish background which apparently teaches this doctrine.

The book of Enoch however is similarly miserable translated as the normal bible as far as I can judge, it seems not self-consistent to me, some passages seem clearly teach to annihilation and has been understood in such manner by some ancient Jewish authorities as Maimonides e.g., other claim otherwise, it's interesting that some of the church fathers who were universalists as e.g. Clement of Alexandria and Origen considered this book inspired as far as I know though they were universalists.

I once examined the available Greek text of the book of Enoch and am interested in opinions.

for further information you can look here:

evangelicaluniversalist.com • View topic - the use of Aiôn in the apocryphal Book of Enoch

Liber Enoch Graece

History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution: Development of the Doctrine of Future Eternal Punishment

Mercy And Judgment by Canon F.W. Farrar

[hljc]

The book of enoch did not get in to the bible it was not present at the time of the cross of Jesus and Jesus did not quote on the book, Jesus quoted on all the books of the Old Testament. They rejected the book at the last canon assembly so the book is History to Christians. Lord God Said `` the book is to remain dead issue and not to read `` Do not read it it is a waste of time in the New Covenant of Christ and can cause confusion with the Holy Spirit.

[Fundamentalist]

Originally Posted by svenM

The book of Enoch however is similarly miserable translated as the normal bible as far as I can judge

Wow...over a thousand years of we thought we had the bible interpreted correctly by brilliant men who were given the gifts by God only for you to come along and say, we had it wrong all along.....Thank you

[plowman]

Originally Posted by hljc

The book of enoch did not get in to the bible it was not present at the time of the cross of Jesus

Friend,
What about the book of Jude? That's in the NT isn't it? Is it to be trusted? Doesn't Jude quote from Enoch?

[caucazhin]

Heres some very interesting info about the book of Enoch
http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

Start reading at the 2ND PARABLE CHAPTER 45-71 talk about a Messiah figure entitled
the "Son of Man" and the "Elect One" and these descriptions fit Jesus to a T
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm

And yes Jude did quote from the book of Enoch.............
JUDE
14 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
15 to judge everyone and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him"

[svenM]

Wow...over a thousand years of we thought we had the bible interpreted correctly by brilliant men who were given the gifts by God only for you to come along and say, we had it wrong all along.....Thank you

for about 500 - 600 years the New Testament was read in Greek, you might call it the original bible

then for about 1000 years the bible was read in Latin, the Latin bible is far more literal translated then the English bibles are

we're speaking about English (and German regarding me) bibles since the reformation which many of them are very poor translated as a matter of fact, if one translates plural as singular and vice versa and even omits several words, or translates one and the same word with several meanings without apparent system in a biased manner, I say this is no manner to translate the bible, as it has happened.

Concerning the book of Enoch, with a little knowledge of Greek, the diversion between the English translation (from the Ethiopic) and the Greek text is significant.

But tell me, who were that great men between 500 and 1500 AD, the Roman emperors or the Catholic popes?

The book of enoch did not get in to the bible it was not present at the time of the cross of Jesus and Jesus did not quote on the book, Jesus quoted on all the books of the Old Testament. They rejected the book at the last canon assembly so the book is History to Christians. Lord God Said `` the book is to remain dead issue and not to read `` Do not read it it is a waste of time in the New Covenant of Christ and can cause confusion with the Holy Spirit.

I agree basically with you, I'm interested in the book of Enoch though, for historical and "scholarly" reasons and also for language issues.

[ChristyGrl]

Originally Posted by svenM

But tell me, who were that great men between 500 and 1500 AD, the Roman emperors or the Catholic popes?

AWESOME....people never take the time to consider that this is where the bibles we have today came from. Only GOD can guide you into the TRUTH of what He intended us to really know.

[Enow]

Originally Posted by plowman

Friend,
What about the book of Jude? That's in the NT isn't it? Is it to be trusted? Doesn't Jude quote from Enoch?

The Book of Enoch could be a fraud and there is nothing to suggest that the writings were forged afterwards to quote from Jesus to make it look legit.

The scribes of the day would have valued the Book of Enoch as being the first one and only one thst survived the Flood, but it was not. Moses referred it now and neither the Jews in authority considered it scriptures. There are Jewish fables and of such we should discern if this be one of them or the fraudulant one.

Consider what is being written:

There are different levels of heaven and in it are those being tormented. There is even a special holding place for those acts of creation for rebelling against God for not appearing when He spoke them into being.

Confusion has arisen that angels mingled with the daughters of men and that their offsprings were demonic spirits. By this, they were considered giants in the earth.

Now, believers cannot ignore these writings to favour those quotes seemingly mirroring Jesus's words.

Indeed, by Jesus own words, He rebukes the Book of Enoch as a lie, for angels are not marrying nor given in marriage. If God joins male and female, then He would not join an angel to a woman for her to be called a wife. The sons of God were the lineage of Adam that led up to the nation of Israel for the point of Biblical reference for Israel.

Luke 3:38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Is it not strange how Job is mentioned both times to Satan while the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord? It is because Job was among them. Why mention someone that is not a son of God while they are presneting themselves to the Lord if they were angels?

God spoke and nothing can mingle with another kind to produce a different kind as in a cow with a horse, or a man with a cow. God word has established creation and set the borders thereof.

There is a celestial body and a terrestrial body. They are not the same and that is why Jesus said that angels are not marrying nor given in marriage.

Matthew 22:29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So how can angels marry then? They cannot. And certainly, God would not join a fallen angel to a woman in marriage either.

When God speaks, His word will accomplish what it has set out to do.

Isaiah 55: 10For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. 12For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

We would not have the assurance of our salvation if the devil can thwart God's spoken word or even parts of creation that was claimed by the Book of Enoch for not obeying His word in coming into being.

So this is why the Book of Enoch was left out: it was a fad for awhile, suckering believers because it mirrored the words of Jesus, but it was going against His words and the Bible as well.

Not everyone mentioned in the Bible was by a written reference. Moses inspired by the Holy Spirit gave accounts in Genesis: how was that done when there was no written scroll or account? Just because Enoch was referred in Jude, does not mean the writer was not inspired by the Holy Spirit as well in giving that account of his prophesy.

Was there ever a Book of Enoch? Not by the author himself... nope. There was no need for record keeping until Israel became a nation by which they had scribes and scholars to upkeep the Word of God.

All we know for sure is that the Bookd of Enoch is not the Word of God and does not hold any truths in them for believers to adhere to for their walk with the Lord.

1 John 2:21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Obviously, the Books of Enoch is a lie.

I rest in God's Words as being kept by the disciples that loved Him and His sayings in Antioch where the Textus Receptus documents came from which was used to translate for the King James Bible. We have all we need for the meat of His words to discern good and evil from them.

All other translations may hold the Gospel truth, but fails for the necessary meat of the word to reprove the works of darkness as some of the meaning of God's words were lost in translation.

All "lost" books excluded, do not have the flow of God's words to align with the accepted books of the Bible... as the "lost" books of Enoch has proven to be.

[svenM]

thanks @ Enow, I consider the book of Enoch also to have an evil spirit, it is however often used by "traditionalists" to support the doctrine of endless hell, therefore I have the interest to examine carefully if the book of Enoch even teaches it, but my language knowledge is actually too little but in any case I don't consider the book of Enoch to have the least authority.

[plowman]

If Enoch is "all a lie" then should Jude be in our Bible?
I'm a KJV fan, but I would also then ask, why don't we use the apocryphal books? The orig. KJV had them translated as did Luther.
We use the NT books given us by "guided men" as was written above. Who were these "guided men"? Oh, they were of the Church of Rome, Gasp! We'll accept their NT but not their old, we'll accept they rejected Enoch, but accepted Jude. Jude makes no sense apart from Enoch.
So my big question to my dear KJV friends (& don't get me wrong, I love the KJV dearly and it's the only English translation I use) but my question is how is it we will accept what the Catholics say concerning the NT but not the Old and if they were "guided men" in regards to the selection of the canon of scriptures do we then accept as "guided" their other decisions? Infant baptism? Baptism that is of a nonscriptural mode?

Have you ever read the book of Barnabas? I'm sure that got thrown out because of it's very plain description of the biblical mode of baptism.