|
Page 4 of 5 pages |
|
|
Excerpts from the Extra-Biblical Book of ENOCH, who even in the Bible, did not die -- but walked with God and Angels |
|
| The
Bible Story of ENOCH is told in Genesis in only a few verses as part of a
GENEALOGY given us of many Antidiluvian (Pre-Flood) patriarchs descended from
the Biblical Adam. There are two ENOCHs in this Pre-Flood lineup -- the one we are concerned with here was the son of JARED and grandfather of NOAH, Genesis 5:18 "And JARED lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat ENOCH: 19 "And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 20 "and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died. 21"And ENOCH lived sixty and five years, and begat Methusalah: -- 22 "And ENOCH walked with God after he begat Mathusalah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 23 "And all the days of ENOCH were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 "And ENOCH walked with God: and he was not, for GOD TOOK HIM." |
|
|
|
|
2 Books of “Enoch”: Ethiopian and Slavonic “Forbidden Books” that Survived a Major Boycott! Accusations Now Proved to be False about “Enoch,” and Why this Book Can and Should be Read in Modern Times. as told by Robert Holt Three major accusations have traditionally been made about the books that have been suppressed by the early church fathers of the first five centuries, and by the major church of Christianity that became, after the Emperor Constantine, the Roman Catholic Church. The first accusation is that they are “Apocryphal”, which means that they can be read by orthodox believers, but should not be held in the same esteem as the approved books, and are not really part of the Bible. The second is that some are “Pseudo-apocryphal”, books “made up” or “faked” by usually unknown authors who wished to make certain religious points, sometimes heretical, by very nearly quoting some of the approved books in the Bible, but long afterwards. And trying to make these books appear as if they were written in a much earlier age than they were indeed written. And the third reason for suppressing even the very oldest books that “didn’t make it” was that some were “Gnostic”. Gnosticism is a form of religion that promotes the idea that everyone is a “Child of God”, and equal in authority before God, and that authority figures have no real authority to tell the rest of us what to do. The Holy Spirit, according to Gnostics, can teach anyone what that person needs to know, leaving no need for ministers, priests, or popes. Of course, what became the Roman Catholic Church vigorously suppressed all Gnosticism, and for 1500 years or more it was virtually extinct. But Gnosticism has had a comeback in the New Age religions, partly because a lot of ancient Gnostic literature has been found in Nag Hammadi in Egypt, and elsewhere. The Book of Enoch is not “Gnostic”. It promotes One God as the only true God, and the authority vested in those special prophets and leaders chosen by God. The “Holy Spirit” has no major role in bypassing God’s authority through His chosen leaders in Enoch, although “Enoch” assumes that he himself is a major one of these prophets or leaders. But so do the other Old Testament figures, such as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and all the other major heroes and spokesmen for God in the Bible. The Book of Enoch was at one time thought to be “Pseudo-apocryphal” because what it teaches is so very close to what Christianity teaches. And “Enoch’s” claims are so nearly identical to Christ’s claims, that later Church fathers and the scholars who followed them though that some post-Christian author or authors had adapted earlier Christian writings. And made them appear to have been written by Enoch, the “seventh from Adam”, before the flood. It was not until a large number of copies of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls written in Aramaic, that it was definitely proved the Enoch was not “Pseudo-apocryphal”, but genuinely existed before the first century AD. This because the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden after 70 AD, and could not be changed. The Book of Enoch can indeed be called “Apocryphal” as presenting a different viewpoint from those emphasized in those books chosen to be in the Sacred Canon. Such books as The Books of the Maccabees, Judith, Ecclesticus, etc, are a part of Catholic Bibles and some versions of the Jewish Bibles, and are only missing in Protestant Bibles. Certainly something more is involved in the suppression and Cover Up of the Book of Enoch than is shown in the treatment of other “Apocryphal” Books. And indeed as I will show later, there has been a conspiracy by the early Church fathers, if not to burn or bury it, at least to say such bad things about it, so bad that after a while it was no longer copied. Except in Ethiopia, where it has always been a part of that version of the Bible. And in another much shorter version, now called the “Slavonic” version of “Enoch”. Father Milik, Dead Sea Scroll Scholar, and Catholic Priest, who Rescued “Enoch” Here I am quoting Elizabeth Claire Prophet, who decided to republish Enoch in the Summit University Press in an inexpensive, well-made edition that anyone can purchase. Page 61 and 62 of Prophet’s edition. “Then the twentieth-century discovery of several Aramaic Enoch texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls prompted Catholic scholar J. T. Milik to compile a complete history of the Enoch legends, including translations of the Aramaic manuscripts. Milik’s 400 page book, published in 1976 by Oxford, is a milestone in Enochian scholarship, and Milik himself is no doubt one of the world’s finest experts on the subject. His opinions, based as they are on years of in-depth research, are highly respected. Milik notes the obviously close interdependence of the story of the fallen angels in Enoch and the story of the “sons of God” in the Book of Genesis. But he does not draw the same conclusion as the Church Fathers, namely that the Book of Enoch misinterpreted the earlier Genesis account and was therefore irrelevant. Milik, rather, arrives at the surprising yet well-justified conclusion: that not only is the history of the fallen angels in Enoch older than Genesis 6 – but that Genesis 6 is in fact a direct summary of the earlier Enoch account. This is what Milik calls the “ineluctable solution”: it is Genesis 6 that is based on Enoch and not the other way around. Milik thinks that the text of Genesis 6, by its abridged and allusive formulation and direct quoting of two or three phrases of Enoch, must be the later of the two, making the Enoch legend earlier than the definitive chapters in Genesis. Milik has thus deftly turned the tables on the late Church Fathers who banned the records of the fallen angels mating with the daughters of men and who labeled Enoch’s teaching a heretical misrepresentation of Genesis 6. For if Genesis 6 was really based on the Book of Enoch, then obviously Genesis 6 is retelling the same event as Enoch: the lusting of the fallen angels after the daughters of men. Enoch’s account was in the Bible, right in the approved text of Genesis, all along. If Milik is right – and the evidence leans in his favor – then the criteria upon which the Church Fathers based their judgments against the Book of Enoch are fully invalidated and their testimony against Enoch is refuted. Their arguments have no ground. Enoch’s case must be reopened and retried.”
Adapa and Titi as "Adam and Eve"
|
|
|
|||
|
Enoch’s Fabulous Space Voyage as told in “Enoch 2”
|
|
It is my goal in this series of pages not to prove the Bible "wrong" but to fill in some details that the Bible's authors left out because they judged them unsuitable for those they saw as their target congregation or audience -- and to re-interpret some symbolism and parables for a more modern and better educated group of readers.
|