About the Book of Enoch, why should we care today?

One might ask: Why would we want to read a book which has not been "canonized" by men several centuries ago?

Please consider that: When the Bible was compiled, the reformed church decided to ONLY INCLUDE texts which were written in Greek.

That is why the Protestant Bible and the Roman Catholic Bible are not exactly identical:

» the Catholics included in their canonization those books which were written in the language which Jesus and the Disciples actually spoke, Aramaic (an Hellenic blend of Greek and local languages).

» whereas the group of church organization administrators (in Laodicea) decided to exclude any books or letters which were not written in Greek (without any reason other than their own inability to faithfully and to accurately translate Aramaic).

exemple gratis est: See below that those "scholars" and ordained-by-men desk jockeys of the Fourth Century religious organization almost refused to "canonize" the Book of Jude: simply because Jude did quote from the Book of Enoch.

— Yes, they thought that they were much, smarter than was the Apostle Jude, and that they were much, MUCH MORE holy than were the Apostles.

— Therefore please consider how much further Jesus' Church has fallen over the last several centuries . . . how far we have fallen just in the last few decades!

Below we provide a summary of this translation's Preface, which presents an irresistible argument:

"Enoch is the name of four biblical persons. The first is the oldest son of Cain [Genesis 4:17]; the second, the son of Jared [Genesis 5:18]; the third, the son of Midian [Genesis 25:4]; the fourth, the oldest son of Reuben [Genesis 46-9, Exodus 6:14].

"Of these the second alone is of importance and interest for us, not only on account of the mysterious prominence given him in Geneses 5, but especially from the fact that an inspired writer of the New Testament, Jude, in his letter mentions him as a prophet, and produces a quotation from a book attributed to the patriarch.

"The existence of such a book does not, however, rest on the authority of this statement alone; but in the early literature of the church there is a whole chain of evidences to this effect. Nearly all of the church Fathers knew of an apocryphal Book of Enoch, and their description of the work and citations from it prove satisfactorily that it was virtually the same as that which now lies before us.

"Among the Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle of Barnabas refers to such a work. In chap. iv. 3 of that letter, Enoch is cited, and the character of the quotation points to chap. 80 of our book as its probable source, while in the statement of the same Epistle xvi. 5 ... introduced with the important words: GTR, we find almost the very words of En. 89:56.

"From that time on to about the seventh century Christian literature, to which alone we owe the preservation of the important work, produces ample proof of the constant use and high standing of this book. Beside the Jewish-Christian Testament. xxl Patriarch. (a production of the second century), the church Fathers Justin Martyr, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, Hilary, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others refer to and use it.

"The majority of these statements are indeed simply allusions and general references; but they are of such a character that their source in the present Book of Enoch can generally be found to a certainty, the writers in this respect following the example of Jude, whose citation is taken from En. 1:9, and is not a literal reproduction. The Fathers all, with possibly the one dissenting voice of Tertullian (De Cult. Fem. I. 3) deny the canonicity of this book, and properly regard it as apocryphal; some going even so far as to deny the canonicity of Jude because he had dared to quote an apocryphal work.

"The precedent for this step was given in the Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 16, in strong words."

In order to assure many of the modern-day church members that the Book of Enoch is not only highly probable, that its existence is also possible . . . regardless of what the "experts" and "pastors," the self-ordained "theologians" and "apologists" who do not believe the bible today say . . . the simple truth is that Noah was not an idiot! He did take the five books of Enoch with him onto the Ark.

Please consider what we at Inchristi.org have prepared for you, regarding the importance of reading ALL of the SCRIPTURES, of reading the very same scriptures which Jesus and the Apostles read » Click Here «

If you wish, you may read the entire PREFACE as written in 1882 » Click here. «

Ask us how you can help ...

Computer-Users please use the 128-Bit SSL-Encrypted, NOT-on-the-Cloud contact form below.

Mobile-device uses please go here » Cuffway.net/The-Book-of-Enoch/mobile-friendly_exported/contact-us.html