|
|
Post by The Sorrowful Tears on Mar 22, 2005 20:24:32 GMT -5
Can anyone explain to me what the Book of Enoch is? I know the man Enoch, he is the one mentioned in Genisis that is taken up to heaven (without dying) after living to be 365 years old. What I'm curious about is...why isn't his book in the Bible. I haven't read this book just because I don't know what it is. I have read "about" this book and apparently it is about the war between demons and angels. I had asked my youth pastor once about it and he told me that God said in the Bible that you can't add or remove books from the Bible...he didn't say where this was. So I have no idea what to think about this...if there are any other books that people can think of I would like to know about them and why they were "removed" and what's up with them (what are they about)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Solid on Mar 22, 2005 23:49:27 GMT -5
Well, when your youth pastor was talking about God saying that you can't add or remove books from the Bible, I think he was trying to say you can't add false teachings and take away the real truth from the Bible. And that's all I wanted to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyMetal on Mar 23, 2005 6:47:48 GMT -5
I know the Catholic Bible has a few extra books in it but I can't remember if Enoch is one of them. Good question!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sorrowful Tears on Mar 23, 2005 11:34:31 GMT -5
Hey, I think I've found something in response to the Catholic Bible having more books than the Protestant Bible...I haven't had a chance to read all of it, just the first couple of paragraphs and decided to post it here...just in case anyone was curious. But if anyone else finds anything interesting about these other books then feel free to post it here. Anyway...here's what I got ... www.equip.org/free/CP0804.pdfit's an acrobat file so make sure you have Adobe Acrobat before you try to look at this... |
|
|
|
Post by cherryx on Apr 5, 2005 18:39:31 GMT -5
essentially...no one really knows what the full Bible is.
King James took and decided what was to be included...and if you spend time reading the books from the Catholic Bible they elaborate on certain details.
Do I feel the the apocrypha,is totally wrong and should be reconsidered to be a canonized part of the Bible? Yes absolutely and I say this because there are even various forms of the Dead Sea Scrolls floating around that dont exactly lineup with the account of Exodus and various OT books.
Like I said no one really knows what the Bible was suppose to say...we have ideas because King James edited.And people have gone back researching through the Dead Sea Scrolls and therefore we cant even be too sure if the canonized books are right.
But Id say to stick to the Canonized Bible and study the apocrypha with a discerning eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by angelwithoutwings on Apr 14, 2005 14:49:50 GMT -5
king james wasnt a christian, after he had his ppl translate the bible he became one, but it was a weird branch of christainity.. i forget what one.. it leaned towards catholicism and peganism...
man.. i forget all the facts..
but we researched it for like 2 days in school... cause we were talkign about king james adn hsi throne adn the teacher decided to through that in..
king james also believed marry mandolin was jesus' wife... i mean COME ON
|
|
|
|
Post by Solid on Apr 14, 2005 17:00:52 GMT -5
You mean Mary Magdalene, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by cherryx on Apr 15, 2005 10:48:07 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA.
thanks man.
i didnt want to be the bearer of bad grammar news.
|
|
|
|
Post by PostScriptum on Sept 4, 2005 17:07:26 GMT -5
Well I've read the book of Enoch but yeah we can't really find out if it's heresy or not. But the people deciding which books would be in the Bible choose not to put it, along with other books. "The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation." www.heaven.net.nz/writings/enoch.htmand en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea |
|
|
|
Post by kansascitykid on Sept 4, 2005 18:08:01 GMT -5
king james wasnt even the first translation, there was the wycliffe bible the guttenberg bible and lots of others, and before that there just a bunch of monks bored out of their skulls. but hey if the king james was good enough for Jesus then hey. i dont know if anyone will get that joke
|
|
|
|
Post by ezekiel on Sept 5, 2005 22:17:39 GMT -5
did steve guttenberg write that translation during his police academy years or three men and a baby? do you think Jesus would approve of my wifes amplified? what about my NIV ? ?!!!
am i goin to hell because my translation as innacurrate?? ......gospel is gospel.it is all based on love i dont think that a version would have survived that long if it werent true.God ha a way of sorting out the crap!!!just ask david koresh!! jim jones!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Sept 5, 2005 23:05:13 GMT -5
The Apocrypha is referenced by Jesus sometimes. I'll have to look it up again, but it's interesting.
Anyway, there's a lot of views on the Bible that we take for granted when we should probably think through them more thoroughly.
|
|
|
|
Post by kansascitykid on Sept 6, 2005 0:23:45 GMT -5
im not saying theres anything wrong with KJV but people who claim its the only true version kinda get under my skin. where i go to school i get loads of bible history/bible, and its funny that one time at our chapel the speaker mentioned the apocrypha and everyone just looked at each other like, what? all that is just to say that even after 5 years of christian education some things still slip through the cracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by DenverRockBrian on Sept 7, 2005 0:42:13 GMT -5
Time to shed some light into this thread!!!
Alrighty... The current books accepted in the Bible (whether NIV, KJV or whatever, and NOT counting the apocrypha) are a result of a process the early Christian church went through about a hundred years after the last books of the New Testament were written. (so circa 200AD). The church went through and judged all the various writings on certain critiria, and for consistency. If one believes that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God (as I do), then one would also stand to reason that God would guide the human hands that selected the books. Therefore, I believe the current lineup of books in the Bible to be the ones that God intended.
See, the Bible is really a compilation of writings. It was written over the course of 2000 years. The majority of the new testament is composed of letters from a few apostles (Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.) to specific churches addressing specific problems and bringing specific teachings. None of the authors were like "hey, I'm writing the Bible." These were letters divinely inspired by God that were later brought together by God.
Alot of these other books, such as the apocrypha are not necessarily entirely incorrect, but they are NOT divinely inspired. A good bit of what is included in today's Bible are historical records (ie. chronicles). It is the same with alot of the apocrypha as well. There is alot of good historical evidence in the apocrypha, and it wouldn't surprise me if Jesus mentioned something from it (somebody tell me where he does though...). However, the teaching is not inspired and can be contradictory.
In the 200AD era, there were TONS of letters floating around, some of them inspired by God, and some of them from false prophets. That is why the early church leaders decided to get together and set the "cannon" or put together what books were actually going to be part of the scriptures.
Over the years, there are some minor copying errors and deviations. NONE of these effect any doctrine however! That's a very important point to be made. It should also be noted that there are more early manuscripts of the various books of the bible than any other commonly accepted historical book. There are also more biblical manuscripts created closer to the original dates of writing than in any other. For instance... any historian recognizes the writer Josephus as a valid historian from the time of Jesus. There are far less early copies of Josephus' work than of the Bible. The degree of accuracy to which the bible has been copied and translated over the last 2000 years is a strong testimony to it's diving inspiration and the fact that God has had his hand upon his holy book through all these years to keep it the way it should be.
I hope this helps all of you! God Bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 25, 2005 22:33:45 GMT -5
I know the Catholic Bible has a few extra books in it but I can't remember if Enoch is one of them. Good question! No. If Enoch was scripture, it would be in the canon. It's really that simple. |
|
