Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Are these the biblical giants?
Hello,
I do not know what to think about the contents of the attached clip,but I guess ,during the 2005 tsunami ,giant human skeletons had been uncovered as a result of the disastor,and people began speaking of the biblical nephilims.Some photos are in the clip.
I do not know what to think about the contents of the attached clip,but I guess ,during the 2005 tsunami ,giant human skeletons had been uncovered as a result of the disastor,and people began speaking of the biblical nephilims.Some photos are in the clip.
Comments
It is so obviously Photoshop.
I could produce the same pictures myself.
Father Peter
;)
but, as we say in the creed that God created everything, i don't believe the demons have the power to create.
human life which is not formed form a sperm and an egg needs a miracle, and only God has the power to give the miracle of life (eg the incarnation of the Word of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ).
i think what happened is that the evil spirits somehow got involved when the humans had sex, as in the ancient temple prostitutes who were immoral in order to satisfy the 'gods', or as in the modern promiscuous lifestyle in nightclubs, where humans face big temptations to go outside the normal sexual urges and have no restraint in what they do.
if the giants had been literal offspring of evil spirits, then would they be only half saved (i.e. the human half) if they repented and believed in God? we know that the mystery of salvation is something 'angels long to look into', so surely salvation was designed for humans and God would not allow the 'creation' of a half human species that would be outside the work of salvation.
i have heard the theories about this before, but i didn't hear any good response to the points i have raised.
i know one of the sources is the book of enoch, which the eritrean and ethiopian churches as canonical (divinely inspired) but i have not read all of it, so i look forward to the opinions of others on this issue.
having said that i am not particularly interested in any theories derived from wacky people who make internet videos and who believe in aliens and say that they have personally met the anti-Christ (so i didn't actually look at that link). there are lots of those around, and i suggest we stick to well-referenced sources or official news reports.
may God bless you all, and remember we are not here to insult each other ;)
with love for my brothers and respect for their opinions
mabsoota :)
Fr Peter, I first watched this clip (
:)
The book of Enoch is scripture and should be read and accepted by all Orthodox.
"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
James Owen
for National Geographic News
December 14, 2007
The National Geographic Society has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures.
The hoax began with a doctored photo and later found a receptive online audience—thanks perhaps to the image's unintended religious connotations.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton.html
"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
There are 3 things to take from this passage:
1. The sons of God saw that the sons of men were beautiful and they married them whom they chose
2. The Lord declared his Spirit would not contend with men forever
3. Man would live a shorter moral life of 120 years
There is a verse in the psalms which touches on the same matter:
82:6-7 "I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes"
This has 3 key parts:
1. God says to humanity that we are gods
2. God says we are children of the most high
3. Despite this godhood and being God's offspring we die like men and fall like human princes - (short life)
This passage is remarkably similar to the one in Genesis and it clearly refers to humanity.
With regards to the verse on sons of God we need to note that all references made to this expression (outside of the passage in Genesis) present the sons of God as faithful ministers of God. This means that this expression if true is a reference to demons who chose to procreate with humans. The devil in the old testament is revealed to us as the adversary and the behemoth, never as a son of God.
The expression sons of God describes a kind of relationship with God NOT celestial nature so it cannot refer to fallen demons.
However Psalm 82:6-7 does say that humanity is two things "gods" and "children" of the most high or at least God intended for them to be except they "die like men"/"his days will be one hundred and twenty years".
The Orthodox Church takes this passage and understands that it refers to the withdrawal of the the gift of the Holy Spirit from humanity, this explains why with Psalm 82 it is the only occasion that the expression sons of God refers to humanity because the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit also meant that we lost our sonship to God. The patristic basis behind this understanding can be traced back to St Augustine and his book City of God.
The Orthodox Church does not consider the book of Enoch as part of its canon of scripture and has never considered it to be inspired.
God bless,
LiD
but I thought that after the fall of Satan from heaven, those that chose to remain were above sin. I heard that they are in the same position we will be in, in heaven.
Also I think the reason it isn't accepted is because of how little background is known about it. There are no Hebrew manuscripts of it, and its only found in Ethiopian if I recall correctly, so we don't know if this is the same one Enoch wrote (if he wrote one), or if there any corruptions in the translation (ie added parts or mistranslations).
Please forgive any ignorance on my part,
Anba Bola
Hey Ioannes,
but I thought that after the fall of Satan from heaven, those that chose to remain were above sin. I heard that they are in the same position we will be in, in heaven.
Also I think the reason it isn't accepted is because of how little background is known about it. There are no Hebrew manuscripts of it, and its only found in Ethiopian if I recall correctly, so we don't know if this is the same one Enoch wrote (if he wrote one), or if there any corruptions in the translation (ie added parts or mistranslations).
Please forgive any ignorance on my part,
Anba Bola
No angel can be forgiven sin. This was detailed in the book of Enoch. What is amazing is how far many of our clergy are from the teachings of the church fathers, but on this point they selectively embrace the decision of Athanasius who did not disagree with the content of the book, as far as the angels who LEFT heaven, but did debate its origin. This was of course before Ethiopia as a whole was converted to Orthodoxy. Ethiopia was a Jewish nation up until Athanasius actually sent missionaries there, they have many books of Jewish origin, the book of Enoch being on of them. Historically we KNOW that it was accepted because St. Jude quotes it verbatim and I highly doubt that St. Jude would have quoted from a heretical book, or a book that was not accepted as being scriptural. The simple fact is that it is not canonized in any other church except the EOTC, and THEY are not condemned for accepting it. It is scriptural and cannot be proven otherwise. I am not sure what all the fuss is about, this book explains where all these ancient monuments came from, it explains where makeup comes from, war, and abortion. Its quite amazing and this is definetly one instance that we can say many of the church leaders are indeed wrong for the evidence proves it.
No angel can be forgiven sin. This was detailed in the book of Enoch.
Ioannes I didn’t mean that they were forgiven sin, but rather that they became above sin (like those who struggled in this lifetime, and have reached paradise. They are no longer subject to sin, and are above it.)
I'm still confused in that: if they chose not to join satan, wouldn’t they have chosen to stay with God, wouldn’t they become above sin, and above falling into it? (To avoid any confusion this isn't a rhetorical question)
But moreover, St. Jude, the great and holy apostle, accepts the book, refers to it in his inspired epistle, and there is no greater authority in the Church than the Apostles.
As pointed out in this thread by others, the widely accepted interpretation by the Fathers is that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are the fallen angels. It is an early patristic Tradition, dating back to Justin Martyr, St. Ireneous, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athenagoras of Alexandria, Lactantius, Jerome, Hilary of Poitier, Ambrose.
According to my knowledge, only John Chrysostom and Augustine reject this interpretation.
Making sense is not equivalent to being true.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=10324.msg125847#msg125847 date=1293775160]
No angel can be forgiven sin. This was detailed in the book of Enoch.
Ioannes I didn’t mean that they were forgiven sin, but rather that they became above sin (like those who struggled in this lifetime, and have reached paradise. They are no longer subject to sin, and are above it.)
I'm still confused in that: if they chose not to join satan, wouldn’t they have chosen to stay with God, wouldn’t they become above sin, and above falling into it? (To avoid any confusion this isn't a rhetorical question)
To be honest I have no idea what the hell your talking about. The angels in Gen 6 is a completely separate incident than that of Satan being thrown from heaven.
Stavro, yes I did actually mention that the EOTC does accept it, the Orthodox church as a whole does not. Making sense does NOT necessarily mean that it is true, but if it does not make sense you can bet that it probably is not true, if that makes sense lol. Also, Augustine does NOT reject this interpretation at all, he questions its legitimacy but accepts that most of it is probably true, since St. Jude quoted it. As for St. John I am not sure what his view is on it, I know Fr. Seraphim Rose rejects this notion, which surprises me since he was so fluent in the early church fathers writings.
But moreover, St. Jude, the great and holy apostle, accepts the book, refers to it in his inspired epistle, and there is no greater authority in the Church than the Apostles.
As pointed out in this thread by others, the widely accepted interpretation by the Fathers is that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are the fallen angels. It is an early patristic Tradition, dating back to Justin Martyr, St. Ireneous, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athenagoras of Alexandria, Lactantius, Jerome, Hilary of Poitier, Ambrose.
According to my knowledge, only John Chrysostom and Augustine reject this interpretation.
Making sense is not equivalent to being true.
Hi Dearest Brother,
I'm not sure that this matter is so straight forward, the epistle of Jude makes 3 references to documents outside of the Orthodox Canon and at least one of them cannot be considered an Orthodox document but it does bring forth questions about the other two...
These are as follows:
1. The contention of for the body of Moses by the Archangel Michael with the devil from the (from an unknown tradition or document - a theory exists that it may be a modified version of a document we know today as the Assumption of Moses)
2. The passage we're discussing from the book of Enoch
3. References to warnings in the Jewish Talmud
It is clear from this that this letter was written to a Jewish community, it may have been that the author was quoting from their sources while he was exhorting them. Very little is known about the nature of the epistle and whether or not (as in the case of the Talmud) he was quoting documents and traditions that would have been familiar to them but thats not to say that they should be considered to be canonical.
The other things is that there is reasonable conjecture about the quote in Jude and the book of Enoch because they're similar not the same. I was looking at a couple translations yesterday I'll source them later, the context especially of the first part of the quote is quite different and it sounds more like he is quoting a verse from Deuteronomy rather than the book of Enoch at the beginning, the ending of the verse sounds like it is from the book of Enoch.
The other thing to note is that while there are a lot of names mentioned who quoted it neither Origen included the book in his Hexapla or Jerome in his Vulgate translations of Scripture and they were both users of the book of Enoch and these became both the earliest serious translations of scripture into both Coptic and Latin. If these sources you quote both consider the book to be canon why didn't they include it? In Origens case he made ennapla (9 parallel translation bible) and never included the book of Enoch? I find this quite odd if we are to say that the references by Origen and Jerome mean that we must consider this book as scripture.
I am reading up on the traditions of the Virign Mary at the moment for a presentation I am about to do and what is striking me at the moment is that a lot of early Christians wrote accounts of the lives of the saints and the apostles. These documents were quotes but none of them became canonical. Other examples are the Shepherd of Hermas and the oral tradition of the Apostles by Papias. The document by Papias had a similar audience and it contained oral accounts of the teaching of Christ which he received from the apostle John; it was widely quoted but many saints it never became part of the Canon of Scripture, I suspect that the book of Enoch should be treated as such...
In doing research on this now what I have realised is that the style and language of literature of that period becomes a big part of the images and language used by Christ in the Gospels. This is something that happens across all the documents found in the dead sea scroll archives.
There is a strong eschatological sense in many documents composed in that era and its clear that they influenced the jews of the day (perhaps because of their extended period of occupation) and their awaiting of someone who would liberate them from slavery.
This apocalyptic literature includes terms like 'son of man' and 'kingdom of God' since most of the instances where these terms appear in Scripture are in the new testament during Christ's preaching and often in response to people who had questions or maybe were going to contemporary jewish documents such as these with strong prophetic messages and then seeing what Christ had to say - since He was the Messiah and people wanted to know more or disprove what He was saying. It may have even been possible that God orchestrated the apocalyptic cults in the same way that he sent John the Baptist or created the unified language of the time so that the expectation and readiness of the coming of the messiah was at its highest. We know from the Gospel accounts that there certainly were many who claimed to be Christ at that time and their movements came to nothing.
In the same style the Epistle of Jude could be an Apostle emulating this style of response that Christ did using the popular apocalyptic documents and fables of the time in a Jewish audience to exhort them. I suspect that its just a document of that era which reflects the thoughts and traditions of the time and not really a scriptural document as such. The reason for the quotations and interest in it may have more to do with the closeness of Jewish Apocalyptic literature and Christs preaching in response to elements of it that made it into contemporary thought about the messiah.
The Shepherd of Hermas is a document which reveals itself as prophetic images given from God, if we took this on face value we would need to consider this as scripture. I suppose that there is a difference between the kind of inspiration in scripture and other writings like the writings of the fathers which we would also consider to be inspired.
God Bless,
LiD
<--Modified for inappropriate content-->
My friend I have studied this for several years. The quote from Enoch by St. Jude is practically verbatim. This is not the only scriptural evidence for this incident and many of the church fathers agree that this happened. They don't even question it! So for me it is straight forward and I don't even know why I am discussing this. Your Egyptian which means your impossible so I'm out, happy <content removed> new year!
I'm sensing that you may need a mirror as is often the case in our humble human condition.
I grew up in Scotland and the first time I stepped into Coptic Church that i was old enough to remember was when I was 19 years old and I don't speak a word of arabic. I once worked with an Egyptian man and after much vexation because my of my lack of understanding of his cultural idiosyncrasies he declared to all and sundry in our office that I was an Australian and I was Scottish but I wasn't Egyptian.
I'd like to continue discussing this with you and I believe I am making some pertinent points - which are still going unanswered - and I would like if you could show enough respect to me and share with me the research and time you've dedicated to this subject. I don't wish to be drawn into a petty argument as I believe we're discussing what could be a beneficial subject related to the topic of our faith which may also bear fruit for others if we do so in the right spirit. If we give way to our egos as so often happens on these forums then we'll label each other with inaccurate names so an opportunity for the faith will degenerate into grandstanding and miserable oneupmanship.
Do you feel like we can continue in the right spirit, if not I am fully supportive of any decision you make to walk away.
God bless you brother,
LiD
Evidence 1
I think most of the people knows in the forum that the Apostle Jude quoted directly from the Book of Enoch whether it is the Ethiopic version or a lost book of enoch ( 1 Enoch 1:9), Jude 1:14-5, “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, PROPHESIED of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
The refutation for this claim is that there are scriptural quotations by St.Jude and others from apocryphal books like the assumption of moses etc,but there is nowhere in the entire scripture that a PROHPECY is quoted from a spurious book by all the Apostles and by Jesus Christ, if we make only one exception in Jude 1:14-5, we should also have to question the other Prophecies quoted by the Apostles,which we will be left with two options, option one is,Jude quoted from either a lost book of enoch or the Ethiopic version of enoch and option 2 is He was the only Apostle who made an error in his quotation.
Evidence 2
Jude 1:6-7," And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in LIKE MANNER, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude,who quoted the Book of Enoch is comparing the two verses 6 and 7 by using the word 'like manner" which is an analogy of what happened in sodom and gomorrha and of the Genesis 6 account of the angels and both the events that happened in sodom and gomorrah and Genesis 6, which are homo-sexuality and union between angels and humans respectively are un-natural,which is described in verse 7 as "fornication and going after strange flesh".
Evidence 3
The other interesting part of the above verse Jude 1:6, " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,." is that it is derived from the allusion in the book of Enoch, Enoch 15:3 RCV or Enoch 4:71 EV, " Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women,".
*RCV=R H charles version of enoch and EV=Ethiopic version of enoch
Unless some one refutes the above 3 Evidences, The honest and unbiased conclusion is that St. Jude explicitly believes that the Book of Enoch was divinely inspired.
There are overwhelming evidences for the Book of Enoch to be divinely inspired more than any Deutro-canonical books.
Evidence 1
I think most of the people knows in the forum that the Apostle Jude quoted directly from the Book of Enoch whether it is the Ethiopic version or a lost book of enoch ( 1 Enoch 1:9), Jude 1:14-5, “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, PROPHESIED of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
The refutation for this claim is that there are scriptural quotations by St.Jude and others from apocryphal books like the assumption of moses etc,but there is nowhere in the entire scripture that a PROHPECY is quoted from a spurious book by all the Apostles and by Jesus Christ, if we make only one exception in Jude 1:14-5, we should also have to question the other Prophecies quoted by the Apostles,which we will be left with two options, option one is,Jude quoted from either a lost book of enoch or the Ethiopic version of enoch and option 2 is He was the only Apostle who made an error in his quotation.
Evidence 2
Jude 1:6-7," And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in LIKE MANNER, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude,who quoted the Book of Enoch is comparing the two verses 6 and 7 by using the word 'like manner" which is an analogy of what happened in sodom and gomorrha and of the Genesis 6 account of the angels and both the events that happened in sodom and gomorrah and Genesis 6, which are homo-sexuality and union between angels and humans respectively are un-natural,which is described in verse 7 as "fornication and going after strange flesh".
Evidence 3
The other interesting part of the above verse Jude 1:6, " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,." is that it is derived from the allusion in the book of Enoch, Enoch 15:3 RCV or Enoch 4:71 EV, " Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women,".
*RCV=R H charles version of enoch and EV=Ethiopic version of enoch
Unless some one refutes the above 3 Evidences, The honest and unbiased conclusion is that St. Jude explicitly believes that the Book of Enoch was divinely inspired.
There is a few questions which I have that don't strictly relate to these passages or proofs. It seems to me that there are a number of assumptions were making which I would like to investigate a bit more before we continue further. In the meantime I would like to know about designation of this as a deuterocanonical book not be over-technical but is this an intentional statement about the canonicity of the book in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? None of the Orthodox Churches as far as I am aware recognise this terminology or place any significance on any kind Catholic notion of lesser canonised texts. Is this statement something implied from the quotes themselves?
Thanks brother & God bless you,
LiD
How the book got to Ethiopia is rather lengthy but, in short, it came to Ethiopia with judaism and supposedly the ark of the covenant. Augustine denounced the book, not what it said, because of the authenticity. Back then, they did not know the origins of the book, nor who wrote it. The book had been copied and passed down for centuries in Ethiopia, so it does have some legitimacy. Is this a book of Moses? Possibly. Moses wrote Genesis, I am sure he wasnt actually around to see it all transpire, but was probably deligated to him by God. The thing is, when we delve into any of the books there are many questions as to the authorship of them, or the timeframe in which they were written, not just the book of Enoch.
I say, believe what you will. But note some very interesting things in the book of Enoch. He details things which the angels showed mankind, how to work stones, herbs, create makeup, mathematics, astronomy, war, and yes even abortion. This topic is not something that deals directly with salvation so I think our time would be better spent discussing other issues. The church does not condemn anyone for this view, and cannot. There is no point to this discussion. Believe it, or dont.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=10324.msg125882#msg125882 date=1293816844]
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=10324.msg125847#msg125847 date=1293775160]
No angel can be forgiven sin. This was detailed in the book of Enoch.
Ioannes I didn’t mean that they were forgiven sin, but rather that they became above sin (like those who struggled in this lifetime, and have reached paradise. They are no longer subject to sin, and are above it.)
I'm still confused in that: if they chose not to join satan, wouldn’t they have chosen to stay with God, wouldn’t they become above sin, and above falling into it? (To avoid any confusion this isn't a rhetorical question)
To be honest I have no idea what the hell your talking about. The angels in Gen 6 is a completely separate incident than that of Satan being thrown from heaven.
I'm going to respond to most of the comments in different posts to keep the post short. There are a lot of points to discuss here.
Anba Bola has a legitimate point in his questions. If Genesis 6 is talking about real angels who fell into sin and married men, then they would become a "third category" of angels. The other two categories are (1) Angels who did not sin, who are still in the presence of God, ministering to humans and (2) Angels who fell with Lucifer and are now demons, who attack humans. In both these categories, these angels, whether angels or demons, are still spirits. They retain angelic powers. But if this "third" category exists, then what is their function and nature. If they are angels that do not serve men as God appointed but rather have sexual human intercourse, then it contradicts what the rest of the Bible says: "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" Heb 1:14. Notice it says all angels. The only "angels" who don't minister to humans, according to God's appointed economy, are devils. There can't be a third type of angel, who have angelic powers and simply live among humans and have sex with human females. If they are not angels, then they became humans as a punishment of their unknown sin. If you follow this line of thought, the immediate question becomes why did God choose to completely change their angelic nature and make them men? I know we cannot understand God's thinking and judgment. But God does reveal Himself in scriptures. And if you believe in the third category, you are faced with more questions on divine judgment, divine economy, and even evolution. Let's look at them for a minute.
1. No matter who sinned, whether the worse angel, or the worse man, God never, never changed their physical nature. There are so many stories of the worst sinners, none of them were changed from human to another creature. It seems that if punishment for sin is to change the nature of the sinner, then God the Creator made a mistake creating the sinner that way and he is "improving" or "demoting" the sinner to another status. This goes completely against what we know from the entire Bible and the church fathers. God didn't do this for Satan. Why would He do this for these angels in Genesis 6?
2. If the punishment for angels who sinned is to make them human, then we are saying humanity is a punishment. But this goes completely against the Book of Hebrews that says "To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?" Heb 1:13 and "So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs." Heb 1:4. When Jesus became human, he became higher than the angels. How then can being human be a punishment?
3. If, on the other hand, you don't believe these angels became humans, and that the punishment of their sin is to live as angels among men, then we're back to the physical, ontological problem. Angels are spirits who may temporarily take human forms. But their ontological nature is in the spirit world. They move through physical buildings and confinement. They are rational beings with a will and as the Book of Daniel shows us, they fight against the demons who attack mankind. If their punishment is to be an angel and have human desires, and consummate their sins with sexual intercourse, what makes them different from humans?
4. If angels can have sex with humans and have children that are giants, then you are faced with explaining evolution. Our Orthodox Church does not believe in evolution, or formation of species through a single cell or another species. We do believe in genetic adaptation, but not interspecies procreation. This has been explained by the Patristic writings of our fathers(many of them). If angels have sex with humans, do they have 23 pairs of chromosomes? If not, they can't have offsprings with humans. If they do, then by genetic definition, they're human.
5. Many mythologies have fables of a god or supernatural creature having sex with human females and their offspring is a superhuman. Zeus did this many times. If angels have sex with humans, and their offspring is some sort of superhuman, then are we not following fables or "cleverly devised stories"? If yes, then St Peter's words are a condemnation to us when he says, "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power" 2 Pet 1:16.
So if we believe that Genesis 6 really speaks of angels, then we have to examine what type of angels they are, what they became and how it relates to the rest of the Bible. As far as I can see, it contradicts with the rest of the Bible and how God revealed Himself to us through the prophets, patriarchs and apostles.
In the next post, I'll talk about the Book of Enoch, Letter of Jude and canonicity.
George
The Scripture canon, whether Old Testament or New Testament, is held to a extremely high standard. This standard includes,
1. A universal acceptance by the Church.
2. No contradiction to other parts of the Bible.
This standard is not held to anything else, not even the patristic writings of the fathers. Some fathers have written erroneous things. Some have mixed truths with misconceptions, yet we still hold the fathers as divinely inspired saints who "explicitly explain the truth in uprightness" as the Liturgy of St. Basil says. But we can't do this with scripture.
Any pseudoepigraphical or apocryphal text cannot be added to the canon if they do not conform to this standard. This is how the Orthodox Church has always been. For some reason, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has not followed this standard. That does not make them less Orthodox. It just means they chose a different standard. And just because they chose to include the Book of Enoch, it doesn't mean the Coptic Church should.
But let's examine why the Book of Enoch cannot be accepted as Scripture canon by the Orthodox.
1. There was no universal acceptance of the book. Many fathers, like Origen and Athanasius, knew about the book but they never quoted from it. They never even thought that it should be included in the canon. And this is the same with all other Apostolic churches, with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox church.
2. If one part from the Book of Enoch or any other pseudoepigraphical book contradicts the rest of the Bible it cannot be accepted and this is what St. Paul told us to do when he wrote, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" Gal 1:8. The Book of Enoch contains many contradictions. Here are a few: (taken from http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/213708-Reasons-The-Book(s)-of-Enoch-wasn-t-shouldn-t-be-accepted-as-inspired-Scripture.)
1: Enoch Chapter 107 claims that Enoch was present with Lamach when Noah was born, and that Enoch named Noah. Enoch was assumed/lifted to the Lord 69 years before Noah's birth.
2: Enoch chapter 6 has angels marrying human women. Yet in Matthew 22, angels do not marry.
3: Enoch chapters 8-10 teach that sin was passed to man via their procreation with angels and their genetic lineage. To remain pure and sin-free, Lamech, (Noah's father), was taught to hide himself so he would not allow sin to enter him by breeding with an angel. Yet the bible tells us that sin isn't genetic, but rather comes from breaking God's law.
4: In chapter 40, it teaches that an angel named Phanuel is the angel "who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life". However, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ alone is the mediator between God and man, and that repentance comes through Him alone.
5: Enoch chapter 69 teaches that two angels named Jeqon and Gadreel were responsible for the fall of the other angels (Jaqon) and for leading Eve astray and into sin (Gadreel). The Bible, however, teaches in Genesis 3, 2 Corinthians 11, and Revelation chapter 12, that it was the serpent named Satan, who was responsible for the angels falling and who lead Eve astray.
6: In Enoch chapter 10, it also teaches the world was destroyed by the flood because "the earth which the angels have corrupted", and "And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by (the angel) Azazel". Yet the Bible in Genesis 6:4-7 it tells us the world was corrupted by the wickedness of man; not angels nor by an angel named Azazel.
7: Enoch chapter 6 lists 19 angels by name, as the ones who lead the rebellion and the fall of man. Enoch chapter 69 lists 21 angels by name, as the ones who lead the rebellion and the fall of man --- and most of the ones listed are inconsistent and completely different than what was given in chapter 6.
There are more contradictions, but I think we get the point.
Finally, let's look at manuscript evidence.
If the Book of Enoch was original and written by Enoch, then it would have been 2000 years older than Genesis and the entire Old Testament. Yet, there is no mention of anything from the Book of Enoch in any other passage of the Old Testament. Scholars think that the Book of Enoch was written 300BC-100 AD during the pre-Christian period by Essenes. Yet, the Dead Sea scrolls/Qumaran texts, also written by the Essenes, only have 6 verses from 2 chapters found in the Book of Enoch (which is over 100 chapters). It would seem that if the Book of Enoch was genuine, it would have more references in the Old Testament, the Qumran texts and the New Testament. But it doesn't. There is no universal acceptance of the book at all.
There are only 2 Ethiopian versions of the Book of Enoch, both discovered in the 18th century, nearly 5000 years after the events in the book. Scholars generally believe that legends come into existence when there is a large chronological gap between the story's chronological events and the manuscript/media it was delivered. Compare that to the New Testament, where there are 5000 manuscripts or manuscript fragments, some written as early as the first or second century (within 20-50 years of the events described). Why are there so few copies of the Book of Enoch found? Why are they found so late? It could be because they were simply lost, or it could be because they were never mass-copied because the Book was not considered important and/or possibly it was considered legend.
This brings us to the New Testament and the Epistle of Jude. As others have mentioned there is a lot of similarity between St Jude's words and the Book of Enoch. There are 2 responses.
1. St Jude may have been writing to an early Christian/Essene community that is familiar with apocalyptic imagery, just like St John uses imagery from the Book of Daniel (time, times and half a time, for example). The imagery used by St. Jude is found in the Qumran texts. As one person said, "The portion of Enoch that the Apostle quotes in Jude 14-15 was found in manuscript 4Q204." So there are other manuscripts St. Jude may have been using and not the Book of Enoch, manuscripts that his audience would be somewhat familiar with. Also, we can infer that St. Jude did not need to expand on stories found in the canonical Old Testament, like Cain, Balaam or Koreh but he did need to expand on apocalyptic texts about Archangel Michael, Moses' body and Enoch. So these additional texts were only somewhat familiar with St. Jude's audience.
2. The problem with saying St. Jude repeated the Book of Enoch nearly verbatim implies his apostleship legitimizes and canonizes the Book of Enoch. This would be true if St. Jude explicitly mentioned he took material from the Book of Enoch or he explicitly canonizes the Book of Enoch. Short of that, we are speculating, especially since St. Jude stops quoting the Book of Enoch where the Book of Enoch continues about sex with humans. In fact if we examine St. Jude's words we see that he is not implying angels have sex with humans, he simply states angels were left their proper dwelling and were eternally bound until the great day of judgement. Also, the prophecy St. Jude quotes in verse 14, as far as I know, is not found in the Book of Enoch. There are more reasons to speculate that St. Jude didn't use the Book of Enoch but rather some other partially-familiar, apocalyptic literature popular at his time. This is enough reason to reject the similarities of St. Jude's letter and the Book of Enoch.
I hope this helped. I hope we can continue discussing.
George
:)
If you would like, I can go through each one of these and show you why they are incorrect "assumptions", just plain fabrications, or are very similar to the contradictions already found in scripture, as far as time tables and such. These are wild assumptions and some, like Jeqon and Gadreel, are complete fabrications! REmnkemi, before you try and disprove this scripture by historical inaccuracies, and messed up time frames, just remember this is a constant throughout scripture, if you do not believe me read some of Bart Ehrnman's writings. Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interupted, etc. These are the same kind of "contradictions" that you speak of LOL.
Also, before denouncing a book, it would be best to read it and make a comparison rather than getting your info off of "some site" that is clearly not accurate or reliable.
;)
I do not wish to get into an endless debate. In another forum, you asked for someone to show how the Book of Enoch can be wrong if St Jude repeats it verbatim. I did that. The apparent contradictions I mentioned were only one part of the argument. Your response was to show how the entire Bible can be shown to have incorrect assumptions. Believe what you want. I don't think the Orthodox understanding of Biblical canon will agree that the Bible is filled with incorrect assumptions, especially in light of Galatians 1:8.
It is up to others to see if they agree that my arguments have shown that St Jude's letter is canonical and the Book of Enoch is not. I highly doubt that I would have changed your mind or that you will change my mind. However, if you wish to discuss this rationally and intellectually, I will.
George
the thing is we don't know if there were corruptions in the text. The thing is if St. Jude quoted Enoch, that leaves us with three options:
a) He knew Hebrew, which we can assume it was originally written in (also assuming it was written by Enoch), and mentally translated this verse into Greek and wrote it in his Epistle, b) It was translated into Greek. This couldn't have happened with the Septuagint, because the book isn't among Septuagint Manuscripts, which also tells us it wasn't mainstream or wasn't thought of as Canon; or c) This quote was passed down by tradition.
if we say a) that brings the question of why it wasn't translated along with the Septuagint. We already can't say b unless this book had very few copies left and the translators couldn't get hold of it, but c seems viable.
I think the real problem with its acceptance is how little is known about its history. Even if Enoch wrote a book, we don't know if there were corruptions because we don't have the Hebrew text. For example for all we know half could've been added by someone. Its hard to canonize a book, if we don't know the authenticity. I think this is the reason we don't accept it. Aside from the angels and any contradiction, we don't know if certain things were really written by Enoch.
Please forgive me for my lack of knowledge and any ignorance I show in this post.
Anba Bola