I found Enoch interesting as it explained questions many of us have with no answers anywhere else. I agree we don't need to add it to the Bible, but that doesn't make it wrong. Just as an example, Mark 16:9-20 was added later after Mark was finished. The 2 oldest copies we have stop at vs 8. But somehow vs 9-18 ended up in the Book with the oldest copy that contained the verses were about 100 years later.
Instead of saying, "Its' not in there so I don't need it." at least read the story behind why it wasn't included and see more than one view.
Then wouldn't that call into question the inerrancy of the Bible? I would argue not IF you take the position the Bible is inerrant in the message, morals, and spiritual truths it teaches. But some of the exact facts - well, those are much like the parable of Jesus, they are there to convey a bigger point.
Instead of saying, "Its' not in there so I don't need it." at least read the story behind why it wasn't included and see more than one view.
That's not what I am arguing, I'm saying what is in there is all you need to understand how to relate to God. It's not a historical, factual record of specific events, it's events used (sometimes figuratively, like the parables of Jesus - maybe other events as well?) to convey a bigger picture of man's continuing relationship with God, and how that relationship can be mended.
You don't use a saw to loosen a nut, and you don't use a crescent wrench to solder a circuit. The Bible's not meant to be a factual, literal history book IMHO - it's meant to be a relationship guide to teach us how to relate to God and to each other (the Golden rule).