When interpreting writings from the past, it is often too easy to read into it one's own knowledge instead of the writer's actual meaning. As any student bluffing his way through a humanities test knows, for any arbitrary novel one can find plausible-sounding textual "matches" for just about any concept imaginable without much difficulty. (The classic example is "The Wizard of Oz" as a metaphor for the debate over monetary policy)
This is also a problem for the "Bible Codes" you mention earlier -- even in the random text formed by the "matrix" methods of the Bible Codes, one can "find" passages that seem to parallel known events. That this is mere "you can find whatever you look for" is demonstrated by the ability to do the same with the book Moby Dick (2) or the Hebrew translation of "War and Peace". More...
So care must be taken not to read spurious "matches" of modern astronomy in the symbology of various passages in ancient writings, unless the writings are unambiguous enough that the "prescient" interpretation seems more likely than a more prosaic and era-appropriate one.
It's also easy to call something "strangely accurate" if we underestimate how much would have been pretty obvious to an astute observer living at the time.
That the light of the moon is a reflection from the sun: "Then Uriel showed me another order (concerning) when light is beamed into the moon, from which direction of the bright sun it is beamed." 1 Enoch 78:10
I'm not sure if it's safe to interpret this as a statement that the light from the Moon is entirely *reflected* light. Even reading it literally as translated above, it sounds more like light that is transferred *into* the Moon, like a charging battery, to be released out later. Furthermore, it's not clear that even if some ancient peoples realized that the amount of light the Moon "shines" *could* be produced by reflected light. The Moon produces a *huge* illumination on a dark night, enough to read by and cast shadows. Nothing in ancient man's experiences would acquaint them with "reflections" of such magnitude. Even a brightly lit mountainside does not produce noticeable "rays" of light like the Moon does. Nor would they think that the Sun's light *could* reflect from the moon at night, since they had mistaken ideas about how close the Moon and Sun were, and they would have believed that the bulk of the Earth would block the Moon from the Sun's light when the Moon was up and the Sun was down.
Other passages in Enoch give the distinct impression that the Moon is powered independently by God in the same manner as the Sun and stars, and not through light "bounced" from the Sun:
has Uriel shown and revealed to me, to whom the Lord of the whole creation of the world hath subjected the host of heaven. And he has power over night and day in the heaven to cause the light to give light to men -sun, moon, and stars, (Enoch 82:7-8)And after this law I saw another law dealing with the smaller luminary, which is named the Moon. And her circumference is like the circumference of the heaven, and her chariot in which she rides is driven by the wind, and light is given to her in (definite) measure. (Enoch 73:1)
And the chambers of the winds, and how the winds are divided, and how they are weighed, and (how) the portals of the winds are reckoned, each according to the power of the wind, and the power of the lights of the moon (Enoch 60:12)
Much more likely, I think the above passage from Enoch is a bit of a mistranslation of the original meaning. (Speaking of which, where did you get the above translation? A Google search for the phrase "when light is beamed into the moon" turns up no hits at all except an earlier FreeRepublic thread.)
Looking to this translation, the same passage is rendered as: "And Uriel showed me another law: when light is transferred to the moon, and on which side it is transferred to her by the sun." Similar, but with significant differences.
But in light of (no pun intended) what immediately follows in Enoch, I think that both of the above are poor translations of the actual meaning. Instead of "when light is transferred to the moon, and on which side it is transferred to her by the sun", I think that what best fits the passages which follow would be, "when light grows in the Moon, and on which side of the sun it is grown in her", or in more modern language perhaps even "when the Moon grows in brightness, and when brightness goes from her, depending on which side of the Sun."
Why do I think this? Because the Enoch passages which immediately follow concern the observation that when the Moon is waxing (i.e., growing brighter from the New Moon to the Full Moon), it is always *behind* the Sun in the sky (i.e., rises last), but when it is waning (i.e. growing dimmer from the Full Moon back to the New Moon) it is always *ahead* of the Sun in the sky (i.e., rises first).
This well-known (and to ancient man, obvious) fact is described at the bottom of Moon Phases, in the section entitled "Moon Phase Comparison".
Here's the whole passage from Enoch, along with my annotations in [brackets]:
And Uriel showed me another law: when light is transferred to the moon, and on which side it is transferred to her by the sun. [i.e., which side of the sun the Moon is on when its light grows, and when its light fades] During all the period during which the moon is growing in her light [waxing from the new moon to the full moon], she is transferring it to herself [growing in brightness] when opposite to the sun [*following* the sun through the sky -- "opposite" isn't even correct, the moon is only "opposite" the sun when it's a full moon, which is correctly described below] during fourteen days her light is accomplished in the heaven [i.e. it takes 14 days to grow from the dark new moon to the bright full moon], and when she is illumined throughout, her light is accomplished full in the heaven [the moon is as bright as it can be at the time of the full moon]. And on the first day she is called the new moon, for on that day the light rises upon her [either: the new moon rises *with* the sun (correct), or: the moon's light begins to grow the day after it has become the new moon]. She becomes full moon exactly on the day when the sun sets in the west, and from the east she rises at night [i.e., the sun and moon are exactly opposite at the time of the full moon, the full moon is rising just as the sun sets], and the moon shines the whole night through till the sun rises over against her and the moon is seen over against the sun ["against" the sun being on opposite sides still, but this time the full moon setting as the sun again rises -- this may also be stressing that the moon has now become "ahead" of the sun in the sky]. On the side [of the sun] whence the light of the moon comes forth [now *ahead* of the sun in the sky], there again she wanes till all the light vanishes and all the days of the month are at an end, and her circumference is empty, void of light [until she fades back to the new moon and the cycle repeats].I'd like to know what original-language words were translated into "opposite" the sun and "against" the sun -- if translated respectively into "behind/following/eastward" relative to the sun and "ahead/leading/westward" relative to the sun, the above passage perfectly describes the positions of the moon in relation to the sun as it waxes and then wanes in its lunar cycle. A shorter description of this same observation occurs in Enoch 74:
In single seventh parts she [the Moon] accomplishes [gains] all her light in the east [of the Sun, following it through the sky], and in single seventh parts accomplishes all her darkness in the west [of the Sun].This is further bolstered by the fact that the (Chapter 78) passage immediately *before* the one under discussion describes in boring detail the manner in which the moon's light waxes and wanes through each day of its 28/29 day cycle. All of chapter 78 is a close examination of behavior of the Moon's phase changes.
Orbits. We know that the moon orbits the sun and the sun orbits the Milky Way. It is very strange (to me) that Enoch would say: "They [sun and moon] do not depart from their orbit, neither increase or decrease it; but they keep faith one with another; in accordance with an oath they set and they rise." – 1 Enoch 41:5
I see nothing in this passage that warrants such a reading. Several times in Enoch he describes in great detail the exact motions and positions, and the mechanical predictability of the paths of the Sun and Moon, with respect to the days, the seasons, the years, and each other's movements. Chapter 72, for example, is a startlingly detailed account of how the point of sunrise/sunset on the horizon changes across the course of a year, and how the length of the day relative to the length of the night varies throughout the year. It's so detailed that one could use it to calculate with a fair degree of precision which latitude the observations were made from. And in Chapter 74, he apparently attempts to calculate what is today called the Saros Cycle, but gets the wrong answer because he's working with faulty measurements (given to him by the "Angel", *cough*). Nonetheless, it shows a good observational knowledge of the manner in which the cycles of the sun and moon come inevitably and eternally in and out of phase, and it is this fixed relationship which the author of Enoch seems to be pointing out when he speaks of their cycles being "not departed" (i.e. unchanging) and "keep faith with one another" (i.e. consistent in their relative timings).
That the sun and moon generate energy: "they do not economize (on energy), for their very essence generates new power." – 1 Enoch 41:7
My source translates that quite differently: "And they give thanks and praise and rest not; For unto them is their thanksgiving rest." Without going back to the original language it's hard to tell which, if either, of these renderings is more accurate -- they have quite different meanings.
In any case, the Moon hardly "generates new power". It's a pretty dead world, and the amount of residual heat from nuclear decay is quite small and has no effect on the Earth. As you point out earlier, it only shines by reflected light from the Sun.
That the sun shines even when it is not seen: "And neither does it diminish (in respect to its brightness) not take rest but continue to run day and night. – 1 Enoch 72: 36
My source translates that as:
As he [the Sun] rises, so he sets and decreases not, and rests not, but runs day and night, and his light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal.I think it's safe to interpret the "decreases not" passage as saying that the Sun doesn't change in brightness as it traverses the sky (unlike the example of the Moon, which unmistakably varies), but I'm not sure if the "rests not but runs night and day" can be read to be a statement about its light continuing during the night.
Instead, I think it's being pretty literal -- the sun keeps "running" (i.e., moving) during the times we can no longer see it. That fits with the "rests" part: Ancient man would think that continued movement took energy, because they got tired when they themselves ran, but wouldn't necessarily think that continuing to shine was tiresome or would require "rest".
This is further supported by the amount of time Enoch spends talking about the movement of the Sun, and even claims to know the path it takes in order to return from the place in the West where it sets back around to the place in the East where it needs to rise again the next morning. The above passage seems to be a reference to this perpetual motion of the Sun. Nowhere can I find any place where he unambiguously mentions whether or not he thinks the Sun continues to shine while it's out of sight. In fact, that issue seems not to interest him. He may well presume that it continues to shine -- it's a reasonable assumption given the way the Sun is known to shine constantly across many lifetimes (at least in the day) -- but he doesn't really make a clear declaration about that one way or the other.
That stars come into existence and die by becoming lightening – a possible reference to stellar evolution or supernovae: "And I saw another thing regarding lightening: how some stars arise and become lightening and cannot dwell with the rest." 1 Enoch 44
My source translates that as: "Also another phenomenon I saw in regard to the lightnings: how some of the stars arise and become lightnings and cannot part with their new form."
In either case, I think this is meant to "explain" meteorite trails. "Arise" is probably meant in the sense of "get up" from the star's resting place in the sky, not "arise" as in "to originate". So this is speaking of a star which decides to leave its spot in the sky to streak across the night sky ("become lightning"), never to return to its original resting place.
I see nothing in this passage or elsewhere in Enoch which seems to accord with any notion of new stars forming in any manner, nor even dying as such.
Singularity? And then there is a reference to the end of all that there is (and beginning) which sounds like a singularity: in chapter 18 a place with no measure and no content, a pit "where the heavens come together." He records that the angel explained [v. 14] "this is the ultimate end of heaven and earth; it is the prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven…"
It's pretty vague... My source renders this as:
And beyond these mountains Is a region the end of the great earth: there the heavens were completed. And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth. And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated (even) for ten thousand years.'Hmm, a hell for stars which didn't rise punctually, where they are tortured with fire... Must be pretty hot to torture a star, since stars are awfully hot normally...
In any case, the "no sky and no earth" passage just seems to indicate that this was beyond the edge of the outer rims of the "Earth", and thus the comment about "This place is the end of heaven and earth" seems less like a promise of universal annihilation than a simple observation about it being past "city limits" (i.e., beyond the edge of the earth and sky).
So in summation, I'm not sure if any of these passages from Enoch represent any real premonitions of modern cosmology. Most seem like pretty typical observations and presumptions for a person of that period (although clearly someone spent a lot of time making careful daily notes over the course of at least a year, and deserves much credit for that).
But there are a number of other passages that make it pretty clear that the author was working from his own human observations and surmises instead of any Special Knowledge From On High...
The first problem is that any complete reading of the book of Enoch makes totally inescapable the conclusion that the author is describing a "flat Earth with a hard bowl-shaped sky dome over it" scenario. Unlike similar passages which can be found in the books actually incorporated into the Bible which can be argued away as possibly metaphorical, in Enoch it's described in way too much careful detail for it to be read as anything other than a literal claim of a flat Earth covered by a sky dome in which the Sun and Moon and stars run their paces. The author even describes exactly how many doors and windows are in the sky dome, and where, to let the Sun/Moon/stars/winds/waters in and out, and which doors the Sun uses on which days of the year, etc. His cosmology is this:
(The above picture is from this web page, which also has a good list of the ways in which Enoch clearly influenced the writers of parts of the Bible.)
Needless to say, I don't think that counts as "statements about astronomy which are strangely accurate".
Other passages that probably seemed like good ideas at the time but which turned out not to be the case:
1. "And they took me to the living waters, and to the fire of the west, which receives every setting of the sun." (Chapter 17). No, the Sun does not set upon a place of fire. The Earth just keeps rotating and the Sun doesn't land anywhere.
2. "I saw the treasuries of all the winds." (Chapter 18). Wind isn't kept in treasuries.
3. "And I saw the corner-stone of the earth." (Ch. 18). The Earth doesn't have a cornerstone. It might if it were flat, but...
4. "I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and all the stars to their setting." (Ch. 18). Wind doesn't move the Sun and stars around, they appear to move because the Earth rotates.
5. "From thence I went to another place to the west of the ends of the earth." (Ch. 23). The Earth doesn't have "ends", and if you keep going West you only circle the Earth.
6. "And to the east of those beasts I saw the ends of the earth whereon the heaven rests, and the portals of the heaven open. And I saw how the stars of heaven come forth, and I counted the portals out of which they proceed, and wrote down all their outlets, of each individual star by itself, according to their number and their names, their courses and their positions, and their times and their months, as Uriel the holy angel who was with me showed me." (Ch. 33). The sky/heaven does not rest upon the Earth, especially not at the "ends", there are no portals in the sky dome, and the stars do not come out of them in order to rise above the horizon.
7. "And from thence I went towards the north to the ends of the earth, and there I saw a great and glorious device at the ends of the whole earth. And here I saw three portals of heaven open in the heaven: through each of them proceed north winds: when they blow there is cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain. And out of one portal they blow for good: but when they blow through the other two portals, it is with violence and affliction on the earth, and they blow with violence." (Ch. 34). Northern winds do not issue from three holes in the sky dome.
8. "And from thence I went to the east to the ends of the heaven, and saw here the three eastern portals of heaven open and small portals above them. Through each of these small portals pass the stars of heaven and run their course to the west on the path which is shown to them. And as often as I saw I blessed always the Lord of Glory" (Ch. 36). Again, there are no holes in the sky dome and the stars do not come out of them to travel across the sky each night.
9. "And there I saw closed chambers out of which the winds are divided, the chamber of the hail and winds, the chamber of the mist, and of the clouds, and the cloud thereof hovers over the earth from the beginning of the world." (Ch. 41). Wind, hail, clouds, etc. do not originate in warehouses.
10. "And I saw the chambers of the sun and moon, whence they proceed and whither they come again" (Ch. 41). The Sun and Moon do not spend their time in storehouses when they are not visible.
11. "And this is the first law of the luminaries: the luminary the Sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven, and its setting in the western portals of the heaven. And I saw six portals in which the sun rises, and six portals in which the sun sets and the moon rises and sets in these portals, and the leaders of the stars and those whom they lead: six in the east and six in the west, and all following each other in accurately corresponding order: also many windows to the right and left of these portals." (Ch. 72). The Sun, Moon, and stars do not come out of doorways in the sky dome when they rise, nor duck out of doorways when they set.
12. "The chariot on which he [the Sun] ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns through the north in order to reach the east, and is so guided that he comes to the appropriate portal and 6 shines in the face of the heaven." (Ch. 72). The Sun does not ride a chariot, and does not get blown across the sky. Nor does it travel in a northern path outside the sky dome in order to get from its place of setting back to the place it must rise again in the morning.
13. "And the sun goes forth from that sixth portal in the west, and goes to the east and rises in the fifth portal for thirty mornings, and sets in the west again in the fifth western portal. On that day the day decreases by two parts, and amounts to ten parts and the night to eight parts." (Ch. 72). While the author does an admirable job attempting to describe the manner in which the Sun's path varies with the seasons and so do the lengths of the days, it doesn't do so by switching entry/exit "portals" on given days, nor does the length of the day stay constant for thirty days and then suddenly shift its length, it's a continuous progression.
14. "...and his [the Sun's] light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal." (Ch. 72). Clearly not divine information. The sun isn't "sevenfold" brighter than the Moon, it's 436,800 times brighter (as viewed from the surface of the Earth -- in absolute terms the disparity is even greater). And the Sun may *look* the same size as the Moon, but in reality it's almost 400 times as large in diameter. Enoch apparently figured they were the same size since they had the same apparent diameter and "must" have been at the same distance (since they both rode on the "sky dome").
15. "And the sun and the stars bring in all the years exactly, so that they do not advance or delay their position by a single day unto eternity; but complete the years with perfect justice in 364 days." (Ch. 74). Well, 365.2422 days, but who's counting? I don't so much mind him missing the fraction, but somehow there's still an entire day missing from the year.
16. "In like manner twelve doors Uriel showed me, open in the circumference of the sun's chariot in the heaven, through which the rays of the sun break forth: and from them is warmth diffused over the earth, when they are opened at their appointed seasons." (Ch. 75). The Sun does not ride in a chariot, but if it did that would certainly be an ingenious way to vary its warmth in Summer versus Winter, instead of the current method of whereby the tilt of the Earth's axis affects the angle at which sunlight strikes a given spot on the Earth...
17. "And I saw chariots in the heaven, running in the world, above those portals in which revolve the stars that never set." (Ch. 75). Last time I checked, the North Star and other northerly stars that don't dip below the horizon don't ride in chariots either, nor do they rest above the three northern portals in the sky dome.
18. "And one [of the "stars that never set"] is larger than all the rest, and it is that that makes its course through the entire world." (Ch. 75). Since the Earth isnt' flat after all, Polaris can not be used to "make courses" for the "entire world", just for most of the northern hemisphere.
19. "And at the ends of the earth I saw twelve portals open to all the quarters (of the heaven), from which the winds go forth and blow over the earth." (Ch. 76). No he didn't.
20. "...and her [the Moon's] chariot in which she rides is driven by the wind, and light is given to her in (definite) measure". (Ch. 73). The Moon's movement is not driven by wind.
