post it; I’ve not read it since it’s not in the Bible.
Authors of the new testament quoted it. It’s not canon, but it was ome of their sources. http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/Book%20of%20Enoch%20NT%20Verses.htm
It’s good to acquaint oneself with the information the bible authors were using. But it gets even more interesting:
Did you ever wonder what the source was for Paul’s position regarding hair length? Well... https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268550?seq=1
And referenced here: https://drmsh.com/christians-who-believe-the-earth-is-really-flat-does-it-get-any-dumber-than-this/
In this section that refers to his podcast where it is discussed:
“Is the hair on a woman’s head really part of her genitalia that assists in drawing a man’s semen to her uterus so she can conceive? That’s what people in Paul’s day believed about hair. And based on what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 about hair and covering the head, he believed it, too. So I guess we need to in order to “believe the Bible.” Why not? You believe the earth is really flat, so why are you omitting this “Bible reality”? Don’t think that what I’m saying about first century people connecting hair to fertility and procreation is correct? Listen to this episode of my Naked Bible podcast. I quote ancient Greco-Roman philosophers (ever heard of Aristotle?) and physicians (how about Hippocrates?) to show this is indeed the case.2 (That’s called using primary sources for tapping into the worldview of the biblical writers — same thing I did for the flat earth stuff … so are you going to be consistent or not?) Again … we know today how procreation really works, scientifically. The hair on a woman’s head isn’t part of conception.”