Replies

I too have the greatest respect for Isaac Newton, as he was a Christian as well as a scientist. In fact, it is known that he would liked to have published a paper proving that God exists, yet he knew that, like the atmosphere that exists today, it would be ridiculed and suppressed by his colleagues.

We could go into all the details why Enoch is not accepted as scripture, but let's assume we all know why and move past that. Therefore, since scripture can only be used to interpret scripture, or a true prophet (and let's assume we all know the rules for that too, and move past it) then Enoch cannot be used to interpret the prophecies in the bible. One true prophet will know another by the Word of the Lord that he brings. Did Isaac Newton say "Thus saith the Lord" or did he insist that the Lord told him these things, when he made that statement? If not, you must dismiss it, even though we know that he was a believer.

Thank you so much for your reply!

I understand what you are saying and on most all other ancient manuscripts would agree with you, no problem. However, Enoch is an anomaly because Jude quotes it directly and verses and phrases from it are quoted in the New Testament about 100 times. Worse, there are several versions of Enoch. But since it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the copy carbon-dated to 200 b.c. the text begs to be revisited.

There is also the issue of why it was never canonized. here's an excerpt concerning Tertullian (155-160 C.E.):

Tertullian, for example, wrote, "I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

"If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

"But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired". By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude."

At any rate, I find the manuscript quite illuminating; but, certainly, I don't expect others to see it the same way.

I wish I could hang around and discuss this further, but my daughter and son-in-law are due to arrive any minute and will be here for a week. But please post your comments and such and I’ll respond as soon as possible!