malvisguy212:
you want to read a devilish book ? Its is better you read and understand the lies in it. I have the book too.

praxs:

Dont frgt to share with us after reading it.. Check ur mail

praxs:

Bro u are not getting the point. I opened the thread for pple to share what d knw. Like someone pointed out earliar, its not just the book that was removed, u can sharewith us why they were removed. No one is deceiving me, thanx for ur post anyway

praxs:
Why was the Book of Enoch removed from the bible?
I did do a little research before posting my question and found out that only the Ethiopian Christians kept it, that Jews rejected it because it......
well the thing is that fragments of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems like an authentic part of the Old Testament and only Ethiopians have...
But even the accepted Genesis which Christians accept says angels from heaven had children with earthly female humans, so the book of Enoch only expands on...
The original book of Enoch is written in a mixture of Ge'ez (or something like that spoken in Ethiopia), Aramaic and Latin. Lets share what we know about it

oglalasioux:

People who compiled the bible had Jesus Christ as their object of exultation. The book of Enoch would've contradicted a lot of things concerning Jesus. For instance, the book confirmed, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses allege, that Enoch later returned from heaven and died naturally. The second I've deduced is that the book gave the same Jesus divinity to Noah. Enoch wrote that Noah was born of a human mother and an angel.

praxs:

Sure. But am not sure i can upload upto 9mb here

Abigail09:






whats d size of the book? mean d softcopy

TruthHurts1:


So you're saying there is a possibility that a book which DIRECTLY contradicts the foundation of Christian doctrine might be right? I'm beginning to think that the anti-christ is going to have it easy deceiving some so called christians. All he has to do is dig up one or two ancient heresies and the gullible ones will abandone sound Christian Doctrine and wander after the beast. The signs are already present.
2nd Corinthians 11:4 Paul chided the Corinthian Chruch for giving heed to deception:

"if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Galatians 1:8

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

The anti-christ will reap a bountiful harvest of souls from the milk and water christians of today.

praxs:

Check ur mail, let me know when its delivered

praxs:
Check ur mail, let me know when its delivered

funshint:

u can lie o....dis is not "7 books of moses" o. The book of Enoch is what I'll call "Advanced Genesis"

malvisguy212:
you did not read, if you did you cannot be deceive so easily like this, the book of enoch is satanic and cannot be trusted, enoch died long time ago, someone came with lies to deceive people like you.

Here's chapter 48:1-3 of the book of enoch ...
1 And in that place I saw the
fountain of righteousness Which
was inexhaustible: And around it
were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom, And
their dwellings were with the
righteous and holy and elect. 2
And at that hour that Son of Man
was named In the presence of
the Lord of Spirits, And his name
before the Head of Days. 3 Yea,
before the sun and the signs
were created, Before the stars of
the heaven were made, HIS NAME
WAS NAMED before the
Lord of Spirits.


Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? This is an attack on the deity of Jesus. Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8, " I
am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. " Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. Head of Days? Lord of Spirits? These terms are NOT found in the Bible. IF the Book of Enoch were
valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren't. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur'an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God. In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.

leofab:
THis book was writing before the advent of Jesus Christ; are you too dumb to know this.. Paul is a liar quote me anywhere.....

praxs:
i have the softcopy, too bulky couldnt read it coz of time

leofab:
THis book was writing before the advent of Jesus Christ; are you too dumb to know this.. Paul is a liar quote me anywhere.....

praxs:
Why was the Book of Enoch removed from the bible?
I did do a little research before posting my question and found out that only the Ethiopian Christians kept it, that Jews rejected it because it......
well the thing is that fragments of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems like an authentic part of the Old Testament and only Ethiopians have...
But even the accepted Genesis which Christians accept says angels from heaven had children with earthly female humans, so the book of Enoch only expands on...
The original book of Enoch is written in a mixture of Ge'ez (or something like that spoken in Ethiopia), Aramaic and Latin. Lets share what we know about it

praxs:

Certainly there must have been reasons as to why the books where removed. Some christians have dug deeper in searching those reasons, dis thread is 4 dos who have an insight as to why. U can tellus what u know abt it

praxs:

How can u even itter such? Just like u pointed earlier, we are just human being with limited knowledge of the past but u even have the full knowledge to conclude paul was a liar. Fear God

menesheh:



Brother good morning, you are really wearing god eyes glass that always prevented you from investigating issues critically than cooking up excuses as if you're the one that wrote the bible and are 100% sure of its contents.

As far as we can tell, this is 20th cum 21st century and not two thousand or three thousand years ago. The farther an event get behind time, the harder it is to investigate the factuality of what really took place. It will always be an exuberant position to doubt events that happened thousands of years, i mean thousands of years considering that the people who propagated or partook in such events are pretty naive to some extent compared to you today. The essence of such doubts is to be in the safe side by making sure we are not under delusion.

This is the reason why scientific investigations and facts of past events and phenomena (like evolution, bigbang etc) are not hold as dogma. we are human with limited knowledge to accurately know absolutely what happened in the past. We can be wrong anytime and somewhere. Despite oceans of evidence supporting any scientific and historical facts, we can't still say for absolute (100%) certainty that it really happened that way.

malvisguy212:
you want to read a devilish book ? Its is better you read and understand the lies in it. I have the book too.

malvisguy212:
you want to read a devilish book ? Its is better you read and understand the lies in it. I have the book too.

praxs:
not even a chapter... But bin watching youtube vidz about it! The books seems to be #i just dont know

coollabman:


the book was never in the bible in the first place! church fathers as at that time gathered and examined several scriptures to determine if they were genuinely inspired by the holy spirit. Christianity just became state religion in Rome and there was need to streamline activities and stamp out paganism. many christian sects and scriptures were available then. some were overtly heretical (as in their message did not align with that of the church fathers) while some (like the book of Enoch) were somehow complicated. these books certainly contained biblical truth, but there were passages/chapters/verses in these books that were suspicious. hence these books were described as non-canonical and excluded from what eventually became the bible (as we see it today).