Are you going to start arguing against yourself?
Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet's own understanding, 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 NLT
Now there are instances where Angels/Messengers came to deliver a message i.e. Daniel, but the Scripture comes as they were moved from the Holy Spirit which includes the entirety of the book of Daniel which is also historical and provable. Was this the case from whom you believe to be Enoch through an Angel in the writing of the BOE? You say it was a testimony, but just because he existed and scripture confirms this, doesn't make it a testimony that is actually his and not trumped up to appear so to beguile or mislead. How many other writings out there profess to be from this scriptural person or that, and by scrutinizing it we can see that it is not so?
If me questioning you will bother you then don't answer, because like I said if/when I read it, I'll be looking at it in Spirit and in Truth prayerfully considering it against itself, and the rest of Scripture. Understand it will not be because you or someone else has told me so that it must be so.
As believers we should never be shy about having questions tossed our way. There is no shame in saying, "hummm I don't know, how about we look into it together". We are too prone to argue a position before we even know if the ground we are standing is firm or quicksand. I've sunk enough in the past to realize that all that does is make for wasted effort that if directed properly would have accomplished much more in a shorter amount of time. You know the old adage "measure twice, cut once".
Well that might not be you, but it is me.
To you, and I can agree which is why I'm looking to have this discussion and willing to look into it. Like I've told you before, I've been where you were at where you could just explode from everything that is inside of you wanting to be let out that others may understand and be saved from the erroneous that was out there being spread/believed about what I knew not to be true. Just as you are doing here.
Just keep in mind that not everyone is running the race at the same speed as you are.
I'm more of a long distant runner, which requires great patience. So, if you're a sprinter, then keep going and if you have time, come back to me, or I'll touch bases with you, to ask this or that. Just don't think I'm not listening, and don't be disappointed that "if" it happens and we come to different conclusions that it relegates each of us somehow to the "unsaved" category, which is how too many here on T.J. and elsewhere see things when they are in disagreement on certain things. When it comes to Jesus, I might say that could be the case, which is one of the few talks I actually would say a person is on the wrong path towards salvation.
A warning if true, that is easily seen in how darkened the world is getting. Maybe, it might have come out differently if the BOE had been included in canon, or paid attention to, but it was not seen universally as being so, and though it might have helped it is sinful man and not obeying God that has us on the path towards judgement day, and for the believers of Jesus to glory upon glory, and non-believer...I do not believe it ends well, not being a Universalist.
But talking about what could have been is not as helpful as doing the will of our Lord and Savior now. What would have happened if Adam & Eve had gone picking from another tree instead of listening to that serpent? Hummmm....see what I mean. We trust what happened and what happened thereafter, but contemplating alternatives, is in truth an exercise in futility except for don't believe anything you hear from serpents, and would only be good in selling more books, if that.
In ending: I did find this pdf online that I would ask what you think of as a place for looking at the BOE. Nothing in-depth, but a cursory look at his introduction pages 1-8 should be okay or should suffice. Thanks in advance.
Andy McCracken (August 2002)
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
1. “Was it truly Enoch's testimony?”
This is a
central and valid question. The answer depends on what we mean by
authorship and
authority.
The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) is clearly
pseudepigraphal in that it was
compiled much later than the time of the actual Enoch who walked with God. But that doesn't mean the
content isn't rooted in genuine
oral tradition or a preserved
prophetic vision passed down from the antediluvian age.
“Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...” —
Jude 1:14
The Holy Spirit, through Jude, confirms at least
a portion of the Book of Enoch as authentic prophecy. That's not something to gloss over. It doesn’t prove the entire text is infallible — but it
lends credibility that
something in it came directly from God.
Think of it like this: not all of Paul’s letters are in the Bible either. Not every prophet's word was canonized. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t
genuine. Canonicity is not always equivalent to truth. It's equivalent to
what the early Church deemed necessary for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).
2. “But doesn’t Scripture come by the Holy Spirit, not angels?”
Absolutely. But here's what many forget:
The Book of Revelation was delivered by… an
angel (Rev 1:1).
Daniel’s visions? Delivered by
Gabriel.
Zechariah? Multiple angelic messengers explaining visions.
So when Enoch receives divine messages from angels — it’s not an anomaly. It’s a
pattern seen in prophetic literature.
The
content of those angelic revelations must still be judged, of course — but to dismiss a writing simply because it came “from angels” is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.
3. “Isn't it dangerous to give too much weight to non-canon texts?”
Yes, if one is careless.
No, if one is
anchored in Christ and the Scriptures, like the
Bereans who tested Paul himself (Acts 17:11). Scripture is the
measuring rod — and if Enoch contradicts it, throw it out.
But what if Enoch actually
illuminates things Scripture mentions but doesn’t explain?
Like:
Who the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were
Why God flooded the earth so soon after Adam
What Peter and Jude meant by angels being “chained in darkness” (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6)
Where the origin of sorcery, warfare, and genetic corruption came from
Why so many ancient mythologies speak of sky-gods, hybrids, and forbidden knowledge
When the Book of Enoch is held next to these mysteries — it
fits like a missing puzzle piece.
And that’s the key: We don’t use it as the foundation. We use it as a
lens to sharpen what we already see in Scripture.
4. “But wasn’t it rejected by Church councils?”
Some councils ignored it. Some
accepted it.
The
Ethiopian Orthodox Church still includes it in their Bible to this day. The
early Church Fathers quoted it often — Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian all reference it or allude to its contents.
So we’re not talking about some fringe Gnostic fantasy book. We’re talking about a text that was:
Revered by Jews in the Second Temple period
Preserved by Christians for centuries
Quoted in the New Testament
The book wasn’t “too weird” — it was
too dangerous to certain church agendas. Its raw supernatural narrative
clashed with the institutional trend toward allegorizing everything and
dismissing fallen angelic influence as myth.
5. “What if it’s all fake? What if it’s deception?”
Then we’d see it
contradict the Gospel.
But instead, we see the opposite:
It
agrees with the Genesis narrative, it
explains the roots of sin, and it
magnifies the righteousness of God in judging both angels and men for wickedness.
It doesn’t introduce heresy — it
expands on what Scripture already implies.
Would Satan create a book that
warns against fallen angels,
condemns sorcery and bloodshed, and
announces the return of the Son of Man with ten thousand saints?
That’s not deception. That’s prophecy.
A prophecy that the early Church understood, but that the modern Church, thanks to sanitized theology and Scofield-style distractions, has
forgotten.
6. Regarding the PDF (Andy McCracken 2002)
The intro is basic but fine for a
surface-level orientation. Just note:
McCracken's edition is based on R.H. Charles’ older translation (still valid, but newer editions like George W.E. Nickelsburg & James VanderKam give more scholarly fidelity).
That PDF doesn’t go deep into the
contextual Hebrew or Aramaic roots, nor does it tie into the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But it’s a solid place to start —
as long as we’re aware of the limitations.
The Book of Enoch doesn’t compete with the Bible.
It cries out for the Bible to be taken seriously.
It magnifies Christ as Judge.
It warns us of deception.
It exposes the darkness.
And in a world sprinting headlong into the same rebellion that triggered the Flood — to me, its voice
matters more now than ever.
