> A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament > (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the > Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of > the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in > thought and diction. — Wikipedia So why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical by major Christian denominations?

I would like to know if the Book of Enoch was dated around 3000 BC and what language did he speak and is there any carbon dating that was use on any book found? And where are the oldest Scripture of his writings kept?

I know that Zerachiel and Sariel are both rather tied to Judaism as they are most prevalently found in the book of Enoch. In most denominations of christianity this book is not recognized as a canon, except for some oriental orthodox churches, which is why this question asks for the view from that specific branch. Still, they seem to both be represented by the name *Saraqael* through various texts despite having different characteristics. I want to know this because Zerachiel seems to be a Seraphim and they both seem to be watchers. (Sariel might be a Seraphim too?) Additional confusion was caused by references seemingly mixing up Sahariel (Hebrew: *god is my moon*) with Sariel (Hebrew: *god is my ruler*) and the existence of a Wikipedia article for both Zerachiel (Hebrew: *god has remembered*) and Sariel . So are the angels called Zerachiel and Sariel the same, or did they just happen to share a similar name and rank?

# Enoch and the Inclusion of the Gentiles The [Book of Dream Visions](https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_4.HTM) , the fourth section of the Book of Enoch, closes with a summary of the history of Israel told in terms of animals. ([Wikipedia offers a short analysis.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#Animals_in_the_second_dream_vision)) It closes with a vision of the Messianic Kingdom: >And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. And I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything. > >Enoch 9:37-39 This seems to describe the incorporation of gentiles (the animals of the field and birds of the air) into the Kingdom (they all became white bulls). They are not just subject to the Kingdom, but are a part of it and pleasing to the Lord (the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen). It is widely accepted that Enoch influenced the early Church. Jude, 2 Peter, and possibly John reference it. Barnabus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others make use of it. Do any of the Church Fathers (for the purpose of this question, assume the Patristic Age ends with John Damascene) make reference to this passage when discussing the inclusion of the gentiles into the Kingdom?

Ok the book is apocryphal. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/84245/what-is-the-catholic-view-of-the-book-of-enoch But apparently a canonical book, the Epistle of Jude, refers to an apocryphal book . So what, if anything, does this mean for either Jude or the Epistle of Jude ? Eg for the Epistle: Why isn't it like fruit of the poisonous tree where Epistle of Jude becomes apocryphal too? Maybe it's not a substantial reference ? Eg for Jude: Why doesn't this affect the credibility of Jude? Like Jude ... what made a mistake or something? Or Jude didn't have the means at the time to decide if the Book of Epoch is legit or not? Or what?

A member by the name Jas 3.1 in his list of false doctrines against the Book of Enoch in "Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?" stated: "Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural" From a commentary on the Book of Enoch in a Wordpress blog article by the name Piper Michael, he mentioned that this doctrine with the name Azazel as scapegoat was mentioned in Leviticus chapter 16. So, I went to pull out the chapter from the BLB that mentioned about sacrificial offerings of two goats (Lev 16:7) in which " one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat." (Lev 16:8) Then from the same BDB I clicked on for the Masoretic text and here's what I found: > **16:8 וְנָתַן אַהֲרֹן עַל־שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִם גֹּורָלֹות גֹּורָל אֶחָד לַיהוָה וְגֹורָל אֶחָד לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃** Reading from right to left as the way of Hebrew language, the last word (just before the colon looking sign) is **לַעֲזָאזֵֽל**, which reads la-`aza'zel. The prefix **לַ** is a preposition "for" and the "a" vowel is the definite article "the". Therefore the prefix "la" means "for the". The main word here is a masculine noun **זָאזֵֽל** `aza'zel *Strong's H5799 which according to Strong's Concordance means: > 1. entire removal, scapegoat > 2. refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people So, **זָאזֵֽל** `aza'zel or Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch for the fallen angel Azazel simply means a sacrificial scapegoat for the sins of the people. In the Book of Enoch, the fallen angel Azazel was a scapegoat for the sins of the rest of the fallen angels. Leviticus 16:10 also mentioned that the scapegoat "shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. After completing the sacrificial ritual as commanded by Elohim, Lev 16:21 then stated: > "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, > and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and > all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head > of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the > wilderness:" It seems to me that the doctrine of ascribing all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch has a corresponding basis in the Bible. So, how is this particular doctrine in the Book of Enoch not scriptural?

While doing research for an assignment into the history of the *Book of Enoch*, I was able to get a Protestant view from this source: https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html The article says that no scholars believe the *Book of Enoch* to have truly been written by Enoch, the son of Jared (Genesis 5:18) and the great-grandfather of Noah. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). I also found a Wikipedia article that suggested the *Book of Enoch* was written by the Patriarch Enoch of *Genesis*. However, it did concede that: >It is not part of the biblical canon used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews). While the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church consider the Book of Enoch as canonical, other Christian groups regard it as non-canonical or non-inspired, but may accept it as having some historical or theological interest. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch I am less concerned with why the *Book of Enoch* is not regarded as canonical as I am with trying to find out the history and the origins of this book. In particular, I would like to find out what the Catholic Church has to say about the *Book of Enoch* because of this quote from Wikipedia: >The *Book of Enoch* was considered as scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as... Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian, who wrote c. 200 that the *Book of Enoch* had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#Christianity What is the history behind the *Book of Enoch* and what is the Catholic view of the *Book of Enoch*?

For those of you who don't know who **Kokabiel** was, Kokabiel was a former advocate of God and his proponents. He was also known as **"The Star of God"** back when he was still an advocate of God and his proponents. He was known as "The Star of God" by many of his peers because he was seen as a paragon of God himself. But then, as the indefinite continued progression of his existence went on some events had changed him completely. To be more specific he eventually became a dissident of God and his followers. So, what made him change and go completely against God and his advocates? Simple. It was due to an arcane event that took place during his years as a proponent of God. At that time the proponents of God were looking for the **"The Nector of Immortality"** because they were slowly losing their Immortality due to a curse set by a demon a very long time ago. And it's effects were starting to take place. The Proponents of God feared that they would lose their powers and hence become weak and mortal.Since, the Universe was just so vast they needed help in locating "The Nector of Immortality". So the Proponents of God turned towards the demons for help. But, you might ask why would the demons help their arch rivals? The Proponents of God manage to convince the demons into assisting them in the search by promising them that they would be given a certain amount of the Nector. Anyways, the demons and The Proponents of God eventually discover the location of the Nector throught their knowledge and contacts(It is revealed that "The Nector of Immortality" was found at the center of the Universe). The Proponents of God are delighted and relieved of their success. On the Surface everything seems fine. But, this is when Kokabiel starts to see the corrupt side of some his Superiors and fellow Proponents of God. When the demons ask the Proponents of God for their share of the Nector they are denied of it and the Proponents of Gods start to Mercilessly torture and slaughter the Demons. The Demons do try fight back and defend themselves but they are powerless against the Immortal Proponents of God. The entire demons who took part in that expedition were slaughtered by Kokabiel Superiors. It's is suggested that about 220,000 demons were killed that day. This was one the events that completely shocked Kokabiel and changed him completely. It is sometime after these events that Kokabiel slowly starts realize the corruption within the Proponents of God and eventually goes against God and his Proponents. This is why sometimes he is referred by some demons as **"The messiah of the Weak"**. **My Question is why is Kokabiel not metioned in the Bible or in the Christian Doctrine in general?**

Recently, I have been reading apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts, and like many before me, I am struck by the extremely specific similarities between 1 Enoch and the LDS's Book of Moses. I flipped to the back of the LDS's Bible Dictionary, and noticed that the LDS Church also agrees that there are many truths in 1 Enoch. I also found a fascinating [article](https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/10/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-1?lang=eng) by LDS scholar Hugh Nibley pertaining to 1 Enoch. I understand from [this Q&A](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8576/why-is-the-book-of-enoch-not-regarded-as-canonical) why other Christians do not canonize 1 Enoch. I also understand why non-LDS folk would not find the parallels and similarities (in comparison to the Book of Moses) genuine enough for the Books of Enoch to be canonized by the LDS Church, as detailed in length in [this Q&A](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/39304/what-plausible-explanation-can-we-find-for-the-points-of-contact-between-moses-i) However, I do not understand why the LDS Church does not choose to canonize this text if they consider it be an inspired work with many truths similar to their own. What are the key aspects that make LDS authorities skeptical of fully embracing 1 Enoch as part of the sacred writ? After all, they have Songs of Solomon in their canon... 1 Enoch seems a lot more relevant and aligned with their doctrine.

I read in book of Enoch there are 10 heavens God created. Most Christians believe in 1 heaven and Muslims I think believe in 7 heavens. The purpose of each of 10 heavens was described in *Book of Enoch* but my Christian friend said in Bible there is one heaven and hell. I think the 3rd heaven in the book of Enoch is said to contain that heaven and hell he is referring to from the Bible.

I grew up reading the Holy Bible which portrays God as a loving Father, full of compassion and goodwill for mankind. However, after reading the **Book of Enoch**, I am perplexed at the way heaven and God are portrayed. I was filled with fear and I kept asking myself is this the God Christ reflected while on Earth. My question is that is the **Book of Enoch** canonical?

According to the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches, the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch himself around the year 3300 BC. I have seen statements like, "outside of Ethiopia, no one has defended this position." Actually, I have not found any attempt to defend it even in Ethiopia. Assuming someone has actually made a serious attempt to defend the date & authorship, I would like to read it. Can anyone outline a defense of church's traditional position, or point me to one? To be clear, I am not interested in the reasons this date is unlikely (which I already know).

How do we know that the book of Enoch was translated correctly, are any of the original writings still intact? Or were the supposed "originals" found already translated? I ask this because some valuable words can be "lost in translation" such as the commandment "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder", which can and has been interpreted differently throughout history. Another example would be some Christians believing in "Hell", and others believing in the "abyss", and again others believing that the two are separate, one being a place of holding and the other following eternal damnation by god's judgement.