Just read one of them 'apocryphal books'

by sd-7 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • sir82
    sir82
    What was really surprising was the Book of Enoch--Jude QUOTED from it! And if Jude quoted from it yet it's an apocryphal book, doesn't that mean Jude should be regarded as apocryphal, too? Or else Enoch must be accepted...and the Society's mental gymnastics must commence at an accelerated rate!

    There was a "Questions Made Up From Readers" on that a while back.

    Final answer: Jude and Enoch just happened (what a coink-i-dink!) to quote from some mysterious, unknown, currently non-existent other book which was historically accurate but not inspired. The rest of Jude's message is perfectly hunky-dory, but the rest of the book of Enoch is just mythology.

    You just can't make this stuff up!

  • DrJohnStMark
    DrJohnStMark

    If you read the Bible, you observe that the God himself did not really know much about Satan, perhaps it became clear for him in the course of time. Nameley, in the Old Testament (OT), it is not told that the figure behind the Eden snake was Satan. Try to find...

    A major JW doctrine, on which everything is hung, is that some kind of a big principle has been called into question... about sovereignity between God and Satan. A funny thing is that you cannot find this doctrine defined in the in the OT.

    Even vorse, in the New Testament (NT) this is not told us either and, what is told, is certainly not in the JW style. It is true that in the NT Satan lurks in here and there, but his existence does not appear as a central point in Christ's teachings in any way.

    So was Jehovah so diabolic that he held this information out of reach for us for centuries? And then finally it revealed to Russell and Rutherford (hih)? In their publications Satan would then be written a bigger role than in the Bible.

    The role of Satan, however, is said to be a key teaching of WT society? But then it is ONLY found in the Apocryphal texts of the OT. Just see the Book of Wisdom and the Book of Enoch. Just read those books and you find that the JW world explanation relies on information from the Apcrypha.

    This explains you why JWs are not to read those texts. Reading them would make evident, where the interpretations about what happened in Eden and about Satan's role came from, and that it all reflects only the 'questionable' tradition of the Apocrypha, vhich the WT says is uninspired.

    Reading list (not long): The Book of Enoch and The Book of Wisdom. Why is it that central elements of the Truth(TM) are to be found on these only?

  • GLTirebiter
    GLTirebiter
    Wisdom and Sirach

    I'll second that recommendation. Wisdom and Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus) have much to offer the soul.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    sir82....Unfortunately for the Society, the "rest of Jude's message" also contains extensive allusions to 1 Enoch, particularly in v. 6, 12-13, and 16. Nor is 1 Enoch the only extrabiblical book alluded to in the epistle; v. 9 utilizes content from the Assumption of Moses (notice that no such story is contained in the OT).

  • sir82
    sir82
    the "rest of Jude's message" also contains extensive allusions to 1 Enoch
    v. 9 utilizes content from the Assumption of Moses

    More diabolical coincidences!

    Satan is working overtime to occlude the crystal clear waters of truth.

  • DrJohnStMark
    DrJohnStMark

    Need to add: Of course, of great interest, related to the Society's delirious interpretation of Dan.11, is 1.Macc.1, after which no further explanation is needed (and I shall not explain, just read it there), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Maccabees. For me, finding it in a public library, after getting a hint in the footnote of a modern bible translation, was one of the keys to freedom in the first place.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Oh yeah, and the Society gave 1 Maccabees a thumbs up as well:

    *** ep p. 86, Lesson 17: Period of Apocryphal Writings ***

    In bridging this period one of the apocryphal books is of particular value, namely, First Maccabees. It is historical, does not delve into doctrine, and though containing minor inaccuracies its general accuracy is established. It is the one exception to the shortcomings typical of the Apocrypha.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Enoch would be canon only in those places that Jude quotes it. There are many other books throughout the Bible that are quoted, but that does not indicate a stamp of canonicity on the entire work. What makes Jude unique in this matter is that it uses extensive quotes from Enoch. Back in the fourth century, when the canon was being finalized, Jude was the one that made it on the list by the skin of its teeth.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Well not only does Jude explicitly quote from 1 Enoch, but the author probably regards the words he quotes as divinely inspired (επροφητευσεν in v. 14, cf. 2 Peter 1:21).

    1 Enoch was also quoted as "scripture" in the second century AD, as attested by the epistle of Barnabas and Tertullian.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    The epistle of Barnabas is canon according to the codex siniticus which is at least as old as the codex vaticanus (SP?)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit