If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus? (page 2)

Aware!

goatshapedemon: trying using google chrome or firefox to post. Don't forget to copy what you're writing before you post in case something happens.

goatshapeddemon

Thanks for the tip! How ridiculously annoying.

Sorry about the dup post.

Funny! If solid proof that the Book of Enoch should be in the canon was found... JWs would have a MUCH bigger problem than Michael the Archangel. I have to say, reading the Book of Enoch was the beginning of the end of my solid faith in the Christian Bible.

mP

But the book of Enoch is quoted by James and Jude. If it was good enough for them it should be good enough for our Bible.

goatshapeddemon

Yep, mP, you're correct. And an "inspired" book, quoting a supposedly non-inspired book is just a crock. The Scriptures-Inspired book (ha! haven't heard that in awhile) uses cross-quotation as an important "proof" of cannonicity. But I think the book of Enoch is simply too inconvenient. So I think they get around it by saying that a quote from a book could be inspired without it meaning that the whole book is inspired.

Aware!

Who gets to decide which books go in our Bible? I've been wanting to get a catholic Bible to read the apocrypha. I could read online but I prefer to have a book in my hand.

mP

mp->Aware!

Another interesting question. Why is it that the WT uses a Bible selected by Babylon the Great also known as the Catholic Church? It would explain why books like Easter sorry Esther are included even thought they never mention Jehovah or God by name.

maksym

The book of Enoch IS considered Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

It is to them a part of the Bible.

The JW's do not use the complete Bible but a Protestant version of such.

Leolaia

I_love_Jeff.....Well, it actually doesn't matter whether 1 Enoch is canonical or not; just by virtue of existing it falsifies the JW etymological argument that arkhaggelos necessarily has a unique referrent on account of the prefix -arkh. It shows that before the NT was even written, the word already MEANT something that the Society argues the word did not mean.

And an "inspired" book, quoting a supposedly non-inspired book is just a crock. The Scriptures-Inspired book (ha! haven't heard that in awhile) uses cross-quotation as an important "proof" of cannonicity. But I think the book of Enoch is simply too inconvenient. So I think they get around it by saying that a quote from a book could be inspired without it meaning that the whole book is inspired.

Actually, the author of Jude explicitly claimed that what he was quoting was inspired. " It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied (proephèteusen), saying, [quote of 1 Enoch 1:9 follows]". Prophecy was by definition understood as given under inspiration. " For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

mP

Leo:

so who was the arch angel Michael. From my readings i have heard very little explaination of who this character was. Im guessing he actually is another invented pagan spiritual being. Xians like to conflate all "good" spiritual beings into Jesus or Jehovah while everything bad is of course Satan. Is that a fiaroverviw ?

WTWizard

They don't care. Even if you can prove a doctrine wrong using their own Bible, you are still expected to abide by and teach the bad doctrine until the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger themselves fix it. If they make an even bigger mess, you have to abide by and teach the even worse doctrine.

If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus?

Share this