Was thinking about giving it a read, I'm sure it was inspired, not canon, but what does /his/ know about it?
read the 1971 edition
>>503867
Its got some 2spooky angelololology in it.
>>503911
I heard it really expounds on the sons of God thing, what's your guys' opinion on that? Are they angels or are they Seth's kin.
>>503875
Why's that? Better translation or,
>>503911
Angelology is a fucking tard study, I can't believe people use their phds on shit like this.
>>503867
It's about as close to canon as you can be without being canon, considering it IS canon in the Ethiopian Church and it is quoted in Jude.
>>503940
Well as for Jude, there may be another book named the book of Enoch, and this one just borrows the title, but I'm only guessing this because some scholars believe it's from 300BC, way AFTER Enoch was supposed to be alive.
>>503920
My opinion is that it is not canon, and neither are the artistic renditions of the visions of Isaiah. Both should be separated from divinely-inspired scripture.
The thing about apocryphal texts is that I would doubt their divine origin as well as doubt their complete human origin. I would let the authorship and inspiration of such texts remain inconclusive, and the texts themselves be given due reverence. I would show the same reverence to the Quran and the Book of Mormon, among other things. While they are not of divine inspiration, it may very well be that they are of demonic inspiration.
Be careful, anon.
>>503956
That's not a bad point, but I'm kinda atheist. I could be wrong tho, and it could be of some other origin than man.
>>503938
Would Biblical Studies, Historical Theology concentration be a God-tier Phd?
>>503964
You being atheist does not exclude you from demonic fuckery. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean its real. When dealing with matters of a spiritual nature, would it not be wise to assume that you have a spirit and it is vulnerable to demonic intrusion, just in case it is all real?
All I'm saying is that just prudence and caution are not superstition.
>>503978
Anon, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't believe in demons, but I can be wrong. I know that just because I don't believe in them doesn't mean they don't exist, and cause harm. I'm not ignorant like other aethiests, who think Just because I don't see it , means it isnt there.
>>503954
And the gospels were written after the apostles were dead, your point?
>>503992
This and also
Most of the prophetic literature was based on the events before they were conquered and later exiled to Babylon and written afterwords
>>504030
/r/ing a summarized rundown of the history of the bibles translation
>>503992
Aren't there some Biblical scholars that date Mark's writing to the 60s AD? The apostles would mostly still be alive by that point, or some of them would.
>>504099
This, there's alot of evidence otherwise, and I know that there can always be a gap in translations, like a missing link, but we can't lean on the theory that they were written after the apostles
