<< back to Bible Studies

Book of Enoch, Lost Books

by Micah Anthony

What I've learned About the Lost Books of the Bible,Son's of Elohim and the Book of Enoch?

By Pastor M. Anthony SR.Related Med

INTRO:In both my proactive outreach ministry, as well as casual reactive conversations I might have with my barber or fellow employees when religious conversation occurs, whether they are people who do or don't attend church, quite a few have brought up how archaeology has unearthed ancient biblical texts giving them reason to doubt our current canon of scripture; called the Bible. There are many who entertain the possibility that Christians today don't have the true Bible; and use this excuse to form their own aberrant belief system or spirituality. Browsing through the religious section in your local bookstore, or even on Netflix or the History channel, you’re likely to stumble on a handful of titles that suggest the discovery of “lost books” of the Bible. Generally, these represent works that were “politically incorrect” according to the theological notions of the time. Branded as spurious by early church leaders, they were discredited and destroyed. Luckily, a handful of copies survived. Archaeologists have rescued these previously “lost books” of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas, unearthed in the Nag Hammadi library in Upper Egypt in 1945, would be an example.

Invariably, this sends a jolt through the system of many Christians who begin to question, could it be that archaeology has unearthed ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture? Is it possible the Bible we Christians have is incomplete? To answer this question about the so called lost or hidden books of the Bible, I present this four part study...


It may be hard to believe, but this question can be answered without ever reading any of the books in question. No research needs to be done, no ancient tomes addressed, no works of antiquity perused. Curiously, the entire issue can be answered by a close look at one word: Bible.

The Bible Divine

The whole question of alleged lost books of the Bible hinges on what one means by the word “Bible.” It can only mean one of two things. 

1)There is a religious understanding of the word...

When one asks an Christian what the Bible is, he or she is likely to say simply, “It’s Yahweh’s Word.” When pressed for a more theologically precise definition, he might add that Yahweh Elohim superintended the writing of Scripture so that the human authors, using their own style, personalities and resources, wrote down, word for word, exactly what Elohim intended them to write in the originals. Added to this verbal explanation of inspiration would be many scriptures that show how the Bible says this about itself; along with proofs of why the Bible is devine rather than manmade in origin. This is a vital part of the Christian understanding of the definition of the word “Bible.”

The key concept for our discussion is the phrase “exactly what Yahweh intended them to write.” This is a critical element of this understanding of “Bible” is the idea that Yahweh was not limited by the fact that human authors were involved in the process.

2) Then there is a opposing secular definition or view of the Bible. In this view, a common objection to the notion of inspiration is that the Bible was only written by men, and men make mistakes. This complaint misses the mark for two reasons.

First, it does not logically follow that because humans were involved in the writing process, the Bible must necessarily be in error. A thorough research on how the Scriptures have endured will reveal minor Mistakes in translation of a word here or there, but these minor fixable mistakes don't compromise the integrity of the scriptures word as a whole being divine rather than man made in origin. To assume error in all human writing is also a self-defeating argument. The humanly derived statement, “The Bible was written by men, and men make mistakes,” would be suspect by the same strict standards. The fact is, human beings can and do produce writing with no errors. It happens all the time.

Further, the challenge that men make mistakes ignores the main issue—whether or not the Bible was written only by men. The Christian accepts that humans are limited, but by faith denies that man’s limitations are significant in this case because inspiration implies that Yahweh Elohim’s power supersedes man’s liabilities.

A simple question serves to illustrate this: “Are you saying that if Yahweh exists, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?” This seems hard to affirm. The notion of an omnipotent Elohim not being able to accomplish such a simple task is ludicrous. If, on the other hand, the answer is “No, I think He is able,” then the objection vanishes. If Yahweh is capable, then man’s limitations are not a limit on Elohim.

The divine inspiration of the Bible

If we can offer good reasons the Bible was from Yahweh Elohim to begin with, this automatically solves the problem of human involvement. If Yahweh insures the results, it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys do the writing, they will still write exactly what Yahweh intends. That is part of what it means for the Bible to be divinely inspired.

The important thing for our purpose here is not to defend the notion of divine inspiration, but to understand that Yahweh’s authorship and supernatural preservation are necessarily entailed in the first definition of the word “Bible.” The Bible is the 66 individual books contained under one cover that are supernaturally inspired by Yahweh Elohim, and are preserved and protected by His power. On this understanding, man’s limitations are irrelevant.

The second definition of the word “Bible” is not religious, and therefore assumes no supernatural origin for the Scripture. This view says that while Christians treated the Scriptures as divinely inspired, they were mistaken. The Bible merely represents a human consensus, a collection of books chosen by the early church to reflect its own beliefs.

A book that didn’t make the cut was rejected for two basic reasons: Early Christians couldn’t trace authorship to an Apostle or eyewitness accounts, and the theology differed from what had been handed down from the Apostles. Christianity is no different from other religions that have collections of authoritative writings. Even individual professions identify certain books as—"bibles," if you will—as official representations of their respective fields. The Bible, then, is in that category—merely a collection of books chosen by the early church leaders to represent their own beliefs.

So we have two possible meanings for the word “Bible,” a supernatural one and a natural one. Either the Bible is divinely given and divinely preserved—the conservative Christian view—or it’s merely a human document representing the beliefs of a religious group known by the label “Christianity”—the view of just about everyone else. The next question we should ask ourselves is given either of these two definitions, could any books of the Bible be lost?

No Lost Books

Start with the first meaning, the supernatural definition of the Bible. Is it possible that books could be lost from a Bible of this sort? The answer is certainly no. Remember, on this view Yahweh Elohim Himself is supernaturally preserving and protecting the integrity of His work.

Regardless of whether the Christian claim about inspiration is accurate or not, it is obvious that on this definition it is not possible Yahweh would misplace His own book. The “lost books” thesis would thus be reduced to, “Certain books that almighty Yahweh was responsible to preserve and protect got lost.”

This is silly. The view makes Yahweh both almighty and inept at the same time. If the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of Yahweh, then the power of Elohim Himself guarantees that no portion of it will ever be lost. There will always be a fully adequate testimony of His Word in every generation.

Could there be lost books given the second definition? What if Christians are wrong in attributing Yahweh Elohim’s stewardship to the Scriptures? What if the Bible ultimately turns out to be merely a product of human design? If that’s the case, then the term “Bible” refers not to the Word of Yahweh (the first definition), but to the canon of beliefs of the leaders of the early church (the second definition). Is it possible that books could be lost from a Bible of this sort?

The answer again is certainly not. The “lost books” thesis would be reduced to this: “Early church leaders rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs; and kept only those that they actually believed reflected their beliefs.’

If the Bible is a collection of books the early church leaders decided would represent their point of view, then they have the final word on what is included. Any books they rejected were never part of their Bible to begin with, so even by the second definition, “lost books” of the Bible would be a misnomer.

Consider this scenario. You decide to write a book about your personal beliefs drawing from stacks of notes containing reflections you’ve collected over the years. After recording the ones you agree with, you discard the rest. Later, someone rummaging through your trash comes upon your discarded notes. Could he claim he’d stumbled upon your lost beliefs?

“No,” you respond, “these were not lost. They were rejected. If they were really my beliefs, they’d be in the book, not in the garbage.”

It’s ironic that “lost books” advocates often point out that rediscovered texts were missing because the early Church Fathers suppressed them. It’s true; they did. Critics think this strengthens their case, but it doesn’t. Instead it destroys their position by proving that the “lost books” were not lost but discarded, rejected as not representative of Christian beliefs. Therefore, they did not belong in the Christian Bible. If they never were in the Bible in the first place they couldn’t be lost from the Bible.

Recall Vote?

Another approach to Scripture is worth mentioning. Some academics, like those of the Jesus Seminar, reject the idea that the Bible has supernatural origins. Since the Bible is just man’s opinion anyway, why not have a recall vote? Amend the text to fix what is now considered defective or out of step with the times.

Such a reshuffling of the biblical deck—tossing out some books and including others to reflect what the church currently believes about spiritual truth—is certainly an alternative on a naturalistic view of the Scripture. If the members of the Jesus Seminar want to include the Gospel of Thomas in their bible, they’re welcome to. Keep in mind though, they would not be restoring a “lost book” of the Bible, but merely redefining the canon to fit modern tastes.

Regardless of how you view the Scripture—as supernatural or as natural—there is no sense in which there could be lost books of the Bible. If the Bible is supernatural—if Yahweh Elohim is responsible for its writing, it’s transmission, and its survival—then Yahweh, being Elohim, doesn’t fail. He doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t forget things, and He’s not constrained by man’s limitations. Yahweh can’t lose his lessons.

However, if the Bible is not supernatural—as many will contend, especially those who claim to have found lost books—one faces a different problem. By what standard do we claim these are bona fide lost books of the canon of the early church? If, from a human perspective, the Bible is that collection of writings reflecting the beliefs of early Christianity, then any writings discarded by the church fathers are not books of their Bible by very definition.

Has archaeology unearthed previously unknown ancient texts? Certainly. Are they interesting, noteworthy, and valuable? Some. Are they missing books of the Bible? The answer is no. Two thousand years later, the rediscovery of something like the Gospel of Thomas may be archaeologically significant. It might be a lost book of antiquity, a great find, even a wonderful piece of literature.

But it is not a lost book of the Bible.



Without looking at the books we've come up with a reasonable argument as to why they are not lost books of the Bible. Keeping this in mind, let's now see what happens when we actually take a little time to research from a historic and Biblical point of view these so called lost or hidden books of the Bible to see what the evidence presents?


Here is a list of the so called "hidden books".

The English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header.[33] The KJV followed the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly (variations are marked below). The section contains the following:[34]

·Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)

·Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)


·Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)

·Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)


·Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)

·Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)

·Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)

·Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)

·The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)

·Prayer of Manasses (Daniel)

·1 Maccabees

·2 Maccabees

Why are there these extra books in the Old testament of the Catholic Bible and not in the Protestant Bible?

THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS- Why the Difference?
The Protestant Old Testament, which contains 39 books, comes from the Palestinian Canon — which (as the name would indicate) is the set of scriptures which originated from Palestine and which were recognized by the Jews. The Catholic Old Testament, however, derives its books from the Alexandrian Canon — the Greek listing of Old Testament books, which was supposedly drawn up in Alexandria, Egypt. Along with the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon, the Alexandrian Canon contains 14 or 15 additional books that are collectively known as the “apocrypha,” which simply means “hidden.”

THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS- Some Discrepancies
Of these 14 or 15 books, three are not included in the Catholic Bible. Also, some of these apocryphal books have been made into a single book, such as Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. Still others were simply tagged onto the books of the Palestinian or Hebrew Canon. For example, the apocryphal book called Bel and the Dragon was made into the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel. This explains why there are only seven additional books listed in the Catholic Old Testament.


THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS-  Why Are They Excluded?
As you will see, there are many reasons why these apocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention First of all, that they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — As we progress through this study we will look at quite a few examples such as encouraging prayers for the dead, and teaching salvation by works. Secondly, we will take a look at the fact that there have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome. And, of course, the most important fact that these books were never directly quoted by YAHSHUA or by any of the New Testament writers. Finally, we'll see how it’s important to note that even the Catholic church itself didn’t canonize them until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began.

The Reformation, also called Protestant Reformation, the religious revolution that took place in the Western church in the 16th century (1517 – 1648).

By the end of this three part study, you will have looked at evidence that supports the conclusion, that while some of these apocryphal books do have some benefit of giving us some insight about the historical events that occurred during the period between the Old and New Testaments, they are definitely not the Word of Yahweh. So, it is very important for all of us to recognize that there is a vast distinction between the apocrypha, or the “hidden books,” and the Divinely inspired Canon of Scriptures that we have. 

Here Are Some of the Reasons Why the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of eleven or twelve books, depending upon how they are divided, that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Old Testament. The Protestants reject these books as Holy Scripture for the following reasons.

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture

There are doctrines and practices contained in the Apocrypha that are contrary to what the Scripture teaches. They include the following.

They Teach A Person Is Saved By Works

In the Apocrypha proof texts can be found to support the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by human works and not faith alone. The Apocrypha contains the following verses.

For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life (Tobit 12:9).

In another place in Tobit it says.

So now, my children see what alms giving accomplishes, and what injustice does it brings death! (Tobit 14:11).

The Non-biblical Doctrine Of Purgatory Is Taught In The Apocrypha

The doctrine of purgatory - a place of purging between heaven and hell - is taught in the Apocrypha. It says.

So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin (Second Maccabees 12:41-45).

The Bible teaches that, upon death eternal judgment is final, one either goes to be with the Lord in paradise or is sent away from Him to a place of the wicked dead- there is no middle place where the living can make atonement for the forgiveness of the wicked dead. The writer to the Hebrews stated.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

According To The Apocrypha Yahweh Hears The Prayers Of The wicked Dead

We find the Book of Baruch teaching that Elohim hears the prayers of those who have died.

O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel, the children of those who sinned before you, who did not heed the voice of the Lord their God, so that calamities have clung to us (Baruch 3:4).

The Bible teaches that the prayers of the dead wicked or not, have no response from Yahweh that would benefit the living. Only the living upon the earth pray for the other living ones on the earth.

Luke 16:22One day the beggar died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. And the rich man also died and was buried. 23In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham from afar, with Lazarus by his side.24So he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. For I am in agony in this fire.’25But Abraham answered, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things. But now he is comforted here, while you are left to suffer. 26And besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that even those who wish cannot cross from here to you, nor can anyone cross from there to us.’27‘Then I beg you, father,’ he said, ‘send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them so they will not also end up in this place of torment.’29But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let your brothers listen to them.’30‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’31Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

The Apocrypha Teaches The Pre-existence Of Souls

The doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is found in the Apocrypha.

As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body (Wisdom 8:19,20).

Scripture does not teach that souls have any existence before they are united into a body.

It Teaches Creation Out Of Pre-Existent Matter

The doctrine of creation out of pre-existent matter is taught in the Apocrypha.

For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter, did not lack the means to send upon them a multitude of bears, or bold lions (Wisdom 11:17).

The Bible says that Elohim's creation was out of nothing.

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of Elohim, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible (Hebrews 11:3).

There are even more than  these doctrines of the Apocrypha that are listed as contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture.


2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture


Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the books of the Apocrypha as being Yahweh's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Yahshua or His apostles. While Yahshua and His apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, they never quoted from the Apocrypha.

Allusions Are Not The Same As Scripture

al·lu·sion/əˈlo͞oZHən/ an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference. 

1.     i.e,..The apostle Paul made an allusion to Greek poets in Acts 17:28,"‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring.’


reference to, mention of, comment on, remark about, citation of, quotation of, hint at, intimation of, suggestion of; 

While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.

No Statement Introduced By "It Is Written"

In addition, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.

Furthermore no book of the Apocrypha is mentioned by name in the New Testament.

There Are Others Books Directly Quoted Apart From Apocrypha


Add to this, there are certain books that both Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church reject as Scripture that some say are actually cited in the New Testament. 

Paul cites the passed down through the ages names that tradition gives the magicians of Pharaoh who opposed Moses. 

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth - men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected (2 Timothy 3:8).

These names are not mentioned in the Old Testament but is used as a name of a so called lost book categorized as apart of a whole other separate set of Apocryphal books known as the .Pseudepigrapha[edit]

Technically, a pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings that do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the texts listed above. Examples[47] include:

·Apocalypse of Abraham

·Apocalypse of Moses

·Letter of Aristeas

·Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah

·Joseph and Aseneth

·Life of Adam and Eve

·Lives of the Prophets

·Ladder of Jacob

·Jannes and Jambres

·History of the Captivity in Babylon

·History of the Rechabites

·Eldad and Modad

·History of Joseph

·Odes of Solomon

·Prayer of Joseph

·Prayer of Jacob

·Vision of Ezra

Often included among the pseudepigrapha are 3 and 4 Maccabees because they are not traditionally found in western Bibles, although they are in the Septuagint. Similarly, the Book of EnochBook of Jubilees and 4 Baruch are often listed with the pseudepigrapha although they are commonly included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Psalms of Solomon are found in some editions of the Septuagint. Later we'll talk more about one of the more famous books found among the pseudepigrapha; but for now lets turn our attention back to the Apocrypha.

If the writers of the New Testament considered any book in the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures.

The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is another indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha.


3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture


The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. On the contrary, they denied their authority. At the time of Messiah Yahshua we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by Elohim. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.


4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years


The books of the Apocrypha were written during the four hundred silent years between the Book of Malachi and the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist. Jewish and New Testament sources both agree that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance occurred during this time.


5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing


The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.


6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Messiah


There is no evidence that the books of the Apocrypha were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Messiah. The earliest manuscripts that contain them date back to the fourth century A.D. This does not demonstrate that the books of the Apocrypha were part of the Septuagint in pre-Christian times. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them as they did with most of the Old Testament books. In addition, books were merely translated in Alexandria, Egypt - they were not canonized there.

There is no clear answer as to what the first century Septuagint contained. The fourth or fifth century Greek manuscripts, in which the Apocrypha appears, have no consistency with the number of books or their order.


7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon


It has been argued that the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was larger than the present Hebrew Old Testament. However, there is no evidence that the Jews in Alexandria, Egypt had a wider canon than the Jews living in Israel. Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the first century A.D., wrote on a number of subjects. He acknowledged the Jews believed in the divine authority of the Hebrew canon. However, he gave no indication that there was a wider canon used by the Jews living in Egypt. From Philo we find that the canon in Alexandria, Egypt was the same as in Palestine. He knows the threefold division of the Old Testament and ascribes divine inspiration to many of the books. In addition, he says nothing about the Apocrypha. Consequently there is no evidence anywhere that the Alexandrian Jews accepted the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture.

It must be remembered that it was not the Jews in Egypt but rather some of the Greek-speaking Christians who gave some measure of authoritative status to certain of these books translated with the Septuagint plus. To the Jews, these books were never considered divinely inspired Scripture.


8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists


In the early years of the church it drew up various lists of the books it considered to be Old Testament Scripture. The books of the Apocrypha do not appear on any list until late in the fourth century. This demonstrates the acceptance of these writings was not immediate.

The Apocrypha Is Missing From The Earliest List

The earliest existing list of the Old Testament canon comes from a man named Melito, a bishop of Sardis. In approximately A.D. 170 he wrote the following.

"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kingdom, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."

This list of Melito is highly instructive. He includes all the books of the present canon except Esther. The reference to the four books of the kingdom would be 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings. Ezra was the common way to refer to Ezra-Nehemiah. Wisdom was merely a fuller description of the Book of Proverbs - not the Apocryphal book by that name. Among ancient writers Proverbs was often called Wisdom.

While including all of the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) Melito nowhere mentions any of the books of the Apocrypha.


9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders


While a few of the early leaders of the church accepted some of the books of Apocrypha as Scripture, most of the great church leaders did not-Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few. Many great church leaders spoke out against the Apocrypha. Those who do cite the Apocrypha as Scripture were few in number.

It is also worth noting that none of the church fathers that quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture knew any Hebrew.

The Clear Testimony Of Athanasius Toward The Apocrypha

In A.D. 367, the great defender of orthodox belief, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter. In this letter he affirmed all the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) as well as all the books of the present New Testament canon. He also mentioned some of the books of the Apocrypha. Of those he said.

"[They are] not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish instruction in the world of godliness."

This is another ancient and powerful testimony that the books of the Apocrypha were not considered to be Holy Scripture.

10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers

Again, a few of the Church Fathers did not restrict themselves to the books that now make up the Apocrypha. Authors such as Justin, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria occasionally use books outside the present Apocrypha - especially the Book of Enoch and First Esdras (Third Esdras).

Clement of Alexandria accepted Second Esdras (Fourth Esdras). Origen believed that the books of First and Second Maccabees, as well as the Letter to Jeremiah, were part of Holy Scripture. Irenaeus cited the Book of Wisdom as being divinely inspired. Therefore appeal to the church fathers cannot settle the matter, seeing that they give conflicting evidence.


11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive


The fact that some of the books from the Apocrypha are found in early Greek manuscripts of the Bible is not decisive. These manuscripts also contain other written works that are neither part of the Scripture nor part of the Apocrypha - everyone rejects them as having any divine authority. For example, 3 and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon are found in these early Greek manuscripts along with the Greek Old Testament and the Apocrypha. If someone points to the inclusion of the Apocrypha among these early manuscripts as proof of their divine authority, then what do they do with these other works? Should they also be added to the Old Testament?

The Books Have A Different Order And Content

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.

In Vaticanus we find: Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and the Letter to Jeremiah.

In Sinaiaticus the list includes: Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus.

In Alexandrinus the order is: Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Psalms of Solomon.

Therefore the early Greek manuscripts give no consistent testimony.


12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit


One of the main problems with accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture is that it is not a well-defined unit. Three of the books in the Septuagint plus were excluded as Holy Scripture - First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. If the books in the Septuagint plus should be made part of the Old Testament then why are these three books omitted?

The Latin Vulgate contains First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh in the Apocrypha. First and Second Esdras are found in most Latin manuscripts of Scripture. In addition, they are placed with the Apocrypha when the full King JamesVersion is printed.

However the Roman Catholic Church does not call these three books Scripture. Sometimes these three books are printed as an appendix to Roman Catholic Bibles after the New Testament. Sometimes they are omitted entirely.

In addition, not every church Father, which accepted the Apocrypha as canonical, had exactly the same list of books in mind. This adds to the problem as to the exact content of the Apocrypha.


13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive


The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.


14. The Ambiguous Testimony Of Saint Augustine


It is often argued that the great scholar, St. Augustine, accepted the books of the Apocrypha as authoritative. However, Augustine seemed to have changed his mind about the authority of the Apocrypha. At one point he implied that the Apocrypha did not have the same status as Holy Scripture (City of God 18.36). At best his testimony is ambiguous. Moreover Augustine's testimony, while important, is certainly not the last word on the matter.

Augustine mistakenly accepted the miraculous account of the origin of the Septuagint. While this was a popular thing to do at his time, no one today takes the story seriously.


15. The Clear Rejection By A Real Authority - Jerome


There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.


16. Early Christian Art Is Not A Test Of Divine Truth


The fact that stories from the Apocrypha were depicted in early Christian art only shows that they were considered valuable in some sense by believers. However the divine authority of any work is not determined by whether it is included or missing in art collections by Christians.


17. They Were Rejected By Many Catholic Scholars Through The Protestant Reformation


Many Roman Catholic scholars, through the Protestant Reformation, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Even the Roman Catholic Church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Protestant Reformation. An example of this is Cardinal Cajetan. He is the man who opposed Martin Luther at Augsburg. In 1518, he published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.

Cardinal Ximenes made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the Old Testament in his work called the Complutensian Polyglot (1514-1517).

Thus there was no unanimity of opinion among Roman Catholic scholars that these books should be considered Scripture. Consequently, before the Protestant Reformation these books were not considered canonical by all of the church authorities.


18. They Were Not Officially Accepted By The Roman Catholic Church Until The 16th Century


While councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) listed the Apocrypha as canonical, this was not the stated view of the entire church. As we have seen there were Roman Catholic works at the time of the Protestant Reformation that did not include the Apocrypha with the Old Testament.

It is only since the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha has had an authoritative status. The first official council of the Roman Catholic Church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546-1563. There is no official record of the acceptance of the writings as authoritative Scripture before this time.


Why Were Certain Books Of The Septuagint Plus Rejected?


In addition, the decision at Trent has many problems. Rather than accepting the entire fourteen or fifteen books of the Septuagint plus as Holy Scripture they rejected First and Second Esdras (which they call Third and Fourth Esdras) and the Prayer of Manasseh. It is interesting to note that Second Esdras, or Fourth Esdras in Roman Catholic reckoning, contains a strong objection against prayers for the dead - one of the important doctrines practiced by the Roman Catholic Church at that time.

Again, Second Esdras also limits the Old Testament canon to twenty-four books. This of course, would exclude the Apocrypha among which it itself is named.

It must also be noted that at the Council of Trent there seems to have been no Hebrew scholars and only a few good Greek scholars.


19. There Are Other Books, Apart From Scripture, Found Among The Dead Sea Scrolls


Most scholars believe that the people who lived at the place near the Dead Sea, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, were the Essenes. Although they were rivals of mainstream Judaism they accepted the same books as Holy Scripture. While it is true that the books of the Apocrypha were found among the scrolls left by this group, they're not the only non-canonical books that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The materials found at Qumran were part of a library - they were not merely books of Scripture. While commentaries of the biblical books have been found at Qumran no commentary has thus far been found on the Apocryphal books. Consequently there is no evidence whatsoever that the Dead Sea Community held the books of the Apocrypha to be divinely inspired.

Even if evidence were someday found that showed the Essenes believed the Apocrypha to be divine, this alone would prove nothing. This group was a sect that was not in the mainstream of Jewish thinking.


20. The Protestants Have Always Rejected The Divine Authority Of The Apocrypha


While some Protestants may find some use of the Apocrypha, such as printing it between the testaments and using it in some measure in public worship, it has never been accepted as Holy Scripture. The use by Protestants of the Apocrypha has never been to establish doctrine or settle doctrinal issues. The use of the Apocrypha is limited. The Church of England in their Bible readings say the Apocrypha is to be used for example of life, but not to establish any doctrine.

The Westminster Confession goes even further. It states.

The books commonly called the Apocrypha . . . [are not] to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (Westminster Confession 1:3).

This is the Protestant position.


21. There Are Demonstrable Historical Errors In The Apocrypha


The Apocrypha also contains demonstrable historical errors. We can cite a number of examples.


The Age Of Tobit When He Died Is A Contradiction


For example, Tobit was supposedly alive when Jeroboam staged his revolt in 931 B.C.

I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life. I performed many acts of charity for my kindred and my people who had gone with me in exile to Nineveh in the land of the Assyrians. When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of my ancestor Naphtali deserted the house of David and Jerusalem. This city had been chosen from among all the tribes of Israel, where all the tribes of Israel should offer sacrifice and where the temple, the dwelling of God, had been consecrated and established for all generations forever. All my kindred and our ancestral house of Naphtali sacrificed to the calf that King Jeroboam of Israel had erected in Dan and on all the mountains of Galilee (Tobit 1:3-5).

Yet the text says that Tobit was still alive when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C. This means that he lived over two hundred years!

However, the Book of Tobit says he lived only 112 years.

So ended Tobit's words of praise. Tobit died in peace when he was one hundred twelve years old, and was buried with great honor in Nineveh (Tobit 14:1,2).

This is an obvious contradiction. Those who believe in an inerrant Scripture cannot accept the Apocrypha as Yahweh's Word.


Errors In The Book Of Judith


Another example can be found in the opening verse of the Book of Judith.

It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana (Judith 1:1).

There are two historical errors in this verse. Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, and he ruled from Babylon, not Nineveh.

It Is Not Possible To Defend The Historical Accuracy Of The Apocrypha

While it is possible for Bible scholars, using the most up-to-date archaeological knowledge, to defend the historical accuracy of the books of the Bible, it is not possible to argue for the historical accuracy of the books of the Apocrypha. Many of them have demonstrable errors that cannot be reconciled.


22. There Is Sub-Biblical Content In The Books Of The Apocrypha


The content of the books of the Apocrypha is below that of canonical Scripture. Several of the books including Judith, Tobit, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon read like legends or myths. When one reads these books alongside canonical Scripture the differences become obvious.


23. There Is No Objective Evidence Of Divine Authority In The Apocrypha


The books of the Apocrypha do not contain anything like predictive prophecy, or the firsthand testimony of miracles, that would give evidence of their divine authority. If Yahweh divinely inspired these books, then we should expect to see some internal evidence confirming it. But there is none.


24. None Of The Books Of The Apocrypha Claim Divine Authority


From the documents themselves we find no claim of authority. This is in contrast to the books of the Old Testament that claim to record the words that Yahweh Elohim spoke and the deeds that He performed among the people. Therefore it is not logical to attribute Yahweh's authority to the books of the Apocrypha when they themselves make no claim to divine authority.


25. There Was No Hebrew Original For All Of The Books Of the Apocrypha


While the books of the present Old Testament canon were written in Hebrew, with small parts in Aramaic, some of the books of the Apocrypha have no Hebrew original behind them. They were composed in Greek. These include Susanna, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the additions to Esther.

While the Hebrew language is not a determining factor as to what books should be part of the Old Testament canon all of the undisputed books of the Old Testament were composed in Hebrew - none of them were composed in Greek. Greek did not become the international language till about 330 B.C. This was about seventy years after the close of the Old Testament. The fact that a number of the books of the Apocrypha were originally written in Greek shows their late date and their lack of claim to be part of the Old Testament.


26. Yahshua ' Testimony Is Definitive


It is clear that in the first century the Old Testament was complete. Yahshua put His stamp of approval on the books of the Hebrew Old Testament but said nothing concerning the Apocrypha. However, He did say that the Scriptures were the authoritative Word of Elohim and they could not be broken. Any adding to that which Elohim has revealed is denounced in the strongest of terms. Yahshua asked the religious leaders a penetrating question.

Why do you break the command of Elohim for the sake of your tradition? (Matthew 15:3).


Yahshua' And The Extent Of The Old Testament


A statement by Yahshua seemingly gives His belief in the extent of the Old Testament.

Therefore I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation (Matthew 23:34-36).

He mentions Abel and Zechariah as the first and last murder messengers of Yahweh Elohim that were murdered. Abel's murder is mentioned in Genesis while Zechariah's was in 2 Chronicles - the last Old Testament book in the Hebrew canonical order. The fact that these two are specifically mentioned is particularly significant. There are other murders of Elohim's messengers recorded in the Apocrypha. Yahshua does not mention them. This strongly suggests He did not consider the books of the Apocrypha as part of Old Testament Scripture as with the books from Genesis to 2 Chronicles.


There Was More Testimony From Yahshua


Yahshua gave further testimony of the extent of the Old Testament canon in the day of His resurrection. He said.

How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! . . . And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself (Luke 24:25,27).

Note Yahshua' emphasis on "all that the prophets had spoken." Later He explained the extent of "all that the prophets had said."

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44).

This is a reference to the threefold division of the Hebrew Scripture. They constitute "all that the prophets said." There is no reference to the Apocrypha. It would not have been part of the threefold division of the Old Testament.


The Old Testament Apocrypha Is Not Scripture


As the evidence is examined it becomes clear that the books of the Apocrypha should not be accepted with the same divine authority as the books found in the Hebrew Old Testament. There is no evidence whatsoever that they belong in Holy Scripture. To the contrary, all the evidence speaks to their exclusion. Because they are not Scripture it is wrong to have them bound in a single volume with Holy Scripture. Doing so will only mislead believers.


The Apocrypha Does Have Value


The fact that the Apocrypha is not considered to be Holy Scripture does not mean that it is entirely worthless. The books do have some value. For example, the Book of First Maccabees has some valuable historical references about the period between the testaments. However any value these books do have are as historical works only - not divinely inspired Scripture.

It Is An Important Matter

The issue as to which books belong in Holy Scripture is more than a historical issue. The books of the Bible are divinely revealed books - all other books are not. The Scripture gives Yahweh's truth in an error-free manner - no other book can claim this. The Scripture is the final authority to solve all doctrinal and behavioral issues. Therefore it is of primary importance that we know the extent of Scripture.


The books of the Apocrypha should not be considered as Holy Scripture because they do not give any evidence as being authoritative. Protestants deny the canonical status of these books on the basis of both internal and external evidence. This evidence includes the following.

First, the Apocrypha contains doctrines and practices that contradict what has been previously revealed in Scripture. Add to this the Apocrypha is never cited in the New Testament as Holy Scripture. This is in contrast to the canonical books - almost all of them are cited.

The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of Yahweh's Word. For one reason, these books were written after Yahweh had ceased giving divine revelation. In these years Yahweh was not giving any authoritative word to His people.

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the manuscripts of the Septuagint proves nothing - we do not know the content of the Septuagint in pre-Christian times. Furthermore there is no evidence of a wider Alexandrian canon of Scripture. The Jews, wherever they lived, used the same Hebrew canon that did not include the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha was not on any early list of Christian books that were considered Scripture. While a few church fathers quoted them as authoritative, most did not. In addition, none of those fathers who cited the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture knew any Hebrew.

There is also the problem with the exact content of the Apocrypha. The books contained in the Apocrypha are not well defined - not everyone can agree on which books are authoritative.

Augustine, while a great thinker, did not read Hebrew and knew very little Greek. Furthermore he accepted the fanciful account of the origin of the Septuagint. Jerome, a real Hebrew scholar rejected the books outright.

Many Roman Catholic scholars, to the time of the Protestant Reformation, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

While some Protestants make some use of the Apocrypha it has always been rejected as Scripture.

Another major problem for the Apocrypha is demonstrable historical errors in it. This is not consistent with Yahweh's Word being error-free. Furthermore there is no evidence in these books of divine authority - fulfilled prophecy is lacking. Add to this there is no claim within the books of Yahweh's authority.

Finally we have the testimony of Yahshua. He said the Scriptures were true and could not be broken. However the Apocrypha was not Scripture to Him. Since neither the Jews, Yahshua, or His apostles considered these writings as part of the Old Testament neither should we.

Again, all this evidence against the so called lost or hidden books is another huge reason why I conclude that the present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are the complete Scripture that Yahweh Elohim has given us. There are no other lost or hidden divinely authoritative books of Scripture that belong to the Old Testament.



INTRO: Now it's time to deal with perhaps the most famous pseudepigrapha, called the Book of Enoch and the teaching contained in it concerning the Sons of Elohim? Of all the so called lost or hidden books, I have researched this one the most; and have found serious cause to have reservations against what many Christians today believe to be the absolute authentic book of Enoch. Without even looking at the contents of this Book I've already given enough evidence for why I don't believe this so called lost book and it's fellow categorized books are the inspired scriptures of Elohim. Here in part three, I want to primarily focus on a very popular teaching that I consider to be a non-biblical theory that promotes fallen angels having the ability to have physical relations with other species called humans, and re-producing offspring. I will give you an alternative theory too consider which I deem more scripturally sound; and involves less assumption and conflict with existing Biblical principles.


After you read this, I think you'll begin to understand even more why I even see the doctrine on this subject has the potential to be a stumbling block concerning the salvation of many. Before getting into the non-biblical teaching found in the so called Book of Enoch, let us first remind ourselves of...

The Fact the Book of Enoch is listed as apart of a group of books categorized as the Pseudepigrapha

Technically, a pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings that do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the texts listed above. 

Often included among the pseudepigrapha are 3 and 4 Maccabees because they are not traditionally found in western Bibles, although they are in the Septuagint. Similarly, the Book of EnochBook of Jubilees and 4 Baruch are often listed with the pseudepigrapha although they are commonly included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Psalms of Solomon are found in some editions of the Septuagint.

The Book of Enoch:



 I John 4:1,"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from Elohim, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of Elohim: every spirit that confesses that Yahshuas Messiah has come in the flesh is from Elohim; 3and every spirit that does not confess Yahshua is not from Elohim; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."


   Despite all the non-hidden evidence against it, I've conversed with many mostly people who haven't thoroughly studied what the book teaches against the truth of the Bible, who believe in this Book of Enoch without question. We will look at more teachings within this book that go against the Bible in part 4, but for now lets deal with this teaching about the "Sons of Elohim"...



1," And they took wives for themselves and everyone chose for himself one each. And they began to go into them and were promiscuous with them. And they taught them charms and spells, and they showed them the cutting of roots and trees. 2 And they became pregnant and bore large giants. And their height was three thousand cubits.3 These devoured all the toil of men; until men were unable to sustain them. 4 And the giants turned against them in order to devour men.5 And they began to sin against birds, and against animals, and against reptiles, and against fish, and they devoured one another’s flesh, and drank the blood from it.6 Then the Earth complained about the lawless ones."


1 And then the Most High, the Great and Holy One, spoke and sent Arsyalalyur to the son of Lamech, and said to him:2 “Say to him in my name; hide yourself! And reveal to him the end, which is coming, because the whole earth will be destroyed. A deluge is about to come on all the earth; and all that is in it will be destroyed.


This is the so called Book of Enoch's explanation of Genesis 6:1-7. An explanation that I find objectionable as far as the Bible is concerned.


"1Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of Elohim saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.3So Yahweh said, “My Spirit will not contend with mana forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years.”4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and afterward as well, when the sons of Elohim had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown." 



According to the Book of Enoch, the ‘sons of Elohim’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were part angel part human giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12)...

The Book of Enoch's view creates a lot of conflict with existing biblical principles...

-Its claim that angels intermarried with humans to produce giant half-breeds, conflicts with Yahshua statement that angels do not marry, this implies that one of the main purposes involving marriage (sexual relations & procreation) is not a designed function that Elohim created angels to have between each other; much less between themselves and another completely different species called humans- Mark 12:25

-Spiritual beings such as Fallen angels being able to procreating with human women conflicts with the Biblical principle of Elohim's law that they would have to be powerful enough to override such divine perogatives as...Elohim alone is Creater and Father of all Spirits Zechariah 12:1;Hebrews 12:9; He alone open and closes the womb.Genesis 30:1-2;. ;Isaiah 66:9; All creatures work together with their own kind in order to re-produce children after their own kind.Genesis 1:21,24-25. including Elohim. Genesis 1:26-27 . and man.Genesis 2:18-24; 5:3.

-What about the fact that Yahweh has not provided His plan of redemption for Satan and his fellow fallen angels? Could someone believing this teaching from the Book of Enoch consider themselves unredeemable because perhaps they are one of the people living on the Earth today who still have a portion of fallen angel blood in their system? I'm telling you this is how Satan can use these false teachings to play with gullible peoples minds.  


Here the ‘sons of Elohim’ are generally viewed to be the godly men of the Sethite line. The ‘daughters of men’ are thought to be the daughters of the ungodly Cainite. The Nephilim are just the ungodly and violent men who are the product of this unholy union.

Who are the ‘Sons of Elohim’?

The interpretation of verses 1-8 hinges upon the definition of three key terms, ‘the sons of Elohim’ (verses 2,4), ‘the daughters of men’ (verses 2,4), and the ‘Nephilim’ (verse 4). My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms; as well as look for contextual clues within the language of the immediate passages of scripture to help steer or lead us in the most accurate biblical interpretation or definition of a particular word or phrase. The Bible elsewhere does give two possible definitions for the term or phrase ‘the sons of Elohim’ for us.

       Definition 1.“Sons of Elohim” can refer to spiritual beings such as angels Job 1:6," One day the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came with them."


Definition 2. ...Or to righteous people Hosea 1:10,"Yet the number of the Israelites will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living Elohim.’ "

The major support for which definition we should use to interpret the passage in Genesis 6, is the language and context of the surrounding chapters 4,5 and 6. Chapter four describes the ungodly generation of Cain, while in chapter five we see the godly Sethite line.The language of chapter five also helps us set the proper context immediately when it starts off with...

"1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that Elohim created man, He made him in His own likeness. 2Male and female He created them, and He blessed them. And in the day they were created, He called them “man.a

It tells us "this is the book of the generations of Adam" Adam is the Hebrew word for Man.There is no mention of Fallen angels marrying human women and producing their own generation of giant inbred cannibalistic angel-human children...

In Genesis 6:4,  “Nephilim” does mean “giants”...Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Or nphil {nef-eel'}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant -- giant.see HEBREW naphal  but it can mean giants in stature or giants in fame or reputation, as in “he was a giant among men.” 

Again if we let the language in Genesis 6:4 guide us, it tells us which interpretation best fits the context at the end of the verse...

" And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown." 

Also notice that the Nephilim came first, then the “sons of Elohim” married the “daughters of men.” Most purposely ignore the time order. Thus following the time order along with the Hebrew word definitions and contextual language surrounding the passage, the conclusion is that first is mentioned that there were men of famous or giant reputation who married and had children who also grew up became famous. This order is similar to what we see in Genesis 4:15," wherein Cain was mentioned first about how Yahweh gave him a mark that let everyone know that whoever kills Cain would receive seven times worse of vengeance. In verse 17, Cain had relations with his wife and produced descendants; one of whom wanted to build a reputation that was even bigger then his great, great Grand Father's...

23Then Lamech said to his wives:“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my speech. For I have slain a man for wounding me,a young man for striking me.24If Cain is avenged sevenfold,then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

After the fall and the death of Abel which was the first murder ever, for good or bad, fame or infamy, for the first time in man's history, there were men now trying to be known as someone dangerous or not to mess with. No doubt many were wicked men like Lamech who chose unjust means to build a giant reputation for himself by killing other men and enforcing their will upon others through the spread of fear. 

Genesis 6: 5Then Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. "

Notice just the wickedness of men is mentioned. There's no mention of the wickedness of fallen fallen angels marrying the daughters of men who according to the Book of Enoch caused the creation of giant cannibal children. After this mention of how righteous men intermarried and had children with worldly ungodly women, there is given the predictable result of less and less godly people in the world, as already stated in Genesis 6:5. This leads to...

6And Yahweh regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So Yahweh said, “I will blot out manwhom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

Still no mention of regret about the fallen angels and their bi-species children. Wouldn't the fallen angels have to share some responsibility in making the unnatural children? If according to the book of Enoch Yahweh used the flood to wipe out their handy work in creating Giant children from off the face of the Earth, why was it only man that He mentioned as blotting out; and regretting to make?  

Because it wasn't the inbred children of fallen angels that was described here, but believers marrying unbelievers that is being addressed. Years later in Israel, Yahweh's written law remains consistent commanding the separation of His people from not marrying strange women who did not have Yahweh as their Elohim. This was a vital part of the religious responsibility of purity and holiness for those who truly worshipped Yahweh. 

What took place in chapter six was the breakdown in the separation of godly people with ungodly people; which threatened the godly seed through whom Messiah was to be born. This breakdown was the cause of the flood which would follow. It destroyed the ungodly world and preserved righteous Noah and his family, through whom the promise of Genesis 3:15 would be fulfilled.

Unlike the opposing view, one of the great points of this interpretation is it has the commendable feature of explaining the passage without creating any doctrinal or theological problems.


            PART 4:      What about the Book of Enoch?

At first I thought why isn’t the book of enoch in the scripture? Enoch was referenced in the Bible, why was it judged as unqualified in the canon of scripture. Is it another grevious error concocted by the Catholic church. “Why did the church suppress the Book of Enoch? After all, there are various references to Enoch throughout the Old and New Testament .I want to specifically look at and address this question regarding the Book of Enoch. Why was this book rejected as Scripture?

Then when I began reading and researching the Book for myself and came across certain writings made me begin to see why. Again, when you look at the History of the Book of Enoch, you can't escape the fact that it is a fictional book that was not written by the Enoch who lived before the flood. It is not a hidden fact that the book is listed as a pseudoepigraphal work. i.e. a work with a false author (or written under a pen name). Also there is the fact that there are a number of these pseudoepigraphal works written around the same time frame dated from the time between the Old and New Testament through the first few centuries. This shows two prevailing truths about that that time, these type of fictitious works were created ... 

1.    It appears to have been a writing fad for a while.

2.    People used the names of famous people, such as characters from the Bible, to lend credibility to the work – to make it appear more authentic.

As a result, throughout history, very few well educated people actually believe the book to have been written by Enoch. Let's entertain this already established by the experts as false scenario why don't we. If it was an actual book hand written by the Enoch whose relationship with Yahweh Elohim was righteous enough to be miraculously taken away by Yahweh(Genesis 5:24), it would have to have existed all those years, before the oldest recorded Biblical book of Job, before Yahweh even commanded Moses to preserve the holy commandments of His law in written form; it would have had to survive the flood.

 It is not admitted into the Jewish canon, for a reason. Given who Enoch was, I'm sure that if there was even a hint of authenticity about the book of Enoch the Jewish scholars would have put it right up there with the inspired writings such as the book of Job and Moses. Obviously they did not think that this book of Enoch was inspired scripture that was possibly written before the deluge, or that it could have safely survived that worldwide calamity, the destroyer of all things. People who want to defend this book argue this point by saying remember that Noah, who survived the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself. They assert that this scripture could be genuine because Noah could have " rewritten it, under the Spirit's inspiration, if it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge." [Tertullian, about 198 A.D.] Even Tertullian, one of the few church fathers to support the Book of Enoch, admits that the Jews never accepted it as authentic and that Christians of his time also rejected it. Even though the Book of Enoch was well know by early Christian writers, most rejected the book as being from Elohim. Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome all argued against the book being considered Scripture.

In fact it appears that only Tertullian and Augustine thought the work was inspired and Augustine waffled on the point. Even the Roman Catholic Church who added twelve books to their Old Testament, didn’t consider this book – likely because of the early rejection.

 Actually, there are several books that go by the name “The Book of Enoch” Most refer to copies of a book found in 1773 in Ethiopia.These copies are a translation of a Greek text that was in turn a translation of an Aramaic text. Small fragments of this large book were found among the Dead Sea scrolls. These fragments contained Parts of chapter 2, verses 12-14 and chapter 3 verse 13-16; but the book has 108 chapters. Most scholars date the book to between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C. Larger portions of the book survived in Greek, but again, not nearly the whole. They also date from a later period (after the church was founded). The only whole version are the Ethiopian translations. A comparison of the Ethiopian translations to the Aramaic and Greek fragments show the Ethiopian translation is fairly, but not entirely, accurate.

Most scholars note that the Book of Enoch, as it currently exists, is a disjointed work. This means it doesn’t have a unifying flow, such as would be found in the writings of one author. It is generally agreed to be a composition of several works by multiple authors, but exactly who wrote which portions is heavily debated.

True Christians who are interested in the Book of Enoch, should be willing to ...

1 Thessalonians 5:21,"but test all things. Hold fast to the good."

            When you read  Jude 14-15...

"14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: “Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy ones 15to execute judgment on everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of every ungodly act of wickedness and every harsh word spoken against Him by ungodly sinners.”d

                        1.         Notice that Jude doesn’t state he is quoting from a writing of       Enoch

                        2.         Since multiple Enochs are mentioned in the Bible, he clarifies which one he is quoting.

  How could Jude know what Enoch said 4,000 years later? Just like Moses, Jude is inspired of the Holy Spirit, so therefore the obvious answer is that Elohim told him (I Corinthians 2:12-13).

Same reason how Moses, ascribed to be the recorder of Genesis, was able to write words of people such as Adam and Abraham who lived hundreds of years before him. When people read...


 Enoch 1:9: “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”


                        1.         They get all excited by this line. Jude must be quoting from the Book of Enoch!

                        2.         Note that the quote is not a literal reproduction, even allowing for multiple translations.

                        3.         Jude says Elohim will judge all and convict the ungodly among them.

                        4.         The Book of Enoch says Elohim is judging all and will convict all of their ungodliness. Not quite the                                        same.

            What we need to ask is, if the Ethiopian copies a bad translation? Then can we trust the rest? Do we say Jude is bad a quoting? Then it wouldn’t be an inspired book and then what happens to the support for the Book of Enoch?

Another interestingly fact is none of the fragments, Aramaic or Greek, contain Enoch 1:9.The only version to have it are the Ethiopian copies.There is insufficient evidence whether the phrase is in the original Book of Enoch or whether a person knowledgeable of Christianity “enhanced” an older version. Because the quote in Jude is unstable evidence, people have tried to prop up their cause by stating that the New Testament is filled with allusions to the Book of Enoch. By this, they mean that they compiled a set of catch phrases and conclude that books using similar catch phrases must come from the Book of Enoch.

 For example, several cited the use of the phrase “son of man.” But this phrase is used heavily in Ezekiel. It is used in the Psalms a few times in reference to the Messiah.  A person trying to forge the biblical style will of course use wording similar to the Bible. However, it doesn’t serve as proof. You can’t conclude who borrowed from whom.


Could the Book of Enoch be Scripture?


 Again, if the date of 300 B.C. to 100 B.C. is correct, then it comes during the years of silence.

                        1.         Amos 8:11-12 - Yahweh said He would stop talking to the Israelites.

                        2.         Micah 3:5-7 - It was because of all the false prophets. It would prove who was true and who was false.

 Malachi was the last Old Testament prophet. Until the coming of John and Yahshua, prophecy disappeared.The Jews knew this...

 I Maccabees 9:27: “So there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”

 I Maccabees 14:41: “The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.”

If the Book of Enoch was written in the years of silence, then it follows that it could not have been an inspired book because no prophets existed. If it was written during the years of silence, then it’s claim to be written by Enoch is a falsehood.

                        1.         John 17:17 - Elohim’s word is truth

                        2.         II Timothy 3:16 - Scripture comes from the breath of Elohim

                        3.         I Corinthians 2:12-13 - Elohim gives the very words

                        4.         Titus 1:2 - Elohim cannot lie

Thus Yahweh would not record a message under a false name, nor would there ever have been a need to do so. Yahweh Elohim doesn’t need the reputation of Enoch to enhance His message!

           Does it match the Bible?

                        1.         Deuteronomy 13:1-3 - Elohim’s messages are always consistent.

                        2.         Time line wrong

 Using Genesis 5, we know that Enoch was born about 622 years after the creation. He lived 365 years before Elohim took him - Genesis 5:23-24

Enoch 107:2-3 (Enoch speaking to Methuselah): “'And now, my son, go and announce to thy son Lamech, that this son who is born is really his, and that this is not a falsehood.' And when Methuselah had heard the words of his father Enoch -- for he had shown him everything that was secret -- he returned, after his having seen him, and called the name of that son Noah, for he will make glad the earth for all destruction.”


 Noah was born about 1056 years after the creation, 69 years after Enoch left the earth! According to the Bible, this event could not have happened! 

We already showed that the books knowledge about angels wrong...

 The Book of Enoch has angels marrying earthly women (chapter 6) and Mark 12:25 - Angels don’t marry

 The books knowledge about the origin of sin is wrong.The Book of Enoch states that the intermixing of angel and human seed created sin and the angels spread sin by teaching forbidden topics to men. Lamech is told to hide so that his pure seed could be preserved. God would then wipe the world with a flood, thus removing sin (chapter 8-10).

 I John 3:4 - Sin comes from breaking the law

  Romans 5:12 - Sin began when one man broke Elohim’s law and continued because all sin

I've heard people argue that the mixed seed was not completely wiped out by the flood and that's why the Nephilim return after the flood. This thinking contradicts both the Bible and the Book of Enoch. Only eight people were saved and the Book of Enoch says that none of the mixed race survived. In fact according to the Book of Enoch, they were supposed to have wiped themselves out before the flood in some epic battle.)

The books knowledge of the realm of the dead is wrong.The Book of Enoch states that the grave is divided into four realms:

                                                (1)       Righteous martyrs, such as Abel

                                                (2)       The righteous who were not martyrs

                                                (3)       Sinners who died without suffering the consequences of their sins

                                                (4)       Sinners who died after suffering from the consequences of their sins.

 Of the last group, it says, “but their spirits shall not be slain in the day of judgment nor shall they be raised from thence” (Enoch 22:13)

                                    c.         Luke 16:19-31 shows hades divided into two states.

                                    d.         John 5:28-29 - All the dead, good and bad will be                     judged  

e.         Acts 24:15 - This was Paul’s hope, a resurrection of the just and unjust

 It has internal contradictions...

                        1.         Enoch 6:7-8 gives a list of 19 angels who lead the fall of man.

                        2.         Enoch 69:2-3 gives a list of 21 angels who were supposed to be the same group. Not only are there more names, the names are almost completely different!


We read in chapter 40 of the Book of Enoch...

"1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude 2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things. 3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory. 
4 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. 5 And the second voice I heard blessing 6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits. 7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord 8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have 9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’ 
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days."


When I first read this I thought the Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. Now there are millions of angels so I suppose there must be more angel names than mentioned in the Bible; but the next statement was harder for me to swallow.  This statement in itself contradicts some very important teachings in the Word of Yahweh.  We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Yahshua Christ is the ONLY Mediator between Elohim and men, not some angel named Phanuel... 


"For there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Messiah Yahshua."  


Repentance is strictly between a man and Yahshua Messiah alone.  Only Yahshua died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise.  1st John 2:22 clearly indicts all Messiah-deniers as LIARS, guilty before Elohim. The Author of this book cannot be trusted. 


We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:8-12...

"8 ...And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the 9 children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to 10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation 11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power 12 it is consuming me."


Now with this I thought, what ... man's wisdom came from a demon named Penemue?  That's crazy!  Did using ink and paper cause the fall of the human race?  Whoa ... I'd better throw all my fine-point pens away immediately!   It was Adam's sin that brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12); not evil literature.  Father Yahweh even commands John the Revelater to use pen and paper:


Rev 1:11,"  Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."


 Mankind is inherently evil of himself, prone to the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).  Many people give far too much credit to demons for the sinful actions of men.  They believe that every sin a person commits is evidence of demon-possession.  That is absurd!  Men and women sin because they are sinners! (Romans 3:10,23).  Although demons definitely can and do help influence mankind to do evil, the ultimate decision is OURS.  The Devil cannot force anyone to sin.  People need to stop blaming demons and the Devil for their sins, and start looking into the mirror.  Eohim has promised to help His children live right... 


"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but Elohim is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1st Corinthians 10:13).  


No excuses!


The other thing about this book that smacked of Greek Mythology such as the race of beings known as the Titans are the so called book of Enoch’s description of People 450-Feet Tall? I thought this is ridiculous, are we really gullible enough to assume and believe that fallen angels had physical intimacy with earthly women that produced offspring 450-feet tall? These babies must have started out born larger than baby elephants or giraffes who compared to humans grow at a alarming rate and still don’t even reach that size full grown. Poor normal human Mothers giving birth to such huge babies that would grow to sizes larger than many dinosaurs, I don't think so! By comparison Goliath and the Giant people who lived in the land of Canaan when the 12 spies searched the land were normal people.


 We read in chapter 7:12-15 of the Book of Enoch...


7:12," Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;13 When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;14 And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.15 Then the earth reproved the unrighteous."


First of all this last line doesn’t make sense, or line up with known proven scripture. The earth didn’t reprove the unrighteous, only Elohim the Creator of the Earth should get credit for doing that. This smacks more along the line of the Mother earth cults that teach the earth is angry at men who violate nature and therefore nature fights back.


But this wasn’t the worst of it. After reading the description in verses 12-14 I began to think perhaps this is where they think dinosaurs came from. Maybe some of the bones we have stored and labeled as Dinosaurs in Museums are really the human angel inbreds buried long ago? These supposed inbreds were the extremely inhumanly disfigured half angel half human children whose bones we perhaps mistaken for T- Rex and the heavy eating Brontosaurus. A "cubit" is 1.5 feet.  The ark which Noah built was 300 cubits long (Genesis 6:15).  Do you mean to tell me that some women had children who were as tall as the ark was long?   We've got to be joking!  Such foolish conjecture is a violation of the simplest teachings of the Bible.  In Genesis 6: we read,...


"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."  


Again, I think Pastor J. Vernon McGee’s interpretation of this Scripture is more correct...

He says, “There were giants in the earth in those days,” but it does not say they are the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. It does say this about the offspring: “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” These were not monstrosities; they were men. The record here makes it very clear that the giants were in the earth before this took place, and it simply means that these offspring were outstanding individuals.

Humanity has a tremendous capacity. Man is fearfully and wonderfully made—that is a great truth we have lost sight of. This idea that man has come up from some protoplasm out of a garbage can or seaweed is utterly preposterous. It is the belief of some scientists that evolution will be repudiated, and some folk are going to look ridiculous at that time.

Evolution is nothing in the world but a theory as far as science is concerned. Nothing has been conclusive about it. It is a philosophy like any other philosophy, and it can be accepted or rejected. When it is accepted, it certainly leads to some very crazy solutions to the problems of the world, and it has gotten my country into trouble throughout the world. Anyone would think that we are the white knight riding through the world straightening out wrongs. We are wrong on the inside ourselves! I do not know why in this country today we have an intelligentsia in our colleges, our government, our news media, and our military who think they are super, that somehow or another they have arrived. It is the delusion of the hour that men think that they are greater than they really are. Man is suffering from a fall, an awful fall. He is totally depraved today, and until that is taken into consideration, we are in trouble all the way along.

Then what do we have here in verse 4? As I see it, Genesis is a book of genealogies—it is a book of the families. The sons of God are the godly line who have come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain. What you have here now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines, until finally the entire line is totally corrupted (well, not totally; there is one exception). That is the picture that is presented to us here."

SOURCE: McGee, J. Vernon, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 2000, c1981.


Back to Pastor Micah’s objections:


We also read in 1st Corinthians 15:39-40,…


 "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.  There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.


There you have it ... celestial (heavenly) and terrestrial (earthly) are NOT compatible.  Just as a fish cannot breed with a horse, or a cow with a whale, so cannot a fallen angel breed with a woman.  Also, Yahshua clearly taught that the angels are NOT given in marriage (Matthew 22:30).  We know that there were giants in the Old Testament; but as seen with Goliath the Philistine (1st Samuel 17:4), he was only 9' 6" tall (not 450 feet).  Giants in the Old Testament were NOT the result of fallen angels marrying human women.  And think about this, if fallen angels did have physical relations with earthly women, then why doesn't it occur today?  There is no such thing as a succubus or an incubus (i.e. sexual relations between demons and humans).  Furthermore, how could a human woman give birth to a normal size baby that would then grow to be as tall as half the length of a football field?  'Com on, the birth would be extremely harsh for the Mother considering that such a baby would probably be born larger than that of a baby elephant or giraffe whose growth rate is a lot faster than that of a normal human.  Although the Bible does contain many miraculous and startling events (e.g., the flood), they are all explainable and have rationale.  


It is clear that many unsaved scholars today are trying to discredit the Bible as a book of fables, which is what the Book of Enoch certainly is.  The Word of Yahweh is untouchable, unchangeable, and incorruptible! 

We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:4-6...

4 The name of the first Jeqon: that is, the one who led astray [all] the sons of God, and brought them 5 down to the earth, and led them astray through the daughters of men. And the second was named Asbeel: he imparted to the holy sons of God evil counsel, and led them astray so that they defiled 6 their bodies with the daughters of men. And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men] the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons.


Without a doubt, the primary claim of the Book of Enoch is that fallen angels had sex with human women and produced 450-feet tall giants upon the earth.  This teaching is ridiculous, unscriptural, and has no solid evidence to support it (Biblically or scientifically).  This is another good reason why the Book of Enoch should continue to be rejected.  It is nonsense.  Also, notice in 69:6 above that the Book of Enoch claims that a demon named Gadreel led Eve astray and introduced weaponry to mankind.  How absurd.  The Bible identifies the serpent which deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden as Satan (Ezekiel 28:13).  


Father Yahweh could not be behind such a book! The Book of Enoch is the product of man; that was rightly rejected as uninspired writing.The reason why the early church fathers and the King James Bible translators rejected the Book of Enoch as inspired of Elohim, WASN'T to hide the truth; BUT, because it isn't the truth.  It didn’t take long for me to begin to judge the Book of Enoch as a fraud, an imposter, possibly inspired by pagan influences creeping into the doctrine of the church.  When I read in chapter 1:9 of the Book of Enoch that an angel named Phanuel is "set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life" ... It re-enforced my suspicions that the Book of Enoch was fraudulent.  Salvation is found ONLY in Christ Yahshua, "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Yahshua Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom Elohim raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."  King David said in Psalm 62:6, "He (Yahshua) only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved."  Perhaps this is why we have so many manmade traditions involving praying to the angel of this and that; when we should only be praying to the heavenly Father. Phanuel... like the book youre mentioned in, you're a fraud!  Yahshua is the ONLY Way, Truth, and Life (John 14:6). 

The truth is that Satan is a murderous thief, who's sole purpose of existence now is to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10).  Satan hates the Word of Yahweh, because It is his greatest enemy in this world.   Therefore, Satan seeks to destroy the Bible.  If he cannot destroy the Bible, then he tries to corrupt the Bible by changing it (Romans 1:25; 2nd Peter 3:16).  If Satan cannot destroy or corrupt the Bible, then he tries to introduce "new" so-called "lost books" of the Bible to confuse people. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who hardly know a lick of the Bible and seem put off by study get all fired up for the false Book of Enoch. It is NO coincidence nowadays, in this time of great apostasy--when homosexuals are being given in marriage, when babies are being murdered by the hundreds-of-millions worldwide through abortion, when witchcraft is all around us, when booze and gambling are commonplace, when sexual sins and lasciviousness have saturated society, when churches are silent concerning sin and false religion--that we should see all these "new" so-called revelations concerning the Bible.  Lost or hidden books like Enoch can stay lost, Father Yahweh promised in Psalm 12:6,7 to preserve His Word unto all generations, and He wonderfully has. Praise Yahweh!!! 

As a person progresses deeper into the Book of Enoch, they will eventually find the Books of Adam and Eve fascinating as well, and then they will be into even deeper New Age occultism without even realizing it.  Don't be fooled friend, the Book of Enoch is occult material that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religions.


Just look at some of the non-scriptural outlines written here, particularly those I marked with an* infront of them…


Hidden Mysteries Books

The First Book of Adam and Eve
Part 1


Table of Contents


Part 1

*Chapter I - The crystal sea, God commands Adam, expelled from Eden, to live in the Cave of Treasures.

Chapter II - Adam and Eve faint when they leave the Garden. God sends His Word to encourage them.

Chapter III - Concerning the promise of the great five and a half days.

Chapter IV - Adam mourns over the changed conditions. Adam and Eve enter the 
Cave of Treasures.

Chapter V - Eve makes a noble and emotional intercession, taking the blame on herself.

Chapter VI - God's reprimand to Adam and Eve in which he points out how and why they sinned.

*Chapter VII - The beasts are appeased.

Chapter VIII - The "Bright Nature" of man is taken away.

*Chapter IX - Water from the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve near drowning.

Part 2

*Chapter X - Their bodies need water after they leave the garden.

Chapter XI - A recollection of the glorious days in the Garden.

Chapter XII - How darkness came between Adam and Eve.

Chapter XIII - The fall of Adam. Why night and day were created.

Chapter XIV - The earliest prophesy of the coming of Christ.

Chapter XV - Adam and Eve grieve over the suffering of God to save them from their sins.

*Chapter XVI - The first sunrise. Adam and Eve think it is a fire coming to burn them.

Chapter XVII - The Chapter of the Serpent.

*Chapter XVIII - The mortal combat with the serpent.

Part 3

Chapter XIX - Beasts made subject to Adam.

Chapter XX - Adam wishes to protect Eve.

*Chapter XXI - Adam and Eve attempt suicide.

Chapter XXII - Adam in a gracious mood.

Chapter XXIII - Adam and Eve strengthen themselves and make the first altar ever built.

Chapter XXIV - A vivid prophecy of the life and death of Christ.

Chapter XXV - God represented as merciful and loving. The establishing of worship.

Chapter XXVI - A beautiful prophecy of eternal life and joy (v. 15). The fall of night.

*Chapter XXVII - The second tempting of Adam and Eve. The devil takes on the form of a beguiling light.

*Chapter XXVIII - The Devil pretends to lead Adam and Eve to the water to bathe.

Chapter XXIX - God tells Adam of the Devil's purpose. (v. 4).

Part 4

*Chapter XXX - Adam receives the first worldly goods.

*Chapter XXXI - They make themselves more comfortable in the 
Cave of Treasures on the third day.

Chapter XXXII - Adam and Eve go into the water to pray.

Chapter XXXIII - Satan falsely promises the "bright light."

Chapter XXXIV - Adam recalls the creation of Eve. He eloquently appeals for food and drink.

Chapter XXXV - God's reply.

Chapter XXXVI - Figs.

Part 5

Chapter XXXVII - Forty-three days of penance do not redeem one hour of sin (v. 6).

Chapter XXXVIII - "When 5500 years are fulfilled. . . ."

Chapter XXXIX - Adam is cautious -- but too late.

*Chapter XL - The first Human hunger.

*Chapter XLI - The first Human thirst.

Chapter XLII - A promise of the Water of Life. The third prophecy of the coming of Christ.

*Chapter XLIII - The Devil attempts arson.

*Chapter XLIV - The power of fire over man.

Chapter XLV - Why Satan didn't fulfil his promises. Description of hell.

Chapter XLVI - "How many times have I delivered you out of his hand . . ."

Part 6

Chapter XLVII - The Devil's own Scheming.

*Chapter XLVIII - Fifth apparition of Satan to Adam and Eve.

Chapter XLIX - The first prophecy of the Resurrection.

Chapter L - Adam and Eve seek to cover their nakedness.

Chapter LI - "What is his beauty that you should have followed him?"

Chapter LII - Adam and Eve sew the first shirt.

Chapter LIII - The prophecy of the Western Lands and of the great flood.

Chapter LIV - Adam and Eve go exploring.

Part 7

Chapter LV - The Conflict between God and Satan.

Chapter LVI - A chapter of divine comfort.

Chapter LVII - "Therefore I fell. . . . "

Chapter LVIII - "About sunset on the 53rd day. . ."

Chapter LIX - Eighth apparition of Satan of Satan to Adam and Eve.

*Chapter LX - The Devil appears like an old man. He offers "a place of rest."

Part 8

*Chapter LXI - They begin to follow Satan.

Chapter LXII - Two fruit trees.

Chapter LXIII - The first joy of trees.

*Chapter LXIV - Adam and Eve partake of the first earthly food.

*Chapter LXV - Adam and Eve acquire digestive organs. Final hope of returning to the Garden is lost.

Chapter LXVI - Adam does his first day's work.

*Chapter LXVII - "Then Satan began to lead astray Adam and Eve. . . ."

Part 9

*Chapter LXVIII - How destruction and trouble is of Satan when he is the master. Adam and Eve establish the custom of worship.

*Chapter LXIX - Twelfth apparition of Satan to Adam and Eve, while Adam was praying over the offering on the altar; when Satan beat him.

*Chapter LXX - Thirteenth apparition of Satan, to trick Adam into marrying Eve.

*Chapter LXXI - Adam is troubled by the thought of marrying Eve.

*Chapter LXXII - Adam's heart is set on fire. Satan appears as beautiful maidens.

*Chapter LXXIII - The marriage of Adam and Eve.

*Chapter LXXIV - The birth of Cain and Luluwa. Why they received those names.

Part 10

*Chapter LXXV - The family revisits the Cave of Treasures. Birth of Abel and Aklia.

*Chapter LXXVI - Cain becomes jealous of Abel because of his sisters.

*Chapter LXXVII - Cain, 15 years old, and Abel 12 years old, grow apart.

Chapter LXXVIII - Jealousy overcomes Cain. He makes trouble in the family. How the first murder was planned.

*Chapter LXXIX - A wicked plan is carried to a tragic conclusion. Cain is frightened. "Am I my brother's keeper?" The seven punishments. Peace is shattered.


Back to Pastor Micah’s thoughts: Well I hope after examining all this you can see just a few of the reasons I don't promote the so called book of Enoch as authentic. There is so much more I could show you but I believe this should be enough to give anyone who values the truth of scripture pause.