Why does Jude 1:14 prove that the Bible is not complete?

Question

Jude 1:14 & 15 quotes froms & names the "Book of Enoch", which has been left out of the Bible. If the Book of Enoch is quoted from, surely it is true Biblical Scripture as well?
Go on if you dare, I bet no Christian here can look up Jude Ch1v14 & v15, then Goggle the "Book of Enoch" which then proves that the Book of Enoch has been left out of the King James Bible!
And it is a Prophesy no less! What of the other Prophesies in Enoch? Did God change his mind about these?

Jude 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesised of these saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten-thousands of his Saints"

Enoch Ch.1.v.9" And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of his Saints
To execute judgement 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."

(Copies of The Book of Enoch can be found online)

Jana 11 - You who likes to quote scripture left right & centre, you are very quiet now as are all the rest of the believers in the truth of biblical scripture? Have I silenced you all with logic??

Answer 1

cool insight-this is new to me-the books that are left out of the bible i find interesting and i will take time to chase this one down-thanks for the heads up-do you have a link by chance---enjoy the day

Answer 2

The bible is today's accepted Canon. In the early christian churches, one church in one town may have had 2 or 3 books, maybe Enoch, Matthew and Genesis, while another may have had a different 4 or 5 books, like perhaps Esdras, maccabees, Luke and James. Eventually the idea of one church was codified in Rome under constantine, and they picked up a book here and a book there, and tried to figure which were most likely part of a story. Some books were left out because they were unlikely, others were left out because they didn't fit into the story line well. (For example, there was one book on Mary that was universally accepted by the collected bishops and would have been added, if it wouldn't have had to be the first book of the New Testament. Mary was important, but they thought this would place her ahead of Jesus and the 4 Gospels. Also, the Gospel of Peter, the 2nd most popular Gospel for Christian chuches at the time, was left out because it included an instant "from the cross" resurrection)

Answer 3

There are many non-biblical books referenced in the Bible, e.g. the 12 books of the Apocrypha. Being mentioned in the Bible, however, has never been a sufficient test of canonicity.

The Book of Enoch, first of all, was not written by Enoch. Authorship is unclear, but someone wrote down what was passed from generation to generation via word of mouth. We cannot even verify the words were actually those of Enoch. Therefore, although and interesting book, it fails the first test of Old Testament canonicity for the Bible; i.e., the writer had the authority of the lawgiver or the prophet or the leader in Israel.

Therefore, your claim that biblical canon is not complete, presumeably because the Book of Enoch is not included, is false.

Answer 4

Because Jude quotes Enoch as making a prophecy does not mean he was quoting from the book of Enoch. There are 4 or 5 references to non-canonical books in the new testament. Because the New Testament quotes St Thomas in various places it does not mean it it quoting from the Gospel of Thomas. It does not follow. There were many traditions in Judaism that orally carried traditions such as the prophecies of Enoch. They were written by scribes in Babylon during the captivity and became history and tradition of the Jewish people. Jesus mentions the feast of Hannuka in the Gospels and He and the disciples kept that feast although the circumstances for the feast (maccabes) did not occur until after the Old Testament had closed. Writers of the new testament had documents available to them and had studied the traditions and culture of the Jews. St Paul (who wrote one third of the NT) was taught by Gamaliel the greatest teacher of the era. He would be familiar with many facts, histories and traditions which were not in the OT and he called on this information when he wrote his epistles. Nebudchadnezzar wrote one chapter in the book of Daniel (check it out) it is still scripture.
The council of Nicea was called by Constantine and they confirmed the books of the New testament that had been in common usage and were considered inspired. Representatives of the Churches in Antioch, Constaninople, Damascus, Antioch, Carthage, Rome and several other cities decided what was to be included in the canon. Rome was not the ruler of the church at that time and several churches were never under Rome,ie Kopts, Antioch, Eithopia and Armenia were seperate. The Orthodox church split in the great schism a few hundred years later. So the Canon was not originated by Rome it was a combined effort of ALL churches at that time.

Answer 5

Enoch was called a "Man who walked with God". Enoch was considered by Christians and Jews to be a man of God. So referencing a prophesy of his would not in any way be strange for a first century Christian. The book of Enoch may be as inspired as any other book accepted into the Canon of scripture. Many bibles include the apocryphal books, but most scholars understand that it simply does not have the qualities necessary to be accepted as canon. There are many such books including the gnostic gospels that are readily available. The problem with all these books is that their authorship can not be verified and/or they are not present in older bibical manuscripts which creates doubt as to their veracity. This is not in any way a smoking gun as you were obviously hoping.

Answer 6

Simple as 1 2 3...

1 - There's two Enochs to sort out, just as there's two Adams to sort out, just as there's two Gods portrayed to sort out.

2 - It's all allegory in both covenants: Galatians 4; And it's always about Law vs Grace, no matter how allegorized. The New Testament is about Grace and Construction. The Book of Enoch is about Law and Destruction. Furthermore when the book of Ithis) Enoch is read, analyzed, and compared with the cannonized books, it fails the inclusion test. By all means, read it, but do not try to canonize it; For that debate has already been done and the book of Enoch did not won.

3 - Whether prophecies, they shall fail: 1Corinthians 13:8. Eg: In the book of Jonah's Great Fish Story, the prophecies for Nineveh failed when the people believed God(Grace). Point:
Law prophecies fail, just as faulty fault-finding law fails people. Eg: wrongful convictions. POINT being: Repeating Law is Law Law. His Grace is NOT Law Law.

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 7

It's true that Jude quoted the book of Enoch and not only that book but also the book Mosses' Resurrection (that name or similar one). One might ask oneself is that proof that the book in question is wholly inspired by God or not. In my opinion it was left out because in some verses it was proven wrong. I haven't read the book of Enoch but I plan to. Hope this helps.

Answer 8

Please dont be ridiculous. You cannot silence faith with logic.

In addition, the original book of Enoch was written in a most ancient language called Zohar that nobody can translate unless they are given special insight. The copies that are available in english are translations of a jewish document that was purported to be written by Enoch but was actually invented by a Jewish theologian with cabbalistic leanings, somewhere around 2000 BC

Answer 9

Makes you wonder what other prophesies or doctrines are missing from the bible.

Imagine if a missing book proclaims that all true followers must avoid grains or that salvation is not only by belief and acceptance of Christ, but also requires the practice of foot washing.

There are too many possibilities out there, and too many reasons why religious belief is faulty.

The canonization process was started to create doctrine out of Christian belief, it was done by the ruling government at the time which were the Roman Catholics. It always makes me laugh when protestants spend their time trying to claim the Catholic church is apostate, when they gained the scripture they rely on from the same church.

Answer 10

The very reason Protestants insisted on sola scriptura interior the 1st place replace into that there replace into no scriptural help for a competent deal of Catholic doctrine--you may scour the Bible searching for an occasion wherein the Pope is reported, or the place Mary is asserted to have been immaculately conceived, yet you will no longer locate it. you will no longer locate any occasion wherein any disciple or follower of Christ prays to every physique or something in any respect different than to God. you will locate no evidence of Purgatory or something helping procuring a pardon from sin. those are countless the flaws which pressured Protestants to insist on sola scriptura--no longer because of the fact they had to, yet because of the fact there replace into lots corruption interior the Roman Church that lots of what replace into called custom could desire to no longer be depended on anymore.

Answer 11

The answer is the book was not considered by the Church fathers as canonical. Some portions of it may have been canonical but not all. For the same reason the Protoevangelium of James failed to pass the test of canonicity because some portions of it were not considered canonical.