Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How do we know that the book of Enoch was translated correctly, are any of the original writings still intact? Or were the supposed "originals" found already translated. I ask this because some valuable words can be "lost in translation" such as the commandment "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder", which can and has been interpreted differently throughout history. Another example would be some Christians believing in "Hell", and others believing in the "abyss", and again others believing that the two are separate, one being a place of holding and the other following eternal damnation by god's judgement.

share|improve this question
    
Very closely related, if not exactly a duplicate: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9268/… Also see christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/… But +1 from me because it's good to know how the reliability of Scripture is defended. –  David Stratton Apr 18 '13 at 3:21
    
There are many books mentioned in the Bible such as, Book of Enoch, Book of Jasher etc. and other books like Book of Adam and Eve, Apocalypse of Peter are also there. These are all useful to extend our knowledge but they are not authentic or the original text is lost. –  Mawia Apr 18 '13 at 12:56
1  
It's canonicity would not be affected by its translation. It has no claim to any of the traditional hallmarks, nor was it ever consider "canonical" in any serious way. –  Affable Geek Apr 19 '13 at 12:20
add comment

1 Answer 1

To directly answer your question Wikipedia dates the oldest copy of the book of Enoch as being from 300BC. Parts of it like the section called the Book of Parables were not found in the Qumran.

I agree with AffableGeek. If we were to go back in time and mystically derive from Plato a perfect translation of the Republic it would not be canonical. If we were to modify it and cross reference it with Bible verses and give it the name of a supposed Saint it still would be Platonism. If the Book of Enoch was predestined to be used by God as canon it would have been re-written by Moses or one of the other ancient inspired writers very similar to the Book of Job and and we would have it available just as if we had traveled back in time and heard the heart of God concerning the topics contained therein. However the Book of Enoch was not deemed fit enough to be rewritten and preserved by God through Moses (or other inspired writers) so we know that it failed in some (if not all) crucial areas. As per the supposed two sentences referencing it in the New Testament, like Plato, having some similarity or parallel to a Bible truth expressed in inspired writings doesn't validate the whole.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.