Raised Roman Catholic. Read casually, not an avid reader at the time. For some reason, I was fascinated by the publishing company information on books I read. Year of printing, was it a first edition? Second? Who edited the book for spelling and grammar? (Teachers always critiqued my school work an I thought book editors were god like). All this fascination about the administrative side of books caused me to look for the same information on my Bible. As a kid, I found myself asking βwho edited the Bible cuz the words were weird and sometimes non sense (seemed to me)? Welp, you are answering my questions!!!!ππ»
Hello - Regarding "The Self-Proving Prophecy: ..." Although there's some good information here and I agree with most of it, the dates stated need some clarification. Enoch did not write 1 Enoch in 300 B.C. as he was taken - snatched up, raptured - before Noah's flood, approximately 604 years BEFORE the flood happened 2900 years before Jesus came in His incarnation. 300 B.C. can be considered when the Essenes copied Enoch's scroll. BTW, I was raised to be a devout Catholic but the Scriptural inconsistencies and the craziness of the 60's squashed that. PTL, Jesus found me in 1987, my 35th trip around the sun, and I haven't been the same since. Considering where we are on the prophetic time-line, I am eagerly "looking for the Blessed Hope" (Titus 2:13). Hallelujah! Maranatha! Love, with faith (Eph. 6:23) - Rick
I look forward to your Transhumanism series. I agree that the Genesis 6 and Enoch text describe genetic mixing and corruption. As in the Days of Noahβ¦
When I was young, I was taught about the great Constantine's role in stopping the persecutions. I now know the trade-off was nearly crippling the church.
Now, we face multiple canons of biblical literature, geographically separated and with even more minor differences in Western churches.
I find the material you are presenting to be quite challenging to the doctrines I have been taught, but I know that there will always be more to learn. Thank you for helping me question and rethink some of the teachings I have assumed to be true. One thing puzzles me with timeline of the Ethiopian church receiving the 81 books of their Bible in 34 A.D. How was their NT completed so early? What I find indicates that the earliest writings of the NT were completed in the late 40βs to early 50βs A.D.
No, sorry, every INCLUSION requires authority. But the Jews never considered Enoch canonical. So why should we?
There are many, many documentsβapocryphal, pseudepigraphal, inspirationalβthat the Church has not sanctioned. Most we can read profitably, but not as canon, not as authoritative for doctrine and practice.
I do not understand your obsession with this question, of all the issues facing the Church and world today. Are you from one of the Church traditions that embraces Enoch as canonical? Why not concentrate on those things that unite us?
The better question is why are you bothered by it? For me it matters to restore lost texts suppressed by Rome, and Iβve already put out enough evidence showing that Ethiopia preserves the true canon.
Why am I bothered by someone adding to the canon of scripture?!
Someone telling me I MUST read Enoch not just as profitable, but as apostolically authoritative for doctrine and practice?
As I have said before, you are presenting a false dichotomy. Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, Reformed and Anglicans have not "suppressed" Enoch. There is another option between canon and heresy.
And you haven't answered my challenge: If it is canonical, why has mainstream Judaism never included it in the canon of the Jewish Bible?
Because different Jewish communities had different canons and the group whose canon you're citing as authoritative explicitly rejected the Jewish Messiah when He came.
Rocka, this is an impressive piece of rhetoric, but the core argument is driven by stacked assumptions, false timelines, and category mistakes about prophecy, canon, and ecclesial authority. Once those premises are corrected, the claim of a βself-proving prophecyβ collapses under its own weight.
The passage you cite from Enoch 104:10 is a generic moral warning, not a predictive blueprint of fourth-century canon lists. It speaks, in broad apocalyptic language, about sinners distorting righteous teaching, lying, deceiving, and writing misleading texts. Scripture itself contains many such warnings across centuries. Nothing in the text names a canon, identifies Rome, anticipates church councils, or describes the technical process by which later Christians discerned which books were read liturgically as Scripture. Your argument depends on an anachronism: reading a later, highly technical concept of βcanonβ back into a Second Temple apocalyptic exhortation. That is not prophecy fulfilled; it is retrospective pattern-fitting.
The Ethiopian timeline you present is not historically sustainable. Acts 8 records a real and beautiful conversion, but it does not state or imply that the Ethiopian official carried a fully formed, 81-book βapostolic canonβ back to Ethiopia in 34 AD. He was reading Isaiah, likely in Greek, received catechesis, and was baptized. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon as it exists today reflects a long, complex development over centuries, shaped by language, liturgy, and local tradition. To claim a complete canon was fixed and delivered whole in the apostolic age is narrative convenience, not documented history. Canon formation everywhere in early Christianity β whether in Syria, Alexandria, Rome, Armenia, or Ethiopia β was gradual, organic, and uneven.
Judeβs citation does not do the work you demand of it. Jude affirms a true prophetic saying attributed to Enoch and preserved in the Enochic tradition. Under inspiration, he can affirm the truth of that saying without canonizing the entire Enochic corpus. This is not special pleading; it is how Scripture itself functions. Biblical authors frequently cite or echo non-canonical material without elevating the whole source to inspired, normative Scripture. Truth can exist outside the canon; canonicity is not synonymous with usefulness, influence, or partial accuracy. If apostolic quotation automatically canonized whole works, the boundaries of Scripture would dissolve into the broader world of Second Temple literature.
Your patristic case is overstated by collapsing appreciation into canonization. Some Fathers cite Enoch positively; Tertullian famously defends it in one context, while also acknowledging that many Christians reject it and that it lacks Jewish reception. Origen refers to it cautiously, precisely because its status was disputed. That dispute is not a late, imperial corruption; it is present early. Patristic language is often expansive and imprecise by later technical standards, which is exactly why the Church gradually clarified the canon: to distinguish between texts that were edifying and texts that were universally received as inspired and read in the Churchβs worship. Early use does not equal universal canonical status.
The council narrative you construct flattens very different realities into a single story of βRome editing Scripture.β The Council of Laodicea was regional and its biblical list is itself textually complex and contested; it was not an ecumenical decree binding the whole Church. Athanasiusβ Festal Letter reflects the practice of much of the Church but does not constitute an act of deletion. The councils of Hippo and Carthage articulated the canon used in their churches; they did not excise Enoch from a previously universal Christian Bible. Trent, much later, reaffirmed the Catholic canon in response to Protestant instability; it did not suddenly invent authority to remove books. Meanwhile, Protestantismβs later reduction to sixty-six books is precisely what Catholics rejected. If the argument is that the West narrowed the canon, Catholics already agree, but that does not make Ethiopiaβs broader canon the universal apostolic standard.
Your framing repeatedly invokes βdocumentation,β but several of your central claims are not documented facts. There is no evidence that Ethiopia received a fixed, complete canon in 34 AD. There is no evidence of a single moment when Rome βremovedβ Enoch from a universally received canon. There is no evidence that Enoch 104:10 was understood by ancient readers as a prediction of fourth-century ecclesial lists. The interpretation is doing the work, not the evidence.
More fundamentally, your framework implies that the Church at large β Catholic and Orthodox alike β lost essential Scripture and therefore misunderstood its own foundations for well over a millennium until modern rediscovery corrected the error. That position directly contradicts Christβs promises regarding the Churchβs indefectibility and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic claim is not that Rome is infallible by power, but that Christ founded a visible Church, entrusted it with apostolic authority, and promised to remain with it. The canon emerged from that living apostolic life, discerned through worship and teaching, and clarified when disputes arose. That process is not βempire editingβ; it is the Church doing what it must do to preserve the rule of faith.
There is a way to speak truthfully without constructing a totalizing conspiracy. It is true that 1 Enoch is ancient and influential. It is true that Jude quotes a genuine prophetic saying preserved in that tradition. It is true that some early Christians valued Enoch and that Ethiopia preserved a broader canon than most other apostolic traditions. It is also true that Protestantism later narrowed the canon improperly. None of those truths yield your conclusion that Rome fulfilled a prophecy by deleting Scripture, or that imperial Christianity rewrote the faith.
If the goal is genuine inquiry, then the discipline required is simple but demanding: distinguish evidence from inference, appreciation from canonization, and rhetorical symmetry from historical causation. Catholics can read Enoch without fear. What they reject is the substitution of speculation for history and the claim that Christ abandoned His Church to systemic deception until modern pattern-recognition restored the truth. The Church does not fear investigation. It resists narratives that explain disagreement by labeling complexity as deceit and history as conspiracy.
Thank you for presenting your research on the book of Enoch. I am so thankful to have read this book and since it was obviously being read in the the Jesus household that's good enough for me! Enoch makes the whole Bible make so much more sense.
The most important thing is this, do you know Jesus Christ? Have you accepted his offer of salvation? Are you filled with His Spirit? There's no point in knowing scripture and then crucifying the Savior and persecuting the church (like the jews did) I would rather have the 66 books of the bible and Know the risen Christ than have all the canon books and stand before a king who doesn't know me.
This I'm afraid @ROCKA is a rabbit hole from the enemy. It's a distraction from a real relationship with a Savior who loves you.
What is your preoccupation right now? Is it Jesus or is it Enoch?
And how can you judge another manβs servant? To his own master he stands or falls and the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Ethiopian Church and He is the Lord of the western Church. He is Lord of his people wherever they are. He is their redeemer.
Read the final letters of Christ in Revelation. I believe every church is addressed in those letters to the seven churches.
You are either with Him gathering for the kingdom or you are scattering what He has gathered.
So are your articles encouraging or destroying the faith of some? Read 2 Timothy 2:14-26
My point is this-The Bride of Christ (66 books or 88 books) is still not doing her work and that was the point of Revelation 1-3. She is still flirting with the world.
To me, the importance of the Books of Enoch cannot be overstated. I didn't know they existed until about 6 yrs ago. Reading them helped me understand the why behind several things in the Old Testament. Not to mention the fact that Almighty God loved Enoch so much that He took him. I love that part.
Like I keep asking, are you saying God allowed the world to be deceived for 1700 years? Or that He is not in control of His word? Or that the Ethiopians refused the Great Commission and βhid their light under a bushelβ?
Since the book of Enoch was only brought to light after European explorers discovered it, does that mean the Ethiopian church intended it to remain hidden from the world forever?
This argument confuses Judeβs comparison of judgments with an identity of sins, then fills the gap with Enochian speculation the text never requires. βStrange fleshβ does not mean βangelic flesh,β Genesis 19 shows sexual violence against vulnerable outsiders (a pattern repeated in Judges 19 with no angels at all), and Ezekiel explicitly names Sodomβs sins as pride, excess, violence, and neglect of the poor. The leap from that to βgenetic warfare,β Nephilim cleanup, and modern transhumanism isnβt biblical insight. This is just culture-war paranoia and grasping at straws to justify one's inclinations towards divisiveness.
1. Jude 7 specifies both the sin ("sexual immorality" + "strange flesh") and the judgment (eternal fire) "strange flesh" (heteros sarkos) = different kind of flesh. Angels are different kind of flesh (Hebrews 13:2, Genesis 18-19) the connection isn't speculation.
2. Ezekiel 16:49 lists economic/pride sins, then 16:50 adds "detestable things" (ΧͺΧΧ’ΧΧ) same term used in Leviticus 18:22. Ezekiel doesn't contradict Genesis 19 he lists additional sins without detailing the sexual component.
3. Jude quotes Enoch as prophecy (Jude 14-15) using Enoch to interpret Jude isn't importing speculation it's following Jude's own citation practice. If Enoch isn't authoritative, why does Jude quote it?
You're free to disagree, but the textual connections are documented.
Raised Roman Catholic. Read casually, not an avid reader at the time. For some reason, I was fascinated by the publishing company information on books I read. Year of printing, was it a first edition? Second? Who edited the book for spelling and grammar? (Teachers always critiqued my school work an I thought book editors were god like). All this fascination about the administrative side of books caused me to look for the same information on my Bible. As a kid, I found myself asking βwho edited the Bible cuz the words were weird and sometimes non sense (seemed to me)? Welp, you are answering my questions!!!!ππ»
Hello - Regarding "The Self-Proving Prophecy: ..." Although there's some good information here and I agree with most of it, the dates stated need some clarification. Enoch did not write 1 Enoch in 300 B.C. as he was taken - snatched up, raptured - before Noah's flood, approximately 604 years BEFORE the flood happened 2900 years before Jesus came in His incarnation. 300 B.C. can be considered when the Essenes copied Enoch's scroll. BTW, I was raised to be a devout Catholic but the Scriptural inconsistencies and the craziness of the 60's squashed that. PTL, Jesus found me in 1987, my 35th trip around the sun, and I haven't been the same since. Considering where we are on the prophetic time-line, I am eagerly "looking for the Blessed Hope" (Titus 2:13). Hallelujah! Maranatha! Love, with faith (Eph. 6:23) - Rick
I look forward to your Transhumanism series. I agree that the Genesis 6 and Enoch text describe genetic mixing and corruption. As in the Days of Noahβ¦
When I was young, I was taught about the great Constantine's role in stopping the persecutions. I now know the trade-off was nearly crippling the church.
Now, we face multiple canons of biblical literature, geographically separated and with even more minor differences in Western churches.
Logically, we wonder about the varieties of canonical books, which is correct? How do we decide π€
Well, the evidence and the logic point to Ethiopia, and people arenβt ready for that truth yet.
I find the material you are presenting to be quite challenging to the doctrines I have been taught, but I know that there will always be more to learn. Thank you for helping me question and rethink some of the teachings I have assumed to be true. One thing puzzles me with timeline of the Ethiopian church receiving the 81 books of their Bible in 34 A.D. How was their NT completed so early? What I find indicates that the earliest writings of the NT were completed in the late 40βs to early 50βs A.D.
"Every deletion requires authority."
No, sorry, every INCLUSION requires authority. But the Jews never considered Enoch canonical. So why should we?
There are many, many documentsβapocryphal, pseudepigraphal, inspirationalβthat the Church has not sanctioned. Most we can read profitably, but not as canon, not as authoritative for doctrine and practice.
I do not understand your obsession with this question, of all the issues facing the Church and world today. Are you from one of the Church traditions that embraces Enoch as canonical? Why not concentrate on those things that unite us?
The better question is why are you bothered by it? For me it matters to restore lost texts suppressed by Rome, and Iβve already put out enough evidence showing that Ethiopia preserves the true canon.
Why am I bothered by someone adding to the canon of scripture?!
Someone telling me I MUST read Enoch not just as profitable, but as apostolically authoritative for doctrine and practice?
As I have said before, you are presenting a false dichotomy. Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, Reformed and Anglicans have not "suppressed" Enoch. There is another option between canon and heresy.
And you haven't answered my challenge: If it is canonical, why has mainstream Judaism never included it in the canon of the Jewish Bible?
If you read my work its all there, im not going to repeat the same answers.
The author would posit he is not βaddingβ to the cannon, but is reading the original scriptures used by the Hebrews and the Apostles.
If itβs βthe original scriptures,β then I ask, for the third time, why wasnβt it considered canonical by the Jews?
Which Jews?
Because different Jewish communities had different canons and the group whose canon you're citing as authoritative explicitly rejected the Jewish Messiah when He came.
Ethiopia didnβt add to Scripture; the West removed books.
Agreed, and I don't understand the obsession over Enoch anway, it's not foundational.
My thoughts exactly !
Rocka, this is an impressive piece of rhetoric, but the core argument is driven by stacked assumptions, false timelines, and category mistakes about prophecy, canon, and ecclesial authority. Once those premises are corrected, the claim of a βself-proving prophecyβ collapses under its own weight.
The passage you cite from Enoch 104:10 is a generic moral warning, not a predictive blueprint of fourth-century canon lists. It speaks, in broad apocalyptic language, about sinners distorting righteous teaching, lying, deceiving, and writing misleading texts. Scripture itself contains many such warnings across centuries. Nothing in the text names a canon, identifies Rome, anticipates church councils, or describes the technical process by which later Christians discerned which books were read liturgically as Scripture. Your argument depends on an anachronism: reading a later, highly technical concept of βcanonβ back into a Second Temple apocalyptic exhortation. That is not prophecy fulfilled; it is retrospective pattern-fitting.
The Ethiopian timeline you present is not historically sustainable. Acts 8 records a real and beautiful conversion, but it does not state or imply that the Ethiopian official carried a fully formed, 81-book βapostolic canonβ back to Ethiopia in 34 AD. He was reading Isaiah, likely in Greek, received catechesis, and was baptized. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon as it exists today reflects a long, complex development over centuries, shaped by language, liturgy, and local tradition. To claim a complete canon was fixed and delivered whole in the apostolic age is narrative convenience, not documented history. Canon formation everywhere in early Christianity β whether in Syria, Alexandria, Rome, Armenia, or Ethiopia β was gradual, organic, and uneven.
Judeβs citation does not do the work you demand of it. Jude affirms a true prophetic saying attributed to Enoch and preserved in the Enochic tradition. Under inspiration, he can affirm the truth of that saying without canonizing the entire Enochic corpus. This is not special pleading; it is how Scripture itself functions. Biblical authors frequently cite or echo non-canonical material without elevating the whole source to inspired, normative Scripture. Truth can exist outside the canon; canonicity is not synonymous with usefulness, influence, or partial accuracy. If apostolic quotation automatically canonized whole works, the boundaries of Scripture would dissolve into the broader world of Second Temple literature.
Your patristic case is overstated by collapsing appreciation into canonization. Some Fathers cite Enoch positively; Tertullian famously defends it in one context, while also acknowledging that many Christians reject it and that it lacks Jewish reception. Origen refers to it cautiously, precisely because its status was disputed. That dispute is not a late, imperial corruption; it is present early. Patristic language is often expansive and imprecise by later technical standards, which is exactly why the Church gradually clarified the canon: to distinguish between texts that were edifying and texts that were universally received as inspired and read in the Churchβs worship. Early use does not equal universal canonical status.
The council narrative you construct flattens very different realities into a single story of βRome editing Scripture.β The Council of Laodicea was regional and its biblical list is itself textually complex and contested; it was not an ecumenical decree binding the whole Church. Athanasiusβ Festal Letter reflects the practice of much of the Church but does not constitute an act of deletion. The councils of Hippo and Carthage articulated the canon used in their churches; they did not excise Enoch from a previously universal Christian Bible. Trent, much later, reaffirmed the Catholic canon in response to Protestant instability; it did not suddenly invent authority to remove books. Meanwhile, Protestantismβs later reduction to sixty-six books is precisely what Catholics rejected. If the argument is that the West narrowed the canon, Catholics already agree, but that does not make Ethiopiaβs broader canon the universal apostolic standard.
Your framing repeatedly invokes βdocumentation,β but several of your central claims are not documented facts. There is no evidence that Ethiopia received a fixed, complete canon in 34 AD. There is no evidence of a single moment when Rome βremovedβ Enoch from a universally received canon. There is no evidence that Enoch 104:10 was understood by ancient readers as a prediction of fourth-century ecclesial lists. The interpretation is doing the work, not the evidence.
More fundamentally, your framework implies that the Church at large β Catholic and Orthodox alike β lost essential Scripture and therefore misunderstood its own foundations for well over a millennium until modern rediscovery corrected the error. That position directly contradicts Christβs promises regarding the Churchβs indefectibility and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic claim is not that Rome is infallible by power, but that Christ founded a visible Church, entrusted it with apostolic authority, and promised to remain with it. The canon emerged from that living apostolic life, discerned through worship and teaching, and clarified when disputes arose. That process is not βempire editingβ; it is the Church doing what it must do to preserve the rule of faith.
There is a way to speak truthfully without constructing a totalizing conspiracy. It is true that 1 Enoch is ancient and influential. It is true that Jude quotes a genuine prophetic saying preserved in that tradition. It is true that some early Christians valued Enoch and that Ethiopia preserved a broader canon than most other apostolic traditions. It is also true that Protestantism later narrowed the canon improperly. None of those truths yield your conclusion that Rome fulfilled a prophecy by deleting Scripture, or that imperial Christianity rewrote the faith.
If the goal is genuine inquiry, then the discipline required is simple but demanding: distinguish evidence from inference, appreciation from canonization, and rhetorical symmetry from historical causation. Catholics can read Enoch without fear. What they reject is the substitution of speculation for history and the claim that Christ abandoned His Church to systemic deception until modern pattern-recognition restored the truth. The Church does not fear investigation. It resists narratives that explain disagreement by labeling complexity as deceit and history as conspiracy.
Truth. Thank you.
Thank you for this excellent forensic analysis. The timeline makes sense.
I am studying the Enoch calendar.
Thank you for presenting your research on the book of Enoch. I am so thankful to have read this book and since it was obviously being read in the the Jesus household that's good enough for me! Enoch makes the whole Bible make so much more sense.
The most important thing is this, do you know Jesus Christ? Have you accepted his offer of salvation? Are you filled with His Spirit? There's no point in knowing scripture and then crucifying the Savior and persecuting the church (like the jews did) I would rather have the 66 books of the bible and Know the risen Christ than have all the canon books and stand before a king who doesn't know me.
This I'm afraid @ROCKA is a rabbit hole from the enemy. It's a distraction from a real relationship with a Savior who loves you.
And how does this distract from Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior? Last time I checked, the Western church is the apostate fruit.
What is your preoccupation right now? Is it Jesus or is it Enoch?
And how can you judge another manβs servant? To his own master he stands or falls and the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Ethiopian Church and He is the Lord of the western Church. He is Lord of his people wherever they are. He is their redeemer.
Read the final letters of Christ in Revelation. I believe every church is addressed in those letters to the seven churches.
You are either with Him gathering for the kingdom or you are scattering what He has gathered.
So are your articles encouraging or destroying the faith of some? Read 2 Timothy 2:14-26
Jude quoted Enoch, that's in your 66 books. Apparently it's a rabbit hole from the enemy according to you. Interesting.
My point is this-The Bride of Christ (66 books or 88 books) is still not doing her work and that was the point of Revelation 1-3. She is still flirting with the world.
To me, the importance of the Books of Enoch cannot be overstated. I didn't know they existed until about 6 yrs ago. Reading them helped me understand the why behind several things in the Old Testament. Not to mention the fact that Almighty God loved Enoch so much that He took him. I love that part.
Like I keep asking, are you saying God allowed the world to be deceived for 1700 years? Or that He is not in control of His word? Or that the Ethiopians refused the Great Commission and βhid their light under a bushelβ?
Since the book of Enoch was only brought to light after European explorers discovered it, does that mean the Ethiopian church intended it to remain hidden from the world forever?
Valid questions I think.
Iβm saying the West isnβt the center of the story. Its canon came through Babylon and Rome, not from some neutral divine vacuum.
Is it possible to have the reference of the resources used for the historical evidence?
I have a king james catholic bible published in 614 AD that includes all of the apocryphal books. So they didn't completely remove it.
This argument confuses Judeβs comparison of judgments with an identity of sins, then fills the gap with Enochian speculation the text never requires. βStrange fleshβ does not mean βangelic flesh,β Genesis 19 shows sexual violence against vulnerable outsiders (a pattern repeated in Judges 19 with no angels at all), and Ezekiel explicitly names Sodomβs sins as pride, excess, violence, and neglect of the poor. The leap from that to βgenetic warfare,β Nephilim cleanup, and modern transhumanism isnβt biblical insight. This is just culture-war paranoia and grasping at straws to justify one's inclinations towards divisiveness.
1. Jude 7 specifies both the sin ("sexual immorality" + "strange flesh") and the judgment (eternal fire) "strange flesh" (heteros sarkos) = different kind of flesh. Angels are different kind of flesh (Hebrews 13:2, Genesis 18-19) the connection isn't speculation.
2. Ezekiel 16:49 lists economic/pride sins, then 16:50 adds "detestable things" (ΧͺΧΧ’ΧΧ) same term used in Leviticus 18:22. Ezekiel doesn't contradict Genesis 19 he lists additional sins without detailing the sexual component.
3. Jude quotes Enoch as prophecy (Jude 14-15) using Enoch to interpret Jude isn't importing speculation it's following Jude's own citation practice. If Enoch isn't authoritative, why does Jude quote it?
You're free to disagree, but the textual connections are documented.
βThen ask: What else was removed? What else donβt I know? What else did Rome edit out after Constantine?β
I thought you hated βGnostic snotβ, or was it slop? Same questions applyβ¦ [ CCR βSomeday Never
Comesβ ]