hangry

Give us your analysis, not some fucking youtube video.

dudelol

Its legit. Azazel is the Antichrist

doginventer

I give it great credibility but I couldn’t possibly make as good a case as Dr Pidgeon does in the video. Which is why I post it :)

hangry

Fair enough. From my perspective, the book was rejected as spurious long ago, at a time much closer to the writings of the apostles than now, and that seems like a reasonable case for rejecting it to me.

doginventer

No so, there are multiple references in the New Testament including by Jude (brother of Jesus)

The Q&A is live now if you want to check it : On the Mark - Q & A Episode 6 - The Book of Enoch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6QcmvIuia3Q

hangry

The book wasn't rejected as spurious? Then why isn't it canonical?

lord_nougat

King James fagged it all up when he had his translators do their thing.

That could be unrelated, I don't know, but he still edited out a bunch of stuff annoyingly.

hangry

The scholars on that team were all good men, Protestant in theology, but the best English scholars for translating in their day. And they used a good Greek text, for the most part. And the Elizabethan English is still beautiful. In fact, the grammar, pronouns, cadence, etc more closely match the Greek than modern English. That being said, the interpretation or understanding of it, and the god-like quality assigned to the scriptures by Protestants, and the self-contradictory rejection of church tradition, means they do a hell of a lot of damage to themselves and to others with it.

King James's objection to the Geneva was mainly to the notes printed with it. They were Genevan, and reflected the Reformed or Calvinistic view strongly, and the Anglican church was not completely in favor of that branch of reformation theology. That and it came from the Continent and there was no money made by the Crown when it was smuggled in.