Hoja ya Kipumbavu. We ni Mpumbavu na mtu Muoga kuwahi kutokea. Uoga umekudumaza akili yako zaidi. Umebakiza ya Ku kopi na kupesti
Unajiona umeshakua Zakir Naik Na Deedat kwa hoja za kubumba kama hizi?
Hii inathibitsha kua Wewe ni typical Donkey!. Kwakua unalazimisha Uongo uonekane kweli. Hata ukiambiwa Ulete ushahidi wa Zakir Naik akisema Christian Prince ni shoga, hawezi kufanya naye Debate. Ukapewa miaka 10. Hutaweza. Unazusha kama ilivyo Dini yako kuzusha Utatu WA Bikira maria na Uzeir WA Wayahudi.
Christian Prince ana debate na ma Professor wako na anawatoa Knock Out daily.
Sina shaka na upumbavu kichwani kwako by Defending the Unknown.
Wenzako walikuja na gesi, wamekimbia kwakua wameshaona KWELI iliyomo katika YESU Kristo HAIEPUKIKI.
Siku hizi wala huwaoni wakitetea upumbavu TENA. UNAONYESHA JINSI ulivyojikatia tamaa.
Sasa Unatafuta Victims wako humu. Unahitaji Counselling ya kutosha.
Ulisema mwenyewe hapa sio pa kujadili lakini naona unaendeleza Ku post upumbavu wako humu. Kuonyesha jinsi ulivyochoka na mashauri yako.
Kwa kawaida watu timamu, wanapojadili jambo Wanatafuta Suluhisho lakini wewe umechanganyikiwa kwa kujikatia Tamaa.
Wewe bakia ku copy na Ku paste tu. Maana huna jinsi.
Sent using
Jamii Forums mobile app
It might as well be stated that the Book of Enoch
is in the Bible
if we are talking about the Bible used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which does have some 50,000,000 adherents and thus a very good claim to be considered a major branch of the Christian tree.
So not only has it never been removed from the Bible, it is actually in the Bible of one rather large denomination.
So, to proceed. The Book of Enoch, then, achieved canonicity (for reasons which will become clear I use this term very loosely here) in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church only. Owing to this church's isolation, the development of its "canon" proceeded largely along lines independent of Christianity farther to the North.
As both the Greek Church and the Latin Church, so too the Ethiopian church appears to have started with the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch and a series of other writings related to it, as its basic Old Testament. This Greek translation was made by the Jews of Alexandria in the third and second centuries B.C.; the Septuagint includes the entire Jewish Canon (as it was finally settled in the 2nd century A.D. -- the Jewish Canon is identical with the Protestant Canon) and various other additional books (included in the Catholic and Orthodox Canons).
The precise version of the Septuagint with which the Ethiopian Church began was slightly different from that with which the Greek and Latin churches began. The Latin church started with a version missing III and IV Maccabees and the 151st Psalm. The Greek church started with a version including the aforementioned, but missing IV Ezra. The Ethiopian started with a version including IV Ezra and the 151st Psalm, but missing I, II, III, and IV Maccabees. So, the Ethiopian church's version of the Septuagint differed from the Latin church's version by including the 151st Psalm, but leaving out I and II Maccabees. The Ethiopian church's version of the Septuagint different from the Greek church's by leaving out I-IV Maccabees, but including IV Ezra.
However, the early Ethiopian church appears to have actively sought out other writings in addition to what stood in the Septuagint. This sets it apart starkly from the Greek and Latin churches which contented themselves with the Septuagint as they found it. So the Ethiopian Church acquired amongst other things a Jewish pseudepigraphical work, produced mostly in the second century B.C. (give or take half-a-century either way), but purporting to have been written by Enoch the great-grandfather of Noah.
This work was translated from Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) into Greek; and the translation into Aethiopic was made from this Greek translation. Another such text was the Book of Jubilees, another Jewish work of the second century B.C., from a Greek translation of which an Aethiopic translation was again made. Jubilees is largely a retelling of Genesis. Then there is also IV Baruch (a Jewish text from the second century A.D.). Also there are some additions, of uncertain provenance, to the Book of Lamentations. Finally, three books of the Maccabees, which have absolutely nothing in common with the I-IV Maccabees otherwise known from the Septuagint were also acquired. These Ethiopian Books of the Maccabees are of utterly uncertain provenance.
The development of the "Canon" in the Ethiopian Church took place in a period largely unilluminated by records and largely in isolation from the rest of Christianity. Officially the Ethiopian Orthodox Church did not become independent of the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt until the 20th century, so there seems never to have been any authoritative Council which rendered an official decision on which books were canonical.
Unofficially, a "canon" came into being, was hallowed by use over a long period of time, and was at best codified and arranged as a "canon" secondarily as an administrative and liturgical convenience. There are still some disputes within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as to the "canonicity" of a few other writings such as Pseudo-Josephus. Maybe there will one day be an official Council which renders an official decision.
So, to conclude: No-one ever removed the Book of Enoch from the Bible. It was not included in the Jewish Canon which was established in Jerusalem and which became official in the 2nd Century A.D. The Alexandrian Jews decided not to include it in the Septuagint. Since it was not in the Septuagint, it was never taken up either by the Latin Church or by the Greek Church, both of which (until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries respectively) simply contented themselves with what was in the Septuagint as they found it and left it at that.
The Ethiopian Church too started with the Septuagint, but was not content to leave matters as they stood in the Septuagint. Additional works were acquired, and thus the Ethiopian Church did us all a great favour by preserving, i.a., the Book of Enoch, a fascinating apocalyptical text from the second century B.C., one which gives us great insight into Judaism of that period.
The Book of Enoch also gives great insight into the early literary and theological development of an episode just hinted at in the opening verses of chapter VI in the canonical book of Genesis, namely the idea that before the Fall of Man there had been a Fall of Angels -- that some Angels had rebelled against God and been cast out of the celestial abode.
The Book of Enoch discusses in great detail this Fall of the Angels. Although Enoch never became canonical anywhere besides Ethiopia, the book was influential both in a literary and a theological sense during the early centuries of the Latin and Greek churches (the canonical Epistle of Jude in the New Testament, for example, quotes from it as do various church fathers); and the Fall of the Angels kept receiving elaborate treatment. It is interesting to note that the lengthy surviving sections of the Old English Genesis and of the Old Saxon (Old Low German) Genesis deal almost exclusively with the Fall of the Angels, an episode which, again, is barely even hinted at in the canonical Genesis. The most elaborate and sophisticated literary treatment of the Fall of the Angels comes, of course, in Milton's
Paradise Lost. Thereafter, presumably because no treatment could surpass Milton's, this story ceased to engage the literary imagination.
Anyway, because the Ethiopian church preserved this text, which as the centuries rolled by eventually passed out of knowledge in the Greek and Latin churches, we today can still read it. It was reïntroduced to the West in the late eighteenth century. In the twentieth century portions of the Book of Enoch (the so-called "Book of the Giants" -- in an Aramaic version) were identified amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran.
There is also another version of the Enoch-material (now called II Enoch) which has turned up in various orthodox monasteries in Russia and Serbia; the language is Old Church Slavonic into which the work was translated from Greek. It is unclear if it was orginally composed in Greek or in some other language such as Hebrew or Aramaic.
