SIGH! Those pesky “uncanonized books” just keep being lauded….

If you’re among those who like to insist that we need to use uncanonized books to "fill in the blanks historically, " then please read the following:

There were good reasons for certain books to be left out of the canon!  It’s because they either contained doubtful authenticity, or they had unknown authorship, were of doubtful origins, or were historically or geographically off the mar.  Therefore we don’t have a right to pick and choose what to believe in them.

We simply have to remember, they are NOT part of the Bible for a reason! Yet, many people who find their way to Torah, FLOCK to these books, because they think they contain "secrets" that have been kept from us – one example being that the angel called “Gadreel” is actually Cain’s father… never mind that SCRIPTURE says Adam and Eve had Cain: Genesis 4:1.

The reality is, veering from your study of Scripture to pursue knowledge from those EXTRA-Biblical, UNCANONIZED books, is like coming upon a massive, bloody car pileup on the freeway. No matter how gory, your mind WANTS to see .... and then you have nightmares because you can't un-see people’s brains and guts all over the road.

Unfortunately, most people seem to be conspiracy theorists, drawn to things that aren't necessarily true or are somehow "forbidden knowledge." Reading those books gives people the idea that they're privy to "something they shouldn't know" - and, to them, it becomes way more important than actual Scripture. As a matter of fact, once they start reading those books, they don't even know if they're reading an actual copy of Jasher or Enoch, or whatever, because there are many “fakes” of those books out there….

For instance, let's take a look at the several reasons the Book of Enoch not canonized"

First, we have no authoritative Book of Enoch; rather, we have documents that purport to be the Book of Enoch. It's pseudepigrapha.

Secondly, its calendar is indecipherable being only an agricultural calendar based on the sun, not matching scripture.

Thirdly, it contradicts the canonized scriptures and, honestly, could we have today a "book" written by a man who existed such a long time before the Flood? While we have evidence of some very ancient writings on tablets, few, if any, have been shown to have been written by anyone prior to the flood.

Yes, stories of Enoch circulated in Biblical times. He is even mentioned in Jude 1:14 regarding a prophecy from Enoch. But since Jude was written in the First Century CE, its reference to Enoch is most likely only expressed from oral tradition and not any "Book of Enoch" which is nowhere mentioned in scripture.

The bottom line is this: No matter what the latest scuttlebutt is - Rome did NOT replace everything for its own ends! While Rome attempted to tamper with some things, the Eastern-Aramaic traditions escaped their greedy hands by being preserved in Persia, which was outside their influence. And the Greek actually also didn't fare as totally badly as some had feared either, because we can check it against the Aramaic to make sure.

In the end though, line by line and concept by concept, YHWH has preserved the totality of His Word to mankind. We should never let questions about this line or this version of the text distract us from the big picture, but let the mystery of understanding His Word drive us to appreciate it more and more for the Set-Apart revelation that it is ... without trying to FORCE extra-biblical writings into HIS Word!