Enoch the Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet of the Bible : Greater Than Abraham, Holier Than Moses [Paperback]

Indus Khamit Kush (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 30, 2002

Enoch, the Ethiopian, Patriarch and Prophet, Greater than Abraham, Holier than Moses, is the first perfect human being in the bible and the first immortal man according to Moses the lawgiver. (Gen.5:18,22,24) And yet he has been kept a secret until the printing of this revealing book

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher

The greatest Biblical revelation since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls.

Product Details

• Paperback: 302 pages
• Publisher: EWorld Inc. (September 30, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1886433038
• ISBN-13: 978-1886433038
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #106,632 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #6 in Books > History > Africa > Ethiopia
  • #88 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Bible & Other Sacred Texts > Jewish Texts > Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

49 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars could have been better, April 22, 2005

By 

ladyam (Cincinnati, OH) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Enoch the Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet of the Bible : Greater Than Abraham, Holier Than Moses (Paperback)

I bought this book with the excitement that I would learn more about the character of Enoch and perhaps other patriarchs of the bible. I was deeply disappointed. First of all, the author just repeats the same thing over and over about Enoch being the first perfect being and he repeats a lot of the same scripture over and over again. I'm like please lets get to some new and interesting facts I didn't know about Enoch already. I know he was the perfect human being etc. etc. How about some new info. The only thing that is a little better is some good book references. I'd rather get the books he referenced. If you want a better source of Enoch get the Book of Enoch the Prophet, The Other Bible, Ethiopic Enoch and other books that go into detail. It's really disappointing when you actually get frustrated with a book before you even finish it.

20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars What an Utter Time Thief!, July 30, 2007

By 

Bonam Pak (Berlin) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Enoch the Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet of the Bible : Greater Than Abraham, Holier Than Moses (Paperback)

I bought this book to read a Black centered, Ethiopian perspective on the prophet Enoch. What a complete waste of resources! I thought I could take the warned against repetition, however, I was fed up on page 15 already - with 285 more to follow!

In principle I appreciate any unorthodox/eccentric writing style. However, sick more than 90% of the written words being comprised of quotes of other books etc. is something I do not want to experience Iver again. In fact, the number of pages of his own words would stay clearly in the single digits, if it weren't for the brief conclusion of the book. The author quotes anyone, no matter how often almost literally the very same thing. Quoting, what Enoch is, without the respective reasons. Occasionally, I begged for an explanation: "Enoch is the inventor of urban civilization." How would that be possible, in the supposed 7th generation of humankind? Would that even be a good thing, to invent the big shitty?! Some subchapters are extremely short: "Enoch the Great Authority [headline] In Levitical literature and traditions Enoch is regarded as a great authority." Followed by the source. That was it. Just to give an expression of the exquisiteness of the information. A similar subchapter is headed "Enoch the Creator's Favorite". Four pages later another "Enoch the Favorite of God". Writing exclusively in quotes unsurprisingly lead to various contradictions. Without commenting those. It also lead to omissions.

I hoped to learn something about Enoch. I definitely did not. A third of the book is entirely off the point, i.e. NOT about Enoch. But instead about the Egyptians (!) having been Black and general racism. I do agree (largely) with the author on this (though nothing is new to those who have read other African centered books on Egypt). This doesn't change the fact that there's nothing substantial about Enoch in this book instead, not even in addition.

Quelle surprise, there's racism in the world. It is largely described in such a general way, utterly unrelated to Enoch that I am still wondering, what exactly the concept of the book might have been. Though it was ok to read some examples of famous people saying something racist, just to put them on the history index. Personally I prefer not to repeat that many insults, as that qualifies as further insulting - oneself, involuntarily. As I share the sentiments in general of the author on this, I still add one star to the lowest category possible for this book. I may have added another, but even in this regard the book is flawed. To begin with, there aren't any races.

A major point of discontent I have with this book, is that the author writes things which are true, but discredits them with flawed proofs. He's saying, if one Biblical character is Black skinned, then ALL before and after in the geneology must have been also. Likely, but not necessarily. Because the Sinai is located in Egypt, and because Egypt is located in Africa, the ancient Egyptians must have been Black. Yes, they were Black, but the causal relationship escapes me. Anyway, I may add ancient Blacks once lived in eastern Asia, Scotland, Scandinavia, India, Tasmania, etc. Also the Sumerians were Black, yes. But not because they CAME from Africa, but because the area was well within the ancient Black populated world. The pre-Hebrew people descending from Abraham are described as numbering 70 when migrating into Egypt, but numbering some (3,)600,000 at the Imes of the exodus a relatively short Imes later. The author suggests that they must have mixed with Blacks and therefore HAD BECOME Black. In reality, Abraham had been Black from the beginning, as is contradictingly mentioned elsewhere. Besides, it is an urban legend that he came from Ur. (Read The Africans Who Wrote the Bible.) The names and artificial borders of continents say nothing about the skin color of the respective inhabitants at different Imes. Moses (who is not seen as Akenten/Akhenaton in this book) was black skinned, yes. But this is not provable with the magic trick in the Bible, displaying a white hand for a moment as a supposed contrast to his general phenotype color. For one thing, he was explicitly NOT the Israelites' "first great miracle worker". Simply for the reason that he taught AGAINST magic. Later scribes of the Bible misunderstood the earlier texts and misinterpreted and mistranslated various text passages into a lot of magic tricks never done. In addition, the white hand is not referring to any phenotype whiteness, but sickness whiteness, as is still overstandable from the quote provided. It is referring to leprosy. Someone "White" could have done the same "white hand magic", as "Whites" are in reality pink or beige. More about Moses read in Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus. Enoch might have been an Ethiopian (as in today's country). He was Black for sure. However not, because the Ethiopian Church still includes it in its canon. The other early churches did that as well. Ethiopia became isolated from the rest of Christianity and didn't follow subsequent doctrine changes. There are other Ethiopian apocryphs, not about Ethiopians and other Bible texts in European Bibles not referring to Europeans. The book follows the belief that every people (= phenotype) has to venerate Mary and Jesus/I-Yasus in the skin color of their own. I concur that fakings, done in order to downpress, should not be followed. However, the book's suggestion is racist in the manner that non-Black (APPEARING) people supposedly aren't INHERENTLY able to identify with a Black Jesus and that indeed different skin colors equal different peoples/races. Last not least Adam was most likely Black, yes. (That I would have to say that as a RastafarI...) No matter, how much the concept of Adam is White. Yet at the Imes of Adam, as described by the Bible and this book, humans already featured all the other phenotypes. Simply, because Adam wasn't really the first human, as can be seen in his story of further procreation. He was the first patriarch under a certain concept of humanity. So the "proof" is flawed that as the first human he must have been black skinned, even though he was. Ancient Egypt is still described as too young. Read When We Ruled: The Ancient and Medieval History of Black Civilisations.

This book doesn't only quote The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors, but actually recommends it, as the author Dr. Cress Welsing supposedly does a "brilliant analysis" of racism. In reality, that book is hiding grave racism (against Blacks) behind a thin veil of reversed racism. Curiously, a few pages later, historic The Willie Lynch Letter and the Making of a Slave is quoted extensively. Perfectly describing what The Isis Papers has continued EXACTLY in a modern version. In that sense, Willie Lynch was perfectly right that with his methods Blacks in America can be controlled for at least 300 years - obviously even when they are freed and perfectly aware of them.

As for the Enoch part of this book: The author takes everything literally - and by that misses the point. The mysticism of it. For example that Enoch ascended into Heaven with his body. This isn't even literally said in the story. (In fact, there are even contradictory quotes that his body was transformed into "flames".) It is just said that he didn't die. That is a tremendous difference. Other literal interpretations include people living anywhere from 365 years to capping a millennium and that God looks like a (hu)man.

There are some hostile references towards sexuality and the Greek are getting criticized for not inventing any doctrines which couldn't get enforced accordingly. For once, the Greeks have done something right, and then that's bad...

As for the sloppy presentation of the book: The contents table is completely wrong, suggesting some 50 more pages not existing due to an altered lay-out, there are two chapter X, and many other flaws of this sort, suggesting a lacking proof-reader.

The actual text of Enoch is not included. Please read the Ethiopian version: The Lost Book of Enoch: Comprehensive Transliteration of the Forgotten Book of the Bible.

17 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Enoch the Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet of the Bible: Greater than Abraham, Holier Than Moses, August 24, 2005

By 

Ella (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Enoch the Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet of the Bible : Greater Than Abraham, Holier Than Moses (Paperback)

This book contains a listing of the writer's verifications on the subject matter. It contain excellent resouces and although the information is extensive, it is also very repetitive.