At the time of Christ, The Book of Enoch was included in the Ancient Texts which were regarded as Inspired Scriptures. These came to be known as The Old Testament. Unfortunately the Book of Enoch fell into disrepute during the early Christian Era because of its apparently extreme and therefore misunderstood content. Christians were unable to reconcile this content with, what we know to-day as, the books of The Holy Bible.

In the light of the present Spiritual knowledge of the Christian Scriptures, The Book of Enoch has again begun to be accepted as Inspired by God. Unfortunately, there is no original Hebrew text from which to make translation into English. The best we have is a number of fragments of Etheopic, Greek and Latin texts. The Biblical Greek Scholar, R.H.Charles, has collected, collated and translated these into book form. In the preface to his second edition translation, he writes concerning many improvements that he was able to incorporate:

The translation in the first edition was made from Dillmann's Edition of the Ethiopic text, which was based on five MSS. With a view to this translation, the present editor emended and revised Dillmann's text in accordance with nine hitherto uncollated Ethiopic manuscripts in the British Museum, and the Greek and Latin fragments which had just come to light, but not withstanding every care he felt his work in this respect to be of a wholly provisional character. From the date of the publication of the first edition in 1893 he steadily made preparation for an edition of the Ethiopic text and of the Greek and Latin fragments. This text which is exhaustive of existing textual materials in these languages, was published by the University Press in 1906, and from this text the present translation is made. A new and revolutionary feature in the translation is due to the editor's discovery of a poetical structure of a considerable portion of the work. I call it revolutionary; for such it proves to be in respect of the critical problems of the text. By its means the lost original of the text is not infrequently recovered, phrases and clauses recognised as obvious interpolations, and not a few lines restored to their original context, whose claims to a place in the text were hitherto ignored on the ground of the weakness of their textual attestation.

Because of the increased Spiritual knowledge concerning this book, I make no apology for the use in the following article, of a small section of these Scriptures called The Apocalypse of Weeks. These are ten weeks representing the activities of God and man between the birth of Adam and The Day of God. Each day of these ten weeks is taken to represent a hundred years. Modern theological criticism is unable to interpret the basis upon which these weeks are arranged because they fail to recognise the revelation of this present Administration of God's Grace. This was not revealed until about the year 70ad, having been 'hidden in God' before that time [Eph 3:9].  This Administration of God with all its activities is not therefore included in Enoch's Apocalypse of Weeks because it was not revealed to Enoch. Modern theological critics are unable therefore to discern the True Spiritual nature of this prophesy.

As the Greek and Roman methods of computing time were connected with certain pagan rites and observances which the Christians held in abhorrence, the latter began at an early period to imitate the Jews in reckoning their years from the supposed period of the creation of the world. Various computations were made at different times, from Biblical sources, as to the age of the world; and Des Vignoles, in the preface to his Chronology of Sacred History, asserts that he collected upwards of two hundred different calculations, the shortest of which reckons only 3483 years between the creation of the world and the commencement of the vulgar era, and the longest 6984. The so-called era of the creation of the world is therefore a purely conventional and arbitrary epoch; practically, it means the year 4004 B.C.,—this being the date which, under the sanction of Archbishop Ussher's opinion, won its way, among its hundreds of competitors, into general acceptance.