Are we mixed with giants or angels ?

[jaybird88]

I don't think it is prudent to assume that some nonscriptural writing quoted in the Bible is canonical. Paul found some nugget of truth in several pagan writings but that certainly does not canonize everything that writer wrote.
As certain even of your own poets (hōs kai tines tōn kath' humās poiētōn). “As also some of the poets among you.”Acts 17:28

[1] Paul is quoting Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen.
[2] In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander
[3] and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides.
[4] Acts 17.28, for example, paraphrases Aratus, Phaenomena 5.
[5] 1 Corinthians 15.33 quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.
[6] Titus 1.12 quotes Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon.
[7] In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
[8] In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Asher 6:2,
[9] while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of Benjamin 4:3
[10] and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7.
[11] [12] Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and 77:1, respectively). ​

when Paul quotes a Greek poet is he quoting them as Greek poets or Jewish scripture. and thats the difference.

 

[Der Alte]

when Paul quotes a Greek poet is he quoting them as Greek poets or Jewish scripture. and thats the difference.

Not quite! Out of 12 quotes Paul identifies the source only once in Acts 17:28. I say again quoting a grain of truth from a non-canonical source does not canonize the entire writing.

 

[jaybird88]

Not quite! Out of 12 quotes Paul identifies the source only once in Acts 17:28. I say again quoting a grain of truth from a non-canonical source does not canonize the entire writing.

when Jude teaches from Enoch he uses terms such as "when the Lord did this, when the Lord did that", he is not talking about greek poetry. thats scripture. there is a difference.

 

[Der Alte]

when Jude teaches from Enoch he uses terms such as "when the Lord did this, when the Lord did that", he is not talking about greek poetry. thats scripture. there is a difference.

Incorrect. The quotation by Jude only uses the word Lord 1 time. If God had intended for the book of Enoch to be scripture He would have included it as He said about His word in Isaiah 55:11 but Enoch is not even in the Jewish OT scriptures.

Isaiah 55:11
(11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Jude 1:14-15
(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.​

 

[jaybird88]

Incorrect. The quotation by Jude only uses the word Lord 1 time.

my point had nothing to do with each time the word "Lord" appears. the point is that Jude is teaching it as scripture that his assembly would be familiar with.

If God had intended for the book of Enoch to be scripture He would have included it

it was roman councils that decided the canon.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't think it is prudent to assume that some nonscriptural writing quoted in the Bible is canonical.

The book of Enoch is different case. Jude goes ahead and says that the book of Enoch contains prophecy.
Jude 14 "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, [then he follows with a direct quote from the book of Enoch]

Some churches did have it in their canon, and some of the church fathers fought to keep it. Ultimately it comes down to do we trust Jude in this matter when he calls upon it's content and prophecy to formulate the primary basis of his message.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think it is prudent to assume that some nonscriptural writing quoted in the Bible is canonical. Paul found some nugget of truth in several pagan writings but that certainly does not canonize everything that writer wrote.
As certain even of your own poets (hōs kai tines tōn kath' humās poiētōn). “As also some of the poets among you.”Acts 17:28

[1] Paul is quoting Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen.
[2] In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander
[3] and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides.
[4] Acts 17.28, for example, paraphrases Aratus, Phaenomena 5.
[5] 1 Corinthians 15.33 quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.
[6] Titus 1.12 quotes Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon.
[7] In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
[8] In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Asher 6:2,
[9] while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of Benjamin 4:3
[10] and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7.
[11] [12] Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and 77:1, respectively). ​

You are correct. I hope you didn't take my statement to mean that I think they should be canon. They are, like many texts, an excellent history source.

 

[JacksBratt]

According to?

You want a list?
Would it matter?
A list of people who are educated in Bible history and other ancient history sources, who are devout Christians, in my mind, would not change your mind.

 

[JacksBratt]

Incorrect. The quotation by Jude only uses the word Lord 1 time. If God had intended for the book of Enoch to be scripture He would have included it as He said about His word in Isaiah 55:11 but Enoch is not even in the Jewish OT scriptures.

Isaiah 55:11
(11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Jude 1:14-15
(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.​

Have you read the Book of Enoch?

If you have, re-read the historical account of the events of this world, from creation to the Tribulation and the millennial age, written by Enoch, using animals in a metaphorical account with uncanny accuracy.

Then, remember, he wrote this before the flood.......

This is even more incredible, or as incredible as the book of the Revelation of Christ.

 

[Der Alte]

Have you read the Book of Enoch?
If you have, re-read the historical account of the events of this world, from creation to the Tribulation and the millennial age, written by Enoch, using animals in a metaphorical account with uncanny accuracy.
Then, remember, he wrote this before the flood.......
This is even more incredible, or as incredible as the book of the Revelation of Christ.

If any writing carrying the name Enoch was actually written by the patriarch Enoch. Again if God had intended for the book of Enoch to be part of the canon He was capable of making that happen as He did with the books that are in the canon. The 1917 Jewish Publication Society OT English translation does not have a book of Enoch. The 225 LXX does not have a book of Enoch. Part of 1 Enoch was found at DSS identified as intertestamental.

 

[corinth77777]

You want a list?
Would it matter?
A list of people who are educated in Bible history and other ancient history sources, who are devout Christians, in my mind, would not change your mind.

You or anyone else have not proven in the Bible from that passage that sons of God means Angels.
Nor will assumptions....If you can you would have

 

[JacksBratt]

If any writing carrying the name Enoch was actually written by the patriarch Enoch. Again if God had intended for the book of Enoch to be part of the canon He was capable of making that happen as He did with the books that are in the canon. The 1917 Jewish Publication Society OT English translation does not have a book of Enoch. The 225 LXX does not have a book of Enoch. Part of 1 Enoch was found at DSS identified as intertestamental.

Again, I am not arguing that this book should be part of the canonized scripture.

I am asking if you have read it. Have you experienced the accuracy and prophetic nature of the work, that parallels the biblical accounts.

 

[JacksBratt]

You or anyone else have not proven in the Bible from that passage that sons of God means Angels.
Nor will assumptions....If you can you would have

Some, here, have tried. You will not accept it.

 

[Der Alte]

Again, I am not arguing that this book should be part of the canonized scripture.
I am asking if you have read it. Have you experienced the accuracy and prophetic nature of the work, that parallels the biblical accounts.

I have skimmed some of it but I am satisfied with the scripture which God has provided us.

 

[JacksBratt]

I have skimmed some of it but I am satisfied with the scripture which God has provided us.

Why do you assume that I am holding this as "needed" text?

I am stating that it is not canon.
I am not arguing that it should be.
I am simply saying that it is a very ancient work that holds amazing accounts from that era that are a treasure to read as insight into a time long past.
I am not saying that the Bible is "not enough", as it is all we need.


However, for those digging deeper and willing to venture into the many mysteries of the world God created....... the Book of Enoch, and others, are a definite prerequisite for your library.

 

[Sanoy]

You or anyone else have not proven in the Bible from that passage that sons of God means Angels.
Nor will assumptions....If you can you would have

No one can prove anything against someones desire not to believe a thing. Changing someones mind is not needed to show which explanation is more exegetically correct.

 

[Andrew4jesus]

Here is an interesting time line.

• Stone age lasted "3.4 Million years"
• Bronze age lasted "~2,00 years"
• The Iron age lasted "~1,000 years"
• In the 1910's we were honking at Horse drawn buggies to get off the road.
• In the 1960's only 50 years later we landed on the Moon.
• Present - At the present age we are going to put colonies on mars. AI is frightfully close. Organs will be printed very soon, some parts already are. We have driverless taxi's, 3 more years and they will fly. We have pills that can repair DNA damage. EM drives are heading to space. Genomes are mapped, and we have the CRISPR technology to alter them. By the end of this year there will be a human head transplant in China, and in 3 more years a brain transplant. We have also added over 50 genders and aborted 1,454,585,000 children world wide.

The age we live in is an aberration in the technological timeline, and there is a good reason for that. If one doesn't know this content what is happening will be invisible.

Does this also refer to "an increase in knowledge" as stated in Daniel.

 

[Sanoy]

Does this also refer to "an increase in knowledge" as stated in Daniel.

That is a good insight. I always thought of that verse as a locator in time. I never made the correlation to their being a "why" with that verse. It makes sense with the mingling seed verse.

 

[Andrew4jesus]

That is a good insight. I always thought of that verse as a locator in time. I never made the correlation to their being a "why" with that verse. It makes sense with the mingling seed verse.

Thanks Sanoy , I'm absolutely riveted to this thread and have really enjoyed reading your input and the input of all who have contributed to the discussion. Unfortunately my own bible knowledge is a bit limited so it's hard for me to interject with opinions but I'm really grateful for all the replies, it's been really interesting. Thankyou.

 

[corinth77777]

No one can prove anything against someones desire not to believe a thing. Changing someones mind is not needed to show which explanation is more exegetically correct.

True,
We just can't make things true because we want them to be. [that's not truth]
Simply the offspring were men as stated in scripture [fact] Can one make you believe this ? No
Simply term Giant has been understood describing kings, leaders, or of people. [fact]Can't make one believe that either...

It is a fact that men are said to have corrupted their way..[fact] who corrupted their way men. Who are the cause? Men
Can't make one believes believe that either.
So you are correct...@ can't make one believe what they choose not to. And this is in the context.