Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Let me rephrase to pour water on your fire ken. Sons of God is taken to signify, godly men. Mean is used here as in the word meaning, or definition. Not mean as in the word brutal. You twist my words. Also, before Christ in the flesh, the Word of God was God. It was not found with the fallen angels. I have read Enoch. And as it is incomplete, and thoroughly talks of demons, fallen angels, and the hierarchy thereof, I tend not to indulge in it. Though it is tempting to indulge in books of things that pique our curiosity, concerning giants and so forth as it seems like an easy way to learn about stuff n a clear concise manner. But God does not want us to learn sin. You cannot fashion words of light because of the darkness. Also, it has a very 2nd century thought on the origins of the world and do not even resemble anything Moses wrote in Genesis. The work wasnt even written by Enoch but is in fact falsely attributed to him. It is largely at odds with scriptures. There is only a few things that are in agreement and that is why the whole of the Bible only eludes to one thing Enoch said. The book of Enoch was made based upon that one verse. Then everything else was filled in with Jewish myth and fables of which scriptures warn you of. But yet all your life, you were not privy to the book of Enoch, and in fact were saved without it never even considering it, so why do you question the very saving grace and power which did in fact save you from the darkness you had found yourself in? Trust that God is just. He told you the truth. Why do you not believe it?
It was over 1000 years, which is a 6th of the time we've been on earth, so I definitely wouldn't say it was relatively short.
I don't know why it was possible, no one does. All I know is that the bible talks of giants, before and after the flood, and that the bible quotes from, and references Enoch, and it also talks of it.
There are greek texts of enoch, that I don't believer are to be trusted, but there are Ethiopian and Aramaic and Hebraic books of Enoch, that all line up with one another.
There are more than one book of enoch, there's three I think.
I've only been reading the first one so far, but it's done nothing but line perfectly up with scripture, and it even sheds light on some confusing parts of scripture. So long as you're not reading the greek (the text that talks of 3000 ells) it lines perfectly up with the bible. That verse 7:11 or whatever only exists in the greek, and isn't found in literally any other translation of Enoch. All the other versions, Aramaic, Hebraic, and Ethiopian don't mention it. That verse doesn't exist. It stops at 7:6, and then begins chapter 8.
That, and evolution isn't real. It's only technically a theory at this point. I know they push it really hard, and there seems to be absolute proof, but there is no proof for it as of now, it's still technically, the "theory" of evolution.
Well, considering the bible talks of giants, and talks of the fallen mating with women, my guess is that women can give birth to them, so they couldn't of been huge at first, but that they just continually grew afterwards.
Much like the liger - tiger lion hybrid. It exists now, "thanks" to science... but regardless, it's birthed in the womb of an ordinary tiger or lioness, but yet it grows much much larger than any of the two it's born from. It doesn't have the gene that tells it to stop growing, so compared to lions, or tigers, it's ridiculously huge! Much like ligers, I think it would have been with the giants. Small at birth, but they just didn't stop growing. I'm not sure on this, all that I know is that the bible says they mated with women, and that the result were giants. So it leaves me to believe, either they couldn't live through it, and died and therefore the babies weren't born, and the bible is false, or somehow the women could have their children.
Look into ligers. Like I said, they are born normally, but because of the hybridization, they don't have the gene that stunts growth, and they keep growing. They actually have a full grown liger that is still to this day growing larger, and it's already 900 lbs. (at least it was last time I looked into it)
Actually, I just looked into it just for this. So apparently:
Lions on average weigh 550 lbs
Tigers can get up to 800 lbs
Ligers, on average are 1000 lbs, and there is one that was 1600 lbs. So, twice the weight of tigers, and over three times the size of lions. Yet, they're the same size when born, because they're sterile, and are born in the wombs of the animals they're brought forth from.
Is that different? Do we really know? That would make an ell somewhere on the order of a tenth of a cubit. A cubit, also, is not a standardized length. If I'm not mistaken, it was based on the length of a man's forearm, which differed between men, and it would have been shorter for people of that time period than ours.
It could have been a lot of things. So much wild speculation.
Oh, good. First it was twenty miles. Then you said it was 450 feet. Now, we're back up to two miles. Look, man, I don't care if you want to believe in the Book of Enoch or not, but you're using pure speculation and inconsistent math to disprove something weathered by thousands of years, a few translations and the crossing of multiple cultural paradigms. Your math is based on units of measurement that were relative when they were used, which are now thousands of years forgotten.
Impossible stature? Yeah, probably. Not to be included as canon? Of course not. Incredibly foolish argument against an ancient book? Definitely.
Firstly, the children that these women gave birth to were angel/human hybrids. They grew rapidly.
We don't "evolve" never did. We are human and have human DNA. God put limitations on the growth of the human body by the blue print in our DNA..
In the womb, the fastest a baby grows is the last trimester.
Or doctor told us that if the baby maintained this growth rate for a year or two, it would be incredibly larger than typical humans..
The growth slows down.
As punishment for their great sin, the 200 fallen angels that "left their first estate" to mate with women, the first part of their punishment was to observe their offspring, the first generation of Nephilim, kill each other off in a great civil war.
The Book of Enoch may not be Canon but it is still a history book that is quoted by the Bible, runs parallel to the bible and gives light to what happened in those days.
Just because it is not considered Canon does not mean that it is not important information..
Unless you condemn the the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Origin of Species for not being Canon either.
Oh, and just as a side note........the full title of Darwin's racist, anti christian, farce of a book is:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
You basing that on your conception of time. Not that that's wrong, but, even the bible does not set in concrete what the length of time is. I can show from scripture that at one day was longer than 24 hours.
You are not going to like this.
19. The yom problem
— Yom; The Biggest Biblical Creation Theory Obstacle —
The word yom
The Hebrew word for day is yom and this word appears in Scriptures over 1400 times. And without exception this word, when written in the singular sense, means day. And that's it. Never anything else. Eons are indicated with the plural form: days, as in the days of such and such. The most popular counter argument is that the meaning of our word is fiercely restricted to 'day' for about a thousand times in the sequential Scriptures, but in the secluded chapter of Genesis 1 means something completely different! But honestly, if in Genesis 1 our word should have meant 'long time' it would have said 'long time'. There are words available in Hebrew that mean just that. None of which occur in Genesis 1.
The word as used in Genesis 1 means day and day alone. There's no way around it, and every serious theory to make (systematic, not theological) sense out of Genesis 1 should first and foremost address the yom-problem.
The solution lies in the rule we've established four chapters ago:
Hold that thought (11)
In Hebrew Scriptures, and all models derived thereof, entities are reckoned solely after their behavior and not after their appearance. An entity is a behavior, not that which executes the behavior.
To define something, the Hebrew language does not look at outer parameters but always at the action that needs to be named. The time-length of a yom is an outer parameter and not regarded in Hebrew. Since time and space are the four dimensions of space-time, and we measure sizes in the spatial dimensions with a ruler, a clock is a ruler for time. An hour is a 'distance' just like a mile.
A yom is not defined as something that is 24 hours long, but something that executes the action that defines a yom. Strictly spoken, a yom does not even have to have a length, as long as it executes the typical behavior that defines it. Forcing a static 24-hour mold upon the word yom may appear quite pious but flies flat in the face of the Second Commandment.
A yom therefore is a phase of a continuum (whether space-time, complexity or something else) that consists of two periods: a 'dark' part and a 'light' part. During the dark part of a regular day people sleep and are disconnected. During the light part they communicate and work together. Any other manifestation of yom should display the same kind of darkness (elements not connected) and lightness (elements connected).
The yom problem in addressing Genesis 1
Here is another problem with Enoch.
There's also the problem that we have no idea what the original book of Enoch said. Apart from a few fragments, all we have is the Ethiopian translation.
With no Greek text for the book of Enoch, it's impossible to say whether even the famous passage from Jude 1:14-15 is a direct quote from the book of Enoch (as opposed to being parallel passages with a common source).
And there's no reason to believe that even the original book of Enoch was inspired.
True---to God one day is as a 1000 years--to God. But:
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
He gave us time--for our benefit--not His. He basis prophecies and such on our times, not His.
What Ex. 17:22? Ex. 17 only goes to verse 16.
Excuse me, fingers move faster than the brain.
Ex. 17:12
"But Moses hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun."
Perhaps that not the best example. However, we do have scripture that tells us one day was about 30 hours long.
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." -Josh. 10:13 (KJV)
So here, in scripture, we a "day", a "yom" that could have been anywhere from 18 to possibly 24 hours longer than any other "day/yom".
So in a "strict" sense, you cannot say that every "day/yom" was a literal 24 hour day.
God Bless
Till all are one.
No--not a good example as this verse does not have the word yom in the original Hebrew.
and the hands of Mosheh were heavy, and they took a stone and they placed it underneath him, and he settled upon her, and Aharon and Hhur upheld his hands, from this one and from that one, and his hands were firm until the coming of the sun, "
MTT: Exodus 17
I can not access Joshua in the Hebrew so doo not know what word is used there.
It is a slightly different word in Gen.2:17
"but from the tree of discernment of function and dysfunction you will not eat from him, given that in the day you eat from him you will surely die,"
There it is : {בְּיוֹם / bê'yom
Which is different from the {יוֹם / yom} used in the Genesis 1 account.
MTT: Genesis 2
Gen 2 can be read season, or long time.
I can not access Joshua in the Hebrew so doo not know what word is used there.
Yes...Is it?
Angels that "lost their first estate" can reproduce with human women.Sons of God is taken to mean godly men, as it does every where else in Scriptures. Daughters of men is taken to mean daughters of ungodly men. Angels cannot reproduce. An easy similar story in scriptures is how Israel was warned against the taking of wives of other peoples that were not Israel. The angels continue to exist as this states in scriptures.
What is their "evidence"?
Angels that "lost their first estate" can reproduce with human women.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?