Nephilim

[Bluelion]

The Book of Jasher, or Pseudo-Jasher, is an 18th-century literary forgery by Jacob Ilive.[1] It purports to be an English translation by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of a lost Book of Jasher. It is sometimes called Pseudo-Jasher to distinguish it from the midrashic Sefer haYashar (Book of the Upright, Naples, 1552), which incorporates genuine Jewish legend.

Published in November 1751, the title page of the book says: "translated into English by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, of Britain, Abbot of Canterbury, who went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land and Persia, where he discovered this volume in the city of Gazna." The book claims to be written by Jasher, son of Caleb, one of Moses' lieutenants, who later judged Israel at Shiloh. Jasher covers Biblical history from the creation down to Jasher's own day and was represented as being the Lost Book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible.

ContentEdit

In Alcuinus' supposed translation, the Law is not given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God, but near to the mountain by Moses' father-in-law Jethro as the basis for civil government. The Creation occurs in the first chapter by natural process out of the ether and God only appears in Eden after the plants and animals, at the human stage of creation. Adam and Eve do not transgress, and, later on, Noah is credited only with the invention of shipping. The adjustments to the biblical narrative clearly promote Deist and Rationalist viewpoints from the 18th Century, when the book was published, and the noble innocence of primitive humanity untarnished by original sin. Wikipedia

thank you brother

There is a sefer book I looked at once, yeah that is heresy.

and they wonder why i got mad and then they speak of false teachers lol some times you have to laugh

 

[now faith]

You know just because a reference to a name is used in the Bible,it does not make the apocryphal books
Cannon.
Jude: 1. 13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints

Ask a reasonable question is this Enoch the same Enoch of the book of Enoch?

Anyone who studies the Word knows names are at times the same.
There were 2 named Judas.Genesis: 5. 18. And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: 19. And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis: 4. 17. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the neame of his son, Enoch.

Now which Enoch are we claiming Joel is speaking of?
And was he the author of the book of Enoch?

Was the book written post or pre flood?
Pre flood do you suppose it was with Noah on the ark?

Let's stretch the old imagination a bit shall we

 

[Bluelion]

You know just because a reference to a name is used in the Bible,it does not make the apocryphal books
Cannon.
Jude: 1. 13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints

Ask a reasonable question is this Enoch the same Enoch of the book of Enoch?

Anyone who studies the Word knows names are at times the same.
There were 2 named Judas.Genesis: 5. 18. And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: 19. And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis: 4. 17. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the neame of his son, Enoch.

Now which Enoch are we claiming Joel is speaking of?
And was he the author of the book of Enoch?

Was the book written post or pre flood?
Pre flood do you suppose it was with Noah on the ark?

Let's stretch the old imagination a bit shall we

Yeah i have read some of Enoch no way was that written by Enoch the one who went to Heaven.

Its false doctrine at best.

 

[now faith]

thank you brother

There is a sefer book I looked at once, yeah that is heresy.

and they wonder why i got mad and then they speak of false teachers lol some times you have to laugh

People seek to desire something profound outside God's Word.

This is why they use multiple translations to prove a point,never mind the fact that the translations are from different dialects of language.

So when convenient it's the Textus Receptus then a shift to the Critical Text,

Then move on to the pseudo text a long with the supposed revelation text.

Why not the Mormon text or Uranchia text

 

[Bluelion]

People seek to desire something profound outside God's Word.

This is why they use multiple translations to prove a point,never mind the fact that the translations are from different dialects of language.

So when convenient it's the Textus Receptus then a shift to the Critical Text,

Then move on to the pseudo text a long with the supposed revelation text.

Why not the Mormon text or Uranchia text

The scary thought about the whole thing is josh said he was in ministry and he was preaching the book of Enoch. He should know better.

I feel I am not being very compassionate tonight these herbs I am taking make it hard for me to feel my heart. I just feel stillness.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

The Book of Jasher, or Pseudo-Jasher, is an 18th-century literary forgery by Jacob Ilive.[1] It purports to be an English translation by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of a lost Book of Jasher. It is sometimes called Pseudo-Jasher to distinguish it from the midrashic Sefer haYashar (Book of the Upright, Naples, 1552), which incorporates genuine Jewish legend.

Published in November 1751, the title page of the book says: "translated into English by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, of Britain, Abbot of Canterbury, who went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land and Persia, where he discovered this volume in the city of Gazna." The book claims to be written by Jasher, son of Caleb, one of Moses' lieutenants, who later judged Israel at Shiloh. Jasher covers Biblical history from the creation down to Jasher's own day and was represented as being the Lost Book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible.

ContentEdit

In Alcuinus' supposed translation, the Law is not given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God, but near to the mountain by Moses' father-in-law Jethro as the basis for civil government. The Creation occurs in the first chapter by natural process out of the ether and God only appears in Eden after the plants and animals, at the human stage of creation. Adam and Eve do not transgress, and, later on, Noah is credited only with the invention of shipping. The adjustments to the biblical narrative clearly promote Deist and Rationalist viewpoints from the 18th Century, when the book was published, and the noble innocence of primitive humanity untarnished by original sin. Wikipedia

That is definitely not the book I read, think I would notice something like that. You yourself said he was talking about Pseudo Jasher, so you see it acknowledges the real book of Jasher which is the one we were talking about.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

People seek to desire something profound outside God's Word.

This is why they use multiple translations to prove a point,never mind the fact that the translations are from different dialects of language.

So when convenient it's the Textus Receptus then a shift to the Critical Text,

Then move on to the pseudo text a long with the supposed revelation text.

Why not the Mormon text or Uranchia text

Go ahead, they laughed at Noah, and they laughed at Christ. I Know what the Lord has revealed, and 20 years of study has shown. A true man of Christ who has read and memorized the scripture, and studied Biblical History need not fear. If it makes you feel safe to hold onto what the catholic church and its priest father Athanasius said it should be in 367 AD that is your business. But know this, no true follower of Jesus Christ treats others in this fashion.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

The scary thought about the whole thing is josh said he was in ministry and he was preaching the book of Enoch. He should know better.

I feel I am not being very compassionate tonight these herbs I am taking make it hard for me to feel my heart. I just feel stillness.

Look in the mirror, at least I love my fellow man, and show compassion, like Christ. Which a man in the ministry of Jesus should be emulating.

 

[tall73]

People seek to desire something profound outside God's Word.

This is why they use multiple translations to prove a point,never mind the fact that the translations are from different dialects of language.

So when convenient it's the Textus Receptus then a shift to the Critical Text,

Depending on one's method and take of the various witnesses to a particular passage, there may be reasons to favor one translation over the other, or one reading over the other for a given passage.

So to understand more where you are coming from, do you hold more to the critical or the majority text?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

And now ...

The sons of God who slept with women. I believe they were angels. here is the verses.

Wow, what an incomprehensible stretch of Scripture! The real answer to the Genesis 6:2 controversy is found in Genesis 5:6-32, the godly line of Seth, vs. Genesis 4:16-24, the ungodly, or unrighteous, line of Cain, and this whole controversy comes from a long-overlooked fact about the passage: it doesn't say that the Nephilim are angels. The word "Nephilim" actually comes from the verb naphal in Hebrew, meaning "to fall upon." marking them as an aggressive people. The word "giant" (as tall) was first used in 6:4 in the LXX and does not really reflect the meaning of the word.

The early portion of chapter six in Genesis is a natural progression from the discussion of the godly line of Seth in the previous chapter. In verse four, all it really says is that this happened in the day of the Nephilim.

Often, Jude is cited as support for the erroneous belief that angels had sexual relations with humans.

Jude, NASB
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day ...
​

The claim is made that angels left heaven (as assumed from the translation "domain") to abide on Earth. First of all, "domain" is translated from the Greek arche, which means their point of origin. In other words, they left God. It has nothing to do with physical location. Second, the verse says He has kept these angels "in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day."

They didn't come to Earth. They've been bound in hell since their rebellion. So one might ask, if that's the case, how there are demons loose in the world? Obvious: Satan is still free, so not all are bound. But there is no justification for establishing them on Earth and having relations with humans. Cohabitation of angels with humans is impossible. Nor does the next verse of Jude establish the fact that has happened.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
​

This refers to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, "since they in the same way" indulged in gross immorality. In other words, just as angels rebelled, so has man rebelled against God. Then there is the claim that sex is possible between angels and humans. That is an illogical assumption, given that angels are spirit beings and there is no possibility of physical contact with a fleshly being, man.

Angels are sexless as referenced in Matthew 22:30, where the Greek word gamisko, translated "given," refers to the aspect of the bride and groom giving themselves to one another sexually to consummate the marriage. For one thing, the only genitive pronouns referencing possession of an identify of angels through the entire Bible are masculine. How would anyone propose that males reproduce amongst themselves. Secondly, as Jesus says in the Matthew verse there will be no such activity in heaven, it is indicative of the fact the angels, who are spirit beings after all, are not able to give themselves in marriage. In Genesis 6:2, the words "took wives for themselves" signify a lasting marriage. The reference has to do with the breakdown of the separation of the godly line of Seth by intermarriage with the godless line of Cain. The expression "sons of God" refers to all the godly, and "daughters of men" to all the ungodly, and sets the stage for Noah being called upon to preserve the godly line by building an ark to protect them when God destroys the Earth.

Undoubtedly this was the merging of the godly and ungodly lines springing from Adam was a Satanic plan, but not to the extent that angels, fallen or otherwise, had anything to do with the intermingling of the godly and evil bloodlines of man.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

And now ...

That is an illogical assumption, given that angels are spirit beings and there is no possibility of physical contact with a fleshly being, man.

.[/SIZE][/FONT]

As far as them not being able to have physical contact with humans I have to disagree..

Genesis 18
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Son of Promise

18 Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre,[a] as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, 3 and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant. 4 Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. 5 And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant.”

Genesis 19
New King James Version (NKJV)
Sodom’s Depravity

19 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.”

And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”

3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

Washing feet, Eating, lying down, all pretty physical to me.....

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

As far as them not being able to have physical contact with humans I have to disagree ... /// ... /// ... Washing feet, Eating, lying down, all pretty physical to me.....

"Seem" is a appropriate word to select. That's exactly right, they "seemed to be" physical in appearance, but there is no evidence of any interaction beyond talking. No embrace, as would have been the custom of greeting strangers then. There is never ever any record of actual physical contact. There's a reason for that. The illusion would be destroyed.

Angels cannot adopt true, human, fleshly form. God Himself had to be born of a woman in order to achieve the distinction of being fully God and fully man. I believe the Son is the only Person of the Godhead, and certainly the only Being in heaven, that has ever adopted true human fleshly form, and in fact is, His is the only flesh in heaven. He appeared as a "man of flesh" at the River Jabbok when He wrestled with Jacob. True, that was before He was born of a virgin, but God transcends the limitations of time and space, so it is not beyond the scope of understanding that He could appear as a human in the flesh before His appearance on Earth in our timeframe as Christ Jesus.

Nope, don't buy it. There is no way there was angelic and human "intercourse." The concept is ludicrous.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

"Seem" is a appropriate word to select. That's exactly right, they "seemed to be" physical in appearance, but there is no evidence of any interaction beyond talking. No embrace, as would have been the custom of greeting strangers then. There is never ever any record of actual physical contact. There's a reason for that. The illusion would be destroyed.

Angels cannot adopt true, human, fleshly form. God Himself had to be born of a woman in order to achieve the distinction of being fully God and fully man. Nope, don't buy it. There is no way there was angelic and human "intercourse." The concept is ludicrous.

I wont argue the intercourse, but the angels feasted, ate, drank water, how do ya do that in a spiritual form ? I believe, and so do many others, that they can assume a physical form as they wish. Christ had to be born of a woman, not to get a physical form, but to become human, theres the difference,

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

I wont argue the intercourse, but the angels feasted, ate, drank water, how do ya do that in a spiritual form ?

If they can be hidden from men, disappear in a whirlwind, etc., why wouldn't they be able to convince a man they ate and drank with him?

I believe, and so do many others, that they can assume a physical form as they wish. Christ had to be born of a woman, not to get a physical form, but to become human, theres the difference,

And it is a huge difference. Humans are physical forms. Your statement contradicts itself.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

If they can be hidden from men, disappear in a whirlwind, etc., why wouldn't they be able to convince a man they ate and drank with him?And it is a huge difference. Humans are physical forms. Your statement contradicts itself.

How is that contradictory, do not other things have physical forms ? Dogs, cats, etc... It had to be a human man to die for our sins, also, Christ in his true form could not die. Then there still is the angels eating and drinking

 

[Bluelion]

Go ahead, they laughed at Noah, and they laughed at Christ. I Know what the Lord has revealed, and 20 years of study has shown. A true man of Christ who has read and memorized the scripture, and studied Biblical History need not fear. If it makes you feel safe to hold onto what the catholic church and its priest father Athanasius said it should be in 367 AD that is your business. But know this, no true follower of Jesus Christ treats others in this fashion.

2 cor 11

11 I hope you will put up with a little more of my foolishness. Please bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. I promised you as a pure bride[a] to one husband—Christ. 3 But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. 4 You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.

I heed Paul warning and reject false doctrine.

 

[Bluelion]

Look in the mirror, at least I love my fellow man, and show compassion, like Christ. Which a man in the ministry of Jesus should be emulating.

while you preach heresy you claim to follow Jesus right

 

[Bluelion]

If they can be hidden from men, disappear in a whirlwind, etc., why wouldn't they be able to convince a man they ate and drank with him?And it is a huge difference. Humans are physical forms. Your statement contradicts itself.

The Bible says they ate and drank, not that they gave the appearance of eating and drinking. They eat and drink in Heaven its not a great feat. You are reach with that stuff. like I said earlier there is no way to prove they were not angels or they were, and there is no way to prove that an angel can have sex or not. It is not permitted in heaven because there is no marriage it never says they are unable.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

How is that contradictory, do not other things have physical forms ? Dogs, cats, etc... It had to be a human man to die for our sins, also, Christ in his true form could not die. Then there still is the angels eating and drinking

Answered that issue already. Got anything else? No offense, but it is obvious that angels and humans are separate beings who would never be able to interact without divine intervention, and God certainly isn't going to approve of angelic/human sex.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

Answered that issue already. Got anything else? No offense, but it is obvious that angels and humans are separate beings who would never be able to interact without divine intervention, and God certainly isn't going to approve of angelic/human sex.

we were discussing eating and drinking in Sodom and Gomorrah
And the angels had to have a physical body to eat and drink