nephillium

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Scanned from here, but not proof-read:

6.3.2.6. Athenagoras
In his Plea for the Christians (177 c.E.),80 this Athenian apologist devotes considerable space to the topic of the demons and their activity, also identifying them as the progeny of the rebel angels (chaps. 24-25). Like Justin he ascribes to the angels a responsibility to exercise divine providence (irpovoict.) over creation. Their sin was to fall in love with virgins (cf. comm. on 15:4) and procreate giants who constitute a demonic realm. Two details in Athenagoras's account parallel 1 Enoch. The angels are unable to ascend to or command a view of heaven (virepKViTTO}), having fallen from there (cf. 1 Enoch 13:5 and 14:5). The demons are identified as the "souls" (\l/vx(xi) of the giants, who "wander" (irAavdo}) over the earth causing trouble (cf. 1 Enoch 15:11-16:1).

6.3.2.7 Irenaeus
Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor, probably Smyrna, who became bishop of Lyons (ca. 180 c.E.),81 makes several references to the sin of the angels (Adv. haer. 1.10.1, 3; 1.15.6; 4.16.2; 4.36.4; 4.37.1, 6; Dem. 18). Although these references indicate knowledge of the tradition about the ingels' intercourse with women (4.36.4), different from fustin and Athenagoras, Irenaeus never attributes to :hem the begetting of children who would become a lemonic horde that foster sin in the world. He cites the radition, rather, to Drove that sin a funr-tinn ^f A-O~ will, meets with divine judgment. Irenaeus's knowledge of the Enochic source of the tradition about the angels is indicated in Adv. haer. 4.16.2: although he was a man, Enoch was sent as God's legate to announce judgment to the angels (1 Enoch 12:4-5; 13:4-7; 15:2). In addition, his reference to Enoch's role as witness at the judgment indicates knowledge of other traditions attested in Jubilees and the Testament of Abraham (see §6.2.3.3.3 and §6.3.3.3). His reference to Azazel in connection with astrological prognostication and the magical arts (1.15.6), while it does not correspond exactly with 1 Enoch 8:1, is close enough to indicate that the elder whom he cites had at least secondhand knowledge of the tradition. A final, clear reference to the Enochic tradition appears in the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 18, where he refers not only to "illicit unions" but -' also to many details in the lists of teaching in 1 Enoch 8:1-3 and 9:8: roots, herbs, dyeing, cosmetics, sorcery, and hate-producing potions.

6.3.2.8. Minucius Felix
A distinguished lawyer who lived in Rome ca. 200,82 Minucius Felix composed a Latin apology for Christianity entitled Octavius after its Christian protagonist. In chap. 26 Octavius refutes his pagan opponents' appeal to the use of divination by ascribing its origins to demons, "insincere, wandering spirits, degraded from their heavenly vigor by earthly stains and lusts" (Spiritus sunt insinceri, vagi, a caelesti vigore terrenis labibus et cupidi-tatibus degravati), weighed down and immersed by vices. Any direct association with 1 Enoch is tenuous. Authority for this view of demons is found by appeal to Socrates and Plato, not a surprising move in an argument with a pagan. Nonetheless, Minucius's reference to the defilement of the fallen spirits may indicate a connection with the story in 1 Enoch (cf. 7:1; 10:8, 11; 12:4; 15:3-4); along with the motif of wandering, it appears in Athenagoras (see §6.3.2.6) and later Christian texts dependent on 1 Enoch (Commodianus, Lactantius; see §6.3.2.16-17).

6.3.2.9. Tertullian
More than any other early church theologian, Tertullian of Carthage indicates knowledge of 1 Enoch and defends its authenticity and inspiration. He does so, first, in two works that date from around 210 c.E.83 In De cult. fern. 1.2, he supports his argument for modest apparel by arguing that ornamentation—jewelry, dyed cloth, and cosmetics—and the arts and technology that have produced it (as well as knowledge of herbs, the practice of magic, and astral prognostication) were revealed by rebellious and lusting angels. In chap. 3 he identifies the source of this information as "the writing of Enoch" (scriptura Enoch). Although he acknowledges that some doubt its authority because it is not in the Jewish canon (armarium ludaicum), he defends its authenticity. Enoch transmitted his traditions to Methuselah with the command that he pass them on to his posterity (cf. 1 Enoch 82:1-3). Citing 2 Tim 3:16, with its reference to inspired Scripture, Tertullian exhorts his readers to heed Enoch, since he had preached about the Lord, Christ. He concludes by citing Jude's testimony about Enoch. He returns to this subject in De cultu feminarum book 2, which was originally a separate work,84 again undergirding his criticism with the authority of Enoch (2.10). The influence of the story of the watchers and the women is likely in Tertullian's treatise De virginibus velandis (chap. 7), where Paul's command in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is applied to virgins by means of a detailed and tortured exegesis of Gen 6:1-2 that contains elements found only in 1 Enoch (the identification of the sons of God as "angels" and their sinful lust; cf. De oratione 23).85 That virgins were the object of the angels' lust is also asserted by Athenagoras (see §6.3.2.6).

Tertullian's other references to 1 Enoch occur in De idololatria. Criticizing the making and worshiping of idols (chap. 4), Tertullian quotes the Decalogue and then states that Enoch, who had preceded Moses, had predicted that the demons, the spirits of the angelic apostates, would turn all the elements of creation into idolatry. The passage does not quote 1 Enoch but may reflect 1 Enoch 19:1.86 Several lines later, however, Tertullian prefaces a verbatim quotation of 1 Enoch 99:6-7 (for details, see textual notes, ad loc.) with the statement that the same Enoch condemned in advance the worshipers and makers of idols. In chap. 15, in what may be another allusion to 1 Enoch 19:1,87 Tertullian condemns dedicatory inscriptions, stating that they had been predicted by the Holy Spirit "through the most ancient prophet Enoch" (per antiquissimum prophetam Enoch).

Taken together, these references indicate Tertullian's knowledge of the Book of the Watchers, chaps. 81:1— 82:3, and the Epistle of Enoch. His references to Enoch's prediction of Christ may indicate knowledge of the Book of Parables, although these comments may refer to 1 Enoch 1, which he cites later with reference to the Epistle of Jude. Like Jude, he considers Enoch to have been a prophet and the author of this text.

6.3.2.10. Cyprian
In his treatise De habitu virginum (12-14, ca. 250 c.E.),88 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, proscribes the wearing of ornaments and dyed clothes. Dyeing, jewelry, eye paint, and other facial cosmetics "sinning and apostate angels put forth by their arts, when, lowered to the contagions of earth, they forsook their heavenly vigor" (peccatores et apostatae angeli suis artibus prodiderunt quando ad terrena contagia devoluti a caeksti vigore recesserunt, 14). That Cyprian uses Tertullian's treatise De cultu feminarum seems beyond dispute; his firsthand knowledge of 1 Enoch is less certain.89 His reference to their forsaking their heavenly vigor parallels verbatim the same word in Minucius Felix (see §6.3.2.8).

6.3.2.11. Ad Novatianum
This treatise against Novatian, falsely ascribed to Cyprian but probably written in North Africa between 253 and 257,90 strings together a series of citations about the coming judgment (chaps. 16-17), among them a verbatim quotation of 1 Enoch 1:8, introduced by the words "as it is written" (sicut scriptum est). The inclusion of a phrase not found in Jude 14-15 (see textual n. d on 1:9) indicates that this Christian author is not quoting from the NT epistle.

6.3.2.12. Clement of Alexandria
Clement's Eclogue propheticae (ca. 200 C.E.) is a collection of excerpts from gnostic writings with brief commentary in which it is not always possible to separate the excerpts from Clement's commentary.91 Chapters 1-2 quote and comment on the Song of the Three Young Men in Daniel 3 (LXX). In chap. 2, Dan 3:54 and its reference to God looking upon the abyss is likened to a statement by Enoch, "And I saw all matter" (mi. eldov raq vXaq irdaat;, GCS Clement 3). The quotation is usually seen as a rough paraphrase of 1 Enoch 19:3.92 The preserved Greek of 1 Enoch (TO. irepara iravTav) and its Ethiopic translation seem to refer to Enoch's seeing the ends of the earth (see comm. on 19:3). But the Greek in Clement may be an attempt to take the concluding statement of chaps. 17-19 as a summary of the contents of the whole section, in which Enoch has seen the whole of the created world. The same quotation appears in Ori-gen (see §6.3.2.13). The name of Enoch appears again in Edogae propheticae 53. Chapters 51-63 comment on Psalm 19. With respect to the demons' knowledge of Christ, chap. 53 states, "Already Enoch says that the transgressing angels taught humans astronomy and prognostication and the other arts" (77617 de mi, 'Ev®\ tprjOLV TOV<; irapapavTaq dyyeAouc; didd^ai TOV<; av&pairovq aarpovo^iav mi, yi,a.vTu<.r)v mi, Tag aAAag Te~xya<;, GCS Clement 3). Thus the text summarizes 1 Enoch 8, identifying it as an Enochic composition and in some indefinite way connecting demonic knowledge with angelic revelations. The motif of angelic instruction appears also in Stromata 5.1.10.2. After mentioning the Greeks' "theft" of ideas from Moses and the prophets, Clement states that certain angels of high rank, "having sunk into pleasures, uttered unspeakable things to the women, which had come to their knowledge" (KaroXiadriaavTeq eig rjdovaq e£ei7rof TO. d-rtopp-qra yvvci.L^iv oaa ye eig yvasaiv avrav cupluro, GCS Clement 2). The passage appears to paraphrase 1 Enoch 16:2 (see comm.).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Scanned from here, but not proof-read:

6.3.2.13. Origen
Clement's eminent successor in Alexandria refers to the writings of Enoch five times. He considers them to be the authentic products of the patriarch and cites them as Scripture; however, he also indicates that others in the church do not hold this opinion. In De princ. 1.3.3 (220-230 c.E.),93 he states that God's creation of all things "is established from many declarations of the whole Scripture" (ex multis totius scripturae adsertionibus conprobatur). As examples he quotes Hermas Mandate 1 and then states, "But also in the book of Enoch things similar to this are described" (Sed et in Enoch libra his sim-ilia describuntur). Precisely what passage(s) Origen has in mind is not clear. Possibilities in 1 Enoch include 82:7, 84:2, and 93:10, although none of these passages makes Origen's point in so many words. A closer parallel to the Hermas passage is 2 Enoch 24:2.

A second passage in De principiis (4.4.8) makes a double reference to 1 Enoch. Commenting on Ps 139:16, Origen states, "But also in his book Enoch said, 'I have walked as far as imperfection'" (Ambulavi usque ad inper-fectum). He is quoting 1 Enoch 21:1 (eipadevaa ewg rfjq dKa.Ta.aKeva.arov), where Enoch recounts his journey to the chaos that lies beyond the ends of the earth. Allegorizing the spatial reference in the passage, Origen reads it to refer to the prophet's mental journey back through the visible creation "until it arrived at the beginning, in which it saw imperfect matter without qualities" (usque-quo ad principium perveniret illud, in quo inperfectam mate-riam absque qualitatibus pervideret). The move was doubtless justified by the fact that the Greek hapax " ;T:I legomenon aKaraaKevaaTov occurs only at Gen 1:2. Commenting on the matter, he adds, "For it is written in that same book of Enoch, 'I have seen all matter'" (Uni-versas materias perspexi). This Enochic passage is usually identified as 1 Enoch 19:3 (loov ... TO: Trepara icavTuv), the same passage quoted in Greek in Clement Edogae propheticae 2 (see §6.3.2.12). The proximity of 1 Enoch 19:3 and 21:1 supports the identification. Moreover, Origen's interpretation&#8212;that Enoch saw all of matter, as its parts are divided one from another&#8212;is quite possibly an exegesis of the Gk. rd irepara in the sense of "boundaries" that separate (i.e., = opLa/jLaTa).

In his Commentary on John 6:42 (§217) (ca. 22G-229),94 Origen indicates some ambivalence about the Enochic writings. To support the interpretation of "Jordan" to mean "their descent" (Karaftaaiq avT&v), he appeals to the etymologically related Jared, which means, he says, "going down" (KKTajSaivav), "because he (Jared) was born to Mahalel&#8212;as it is written in Enoch (if it pleases one to accept the book as holy)&#8212;in the days of the descent of the sons of God to the daughters of men" (eireidrjirep yeyevr/TaL rco MaAeAerjA, cog ev ra> 'Evax yeypaii'Tai, el TCO tpLXov irapadexeadat. cog ayiov TO fliflXiov, Talq rj/ze/oaig rrjg TUV viav TOV deov KaTa/Sacrecog em rag ftvyaTepaq TUV avdpuiruv). Origen refers to 1 Enoch 6:5, which he knows to have come from the book ascribed to Enoch, and he cites the passage because he considers its source to be Sacred Scripture. At the same time, he suggests that some do not consider it to be such. Having made his major point, he adds, "Some have thought that this descent makes enigmatic reference to the descent of the souls into the bodies, 'daughters of men' being taken as a tropological expression for the earthly tent" (rjvTiva KQi.Tufia.aiv aiviaaeadai Tiveq vireiArnpaaLi1 Tr\v T&V -fyvywv K.CL-&OOOV em TO: aco/tiara, dwyaTepaq dvdpairav rpo-mKaTepov TO yrjlvov aKfjvoq Xeyea&ocL iiTreiArjcporeg). He will refer to the same allegorical exegesis in Contra Celsum 5.55 (see below).

Origen's ambivalence toward the Enochic writings reappears in his Num. Horn. 28.2 (ca. 244).95 Commenting on Heb 10:1 and speculating that there are named places in the heavens, he quotes Ps 147:4 and then says of the names of the stars, "Concerning which (names) many secret and hidden things are contained in the books that are called Enoch's. But since these books do not seem to be considered authoritative among the Hebrews (sed quia libelli ipsi non videntur apud Hebmeos in auctoritate haberi), for the present we defer citing as an example the things that are named there and pursue our investigation from the things that we have in hand whose authority cannot be doubted." Origen appears here to be referring to the astronomical section of Enoch, to either 82:10-20 or some part no longer preserved in the Ethiopic text.96 His ambivalence about the text involves an inclination to cite it and a recognition that it may not carry the authority necessary to make his point.

Origen's final reference to the Enochic writings appears in Contra Celsum 5.52-55. The work was composed ca. 250 in response to Celsus's critique of Christianity, which was written ca. 178.97 According to Celsus, Jesus might be regarded as an angel, but if this was the case, he was not the first or only angel to have descended. "For they (the Christians) say that others came often, indeed sixty or seventy together, who became wicked and are punished in chains, having been buried in the earth, whence come the warm springs, which are their tears" (eX&eiv ydp Kal otXXovq AeyovaL TroAAaKig, Kal o/xoi; ye e^r]KOVTa, fj eflbojjiriKOVTa' oi)g 677 jevea&at KO.KOV<;, KOI KoXd^eadaL dea^olq inro/SArj-ev yfj &#8226; o$ei> Kal rag ^ep^idq irrjydq elvai TO. daKpva). In responding to Celsus, Origen asserts: (a) the source of Celsus's information is doubtless the things written in Enoch; (b) Celsus appears not to have read Enoch, since he does not understand its contents; (c) Celsus does not seem aware that "in the churches the books that bear the name of Enoch do not at all circulate as divine" (ev rate; eKKArjoiaic; oi> -KOLVV (pepeTUL cog dela ra emyeypaiJLiJiei'a TOV 'Eva\ /St/SAta); (d) the mating of the sons of God and daughters of men is mentioned already in Genesis (which Celsus has not recognized), and a certain allegorical interpreter before Origen has interpreted this to refer to the desire of certain souls for corporal life;98 (e) no one would ever say that warm springs, which are mainly fresh water, could emanate from the salty tears of angels.

On two points Origen is certainly correct. Celsus's statements about the descent of the angels derive ultimately from the Enochic writings, and they are sufficiently garbled that one doubts whether Celsus read the texts in question. One of these confusions, however, may derive from a mixture of two passages in 1 Enoch. According to 13:9-10, Enoch announces judgment to the watchers as they sit weeping at "Abel-Main." In 67:4-13 hot springs are said to emanate from the angels' underground place of punishment. Finally, one must consider Origen's claim that the churches do not accept the books of Enoch as divine. This strongest of Origen's negative statements about Enoch seems not to be a development of Origen's previous ambivalence," but an acknowledgment of fact, which is one of several arguments that Origen uses to serve his purpose. Since his opponent cites material from Enoch, Origen emphasizes the book's questionable status "in the churches." At the same time, the words of Celsus indicate that the stories about the watchers were known and transmitted in Christian communities (Aejovai).100

From this survey I conclude the following. Origen knew parts of 1 Enoch (the Book of the Watchers, the Book of the Luminaries, and probably the Book of Parables) well enough to quote, paraphrase, and summarize an occasional passage and to recognize Celsus's misrepresentation of the material. Origen considered the texts to be authentic and Enoch to be a prophet, whose writings were "Scripture." He occasionally cited the book, quoted a passage, and even exegeted it, in order to support his exegesis of a biblical text or to make a point that he could or would not base on a biblical text. At the same time, he acknowledged that the Enochic writings were not universally accepted as Scripture, and sometimes, with an eye to the possible skepticism of his readers, he did not invest a great deal in the probative value of these texts.

6.3.2.14. Julius Africanus
Africanus, a friend of Origen, was the first of a long line of chronographers (over a thousand years) who would quote from 1 Enoch to fill out their timed saga of human history from creation to the eschaton (see §6.3.2.22). Parts of Africanus's Chronogmphia (ca. 221)101 have been preserved by the ninth-century Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus. The second section, concerning the watchers (vepl rav eyprjyopwv), states, "When there was a multitude of humans on the earth, the angels of heaven joined with the daughters of men. In some copies I found 'the sons of God'" (irXr/'dovq av&paTfbiv em rrjg yr\q, cty7eAoi rov ovpavov ftvya-rpaaiv avdpairwv avvrjMov. ev evioLq oLVTLypoupoif; evpov, oi viol TOV deou). The references to multiple MSS. with variant readings suggests that Africanus is quoting from the Bible (LXX MSS.). But the interpretation "angels of heaven" seems to reflect "watchers, the sons of heaven," in 1 Enoch 6:1. Africanus prefers "sons of God" and interprets the passage to refer to the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. Nonetheless, he knows the story preserved in 1 Enoch because he states that if "angels" is the correct reading, this must refer to "those who dealt in magic and sorcery, and, moreover, transmitted to the women the knowledge of the movement of the stars and the meteors, from whom they bore children, the giants, on account of whom wickedness came" (rcwg irepi fj,ayeLa<; Kal yor/reiag, en de a.pi'&yi.&v KLV/}-aeaq, T&V ^ereapav rale; yvvaiQ rr)v yvaaiv irapaipav eirotrjao;^ TOV<; iralda<; rove; q, 51 ovq Tfjq KaKiaq ettiyevofjievriq}.

6.3.2.15. Anatolius of Alexandria
In his Paschal Canon 5, Anatolius, a native of Alexandria and bishop of Laodicea (ca. 270), cites the astronomical section of "the Book of Enoch" to prove that "with the Hebrews the first month lies around the equinox."102
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Scanned from here, but not proof-read:

6.3.2.16. Lactantius
In his Divine Institutes 2.15, Lactantius (ca. 305)103 states that "when the number of humans had begun to increase" (cf. Gen 6:1, "begun"), God sent (misit) angels for the protection and improvement (tutelam cultumque) of the human race. They, however, defiled themselves through intercourse with women (mulierum congressibus inquinavii) and spawned half-breed demons, unclean spirits (immundi spiritus), who wander (vagantur) over the earth causing all manner of evil. They were the inventors of idolatry, astrology, and magic, and taught humans to make images and statues (2.17). Whether Lactantius actually knew 1 Enoch can be disputed, since he never cites it though he often refers explictly to other sources such as the Sibyl. But his reference to the sending of angels as teachers parallels Jub. 4:15 (see §6.2.3.2.1) and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (see §6.3.4.1) and their use of an old tradition presumed in 1 Enoch. Moreover, the introductory quotation of Gen 6:1, the references to the angels' defilement through intercourse, their inability to return to heaven, and their invention of astrology and magic, taken together, point to 1 Enoch as a proximate or remote source. Other parallels between 1 Enoch and elements in Lactantius's eschatology may indicate knowledge of mixed traditions that had been informed by 1 Enoch (Inst. 7.19).104

6.3.2.17. Commodianus
According to the Instructiones 3 of this Christian poet, whose home is unknown and whose date is disputed,105 the angels visited the earth at the behest of God, who wished to beautify it (exornasset). The beauty (forma) of women caused them to sin, and because the angels were defiled with them (coinquinati}, they could not return to heaven. As rebels against God, they uttered words against God (contra Deum verba misere), who, in turn, uttered a sentence against them (Altissimus inde senten-tiam misit in illis). Their children were giants and they taught the arts of dyeing and other things. When they died they were the object of idolatrous worship, and in bodiless form they wander (vagi) about, subverting many bodies. Like Lactantius and the author of the Pseudo-Clementines, Commodianus knows the old tradition of a divinely appointed mission, and the motif of ornamentation may parallel the Pseudo-Clementine story about angels changing into stones. In other respects, the passage parallels Lactantius but also contains elements in 1 Enoch (the women's beauty, the uttering of words against one another [1:4], the teaching of dyeing [8:1]).

6.3.2.18. Hilary of Poitiers
In his commentary on Ps 133:3 (Tract, super Psal. 132.6, CSEL 22:689), the bishop of Poitiers (356-367)106 correctly identifies Hermon as a mountain in Phoenicia. He knows of an unidentified book that mentions that "angels, desiring the daughters of men, when they descended from heaven, gathered on this mountain Hermon, at its peak" (angeli concupiscentes filias hominum, cum de caelo descenderent, in hunc montem Hermon maxime excelsum conuenerint). He also knows that the name means "anathema" but gives no details as to why, and he adds that in the present day Gentiles venerate the mountain with profane religion and thus attest the meaning of its name, that is, their worship is anathema. The passage is striking because, different from all other Christian writers mentioned above, Hilary mentions the association of the watchers story with the peak of Mount Hermon.

6.3.2.19. Epiphanius
Epiphanius of Salamis begins his Panarion (375-377 c.E.)107 with a description of the era of Barbarism (bar-barismos), the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Having mentioned the name of Jared (1.1.3), "According to the tradition that has come to us, at that time the practice of evil began to occur in the world. It was also there from the beginning through the transgression of Adam and then through the fratricide of Cain. But now in the times of Jared and thereafter, there was sorcery and magic, debauchery and adultery and iniquity" (we; 5e r) irapddoaLq 77 etc; rj/zac; eXftovact, evrev&ev rfp^aro r\ K.GLK.o[LT\\m>'ioL ev KoafjLq yLi'6(j&aL.... Nvv (5e ev xpovoLq TOV Idped KO.I eireneiva <papfiaKeLa KKL fiayeLa, daeAj&#8364;L<x, /jLOixela, re KO.1 ddiKia). Like Pseudo-Clementine Homily 8 (see §6.3.4.1), it relates the story of the watchers to the sinful time from Adam onward. The inclusion of these events is important, because Epiphanius has received a "tradition" about them. Although this source is often cited as the Book of Jubilees (4:15),108 the only correspondence with that passage is "in the times of Jared." A closer correspondence is found in 1 Enoch 6:6 (ev Talq rm,epoLiq 'Idped). Moreover, the list of vices corresponds to 1 Enoch 8:1-2 and has no counterpart in Jubilees. It seems best to assume that Epipha-nius knew a form of the story of the watchers, which purported to tell of the origin of substantial evil, and he felt compelled to mention the events it narrated as the origin of a new kind of evil in the world. The lack of any ascription of the tradition to Enoch is in keeping with other early Christian sources that are citing common tradition, removed from an Enochic identification.
6.3.2.20. Jerome

Three times Jerome refers to the book of Enoch as "apocryphal." Twice he does so in connection with its quotation in Jude (De viris illustribus 4, 393 C.E.; Comm. in Ep. ad Tit. 1.2, ca. 387 c.E.).109 His third reference, though it does not name the book, is directed toward its contents. In his Homily 45 (Brev. in Ps. 132:3, ca. 400 c.E.),110 he comments on the same verse of Psalm 133 as Hilary (see §6.3.2.18), "We have read in a certain apocryphal book that at the time when the sons of God were descending to the daughters of men, they descended to Mount Hermon and there entered into an agreement to come to the daughters of men and marry them. The book is very explicit and is counted among the Apocrypha. The ancient interpreters have sometimes spoken of it. We mention it, however, not as authoritative, but to call it to your attention. ... I have read about this apocryphal book in the book of a certain person, who used it to confirm his heresy. . . . He says, the sons of God who descended from heaven came to Hermon and coveted the daughters of men. They are angels descending from heaven, he said, and souls that desired bodies, since bodies are the daughters of men" (Legimus quendam librum apocryphum, eo tempore quo descendebant filii Dei adfilias hominum, descendisse illos in montem Ermon, et ibi inisse pactum, quomodo uenirent adfilias hominum, et sibi eas sociarent. Manifestissimus liber est, et inter apocryphos conpu-tatur, et ueteres interpretes de ipso locuti sunt nonnulla: nos autem dicimus, non in auctoritatem, sed in commemorationem. . . . Legi in cuiusdam libra, de isto libro apocrypha '&#8226;; suam haeresim confirmantis. . . . Filii, inquit, Dei, qui de --caelis descendebant, et uenerunt in Ermon, et concupierunt filias hominum, angeli, inquit, sunt de caelestibus descen-dentes, et animae quae desiderauerunt corpora; siquidem cor- '< porafiliae hominum sunt, CCSL 78:280-81). Jerome's association of the story of the watchers with Ps 133:2; may well reflect his knowledge of Hilary's commentary (see §6.3.18).ul But his reference to the angels' pact, not mentioned by Hilary, derives from his personal knowledge of the book (legimus). His comment about a person who supports his heretical idea about the descent of souls by referring to the Enochic text may be an allusion to Origen (see §6.3.2.13).112 He then goes on to suggest (rightly) that the similarity between the book he has just condemned and the teaching of the Manichaeans indicates that the latter drew their ideas from the Book of Enoch (see §6.3.4.3).

6.3.2.21. Rufinus
In his commentary on the Apostles Creed 15 (400 c.E.),113 Rufinus notes that "when God made the world in the beginning, he set over it and appointed certain powers of celestial virtues, by whom the race of mortal men might be governed and directed [quotation of Deut 32:8]. . . . But some of these, as he who is called the prince of this world, did not exercise the power which God had committed to them according to the laws by which they had received it, nor did they teach humanity to obey God's commandments, but taught them rather to follow their own perverse guidance. Thus we were brought under the bonds of sin" (translation of NPNF2 vol. 3) (Ab initio Deus cumfecisset mundum, praefecit ei et praeposuit quasdam virtutum caelestium potentates, quibis regeretur et dispensaretur mortalium genus. . . . Sed et horum nonnulli, sicut et ipse qui princeps appellatus est mundi, &#8226;&#8226;; \ datum sibi a Deo potestatem, non his quibus acceperant leg-ibus temperarunt: ne humanum genus divinis obedire praecep-tis, sed suis parere praevaricationibus docuerunt; et hinc adversus nos peccatorum chirographa scripta sunf). Although the passage cites Deuteronomy and refers to "the prince of this world" (i.e., Satan), Rufinus also indicates knowledge of the version of the story of the watchers that describes their initial commission and their illegitimate teaching, though it is uncertain whether he knew its Enochic provenance.

6.3.2.22. Augustine of Hippo
In his De civitate Dei (ca. 420 c.E.),114 Augustine twice emphasizes the apocryphal character of the Book of Enoch (15.23; 18.38). The first reference follows a long discussion of Gen 6:1-4 in which he argues against the notion that "the sons of God" were angels. He knows that this viewpoint is expressed in writings ascribed to Enoch. That there were genuine, divinely inspired Enochic writings is proven from the statement in the Epistle of Jude. They are not accepted as canonical, however, because the people in antiquity who could have attested them as such did not do so.

Augustine's second reference to the writings of Enoch occurs in a section on prophecy. Again he refers to Jude, but argues that the lack of attestation of these ancient writings is good reason to doubt their authenticity and not to accept their authority. They are passed around only by people who use them to support whatever they wish. Whether Augustine had firsthand knowledge of 1 Enoch, or any part of it, is doubtful, since he accepts the authenticity of the part of chap. 1 quoted in Jude but rejects the veracity of the story of the watchers, which follows right after the prologue. In any case, his rejection of the writings is tied to his rejection of material contained in them.

6.3.2.23.The Chronographers
At the same time that the Enochic writings were losing favor among the orthodox theologians of the West, sections of the Book of the Watchers were preserved in the tradition of Christian chronography that continued for many centuries in the Byzantine and early medieval periods.115 Pandorus and Annianus of Alexandria wrote separate chronographies during the reign of the bishop Theophilus (388-416 c.E.).116 Both employed the material from the stories of the watchers to supplement the history and chronology of Genesis with a view toward showing divine purpose and order in history and with an eye toward eschatological speculation.117

In his chronography, written in Constantinople at the beginning of the ninth century,118 George Syncellus transmitted and redacted the Enochic extracts of Pandorus. While finding this material useful for his chrono-graphic purposes, he warned his readers that it contained "fabulous material" and material opposed to ecclesiastical tradition, which had been "corrupted by Jews and heretics."119 The theological judgments of people like Jerome and Augustine was clearly at work. For Syncellus and others of his colleagues, the story of the watchers was not about angels but about the sons of Seth mating with the daughters of Cain.120 Other Byzantine chronographers, however, harking back to third-century sources and interpretations known to Julius Africanus (see §6.3.2.14), interpreted the story of the watchers to refers to angels, who bred evil spirits and introduced magic.121

The use of Enochic materials for chronographic purposes appears again in the twelfth-century chronicles of George Cedrenus, who uses material from Syncellus,122 and of Michael of Syria, who cites Annianus as his source (above §2.5).123
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Of course, simpler objections against Murjahel's theology went unanswered and even unaknowledged.
I imagine if he makes assertions and assumptions based on things that don't even come close to proving what he is saying, such as the meaning and usage of Hebrew words, or the existance of Daniel quotes that were not in Daniel, how much more assertion and assumption will we find if we examine in detail all the other things he quotes and uses as proof?

Carry on.


I do not have to answer every question,
and Jesus did not either,

when on trial,
'He answered them not a word'

for He knew in their hearts,
they were there with hatred and evil
in their hearts...
and
I do have back up for what is asked...

I chose not to answer some questions,
for they were inspired by a desire
to confront, to attack, and to cause upset...

This one is upset that I am even posting.
This one is so upset that I am here,
that antagonism is evident
in everything said...

this current post of this one shows
an antagonistic attitude...
and I choose not to talk with that kind of
attitude....

As you see,
the questions that I just answered
were answerable...
I worked many years on Enoch,
found that most short commentary
type discussions on the book contained many
errors..

Daniel does have the
answer that is denied by this one
to be there...
and my use of the Hebrew words,
is still valid...

I translate books from Geez,
Hebrew, Greek, Latin,
and find those languages so much more
precise than English...

and if I were in real legitimate discussion
on a forum suited to that subject, not this subject
of this thread, and the attitude was
conducive to discussion, not attack,
we could talk...

this thread of this forum is not for 'attack'
and attempts to chase people away...
so...
I chose not to debate...

and do not like the 'attack' mode
some want to be in...

I have answered the questions
made by those truly interested
in the discussion,
not answering those here to cause
upset...

back to the subject...
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
by the way...
the word 'apocryphal'
means 'hidden' and referred to a book
that contained idioms, types,
figurative language, etc...

it is used even of books in our canon
in preceding centuries...

it did not take on the connotation
of being a book chosen to be non canonical
until the 18th century...

so, when reading the use of such word
by some in the early centuries,
remember, that the word has changed
connotation today,
and interpret the word to mean what it did then...
 
Upvote 0

The_Joker

Active Member
Sep 14, 2008
74
13
✟245.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Daniel does have the
answer that is denied by this one
to be there...
and my use of the Hebrew words,
is still valid...

I made simple objections to simple things which I found to be not backed up by the facts. There is nothing antagonistic about it. I just wanted my questions and points to be acknowledged, not repeatedly ignored while you assault my character for no good reason except that I am here responding and disagreeing tow hat you say.

Why should we believe that Nimrod is a giant when the word Gimmore or gimowr was used in relation to God, soldiers, and kings elsewhere in the Bible? Are they all giants? Why should we believe that Nimrod's father "begat", as in "delivered the child as a maid servant would" Nimrod because the word begat is yalad? Even though that same word was used in relation to women directly giving birth to children and fathers and sons? You used that word as your proof that Nimrod's father was not really his father, yet the word you used doesn't prove that at all. Just like the one previously. Then you also use the book of Jasher and even call it more accurate than Josephus, yet the book of Jasher makes no mention of Nimrod being a giant, and even says that Nimrod became Strong AFTER he wore the magical garments of Adam. If that book you cite as proof of other things in your theory contradicts you in other areas, why should we use any part of Jasher at all? And that comment I made about Daniel, that was just the icing on the cake. You quoted a scripture and put a Daniel chapter on verse on top of it. However, when I checked to read it in my Bible it was not there. I checked it because it would have been proof of your theories. Naturally, when I looked into it I was surprised to see something utterly unrelated there. Where is that scripture coming from? It isn't in Daniel. You were complaining that this thread was off topic from the Nephilym, yet here I am questioning you on one of your chief nephilym theological points... Namely, that Nimrod is Belial, and Belial is the half human half angelic spirit that will ultimately possess the anti-Christ and blah blah blah blah blah.


If you find this antagonistic, I suppose you shouldn't make so many statements that are as easily refutable as that! Now, the reading through histories and canons and whatnot, that's difficult. I'll leave that to the "dummy", who is actually very bright. This isn't a confrontation, it's a forum where we are discussing ideas... I'm calling your ideas into question, will you bother to defend them? Or will you continue to insult me and question my motives?




So, I will await,
Your reply, though I won't,
be holding my breath.

The Joker
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have a question. I have just started reading 1 Enoch again. I notice that 2:3 references rains coming down in a way that is post-deluvian yet speaks in the person of Enoch.

I thought that it never rained prior to the flood? How does this fit with the Biblical picture?
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I have a question. I have just started reading 1 Enoch again. I notice that 2:3 references rains coming down in a way that is post-deluvian yet speaks in the person of Enoch.

I thought that it never rained prior to the flood? How does this fit with the Biblical picture?
2:3 does not refer to flood waters...
it says to 'consider the bountiful waters' of the earth....
the waters of the earth are bountiful now... and there is no 'flood'...

two thirds of the earth are covered with water...
that is quite bountiful...

in creation, pre flood, there were rivers flowing out of Eden,
bountiful waters that flowed out and watered the whole earth...
and there was a very heavy mist each evening that watered the earth...
the earth was in a greenhouse effect to the max,
and it was good...

storms, hurricanes, were unknown, but there was bountiful water...

(sorry to upset the 'green' people) but... the earth will soon return to that state, and God considers it 'good'... if all the waters of the pole regions melted, it would raise the water level of the seas about 2 inches, for the increased heat in order to do that would also evaporate more water, and form a cloud barrier in the thermosphere, making the temperatures of the earth be 'greenhouse effect'... hurricanes and tornadoes, storms, etc would be things of the past, but bountiful waters would again make the whole earth arable...

that kind of condition, pre flood is what Enoch was describing...

part of Enoch is added by Noah, and that is later in the book, it will be identifiable and understandable as you read it...

please... this thread is someone else's... and the discussion is on nephilim...
please limit your questions to that...
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
2:3 does not refer to flood waters...
it says to 'consider the bountiful waters' of the earth....
the waters of the earth are bountiful now... and there is no 'flood'...

two thirds of the earth are covered with water...
that is quite bountiful...

in creation, pre flood, there were rivers flowing out of Eden,
bountiful waters that flowed out and watered the whole earth...
and there was a very heavy mist each evening that watered the earth...
the earth was in a greenhouse effect to the max,
and it was good...

storms, hurricanes, were unknown, but there was bountiful water...

(sorry to upset the 'green' people) but... the earth will soon return to that state, and God considers it 'good'... if all the waters of the pole regions melted, it would raise the water level of the seas about 2 inches, for the increased heat in order to do that would also evaporate more water, and form a cloud barrier in the thermosphere, making the temperatures of the earth be 'greenhouse effect'... hurricanes and tornadoes, storms, etc would be things of the past, but bountiful waters would again make the whole earth arable...

that kind of condition, pre flood is what Enoch was describing...

part of Enoch is added by Noah, and that is later in the book, it will be identifiable and understandable as you read it...

please... this thread is someone else's... and the discussion is on nephilim...
please limit your questions to that...

Dear Murjahel,

I beg to defer. Examining whether Enoch is biblical is very pertinent to the discussion. Viz., &#8230;

The question of the Nephilim depends on who and what they were, or as some have suggested here, are. This in turn depends on archeological evidence mostly pointing to Enoch, who is the only significant source filling in the gaps other than Sasquach and sightings of aliens. Specifically we are looking for some expertise from Enoch in two areas - (1)what they are/were as angelic and/or material beings and (2)how they seem to have reappeared as rephaim and a possible number of other names after the flood. The credibility of the book of Enoch as a source is extremely relevant to the topic if one wishes to determine whether (a)they were real (b)whether they still exist or could return (c)what they are/were. And yet a third view is that the whole antedeluvian story is fanciful or borrowed from non-Judaic traditions (read liberal scholarship). In other words, there was no world-wide flood and we shouldn't expect to find any proof of their existence.

My specific question pertained to the flood and the antedeluvian period in which they supposedly existed. The text does refer to "bountiful waters" and I agree with what you said. However, your book's commentary on 1 Enoch 2:3 speaks of rain, rather than of a firmament. It is also interesting that the text regards seasons so that it is so hot in summer, according to "Enoch," that you can't step on the rocks - hardly the misty picture you traditionally get when you consider Genesis 1-5.

Moreover, the idea that the Nephilm ate all the plants and ran out of food so they started eating eachother runs against this plentiful mist and lush earth idea.

This is not to say that there could not have been seasons that affected weather conditions even with the mist and firmament, or that after Adam's fall, the earth being cursed and tilled only with much toil, that this wouldn't be the more accurate picture. I wonder whether God didn't just tilt the earth off its axis right when Adam fell. Gen. 1:14 does mention seasons, but it is in relation to the stars, rather than to the weather.

The OP was asking about the Nephilim and wanted archeological evidence. I will continue over the next few weeks with a study of the internal merits of 1 Enoch as they stand against Scripture, having now explored many of the external issues. Knowing whether Enoch is inspired and ought to be considered part of the canon of Scripture is one aim - an aim that as I see it addresses the quality of the "evidence" we have concerning them, even though inspiration is a matter of faith rather than science, just as much as belief in aliens is. That is why I don't mind SolaScriptura pasting his commentary on Enoch.

Meantime, in the external issues department, I see also in your book the claim that there are 17 DSS copies of Enoch and 17 also of Jubilees. Did you mean 17 fragments or copies? In your book you said "copies." And in another post in this thread, SolaScriptura provided a list, which I thought was definitive, showing which verses were covered by which fragments from Q4 and Q7. Did you mean fragments or copies?

Here again is the list. How does this equate to 17 "copies"?

4Q201 (4QEna ar)4 QEnoch a ar
Col.i (=1 Enoch 1:1-6)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 2:1-5:6; 4Q204 i)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 6:4-8:1; 4Q202 ii; 4Q204 i)
Col.iv (=1 Enoch 8:3-9:3,6-8; 4Q202 iii)
Col.v (=1 Enoch 10:3-4)
Col.vi (=1 Enoch 10:21-11:1)

4Q202 (4QEnb ar)4 QEnoch b ar
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 5:9-6:4+6:7-8:1; 4Q201 iii; 4Q204 ii)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 8:2-9:4; 4Q201 iv)
Col.iv(= 1 Enoch 10:8-12)
Col.vi(= 1 Enoch 14:4-6; 4Q204 vi)

4Q204 (4QEnc ar)4 QEnoch c ar
Col.i (=1 Enoch 1:9-5:1; 4Q201 i)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 6:7; 4Q201 ii; 4Q202 i)
Col.v (=1 Enoch 10:13-19+12:3)
Col.vi(= 1 Enoch 13:6-14:16; 4Q202 vi)
Col.viii (=1 Enoch 18:8-12)
Col.xii (=1 Enoch 30:1-32:1; 4Q206 3)
Col.xiii (=1 Enoch 35:?)+36:1-4)
Frag.4 (=1 Enoch 89:31-36; 4Q205 2 i)
Frag.5 col .i (=1 Enoch 104:13-106 2)
Frag.5 col .ii (=1 Enoch 106:13-107:2)

4Q205 (4 QEnd ar) 4QEnoch d ar
Frag.1 col. i (=1 Enoch 22:13-24:1)
Frag.1 col. ii(= 1 Enoch 25:7-27:1)
Frag.2 col. i (=1 Enoch 89:11-14; 4Q206 5 i)
Frag.2 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:29 31; 4Q206 5 ii; 4Q204 4)
Frag.2 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:43-44)

4Q206 (4 QEne ar) 4QEnoch e ar
Frag.2 col. ii (=1 Enoch 22:3-7)
Frag.3 (=1 Enoch 28:3-29:2+31 2-32:3; 4Q204 xii)
Frag.4 (=1 Enoch 32:3-6+33:3-34:1)
Frag.5 col. i (=1 Enoch 88:3-89:6)
Frag.5 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:7-16; 4Q205 2 i)
Frag.5 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:27-30; 4Q205 2 i)

4Q207 (4 QEnf ar)4 QEnoch f ar
Frag.1 (=1 Enoch 86:1-3) [...Again I was]

4Q208 (4 QEnastra ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch a ar
Frag.15

4Q209 (4 QEnastrb ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch b ar
Frag.1
Frag.2
Frag.5
Frag.6
Frag.7 col. ii
Frag.7 col. iii
Frag.23 (cf. 1 Enoch 76:13-77 4)
Frag.25 (cf. 1 Enoch 74:1-2 or 78:9-12 ?)
Frag.26 (cf. 1 Enoch 79:2-5)
Frag.28 (cf. 1 Enoch 82:9-13)

4Q210 (4 QEnastrc ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch c ar
Frag.1 col. ii(cf. 1 Enoch 76:3 10)
Frag.1 col. ii(cf. 1 Enoch 78:6-8)

4Q211 (4 QEnastrd ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch d ar
Frag.1 col. i
Frag.1 col. ii
Frag.1 col. iii

4Q211 4 QEnastrd ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch d ar
Frag.1 col. i
Frag.1 col. ii
Frag.1 col. iii

4Q212 4 QEng ar) 4QEnoch g ar
Col .ii (=1 Enoch 91 18-92:2)
Col .iii (=1 Enoch 92:5-93 4)
Col .iv (=1 Enoch 93:9 10+91:11-17)
Col .v (= 1 Enoch 93:11-94 2)

7Q4, 8, 11-14 (7QpapEn gr) 7QEnoch
Frag.1+7Q12+7Q14 (cf. 1 Enoch 103:3-4)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married

You speak of degrees...

the Bible tells us of a 'heavy mist'
that watered the earth
in that time...

rain, as we know it, did not occur
till the flood time...

the heavy mist though
was technically a rain...
and had a heavier time than at other
times....

how heavy is the mist before one calls
it rain?
how light is it to be just a mist...

we speak here of degrees...

the earth was not a desert and dry...
it had bountiful and abundant vegetation
which required precipitation
to water more than the river shoreline...

the mist or rain, or whatever you
want to call it, watered the earth,
and had abundant or less abundant
times, seasons, as we are told in Genesis
would always be on the earth....

there were seasons even before the flood...

and the seasons were not as destructive
as now...
no hurricanes, no freezing below zero type
cold...
no floods of rain...
but only a rain that could be called
a very heavy mist, but heavy enough
that it watered enough for the abundant
vegetation of the earth...
............

your other question of 'copies'
versus 'fragments'...

the only FULL COPIES of Enoch
found are from Ethiopia...

there are fragments or partial copies
found in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
in other areas of the world...

fortunately, the fragments found in
other locations can be put back
together into the order of the book,
(pretty much) by way of the Ethiopian
full copies...

These partial copies, fragments,
are very beneficial, for they show
that the Ethiopian copy is
comparable in content,

the Ethiopian copy is invaluable
and the one that all translators
use in translating,
for we have there the complete
version...

-----------------------

when man was created,
the earth had a garden of abundant
vegetation...

those plants began to spread their
seeds to supply plants for the whole
earth...
the waters of those rivers probably
carried seeds to various parts,
winds spoken of in Enoch probably spread
seeds,
and man as they spread out probably
carried seeds to plant...

how many plants were out there
when the giants began to consume
so much that there was not enough
plants to eat, and they began to eat
human flesh???
do you know???
neither do I....

God created animals,
and they began to multiply and spread
out too...
how many were around in 100 yrs
post creation, how many after 200 years?
how much had many learned to
plant field crops, how big were their farms???

you must not assume facts we do not
have, to assume to find discrepancies..

stop and think of the conditions
at that time,
of the growth of farming,
of the spread of the seeds,
etc...

If you tooks seeds and a pair of animals
of each kind,
and went to a planet like unto earth
at that time,
and planted your seeds,
released the animals...
how would that planet be in a few
hundred years???
would giants who suddenly came
and began to consume huge amounts of food
be able to eat so much that
they were running out of food???

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I made simple objections to simple things which I found to be not backed up by the facts. There is nothing antagonistic about it. I just wanted my questions and points to be acknowledged, not repeatedly ignored while you assault my character for no good reason except that I am here responding and disagreeing tow hat you say.

Why should we believe that Nimrod is a giant when the word Gimmore or gimowr was used in relation to God, soldiers, and kings elsewhere in the Bible? Are they all giants? Why should we believe that Nimrod's father "begat", as in "delivered the child as a maid servant would" Nimrod because the word begat is yalad? Even though that same word was used in relation to women directly giving birth to children and fathers and sons? You used that word as your proof that Nimrod's father was not really his father, yet the word you used doesn't prove that at all. Just like the one previously. Then you also use the book of Jasher and even call it more accurate than Josephus, yet the book of Jasher makes no mention of Nimrod being a giant, and even says that Nimrod became Strong AFTER he wore the magical garments of Adam. If that book you cite as proof of other things in your theory contradicts you in other areas, why should we use any part of Jasher at all? And that comment I made about Daniel, that was just the icing on the cake. You quoted a scripture and put a Daniel chapter on verse on top of it. However, when I checked to read it in my Bible it was not there. I checked it because it would have been proof of your theories. Naturally, when I looked into it I was surprised to see something utterly unrelated there. Where is that scripture coming from? It isn't in Daniel. You were complaining that this thread was off topic from the Nephilym, yet here I am questioning you on one of your chief nephilym theological points... Namely, that Nimrod is Belial, and Belial is the half human half angelic spirit that will ultimately possess the anti-Christ and blah blah blah blah blah.


If you find this antagonistic, I suppose you shouldn't make so many statements that are as easily refutable as that! Now, the reading through histories and canons and whatnot, that's difficult. I'll leave that to the "dummy", who is actually very bright. This isn't a confrontation, it's a forum where we are discussing ideas... I'm calling your ideas into question, will you bother to defend them? Or will you continue to insult me and question my motives?

I am not speaking with 'joker' for
that is another personage that is
hiding behind a 'sock puppet' name....
hiding for a reason,
and the reason is not for discussion here...

but to the others
who may believe such personage that
there is no answer for these questions,
I will speak to you of the answers...

the question of Daniel's message...

remember, Daniel was written before
Alexander the great came on the scene,
so there will be no reference to him
by name...

but symbolism will find him referred to
prophetically...

look at those parts...

and when you find that,
you will compare in Revelation
reference to that same symbolism...

and
when you put those two together,
it is shown that the demonic empowerer
of Alex is the same as the
evil spirit that inhabits the antichrist...

that should help you find what is spoken
about...

secondly,
the question about Nimrod,
and all...

the word for begat is
yalad

it never meant 'fathered'.
..
but means 'to deliver, as does a midwife'

when it is indicating fatherhood,
you will note it is used as
'begat sons and daughters'...

note in I Samuel 4:19
it speaks of 'was with child,
near to be delivered (yalad)"
and that word is the same
as translated elsewhere as 'begat'...

if that word meant 'fathered'
it would not make sense here...

also in Gen 25:24 we see
'her days to be delivered (yalad)
were fulfilled'...

again, this is the same word...

everywhere 'yalad' is used
it means 'delivered'...

and
sometimes it is used of men
who fathered the child...
and
the context shows that....

here in Genesis 10
we find that God has us told that
Cush had 5 sons,
and they are named...
Seba, Havilah, Sablah, Rahman, and Sabtechah...

that is all five...
and Nimrod is not one of them...

then it says that
'Cush begat (yalad) Nimrod'
it is pointing out that the others
were his literal sons,
but this one was 'delivered' by Cush...
not fathered...

in the history books of that
time, we find the history of Nimrod
given...
on the column posts of Babylon,
and in the libraries unearthed in Ur,
and elsewhere,
we find that Nimrod was fathered
by Ea, and his mother's name was Rhea...
and
the Bible shows that Cush
was the man of that house,
but did not actually father Nimrod...

poor translating,
and the mistaken 'assumption'
and misconstruing over the centuries
of what the word 'begat' in the
original meant,
has created misconceptions...

one needs to check out what the
original word that is translated
'begat' meant...
and books will affirm
that that word was used to speak
of the kind of work a 'midwife' did
in delivering the baby,
and does not always mean that
the one 'delivering' the baby was
the father...

the sin of fallen angels
into sin with women of the earth,
is spoken of in
I Peter 3:19,
II Peter 2:4,
Jude 6-7,
and in Enoch 6, 19:1, 10:2, 9:8,
106:13-16...

the evil spirit that resulted
from the part angel being of Nimrod,
is found recorded in ancient history
writings of many cultures...
for after the confusion of languages
at Babel,
the names were all changed but
the similarity of stories remained the same...

so... surely it says that
many others 'begat' children...
the children they 'delivered' were
most often their own...

Genesis 10 is pointing out
that Cush had 5 sons,
but Nimrod,
not in the list,
was just 'delivered' by him...

 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I have a question. I have just started reading 1 Enoch again. I notice that 2:3 references rains coming down in a way that is post-deluvian yet speaks in the person of Enoch.

I thought that it never rained prior to the flood? How does this fit with the Biblical picture?
The passage in Enoch 2-4 is part of a rebuke against the Watchers. The angels knew nature followed the rules assigned ot it, namely summer follows winter follows summer, however in chapter 5, He says, "but ye- ye have not been steadfast". So, unlike the natural world which keeps to its order, the angels had left theirs. I think Enoch was describing the natural order one could perceive in his day before the flood.

It is often stated by Christians there was no rainfall before the flood of Noah's day. This is usually assumed from a single passage in Genesis 2:5-7, "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up&#8212;for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground&#8212; then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

My question even before I was reading Enoch has been why do we need to see no seasons before the fall in this passage? The verse about "mists watering the whole face of the ground" is a bit vague and may simply be describing what conditions were like within the micro-climate in the Garden of Eden before the fall, not necessarily the way things were worldwide, or even necessarily the way things persisted after the fall; indeed the passage seems to imply the mists watering the ground was a condition that would be done away with once a man was formed to till the earth.

In the passage quoted above its not clear the phrase "the land" (Hebrew "eretz") is referring to the entire globe of the earth. It is possible "the land" that had nothing growing on it is "eretz Eden", the land of Eden. In fact, Genesis 2 seems uniquely focused upon the garden of Eden.

Notice furhter, in chapter 1 God had already created vegetation on the 3rd day and mankind on the 6th. In chapter 2 the vegetation is being created after man has been formed from the ground. The way I see it, if Eden is the focus of this, both passages in Genesis can be harmonized, and in so doing the problem with the passage in Enoch evaporates like the mist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
<snip>Meantime, in the external issues department, I see also in your book the claim that there are 17 DSS copies of Enoch and 17 also of Jubilees. Did you mean 17 fragments or copies? In your book you said "copies." And in another post in this thread, SolaScriptura provided a list, which I thought was definitive, showing which verses were covered by which fragments from Q4 and Q7. Did you mean fragments or copies?

Here again is the list. How does this equate to 17 "copies"?</snip>

From what I can gather, here is the list of the top 5 most represented books in the DSS. The numbers after each book represent the number of "exemplars" found; an exemplar is, I believe, a collection of fragments derived from a common original document.

Psalms 36
Deuteronomy 29
Isaiah 20
Jubilees 16
Enoch 7

http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=884.msg4417#msg4417

Please note, Jubilees and Enoch out-stripe all the other books of the Bible (O.T.) except Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah.

As far as I can tell the 7 Enoch scrolls does not include Greek exemplars, only Aramaic ones.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The_Joker

Active Member
Sep 14, 2008
74
13
✟245.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
MURJAHEL WROTE: the question of Daniel's message...


What you then began to write was NOT what I was talking about. I was mentioning this little ditty here:

Daniel 5:10-11
"...there shall rise unto you from the tribe of Judah and of Levi,
the salvation (Yeshua) of the Lord,
and He shall make war against Belial"


This scripture, which you quoted, does not exist in the Book of Daniel. Where does it exist? Why did you cite it as Daniel when it was not in Daniel? As for the "symbolism" in Daniel regarding Alexander, ofcourse that is there. The question is, where in that symbolism is Alexander said to be possessed by Belial? I could not find it. Can you please post the particular scripture that states Alexander is possessed by Belial? Can you please post it, interpret it, and justify why it is interpreted in that manner? I'd really like to know.
 
Upvote 0

The_Joker

Active Member
Sep 14, 2008
74
13
✟245.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
the word for begat is
yalad

it never meant 'fathered'.

The word yalad is used for practically anything that involves children being born. Fathers and Sons, Mothers and daughters. That isn't a "rare" usage of the word, it is the primary usage. It is used several hundred times in the OT all describing direct relationships. The "delivered as a midwife" thing is just one usage for the word and there is absolutely no reason to insist that it must mean Cush is not the father of Nimrod. There is no "people misunderstanding the original meaning of yalad", yalad is used to refer to fathers and sons! That is an original meaning of Yalad!! Even the Learned Matthew Henry, in his commentary, cites Cush as the father of Nimrod. I cannot find a commentary that cites Nimrod as being an adopted nephilym. That entire idea comes from your own insistence, and that one scripture from a non-canonical Isaiah book that insists that Nimrod is Belial. A quote, by the way, I could still never find on the internet to read.

The reason why Nimrod is introduced that way in the Bible is because he was simply a child of note. The way you word it is a twisting of the basic understanding of that scripture. Even your "Jasher" book does not say that he was a Giant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Daniel 5:10-11
"...there shall rise unto you from the tribe of Judah and of Levi,
the salvation (Yeshua) of the Lord, and He shall make war against Belial"

The above passage is incorrectly credited to Daniel.
I have poor eyesight,
and
the passage is Dan 2:10-11...
I must have had it down in my notes,
and in copying it to my passage,
I mistook Dan for Daniel, and saw the 2 as a 5...

MY eyesight is very poor...

Hopefully, none of you stumbled into Belial's camp
due to my error... LOL
and the passage is in
the Testimonies of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Dan 2:10-11,...

This is a book that many scholars feel Paul
must have carried with him,
due to the many times in his books
we find quotes from it...
it is a great read...

I forget sometimes that this audience
here has not probably been versed
in non canonical books that the early church
read, referred to, etc..

this is another one...

someday, I will publish my
'commentary on the Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs.'

Some know it as
the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs...​
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The word yalad is used for practically anything that involves children being born. Fathers and Sons, Mothers and daughters. That isn't a "rare" usage of the word, it is the primary usage. It is used several hundred times in the OT all describing direct relationships. The "delivered as a midwife" thing is just one usage for the word and there is absolutely no reason to insist that it must mean Cush is not the father of Nimrod. There is no "people misunderstanding the original meaning of yalad", yalad is used to refer to fathers and sons! That is an original meaning of Yalad!! Even the Learned Matthew Henry, in his commentary, cites Cush as the father of Nimrod. I cannot find a commentary that cites Nimrod as being an adopted nephilym. That entire idea comes from your own insistence, and that one scripture from a non-canonical Isaiah book that insists that Nimrod is Belial. A quote, by the way, I could still never find on the internet to read.

The reason why Nimrod is introduced that way in the Bible is because he was simply a child of note. The way you word it is a twisting of the basic understanding of that scripture. Even your "Jasher" book does not say that he was a Giant.
This one speaking here is not
a translator...
and is confusing what the
connotation of the word 'begat'
is in our day,
with what the original word
in the Hebrew word actually meant...

if he chooses to believe that,
he may...
the word means 'delivered' and often
is used of men delivering their own
children...
but other uses of that same word
prove the meaning and usage of the
word does not mean 'fathering'...
for midwives do not father
the children they yalad (beget)...

excuse the constant distraction
of this 'joker'...
he is trying to stir the pot...
and will get more and more 'mean'
hoping to get things hot...

 
Upvote 0

The_Joker

Active Member
Sep 14, 2008
74
13
✟245.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This one speaking here is not
a translator...
and is confusing what the
connotation of the word 'begat'
is in our day,
with what the original word
in the Hebrew word actually meant...

I used a lexicon. It did the translating for me, it even brought together all 403 times where the word yalad is used in the OT. Including, but not limited to, in Genesis where women are said that they would "bring forth children", When Eve "bared" Abel, when Adam knew his wife and she "bared" her children (to bring forth, to deliver as a handmaiden??), in 2 Kings when God curses Hezekiah saying that his children that he "begat" shall be given away to the enemy. These are alot of examples of children who are, allegedly according to your idea of the "original" meaning, are obviously adopted nephilym. I never knew there were so many demons born in the OT! Or atleast adopted children...

And let us throw in some other points, Nimrod was not the only one "beget" or "yalad" in chapter 10 of Genesis.

15: And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,

13: And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

I guess they were all adopted too? Just like poor abandoned Nimrod?
And the scripture does not say Cush only had a certain amount of sons, it actually reads:

7: And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
8: And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

And why is it written that way? Well, Nimrod was the most famous of them. I can only make this other point so many times. But since this is "nasty" to you, I won't bother repeating it again. It seems obvious to me, and I will let the other people reading decide for themselves.
 
Upvote 0

The_Joker

Active Member
Sep 14, 2008
74
13
✟245.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hopefully, none of you stumbled into Belial's camp
due to my error... LOL

What I am most surprised of is that Ajax did not see that error and ask you about it himself when he copied and pasted your work. Is that text also in your book? I can understand if it slipped into there, but not when that particular part is copied around and used. And I suppose you will concede to me the rest of the points I made in my post?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums