The Book of Enoch

[Paul4JC]

HARK! thanks for the thread.

The book of Enoch is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Here are some examples:

There are different versions of 1 Enoch, some more clear than others.

According to Enoch, you can bind angels by throwing them into a hole in the desert.

Just like the Bible you shouldn't read out of context...
To Raphael he said, “Go, Raphael, and bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness; And make an opening in the wilderness that is in Doudael. 5 Throw him there, and lay beneath him sharp and jagged stones. And cover him with darkness, and let him dwell there for an exceedingly long time. Cover up his face, and let him not see the light. 6 And on the day of the great judgment, he will be led away to the burning conflagration.

Asael or Azazel depending on what version, is where you see the connection to the scapegoat or Azazel in Leviticus which was also sent into the desert/wilderness...

5799 [e]
la·‘ă·zā·zêl.
לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃
for the scapegoat

[Lev 16:8, 26 NIV] 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. ... 26 "The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp.

[Lev 16:22 NIV] 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness.

...so yes this is a direct connection to the Holy Bible. see also.

Tartarus... [2Pe 2:4 NIV] 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell(tarturus), putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

The Jews never accepted the book of Enoch into the canon of Tanakh nor into the Septuagint. That, in itself, is telling.

The Jews?

Well that depends on how you define Angels. In the bible its clear there are two types, supernatural types like the one who appeared to Mary and ones who appear to need technology to get around.

You watch too much History Channel.

Yahshua calls Enoch scripture

Prophesy, and maybe the first. Jubilees.4:18. “And he (Enoch) was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, and recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years as we made (them) known to him. 19. And what was and what will be he saw in a vision of his sleep, as it will happen to the children of men throughout their generations until the day of judgment; he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations”.

This is where all this business of the Nephilim come from. It claims they are the sons of human females and fallen male angels. Which is a total piece of baloney!

So the sons of Seth had sex with the beautiful daughters of Cain because the daughters of Seth were ugly?

You're free to believe whatever ypu want. I will stick to my bible. and have no desire to argue over such rubbish.

Some of your language is harsh and inapropriate, and I see no arguing here.

Some of the contradictions that invalidate it as being inspired are:

You can't take one version and make conclusions. Study it with other versions then make your conclusions. Have your read it all?

Mighty men (plural of man) .... not angels

Mighty men with 6 digits? [2Sa 21:19-20 NIV] 19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. 20 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot--twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.

[1Sa 17:4 NIV] 4 A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits(That is, about 9 feet 9 inches or about 3 meters) and a span. So if Goliath was almost 10 foot tall, how tall where his ancestor Giants?

[Deu 3:11 NIV] 11 (Og king of Bashan was the last of the Rephaites. His bed was decorated with iron and was more than nine cubits long and four cubits wide (That is, about 14 feet long and 6 feet wide or about 4 meters long and 1.8 meters wide.) It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.) So how tall was he? So how tall were the anti-deluvian giants?

I don’t read it as “Enoch” being the “Head of Days”.

Your splitting hairs over minor translation issues. Have you read the whole book?

I'm not buying the angel/hybrid theory .... besides that book of Enoch does not harmonize with other scripture very well.

Enoch is synoptic to Genesis. It fills the gaps that otherwise we just would be clueless.


God bless.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

The Jews?

Did I stutter?

 

[HARK!]

Did I stutter?

How do you define "The Jews?"

 

[timothyu]

A book doesn't have to be in the Bible to be important

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

A book doesn't have to be in the Bible to be important

...

 

[visionary]

That fallacious claim is made because those were the oldest copies, (I'll say it again) copies that we have found. The same could be falsely claimed for the rest of the TaNaK.

I agree, just because it is "the oldest" doesn't make it more true or more false. There are a lot of things to take in consideration when studying old manuscripts. Who were the penmen of the script, why, when, where, and what were their philosophy influence on the manuscript. .. to name a few.

 

[HARK!]

The Jews never accepted the book of Enoch into the canon of Tanakh nor into the Septuagint. That, in itself, is telling.

Indeed this is very telling.

Never say never. Yahshua was of the Yahudim.

Here is what he said to those who didn't accept scripture:

(CLV) Mt 22:29
Now, answering, Jesus said to them, "You are deceived, not being acquainted with the scriptures, nor yet with the power of God.

(CLV) Mt 22:30
For in the resurrection neither are they marrying nor taking in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven.

Where can we find this scripture in the Canonized TaNaK?

I'll show you where you can find it:

Enoch 15: 5-7

Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget
6
children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly
7
spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

 

[visionary]

Indeed the is very telling.

Never say never. Yahshua was of the Yahudim.

Here is what he said to those who didn't accept scripture:

(CLV) Mt 22:29
Now, answering, Jesus said to them, "You are deceived, not being acquainted with the scriptures, nor yet with the power of God.

(CLV) Mt 22:30
For in the resurrection neither are they marrying nor taking in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven.

Where can we find this scripture in the Canonized TaNaK?

I'll show you where you can find it:

Enoch 15: 5-7

Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget
6
children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly
7
spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

Excellent point

 

[SuperCow]

The book of Enoch is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Here are some examples:

a. The story of angels having sex with women contradicts Jesus’ saying in Matthew 22:30: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Mat 22:30 NKJV). This means angels are not sexual beings.

b. Eighteen of these angels are listed by name in Enoch 6:3, 8; their leader is Semyaz. Not one of these names appears in the Bible. The giants they produce were 450 feet tall (Enoch 7:2). “These [giants] consumed the produce of all the people until the people detested feeding them. So the giants turned against [the people] in order to eat them” (7:3, 4). This is rather fanciful and against Scripture.

c. In Enoch 10:4, 5, “The Lord said to Raphael [a good angel] ‘Bind Azaz’el [an evil angel] hand and foot [and] throw him into the darkness!’ And he made a hole in the desert which was in Duda’el and cast him there; he threw on top of him rugged and sharp rocks.” According to Enoch, you can bind angels by throwing them into a hole in the desert.

d. In chapter 13, Enoch intercedes for Azaz’el.

I am not endorsing the Book of Enoch; however, there are a few problems with the above arguments.

(a.) The angels in question did something unnatural and sinned. Presumably, those resurrected do not sin, and therefore exist in a more harmonious and natural state with God. Genesis says they took wives from men and created the Nephilim offspring. If you reject Enoch's description here, you also reject Genesis. Otherwise Matthew does not in itself contradict Genesis or Enoch. God impregnated Mary to create the Messiah, so therefore God is sexual being or her pregnancy is something else, and if it is something else, than so could an angelic being (in theory) impregnate women with something else other than sex.

(b.) Why should their names appear anywhere else. The angels were imprisoned in some fashion and therefore insignificant to anything else in the Bible. Enoch says there were 200 involved. Only the 20 leaders were named. Apparently there are a hundred million other angels with names we do not know as well. (Revelation 5:11) The 450 feet tall is rather problematic since you are talking about a giant with a head roughly the size of one from Mount Rushmore with a proportionally sized body, though this is a conversion from "300 or 3000 ells" which could easily be a translation error of some kind.

(c.) I agree that this description literally interpreted makes no sense, but again this is one description that is referenced in the accepted Bible. 2 Peter 2:4 says they were put in chains which is also is impossible in a literal sense. But we know (beyond a reasonable doubt) that 2 Peter directly references the Book of Enoch here because of the context and that it uses the Greek word Tartarus (translated into Hell in the KJV), and this is the only place in the Bible where that word is used. Enoch also uses the word Tartarus for the angelic prison. (All the copies of Enoch that exist are written in Greek) Everywhere else in the Bible, Hell is translated from Hades or Gehenna. (The first is a Greek word and the second is a geographical location)

Hades was the God of the underworld, which is the closest Greek word to our understanding of Hell.
Tartarus was a prison for the Gods who fought against Zeus and the Olympians in Greek mythology. Theoretically it is the closest translatable word for a supernatural prison.

(d.) God rejects the intercession of the righteous yet imperfect man Enoch, so this is not particularly a problem.

 

[eleos1954]

I am not endorsing the Book of Enoch; however, there are a few problems with the above arguments.

(a.) The angels in question did something unnatural and sinned. Presumably, those resurrected do not sin, and therefore exist in a more harmonious and natural state with God. Genesis says they took wives from men and created the Nephilim offspring. If you reject Enoch's description here, you also reject Genesis. Otherwise Matthew does not in itself contradict Genesis or Enoch. God impregnated Mary to create the Messiah, so therefore God is sexual being or her pregnancy is something else, and if it is something else, than so could an angelic being (in theory) impregnate women with something else other than sex.

(b.) Why should their names appear anywhere else. The angels were imprisoned in some fashion and therefore insignificant to anything else in the Bible. Enoch says there were 200 involved. Only the 20 leaders were named. Apparently there are a hundred million other angels with names we do not know as well. (Revelation 5:11) The 450 feet tall is rather problematic since you are talking about a giant with a head roughly the size of one from Mount Rushmore with a proportionally sized body, though this is a conversion from "300 or 3000 ells" which could easily be a translation error of some kind.

(c.) I agree that this description literally interpreted makes no sense, but again this is one description that is referenced in the accepted Bible. 2 Peter 2:4 says they were put in chains which is also is impossible in a literal sense. But we know (beyond a reasonable doubt) that 2 Peter directly references the Book of Enoch here because of the context and that it uses the Greek word Tartarus (translated into Hell in the KJV), and this is the only place in the Bible where that word is used. Enoch also uses the word Tartarus for the angelic prison. (All the copies of Enoch that exist are written in Greek) Everywhere else in the Bible, Hell is translated from Hades or Gehenna. (The first is a Greek word and the second is a geographical location)

Hades was the God of the underworld, which is the closest Greek word to our understanding of Hell.
Tartarus was a prison for the Gods who fought against Zeus and the Olympians in Greek mythology. Theoretically it is the closest translatable word for a supernatural prison.

(d.) God rejects the intercession of the righteous yet imperfect man Enoch, so this is not particularly a problem.

Nowhere in the bible does it state that angels have the capability to pro-create.

Context: Peter is discussing the work of false teachers. According to him, their presence among God’s people is not new (2 Peter 2:1). One thing is certain, however: they will experience the judgment of God. To support his argument, Peter uses three biblical examples of sin leading to judgment: the experience of the angels, the punishment of the 
antediluvians, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The context in Jude is similar. He also deals with false teachers, and his three examples of divine judgment are: the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness, the fall of the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah. These cases show that God will intervene against false teachers. These passages are not specifically about the nature of the sin of angels, or about the place they are sent.

2. The Prison: Peter uses vivid language to describe the fate of evil angels. God “sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons.” In the Bible “hell” is the realm of the dead, the tomb. The common Greek word for “hell” is hadēs, which designates the place of the dead, the underworld. But in this case Peter uses a different word, a verb: tartaroō, “to cast into/to hold captive in tartaros.” In Greek mythology tartaros designated the deepest area of hades, reserved for the punishment of disobedient gods. Peter uses this image to express the idea that fallen angels are now in prisons of darkness and death, separated from the divine source of 
life. This is not a literal prison, because demons are still active in the world of humans (e.g., 1 Peter 5:8; Jude 9).

This is supported by Jude, who simply says they are chained and imprisoned in darkness. The phrase “gloomy dungeons” in Peter is sometimes rendered in Greek manuscripts as “fetters of darkness.” In the ancient world, prisons were in many cases dark dungeons, an appropriate symbol for the tomb (cf. Rev. 1:18). Apparently, ancient prisons did not have the purpose of incarcerating criminals as a form of punishment. Those in jail were often committed to hard labor. But in most cases, the prisoners were awaiting judgment or the execution of the penalty already pronounced against them (cf. Lev. 24:10-12; Num. 15:32-36). According to Peter, fallen angels are incarcerated in spiritual darkness, in the realm of death, awaiting the execution of their sentence. They have already been judged.

 

[visionary]

Nowhere in the bible does it state that angels have the capability to pro-create.

Context: Peter is discussing the work of false teachers. According to him, their presence among God’s people is not new (2 Peter 2:1). One thing is certain, however: they will experience the judgment of God. To support his argument, Peter uses three biblical examples of sin leading to judgment: the experience of the angels, the punishment of the 
antediluvians, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The context in Jude is similar. He also deals with false teachers, and his three examples of divine judgment are: the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness, the fall of the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah. These cases show that God will intervene against false teachers. These passages are not specifically about the nature of the sin of angels, or about the place they are sent.

2. The Prison: Peter uses vivid language to describe the fate of evil angels. God “sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons.” In the Bible “hell” is the realm of the dead, the tomb. The common Greek word for “hell” is hadēs, which designates the place of the dead, the underworld. But in this case Peter uses a different word, a verb: tartaroō, “to cast into/to hold captive in tartaros.” In Greek mythology tartaros designated the deepest area of hades, reserved for the punishment of disobedient gods. Peter uses this image to express the idea that fallen angels are now in prisons of darkness and death, separated from the divine source of 
life. This is not a literal prison, because demons are still active in the world of humans (e.g., 1 Peter 5:8; Jude 9).

This is supported by Jude, who simply says they are chained and imprisoned in darkness. The phrase “gloomy dungeons” in Peter is sometimes rendered in Greek manuscripts as “fetters of darkness.” In the ancient world, prisons were in many cases dark dungeons, an appropriate symbol for the tomb (cf. Rev. 1:18). Apparently, ancient prisons did not have the purpose of incarcerating criminals as a form of punishment. Those in jail were often committed to hard labor. But in most cases, the prisoners were awaiting judgment or the execution of the penalty already pronounced against them (cf. Lev. 24:10-12; Num. 15:32-36). According to Peter, fallen angels are incarcerated in spiritual darkness, in the realm of death, awaiting the execution of their sentence. They have already been judged.

Would God be upset, if procreation was one of the capabilities for angels? Would God give a sex to one of His creation if they are not capable of using it? Why is the demonic obsession, possession, etc always sexual in nature, besides the seven other deadly sins?

Genesis 6:2-4 states that the sons of God took wives for themselves and went in to the daughters of men.

. . . the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose . . . when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Genesis 6:2, 4 (NASB)

The phrase “came in to” or “went in to” is a common term in the Old Testament for sexual intercourse (Genesis 16:4; 29:23, 30; 30:4; 38:2, 9; 38:18, for example). It is a very descriptive term and describes what happens when sexual intercourse occurs between a man and a woman.

Scripture teaches that a third of the angels in heaven joined Satan in rebellion against God and, consequently, were cast down to the earth along with him (Revelation 12:3-4). Later some of these fallen angels violated their “proper abode” or “domain” (Jude 6) and, apparently, possessed the bodies of some women and caused them to give to birth to children.

Genesis 6:2-4. Who or what are the sons of God, and why were their sons Nephilim, if you do not have the same view?

 

[SuperCow]

Nowhere in the bible does it state that angels have the capability to pro-create.

Genesis 6:4

The rest of your post I have no disagreement over. I will say though that Peter specifically refers to the ones sent to Tartarus as angels, regardless of what you consider Tartarus to be, and by context must be those from Genesis. Jude also calls them angels, therefore I have no reason to think that the reference to Sons of God in Genesis 6 refers to anyone but angels.

 

[eleos1954]

Would God be upset, if procreation was one of the capabilities for angels? Would God give a sex to one of His creation if they are not capable of using it? Why is the demonic obsession, possession, etc always sexual in nature, besides the seven other deadly sins?

Genesis 6:2-4 states that the sons of God took wives for themselves and went in to the daughters of men.

. . . the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose . . . when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Genesis 6:2, 4 (NASB)

The phrase “came in to” or “went in to” is a common term in the Old Testament for sexual intercourse (Genesis 16:4; 29:23, 30; 30:4; 38:2, 9; 38:18, for example). It is a very descriptive term and describes what happens when sexual intercourse occurs between a man and a woman.

Scripture teaches that a third of the angels in heaven joined Satan in rebellion against God and, consequently, were cast down to the earth along with him (Revelation 12:3-4). Later some of these fallen angels violated their “proper abode” or “domain” (Jude 6) and, apparently, possessed the bodies of some women and caused them to give to birth to children.

Genesis 6:2-4. Who or what are the sons of God, and why were their sons Nephilim, if you do not have the same view?

went into the daughters of men. It says in verse 4:

“There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men”

So were there Giants on the earth before the sons of God came into the daughters of men? Absolutely! So the giants; or the Hebrew word “Nephilim” were not the result of the crossbreeding between fallen angels and human women.

The word Nephilim, which is translated Giants in this verse is also used to describe the inhabitants of Canaan which were giants. In numbers chapter 13 the word Nephilim is used, and all of the giants before the flood died in the flood, so where did the Nephilim that were in the promised land come from?

In Genesis chapter 5 we have the genealogy of the wicked Cain, and then in Genesis 6: 1 through 4 we have the sons of God, and the daughters of men. Obviously the sons of God are the descendants of Seth, the daughters of men are those who belong to the genealogy of Cain.

There are three women mentioned in the genealogy of Cain. The immediate context indicates that the sons of God are the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men are the descendants of the lineage of Cain. (nephilim)

Genesis is the story of the battle between two seeds.

The seeds

We have the seed of the serpent which are the followers of Satan, and the seed of the woman which are the children of God. We have Cain [Satan], we have Able [God], we have the builders of the tower of Babel [Satan]. We have Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Joseph, and his brothers. All these are human beings, in other words we have a righteous seed and a wicked seed, and so the sons of God and the daughters of men must fit within this idea of the two seeds as illustrated in the book of Genesis. And so the immediate context tells us that the sons of God are the lineage of Seth; and the daughters of men are from the lineage of Cain.

 

[SuperCow]

went into the daughters of men. It says in verse 4:

“There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men”

So were there Giants on the earth before the sons of God came into the daughters of men? Absolutely! So the giants; or the Hebrew word “Nephilim” were not the result of the crossbreeding between fallen angels and human women.

The word Nephilim, which is translated Giants in this verse is also used to describe the inhabitants of Canaan which were giants. In numbers chapter 13 the word Nephilim is used, and all of the giants before the flood died in the flood, so where did the Nephilim that were in the promised land come from?

So you are telling me you trust the words of the 10 cowards who disobeyed God, rather than Moses, Joshua and Caleb? Numbers 13 in no way indicates that there were Nephilim in the promised land. That was an exaggerated phony report of the 10 cowardly spies lying to convince the people not to trust that God will give them the promised land. That's the first point.

Second, your context for Genesis 6 is way off. This is how it should be understood.

Verse 1: Humans procreated and the women were beautiful.
Verse 2: "sons of God" noticed the "Daughters of men" and took wives.
Verse 3: God pronounces punishment to occur in 120 years.
Verse 4: There were nephilim by this time, and they continued for the 120 years until the flood. They were there because of verse 1 & 2.

Even with the strained Hebrew->English textual corruption you're trying to align with, it still is quite clear, even in English that there is a distinction of sons of God vs daughters of men. If it was Seth's line mixing with Cain's line, it would not be a sin, nor would it be a sin for any of Seth's line or Cain's line to mix with any of the other children of Adam & Eve or their descendants. You're trying to tell me that God has become racist from the beginning of mankind which I reject entirely.

In Genesis chapter 5 we have the genealogy of the wicked Cain, and then in Genesis 6: 1 through 4 we have the sons of God, and the daughters of men. Obviously the sons of God are the descendants of Seth, the daughters of men are those who belong to the genealogy of Cain.

There are three women mentioned in the genealogy of Cain. The immediate context indicates that the sons of God are the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men are the descendants of the lineage of Cain. (nephilim)

There are many problems with this. First off, Cain was pardoned after asking for mercy (Genesis 4:13-15), and after he left with his family, there is nothing to indicate what he did other than have a bunch of kids and build cities like everyone else did. He could have remained wicked, but I don't know that and neither do you. References to Cain in the rest of the Bible relate to the murder of Abel.

The rampant violence in chapter 6 was over a thousand years later, probably after Cain's death. (Though it could easily have started before) There's no reason to think that everyone in Seth's line was righteous or that everyone in Cain's line was wicked. That is pure speculation, and very unlikely. The only people we know for sure were righteous were Enoch and Noah. (and probably Methuselah based on other writings)

Genesis is the story of the battle between two seeds.

The seeds

We have the seed of the serpent which are the followers of Satan, and the seed of the woman which are the children of God. We have Cain [Satan], we have Able [God], we have the builders of the tower of Babel [Satan]. We have Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Joseph, and his brothers. All these are human beings, in other words we have a righteous seed and a wicked seed, and so the sons of God and the daughters of men must fit within this idea of the two seeds as illustrated in the book of Genesis. And so the immediate context tells us that the sons of God are the lineage of Seth; and the daughters of men are from the lineage of Cain.

What about the 20+ other children of Adam? Where do they fit in? Being the seed of Satan or God is not a genetic thing. And you've missed the actual most likely reason why we even have the genetic line of Cain listed, which has nothing to do with the nephilim. While I agree this is speculation, it is more likely speculation than anything you've posted above. Noah's wife is a descendant of Cain and named Naamah. There's absolutely no reason for her to be in Genesis 4:22 except for this. Adam & Eve was rebooted with the flood by Noah & Naamah.

This explanation does not require Peter and Jude to be wrong.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

So you are telling me you trust the words of the 10 cowards who disobeyed God, rather than Moses, Joshua and Caleb? Numbers 13 in no way indicates that there were Nephilim in the promised land. That was an exaggerated phony report of the 10 cowardly spies lying to convince the people not to trust that God will give them the promised land. That's the first point.

Second, your context for Genesis 6 is way off. This is how it should be understood.

Verse 1: Humans procreated and the women were beautiful.
Verse 2: "sons of God" noticed the "Daughters of men" and took wives.
Verse 3: God pronounces punishment to occur in 120 years.
Verse 4: There were nephilim by this time, and they continued for the 120 years until the flood. They were there because of verse 1 & 2.

Even with the strained Hebrew->English textual corruption you're trying to align with, it still is quite clear, even in English that there is a distinction of sons of God vs daughters of men. If it was Seth's line mixing with Cain's line, it would not be a sin, nor would it be a sin for any of Seth's line or Cain's line to mix with any of the other children of Adam & Eve or their descendants. You're trying to tell me that God has become racist from the beginning of mankind which I reject entirely.



There are many problems with this. First off, Cain was pardoned after asking for mercy (Genesis 4:13-15), and after he left with his family, there is nothing to indicate what he did other than have a bunch of kids and build cities like everyone else did. He could have remained wicked, but I don't know that and neither do you. References to Cain in the rest of the Bible relate to the murder of Abel.

The rampant violence in chapter 6 was over a thousand years later, probably after Cain's death. (Though it could easily have started before) There's no reason to think that everyone in Seth's line was righteous or that everyone in Cain's line was wicked. That is pure speculation, and very unlikely. The only people we know for sure were righteous were Enoch and Noah. (and probably Methuselah based on other writings)



What about the 20+ other children of Adam? Where do they fit in? Being the seed of Satan or God is not a genetic thing. And you've missed the actual most likely reason why we even have the genetic line of Cain listed, which has nothing to do with the nephilim. While I agree this is speculation, it is more likely speculation than anything you've posted above. Noah's wife is a descendant of Cain and named Naamah. There's absolutely no reason for her to be in Genesis 4:22 except for this. Adam & Eve was rebooted with the flood by Noah & Naamah.

This explanation does not require Peter and Jude to be wrong.

Are you teaching or asking a question?

 

[SuperCow]

Are you teaching or asking a question?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. My post only contains a couple of rhetorical question, but it's mostly a response to what I felt was a misinterpretation of the Old Testament. It is merely my understanding of the writings. I suppose everything somebody writes is a form of teaching.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. My post only contains a couple of rhetorical question, but it's mostly a response to what I felt was a misinterpretation of the Old Testament. It is merely my understanding of the writings. I suppose everything somebody writes is a form of teaching.

Maybe there's something you haven't read or agreed to yet ...

 

[SuperCow]

If you're trying to evangelize Messianic Judaism, just come out and say it so these links you're posting make sense. Otherwise, you're just confusing me.

 

[eleos1954]

So you are telling me you trust the words of the 10 cowards who disobeyed God, rather than Moses, Joshua and Caleb? Numbers 13 in no way indicates that there were Nephilim in the promised land. That was an exaggerated phony report of the 10 cowardly spies lying to convince the people not to trust that God will give them the promised land. That's the first point.

Second, your context for Genesis 6 is way off. This is how it should be understood.

Verse 1: Humans procreated and the women were beautiful.
Verse 2: "sons of God" noticed the "Daughters of men" and took wives.
Verse 3: God pronounces punishment to occur in 120 years.
Verse 4: There were nephilim by this time, and they continued for the 120 years until the flood. They were there because of verse 1 & 2.

Even with the strained Hebrew->English textual corruption you're trying to align with, it still is quite clear, even in English that there is a distinction of sons of God vs daughters of men. If it was Seth's line mixing with Cain's line, it would not be a sin, nor would it be a sin for any of Seth's line or Cain's line to mix with any of the other children of Adam & Eve or their descendants. You're trying to tell me that God has become racist from the beginning of mankind which I reject entirely.

There are many problems with this. First off, Cain was pardoned after asking for mercy (Genesis 4:13-15), and after he left with his family, there is nothing to indicate what he did other than have a bunch of kids and build cities like everyone else did. He could have remained wicked, but I don't know that and neither do you. References to Cain in the rest of the Bible relate to the murder of Abel.

The rampant violence in chapter 6 was over a thousand years later, probably after Cain's death. (Though it could easily have started before) There's no reason to think that everyone in Seth's line was righteous or that everyone in Cain's line was wicked. That is pure speculation, and very unlikely. The only people we know for sure were righteous were Enoch and Noah. (and probably Methuselah based on other writings)

What about the 20+ other children of Adam? Where do they fit in? Being the seed of Satan or God is not a genetic thing. And you've missed the actual most likely reason why we even have the genetic line of Cain listed, which has nothing to do with the nephilim. While I agree this is speculation, it is more likely speculation than anything you've posted above. Noah's wife is a descendant of Cain and named Naamah. There's absolutely no reason for her to be in Genesis 4:22 except for this. Adam & Eve was rebooted with the flood by Noah & Naamah.

This explanation does not require Peter and Jude to be wrong.

In 1 Enoch, they were "great giants, whose height was three thousand ells". An Ell being 18 inches (45 centimetres), this would make them 4500 feet (nearly a mile) tall (1350 metres).

I mean really? That's pretty far fetched that a being of that magnitude could have sex with a human being.

According to scripture angels are a different kind of being than that of humans. No where in His word is it stated they have the ability to pro-create within themselves .... much less with human beings.

There are good angels and bad angels. At one time all angels served the Lord, but the highest angel of heaven, named Lucifer, turned against God. He became Satan, the enemy, and persuaded a third of the other angels to join in his rebellion. The Bible says, “War broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought” (Revelation 12:7). The dragon symbolizes the devil, and Michael symbolizes Christ, the One who is over all the angels.

Sin (transgression of the law) actually began in heaven .... and because of such was why they were cast to earth (their final fate was determined at that time). The wages of sin is death (eternal death) of which will happen to all the wicked ... including satan and his minions (Gods final act before He re-creates the new heavens and earth).

Look at the broader application of the phrase "sons of God." Pre-eminently, it is used for Jesus Himself; He is the Son of God. As noted, it is sometimes used to refer to angels (Job 1:6; 21:1; Ps. 29:1). Also, it is sometimes used to speak of followers of Christ (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26).

So, the concept of divine sonship in the Scriptures is not always linked to a biological or ontological relationship (relationship of being). Rather, it is chiefly used to set forth a relationship of obedience.

This means Genesis 6 is simply be speaking about the intermarriage of those who manifested a pattern of obedience to God in their lives and those who were pagans in their orientation. In other words, the text describes marriages between believers and unbelievers.

The immediate context of Genesis 6 supports this conclusion. Following the narrative of the fall in Genesis 3, the Bible traces the lines of two families, the descendents of Cain and of Seth. Cain’s line is recounted in Genesis 4, and this line displays proliferating wickedness, capped by Lamech, who was the first polygamist (v. 19) and who rejoiced in murderous, vengeful use of the sword (vv. 23–24). By contrast, the line of Seth, which is traced in Genesis 5, displays righteousness. This line includes Enoch, who "walked with God, and . . . was not, for God took him" (v. 24). In the line of Seth was born Noah, who was "a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (6:9). Thus, we see two lines, one obeying God and the other willfully disobeying Him.

If it was Seth's line mixing with Cain's line, it would not be a sin, nor would it be a sin for any of Seth's line or Cain's line to mix with any of the other children of Adam & Eve or their descendants. You're trying to tell me that God has become racist from the beginning of mankind which I reject entirely.

I didn't say it was a sin to intermarry (and it isn't) .... the story is depicting what happened (marriage between believers and unbelievers) and no God is not raciest, nor did I claim that.
Just as it has always been and is today and will also be in the future ..... believers and non-believers inter-marry ... and that transcends every race ... it within itself is not a sin ... but there are negative consequences that can result from it.

The descriptive terms "sons of God" and "daughters of man" do not give us license to make the assumption of sexual interaction between heavenly beings and earthly beings.

It is plainly and simply explained in Genesis 6:5 why God sent destruction by the flood.

And God saw that the wickedness of man (mankind) was great in the earth, and that every imagining of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Being the seed of Satan or God is not a genetic thing

True .... it is descriptive (symbolic) of a spiritual condition/mindset not a physical one ... those who follow the Lord and those who don't (believers and non-believers). (sheep and goats) ... righteous and unrighteous etc.

 

[SuperCow]

In 1 Enoch, they were "great giants, whose height was three thousand ells". An Ell being 18 inches (45 centimetres), this would make them 4500 feet (nearly a mile) tall (1350 metres).

I mean really? That's pretty far fetched that a being of that magnitude could have sex with a human being.

I agree, that is ridiculous. And the usual suggestion that it is really 300 ells or 450 feet does not help much. I am not suggesting that the book of Enoch is inspired, original, or translated correctly. My post is about Genesis, not Enoch. Enoch just happens to coincide with the same topic.

However, I don’t recall anyone on this thread suggesting that nephilim procreated with humans. The topic was about whether women married angels who left their natural purpose, versus righteous humans mating with unrighteous humans. For the latter, there is no explanation about how normal human/human procreation suddenly creates a hybrid nephilim species, whether it means giants or anything else. If it was the case that a righteous man marrying an unrighteous woman produced giants, then King Solomon should have fathered hundreds of Nephilim himself.

The reasonable answer is that which Peter and Jude understood to be true in their letters. In this case, Genesis is correct, and Enoch has problems, and if originally inspired was since textually corrupted.

According to scripture angels are a different kind of being than that of humans. No where in His word is it stated they have the ability to pro-create within themselves .... much less with human beings.

No where in His word does it say they cannot. Jesus only says that their natural purpose is not to reproduce. Jesus himself was produced as the son of God with a human woman Mary, so a spirit creature can create a baby with a woman, but based on what happened in Genesis, angelic attempts were seriously flawed.

There are good angels and bad angels. At one time all angels served the Lord, but the highest angel of heaven, named Lucifer, turned against God. He became Satan, the enemy, and persuaded a third of the other angels to join in his rebellion. The Bible says, “War broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought” (Revelation 12:7). The dragon symbolizes the devil, and Michael symbolizes Christ, the One who is over all the angels.

Sin (transgression of the law) actually began in heaven .... and because of such was why they were cast to earth (their final fate was determined at that time). The wages of sin is death (eternal death) of which will happen to all the wicked ... including satan and his minions (Gods final act before He re-creates the new heavens and earth).

Look at the broader application of the phrase "sons of God." Pre-eminently, it is used for Jesus Himself; He is the Son of God. As noted, it is sometimes used to refer to angels (Job 1:6; 21:1; Ps. 29:1). Also, it is sometimes used to speak of followers of Christ (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26).

So, the concept of divine sonship in the Scriptures is not always linked to a biological or ontological relationship (relationship of being). Rather, it is chiefly used to set forth a relationship of obedience.

No dispute here, except that Michael=Jesus is in dispute by several sects.

This means Genesis 6 is simply be speaking about the intermarriage of those who manifested a pattern of obedience to God in their lives and those who were pagans in their orientation. In other words, the text describes marriages between believers and unbelievers.

It does not mean that. That is simply you trying to fold the scriptures into your pre-conceived bias, because you don’t like the implications. Any logical reading of the various scriptures states otherwise in a literal sense. You have to add a metaphoric meaning to the words in several places just to make your theory work. I can take the literal words, without changing them and make my theory work.

The immediate context of Genesis 6 supports this conclusion. Following the narrative of the fall in Genesis 3, the Bible traces the lines of two families, the descendents of Cain and of Seth. Cain’s line is recounted in Genesis 4, and this line displays proliferating wickedness, capped by Lamech, who was the first polygamist (v. 19) and who rejoiced in murderous, vengeful use of the sword (vv. 23–24). By contrast, the line of Seth, which is traced in Genesis 5, displays righteousness. This line includes Enoch, who "walked with God, and . . . was not, for God took him" (v. 24). In the line of Seth was born Noah, who was "a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (6:9). Thus, we see two lines, one obeying God and the other willfully disobeying Him.

Not intending to digress, but can you name one scripture that states polygamy is a sin? And Lamech’s song again literally reads as a proclamation of manslaughter in self-defense. I’m not suggesting he was a good man, or that polygamy is a good thing, but I can point to many men described as righteous in the Old Testament patriarchs that had multiple wives and concubines.

So based on that what sin, if any is listed among Cain’s descendants, beyond Cain’s murder and Lamech’s dubious alibi to his wives?

I didn't say it was a sin to intermarry (and it isn't) .... the story is depicting what happened (marriage between believers and unbelievers) and no God is not raciest, nor did I claim that.
Just as it has always been and is today and will also be in the future ..... believers and non-believers inter-marry ... and that transcends every race ... it within itself is not a sin ... but there are negative consequences that can result from it.

Very true.

The descriptive terms "sons of God" and "daughters of man" do not give us license to make the assumption of sexual interaction between heavenly beings and earthly beings.

I’m not making assumptions. I’m just understanding the literal text as it is written. You are the one making assumptions.

It is plainly and simply explained in Genesis 6:5 why God sent destruction by the flood.

And God saw that the wickedness of man (mankind) was great in the earth, and that every imagining of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

True .... it is descriptive (symbolic) of a spiritual condition/mindset not a physical one ... those who follow the Lord and those who don't (believers and non-believers). (sheep and goats) ... righteous and unrighteous etc.

The reason for the flood is not entirely relevant. If the Nephilim wreaked havoc on the world, but much of humanity remained righteous, I”m sure God would have chosen a different outcome for the earth, just like he told Abraham that he would not destroy Sodom if 10 righteous people lived there. (He rescued 3 at Sodom and 8 during the flood)