The Book of Enoch

[eleos1954]

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.



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.



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



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.



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?



Very true.



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



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)

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.

The conception of Jesus was a direct act of God. God is the creator of all things ... He is not a "creature" .... not an angel. He can speak things into existence.

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.

Many many many metaphoric/symbolic meanings in His Word ... MANY Are you saying you take everything literally that is in His Word? So these "giants" were literally 450 or more tall yet mated with human women? They had offspring .... are there angel/human "hybrids" in the human race? If indeed the fallen angels (who still exist) produced off spring with humans .... then why did they stop? Did God take their ability to reproduce away from them?

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.

All have sinned. Multiple wives and sex outside of marriage is indeed a sin ... adultery. Yes in the OT polygamy and other illicit acts occurred but certainly God did not approve/promote them. Sin is part of the human condition. Righteousness of humans does not equal constant perfection. Human beings at times are righteous .... other times not ... and throughout His Word that is brought out (ie Abraham). One man, one women starts in Genesis and were created in the image of God (family/trinity).
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Marriage is a sacred institution to the Lord.

Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

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.

I didn't say nor claim this. It is not unusual at all in His word to use metaphors/symbols in order for us to better understand scripture.

A "picture" is worth a thousand words.

 

[SuperCow]

The conception of Jesus was a direct act of God. God is the creator of all things ... He is not a "creature" .... not an angel. He can speak things into existence.

Of course. It was just an example of an offspring being created outside of sex.

Many many many metaphoric/symbolic meanings in His Word ... MANY Are you saying you take everything literally that is in His Word? So these "giants" were literally 450 or more tall yet mated with human women? They had offspring .... are there angel/human "hybrids" in the human race? If indeed the fallen angels (who still exist) produced off spring with humans .... then why did they stop? Did God take their ability to reproduce away from them?

The description of the giants is not in the Bible. That is in the book of Enoch, which we have already agreed is suspect in its current incarnation. The Bible does not state how large the giants/Nephilim were, and it also doesn’t state whether the offspring continued to procreate on their own. I do not take everything literally, particularly with prophetic books or parables; however, the first 17 books of the Bible are historical and nature and should be taken literally, when a logical literal explanation exists.

Why did the angels stop procreating? That is quite apparent and explained by the apostle Peter:

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬

The angels are bound to chains of darkness and held for judgement. They cannot procreate with humans from the angelic prison of Tartarus. Other angels remained faithful, so this was no longer an issue.

All have sinned. Multiple wives and sex outside of marriage is indeed a sin ... adultery. Yes in the OT polygamy and other illicit acts occurred but certainly God did not approve/promote them. Sin is part of the human condition. Righteousness of humans does not equal constant perfection. Human beings at times are righteous .... other times not ... and throughout His Word that is brought out (ie Abraham). One man, one women starts in Genesis and were created in the image of God (family/trinity).

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Marriage is a sacred institution to the Lord.

Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

I’m not going to defend polygamy. But if Lamech’s officially married Zillah and Adah, then this is the same physical state as Jacob was, so I don’t think it was cause for assuming what he did was wicked compared to anyone else of that age.

 

[eleos1954]

Of course. It was just an example of an offspring being created outside of sex.



The description of the giants is not in the Bible. That is in the book of Enoch, which we have already agreed is suspect in its current incarnation. The Bible does not state how large the giants/Nephilim were, and it also doesn’t state whether the offspring continued to procreate on their own. I do not take everything literally, particularly with prophetic books or parables; however, the first 17 books of the Bible are historical and nature and should be taken literally, when a logical literal explanation exists.

As to why did they stop. That is quite apparent and explained by the apostle Peter:

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬

The angels are bound to chains of darkness and held for judgement. They cannot procreate with humans from the angelic prison of Tartarus. Other angels remained faithful, so this no longer is allowed to exist.

I’m not going to defend polygamy. But if Lamech’s officially married Zillah and Adah, then this is the same physical state as Jacob was, so I don’t think it was cause for assuming what he did was wicked compared to anyone else of that age.

As to why did they stop. That is quite apparent and explained by the apostle Peter:

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬

The angels sinned in heaven .... and then were cast to the earth. Satan was on earth way before the supposed Nephilim episode. Satan and the 1/3's ultimate fate/judgement was determined then when they were cast out.

Yeah, well I'm not buying the angels mating with humans theory.

Angels are spiritual beings created by God to serve Him, though created higher than man. Some, the good angels, have remained obedient to Him and carry out His will, while others, fallen angels, disobeyed, fell from their holy position (chose to sin and thereby abandoned their abode), and now stand in active opposition to the work and plan of God.

 

[SuperCow]

The angels sinned in heaven .... and then were cast to the earth. Satan was on earth way before the supposed Nephilim episode. Satan and the 1/3's ultimate fate/judgement was determined then when they were cast out.

Yeah, well I'm not buying the angels mating with humans theory.

Angels are spiritual beings created by God to serve Him, though created higher than man. Some, the good angels, have remained obedient to Him and carry out His will, while others, fallen angels, disobeyed, fell from their holy position (chose to sin and thereby abandoned their abode), and now stand in active opposition to the work and plan of God.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. In the end, this particular issue matters very little to the everyday Christian way of life, which is why there's only three references to it in the entire Bible. In my point of view, there is no other explanation for the existence of the Nephilim. 2 Peter refers to it along with Noah. Jude references it as a mirror of Peter.

It's unfortunate that the books that seem to clarify the issue are pseudigraphica in origin:

(ie. Book of Enoch, Jubilees, Book of Giants, The Zohar)

Parts of the Jewish Targum support your point of view somewhat in that they claim that it was aristocrats who married women commoners (though again it escapes me as to why this would be bad), and some of the Midrash works say that the Nephilim themselves were actually the fallen angels.

 

[HARK!]

It's unfortunate that the books that seem to clarify the issue are pseudigraphica in origin:

(ie. Book of Enoch, Jubilees, Book of Giants, The Zohar)

The Book of Enoch, and the Book of Jubilees are not pseudepigrapha.

In fact they are Cannon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. Jubilees was accepted as scripture until the Catholic Church dismissed it. They had no such authority. Moses wrote it. That means it's Torah. The rightful Zadok Priesthood, who were given charge by YHWH to keep the Torah, stored this book along side Genesis.

Here is a reference from that rightful Priesthood found in 4Q266:

covenant with you and with the whole of Israel. Therefore the man shall confirm it upon *himself\24 to return to


| the Law of Moses for in it everything is *exactly explained\25. [ch 20]


@@ ## As to the explanation of their ends\1 *for a remembrance\2


| to Israel of all these, behold, it is exactly explained in the Book of the Divisions of the Seasons\3


| according to their jubilees and their weeks. And on the day on which the man will confirm upon himself to return


|5| to the Law of Moses the angel of Mastema\4 will turn away from behind him if he will fulfil his word.

What I've presented here is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the information that I've gathered on this subject.

I would encourage you to look past the common fraudulent narrative.

 

[HARK!]

Here we go:

MJ Only - Jubilees is Torah According to 4Q266

I had forgotten that I had created a thread on the subject.

 

[SuperCow]

The Book of Enoch, and the Book of Jubilees are not pseudepigrapha.

In fact they are Cannon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. Jubilees was accepted as scripture until the Catholic Church dismissed it. They had no such authority. Moses wrote it. That means it's Torah. The rightful Zadok Priesthood, who were given charge by YHWH to keep the Torah, stored this book along side Genesis.

Here is a reference from that rightful Priesthood found in 4Q266:

covenant with you and with the whole of Israel. Therefore the man shall confirm it upon *himself\24 to return to


| the Law of Moses for in it everything is *exactly explained\25. [ch 20]


@@ ## As to the explanation of their ends\1 *for a remembrance\2


| to Israel of all these, behold, it is exactly explained in the Book of the Divisions of the Seasons\3


| according to their jubilees and their weeks. And on the day on which the man will confirm upon himself to return


|5| to the Law of Moses the angel of Mastema\4 will turn away from behind him if he will fulfil his word.

What I've presented here is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the information that I've gathered on this subject.

I would encourage you to look past the common fraudulent narrative.

Allow me to clarify my position. The book of Enoch is considered by mainstream Christianity and secular sources to be Pseudipegraphica. That does not, in my opinion render a judgement on whether the book is actually accurate or inspired. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that original works that are inspired might be lost, incomplete or corrupted over time. It's also possible that non-inspired works are entirely accurate in their portrayal of whatever the source subject may be.

2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired, but the definition of scripture has changed over time and we have settled on the standard from the 16th century as if somehow they were smarter than any of those before or after.

So my point is that it is difficult to use Enoch as an argument regarding the meaning of Genesis 6:4 when the other side of the debate does not hold Enoch as a valid text. Similarly, how can you hope to use the Bible as an argument to convince an atheist that the Bible is authentic.

 

[HARK!]

Allow me to clarify my position. The book of Enoch is considered by mainstream Christianity and secular sources to be Pseudipegraphica. That does not, in my opinion render a judgement on whether the book is actually accurate or inspired. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that original works that are inspired might be lost, incomplete or corrupted over time. It's also possible that non-inspired works are entirely accurate in their portrayal of whatever the source subject may be.

2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired, but the definition of scripture has changed over time and we have settled on the standard from the 16th century as if somehow they were smarter than any of those before or after.

So my point is that it is difficult to use Enoch as an argument regarding the meaning of Genesis 6:4 when the other side of the debate does not hold Enoch as a valid text. Similarly, how can you hope to use the Bible as an argument to convince an atheist that the Bible is authentic.

I don't consider argumentum ad populum, or what is considered "mainstream," when it comes to seeking the truth. Let's take a look at what might be considered mainstream Christianity. There are over 43,000 denominations who claim to have the truth. I have personally switched denominations several times; and as I've brought up what past churches have taught; more than once I've been told that if I didn't believe what they believe; then I was going to Hell. There is at least one common thread that ties together all of these 43,000 differences in belief. They all assert that they are led by the Ruach Ha'Kodesh. Yes many in mainstream Christianity have changed their definition of scripture, and even their definition of the Sabbath.

I have not found one book in the that hasn't faced some sort of corruption; but this is nothing new. This was taking place long before Yahshua walked the earth.

(CLV) Jer 8:8
How can you say, We are wise, And the law of Yahweh is with us? Surely, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made a falsehood.

Jeremiah himself demonstrates with this verse, that this will not stand in the way of those who earnestly seek the truth.

The Council of Laodicea banned Enoch at ~364 AD. James Bruce discovers 3 copies in Africa in 1773. He brings them back for study; and they are dismissed by scholars who said that because of how accurately predict the Messiah, that they were obviously written after the fact. Some said that they were written as late as 250 AD. Then fragments of copies were discovered at Qumran. Ooops! ...so much for putting our faith in scholars. Many scholars then doubled down by asserting that because the Similitudes were not found among those fragments; that they were added later. However a full copy of Enoch was found at Qumran in cave 11, which includes the Similitudes. It was purchased by a private investor; and has not been released to the public. It has been microfilmed and has been witnessed by John Strugnell, chief editor of the official Dead Sea Scrolls editorial team and Gerald Lankester Harding, director of Jordan's Department of Antiquities.

Ooops!

Most Atheists who I've engaged with, are more educated concerning scripture than the majority of Christians who I've engaged with. Most of them are well aware of Textual Criticism. I tend to find other ways to show them the spiritual truth. However, I don't spend much time trying to convince Atheists of the truth. I have seen some come to the truth; but they are already of a mindset of rejecting the truth. It's more that I use them as a platform to reinforce the truth, for those who are already seeking it. Speaking the truth to Agnostics is much more fruitful; but I find that the greatest bounty can be found in the low hanging fruit. I feel that my time is best spent sharing the truth with those who are already seeking it.

 

[HARK!]

It's from the Masoretic text, which is in no way modern. I don't know whose teachings you've been copying-and-pasting, but you're off base.

The Masoretic Text[a] (MT or ; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה‎, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE).

n Hebrew orthography, niqqud or nikud (Hebrew: נִקּוּד‎, Modern: nīqqūd, Tiberian: nīqqūḏ, "dotting, pointing" or Hebrew: נְקֻדּוֹת‎, Modern: nəqudōt, Tiberian: nequdōṯ, "dots") is a system of diacritical signs used to represent vowels or distinguish between alternative pronunciations of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Several such diacritical systems were developed in the Early Middle Ages.

In case you didn't realize it, Hebrew is a evolving language of multiple dialects; and by the Middle Ages, it had already been infused with other languages. You would do well to study Ancient Hebrew.

"Yeshua (יֵשׁ֨וּעַ)". Please, stop making up names.

Yahshua, as many Hebrew names are, is Theophoric; and it has meaning; but what does this line of discussion have to do with the OP?

 

[SuperCow]

I
Most Atheists who I've engaged with, are more educated concerning scripture than the majority of Christians who I've engaged with. Most of them are well aware of Textual Criticism. I tend to find other ways to show them the spiritual truth. However, I don't spend much time trying to convince Atheists of the truth. I have seen some come to the truth; but they are already of a mindset of rejecting the truth. It's more that I use them as a platform to reinforce the truth, for those who are already seeking it. Speaking the truth to Agnostics is much more fruitful; but I find that the greatest bounty can be found in the low hanging fruit. I feel that my time is best spent sharing the truth with those who are already seeking it.

This is all true. Debating atheists one on one is usually a waste of time. Online; however, is a different story. For every person who posts, there's 5 to 10 lurkers who either feel they have nothing to contribute or are otherwise shy or want to remain unidentified. So engaging with people who disagree online in a thoughtful and dignified way may help people who you'll never meet, provide it doesn't degrade into personal attacks and abusive posts.

 

[HARK!]

This is all true. Debating atheists one on one is usually a waste of time. Online; however, is a different story. For every person who posts, there's 5 to 10 lurkers who either feel they have nothing to contribute or are otherwise shy or want to remain unidentified. So engaging with people who disagree online in a thoughtful and dignified way may help people who you'll never meet, provide it doesn't degrade into personal attacks and abusive posts.

Agreed. That's why I said this:

It's more that I use them as a platform to reinforce the truth, for those who are already seeking it.

 

[chad kincham]

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.

That’s in the Bible.

Angels can appear in male bodies, per the two angels that stayed in Lots house - and don’t marry or procreate in heaven - but sinful fallen angels came to earth and procreated with women and produced offspring over 9 feet tall with twelve fingers and toes, such as Goliath and Og.

Israel destroyed entire cities of giants as the took possession of the promised land.

Those angels are now in chains, in hell, to prevent them from continuing to produce angelic/human hybrids called nephilim.

David Guzik commentary says:

2. (Jud 1:6) The example of the angels who sinned.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

a. The angels who did not keep their proper domain: Jude’s letter is famous for bringing up obscure or controversial points, and this is one of them. Jude speaks of the angels who sinned, who are now imprisoned and awaiting a future day of judgment.

i. “It is not too much to say that the New Testament no where else presents so many strange phenomenon, or raises so many curious questions within so narrow a space.” (Salmond, Pulpit Commentary)

b. Angels who did not keep their proper domain: There is some measure of controversy about the identity of these particular angels. We only have two places in the Bible where it speaks of angels sinning. First, there was the original rebellion of some angels against God (Isa 14:12-14, Rev 12:4). Second, there was the sin of the sons of God described in Gen 6:1-2.

i. Gen 6:1-2 is a controversial passage all on its own. It says, “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.” There is a significant debate as to if the sons of God are angelic beings, or just another way of saying “followers of God” among humans. Jude helps us answer this question.

c. Did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode: This offence was connected with some kind of sexual sin, such as the sexual union between rebellious angelic beings (the sons of God in Gen 6:2) and the human beings (the daughters of men in Gen 6:2). We know that there was some sexual aspect to this sin because Jude tells us in the following verse, Jud 1:7: as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh. The words in a similar manner to these refers back to the angels of Jud 1:6, and the words gone after strange flesh refers to their unnatural sexual union.

i. We know some things about this unnatural sexual union from Genesis 6. We know that this unnatural union produced unnatural offspring. The unnatural union corrupted the genetic pool of mankind, so God had to find Noah, a man perfect in his generations (Gen 6:9) - that is, “pure in his genetics.” This unnatural union prompted an incredibly drastic judgment of God - a global flood, wiping out all of mankind except for eight people.

ii. We can add another piece of knowledge from Jud 1:6. This unnatural union prompted God to uniquely imprison the angels who sinned in this way. They are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.

d. He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day: God judged these wicked angels, setting them in everlasting chains. Apparently some fallen angels are in bondage while others are unbound and active among mankind as demons.

i. By not keeping their proper place, they are now kept in chains. Their sinful pursuit of freedom put them in bondage. In the same way, those who insist on the freedom to do whatever they want are like these angels - bound with everlasting chains. True freedom comes from obedience.


iii. This reminds us that these angels who sinned with an unnatural sexual union are no longer active. With His radical judgment back in the days of Noah, God put and end to this kind of unnatural sexual union

 

[chad kincham]

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.

That’s in the Bible.

Angels can appear in male bodies, per the two angels that stayed in Lots house - and don’t marry or procreate in heaven - but sinful fallen angels came to earth and procreated with women and produced offspring over 9 feet tall with twelve fingers and toes, such as Goliath and Og.

Israel destroyed entire cities of giants as the took possession of the promised land.

Those angels are now in chains, in hell, to prevent them from continuing to produce angelic/human hybrids called nephilim.

It may not be scripture but the book contains one of the earliest recorded examples of Alien Abduction and recorded evidence of Alien activity on Earth at that time. Its an interesting read and provides a whole new slant on why god sent the flood. The Nephalim Aliens distorted the purity of Adam's DNA. I guess God wanted his created humans pure.

They are aliens only in that they live in the heavens and not on earth.

They are fallen angels, not space aliens from another galaxy like Zeta Reticuli.

 

[Laureate]

So how can the book be written by Enoch, who predates the flood? As I said, the consensus view (not always correct, I know) is that the current book of Enoch is not the original. So the Bible quotes refer to a book that no longer exists.

Some Cuneiform writings actually date back before the Flood, even unto the dating of Enoch.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Some Cuneiform writings actually date back before the Flood, even unto the dating of Enoch.

That does not validate the book of Enoch that we have today. The earliest date I've seen is about 400 BC. The Jews rejected it from their OT.

 

[visionary]

I did a study on the Nephilim, the children of the fallen (nephal) angels (bene Elohim, meaning sons of God, a masculine reference) and the daughters (a feminine reference) of men (Adam is the actual word used in the scripture). In my research I found that the book of Enoch made some interesting statements about these children and the punishment they endure. These statements are confirmed in scripture and the teachings of Messiah.

When the nephilim die, they do not go to be in the presence of the Lord. Instead, their bodies die and are consumed; but their spirits live on. According to scripture, they have no part in the resurrection, so to be absent from the body is NOT to be present with the Lord. They still retain all of the appetites of the flesh, but have no bodies with which to satisfy them. They are condemned to remain on earth in torment until the final judgement.

Consider for a moment, the torment of seemingly eternal hunger, thirst, cold, etc. Have you ever been thirsty? Really thirsty? That would be hell.

Now consider the story of Lazarus and the Rich man. Doesn't the description of the Rich man's torment from the Book of Luke fit what I have described? A rich Jew begging Abraham to let a dirty leper place a single drop of water on his tongue with his unclean finger? Really? Wow, if you know the culture, you would know that's desperate.

I know that the Idumeans (Edomites, sons of Esau) such as Herod and his family were descended of the nephilim. this is clearly reported in their genealogies in scripture. I know that the rich in the time of Messiah were of the classes of people that either ruled under the authority of Rome or controlled the Temple concessions such as the High Priests. So who was the 'rich man' and what was his pedigree? That would speak volumes on the question of hell.

I believe that many of the analogies, metaphors and idioms referring to the nephal; figures of speech that do not translate well for those unfamiliar with the ancient Hebraic culture and beliefs, coupled with the pagan culture of ancient Rome, contributed to the modern Christian confusion about hell.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems there are a number of groups represented in this concept of punishment. There are the children of Elohim (primarily spiritual beings), the children of Adam (primarily physical beings with and without a covenant relationship with Him) and the nephilim (the source of demon spirits that possess the bodies of others when able).

Basically, the nephilim are already screwed. They have been judged. But there seems to be a division within remainder of beings based on those that either love or hates Yahuah and Yahshua. So I'm wondering, are those that hate Him consigned to the same fate as the nephilim? Are they condemned to an eon of unquenchable thirst until they are cast into the lake of burning fire when the heavens and the earth pass away? To me, it seems like it.

 

[SuperCow]

...
I know that the Idumeans (Edomites, sons of Esau) such as Herod and his family were descended of the nephilim. this is clearly reported in their genealogies in scripture. I know that the rich in the time of Messiah were of the classes of people that either ruled under the authority of Rome or controlled the Temple concessions such as the High Priests. So who was the 'rich man' and what was his pedigree? That would speak volumes on the question of hell.

I was agreeing with the first half of your post, but then you lost me here. Where does the genealogy quite clearly say the Idumeans were descended from the nephilim. Esau himself had the same parents as Jacob for starters, so are you referring to the ancestry of Esau's Canaanite/Hittite wives or the Ishmaelite wife he took later? Even if that was the case, everyone was descended from Noah, so are you suggesting that Ham's wife was descended from the nephilim? Your own post states that the nephilim lost their physical bodies, so they did not survive the flood, despite what I've seen others theorize about.

I'll save my thoughts about Hell --> Sheol/Tartarus/Hades/Gehenna for another thread, since your actual beliefs from his post aren't clear.

 

[Laureate]

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.

This is not a Contradiction of the Account given in Genesis, based on your logic we should treat the writings ascribed to Môsʰé (which confirm the writings of Enoch), as.....????

The Angels of Heaven are Hermaphrodite like their Father, who is both Male and Female, wherefore it is written in the account of Adam when he was created, Male and Female in the Image and Likeness of Alôʰhéyîm.

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.

Why are the Names of these Angels supposed to have their Names recorded elsewhere in the Bible?

According to your logic we should also discredit the writings of Môsʰé, because the Names of Cain's children are not recorded any where in the Bible, but Genesis?

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.

How do you find this account Against Scripture?

Fanciful is the word used by those who mocked the writings of Josephus (the Historian), who wrote nothing near as fanciful as the Miracles recorded in the Bible, you might want to remove the word Fanciful from your vocabulary if your going to be a proponent of Miracles.

Without the copious evidence we have on the existence of the Jurassic world such a report would likely sound exaggerative, and border on fictional, nevertheless Genesis does not divulge the specifics of stature, just that the Giants were born unto women that were impregnated by (Disobedient) Angels;

Disobedient Angels (Sons of Alôʰhéyîm) whom we also discover were Bound in Chains of (Outer) Darkness, much like the Ignorance of Man, who Ignores the Light of Truth to Walk in Darkness;

Nevertheless intercession was made, and Time has been given to Repent, otherwise some will find themselves bombarded with the fiery coals of Heaven, and Many (Children of the Kingdom) shall be Cast out of the Kingdom of Heaven, (the Earth's Atmosphere), into Outer Darkness;

Whereas others shall be Cast into a Lake of Fire (the Second Death), which does not Harm those (of Smyrna) who were Faithful unto Death, and received their Crown of Life that they may fellowship among the Congregants of Phila-Delphia whose only instruction is to continue with what they have, and let No Man take their Crown, that they may become Permanent Fixtures in the Temple of Alôhâ.

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.

First it says, Bind him...., and then it says, And Cast him...., where do you see it saying, and this is how you shall bind him, by casting him....? Notwithstanding 'Chains of Darkness' is how Peter Harmonically paraphrases Enoch's sentiment on the matter.

• For if Alôʰhéyîm spared not the Angels that Sinned, but Cast them down into Hell [technically, a Hole], and delivered them unto Chains of Darkness, to be Reserved unto Judgment; [ref., 2nd Peter 2:4]

Whereas Azaz’el appears to have been thrown into a Black Hole, that was created in the midst of a Desolate Wasteland (i.e., a Meteor Shower), to be bombarded by (imploding) Asteroids, well....that is how a reconciliation of all the pertinent passeges appear to me.

Have you never read, that which we Bind or Establish here on Earth the same shall be Bound or Established in Heaven?

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

Intercede just so happens to be one of the things that an Angel does for a Fallen Brother, nevertheless if you knew what Enoch knew, then you likely would have done the same under the given circumstances, but Knowing that we do not Know what Enoch Knew, leaves us little to boast on the matter.

 

[visionary]

I was agreeing with the first half of your post, but then you lost me here. Where does the genealogy quite clearly say the Idumeans were descended from the nephilim.

file:///C:/Users/user1/Downloads/religions-11-00487.pdf

 

[visionary]

Even if that was the case, everyone was descended from Noah, so are you suggesting that Ham's wife was descended from the nephilim? .

(PDF) Was Ham's Wife of the Nephilim?