Were the Nephilim to blame? Were they evil?

[Jipsah]

Speaking of rubbish, I've read your remarks from time to time and I'm not sure I've seen anything from you that contributes to the dialogue on this board. It's always snarky criticism from you.

I.E., I haven't said anything you agree with. Roger that.

I don't read fiction, the book of Enoch is a possible exception. No need to read it if it doesn't appeal. There is no reason to criticize somebody for having a look at it given all the garbage that is read out there.

It mislikes me to see fiction considered holy writ. Your mileage may vary.

Reading the book of Enoch is more productive than reading anything you got to say IMO. It`s one of the oldest books in the world.

All I've seen it produce is nonsense.

 

[Sorn]

Assuming a litteral vaccum I'm not sure how they would have been judged but what is interesting in the account is that it tells us that humans and angels are compatible which hints that we are the same species since only the same species can interbreed.

I think the takeaway message is that spiritual beings can manifest themselves as people. The bible on more than 1 occasion says angels can appear as people. Maybe they can appear as animals too.
They are not the same species though. Taking on human form and interbreeding was committing a serious offence hence why they were chained up.

 

[RickReads]

I.E., I haven't said anything you agree with. Roger that.

It mislikes me to see fiction considered holy writ. Your mileage may vary.

All I've seen it produce is nonsense.

Typical.

Jude 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

 

[d taylor]

source?

Source i quoted no source, i made a post stating what i believe.

But i will add that i did learn of Genesis 6 from Robert Thieme and eventually Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum

 

[Jipsah]

Typical.

Yep.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

I have no particular reason to believe that the extant version of "Enoch" has more than a passing resemblance to the writing that St. Jude was quoting from. What I do know is that goodly chunks of the "Enoch" we have are the purest nonsense.

For example, from "THE BOOK OF THE COURSES OF THE HEAVENLY LUMINARIES":

"4. And first there goes forth the great luminary, named the Sun, and his circumference is like the circumference of the heaven, and he is quite filled with illuminating and heating fire." OK, I'm willing to accept a bit of artistic license here and generally accept that as written. But it immediately turns weird:

"5. The chariot on which he ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns through the north in order to reach the east, and is so guided that he comes to the appropriate (lit. 'that') portal and shines in the face of the heaven." I'll let "the wind drives" go as symbolic. But I have serious problems with the sun taking a turn to the north in order to get back to the east, and popping in and out of "portals" to make it back to the east to start the next day. You can kind of see how the old boy, whoever he was, came up with this idea. The sun pops up over here, the disappears over yonder, then somehow overnight it manages to get backover to the east to start over again. The idea that it's daytime somewhere all the time would have startled faux Enoch. Which brings us to another problem. This rather interesting description of the sun's actions is supposed revealed by one Uriel, reportedly a holy angel, who showed all to "Enoch". Now it seems to me that a real angel would know how all this stuff actually works, and that whatever, if anything, that he "showed" "Enoch" was a fraud. Holy writ, huh?

It's worth reading, especially for those of you who think this "Enoch" is a lost part of the Bible. To me it proves, unequivocally, that what it actually is is a complete work of fiction. I see no need to post it all here as it's all readily available to anyone who wants to look at it. Plus I'm not going to have the True Believers accusing me of taking stuff out of context. Read it straight from the source, and then tell me with a straight face that this is Holy Scripture. BTW, here's a link to get to The Book of Enoch: The Book of the Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries: Chapter LXXII.

 

[RickReads]

Yep.

I have no particular reason to believe that the extant version of "Enoch" has more than a passing resemblance to the writing that St. Jude was quoting from. What I do know is that goodly chunks of the "Enoch" we have are the purest nonsense.

For example, from "THE BOOK OF THE COURSES OF THE HEAVENLY LUMINARIES":

"4. And first there goes forth the great luminary, named the Sun, and his circumference is like the circumference of the heaven, and he is quite filled with illuminating and heating fire." OK, I'm willing to accept a bit of artistic license here and generally accept that as written. But it immediately turns weird:

"5. The chariot on which he ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns through the north in order to reach the east, and is so guided that he comes to the appropriate (lit. 'that') portal and shines in the face of the heaven." I'll let "the wind drives" go as symbolic. But I have serious problems with the sun taking a turn to the north in order to get back to the east, and popping in and out of "portals" to make it back to the east to start the next day. You can kind of see how the old boy, whoever he was, came up with this idea. The sun pops up over here, the disappears over yonder, then somehow overnight it manages to get backover to the east to start over again. The idea that it's daytime somewhere all the time would have startled faux Enoch. Which brings us to another problem. This rather interesting description of the sun's actions is supposed revealed by one Uriel, reportedly a holy angel, who showed all to "Enoch". Now it seems to me that a real angel would know how all this stuff actually works, and that whatever, if anything, that he "showed" "Enoch" was a fraud. Holy writ, huh?

It's worth reading, especially for those of you who think this "Enoch" is a lost part of the Bible. To me it proves, unequivocally, that what it actually is is a complete work of fiction. I see no need to post it all here as it's all readily available to anyone who wants to look at it. Plus I'm not going to have the True Believers accusing me of taking stuff out of context. Read it straight from the source, and then tell me with a straight face that this is Holy Scripture. BTW, here's a link to get to The Book of Enoch: The Book of the Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries: Chapter LXXII.

Its too late to decide you want to have a serious diologue regarding your view of this book. I`m not interested now.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think the takeaway message is that spiritual beings can manifest themselves as people. The bible on more than 1 occasion says angels can appear as people. Maybe they can appear as animals too.
They are not the same species though. Taking on human form and interbreeding was committing a serious offence hence why they were chained up.

then they can manifest as some sort of physical super-humanoid species with DNA that is compatible for interbreeding with humans and whose offspring will carry this super mutation. Essentially they would be super-humanoid aliens or proto Nephilim. Sounds like it's right out of the movie Prometheus, or many other mythologies, the Nephilim sound a lot like demi-gods or superheroes. this is a problem with these early genesis accounts. When we look at them in a literal vacuum they require a lot of "creativity" to reconcile them. The text says "the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" and somehow that quickly changes to angels manifesting into god-like humanoids whose offspring are demi-gods. sometimes we should just call a spade a spade.

 

[Skye1300]

Assuming a litteral vaccum I'm not sure how they would have been judged but what is interesting in the account is that it tells us that humans and angels are compatible which hints that we are the same species since only the same species can interbreed.

No, we're not the same species which is the reason why what they did was so sinful. We were never made to interbreed. The fallen angels found a way around it. Similar to the way people born one gender will find a way around it to try to make themselves a different gender. It's the same kind of sin. God hates that.

 

[Sorn]

then they can manifest as some sort of physical super-humanoid species with DNA that is compatible for interbreeding with humans and whose offspring will carry this super mutation. Essentially they would be super-humanoid aliens or proto Nephilim. Sounds like it's right out of the movie Prometheus, or many other mythologies, the Nephilim sound a lot like demi-gods or superheroes. this is a problem with these early genesis accounts. When we look at them in a literal vacuum they require a lot of "creativity" to reconcile them. The text says "the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" and somehow that quickly changes to angels manifesting into god-like humanoids whose offspring are demi-gods. sometimes we should just call a spade a spade.

yep, pretty much.

 

[Sorn]

No, we're not the same species which is the reason why what they did was so sinful. We were never made to interbreed. The fallen angels found a way around it. Similar to the way people born one gender will find a way around it to try to make themselves a different gender. It's the same kind of sin. God hates that.

I'm not sure its a 'sin' to want to change ones gender. A psychological problem, perhaps, but its not clear its a sin as such.

 

[RickReads]

I'm not sure its a 'sin' to want to change ones gender. A psychological problem, perhaps, but its not clear its a sin as such.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

[Sorn]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

hmm, interesting, strictly speaking I guess 'butch' should have been included then.
Its pretty easy to know when one has fornicated, or been an idolater or an adulterer, but effeminate?
When does one cross that line, If they like pink too much?

Sure an extreme is easy to pick out but there is a spectrum everyone fits on from being hyper-masculine to being hyper-feminine.

 

[RickReads]

hmm, interesting, strictly speaking I guess 'butch' should have been included then.
Its pretty easy to know when one has fornicated, or been an idolater or an adulterer, but effeminate?
When does one cross that line, If they like pink too much?

Sure an extreme is easy to pick out but there is a spectrum everyone fits on from being hyper-masculine to being hyper-feminine.

Maybe its a translation error.

 

[DamianWarS]

No, we're not the same species which is the reason why what they did was so sinful. We were never made to interbreed. The fallen angels found a way around it. Similar to the way people born one gender will find a way around it to try to make themselves a different gender. It's the same kind of sin. God hates that.

do you have any sources to back this up?

 

[DamianWarS]

yep, pretty much.

and how do we know this is true?

 

[Sorn]

and how do we know this is true?

Well it fits the narrative (or one possible narrative) as i understand it to be.
Oh, and i have a nephilim in my basement, in chains of course, and have studied its dna

 

[DamianWarS]

or one possible narrative

which begs the question, how many narratives are there? I sense you're approaching this from a facetious perspective but these attempts to reconcile these accounts can get a little silly. Why are we trying so hard? Isn't it a whole lot easier (and more responsible) just to say there are more important elements in the account than the literal and we should probably be less obsessed with the literal and study the deeper elements of the account? For example, did Adam and Eve exist? it doesn't matter, what matters is that we learn we are all sinful and we cannot fix it and that's the main role Adam and Eve really play. What we learn from the account is more important than the literalness of the account itself. The Nephilim play a role showing the earth was corrupted beyond fixing and so justifies the flood, and the flood itself is a baptism metaphor of the old turning into the new. I'm not sure what other roles they play to be honest. Their "literalness" imho is meaningless to us.

 

[Sorn]

which begs the question, how many narratives are there? I sense you're approaching this from a facetious perspective but these attempts to reconcile these accounts can get a little silly. Why are we trying so hard? Isn't it a whole lot easier (and more responsible) just to say there are more important elements in the account than the literal and we should probably be less obsessed with the literal and study the deeper elements of the account? For example, did Adam and Eve exist? it doesn't matter, what matters is that we learn we are all sinful and we cannot fix it and that's the main role Adam and Eve really play. What we learn from the account is more important than the literalness of the account itself. The Nephilim play a role showing the earth was corrupted beyond fixing and so justifies the flood, and the flood itself is a baptism metaphor of the old turning into the new. I'm not sure what other roles they play to be honest. Their "literalness" imho is meaningless to us.

Yes, absolutely, but sometimes its good to try an understand something a bit deeper. There are a few ways to look at the Noah days account, a few but not dozens so likely one of the few is very close to being correct. A lot depends on what starting assumptions you make as to where you end up but nothing will ever be able to be 100% proved i suspect this side of eternity or the return of Jesus, whichever happens 1st for a particular person.

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes, absolutely, but sometimes its good to try an understand something a bit deeper. There are a few ways to look at the Noah days account, a few but not dozens so likely one of the few is very close to being correct. A lot depends on what starting assumptions you make as to where you end up but nothing will ever be able to be 100% proved i suspect this side of eternity or the return of Jesus, whichever happens 1st for a particular person.

The literal still has no bearing on our lives (in terms of pre-Abrahamic), the deeper meanings are far more meaningful. If you remove the deeper meanings and leave only the literal the account is useless. So why do we care so much about the details that have the least impact?

 

[Sorn]

The literal still has no bearing on our lives (in terms of pre-Abrahamic), the deeper meanings are far more meaningful. If you remove the deeper meanings and leave only the literal the account is useless. So why do we care so much about the details that have the least impact?

Because it impacts what people think of the veracity of the rest of the bible