What does Genesis 6:4 Actually Say?

[Paleouss]

Thank you Jullie

I believe the scripture is pretty clear that the nephilim were the offspring of the angels and human women. And that it started after human daughters were being produced and the sons of God came unto the daughters of men.

Is there a way you can demonstrate to me grammatically how it is "clear" that the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 are also the children in Genesis 6:4? (using only the biblical text)


Peace to you sister

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings again Julie

I thought I would comment on your use of Jude in the "sons of God" debate.

It is my opinion that the angel advocate rightly asserts that Jude gives us adequate evidence that angels may have come to earth in physical form. This seems to be the natural reading of the text. This evidence is given by stating the angels did (1) not keeping their first estate, and (2) leaving their own abode.

The angel advocate most likely cheers me on for claiming the most natural reading of the text here in Jude 1:6. I'm sure its, yes, yes, use the natural reading. But when the natural reading after that does not support additional claims, like procreation...they most likely boo and jeer.

THIS is the most natural reading of the Jude 1:7 text.

(1) The context starts in Jude 1:4 speaking of "men have crept in unnoticed". Jude calls these men "ungodly".
(2) Then Jude says, "I want to remind you"...and then says what he wants us to be reminded of is that “the Lord…afterward destroyed those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5)

In other words, Jude is focusing on ungodly men who have crept into the brotherhood and tells us that God will destroy these people. Then he backs up this claim by giving a set number of historical examples, just like Peter, of how God destroyed evil in the past.

The first example is “the people out of the land of Egypt” (Jude 1:5). The second example is Jude 1:6 and the angels that left their first estate and also their own abode (came to earth in physical form). The third example is Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 1:7). The natural reading of the Sodom text is this...

(1) just as
(2) Sodom and Gomorrah
(3) and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [strange flesh (NKJV)],
(4) serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

So the statement "which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desires" or strange flesh is in reference to what the men in the "surrounding cities" did. They did these things "like" Sodom and Gomorrah men. THIS is the natural reading of the text.

But let me be more gracious to the "sons of God" angel advocate. Let me temporarily concede that the Sodom story and strange flesh in Jude 6:7 is speaking directly to Jude 6:6 angels and not simply giving another example. The problem is that the Sodom story is not a story about angels wanting to have sex with humans. Let alone a story about angels procreating with humans. The Sodom story is about the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with two men (not clear if they know they are angels) they see coming in the city in a judgmental way. This is still not an example of angels procreating with human women. At most it would be an example of human men wanting to have deviant sex with angels.

But lets concede even more, lets say that "strange flesh" means to refer to the strange flesh that the men of Sodom wanted was similar to some "strange flesh" the angels wanted (which isn't in the Jude text and must be inferred). Desiring and being capable of deviant sexual relations with cross species does not mean one can procreate cross species. Men can have deviant sexual relations with dogs, cows, chickens. But cannot procreate with them.

Nowhere in Jude text does it speak of procreation. Nowhere in the Jude text does it use the word Nephilim or attempt to tie Nephilim to the children of the sons of God union.

Peace to you

 

[Paleouss]

I could never reconcile the " brother sister" marriage

Well, maybe consider this...

(Gen 5:3 NKJV) 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot [a son] in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. It doesn't seem very likely to me that there were no sons and daughters between Able and Seth. The text usually only records the first born son. Sometimes others if they take over the spiritual responsibility or are of some significants. But mostly only first borns.

Seth took over the spiritual leadership role the first born normally had. Joseph would be an example of the same, meaning he had many older brothers before him besides the first born son.

In other words, how many kids did Adam have before Seth. How many kids did those kids have..and those kids? 130 years can produce 5 generations and if they are procreating, being fruitful and multiplying, the whole time (because they live to like 900 years old). That could be like 1000 people, possibly.

So Cain would have to have married a relative but not necessarily his sister. But that doesn't mean if he didn't that others didn't. That would most likely be a thing.

A similar point, Lot's daughters got him drunk so that they would have kids when they thought there might not be any more males. (just pointing that out).

Peace to you

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Well, maybe consider this...

(Gen 5:3 NKJV) 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot [a son] in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. It doesn't seem very likely to me that there were no sons and daughters between Able and Seth. The text usually only records the first born son. Sometimes others if they take over the spiritual responsibility or are of some significants. But mostly only first borns.

Seth took over the spiritual leadership role the first born normally had. Joseph would be an example of the same, meaning he had many older brothers before him besides the first born son.

In other words, how many kids did Adam have before Seth. How many kids did those kids have..and those kids? 130 years can produce 5 generations and if they are procreating, being fruitful and multiplying, the whole time (because they live to like 900 years old). That could be like 1000 people, possibly.

So Cain would have to have married a relative but not necessarily his sister. But that doesn't mean if he didn't that others didn't. That would most likely be a thing.

A similar point, Lot's daughters got him drunk so that they would have kids when they thought there might not be any more males. (just pointing that out).

Peace to you

That's fine however ,was she banished from God's presence as well? It's a very big deal to be banished from God's presence. And I cannot believe thousands of descendants of Adam and Eve were that bad that they as well had to be banished. No matter how you look at it , it does not add up. The way I have reconciled it in my pea brain makes all the sense in the world and still leaves the bible intact.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[Paleouss]

The way I have reconciled it in my pea brain makes all the sense in the world and still leaves the bible intact.

Greetings Maria. Peace and hope to both of our pea brains.

was she banished from God's presence as well?

Well, we know by the time of Noah that none were godly. We only have one story of "being banished". So clearly one doesn't need to be banished to be ungodly or mix with the profane.

And I cannot believe thousands of descendants of Adam and Eve were that bad that they as well had to be banished.

Again, I don't think they had to be banished. Further, if one could consider the "sons of God" as a Sethian line then one already thinks that godly people are falling away. No banishment needed.

The way I have reconciled it in my pea brain makes all the sense in the world and still leaves the bible intact.

May truth never be hindered by our own walls. May what I wrongly believe be torn down to the glory of God.


Peace to you Maria

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Greetings Maria. Peace and hope to both of our pea brains.


Well, we know by the time of Noah that none were godly. We only have one story of "being banished". So clearly one doesn't need to be banished to be ungodly or mix with the profane.


Again, I don't think they had to be banished. Further, if one could consider the "sons of God" as a Sethian line then one already thinks that godly people are falling away. No banishment needed.


May truth never be hindered by our own walls. May what I wrongly believe be torn down to the glory of God.


Peace to you Maria

Very poetic. Its been fun to unveil my thoughts on the matter.
Be blessed.

 

[JulieB67]

Is there a way you can demonstrate to me grammatically how it is "clear" that the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 are also the children in Genesis 6:4? (using only the biblical text)

Again, I thought the scripture was pretty clear because it states there were giants in the the earth -and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men and bare children to them. That tells us these giants were the offspring.

Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The problem is that the Sodom story is not a story about angels wanting to have sex with humans.

No, but the example is in like manner both gave into fornication by going after strange flesh. The strange flesh for angels was human and of course we know that Sodom and Gomorrah the strange flesh was the opposite sex. But the sin of the angels was just as Sodom and Gomorrah in that both went after strange flesh.

I realize Jude talks about ungodly men starting out and afterwards but this verse seems to connect the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah to the angels sin-


Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Jude is comparing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah to the sin of the angels -"in like manner".


I realize people will continue to believe differently though. But these are mine.

 

[Arial-by Grace]

What strange flesh? Human women. And they left their own habitation to do so. If you believe differently what fornication did they give themselves or to by going after strange flesh? That is their sin.

What was the rampant sin in Sodom and Gomorrah? Gen 19

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

It was not fallen angels mating with men. Those angels were not fallen (the two men who had net Abraham in chapter 18). And it was not they who desired to fornicate with humans women. It was human men desiring to fornicate with men. Those angels appeared in the form of men.

 

[Paleouss]

Again, I thought the scripture was pretty clear because it states there were giants in the the earth -and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men and bare children to them. That tells us these giants were the offspring.

Greetings Julie. Peace and love to you an yours. Thank you btw for your thoughtful, honest, and cordial post.

This post to you is more of a clarification from another perspective that the logic you claim is "pretty clear" to you is in fact not clear to others. Now, I'm not saying your conclusion is not a possible option. Many respectable people I know hold your view. I'm only saying that it is not the "pretty clear" option (that's why there is dispute for thousands of years). Let me break down your statement above to show how your logic doesn't conclude what I think, you think it does...

Your statement
(1) "it states there were giants on the earth -and also after that,"
(2) "when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men and bare children to them"
(3) "That tells us these giants were the offspring"

This is the logic you just presented

(1) Giants were on there earth
(2) Children of the union were on the earth
(3) therefore the Giants and children are the same person.

The problem with this logic is (3) might be true or it might be false. We don't know which it is because we need more information from the text to make your statement clearly true. All we really know that is "clearly true" is that both the Giants and the children were on the earth at the same time. All camps seem to agree on this fact (probably because it is the only really clear fact one can take from Gen 6:4.)

Anyway. A pleasure speaking to you again


Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

 

[Arial-by Grace]

It specifically mentioned the angels. But I forgot, context doesn't matter to you.

Jude 6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

It states "and the angels" giving us the subject. Can you follow that train of thought?

Continuing- "in like manner" Meaning just as Sodom and Gomorrah, they gave them selves over to fornication going after strange flesh. They left their own habitation -clearly talking about the angels and in like manner gave themselves over...." Nothing about people here. So no, you are inserting that.

Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Jude 6 Those angels were not running about fornicating with women. They were locked in chains under darkness until judgment day. So what is a legitimate alternate view of "left their own habitation".

SInce we know from various scriptures that angels are not autonomous but have assigned duties, lets look at other translations and see if that helps.


And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— (ESV)


And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—(NIV)

In other words, they disobeyed God and did as they pleased, following Satan.

Jude 7 "in like manner" does not mean "exactly like" as to the same actual sin here but is connected to what Jude is talking about---which is judgment on the unrepentant sinner. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah also defied God's created order of marriage, one man, one woman, ignored his commands, went after strange flesh---other men. The judgement of Sodom and Gamorrah is set forth as an example of suffering the judgement of eternal fire, just as the fallen angels were judged.

 

[JulieB67]

It was not fallen angels mating with men. Those angels were not fallen (the two men who had net Abraham in chapter 18).

I'm not talking about those angels that stayed with Lot.

I'm talking about Genesis 6 and the sons of God who I believe to be angels. Because in verse 1 we already see that men were multiplying on the earth and producing daughters. So it does stand to reason that the sons of God (who have been described elsewhere as angels in the OT) saw that the daughters of men (human women) were fair and took them to wife, bore children that were giants.

It was human men desiring to fornicate with men.

Yes, that was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and I'm sure this wasn't the first time they were wanting to engage in this sin. I'm sure it was rampant in the city.

Jude 6 Those angels were not running about fornicating with women. They were locked in chains under darkness until judgment day. So what is a legitimate alternate view of "left their own habitation".

You are misunderstanding me. They are in chains because of the sin in Genesis 6. They left their own habitation to take human women as wives and the humans that engaged in that were just as bad. This is why God wanted to destroy the earth at that time. Noah was perfect in his "generations" Meaning perfect not in sin, no one is. But perfect in pedigree.

The offspring was noted in Genesis 6 "when the sons of God took them to wives and bare children to them.

We have humans already multiplying and producing in verse 1. So this should make us sit up and take notice this is something different altogether.

But as I've already said, everyone will continue to have their beliefs. But I see nothing in the scripture that at this point will change mine.

 

[JulieB67]

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

I will.

Anyway. A pleasure speaking to you again

You as well.

 

[Arial-byGrace]

I'm talking about Genesis 6 and the sons of God who I believe to be angels. Because in verse 1 we already see that men were multiplying on the earth and producing daughters. So it does stand to reason that the sons of God (who have been described elsewhere as angels in the OT) saw that the daughters of men (human women) were fair and took them to wife, bore children that were giants.

You were talking about it when you connected Gen 6 directly to Jude 1: 6-7. And godly men have also been described as "sons of God" (Hosea 1:10; Deut 14:1 referring to covenant Israel members.;
Ps 82:6 spoken to human judges/rulers John 10:34-36; John 1:12-13).

So, let's find the context from which we can determine how "sons of God" should be interpreted. It is in the previous chapters 4 and5. 4:25-26 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son, and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him." To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

In chapter 5 we have the genealogy from Adam to Noah and then Noah's sons listed. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And then we have the flood account in 6 that begins with a statement about the "sons of God" Now, if 6 is a continuation of 4 and 5, a sudden mention of fallen angels (who would not be called the sons of God) would be apropos of nothing. Look back a moment to Gen 3:15 where God is cursing the serpent and speaks of one who would be the seed of the woman who will crush the serpent's head. And notice the genealogy again. From Seth to Shem every son mentioned is the son who carries the Seed of the Savior. The Bible is not a series of isolated stories but one continuous story of redemption unfolding.

That is what stands to reason. Not the inserting of extra biblical material (1 Enoch, which you have done whether you are aware of that or not) into God's inerrant word.

You are misunderstanding me. They are in chains because of the sin in Genesis 6. They left their own habitation to take human women as wives and the humans that engaged in that were just as bad.

You haven't proven that or even made a good case for it. I just spent a great deal of time above presenting an alternative. I also presented in the post you are replying to a much more biblically consistent understanding of what Jude meant by "left their "station" (habitation in the KJV). Angels have God appointed domains and assignments. There is no reason to assume that they left heaven and took up residence on earth. Since they were bound in chains awaiting the final judgment, we would assume by the plain reading that they did not leave heaven and take up residence on earth. And you failed to deal with that possibility at all, either to counter or agree.

 

[Arial-byGrace]

It is my opinion that the angel advocate rightly asserts that Jude gives us adequate evidence that angels may have come to earth in physical form. This seems to be the natural reading of the text. This evidence is given by stating the angels did (1) not keeping their first estate, and (2) leaving their own abode.

Are you aware that Jude is quoting directly from 1 Enoch, something the original audience would have been familiar with, to make a point, but not to present a doctrinal, theological truth? 1 Enoch is not inerrant, is not being treated as such by Jude, as it was never in the Jewish OT canon.

 

[JulieB67]

who did not stay within their own position of authority,

The definition for habitation makes no mention of this

oikétérion
habitation, house.
Neuter of a presumed derivative of oikeo (equivalent to oikema); a residence (literally or figuratively) -- habitation, house.

You were talking about it when you connected Gen 6 directly to Jude 1: 6-7

Because I believe they are connected.

So, let's find the context from which we can determine how "sons of God" should be interpreted.

I am going by context

This verse establishes that humans are already producing so there would be no need to repeat that fact in the very next verse, especially since verse one points out they are producing daughters

Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

Daughters being born by human men

Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

It makes no sense if these were human men seeing that the daughters of men were fair and took them for wives when verse one already establishes the fact that men were multiplying and producing.

a sudden mention of fallen angels (who would not be called the sons of God)

I didn't state humans could not be called the sons of God but they are indeed used to describe angels as well. Especially early on.

Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."

Angels and Satan is noted amongst them.

Job 2:1 "And again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."

Again, angels.

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"

Angels

And then we have the flood account in 6 that begins with a statement about the "sons of God"

It starts with human men multiplying daughters and the sons of God producing giants with those daughters. After that we are told that Noah was perfect in his "generations" family. His pedigree was perfect. Common sense tells us alone that his family had not mixed -"perfect in his generations" And we know this is the bloodline that Christ would come through.

 

[Arial-byGrace]

The definition for habitation makes no mention of this

oikétérion
habitation, house.
Neuter of a presumed derivative of oikeo (equivalent to oikema); a residence (literally or figuratively) -- habitation, house.

Sometimes we have to go beyond a simple definition and contextualize it. In fact, we should be doing that always And sometimes not just within the surrounding context but consider the clear teaching on the same subject in the full counsel of God. From Strongs.

Concept Overview

The term signifies a dwelling or habitation that is proper, permanent, and fitted to the occupant’s nature. In Scripture it is used only twice, each time pointing beyond merely physical structures to realms appointed by God either for glorified humanity or for angelic beings.
Usage in Jude 1:6: The Angels’ Abode and Apostasy

Jude references angels who abandoned their assigned habitation, paralleling Genesis 6:1-4 and 2 Peter 2:4. Their defection underscores:
• A divinely fixed order governing celestial beings.
• The seriousness of rejecting God-given boundaries.
• Certain judgment for rebellion, reinforcing warnings to false teachers and apostates.

Angelology: Establishes that even exalted spirits possess a God-ordained “place” that must not be forsaken.

Judgment: God’s justice is impartial; angels and humans alike answer to His order.

We have the witness of Scrpture that angels do not reproduce (Matt22:30); angels are ministering spiirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation (Heb 1:14). Angels were created to serve and support believers (ministry) not on reproduction. They were not commanded to fill the earth, humans were. The text of Gen 6:1-4 does not imply that angels reproduce in a human manner. It is imposed onto the text by treating it as though it had nothing to do with what came before in chapts 4 and 5, and by not treating the Bible as the story of redemption playing out in history, but rather as disconnected epics and isolated sayings.

We have the witness of Scripture that tells us God sends angels to specific places and people to deliver a message or protect (Luke 1:26-27; Matt 18:10; 2 Kings 6:16-17; Acts 10:3; Luke 2:10-11 etc.)

Because I believe they are connected.

Good. You agree that you were indeed talking about it.

I am going by context

Chapts 4 and 5 are a crucial part of the context. Gen 6:1-4 is not an isolated, disconnected "saying". I have shown that "sons of God" does not always refer to angels but sometimes to godly men. So there is a choice in interpreting "sons of God". There is not just one possibility. And given that the previous chapters went to great length and detail to present the godly like of Christ, and given that there is no previous mention or later mention anywhere in the Bible about angels reproducing, period, let alone with human women; and given the fact that Jesus tells us they do not reproduce; and given we have ample explicit scripture that tells us what the purpose of angels is and what it is not; it is not only probable, but scripturally speaking certain, that "sons of God" in Gen 6 refers to the godly line of Seth. Contrasted with the ungodly line of Cain.

Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

Daughters being born by human men

Yes.

Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

It makes no sense if these were human men seeing that the daughters of men were fair and took them for wives when verse one already establishes the fact that men were multiplying and producing.

If there are godly men, and in this case and at that time, it is the line of Christ the Seed who would crush the serpents head, and if these men in chapt 4 and 5 are said to be calling on the name of the Lord, then there are also ungodly men who do not call on the name of the Lord and are wicked to the core. Ever hear the term, one bad apple spoils the bushel? Ever wondered why when the covenant was made with Israel they were commanded to not intermarry with pagans? Remember what happened to even godly Soloman when he disobeyed that command? He began worshiping the God of Israel and other gods. There is biblical precedent for "men" in that verse to refer to ungodly men. There is no scriptural precedent to presume angels are intermarrying with human women. None.

I didn't state humans could not be called the sons of God but they are indeed used to describe angels as well. Especially early on.

Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."

Angels and Satan is noted amongst them.

Job 2:1 "And again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."

Again, angels.

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"

Angels

I am aware. Satan is not being called a "son of God'. He was just there so let's get that straight. But if godly men are also referred to as sons of God, why jump to the conclusion that Gen 6 must be speaking of fallen angels. Fallen angels would not be called sons of God. But since Gen 6 is not completely isolated from Gen 1-5, but part of an ongoing historical narrative, jumping to that conclusion wold be frankly, illogical.

It starts with human men multiplying daughters and the sons of God producing giants with those daughters. After that we are told that Noah was perfect in his "generations" family. His pedigree was perfect. Common sense tells us alone that his family had not mixed -"perfect in his generations" And we know this is the bloodline that Christ would come through.

You are interpreting it according to 1 Enoch, which was written between the third and first centuries BC, is not inspired by God, and was never a part of the Jewish OT canon. But I am not going to debate it any further.

 

[JulieB67]

why jump to the conclusion that Gen 6 must be speaking of fallen angels.

Because of what I posted already- Since verse one establishes that human men are already producing there would be no sense to repeat that fact in verse 2. What is being described is totally different than verse 1.

You agree that you were indeed talking about it.

Not understanding your point here. I've always stated that Jude was a second witness to this.

We have the witness of Scrpture that angels do not reproduce

It states they do not take or give in marriage in heaven which is why they are in chains right now. They left their own habitation to do just that.

angels are ministering spiirits

They have bodies. So much that the men of Sodom wanted to have their way with the good angels that were with Lot. They can eat our food and vice versa. So they're not just spirits at times.

Fallen angels would not be called sons of God

They would certainly be called that before they left their own habitation and mated with human women. The offspring is proof as well that this something beyond humans producing with other humans.

Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

. But I am not going to debate it any further.

That's fine. I realize people will continue to have their beliefs on this subject. I am just posting mine.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings to you Arial-byGrace. Peace and Hope to you in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure if you have been reading any of my other posts and know my positions. For clarification, since I don't think I have spoken to you before, I do not hold that the idiom "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 are angels. In other words, they are human. I am very willing and able to present what I think is the natural reading of the text and what I think is overwhelming evidence that the son's God idiom is referring to men.

But to your point, I do hold that the biblical text does give one sufficient evidence to stop and think...did some fallen angles come in physical form? (but there is no biblical evidence that angels can or did procreate with human women).

Are you aware that Jude is quoting directly from 1 Enoch

This is usually an assertion made by the book of Enoch advocates. Long story short...

(1) The book of Enoch as we know it was not written by Enoch.
(2) The evidence tells us that the book of Enoch was written during the Intertestamental period by multiple unknown authors.
(3) The book of Enoch is a written record of the oral history of the Hebrews mixed with corrupted cultural beliefs of surrounding people groups that made its way into the Hebrew culture.

With that cursory overview above, there is no definitive evidence that I know of that would suggest that anyone knows to which source Jude was referring. It could have most certainly been (A) the book of Enoch that most every Hebrew knew in that time (I say in that time because it was put to paper during the Intertestamental period). But it could have just as likely been (B) the oral history and traditions that were orally handed down (common in Hebrew culture) every Hebrew knew. OR, it could have also simply been divine inspiration from God which the book of Enoch and the Oral tradition had correct (on the particular issue that Jude attests only). The main point here is Jude does not tell us of which source he draws his assertion.

I would like to also add, many on this topic have a very poor standard for claiming that someone "quoted" someone or something else. Many of the claims by the book of Enoch advocates about "quotes" are misplaced. Here in America, if I were a reporter and said I was "quoting" someone using the same standards some use to say the Bible quotes the book of Enoch....I would be sued (and I'd lose). Similarity does not denote "quoting".

1 Enoch is not inerrant, is not being treated as such by Jude, as it was never in the Jewish OT canon.

I agree with you on all these points.

to make a point, but not to present a doctrinal, theological truth?

I agree that sometimes this can be the case. However, in the case of the Jude text, Jude is presenting a series of actual, historical examples of God destroying (bringing divine justice) upon the wicked. Jude, imo, is presenting historical examples based on historical facts. The angels account according to Jude is filled with historical facts just as every other example he is giving.

Regarding the topic of the historical fact presented in Jude 1:6, Jude presents how these angels defied God and how God dealt with them. Jude presents two conditions or offenses.

First offense, the Greek word is ἀρχὴν, which is translated to “first estate” (KJV), “proper domain” (NKJ), “position of authority” (ESV). According to Strong’s (#G746)... ἀρχή from G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):—beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

In other words, Jude, when stating that the angels “kept not their first estate”, is telling the reader that these fallen angels abandoned their original responsibility of authority that had been assigned by God. However, the second offense is not the same as the first.


Regarding condition number two, the Greek word is οἰκητήριον, it is translated “their own habitation” (KJV), “their own abode” (NKJ), “their proper dwelling” (ESV). This Greek word means, according to Strong’s (G3613)... οἰκητήριον
neuter of a presumed derivative of G3611 (equivalent to G3612); a residence (literally or figuratively): habitation, house.

In other words, in this second offense these angels left their own residence, habitation, or proper dwelling. This offense is not identical to the other offense found in Jude 1:6 of not keeping one’s post, or domain, or position of authority. The angels in this second offense have left where they normally live (there home). The normal home, dwelling, where angels live is in heaven (whether it be the 3rd heaven or 2nd or 1st). It is not "on earth". So Jude appears to be telling us that these angels left their heavenly state or home and came to earth (not their home).

My understanding of what Jude is telling us in no way gives "inspired" status to the book of Enoch or confirms any other assertions by the book of Enoch. Jude only affirms what he affirms, specifically.


Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

 

[Arial-byGrace]

I'm not sure if you have been reading any of my other posts and know my positions. For clarification, since I don't think I have spoken to you before, I do not hold that the idiom "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 are angels. In other words, they are human. I am very willing and able to present what I think is the natural reading of the text and what I think is overwhelming evidence that the son's God idiom is referring to men.

I have not been reading them other than skimming as my time is limited. However, in the above statement, I do not understand the clarification that "sons of God" are angels but iow they are human. That strikes me as a contradiction. Maybe you explain farther down in the post, but I will have to get to it later. Shouldn't have started this when I only had a short time to spare.

 

[Paleouss]

Peace to you Arial-byGrace.

I have not been reading them other than skimming as my time is limited. However, in the above statement, I do not understand the clarification that "sons of God" are angels but iow they are human. That strikes me as a contradiction.

Just for clarification regarding your confusion. Notice the beginning of my sentence I wrote "I do not hold" and then follow it up with "that the idiom "sons of God" are angels". So I intended...I do not hold that the sons of God are angels. Then to make double clear I wrote, "In other words, they are human".

Peace to you brother