Nephilum??

[other one]

The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians–precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels. The Enochian writings, in addition to many other writings that were excluded (or lost) from the Bible (i.e., the Book of Tobit, Esdras, etc.) were widely recognized by many of the early church fathers as "apocryphal" writings.

The term "apocrypha" is derived from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret". Originally, the import of the term may have been complimentary in that the term was applied to sacred books whose contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public. In Dan. 12:9-10 we hear of words that are shut up until the end of time and, words that the wise shall understand and the wicked shall not. In addition, 4 Ezra 14:44ff. mentions 94 books, of which 24 (the OT) were to be published and 70 were to be delivered only to the wise among the people (= apocrypha). Gradually, the term "apocrypha" took on a pejorative connotation, for the orthodoxy of these hidden books was often questionable. Origen (Comm. in Matt. 10.18; p. 13.881) distinguished between books that were to be read in public worship and apocryphal books. Because these secret books were often preserved for use within the esoteric circles of the divinely-knit believers, many of the critically-spirited or "unenlightened" Church Fathers found themselves outside the realm of understanding, and therefore came to apply the term "apocryphal" to, what they claimed to be, heretical works which were forbidden to be read.

In Protestant parlance, "the Apocrypha" designate 15 works, all but one of which are Jewish in origin and found in the Septuagint (parts of 2 Esdras are Christian and Latin in origin). Although some of them were composed in Palestine in Aramaic or Hebrew, they were not accepted into the Jewish canon formed late in the 2nd cent. ad (Canonicity, 67:31-35). The Reformers, influenced by the Jewish canon of the OT, did not consider these books on a par with the rest of the Scriptures; thus the custom arose of making the Apocrypha a separate section in the Protestant Bible, or sometimes even of omitting them entirely (Canonicity, 67:44-46). The Catholic view, expressed as a doctrine of faith at the Council of Trent, is that 12 of these 15 works (in a different enumeration, however) are canonical Scripture; they are called the Deuterocanonical Books (Canonicity, 67:21, 42-43). The three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not accepted by Catholics are 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book's teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it (Delitzsch, p. 223).

So the book was denounced, banned, cursed, no doubt burned and shredded–and last but not least, lost (and conveniently forgotten) for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence, the Book of Enoch found its way back into circulation two centuries ago.

In 1773, rumors of a surviving copy of the book drew Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant Ethiopia. True to hearsay, the Book of Enoch had been preserved by the Ethiopic church, which put it right alongside the other books of the Bible.

Bruce secured not one, but three Ethiopic copies of the book and brought them back to Europe and Britain. When in 1821 Dr. Richard Laurence, a Hebrew professor at Oxford, produced the first English translation of the work, the modern world gained its first glimpse of the forbidden mysteries of Enoch.

Most scholars say that the present form of the story in the Book of Enoch was penned sometime during the second century B.C. and was popular for at least five hundred years. The earliest Ethiopic text was apparently made from a Greek manuscript of the Book of Enoch, which itself was a copy of an earlier text. The original was apparently written in Semitic language, now thought to be Aramaic.

Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in obscurity. It is, in a word, old.

It has been largely the opinion of historians that the book does not really contain the authentic words of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since he would have lived (based on the chronologies in the Book of Genesis) several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the book attributed to him.

Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch.

Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"–the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.

Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him."

The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One"–the one promised in the Book of Enoch.

The Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly…" The time difference between Enoch and Jude is approximately 3400 years. Therefore, Jude's reference to the Enochian prophesies strongly leans toward the conclusion that these written prophesies were available to him at that time.

Fragments of ten Enoch manuscripts were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The famous scrolls actually comprise only one part of the total findings at Qumran. Much of the rest was Enochian literature, copies of the Book of Enoch, and other apocryphal works in the Enochian tradition, like the Book of Jubilees. With so many copies around, the Essenes could well have used the Enochian writings as a community prayer book or teacher's manual and study text.

The Book of Enoch was also used by writers of the noncanonical (i.e. apocryphal or "hidden") texts. The author of the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas quotes the Book of Enoch three times, twice calling it "the Scripture," a term specifically denoting the inspired Word of God (Epis. of Barnabas 4:3, 16:5,6). Other apocryphal works reflect knowledge of the Enoch story of the Watchers, notably the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees.

Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)–directly referencing the Enochian writings.

Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings.

Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of and supported the Enochian writings.

The twentieth-century discovery of several Aramaic Enochian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls prompted Catholic scholar J.T. Milik to compile a complete history of the Enochian writings, including translations of the Aramaic manuscripts.

Milik's 400-page book, published in 1976 by Oxford (J. T. Milik, ed. and trans., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) is a milestone in Enochian scholarship, and Milik himself is no doubt one of the finest experts on the subject. His opinions, based as they are on years of in-depth research, are highly respected.

One by one the arguments against the Book of Enoch fade away. The day may soon arrive when the final complaints about the Book of Enoch's lack of historicity and "late date" are also silenced by new evidence of the book's real antiquity.

 

 

http://nazirene.org/About_Enoch.htm

[Donibm]

 

 

What do you all think about the Nephilum theory? Fake or real? I don't know what to think really. I want to get my hands on the book of Enoch really bad. I think its interesting. In a way I think it may be real. Enoch was one of the most righteous men, so righteous that God took him. So, if the book of Enoch was written by him, I'd say that its true.

 

This is the Q&A and best answer ... right?  OK ... so ... I wanna play.  But, you're not going to like my answer.  :-)

 

I'm sorry.  My answers will not always be agreeable.  But, even the answers are God are not "agreeable" to the carnal way of thinking.  In fact, it is always in emnity with the world.

 

So ... here is my answer.

 

 

You think it is right, and so does someone else.  But I say that is wrong, and IT is wrong.  Why? 

 

Because it is pseudepigrapha.

 

In "English", it is a FALSE WRITING.  It has DOCTRINAL ERRORS.  While it may be of interest to academics to study from interst and antiquity, it is not of canon or considered to be the inspired word of God. So, be careful what you call "true".

 

Having elements of truth doesn't not make something truth.

 

They have a FORM of Godliness.

 

After all, didn't God rebuke the "lying pens" in the Hebrew Scriptures?

 

Didn't Jesus say "woe to your SCRIBES and Pharisees"?

 

Indeed.

 

For in Gods eyes, there is no difference in falsehood in the WRITTEN tense and the SPOKEN tense.

 

Just out of curiosity, who gets to decide what is and what isn't "pseudepigrapha". 

 

 

 

Men of collective bodies who are far wiser and learned then you and I friend.

 

But, it's not hard to understand.  For example, if a text says "wine was kept in barrels" ... and we know full well that such a system didn't exist until 1500 years later ... we know that it is false by sheer merit of its historical and cultural error.  Right?  Or, if it talks about a coinage system that didn't exist in the lifetime of the auther ... same thing, right?  So, these things are easy to understand and agree with.

 

If my great great grandfather wrote a book, and that book is discovered some 700 years from now, but it talks about the events of 911, it too will be disregarded ... because you and I both know 911 didn't occur in his lifetime. 

 

The common result is:

 

1) it is either a complete lie

2) the author had a similar name to the {apostle, for example} but wasn't THEE apostle

3) it was written in truth, but it was intercepted and re-written or edited by someone living in a different timeline, which negates it validity of being the "Word of God"

 

 

Then there are the other, more challenging things, like, what was in the "oldest' vs what is in the "newest".  Problem is, "oldest" has never meant "original", so who is to say that the oldest isn't what is wrong?  Not many think that way, even scholars, but I do, because it IS possible...

 

Then there is doctrine.  And the Book of Enoch has multiple doctrinal errors and inconsistences, especialy concerning the angels.

 

1)

it has words that didn't exist in his lifetime, but did by the time Moses was born.  So, if it is an older Book, why is the language NEWER?

 

2)

the BOE says that it always rained.  But Genesis clearly says that there had not been any rain.

 

3)

It "alludes" to other Bible verses that simply did not exist in Enochs lifetime.  How is that?  How can it when ... well .. Moses wasnt' even born, so the Scriptures were not written?

 

4)

The BOE says that women gave birth to giants, right?  But 7:12 says these giants grew to be THREE HUNDRED CUBITS.  I mean ... seriously?  Is anyone so gullible to think that there was a 400+ foot giant?  I mean, how big would their feet have to be?  The size of a bus?  No woman could have given birth to that!  The baby would have to be as big as my SUV. 

 

There are many things that scream falsehood in the BOE. 

 

 

Anyway, I don't really want to debate it, I just thought this thread was a game.  A question and then the best answer.  LOL  I was trying to give the best answer.  :-)  But, in doing this, I hope someone understands a little bit about WHY some books are left out, and DESERVE to be left out.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by Donibm

[Donibm]

We spend so much time studying, arguing and trying to prove so many things that are really not important. Wonder what would happen if we spent as much time studying and putting into practice the Word of God?

 

 

Oh.

 

Well, I agree.

 

There are DISTRACTIONS that have absolutely nothing to do with our Salvation.

 

I entered this thread cause I read something about questions and then the best answer would be selected. 

 

I thought it was a GAME.  lol 

 

Didn't know I was walking into a minefield.

[other one]

 

 

 

What do you all think about the Nephilum theory? Fake or real? I don't know what to think really. I want to get my hands on the book of Enoch really bad. I think its interesting. In a way I think it may be real. Enoch was one of the most righteous men, so righteous that God took him. So, if the book of Enoch was written by him, I'd say that its true.

 

This is the Q&A and best answer ... right?  OK ... so ... I wanna play.  But, you're not going to like my answer.  :-)

 

I'm sorry.  My answers will not always be agreeable.  But, even the answers are God are not "agreeable" to the carnal way of thinking.  In fact, it is always in emnity with the world.

 

So ... here is my answer.

 

 

You think it is right, and so does someone else.  But I say that is wrong, and IT is wrong.  Why? 

 

Because it is pseudepigrapha.

 

In "English", it is a FALSE WRITING.  It has DOCTRINAL ERRORS.  While it may be of interest to academics to study from interst and antiquity, it is not of canon or considered to be the inspired word of God. So, be careful what you call "true".

 

Having elements of truth doesn't not make something truth.

 

They have a FORM of Godliness.

 

After all, didn't God rebuke the "lying pens" in the Hebrew Scriptures?

 

Didn't Jesus say "woe to your SCRIBES and Pharisees"?

 

Indeed.

 

For in Gods eyes, there is no difference in falsehood in the WRITTEN tense and the SPOKEN tense.

 

Just out of curiosity, who gets to decide what is and what isn't "pseudepigrapha". 

 

 

 

Men of collective bodies who are far wiser and learned then you and I friend.

 

You mean like those folks that created the Roman Catholic Church.....      The Jewish Rabbi's that if they had admitted to the validity stood with no excuse of not knowing who Jesus was and even to this day who he is....

 

And then there are those others in the Early Church that did see the Book not only as true, but inspired...

 

So when I look at the state of the Christian Church today, I seriously question the wisdom of these people you speak of..

 

Speaking of the Church today, there are many who give credence to the book as holding the truth.....   some think it inspired, others just think it holds the truth...   

I guess since it was written to educate the people who will go through the tribulation, it shouldn't be too long before we see.

[Enoch2021]

 

We spend so much time studying, arguing and trying to prove so many things that are really not important. Wonder what would happen if we spent as much time studying and putting into practice the Word of God?

 

 

Oh.

 

Well, I agree.

 

There are DISTRACTIONS that have absolutely nothing to do with our Salvation.

 

I entered this thread cause I read something about questions and then the best answer would be selected. 

 

I thought it was a GAME.  lol 

 

Didn't know I was walking into a minefield.

 

 

 

I Couldn't Disagree Stronger, we are studying the WORD OF GOD.....

 

(Genesis 6: 1-4):

AND it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.  And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.  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.

 

And many other Passages dealing with this either directly or indirectly

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

Does it say Study just the Gospel or is all of GOD'S WORD in play here?

 

I'm Studying Jesus Right Here in the Scriptures in Genesis.  How?

 

Well...

 

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."    Jesus IS THE WORD!!

 

 

Am I in Error?

[other one]

this subject has a reeeaaalllly  long history here...

[Qnts2]

 

 

We spend so much time studying, arguing and trying to prove so many things that are really not important. Wonder what would happen if we spent as much time studying and putting into practice the Word of God?

 

 

Oh.

 

Well, I agree.

 

There are DISTRACTIONS that have absolutely nothing to do with our Salvation.

 

I entered this thread cause I read something about questions and then the best answer would be selected. 

 

I thought it was a GAME.  lol 

 

Didn't know I was walking into a minefield.

 

 

 

I Couldn't Disagree Stronger, we are studying the WORD OF GOD.....

 

(Genesis 6: 1-4):

AND it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.  And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.  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.

 

And many other Passages dealing with this either directly or indirectly

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

Does it say Study just the Gospel or is all of GOD'S WORD in play here?

 

I'm Studying Jesus Right Here in the Scriptures in Genesis.  How?

 

Well...

 

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."    Jesus IS THE WORD!!

 

 

Am I in Error?

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

There are 3 common interpretations concerning the Nephilim. The word translated as giant does not always mean height, but rather great, a leader, but it can mean literal height, so it is open

 

1. Nephilim are children from a union with people of the line of Seth (God fearers) and others who are not God fearers. 

2. Nephilim are children from a union of people from Adams line and people who lived on the earth before. (I have looked at this at one point and if this one is true, it could seem to verify the legend of Atlantis, and those great men.

3. Nephilim are children from a union of humans and angels.

 

Each possibility has some support in scripture and some issues when compared to scripture.

 

So, there are already known and various interpretations, but since this is not an issue which effects salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, it is not worth entering into strife and contention to fight for a pet understanding.      

[other one]

#3 could also verify Atlantis.   It is just part of the story of pre flood civilization.

[Sevenseas]

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

There are 3 common interpretations concerning the Nephilim. The word translated as giant does not always mean height, but rather great, a leader, but it can mean literal height, so it is open

 

1. Nephilim are children from a union with people of the line of Seth (God fearers) and others who are not God fearers. 

2. Nephilim are children from a union of people from Adams line and people who lived on the earth before. (I have looked at this at one point and if this one is true, it could seem to verify the legend of Atlantis, and those great men.

3. Nephilim are children from a union of humans and angels.

 

Each possibility has some support in scripture and some issues when compared to scripture.

 

So, there are already known and various interpretations, but since this is not an issue which effects salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, it is not worth entering into strife and contention to fight for a pet understanding.      

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

And those theories are often debated.

 

I personally believe they are the offspring of angel/human women.

[Qnts2]

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

There are 3 common interpretations concerning the Nephilim. The word translated as giant does not always mean height, but rather great, a leader, but it can mean literal height, so it is open

 

1. Nephilim are children from a union with people of the line of Seth (God fearers) and others who are not God fearers. 

2. Nephilim are children from a union of people from Adams line and people who lived on the earth before. (I have looked at this at one point and if this one is true, it could seem to verify the legend of Atlantis, and those great men.

3. Nephilim are children from a union of humans and angels.

 

Each possibility has some support in scripture and some issues when compared to scripture.

 

So, there are already known and various interpretations, but since this is not an issue which effects salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, it is not worth entering into strife and contention to fight for a pet understanding.      

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

And those theories are often debated.

 

I personally believe they are the offspring of angel/human women.

 

 

Ok, I have given reason previous to this why I eliminated this possibility.

 

But, I like to follow theories to their potential conclusion. So.....

 

Jesus is the offspring of a human woman and God.

Nephilim are supposedly the offspring of human women and fallen angels.

 

Both are spirit and flesh (flesh meaning having a body). Are the Nephilim then anti-christs? 

Since the fallen nature is passed thru men, a Nephilim would not have inherited the fallen nature from Adam.

But, is the fallen angel nature passable?

Since Jesus is the second Adam, and was sent to redeem those who received the curse of Adam, then Jesus did not die for Nephilim.

So, we have half humans, not from Adam, who can not be saved, wondering the earth? Or are the 100% man and 100% fallen angel? And can not be saved. Yet, they can die.