FlyButtafly PRO 5:02pm, 27 June 2010
Yeah, I know the title is long and weird. These are all intertwined though, and are wreaking havoc in my life and marriage right now. My husband was invited by some people who we didn't know very well that *used* to go to our church (a Calvary Chapel) to do a "study" on Revelation. God help me, I told them he'd be interested and told him about it. He's been going now for several months, and it has caused so many problems and I see him being pulled deeper and deeper into this stuff...

So here it is. There's some guy named Steve Quayle that these guys (my husband included) hold up as gospel truth. I'm not overstating this point either. I asked my husband if this guy could *possibly* be wrong and he said absolutely not.

He holds the book of Enoch up as scripture, even though it was not included in the canon and apparently is a book the masons use and was used by the gnostics as well. He (and these guys he meets with) believe that it should have been included in the Bible but that maybe the reason why it wasn't is because someone was afraid people would then worship the nephilim or whatever. There are sooo many different and weird things my husband has gotten into that I'm not sure I can list it all here without making an insanely long post.

He believes that the 7yr tribulation and pre-trib rapture is a false teaching (fwiw I don't believe in a 7yr trib. *edit: I believe in a 3 1/2 year tribulation; the 7yrs refers to the false peace treaty - just for clarification* and as far as the rapture the jury is still out - I grew up believing in the rapture but right now for me the entire point is moot) and that those who believe in it are false teachers... including our pastor (who is a very godly man and just like all Calvary Chapel pastors does expository teaching straight from the Bible - which is why I believe my husband doesn't want to go there anymore...) and our friends. We can't even talk about this without getting into a fight because he's so emphatic about it.

These "friends" of his don't go to church; they just meet together every Sunday and have tried to get Greg to get us to meet with them too. They get together on Thursday nights and watch videos about aliens and nephilim (they believe that demons had sex with women and giants were born because of it - completely reading into the text and ignoring what it really says) and the "coming collapse" and believe that DNA from these giants were saved and that the nephilim are going to return someday... and that there are stargates that the demons come and go from...

Help? Thoughts? Ever hear of Steve Quayle or read the Book of Enoch? They base their entire belief that it should be scripture on the one verse in the entire bible where Jude references Enoch.

I don't know what to do. He actually left my older kids at church this morning, in service by *themselves* (I'm at home with my younger ones who are sick) and went to Costco - because he didn't want to be at church and "find something more to disagree on". These guys talk about our friends from Calvary behind their backs, talk bad about church in general, and put so much emphasis on "survive to thrive" (about getting through the tribulation intact) that they are completely leaving the gospel behind. What to do?
--Steve 8 years ago
Hi Tiffany,

I think your worries are well justified.

Getting people to change their minds on these things, in my experience, is matter of time. Trying to talk them out of it often seems counter-productive. Instead, it seems that over time these belief lose their edge and enthusiasm.

-Steve
suzanne† PRO 8 years ago
...oh Tiffany, I am in tears reading your post...this is an extremely difficult situation for you to be in on so many levels. How insipid is the enemy!! uuhrgg......I've never heard of this Steve Quayle but red lights and sirens go off just from a glance at that site, let alone your your description. ... Eph 6:12

I will just say..remember and trust in God's sovereignty over every detail of this, nothing takes place outside of His will and without his foreknowledge. God is not "surprised", we are the ones taken aback by life's sudden (and notso-sudden) ditches and curves found in this broken, sinful world, but we know that through Christ the Victory has already been won, even this battle you are now in has been won. Take hold of God's word, take hold of Christ at his word. I pray there is wise, Godly counsel available through your church..this is a time for the church to shine..showing Jesus' triumphant glory in the face most difficult situations..I'll be praying for you all.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 8 years ago
Jude quote from Enoch- therefore we know the early Christians were at least aware of it, and it's probably nothing to be feared. I've read it- the first part elaborates greatly on Gen. 6, how indeed some of the angels that rebelled copulated with women on earth, and also taught them knowledge that rightly belongs to God alone. But the rest of it I found very strange and incomprehensible. You should at least read the book of Enoch... Google and you shall find.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 8 years ago
I also had a look at Quayle's site- I've seen so much stuff like that over the years. Actually, I do believe much of what he says to be truth- I am a fan of Stan Deyo's writing and even have used it to lead others to Christ. Typically, these writers rightly identify the forms taken by demons as giants, aliens, reptiles, etc, with a correct interpretation of Gen. 6 - what other interpretation is even remotely possible?

HOWEVER- you might want to get your husband to read this- I DON'T believe the part that tries to persuade men to fight against these things, in the name of "protecting their wives and children", putting all your savings in gold, platinum and silver, accumulating guns, moving the family to central Idaho, and all that crap. As for the rapture, well if you're pre-trib (as I am myself), we're going to escape the worst of this, and even if you're post trib, (which is possible), God himself will take us to a place of protection, OR, we might have to surrender to the guillotine, where we will join the martyrs already in heaven, so who cares? Ever wonder why Jude quotes Enoch? It's because Jude's entire emphasis is to "earnestly contend for the faith". In fact he says he wanted to write about the common gospel, but was constrained to write this instead. Why?? I think he might have encountered believers who had also discovered evidence of the Nephalim, and were trying to battle them by human means, whilst the only effective fight would be to earnestly contend for the faith.

Teachings such as found on Quayle's site are not to be feared- it's mostly true and worth looking at. But the way men especially (and some women do this too) start reacting to the teachings is greatly to be feared- upsetting wives and children to start a stash of weapons and army rations. If post-trib happens to be correct, then stand fast in your faith when the mark of the beast comes around- God will see us all through it, either in life or by death.
FlyButtafly PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by FlyButtafly (member) 8 years ago
There's absolutely nothing to corroborate the claim that demons had sex with women. Even though I grew up with that belief (I have no idea where I picked it up from... it was just somewhere in my upbringing in the AoG church I guess) honestly, the Bible does not support that view at all. "Sons of God" - how can demons rightly be called that? The only reason people claim that it references demons is because of the verse in Job where Satan comes "with the sons of God" before God's throne to complain about Job.

Sons of God infers they are either co-equal with Christ or they have an inheritance in God's kingdom such as believers do. Only men were created in God's image - not angels. One plausible interpretation of that passage is that daughters of men refers to those of Cain's lineage, and sons of God refers to those in Seth's since he followed God and Cain had rebelled and killed Abel. Also if you read the passage in Genesis 6, it says in verse 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. [emphasis mine]"

Note that the giants were mentioned before the reference to the sons of God joining with the daughters of men. Hence, they existed before the supposed sexual relations between women and demons.

Also, think about this from a logical standpoint - how can a spirit being (demon) have sexual relations with a human? Did God give angels sexual organs? Please cite a reference in the Bible that would support that belief. I know of none. The only time in scripture where a child was ever conceived as a result of a spiritual "experience" was the miraculous "immaculate conception" of Jesus. And it was not a sexual act that created Jesus but the power of the Holy Spirit coming over Mary.

Plus, would God really give the demons knowledge that only belongs to Him? Why and how would He do that? Is God powerless or so weak He cannot control the demons from giving away His "secrets"? How would they have come into the knowledge themselves, unless God somehow "tipped his hand" and accidentally revealed something they weren't supposed to know. It just doesn't make any sense. Period.

As for the rapture, well if you're pre-trib (as I am myself), we're going to escape the worst of this...

This is where my husband has a real problem with the pre-trib belief. He thinks many people who hold this belief have a devil-may-care attitude about the tribulation (and I can see where he feels this way). His point though is where it diverges from mine - he thinks Christians who believe in the rapture don't care about the lost souls left behind, and that those who believe in it are deceived and - I don't really understand this - are somehow being set up for a fall because of it. ? I'm more in agreement with your point here: "...we might have to surrender to the guillotine, where we will join the martyrs already in heaven, so who cares? That's sort of what I keep trying to get across to him - that millions of Chrisians suffer every day around the world, so what difference would it make for us to go through the tribulation whether we believe in the pre-/mid-trib rapture? Who's to say we shouldn't suffer for our faith, even before then? This is why I can't understand why he fights with me so much about the whole rapture issue; because to me it's a moot point. As Christians we are called to suffer with Christ anyway... but his friends use this point (and a few others about government and church structure - it's a really long story and there's so much falsehood coming out of their mouths to even list here) to bash anyone who believes in the rapture as a false teacher. Honestly, I have as much desire to read the Book of Enoch as I do the gospel of Judas or any of those other false teachings. The fact that it was in fact *not* written by Enoch, contradicts itself, and is held up to be Truth when it is not is one of the things that I am so concerned about. Getting involved in mysticism (which is what I believe is going on here, with all the teachings about nephilim as demons and such) is extremely dangerous to a Christian's spiritual health - as is anything that takes the focus and emphasis off Christ and His work.

I'm sorry if my post seems kind of all over the place right now... this is a concern that is many-faceted for me, and there are really a bunch of issues that are all intertwined. Plus at the moment my baby just woke up so I was trying to write out a quick response. :) I'll add more later as I can think clearer. However I do agree wholeheartedly with this: "If post-trib happens to be correct, then stand fast in your faith when the mark of the beast comes around- God will see us all through it, either in life or by death." :)

edited for grammar
Rob_moments 8 years ago
Sounds like your husband has been unsettled by what these people have said and is certainly afraid of being on the wrong side. Perhaps somehow he had his faith knocked by some post 9/11 delayed shock whereby he suddenly feels that he can't trust people who say he is safe?
Perhaps he is looking for something tangable or physical to believe, rather than a faith where he is powerless to defend himself physically and where we have no control over our destiny? I don't know I'm just trying to understand how your husband (or anyone) can be attracted to these ideas.

Theres a lot of this "you don't know the real truth" stuff going about these days, what with all the Dan Brown books and SG1 sci-fi stuff.
Perhaps the fiction and conspiracy boom seems more tangable and understandable to him as he tries to make sense of the world as it develops?

I'm sure its not a unique case. Remember you are not alone in this, even though that will not always be a comfort when he acts odd.
Try to be patient with him and avoid being openly angry or confrontational with him because it may re-inforce his sence that these friends of his are the only ones who understand him.

Anyway, if there was a conspiracy to hide the Nephilim stuff then why didn't they edit out that part of Genisis too? I wish they had.
FlyButtafly PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by FlyButtafly (member) 8 years ago
By the way, thank you both, Steve and Suzanne... I didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring you when I wrote the above post. I very much appreciate your insight and prayers. :)

Rob, I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

He's only been a Christian for almost 11 years, but so much has gone on in that timeframe and there has been so many various influences in his life (mostly not Christian) that he really doesn't have a firm solid foundation to stand on. He's not ever had the chance to have a mature Christian man pour into him, and he's been involved in so many different denominations (mostly before I met him, when he was a very new Christian) and heard so many various teachings that I think he's just really confused. :( The last church we were going to before, they were a hyper-charismatic Assemblies of God church, that had no clue what the Emergent movement was but were being infiltrated by it nonetheless. We finally started going to this Calvary Chapel, and it seemed like he was finally starting to put some spiritual roots down, until he started meeting with these guys. They both have a grudge against our particular church, for personal reasons (they feel they were somehow wronged) and instead of seeking restoration they formed their own "church" and do nothing but cut down the pastor and others in the church behind their backs. My husband fails to see the extremely negative effect it's having on his view of so many things...

And the whole NWO stuff is very attractive to my husband too. When he was faced with having to get the smallpox and anthrax vaccine while in the Navy, I started doing a lot of research into vaccines and that led us to learning a lot of other stuff... but the "other stuff" is where many sane and insane people reside. You get the normal people who know there is an elite few who are basically running things from behind the scenes, are opposed to a police state, and are trying to expose the truth about what world government is up to; to the people who believe the elite few are actually reptilian beings who are from another place (Planet X? The center of the earth?) and are intent on enslaving and destroying the human race. My husband started off being one of the normal ones, and these guys have taken what we know to be true and added weird paranormal sci-fi mystical stuff that they get off sites like Steve Quayle's... and then of course they cloak it all in a sense of secrecy and "insider information" so that it's extra intriguing. :/ And claim that those who don't believe the same are indoctrinated in a false teaching and are blinded and deceived. Including me.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 8 years ago
"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. "
From this part, it would appear you don’t think the “men of renown” are the same as the giants. I think from the plain-sense reading they are one and the same, and were conceived as described. It was a very different world then, before the flood.

"Sons of God" - how can demons rightly be called that?
The “Sons of God” is a term used often to describe angels- both good and fallen. We, who are of the New Covenant, are the new Sons of God, and will be set to judge the angels.

how can a spirit being (demon) have sexual relations with a human?
That is a common misconception that angels and demons are exclusively spirit beings. In fact. angels are usually described with every physical characteristic.
…they have entertained angels unawares
… Garden of Eden- Satan appeared in the form of a physical talking serpent
…flaming cherubim guarded the gate back into Eden
… the heavenly host announcing Jesus’ birth were heard by all
… angels in Revelation were just as physical as the risen Christ of Revelation- John had to be warned not to worship them

Plus, would God really give the demons knowledge that only belongs to Him? Why and how would He do that?
God gave the angels knowledge intended for them prior to Lucifer's rebellion. They would not have lost that knowledge, and Enoch describes how they passed that knowledge onto both the daughters of men and the "men of renown".

I mistakenly stated "knowledge only permitted to (God)" in my previous post.

I'm on your side here, and I think your husband needs to examine and reflect upon his new found beliefs- not so much the beliefs themselves, but how it is affecting him and the life of your family.

Dave
FlyButtafly PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by FlyButtafly (member) 8 years ago
I'm on your side here...

I understand and thank you Dave; I apologize if I seem antagonistic to you personally. It's the specific beliefs that seem to be in contravention to the Bible that I am antagonistic towards. If we were having this conversation in person I'm sure that would be more apparent. Thank you for engaging in this topic with me though.

That being said...

"From this part, it would appear you don’t think the “men of renown” are the same as the giants.

I said nothing of the sort, and honestly it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My point was the previous part of the verse: ...and also after that... Do you not notice the tense of that? It is saying there were giants, and *after that* the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. I wish I had a full Strong's so I could look up that usage, my Zodhiates study bible only has a condensed version and has a key only to the word "God". Anyway, the giants were already in existence *before* the supposed sexual relations happening between demons and women.

It was a very different world then, before the flood.

Agreed. There were dragonflies with 6ft wingspans, beavers 8 ft long, everything was much bigger then. The fact that there are still very tall people (just look at the NBA) around should prove that giants had nothing to do with sexual relations between spirits and humans. Did God not destroy all human life on the planet except Noah and his family or is the Bible wrong? There are so many outlandish claims about the giants that I can't even begin to address them here. Plain and simple though; this whole belief system is built around a reading into the text (presuming who the sons of God are) of one single verse in the whole Bible, and using speculation and theory to fill in the gaps.

The “Sons of God” is a term used often to describe angels- both good and fallen.

Can you *please* show me elsewhere in the Bible that the term is used to describe angelic beings? We don't know what was meant in Job (same thing regarding the concordance here) but that's the only other verse in the Bible that I can think of that could possibly be construed to mean angels. Elsewhere angels were always identified.

That is a common misconception that angels and demons are exclusively spirit beings. In fact. angels are usually described with every physical characteristic.
…they have entertained angels unawares
… Garden of Eden- Satan appeared in the form of a physical talking serpent
…flaming cherubim guarded the gate back into Eden
… the heavenly host announcing Jesus’ birth were heard by all
… angels in Revelation were just as physical as the risen Christ of Revelation- John had to be warned not to worship them


Again, please cite your references to prove this (eta: the part that it's a *misconception*). Just because angels can *show* themselves or *appear* to be human does not make them in any way physical beings. They are not bound by laws of physics - they can appear and disappear, they can change shape and appearance, they can go through walls and other physical boundaries, they are not bound by gravity despite not having wings (besides the specifically-described winged angels such as the seraphim)... I could go on. *Appearance* has nothing to do with the material they are made of/from or the state of their physical being. Our Heavenly Father also has appeared as several things - a cloud, a pillar of fire, a burning bush; His presence was said to dwell in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle and he even was said to have passed by Moses on Mt. Sinai. However, does that make him a physical being in any way?

"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." Eph. 6:12 [emphasis mine]


That would seem to contradict the belief that demons have any sort of physical body.

I really don't think it's wise to take the book of Enoch and hold it up as truth. Here is just a few pages that expose some of the falsehoods:

www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm
www.gotquestions.org/book-of-enoch.html
www.realdevil.info/dig1.htm (needs further examination - see my post below)
www.a-voice.org/qa/enoch.htm (eta: disclaimer - I haven't researched this guy's site either, beyond reading this page; I'm doing that now as well so will strikeout this for the time being - apologies)

We know for a fact that the book of Enoch is a gnostic book; it's even listed here as a gnostic scripture (on a gnostic resource page): www.thepearl.org/

Gnosticism was a great stumbling block to the early church and the believers were warned against their false teachings. I can't see how anyone can read and believe teachings like that and not get waylaid and sucked into other false teachings, honestly.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 8 years ago
I certainly agree there's not a whole lot to go on here, but there is enough scriptural evidence to make the case:

"Can you *please* show me elsewhere in the Bible that the term is used to describe angelic beings? We don't know what was meant in Job"

Job is indeed the only other book that uses "sons of God" aside from Genesis 6:

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.
2:1 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
38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy

Why don't we know what is meant in Job? Instead of arguing from a perceived position of "it's not there" (one shouldn't study the Bible based on what's not there- there's nothing in the Bible about smoking cigarettes, yet most would agree it's a dumb thing to be doing), I prefer to argue from a position of what is clearly inclusive- even if it's just one or two passages. I think in this case, there's Biblical evidence that the Sons of God were not human, but SOME KIND of extra-terrestrial beings (angelic, demonic or something else) that were able to dwell in both heaven and earth, were especially accountable to God about their activities on earth, and were capable of sex (which of course we know is no longer possible of angels- Mt. 22:30). It's most likely their fate was to be chained up in the Euphrates, the ones who are appointed to LEAD an army of 200 million (Rev. 9).

The time of their mention is significant. Enoch was a prominent pre-deluvian (Genesis 5) and Jobab (Job) lived two generations after the flood, and the dividing of earth into many continents- Genesis 10:25 Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, [l] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. 26 Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29 Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

It later mentions that Jobab became a king- very consistent with the wealth and greatness described of this man in the book of Job- the oldest book in the Bible. Interestingly, these events were also centered around the Euphrates.

And that is all the Bible has to offer concerning Enoch, Job, the Nephalim, and Sons of God. It's all "scrunched around" the time of the flood.

As for the book of Enoch, well, that is a real enigma. I think it is significant that Jude quoted from it- that alone says it was at least known to early believers. Perhaps Jude's meaning was to quote it as popular mythology, as was done by both Paul (1 Cor 8:5) and Jesus (Luke 16:19-31). Where could the book of Enoch have come from? It would somehow have to survive the flood, right? Like I said before, I have read it, and found it mostly incomprehensible, therefore I personally have no use for it, aside from the first few chapters, which do describe the circumstances surrounding the "Sons of God" at that time, and also includes the text quoted by Jude.

I'm going to take some time now and read those links you posted, and will comment on them afterward.

Blessings,
Dave
coldwar_bonnet PRO 8 years ago
I am very surprised that you quoted from this guy-
www.realdevil.info/index.htm

... who says:
"The Real Devil analyzes Bible teaching about the devil, satan and demons, concluding that 'satan' ['adversary'] and 'devil' ['false accuser'] do not refer to a personal satan, dragon, or spirit being; but rather to any opposing force, and often to the power of sin and evil. Satan doesn't exist as a personal being- but rather the human heart, we ourselves, are the ultimate source of sin. This means that Angels don't sin; that the death of Jesus overcame the power of sin within us; that there is nobody else to blame for sin apart from ourselves."
Plain Old Bob [deleted] 8 years ago
I’ll chime in from another angle. The posts so far are for the most part are spot on. But let me say that the Holy Spirit is alive and well. A God who loves us would not hide the truth from us. God cannot be good and these things be true. Men teach but the Holy Spirit leads. A man or a group of men can not and could not keep the Holy Spirit from brining the truth to the Church. The traditional teaching of the Church is true because the Holy Spirit did not sit idly by for over 2000 years while men lied to the church that Jesus purchased with his own blood.

I urge you to let him have his zeal and his passion. These things run on conflict. Pray hard stay true to the Lord and be ready to welcome him home when he recognizes the truth.
FlyButtafly PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by FlyButtafly (member) 8 years ago
Dave, I'll admit (regarding your last post) I didn't research that site fully before posting (though I don't think it invalidates what the page had to say about Enoch). I had a bunch of things going on at the time, and having been up with a few of my children all night was less discerning in posting hurriedly. I'll edit that one out and read the whole thing later today. Thanks. (I've not read your other post yet, I just logged on and saw your last one, but I'll read that too after I get my coffee. :)
coldwar_bonnet PRO 8 years ago
Amen Bob, to "These things run on conflict."

This discussion is definitely around a non-essential, and we need our love and bond of the Spirit to keep discussions like this in their rightful place. Unfortunately, it has caused this "splinter group" to form, bringing grief to Buttafly's family (and I'm sure many others).
Rob_moments 8 years ago
I hesitate to say any more but would like to agree that this is not just some discussion point but something that has directly impacted on a family (and probably others besides). There are over 200 of us now in this group and it would be a practical thing if we all prayed for a speedy resolution.
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Coldwar_bonnet go ahead and show me where Jude is saying he wanted to speak of the commen Gospel but chose to speak of this instead? You are going beyond the text and saying it says things it doesn't. Or perhaps maybe you are using a weird version, not recognized within Scholars?

:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
: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. (Jude 1:1-6 KJV)

Here lets disect it;
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

He is saying when I wrote to you of Salvation, it was important for me to encourage you to fight for the Faith

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

But because False teachers have crept in I need to warn you of what they are doing and what the punishment is for people who do this.

Here this is a proper outline of what is being said not some controversial conspiracy.

Careful with how you use Scripture God Almighty will hold you accountable!
Photonic2009 7 years ago
FlyButtafly, I really am soory to hear this. It sounds very cultic, I'm sorry I haven't heard from this man, but I heard enough to know he is trying to push a different plan of Salvation.

The way to know what is true and what is not is to use the procedure of what the Canonazation used. That is, hold it up to the other scriptures and see if it disagrees in a negative way. Then you know it is not divinely inspired because only God could put these texts together to be in harmony. This is what makes the Bible different than any other book.

Becareful as Jude says in his book False Prophets are trying to pervert the Grace of God, by making it another Gospel. The End times doesn't speak of Nepillims coming back and doing battle, anywhere in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, or any of the minor Prophets, & The 4 Gospels, and Revelations.

Ask your husband to sit down with you and go through the Major books and compare them to see what was changed to push their doctrine. The Book of Enoch is an old Book but it does not hold up to the Canon and if you compare you will see why.

One very important thing your Husband needs to understand is partaking of these pervting of Scripture is very dangerous. Look at this verse

:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelations 22:19 KJV)

God also warns us in other parts like this

:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:9-11 KJV)


:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26 KJV)
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Jude 1:3 "Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."
World English Bible

The sense is "while I was very eager... I was constrained..."

Dave
suzanne† PRO Posted 7 years ago. Edited by suzanne† (member) 7 years ago
I agree, I take Jude 1:3 to mean just what it says.
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Coldwar_bonnet, maybe you missed what I said because I did give verse 3 in its entirety and the verses before and after, then again I reposted it to evaluate it. I wasn't asking what it was because I didn't know it, I was trying to see where you got what you said.

Now here is what you said in the above post (this is good, but you got into stuff that wasn't there).

Lets look at what you posted:

Ever wonder why Jude quotes Enoch? It's because Jude's entire emphasis is to "earnestly contend for the faith". (good)

In fact he says he wanted to write about the common gospel, but was constrained to write this instead. (not good, its your own idea, and its just not there)

This is where you become entering a dangerous area of tampering with scripture.

The rest I will approach as time permits, lets take it a step at a time. Don't be liberal to say things that are not there, its just not a good idea.

And by the way I own the Book of Enoch, actually (Secrets of Enoch) so I do know what it says. This I will discuss once we clear this air up.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
"In fact he says he wanted to write about the common gospel, but was constrained to write this instead. (not good, its your own idea, and its just not there)"

Can we agree to disagree on this point? The way I read Jude 1:3 is according to the way I stated it. You also could be correct, but it is a very small point, and even if we left the whole thing out of this discussion, it would have no affect one way or the other anyway.

As for the rest of it, starting with "Why?? I think he might have encountered believers who had also discovered evidence of the Nephalim, and were trying to battle them by human means, whilst the only effective fight would be to earnestly contend for the faith." - I'll admit and agree that is pure conjecture on my part. However, every Christian bookstore in the world contains books which offer up far more serious conjecture than what I'm speculating about here, don't they? For instance, my wife started reading a very upsetting book by Dutch Sheets on Intercessory Prayer in which he pretty much de-thrones God and puts man in charge.

I will gladly withdraw my imaginative speculation re: Jude addressing people who might have been wrestling against the Nephalim by human means. You are right- there is absolutely no basis for that part.

To get back on the subject, I hope Flybuttah's husband has already removed himself from that particular "study group"- even though I happen to believe in much of what they're teaching, they're purpose in teaching it is not to edify, but to create schisms. My own approach is to keep such beliefs to myself, until perhaps I find myself in a one-on-one conversation concerning alien beings or such things, in which case, I would offer my view on what I think the Bible teaches about it. Like I mentioned above, I won a co-worker to the Lord by starting off with this particular discussion, when he asked me if as a Christian I believe in extraterrestrial life. I said "yes I do", and my telling him about Genesis 6 led to a presentation of the Gospel. It didn't happen immediately- this guy left our workplace to join the air force, and it was over 5 years afterward he contacted me to say he had become a Christian and it was that discussion years before with me that had been the main influence on him. I say this to glorify God, because even if my beliefs are wrong, God used it anyway in the life of this man.

I do hope this clears the air, and I would love to hear your views about the book of Enoch.
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Cold war thaks for listening to what I asked. The small points could be dangerous because scripture says to not add or subtract any words. That is my concern, but lets move as you said.

I can't comment on Dutch Sheets, because I really don't know enough about him. I heard some things, but I like to not comment on what others think or know until I could verify it, so I would say thanks for your input on the dangers of him, and leave it at that. We need more warnings about bad material out there.

Again same thing as Dutch I don't know enough about Steve either to say what he is up to, but from what I heard sounds like the making of a new Cult, if the facts are true. Another good warning. I hope people who have been considering these things would listen and beware to not open up to every weird idea that comes around.

God can and will use any means to win individulas to himself because he doesn't wish that any persih in the Eternal Lake of Fire.

As for Aliens I used to believe in them until I studied the Bible more thoroughly and understood the Spiritual realm that surrounds us and they experiences we can see, hear, and feel. I am a witness of so many experiences and there is no way anyone can tell me its someones imagination. Its real and I have pictures to prove one of them, I had them on my profile for a long time and no one would dare comment on them. I took a picture of burning truck one night that was parked on the side of a dirt road. I first called 911, then I went to see if anyone was inside. The heat was so intense that I started to walk away. As I did I heard the trucks horn beep once. Then it beeped again, then started going off frequently, so I started going back to it to verify someone wasn't stuck inside. As I did the Holy Spirit said leave now, so I did, then a blast from a small explosion went off and I was saved from it. I had my camera with me so I decided to practice night time shots, as I waited for the fire trucks. I eventually left and pulled my images on my computer, and what was there was very scary to look at. There was a demon that had a dog like head with a snake like body, another demon that looked just like the Grim Reaper as he is drawn in stories, and also another demon who has his hands reaching out as if trying to grab someone or something. Now this is an experience that I didn't see while it was happening but later it was preserved. I showed this at work to bring one of the janitors at work to Jesus. So see, I not only agree with what you said, but I too have seen how God uses many ways.

There were other experiences that are too lengthy to write and takes me off the subject, so I wil save them for another discussion. But as I was saying, the Spiritual realm is real and people encounter things from it often. The only book that gives us sound explanations is the Word of God, but we must be very careful how we handle it because no matter what our intention is, we will have to give an answer for going beyond His word, this aplies for me too.

As you can tell I like to try to get to all the issues not just the most common ones. It shows I do take the time to read the posts and like to share what I think after all isn't that why we are here in Apologetics?

I'd like to ask you a question before I get into the Alien debate. The question is, how mush have you heard about Nikola Tesla? I believe he has the answer you are looking for. I just am not sure about how I will post some pictures and an article that is from an out of print book I have, since we are not allowed to post others material here.

As far as the book of Enoch, I will have to locate it in my pile of books in crates, as soon as I do I will post them. Again I like to be accurate, and I would not like to post something it didn't say. So I will wait until I can accurately show some of the flaws and dangers therein. What I do remember from it though is the first part follows Genesis closely then goes off into stuff I think is speculations and not inspired of God, I will show you why I say that soon. I will have time to look for it tomorrow in the morning, so hopefully I will be able to post some in the next few days.

See you then and test all things, for it is right and required of God for us to do so. Be blessed my brother, keep searching.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
My belief about aliens is that they are demonic spiritual survivors of Genesis 6 events, and no good thing comes to those who make contact with them. Note that I believe there are other kinds of demons in the universe besides the so-called aliens. This is how I began my discussion with my co-worker.

Whew! That is quite an eerie account of the burning truck- I certainly do believe in what you saw.

Nikola Tesla - he should be a household name throughout the whole world, because he is the inventor of the Alternating Current power grid that we all benefit from every day. It's shameful that the credit went to Edison instead, whose DC power distribution scheme was only practical for a few city blocks, and terribly inefficient. Tesla also invented the basic circuit for radio transmission, but again he was robbed of the credit, which was given to Marconi instead. But it can be said "if you have a Cell Phone, you're using Tesla's invention". I understand that Tesla was also experimenting with wireless power transmission, but I can't imagine how that would not have been extremely dangerous to humanity! There is much speculation that his work in that area was again stolen from him, and has become the basis of "electromagnetic propulsion" which is said to be the driving force behind the technology of "flying saucers", and much of what you hear about "Area 51". All very interesting stuff, and I find useful for talking to some men of a certain mind-set about the things of God.

I agree with you about Enoch. The first part adds much detail to the Genesis 6 account, but the rest of it is just plain incomprehensible. Oh by the way, I just learned that for the part quoted by Jude, there is a strikingly similar but not identical passage in Deuteronomy 33:2. I'm not sure what to make of this, if anything. This was shown to me as part of my prison- ministry; there is one prisoner who is a "walking Bible", and when I asked him why Jude would have quoted Enoch, he immediately showed me this verse. This particular prisoner must have done something really terrible, as he has been locked up 35 years, and says it is very unlikely he will ever get out. I didn't even think this was possible here in Canada! I know that in the U.S. a life sentence is usually just that- life, but in the Canadian system "life" is 25 years maximum, or so I thought. Anyway, as a chapel volunteer I'm not allowed to ask the prisoners about their crimes, nor their last names. All I can say is this man has devoted his entire time to feasting on God's Word, and I've never encountered anyone so healthy and at peace "outside the wall".

You said - "I just am not sure about how I will post some pictures and an article that is from an out of print book I have, since we are not allowed to post others material here." Would you be allowed to send it to me via Flickr Mail, or simply my email- coldwar_bonnet@yahoo.ca

Dave
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Hello Coldwar_bonnet, I found my copy of “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch”. I hope this helps you FlyButtafly as well as it does him, and anyone else who may stumble across this discussion. I placed the introduction to the book in parts because it was very lengthy, I felt it was necessary to do this since the author felt this way also. I will not summarize it or the original text, rather I will copy it word for word, and I will not be able to do it all here but in a series of posts. As I do I will use () to place my notes on what I believe to be the most important to focus on, or where something may need some explanation.

Here is what is stated as the preface to the book:
It is with a view to help such that this first edition of the book has been undertaken. In certain respects it will appeal also to specialists in Assyriology. (Note: notice what he is referring to here, he says that it fits in with the Assyrian religion.) So far indeed as it does so, I have been able to do little more than refer to the leading scholars in this department, as my knowledge of such subjects is very slight, and all second hand. (Note: he states his disclaimer to knowing of the religion but used the experts, so this is enough proof of that influence on this text.)

This book has had a peculiar history. For more than 1200 years it has been unknown save in Russia, where acquaintance with it goes several centuries back. Further, by its present name it was never known in any literature save the Slavonic. Even in the Slavonic the name was not quite constant, if we may trust one of the MSS (Manuscripts) B (Note: this letter is a reference to one of the texts, they are identified as text A & text B, but are jus called MSS (A) or MSS (B)). For there it appears as “The Secret Books of God” which were shown to Enoch”. In its Greek form it passed current probably under the general designation of “Enoch”. Occasionally we find that it was not distinguished by those who used it from the older book which has come down to us through the Ethiopic. We have, in fact, in this book another fragmentary survival of the literature that once circulated under the name of “Enoch”. That such a book had ever existed was not known in Western Europe till 1892, when a writer in a German review stated that there was a Slavonic version of the Ethiopic “Book of Enoch”.

In conclusion, I must express my gratitude to Mr. Morfill for his great kindness in undertaking the translation of the Slavonic texts, and for his unfailing courtesy and unwearying energy in the prosecution of the task.

Ok here is most of the preface, many will say what was the purpose for that, well to counter such a question I challenge anyone to consider the following, how can you listen to a work if you don’t know the history? From what I have seen here on this post there is no one familiar with this works other than Coldwar, so it is important to inform the readers to what book is being referred to as this discussion continues, and where it comes from and the validity of its existence. A good way to see who actually read this and who just glanced at it is to watch for the criticism of what I posted and talk against the very this I just placed in this section. Thanks for listening.
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Coldwar I am so glad that you are aware of Nikola Tesla, this shows me that you really are informed and seeking as much as you can. The people who don't know of him are those who are ok with what is given and take not into consideration orther things and famous peoplke have given so much to our current way of life that we should at least learn about where all the stuff around comes from. And yes email is good, I will need to find that book so I can scan it and send it to you. Anyone else who would like to see what I sent him ask me or him to forward it to you as well. No its not fantasy, it has the actual US patents on it to prove its validity.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Photonic said "I will copy it word for word"

Do you mean your particular author's introduction, or the entire Book of Enoch? There are plenty of good conservative Christian web resources that deal with Enoch, whilst not having the particular intro by your author, are also excellent nonetheless:

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=...

www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe002.htm

If you're copying your author's intro, and it is not yet to be found on any websites, it would be of great service for you to arrange to have it published, with the author's permission of course, and only if that's possible.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
No I will not copy the book word for word in its entirety, if I did it would take too long and no point would be made. I wanted to show where this book came from, and what makes it a real book of the past, not some new book that is trying to pose as such.

But non the less when I make a point on something that is out of wack or I consider cautious I will copy it word for word, to not say anything it does not.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Hello FlyButtafly and Coldwar here I got some free time and wanted to jump right into the shedding light on the text, but I am not allowed to and keep going back to re-reading the notes on Introduction. As I have re-read it several times I found some sections so highly useful that I believe I need to bring them to light to show this book cannot be taken way too seriously as these experts have analyzed it as they were translating the 3 texts they have found and the problems with them. On that note it is impertinent to explain this here before getting into the debate of the weakness in being able to rely on this as Divinely inspired. However it is interesting to see the changes it went through and how it was felt that this book needed to survive. The main points here to note are 1) the age proven 2) the different eras it was written, and 3) finally the inspiration of text that was used or copied word for word. All of which are by these scholars who are trying to promote the text not bring it to shame, so that makes these issues posed from a neutral point of view, making them a really good way to start the debate of the text. So that is what I feel is best to start with. I again will copy word for word as possible, but there are parts where they start to explain then get into different names places, and other things not needed to mention. Here I summarized what was said to keep it short. I found this all too much to take in and that is why I had to go over it so much, please feel free to do the same, for this is a critical step in approaching someone who is bound up in teachings. First proof of understanding some background, and Secondly to not mishandling the text makes for a good debate. With no further comments I give you their insight to the Books of Enoch.

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch has, so far as it is yet known, been preserved only in Slavonic. It will suit our convenience to take advantage of this fact, and call it shortly “The Slavonic Enoch”, in contradistinction to the older book of Enoch. As the latter has come down to us in its entirety through the Ethiopic alone, it will be no less convenient to designate it as “The Ethiopic Enoch”.

The Slavonic Enoch in its present form was written somewhere about the beginning of the Christian Era. Its author or final Editor was an Hellenistic Jew, and the place of its composition was Egypt. It will be clear from the evidence that they are translations from a lost Greek original. The manuscripts may be thus classified. First those in which we find the complete text and of the 2 that have been preserved; 1) text A which is in Moscow, Russia, it belongs to the second half of the Seventeenth Century, it is unfortunately in many places corrupt, and 2) text B which is in Belgrade Servia (Serbia, former Yugoslavia), it belongs to the Sixteenth Century, there are 3 slightly different ones available, but mostly similar. Other fragments of these books are found in Tikhonravov’s Memorials of Russian Apocryphal Literature (Fourteenth Century), by this we can see that these late manuscripts are only copies of much earlier ones, which have perished.

This is how the Slavonic texts were translated;
I resolved after due examination to follow A in the main. B of course is followed when it preserves the obviously better reading, and that it does frequently. When both A and B are corrupt, I have fallen back on the text of Sokolov. Occasionally I have been obliged to follow one reading to the rejection of the others, in cases where all the readings were equally probable or improbable.

There is just a few more notes that are so important I will post them in the next few days. Sorry but that is all I have time for. Then we will get into just the parts that deal with the weird doctrines presented here.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Photonic- I really appreciate your scholarly approach, and may I say you have a nearly classical way of writing. I am very intrigued about what you are about to offer here, and although I haven't looked very diligently, I've not been able to find such a deep background on the Internet about the Book of Enoch.

I would agree, once you've concluded the preface about where the book came from, and the road it has traveled to our present day, we only need to deal with the parts concerning this discussion topic- the rest would be way too much and not at all necessary. Also, I don't expect much in the way of debate concerning the divine inspiration- I certainly do not think Enoch should be considered inspired, and though I can't speak for everyone, would not expect anybody else here to consider it to be inspired either.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Coldwar I agree. Look here and notice this is not just copying text and posting as I did the 2 times before. That was necessary if someone is relying on it for reliability they need to understand all that is presented because this is what we are called to do. People must see that there is a reliable witness to the history and purpose of this book. So I created a summarry and commentary of what I just posted before.

With that said let me comment on what was said by the author and scholars who gave a lot of their lives to the text. No one else I believe other than these individuals who gave so much to further the text has any more authority to try and explain this book. So I will highlight what they said and bring a short summary pointing out valuable info show why not to rely too much on this book.


My Summary
The Slavonic texts are the oldest found, they are from the 16th & 17th Centuries, both have numerous flaws. They are believed to have been translated from the original Greek written close to the beginning of the Christian Ear, this book is not found but there are passages showing some of the Greek used. Some later Apocrypha writers referred to it so this proves its previous existence and quoted some of the text. The Ethiopic texts are from the 14th Century, and they are not complete. They are similar but have several different ideas and sometimes odd additions, that had to be removed to make sense. The brief Hebrew additions are copied from some of the previous books word for word then the other Hebrew text show there is no understanding for the language leaving the impression that the author was aware of Old Testaments books but didn’t know the language. It also has various Hellenistic views points and often quotes word for word of Hellenistic philosophers.


My Commentary
Now think about this the actual Enoch lived before any of Noah’s teachings, Moses teachings of the Law (10 Commandments), Christian teachings, or Hellenistic teachings. So why would a text that is supposed to be prophetic to mankind to reveal Gods ways, say how God was going to flood the Earth with a man named Noah and only a few would be saved. Not even in any of the Old Testament prophecies did God ever go into so much detail about a certain subject. Then Enoch explains the Law which was very clear that Israel had never heard of it until Moses, because they questioned whether or not this was from God or Moses. It also speaks against Christian teachings in a Greek way of thinking with really bad Greek used. Then it uses the Melchisedec Priesthood to say he actually came from a certain place and here are who they are. Melchisedec didn’t appear until way later during the time of Abraham. So once again look at what this book is trying to do that is to destroy doctrine and cause confusion.


If the Book was Divinely inspired then why did it suffer so much loss of text and no harmony within its own book? Or for that matter why does it not harmonize with the other 66 books we call the Bible? There is a reason the Apocrypha is called what it is called. Its name means the hidden texts, hidden from what? Hidden meaning there is no proof of origin or validity of authorship since it is written a different style of manner than the authors they are claiming to be. And lastly they do not agree with the Scriptures thoroughly Old or New Testament. Some of the Apocrypha books have translated from this book (Enoch) and they are in agreement with it, so in a sense that makes it nothing more than another Apocrypha book that has not been added to the list. Please see this as a rational assessment and not judgment, I am trying to be totally fair here. It is what it is, so I call it that which it presents itself to be an Apocrypha book.


Another point
I would like to know what happened to the other books Enoch received? The text tells us that Enoch received 366 books. If they were important then why is only 1 book saved over the others. This was a time when God wasn’t revealing too much to the people of that time according to the book of Genesis.


Enoch who is close to the beginning in the human lineage had so much to say. We thousands of years later received 66 books and are so complete by a number 300 books less.

The gospel of John says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25 KJV) Another question here is, if it wasn’t necessary to write all these things why would it be necessary for 366 books?

The reality is we don’t need any other books because they are in harmony with each other. Did God really make a mistake by not preserving it for us? He went through so much to preserve “the Dead Sea Scrolls” as a Testimony of what His Word says and how true it is, but yet neglected to preserve one of the Books of Enoch in its entirety and what is preserved is not fully reliable. This fact makes me wonder why? Why would he put stuff that is going to be contrary to what will be taught from His servants thousands of years later? These are all questions that must be asked before even beginning to analyze such a work.


Final Thought
Ok, so why would anyone want to rely on a book that is so overwhelming clear, that it was created to try to start a new version of the Christian Religion. It has several different types of writing trying to make it look older and to give it authority. It also uses a Hellenistic view which automatically spells out RAT. This makes the book in itself a danger when we look at it like this way before we see what is written.

I really hope this shows why this book is dangerous, without even getting into the doctrines.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Not sure if this will be helpful at this point- Photonic, I especially don't want to steer your research in a different direction, but here's a bit of Etymology on Nephilim:
(This subject also relates to the etymology and meaning of the phrase "sons of God" as found in Genesis and Job.)
"Nephilim" (נְפִילִים) probably derives from the Hebrew root npl (נָפַל), "to fall" which also includes "to cause to fall" and "to kill, to ruin". The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon gives the meaning as "giants". Adam Clarke took it as passive, "fallen", "apostates".
Fallen angels? Fallen apostate men? It seems it could be interpreted either way.
Blessings and Peace in Christ,
Dave
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Ok Coldwar, I see that you have resources and that is a good thing, keep studying, I will do the same. I need some time to process and make a summary of what I am studying. (That is the way I have to come up with finding out about something. I have no great special revelation that separates me from anyone here.)

I first looked into what you posted on the definition in BDB, then I used my Strong’s Concordance, which is sometimes more detailed than BDB, (but there are times that I will use BDB instead. Not to use what is saying what I want, but the way things are described. If there is a difference, which there was only once I used a Hebrew/English Dictionary a couple of years ago). Then I reviewed what most of my commentaries had to say on this subject. To my surprise there was way too much material to process, so this is why I am not responding right away.

I want to research the words in the texts with the giants in them and there were many, so I will need more time. I didn’t realize there were so many references to them from different backgrounds, this I found to be the most interesting. This is a much larger study than I anticipated. I am finding things that are not adding up with some things suggested, so I need to be sure before I say more.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Eagerly I await!

Dave
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Coldwar here is only the Biblical references

I shortened them greatly, and it was so necessary to reveal what I found so here it is, eventough it may be lengthy. To see more research the scriptures given. I used the Strongs Concordance, because it had a much better outline.

A few things I would like to point out are:
1) giants when used as 5303 Nephilim, may be drived from the word fall as seen, but the way it is used in the text here is as a bully, probably since the scriptures using this definition is commenting on how they harrassed people and raped women, are the only place this word is used.

2) giants when used as 7497 or 7498 Raphah to invigorate; a giant is used when decribing their heritage or place of birth.

3) giants when used as 1368 gibbôr was used only one time and that is in (Job 16:4) means powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant, here it is only used as a lifting up to a respectable status as champion of a tournament.

Ok so here it is for you to review yourself, or anyone else who wants to learn about them. The interesting thing I learned is they were all over not just from one spot. It also makes mention to the older giants before these. And finally Goliath had 4 sons.


Numbers 13:30-33
we saw in it are men of a great stature.4060
H4060 מדּה middâh, mid-daw'
Feminine of H4055; properly extension, that is, height or breadth; also a measure (including its standard); hence a portion (as measured) or a vestment; specifically tribute (as measured): - garment, measure (-ing, meteyard, piece, size, (great) stature, tribute, wide.


And there we saw the giants,5303,
H5303 נפל נפיל nephîyl nephil, nef-eel', nef-eel'
properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant. From H5307
H5307 נפל nâphal, naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.


the sons of Anak,6061 which come of the giants:5303
H6061 ענק ‛ânâq, aw-nawk'
The same as H6060; Anak, a Canaanite: - Anak
a necklace (as if strangling): - chain.


Deuteronomy 2:9-11
The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants 7497, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.368
H368 אימים 'êymîym, ay-meem'
Plural of terrors;
Emim, an early Canaanitish (or Moabitish) tribe: - Emims.


Deuteronomy 2:20-21
giants 7497 dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; 2157
H2157 זמזם zamzôm, zam-zome'
intriguing;
a Zamzumite, or native tribe of Palestine: - Zamzummim.

A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:


Deuteronomy 3:10-13
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants 7497; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron;
is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. 7497
H7497 רפה רפא râphâ' râphâh, raw-faw', raw-faw'
in the sense of invigorating; a giant: - giant, Rapha, Rephaim (-s). See also H1051.
H1051 בּית רפא bêyth râphâ', bayth raw-faw'; house of (the) giant;
Beth-Rapha, an Israelite: - Beth-rapha.


1Samuel 17:4-7
And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath1555, of Gath,
H1555 גּלית goliath, gol-yath'
exile; Goljath, a Philistine: - Goliath.


2Samuel 21:15-22
These four were born to the giant 7498 in Gath:

1) Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant,
H3430 ישׁבּו בּנב yishbô benôb, yish-bo' beh-nobe'
his dwelling (is) in Nob; Jishbo-be-Nob, a Philistine:

2) Saph 5593, which was of the sons of the giant.
H5593 סף saph, saf
tall; Saph, a Philistine: - Saph. Compare H5598.

3) the brother of Goliath1555 the Gittite,
H1555 גּלית goliath, gol-yath'
exile; Goljath, a Philistine: - Goliath.

4) a man of great stature 4055, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant 7498 (Raphah)
H4055 מד מד mad mêd, mad, made
properly extent, that is, height; also a measure; by implication a vesture (as measured); also a carpet: - armour, clothes, garment, judgment, measure, raiment, stature.


Genesis 6:1-4
That the sons1121 of God430 saw the daughters1323 of men120
H1121 בּן bên, bane
a son (as a builder of the family name),
in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.,
one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

There were giants5303 in the earth in those days;

and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.8034

And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,


(Joshua 12:4), (Joshua 15:8), (Joshua 17:15), (Joshua 18:16) all of the giant references here use giants7497


(Job 16:14) He breaketh me with breach upon breach, he runneth upon me like a giant 1368.
H1368 גּבּר גּבּור gibbôr gibbôr, ghib-bore', ghib-bore'
powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant:
- champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Hello Coldwar, (This next part I am about to say is not about you or directed at you, but I mention your name because you are the one awaiting my review. I was thinking about things and they carried over from thoughts I didn't think out, I just felt I could not go any further until I explained to anyone reading why I would go to great lengths to bring such a long review of the introduction rather than the doctrines to disagree upon.)

A thing to consider (for anyone reading, no fingers pointed)
Did you notice I spent more time on trying to shed light on where this book came from and the validity of it? Rather than arguing doctrines as most people would have used (as seen here and from debates with others). From what I’ve seen, this only causes arguments. Let’s see what the Apostle Paul had to say about these kinds of debates.

:14 Remind your people of this, and give them a solemn warning in God's presence not to fight over words. It does no good, but only ruins the people who listen. :15 Do your best to win full approval in God's sight, as a worker who is not ashamed of his work, one who correctly teaches the message of God's truth. :16 Keep away from profane and foolish discussions, which only drive people farther away from God. :17 Such teaching is like an open sore that eats away the flesh. Two men who have taught such things are Hymenaeus and Philetus. :18 They have left the way of truth and are upsetting the faith of some believers by saying that our resurrection has already taken place. (2Timothy 2:14-18 GNB)

(One more thing is this the way I want to be known on these debates as someone trying to discuss authority and the harms thereof, rather than aruge.) So by A. Pauls' words he says to be careful of teachings that are dangerous to the faith. What is he referring to? He was referring to the Gnostics of the day, that’s who. So if he was against them do you really think that he would quote them? (Since this is what this book seems to be.)
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Hello Coldwar, I was sick as of yesterday afternoon and went home sick. Today I didn’t feel any better so I stayed home. After sleeping off this virus or whatever it was I decided to use this time to research this Steve Quail. I normally don’t have a lot of time to invest in these kinds of things but when I did, I felt it was really important to try to get to the bottom of what the original request was. I finally realized that there was a link to Steve Quails website in these posts.

So I spent the day researching it and found some useful things to mention. (I really truly wanted to get into his view on giants and whether or not they were dangerous as asked by FlyButtafly.)

(I found way too much stuff that I felt would shed some light on who he is for anyone who hasn't heard of him as I just did. I made a judgment on him before researching him, by going off what was said in the beginning, I then recently realized that I needed to check that out before not after so this is my way of trying to say who he appears to be and what kind of approach he is taking.)

(This is what I noticed from what I read on his website, He is very knowledgable about the Bible, either he has good study tools or has read it for himself.) One thing that is very clear is he is mostly knowledgable about the Gnostic books from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am not sure if he is a scholar, but I wonder because he mentions having to research Dead Sea Scholars. As I continued on studying I understood he just researched this stuff and orgainzed it for easy reasearch on his website. So by that I think he is a Gnostic that wants people to be informed of this religion. I did not see any Bible Studies being presented or posted to see if what FlyButtafly said is true. So I must go off what he has posted and that is what I placed here as shortly as possible, for more go to his website the link is above.)


Steve Quail introduces the Book of Enoch this way, notice what he says closely and see if this isn’t close to what I said about the book. (I found this rather intriguing, and comforting to see I wasn't far of with my assessment)

“The Book of Enoch, written during the second century B.C.E., is one of the most important non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian, particularly Gnostic, beliefs.”


He also goes on to give a short summary explaining the rest which I believe is a good summary. I separated it because the first part is what I wanted to point out, but I didn’t want to tamper with what he said so I posted the rest of it here below.

“Filled with hallucinatory visions of heaven and hell, angels and devils, Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah, Resurrection, a Final Judgment, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Interspersed with this material are quasi-scientific digressions on calendrical systems, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and meteorology.”


Here is his short statement on the pre-Christian era books
“The Apocalyptic Literature, as distinct from the Apocalyptic Movement owing to which it took its rise, began to come into existence about the period 200-150 B.C.; at any rate, the earliest extant example of this Literature--the earliest portions of the Book of Enoch--belongs to this period. Works of an Apocalyptic character, continued to be written for about three centuries; the Second (Fourth) Book of Esdras, one of the most remarkable Apocalypses, belongs to the end of the first Christian century, approximately. There are Apocalypses of later date, some of subordinate interest are of much later date; but the real period of the Apocalyptic Literature is from about 200 B.C. to about A.D. 100; its beginnings date, therefore, from a time prior to that great landmark in Jewish history, the Maccabæan Era.”

Here is his short introduction to the different versions:
“The Book of Enoch is now usually designated 1 Enoch, to distinguish it from the later Apocalypse, The Secrets of Enoch, known as 2 Enoch. The former is also called the Ethiopic Enoch, the latter the Slavonic Enoch, after the languages of the earliest versions extant of each respectively. No manuscript of the original language of either is known to be in existence.
According to Canon Charles, the various elements of which our book in its present form is made up belong to different dates.”


He even goes on further to state that the chapters are from different time periods:
Steve says this is, “correct, without committing himself to the certainty of this in each case:”
"The Apocalypse of Weeks." (Chapters xii-xxxvi, xclii, xci 12-17) - The oldest pre-Maccabæan portions.
Fragments of "The Book of Noah." (Chapters vi-xi, liv 7-lv 2, lx, lxv-lxix 25, cvi, cvii,) - Pre-Maccabæan at the latest.
"The Dream-Visions," (Chapters lxxxiii-xc) - 165-161 B.C.
"The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries." (Chapters lxxii-lxxxii) - Before 110 B.C.
"The Parables," or "Similitudes." (Chapters xxxvii-lxxi, xci 1-11, 18, 19-civ) - circa 105-64 B.C.
The latest portion (Chapters i-v) - but pre-Christian.

One thing to note here is again what I stated before, There is no source showing the book is complete from one time frame. One thing I am not sure of is how he can say the Book is from Pre-Maccabæan era when no remaining text has been identified that old (according to what the other scholars said. I'm not sure but maybe the Dead Sea Scrolls had a Pre-Mac period text, if it did it wasn't said just implied).

A thought occurred to me
I have been studying Steve’s website, and he gives for the Book of Enoch several chapters that are not in my personal copy of the Book of Enoch. In times of Old, such as the Old Testament times there was no such thing as Chapter or verses of any particular book, just spacing to designate a different train of thought or a new section. A Bishop of the Catholic Church invented the giving a title of a section calling it a chapter with a number called verse.

This system was invented to make studying the Word of God (The Bible) easier. Most people are not aware of this (as I found out through debates), nor was I until I learned this. So to say there were chapters is totally incorrect, this was a much later invention. (Some people will actually argue about the correctness of where a numbering should be on the Catholic Bible versus the Christian. Sometimes they are one verse off, so WHAT. That does make them worng because they are different it just means one felt to put it here while another felt to put it there.)

Now here is what I’m suggesting, what if the so called chapters are actually books. However short they may be, or what was preserved, could be why the writer of Enoch mentions there were 366 books. Maybe just maybe there were short books written to make it look like a lot of different books were given. After all from my research I discovered how this writer or writers tried to validate their books authority. This is much different than how the Christian Books wrote theirs. Positions were validated only by a confrontation of a doctrine as the Apostle Paul used in Circumcision, or The Apostle John speaking on the Trinity of God. The only one was Dr Luke, he validates his books by expressing his information was by witnesses to Theophilus.

Lets see what he said
:1 Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. :2 They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. :3 And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. :4 I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.

The validation the Apostles used written in the books of the New Testament was they walked with Jesus, and the signs and miracles that followed them.

One last thought before I go is
Go to his website and notice the title he puts for the Book of Giants The Gnostic Society Library, Dead Sea Scroll Texts Notice what category this book was placed under Gnosticism, the very thing the Apostle Paul warned us about.

Next will be what the Book of Enoch says versus the Book of Giants, then that will be it!!!!!!!!!!

I invested way too much time into this already. If this isn’t enough for anyone to understand then they are just lost and not wanting to hear the truth. Once again I’m not going to get into a arguing debate, just laying out the facts, allowing people to make a decision for themselves whether or not to believe them, the way it should be.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Coldwar I want to apologize if any of this came across directed at you. I was reading it and realized I left too much out that could be misunderstood.

So I edited my posts from your eagerly awaiting and everywhere I felt need more explanation I placed ( ) around them to identify what needed to be there to be correctly understood.

I was getting legthy and tried to cut it short, then my words didn't come out right. I hope this clears what I was trying to say. I look forward to researching the Giants as taught by the Book of Giants.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Actually alot has happened as I mentioned Coldwar. But now I am ready to start, much to my surprise this book will be extremly hard to read and follow. Have you seen it? If not take a look at it on Steve's website, it's a mess. Its not even complete, a bunch of fragments pieced with suggested ideas of what it says.

Here is a short intro to not stray but just show what is said on Steve's website before I start, I sepapareted so as to not interfere with the book review.

I was very disappointed in what the fragments actually had to say. I thought it was going to be alot of things to try and explain. However it was just the opposite. There was only brief passages with very little being said. An active mind is only capable of bringing about such crazy doctrines from these texts. If that is what's being done.

I see no Bible Studies or teachings on the subject of Giants on his website, just mostly facts, Biblical, The Secrets of Enoch as mentioned, The book of Giants, and suggested ideas in the New Book of Enoch posted on that website as well. With said lets see a summary of what was said from those fragments.

A breif commentary on the Book of Giants by -- Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls:

"The Book of Giants retells part of this story and elaborates on the exploits of the giants, especially the two children of Shemihaza, Ohya and Hahya. Since no complete manuscript exists of Giants, its exact contents and their order remain a matter of guesswork. Most of the content of the present fragments concerns the giants' ominous dreams and Enoch's efforts to interpret them and to intercede with God on the giants' behalf. Unfortunately, little remains of the independent adventures of the giants, but it is likely that these tales were at least partially derived from ancient Near Eastern mythology. Thus the name of one of the giants is Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero and subject of a great epic written in the third millennium B.C.E."

My personal Note: Notice what they say about its influence, just a thought to consider as you read this.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Ok here is the awaited texts and comments below, well most of them.

The fragments found are called as such, "4Q203, 1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q530-532, 6Q8."

I will not copy it entirely only things I would like to point out & I will remove the fragmented hyphens and such, for esay reading. For more in its entirty read it on Steve's website.

1Q23 Frag. 9 + 14 + 15they knew the secrets of sin was great in the earth and they killed man, they begat giants.

1st Note(They) is sounding like its implying mentioning of the Fallen angels. So here's my thought if they were Fallen angels and hated God or His ways, then why would they feel like they wanted to punish the people who lived in sin by killing them? Then the next part says they begat giants as if to imply the tried to start a new race of people to replace the rest with a better race. This so absurd when you actually think about the implication.

1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 two hundred 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred rams of the flock, two hundred goats, two hundred beast of the field from every animal, from every bird for miscegenation.

2nd NoteThis part is something I don't want to explain too much here, but point out that the Bible does actually imply this. I thought it was crazy when I first heard it, then I saw a reference from Steve's outline and thought it worthy to mention here.

Same story different books
1) Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion (1Chronicles 11:22 KJV)

2) And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had done many acts, he slew two lionlike men of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow: (2 Samuel 23:20 KJV)

There is however specualtion amongst the Hebrew scholars saying this is attributed to either the stauts of lion like physical strength or the being sons of the King (i.e. Princes)

This is enough for now, I'm tired and must stop even if I didn't finish this thought.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Again Photonic, I really appreciate your effort in doing all of this for us, and like you said, you've spent too much time at it already- I agree. We have more than enough here to ask some questions and converse on discussion points. So here are some of my questions, in no particular order:

1. You said: "Notice what category this book was placed under Gnosticism, the very thing the Apostle Paul warned us about"
Where (chapter and verse) does Paul warn us about Gnosticism? I don't ask this because I am pro-gnostic (I'm against what is today called Gnosticism); I'm just not familiar with any comments Paul made about it.

2. Any thoughts you have about these books of Enoch, giants, etc. being of such recent authorship? To me it seems ridiculous for anyone to put any stock whatsoever in scrolls written in 2 BCE concerning the man who was "7th from Adam".

3. What was Jude actually quoting with respect to Enoch? Again, these scrolls might have been known to 1st Century Christians simply as popular mythology so Jude used it in his discourse (doesn't mean that Enoch is inspired scripture).

4. You mention 1 Enoch being "Filled with hallucinatory visions of heaven and hell, angels and devils, Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah, Resurrection, a Final Judgment, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth."
The so called Book of Enoch didn't introduce any of these things obviously- there were many OT Prophets before the Macabees that speak of most of these things (with the possible exception of "hell" being anything more than "the grave")
Also - "Interspersed with this material are quasi-scientific digressions on calendrical systems, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and meteorology.”
The Books of Enoch / Giants don't even make for good science- I agree.

5. You said "Then the next part says they begat giants as if to imply the tried to start a new race of people to replace the rest with a better race. This so absurd when you actually think about the implication."

Here's a thought of my own- the world in which the real Biblical Enoch walked was vastly different than our world today. It seems like many Christians view the Garden of Eden as if it were like their own back yard- far from it! Before the flood, people lived to be over 900 years because there was a thin canopy of water above the atmosphere, which thickened like the skin of a balloon when it deflated and fell to earth, producing much of the flood waters. Then, without the canopy of water to protect all life from the sun's radiation, subsequent generations of man rapidly lived less and less years. This was also a time when the single continent divided into many within the lifetime of one man (Peleg).
In short, I think one has to maintain a teachable spirit about the world before and shortly after the flood, including the contents of Genesis 6.

I have to get ready for work now- More later.
Rob_moments 7 years ago
Dave, regarding the canopy of water over the earth thing; I plan to start a new thread about that because I have questions.
Kevissimo PRO 7 years ago
Oh wait....nevermind.
Now, I see where the other thread came from....
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Hello Coldwar and thanks for the kind words. To answer your question about the Apostle Paul talking about Gnosticism, without really getting into it here I will subtly answer this and open a new discussion on this topic when I have the time.

OK so the short version of your question is best answered by asking the question of what is Gnosticism? The answer is KNOWLEDGE, or KNOWING. So take this definition and redo a Biblical search you will find the Apostle Paul making many references to those who relied on their knowledge rather than knowing the one who could make them free. To add to this the Greek Philosophers were amongst them as well, which some of the Gnostic sects fell under, students of Plato, Socrates, & Aristotle.

:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory :8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. :9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. :10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. :11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. :12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. :13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. :14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [1 Corinthians 2:7-14].
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Coldwar, I had to work 2 days of massive overtime (Tuesday and Friday, then attend a funeral today, so I am too tired to answer these things. I would like the questions that change the theme of this discussion to be under a new thread.

Also, I see many new threads I would like to get into, but I want to be sure I try and answer your questions or thoughts before moving on.

I enjoy having you on these debates you really make me think and re-look at things.

Just don't get too involved into these things because they do take away from from KNOWING the Lord the way He intended, that is through His Son as the Holy Spirit reveals Him to us on a daily basis, these odd discussions should never take away our time from spending learning about Him.

Its real easy to get wrapped up into the what ifs and I wonder how. I usually only get involved into a discussion like this because it can be fruitful for a person who won't listen to the Gospel any other way, so this becomes a tool to draw them into interest into the Word of God.

But to continue on this and just keep going over Philosophies is not healthy, so I must start to wrap this up bro, there are much other things I need to discuss while the debate is new.

To avoid them as most people do is foolish because it may be the only open door that we receive to get someone interested in what the Bible says.

One final and most impotant thought is when looking at a certain teaching the questions become;
1) Will they listen to the Gospel rather than this vainless discussion?
2) Will they interpret my not answering the topic as I have no answer, or will they interpret it as I agree by no answer?
3) How can I make them see what the real idea or purpose of the teachings is without getting into debating who's right or wrong?
4) How can I bring to light where the Authority is from and is it posing under a secret Authority? (Like the Book of Enoch)

The Book of Enoch poses as an Ancient Authority from God, but by disceting it the way I did, you have seen it from a different light. Am I correct by this?

You see the debates should always be this is how I see it, but lets look at whats really being said. So if you say I'm not getting into much discussion about the what ifs, thats why because its more important than I said and you said.
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Coldwar,

Answering your 2nd question, I beleive from my research the Book of Enoch is from 50 Ad or so.

Answering your 3rd question, I believe this falls under the same category as the 1st question, it needs to be under a new thread, because it is not about giants or fallen demons, its about another topic we must discuss elsewhere to not deter from our subject.

Answering your 4th question, no I didn't mention any such thing, re-read what I said this was a quote from the Scholar who worked with other scholars to bring this Book into print. I was just bringing to light that even the Scholar who felt it was important for us to have this book available felt this way about the book.

See this agrees with what I stated above about showing whats really behind a teaching.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
The Book of Enoch poses as an Ancient Authority from God, but by disceting it the way I did, you have seen it from a different light. Am I correct by this?

Well, I've never seen the book as an ancient authority from God- only posing, like you say. I've only seen it as enigmatic, and possibly helpful in it's early parts in expanding upon Genesis 6. I've also had a burning question as to why Jude quotes from it, and definitely have not considered all of the possible answers until now- that is where you have been truly helpful to me. I'm eager to read your fully expanded view.
Rob_moments 7 years ago
If the Book of Enoch is from 50 AD or so perhaps it is only perporting to be the words of Enoch as remembered or passed on by others? Somehow Jude must have known about prophesies made by Enoch who he specifically states is the Enoch 7th from Adam, "that Enoch".
So in Jude's time there was possibly a written record or strong folk memory of the prophesies of Enoch but not necesarily being from the "Book of Enoch" itself.
What I'm trying to say is Jude can quote a prophesy of Enoch without quoting from the famed "Book of Enoch".

Enoch, Enoch
Who's there?
Jude
Jude who?
Jude think all this would be easier to settle.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
LOL!! Good joke Rob!

So it would be part of "oral tradition" - certainly could be.

I was also thinking it could have been like popular mythology - quoted by Jude as "truth within myth", because in spite of how we use the word, "myth" is not necessarily untruth, right? It's like when Jesus spoke of "Abraham's Bosom", there's nothing about that whatsoever in the Inspired Old Testament, but the account of "Dives and Lazarus" (aside from being a traditional English folksong) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl3xFnoDZ_I&feature=search is thought to be taken directly from the oral tradition of Rabbi's. Jesus used the tale to illustrate how the tables would be turned between the neglected and their neglectors.

Blessings, Dave
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Oral tradition, I'm not so sure, since there is no other source saying there is such a book from the time or teachings of Enoch.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Once again this is not quoting Enoch, there is no direct connection tying these together, if it is quoting that book show me where there is a quote, because I don't see it as I read it and re-read it? This again is referring to the word of Salvation given to them as they got saved.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is referring to the gnostics of the day, I will open a new thread when we are done here and I add to the 2 newly open threads.

You said, "definitely have not considered all of the possible answers until now- that is where you have been truly helpful to me.
I am so glad that all this was of some use to you. Could you expand upon how it was helpful and what was changed in your understanding.

Then you said, "I'm eager to read your fully expanded view."
Is this in reference to these posts? Or were you reffering to a new thread that I mentioned?

I look forward to hearing what you got out of all this.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Hello Coldwar,
Ok now, I see what you were talking about. You made mention of verse 3 & 4 referring to what Enoch wrote, when it really was verses 14-16. I was so stuck on locating the verses you gave in the actual Book of Enoch and came up short.

:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. :4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4 KJV)

Not only can this not be found in the Book of Enoch, but if you read this Book of Jude in its entirety you will see this is not referring to what Enoch says, because the way :14 to :16 states the intro to these verses. Please see below only after reviewing the entire book at once, then return to follow along and see if you don't agree on what I am saying.

:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, :15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. :16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. (Jude 1:14-16 KJV)

So lets break it down; ":14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying," Notice: the very first word "And" What's the first thing that comes to mind when someone is talking about some topic, then they say And this person said?

Do you get the understanding someone else was saying the above and this new saying is from another, because that's the way it is written.

Next let's look at what it says right after that, it says "prophecies", not written, so from this I draw the conclusion by reasoning that this was spoken not written. Ok for arguments sake lets say it was referring to a written document, if that was so then this prophecy would be found in this Book of Enoch, if it really was the Book it was quoting from right?

Well once again this entire quote can not be found neither in small parts or whole, it just doesn't exist. So once again I fall back on what I just said, this was a prophecy spoken and passed down from generations and not written. So this was not quoting the Book because its not in there, remember I own it and have verified it several times to make sure.

Some may ask how can that be if Jude wasn't around at the time? That poses a good question, but the answer is quite simple God gives him knowledge just as God gave Moses knowledge about the things that happened in the garden of Eden. Another example is the writer of the Book of Hebrews says what Moses did in the wilderness and how long he stayed there, all of which is not mentioned in any of the Old Testament books.

There are several other examples, but lets move on. A thing I found searching commentaries is most agree that Jude was quoting 2 Peter, since it had the same topics and sequence their in. Maybe Jude realized that Enoch prophecised it and wanted others to know that this was a reliable saying to accept as truth. Or maybe it was a Gnostic book posing as Jude copying Peter to push for the validity of the Book of Enoch. But once again this can't be found in the book, so from my point of view I dont think so.

Something to think about.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
"So this was not quoting the Book because its not in there, remember I own it and have verified it several times to make sure."

There is this- 1 Enoch 1:9 or 2:1 depending on source--
Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

This was taken from Internet source,
www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe004.htm
R.H. Charles 1917 translation of The Book of Enoch

In spite of this, conservative Bible scholars whom I tend to lead toward are in full agreement with you, for example:

"Let us assume, for the sake of our study, that The Book of Enoch existed at the time that Jude wrote, and that Jude really was referencing it. Simply because Jude knew of Enoch’s prophecy and approved it, does not necessarily imply that Jude certified the entire collection of Enoch’s writings as inspired of God. The Greek word translated “prophesied” in Jude 14 is propheteuo, a word that is used on only one occasion in the New Testament (Matthew 15:7) for a citation of an Old Testament passage (Isaiah 29). The cognate Greek noun prophetes, which relates to the verb propheteuo, was used by Paul to refer to a heathen poet (Titus 1:12). There is no evidence, then, that Jude referred to Enoch’s prophecy as an inspired work. Why, then, did Jude mention The Book of Enoch? He recognized that the prophecy of Enoch had turned out to be a true prophecy. Jude never gave indication of what he thought of the remainder of The Book of Enoch".
www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2235

This same article has much to say similar to what you've found, Photonic.
Photonic2009 Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Photonic2009 (member) 7 years ago
Cold war, The Book of Enoch is not setup in this manner. The one called the new book of Enoch I quickly glanced at on Steve Quails site was that way though, so I'm going to assume you may have got this from there. I just recently purchased a used book with all the Dead Sea scrolls found in their entirety translated into English so I will have to review that and Steves to see where you may have gotten this from, before I further comment on this. I do not like to comment too much on something that is unfamiliar without first checking it out.

I understand that you are reffering to the acknowledgement Jude may have had and there is no wrong in what you said if its true, but I did not find it in the book I have from all of the different ranslations used to make the engilsh copy I have. So from my perspective I smell a rat, unless the Dead Sea scrolls may have a different section that these did not. My other question would be why is this new Enoch as Steve refers to have such a different format? Is this for easier reading or was it changed to deceive? Thats all I'm saying, just being cautious. Be blessed my freind.
coldwar_bonnet PRO 7 years ago
Nothing wrong with being cautious, that's for sure.

No, I didn't get the reference from Steve Quail's site. I simply Googled "Book of Enoch" and this is the one that came out on top- on the web link I provided, known as the 1917 R.H. Charles translation of 1 Enoch. I have not yet further investigated R. H. Charles. I might do that today if I find the time.
Photonic2009 7 years ago
Hi Coldwar, I did not get a chance to review the Dead Sea version yet, but will soon. I also would like you to think about what I said above, in my translations it has mostly The Slavonic texts and they are the oldest found, they are from the 16th & 17th Centuries. This is way before the 1917 version and its not in there. Something to think about for now.
Groups Beta