The Book of Enoch and Other Apocryphal Writings

[Edward]

can you debunk that genesis isn't part of the torah? moses gave the jews the torah.

I never implied that Moses didn't write the Torah. (For clarification, the Torah is the first four? Five (?) books of the OT?) I thought it was a widely held belief or fact (?) that Moses wrote them. I have no argument with that. I'm just ascribing quite a bit of validity to Enoch by the endorsements in scripture of it.

I gotta admit, you lost me with the numerology. I don't see how it is relevant or the point you're trying to make.

Why do you doubt the Nephilim? It's in the Torah, and you give the Torah your endorsement.

 

[SeekHisFace]

Hello Edward
I agree with what you say...that there is a good book of Enoch but there are others out there that we must be very careful about. Also, I would like to mention, that I have the book of Jasher, but have not had the opportunity to research "which" Enoch book is the good one. I have wondered about changes, books not kept in, or taken out...even a couple of days ago I found out (right out of the foreword/notes in my Bible) that the "chronicles" was one book. But the scholars connected to the talmud divided them up...so I still wonder what else has been done. AND then again...I know that God is sovereign and will preserve His Word at least to what is sufficient according to His grace and how He will lead us. I also believe that these leading powers surely cannot keep the Holy Spirit leading us into His truth, and to assure that those that are HIS, that "rely on" Him, will be lead by the Father's Spirit. There is no truth without the Spirit. And if anyone had or will be adding or take away for His Word...God is faithful to get it to us/His own.
So...that being said, I know that there is a good book of Enoch...we can just pray for discernment to which one is the one that the Lord would have us to read...if that is His will. And if many people can read all the "churches" opinionated books, and depending upon their "enlightened" discernment, opinions, articles, websites, other mens doctrines, instead of the Holy Spirit, etc.,...why would they not research to read a good book about Enoch and Jasher...they are after all mentioned in the Bible.
And you made a good point about Isaiah.
Thank you...

Blessings to you Edward!!

 

[Edward]

so I still wonder what else has been done. AND then again...I know that God is sovereign and will preserve His Word at least to what is sufficient according to His grace and how He will lead us. I also believe that these leading powers surely cannot keep the Holy Spirit leading us into His truth, and to assure that those that are HIS, that "rely on" Him, will be lead by the Father's Spirit. There is no truth without the Spirit.

Thank you, SeekHisFace. As you say, God will preserve His word and lead us into the truth. Now we have Enoch on the scene (I have Jasher too!) and as we all know there are no coincidences with God. It is said the the Book of Enoch is for a distant generation...and here it is, hmm. I have prayed about this book (and Jasher) and I have not been told that it is heresy or to stay away from it. I know there is a lot of deception going on in the world and look at most things with a very critical eye (except scripture) so as not to deceive myself. I pray daily to not be deceived or to deceive myself. This is a big concern of mine. I also ask brothers and sisters for their views (hence the thread) because I know the Lord does not give all to anyone, but a portion to each, and we are to come together with each his own portion to find completeness and unity. It's always good to get other perspectives.

I have been blessed with a portion of discernment it would seem. I find myself being able discern truth and lies better lately. I'm not saying I know all by any means, I remain humble and cautious, but the Lord is def leading me in a good direction and I praise His holy name for that!

The good versions of Enoch seem to be the Ethiopian translations from what I read. I have Enoch I, and am having trouble finding II & III without paying or them wanting me to download an assortment of unwanted applications also, I'll keep looking. When found, I think the way to approach it is to pray very much over it and read it with a critical eye to make sure that it harmonizes with scripture and does not lead down a different path. When Enoch references an event spoken of in scriptures, I stop and search out the corresponding scripture and read them both at the same time to make sure there are no contradictions. None yet in the Enoch I that I have. I'm up to chapter 15 or so.

May the good Lord bless you also SeekHisFace!!

 

[YosefHayim]

that also explains, witchcraft, drugs

So my friend. He introduced me to drugs, I introduced him to Jesus. He got me into weed, and then I did some psychedelics and then found this stuff called LSA. I told my friend about it and we did it together hanging out one time. It's related to LSD, and in short we both were on some sort of autopilot as our minds raced through false enlightenment and eventually experienced the same thing. It was almost like a telepathic trippless trip. LSD is worse. Once I got into psychedelics, drugs became less and less fun leading up to my fast in which I smoked on the 2nd day and the day after in which my fast was done and had the worst experience of my life. God showed me the evils of drugs and gave me revelation.

Speaking of revelations, let's talk about a book: the book of Revelation.

And they did not repent of their murders or their witchcraft or their sexual immorality or their thefts. Revelation 9:21 (NLT)

(in KJV "witchcraft" reads as "sorceries")

​

And what is the word for witchcraft/sorceries?

φαρμακεία Strong's G5331 - pharmakeia
1) the use or the administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry

And what do you know? Every ex-witch/ex-wiccan/ex-pagan/ex-satanist/ex-etc that has become a follower and believer in Jesus Christ admits to a past of drug uses.

Psychedelics are used pagan and magic rituals to reach enlightenment or some heightened state of spiritual consciousness.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/pharmakeia.html

Well let me tell you: there is nothing spiritual about 8 hours of incoherence and insanity.:infinity

If anything it's demonic. But God, in His greatness and infinite grace and unfailing love, can intercede and use that drug experience to show you what's really up. And that is that drugs are a no-no.



Timothy Leary was an advocate of LSD. He even tried to make it into a religious sacrament and created an organization called League of Spiritual Discovery (LSD) (link), which was a New Age drug influenced deception. I even saw an interview in which Leary admitted that Aleister Crowley, a man who whose wickedness is too disgusting to even mention and was a satanist. Leary said he "was an admirer of Crowley" and "was carrying his work on" (interview clip) The Who sung about Leary (link), The Beatles' Come Together was inspired by Leary (link), also the Moody blues among many other 60s and 70s bands even today's music has an influence by both Leary and Crowley, unfortunately. We must pray that people will be shown the deceptions of the world. and One of many deceptions that Jesus warned us not to fall for in Matthew 24.

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. Matthew 24:3-4 (KJV)


​

It is honoring, humbling, and a blessing to have been delivered through the grace of Jesus Christ.

My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world. 1 John 2:1-2 (NLT)

​

[video="youtube;cPPSG_SpojY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPPSG_SpojY[/video]

 

[jasoncran]

can you debunk that genesis isn't part of the torah? moses gave the jews the torah.

I never implied that Moses didn't write the Torah. (For clarification, the Torah is the first four? Five (?) books of the OT?) I thought it was a widely held belief or fact (?) that Moses wrote them. I have no argument with that. I'm just ascribing quite a bit of validity to Enoch by the endorsements in scripture of it.

I gotta admit, you lost me with the numerology. I don't see how it is relevant or the point you're trying to make.

Why do you doubt the Nephilim? It's in the Torah, and you give the Torah your endorsement.

its the first five btw. enoch would be a book for the jews would it not?after enoch then lamech then noah, then his son whom taught nahor and abram. opps that is in the oral traditions. the nephilim cant return if they were real. the angels that did that are kinda in an abyss. its in jude.

the book of jasher is also mentioned in the torah. I bring up numerology since most churches would disagree with and yet the apochrya is where the rcc gets the ideas of purgatory from(albeit the idea of sheol is just that), the old earth idea, the other things the rcc does as well.

i believe i will ask the elder in my church about the nephilim. i like to check what i think and post here at times with men who know more about the bible and theology then i do. i have been told that this stuff can lead one away from Christ and also confuse you. i can see the reason for the warning. God always has been wise in that he has other writers verify something before its solidly in the bible.

 

[King James]

can you debunk that genesis isn't part of the torah? moses gave the jews the torah.

I never implied that Moses didn't write the Torah. (For clarification, the Torah is the first four? Five (?) books of the OT?) I thought it was a widely held belief or fact (?) that Moses wrote them. I have no argument with that. I'm just ascribing quite a bit of validity to Enoch by the endorsements in scripture of it.

I gotta admit, you lost me with the numerology. I don't see how it is relevant or the point you're trying to make.

Why do you doubt the Nephilim? It's in the Torah, and you give the Torah your endorsement.

its the first five btw. enoch would be a book for the jews would it not?after enoch then lamech then noah, then his son whom taught nahor and abram. opps that is in the oral traditions. the nephilim cant return if they were real. the angels that did that are kinda in an abyss. its in jude.

the book of jasher is also mentioned in the torah. I bring up numerology since most churches would disagree with and yet here YOU are pushing the apochrya which is where the rcc gets the ideas of purgatory from(albeit the idea of sheol is just that), the old earth idea, the other things the rcc does as well.

that is your choice to take, not mine. i believe i will ask the elder in my church about the nephilim. i like to check what i think and post here at times with men who know more about the bible and theology then i do. i have been told that this stuff can lead one away from Christ and also confuse you. i can see the reason for the warning. God always has been wise in that he has other writers verify something before its solidly in the bible.

Here is a link on the subject: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49061&highlight=

Also in regard to nephilim returning, check in numbers, deut, Joshua, and Samuel, nephilims were around after the flood. That means that some lived thru it or more angels came down and made more afterward. It mentions that noah and friends were the only humans to survive. Nephilim aren't humans so they weren't included in that survival count. Also, they could exist today underground so they could make a return to the surface, or more angels could make more giving them a return.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm that contradicts what jude says

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.

uhm so the angels just left heaven or were they kicked out. a spirit isn't affected by water. if that this case since satan was roaming the earth they could have just left the bodies they formed and fled the earth. that is like saying a bullet can harm satan. it cant.

The angels which kept not their first estate - Την ἑαυτων αρχην Their own principality. The words may be understood of their having invaded the office or dignity of some others, or of their having by some means forfeited their own. This is spoken of those generally termed the fallen angels; but from what they fell, or from what cause or for what crime, we know not. It is generally thought to have been pride; but this is mere conjecture. One thing is certain; the angels who fell must have been in a state of probation, capable of either standing or falling, as Adam was in paradise. They did not continue faithful, though they knew the law on which they stood; they are therefore produced as the second example.
But left their own habitation - This seems to intimate that they had invaded the office and prerogatives of others, and attempted to seize on their place of residence and felicity.
He hath reserved in everlasting chains - That is, in a state of confinement from which they cannot escape.
Under darkness - Alluding probably to those dungeons or dark cells in prisons where the most flagitious culprits were confined.
The judgment of the great day, - The final judgment, when both angels and men shall receive their eternal doom. See on 2 Peter 2:4 (note). In Sohar Exod., fol. 8, c. 32: “Rabbi Isaac asked: Suppose God should punish any of his heavenly family, how would he act? R. Abba answered: He would send them into the flaming river, take away their dominion, and put others in their place.”

from study light org and adam Clarke's commentary.

And the angels which kept not their first estate - A second case denoting that the wicked would be punished. Compare the notes, 2 Peter 2:4. The word rendered “estate” ( ἀρχὴν archēn) is, in the margin, “principality.” The word properly means, “beginning, commencement;” and then that which surpasses others, which is “first,” etc., in point of rank and honor; or pre-eminence, priority, precedence, princedom. Here it refers to the rank and dignity which the angels had in heaven. That rank or pre-eminence they did not keep, but fell from it. On the word used here, compare Ephesians 1:2; Ephesians 3:10; Colossians 2:10, as applied to angels; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15, as applied to demons.
But left their own habitation - To wit, according to the common interpretation, in heaven. The word rendered “habitation” ( οἰκητήριον oikētērion) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means here that heaven was their native abode or dwelling-place. They left it by sin; but the expression here would seem possibly to mean that they became “dissatisfied” with their abode, and voluntarily preferred to change it for another. If they did become thus dissatisfied, the cause is wholly unknown, and conjecture is useless. Some of the later Jews supposed that they relinquished heaven out of love for the daughters of men - “Robinson.”He hath reserved in everlasting chains - See the notes, 2 Peter 2:4. Peter says, “chains of darkness;” that is, the darkness encompasses them “as” chains. Jude says that those chains are “everlasting,” ( δεσμοῖς ἀΐ́δίοις desmois aidiosCompare Romans 1:20, “his eternal power and Godhead.” The word does not elsewhere occur. It is an appropriate word to denote that which is eternal; and no one can doubt that if a Greek wished to express that idea, this would be a proper word to use. The sense is, that that deep darkness always endures; there is no intermission; no light; it will exist forever. This passage in itself does not prove that the punishment of the rebel angels will be eternal, but merely that they are kept in a dark prison in which there is no light, and which is to exist for ever, with reference to the final trial. The punishment of the rebel angels after the judgment is represented as an everlasting fire, which has been prepared for them and their followers, Matthew 25:41.

barnes commentary on study light .org
barnes is the position i take. but i will relook at this and ask. for god to allow that to happen means the flood didn't do the job. who was being judged? man or angels? if its angels then god did already judge them as they could easily escape the flood. revalation has no mentioning the nephilim in it. the new testament has no mentioning of them returning.

 

[Edward]

its the first five btw. enoch would be a book for the jews would it not?after enoch then lamech then noah, then his son whom taught nahor and abram. opps that is in the oral traditions. the nephilim cant return if they were real. the angels that did that are kinda in an abyss. its in jude.

Right but Genesis 6 says there were giants in the land in those days...and also after that. So the thory that I have heard is that one of Noahs son's wives was pregnant when she boarded the ark. There is something about Noah cursing Hams child rather than Ham personally for seeing him naked or whatever, and the theory is that the Child had six fingers and toes. So all of the fallen ones who were guilty of the atrocities could have been sent to the abyss, and more came afterward through contamination. Genesis only really said that Noahs bloodline was pure and it didn't say about the wives.

There was more going on in Noahs day than the evil of man. If the Nephilim were not giants (as scripture says) then what was genesis 6 all about?

 

[Edward]

enoch would be a book for the jews would it not?

It says that it is for a future and distant generation, so my thought is no.

 

[jasoncran]

its the first five btw. enoch would be a book for the jews would it not?after enoch then lamech then noah, then his son whom taught nahor and abram. opps that is in the oral traditions. the nephilim cant return if they were real. the angels that did that are kinda in an abyss. its in jude.

Right but Genesis 6 says there were giants in the land in those days...and also after that. So the thory that I have heard is that one of Noahs son's wives was pregnant when she boarded the ark. There is something about Noah cursing Hams child rather than Ham personally for seeing him naked or whatever, and the theory is that the Child had six fingers and toes. So all of the fallen ones who were guilty of the atrocities could have been sent to the abyss, and more came afterward through contamination. Genesis only really said that Noahs bloodline was pure and it didn't say about the wives.

There was more going on in Noahs day than the evil of man. If the Nephilim were not giants (as scripture says) then what was genesis 6 all about? Is the scripture wrong my friend?

so then why does the word nephillim used in numbers as being feared? the children of anak in Hebrew is the world close to nephillim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

i remember ramban discussing this and saying well if the nephilim were from angels then why did they survive to produce kids and then quotes the verse numbers 13 where it says and the children of anak were there. he also in the Talmud that theres no mentioning of any way a nephilum could have boarded the ark or fled a local flood as another jewish rabbi taught. he simply says all flesh means all flesh died. the nephilium as to include the philistines. yes the giant goliath that fought david and his brother that was also slain my davids men were also called nephillium!

i never said they weren't giants just that fathers of them weren't angels.
the six toes and six fingers?
actually that is in the Talmud.

33. There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, descended from the giants. In our eyes, we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes.

that is from chabad.org and its the complete Jerusalem bible but lets compare that to the nasv which i choose because it is an fe. and also has that same wording to it.

There also we saw the <sup class="crossreference" value='(AB)'></sup>Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and <sup class="crossreference" value='(AC)'></sup>we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

how come the nephilim are back then? whom was their dad this time?same word!

 

[Edward]

oikētērion

refers to their bodies, not heaven. The flood killed their bodies and they became the evil spirits that inhabit the earth. These are the Nephilim, and not the fallen angels. The fallen angels are the ones bound in the bottomless pit or whatever.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm that cant be, so the demons can do it again? really what is stopping them? god, if so then show me the verse in the bible wher e it says the demons do mate with woman again?

if the demons are on the earth then so water holds them? hardly.

 

[jasoncran]

oh and the jews, do know about enoch, rashi a respected sage on the torah and tanach had this to say about the nephillum

the giants: Heb. נְפִילִים, giants, descended from Shamhazai (Nidah 61a) and Azael (Yoma 67b), who fell (שֶׁנָּפְלוּ)) from heaven in the generation of Enosh

enosh is the Hebrew word for enoch. also said enos in the kjv

 

[Edward]

uhm that cant be, so the demons can do it again? really what is stopping them? god, if so then show me the verse in the bible wher e it says the demons do mate with woman again?

if the demons are on the earth then so water holds them? hardly.

Genesis 6:4

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days— and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown./(NIV)

 

[Edward]

the giants: Heb. נְפִילִים, giants, descended from Shamhazai (Nidah 61a) and Azael (Yoma 67b), who fell (שֶׁנָּפְלוּ)) from heaven in the generation of Enosh

Can you decode this for me? Are you saying that there was no Enoch, but it was Enosh?

Are you leading up to one of those line of seth theories?

 

[King James]

uhm that contradicts what jude says

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.

uhm so the angels just left heaven or were they kicked out. a spirit isn't affected by water. if that this case since satan was roaming the earth they could have just left the bodies they formed and fled the earth. that is like saying a bullet can harm satan. it cant.

The angels which kept not their first estate - Την ἑαυτων αρχην Their own principality. The words may be understood of their having invaded the office or dignity of some others, or of their having by some means forfeited their own. This is spoken of those generally termed the fallen angels; but from what they fell, or from what cause or for what crime, we know not. It is generally thought to have been pride; but this is mere conjecture. One thing is certain; the angels who fell must have been in a state of probation, capable of either standing or falling, as Adam was in paradise. They did not continue faithful, though they knew the law on which they stood; they are therefore produced as the second example.
But left their own habitation - This seems to intimate that they had invaded the office and prerogatives of others, and attempted to seize on their place of residence and felicity.
He hath reserved in everlasting chains - That is, in a state of confinement from which they cannot escape.
Under darkness - Alluding probably to those dungeons or dark cells in prisons where the most flagitious culprits were confined.
The judgment of the great day, - The final judgment, when both angels and men shall receive their eternal doom. See on 2 Peter 2:4 (note). In Sohar Exod., fol. 8, c. 32: “Rabbi Isaac asked: Suppose God should punish any of his heavenly family, how would he act? R. Abba answered: He would send them into the flaming river, take away their dominion, and put others in their place.”

from study light org and adam Clarke's commentary.

And the angels which kept not their first estate - A second case denoting that the wicked would be punished. Compare the notes, 2 Peter 2:4. The word rendered “estate” ( ἀρχὴν archēn) is, in the margin, “principality.” The word properly means, “beginning, commencement;” and then that which surpasses others, which is “first,” etc., in point of rank and honor; or pre-eminence, priority, precedence, princedom. Here it refers to the rank and dignity which the angels had in heaven. That rank or pre-eminence they did not keep, but fell from it. On the word used here, compare Ephesians 1:2; Ephesians 3:10; Colossians 2:10, as applied to angels; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15, as applied to demons.
But left their own habitation - To wit, according to the common interpretation, in heaven. The word rendered “habitation” ( οἰκητήριον oikētērion) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means here that heaven was their native abode or dwelling-place. They left it by sin; but the expression here would seem possibly to mean that they became “dissatisfied” with their abode, and voluntarily preferred to change it for another. If they did become thus dissatisfied, the cause is wholly unknown, and conjecture is useless. Some of the later Jews supposed that they relinquished heaven out of love for the daughters of men - “Robinson.”He hath reserved in everlasting chains - See the notes, 2 Peter 2:4. Peter says, “chains of darkness;” that is, the darkness encompasses them “as” chains. Jude says that those chains are “everlasting,” ( δεσμοῖς ἀΐ́δίοις desmois aidiosCompare Romans 1:20, “his eternal power and Godhead.” The word does not elsewhere occur. It is an appropriate word to denote that which is eternal; and no one can doubt that if a Greek wished to express that idea, this would be a proper word to use. The sense is, that that deep darkness always endures; there is no intermission; no light; it will exist forever. This passage in itself does not prove that the punishment of the rebel angels will be eternal, but merely that they are kept in a dark prison in which there is no light, and which is to exist for ever, with reference to the final trial. The punishment of the rebel angels after the judgment is represented as an everlasting fire, which has been prepared for them and their followers, Matthew 25:41.

barnes commentary on study light .org
barnes is the position i take. but i will relook at this and ask. for god to allow that to happen means the flood didn't do the job. who was being judged? man or angels? if its angels then god did already judge them as they could easily escape the flood. revalation has no mentioning the nephilim in it. the new testament has no mentioning of them returning.

Your post suggests that you confuse angels with nephilim.

 

[Edward]

enosh is the Hebrew word for enoch. also said enos in the kjv

Ok, sooo, here is the KJV

Genesis 5:11-19

11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:/(KJV)

 

[jasoncran]

you do realize that we have violated the tos. discussion of the serpent seed doctrine isn't allowed. therefore I will not post further on this.

 

[King James]

Who is Azazel?

Leviticus 16:8–10 reads:


<dl><dd>"⁸and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. ⁹And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; ¹⁰while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel."</dd></dl>The ESV provides the footnote "16:8 The meaning of Azazel is uncertain; possibly the name of a place or a demon, traditionally a scapegoat; also verses 10, 26". Most scholars accept the indication of some kind of demon or deity,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3">[3]</sup> however Judit M. Blair notes that this is an argument without supporting contemporary text evidence.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4">[4]</sup>

According to 1 Enoch (a book of the Apocrypha), Azazel (here spelled ‘ăzā’zyēl) was one of the chief Grigori, a group of fallen angels who married women. This same story (without any mention of Azazel) is told in Genesis 6:2–4:


<dl><dd>That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. […] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also afterward, 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.</dd></dl>1 Enoch portrays Azazel as responsible for teaching people to make weapons and cosmetics, for which he was cast out of heaven. 1 Enoch 8:1–3a reads:


<dl><dd>And Azazel taught men to make swords and knives and shields and breastplates; and made known to them the metals [of the earth] and the art of working them; and bracelets and ornaments; and the use of antimony and the beautifying of the eyelids; and all kinds of costly stones and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray and became corrupt in all their ways.</dd></dl>The corruption brought on by Azazel and the Grigori degrades the human race, and the four archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Phanuel) “saw much blood being shed upon the earth and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth […] The souls of men [made] their suit, saying, "Bring our cause before the Most High; […] Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were in heaven, which men were striving to learn."
God sees the sin brought about by Azazel and has Raphael “bind Azazel hand and foot and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert – which is in Dudael – and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there forever, and cover his face that he may not see light.â€
Several scholars have previously discerned that some details of Azazel's punishment are reminiscent of the scapegoat ritual. Thus, Lester Grabbe points to a number of parallels between the Azazel narrative in 1 Enoch and the wording of Leviticus 16, including “the similarity of the names Asael and Azazel; the punishment in the desert; the placing of sin on Asael/Azazel; the resultant healing of the land.â€<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Orlov_19-0">[19]</sup> Daniel Stökl also observes that “the punishment of the demon resembles the treatment of the goat in aspects of geography, action, time and purpose.â€<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Orlov_19-1">[19]</sup> Thus, the place of Asael’s punishment designated in 1 Enoch as Dudael is reminiscent of the rabbinic terminology used for the designation of the ravine of the scapegoat in later rabbinic interpretations of the Yom Kippur ritual. Stökl remarks that “the name of place of judgment (Dudael) is conspicuously similar in both traditions and can likely be traced to a common origin.â€<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Orlov_19-2">[19]</sup>

 

[Edward]

For the open minded, I will post an excellent video by Chuck Missler on the return of the Nephilim. It is all about this subject and well backed up by scripture. He doesn't miss anything to do with this subject that I can tell.

[video=youtube;u0gZMFD34Vc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=u0gZMFD34Vc[/video]

It is long, but I would think that such an important subject would be viewed with an open mind and not merely cast aside in favor of ones preconceptions. I have studied this quite extensivly and did the homework to see if Chuck is stretching anything and I can not seem to poke holes in it. I'd like to suggest to all that if they choose top post and denounce these possibilities, to offer an alternate interpretation, rather than empty denouncement. This would be the ethical and scholarly way to approach the discussion of it.