The Book of Enoch and Other Apocryphal Writings

[King James]

Thanks Edward. This video explains this subject very well. I've seen it before as well as other good videos that have been removed from youtube.

 

[jasoncran]

Content deleted by handy

 

[jasoncran]

http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/the-return-of-the-nephilim/

there ya go that will put an end to any return theory. I also looked up that. really stargates? really watchers and so forth. that is why I don't buy it.

The Return Of The Nephilim?

Q. I was reading about a new book on (a popular Christian news service) that cites the Book of Enoch, concerning the return of the Nephilim, possibly this year. I do not know if Enoch had written any book, but I can’t help wondering. Enoch supposedly says that at the 70 generations of 70 years is set to expire. What are your thoughts on this theory, and the Book of Enoch?
A. The major premise of this book is a prophecy from the Book of Enoch that the fallen angels who fathered the Nephilim with the help of human women were to be held in chains for 70 generations and then brought back to be judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire. The event that marked the beginning of their incarceration was the Great Flood, which the author dated at 2800-2900 BC. Then using Psalm 90:10 as his guide he determined a generation to be 70 years in length for a total of 4900 years. 4900 years from 2900 BC is about 2000 AD.
The problem is that Psalm 90:10 established an average lifetime to be 70-80 years, not an average generation. Generation and lifetime are not equivalent periods of time. According to the dictionary, a generation is only the time between a man’s birth and the birth of his first son, which in Biblical times averaged out to be about 40 years.
This is simply another version of the mistake scholars made in saying that the Lord would return 40 years from the rebirth of Israel based on Matt. 24:34 where the word generation also appears. In that case 70 years is the correct measure because the Lord was talking about the lifetimes of those being born then (this generation will certainly not pass away … ).
But the prophecy of “Enoch” clearly states 70 generations, about 2800 years, not 70 lifetimes. If “Enoch’s” prophecy was legitimate, then the judgment of the fallen angels took place around the time of the 1st Coming and is not something about to happen now. Peter mentioned Jesus preaching to spirits in prison who disobeyed at the time of Noah’s flood. (1 Peter 3:19-20) Maybe this is what he was talking about.
There’s a good reason why the Book of Enoch is not included in the Bible. It didn’t pass the tests for inspiration. It wasn’t written by Enoch, it wasn’t written at the time of Enoch’s life, and it contains theological and historical errors that prove it’s not inspired

 

[jasoncran]

btw. ramban covers that real well, he said that if any of the women and sons were of these evil giants they wouldn't be there. they wouldn't be allowed on the arc. make sense since it took faith to believe that the flood would come.

 

[King James]

not satan. fallen angels. not serpent seed.
not pituitary gland giants that are half-crippled and die half-lifed. strong healthy giants.
demon not = to nephilim. demon either fallen angels or nephilim spirit/soul. depends how you take it.



bible has everything needed on the subject without enoch book. the churches just don't like it. it would explain too much.
one thing we must remember is it may not be too important either way since jesus wasn't too concerned with the issue since he could have brought it up when he said angels don't marry in heaven and then elaborated no further. Also, when Jesus mentioned, as in the days of noah, he didn't mention nephilims.

 

[Edward]

moderators have been discussing this issue all day in the mod forum and have reached the conclusion that while the discussion may reach towards the serpent seed doctrine, that the line has not been crossed into it. Serpent seed proponents declare that Cain was the result of sexual union between Satan and Eve. This clearly contradicts scripture as does the Serpent Seed proposal that the fall of man was due to Eve's tryst with Satan as opposed to Adam's disobedience to God as Romans clearly teaches. None of this is being discussed in this thread, nor will it.

 

[handy]

Just a note to keep to the subject of the Book of Enoch. As has been stated, the heretic doctrine of "Serpent Seed" will not be allowed under our Terms of Service. However a general discussion of the origins of the Nephilium is not synonymous with serpent seed doctrine. I'll be keeping an eye on this topic. As long as participants in this discussion remain on topic and do not stray into discussing the merits of serpent seed doctrine, there should be no problem. As always, keep respectful in your attitudes and posts and let charity towards others be your guide.

 

[stovebolts]

Who is Azazel?

Leviticus 16:8–10 reads:

Wrong Azazel... Jason is quoting from Chabad.org

Shamchazai and Azael are angels and come from the Talmud: Here is what the footnote reads: See Likkutei Sichot, vol. 28, p. 85, for a discussion of this issue.
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/artic...en-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm#footnote4a1987422

 

[Edward]

Back on topic, now that I think about it, there are other books in the bible that are referenced and not actually part of the bible canon. What of these books? In my mind, being referenced in the bible is an endorsement, would you all agree with that. Jesus referenced the book of Isaiah and the book of Daniel, but they are a given at this point because they are in the bible. But what of the others? Should we read them for the historical accounts? Give them validity? Or demonize them because they are apocryphal?

A quick google search of books referenced but not in the bible brought up quite a list. Some, I haven't even heard of. I need to read more. Here's some that I found. Let's have some comments on some of these if anyone has heard of or read any of them.

Book of the Covenant
Book of the Wars of the Lord
Book of Jasher (I have this one)
The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes
Book of Samuel the Seer
Nathan the Prophet
Acts of Solomon (The wisest man who ever lived? Sounds good to me!)
Shemaiah the Prophet
Prophecy of Abijah
Story of Prophet Iddo
Visions of Iddo the Seer
Iddo Genealogies
Book of Jehu
Sayings of the Seers
Book of Enoch
Book of Gad the Seer
Epistle to Corinth
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
Nazarene Prophecy Source
Acts of Uziah
The Annals of King David
Jude, the Missing Epistle

Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/lost_books.htm

I've also heard a reference to a book called "The Gospel of Judas" but it didn't come up in this list, and I have no idea if it is of Iscariot, or the other Judas who was a disciple?

I also have a question. If apocryphal writings are to be denounced, how is it that we men seem to put so much stock in other men's books? Pastors and Rabbis and so forth? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Sinthesis]

We are warned about preoccupation with Jewish fables for good reason.

2Ti 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 - And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
​

 

[jasoncran]

just because they are referenced doesn't mean that all of it was good. jasher, that may be a book that has a story that the first audience knew about and it was recorded there but not considered inspired. even the chassidics don't really quote that stuff.

 

[Edward]

just because they are referenced doesn't mean that all of it was good.

A reference from the bible is like the good housekeeping seal of approval.

 

[jasoncran]

I didn't promote it, I said just because its mentioned in the bible does NOT means that its ok. jasher is mentioned but then what is mentioned is already told my the writers, therefore why read them and consider them canonical? do you get it?

when I quote the Talmud I always take the scripture to compare and see how the statements in their that are found orally(Talmud was oral for years) and then go from there.this is known to those that are studied in the bible. but I don't buy all of the Talmud. I know where it goes off.i also ask my elder that is way more studied in this then I am from time to time.that said when we read these books three things should happen.

1)does it properly show GOD?
2) does it cause me to see GOD as merciful, Holy?
3) does it cause me to repent, worship, be thankful?

if the extracanonical book do none of the above and also don't contradict then they are ok but we BOTH know that if that was the case the books that aren't in the bible would be so. they aren't . only the rcc and the orthodox allow them history has shown that the rcc added them in after the protestant schism. the orthodox only include enoch.

Now then has any of the nephilum talk of a return really done the above? has their return or will their return be a sign of judgement whereby as in all judgement God is glorified and man is condemned? if so then why wouldn't our lord and also the apostles write or speak about them. I can assure that jesus wasn't contradicted by the apostles.

 

[Edward]

i also ask my elder that is way more studied in this then I am from time to time.that said when we read these books three things should happen.

1)does it properly show GOD?
2) does it cause me to see GOD as merciful, Holy?
3) does it cause me to repent, worship, be thankful?

This is a reasonable question as relates to the topic of the Book of Enoch, and other apocryphal writings and books that are mentioned in the bible. This is my topic. Let us not discuss other writings. Now then, to answer these questions. I've read some of Jasher and Enoch, and both of these books show God properly as far through as I have read them so far. They do cause me to see God as Holy, and merciful, except to the fallen Angels and Nephilim. To worship and be thankful, yes. To repent? Perhaps, they speak of repentance, yet I do not read these books for that, I go to the Gospels of the bible for that.

I believe that, inspired or not, these books may be valuable is such a way as to confirm and demonstrate the vocabulary of the times, and perhaps have some historical value. These books are mentioned in the bible. The bible does not give full accounts of every single thing. So to refer to another book which fill in some holes...and is referenced in the scriptures themselves...may not be a bad thing.

 

[jasoncran]

my elder believes that but i suggest that you do what he says. that is for the more matured in the bible.he taught seminary and would also take the bible and play devil's advocate and deny the bible's truths to teach. ie quote psalms 23 AND THEN ask his students why the bible is true and not Hinduism since they have a chapter in their book that is exactly the same.

 

[Edward]

but i suggest that you do what he says.

Ask myself those three questions about what I am reading? Yes, that sounds like good advice. I pretty much had been doing that anyway, having scriptures right there when I read Enoch and Jasher to compare with. It absolutely has to harmonize with scripture or it's no good. Especially with Enoch and knowing that forgeries abound of it. Especially how it portrays God. Different information is in them than in scriptures so it may be able to fill in some holes about certain details of events, yet the theme must be upheld. So far, my copy of Enoch does this (and Jasher).

I do study the scriptures, and exegesis on any subject requires that we do our own homework. Anyone can make a mistake, so it's important that we check these things out for ourselves, just in case.

 

[handy]

Just a reminder to stay on topic and also, direct responses at the issues and ideas being discussed rather than any particular member.

 

[westtexas]

3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. On the contrary, they denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras – the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.

Lewis, would you not agree that the author of your article is making the same point that some on this thread are making? I don't know the quote he is using from Second Esdras but would you not agree that he is using a book considered non-canonical by the Protestant Church to make his point and point towards scripture? And that while these books are non-canonical,that there is also some value in reading them along with scripture, as long as they don't disagree with scripture?

 

[Sparkey]

There are multiple translations for the Book of Enoch, which I have not read fully. How many chapters are in it? That's why. Here is something that strikes me as incredible though:

Volkaitis:

[2] ~ The description in the R. H. Charles version of The Book of Enoch states that the giants were 3000 ells tall.

"...(3) And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed (4) all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against (5) them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and (6) fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood..."

The Book of Enoch, Chapter 7: 3-6 ~ R. H. Charles version

My source goes on to say, "An ell is an old English measurement equivalent to 45 inches (Random House Webster's Dictionary). If this was indeed the measurement that Charles was referring to then that would make the giants just short of two miles high [!] "

If one were to say that they didn't like that translation, I would understand. How about this one?

Reverend Richard Laurence, a professor of Hebrew at Oxford, produced the very first English translation of the Book of Enoch in 1821 which was translated directly from the three Ethiopic texts by a famous explorer named James Bruce who first uncovered them in 1773.

His version states that the giants were three hundred cubits tall:

11 And the women conceiving brought forth giants, 12 Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them; 13 When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them; 14 And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.

The Book of Enoch, Chapter 7: 11-14 ~ Richard Laurence version

The same source continues: "A cubit is an ancient Hebrew measurement equivalent of the distance from the elbow to the tip of the fingers which was later standardized to be about 18 inches (or about 45 centimeters. 'McKenzie Dictionary of the Bible' and the 'New Concise Bible Dictionary'). This would make the giants about 450 feet tall. This is corroborated by The Book of Giants in The Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg, and Cook, page 246. Putting this into perspective, however, would make the tallest dinosaurs (Ultrasaurus, Sauroposeidon) registering around 60 feet in height with all four legs on the ground appear the size of a chihuahua to the giants of this size. This is more conceivable albeit still mind-boggling to contemplate."

Here is the source document that I'm quoting: Atlantis Online

And just to be "fair" here is a reply to the article from a different point-of-view:

They were not... the Sumerian texts read that the Nefilim were "Descended from the sky." meaning they came to Earth in spacecraft. An archeologist not versed in aerodynamics would interpret this as "giants".

So please stop spreading this mis-translation. A human body cannot support its own weight over eight feet tall. Even people who are 7 feet have medical problems.

Remember humans are a result of Nefilim/Ape hybrids.

 

[Edward]

There are multiple translations for the Book of Enoch, which I have not read fully. How many chapters are in it?

There's 21 chapters and 1081 verses to the entirety of the Book of Enoch I, that I have in my possesson in E-book form. I'd be glad to e-mail it to you if you wish.

I did notice the measurements while reading it and played with a calculator and came to the same incredible conclusion that you did. Those were some durn big giants! They seemed to get even smaller over time, and even Goliath was said to be only 9 foot or 13 foot depending on who's stuff you read.

I have heard conjecture of different sorts pertaining to why this is, that the giants got smaller. One source says that it was the dilution of Nephilim genes over time which caused it. Another says that the reason in that it is for the deception and the reason for the abductions of earth women (and even cattle mutilations) which all seem to center on the reproductive process and genetic material, which allow them to make hybrids for themselves to either inhabit, and/or to effect a seamless joining of "them" with "us" here on earth, so that we can't tell the difference and that they walk among us. With the idea behind it being that if all are contaminated with Nephilim genes, that there will be no one for Jesus to come and save, for they receive no mercy or grace and are not allowed into heaven.