The Giants/Nephilim in the Bible.

[phipps]

Genesis 6:4, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Giants/Nephilim existed before sons of God and daughters of men intermarried.

Some Christians read Genesis 6:4 to mean that the giants were only the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However the Bible shows that giants lived on the earth even before the inter-marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The first part of Genesis 6:4 tells us, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them." So the giants/nephilim existed before and after the sons of God and daughters of men bore children together. So who were the parents of the nephilim before the sons of God married the daughters of men?

 

[phipps]

What Nephilim means in Hebrew.

The Hebrew word translated as “giant” in Genesis 6:4, is Nephilim, meaning “fallen ones,” or “violent ones.” One commentator wrote, “In men’s eyes they were ‘the heroes of old, men of renown,’ but in God’s eyes they were sinners, fallen ones, ripe for judgment.”

The word Nephilim is used only three times in Scripture—once in Genesis 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13. It is always used to describe people of great size and strength. Clearly, the Nephilim were giants physically too.

 

[phipps]

Were the "sons of God" fallen angels?

Many Christians believe Genesis 6:4 indicates that the sons of God were fallen angels. There is a plausible argument that the phrase “sons of God” refers to angels when it is used in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. Although its a phrase used for unfallen angels, those still loyal to God. That point is clear in Job 1:6 and 2:1 where there was a meeting in heaven and the sons of God came before the Lord. Satan appears at both meetings but not once is he called a son of God. Both verses make it a point to say, "and Satan also came among them" and "and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." Satan is not counted among the "sons of God" because he isn't one.

Scripture teaches that there are fallen angels, those that Satan took with him when he fell. These fallen angels are also called demons.

 

[phipps]

Sons of God in the Bible.

Although the phrase "sons of God" refers at times to heavenly beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6), it usually denotes those people who acknowledge God as the source and goal of their life and who enter into a relationship of trust and love with God. All people are the creation of God, and as such all people bear the image of God and should therefore be treated with the greatest respect and dignity; but not all people can be called the sons or children of God in the sense in which the phrase is used in the Bible. All people are, however, potential sons/children of God.

Sons of God in the New Testament

In the New Testament angels are never called “sons of God.” The concept of sonship rather falls into three categories. The first and most common is of Jesus as the unique “Son of God.” The second is of humans as “sons of God” because of creation and, especially, redemption. We have been created as sons and daughters of God; we lost this status because of sin; but through the redemptive work of Christ we are restored into the family of God.

The third category has received little attention, and consists of texts that refer to glorified believers as “sons of God.” When Jesus is confronted by Sadducees on the question of marriage in heaven, He replies that those who will have a part in the resurrection will be “like angels” (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25) or “equal to” angels (Luke 20:36). Jesus then continues with a peculiar statement: believers will be “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). What Jesus is saying is that the resurrection propels the righteous into a higher heavenly existence that He calls “sons of God.” This existence is not unlike that of the angels, neither is it inferior in substance, but nonetheless, it is distinct. Whatever sonship we possess in this life is transitional and anticipates the ultimate restoration to true sonship that will take place only at the resurrection.

A similar use appears in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:9 declares: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” The future tense “shall be called” points to the resurrection. Likewise, in Matthew 5:44-45 those who love their enemies will be “sons of God.”

Paul develops the theme of the glorified “sons” in Romans 8:14-25. In verses 1-11 he describes how the Holy Spirit empowers a believer to live a life in the Spirit. He assures believers that they are already “sons of God” (verse 14), having been adopted into the family of God (verse 15). He then switches to heavenly realities. In verse 19 he declares: “Creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.” While he has affirmed that believers are already sons, a greater and more profound sonship awaits to be revealed. This will take place with “the redemption of our body” (verse 23), i.e., at the resurrection of the dead. It is at that point that believers will experience “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (verse 21).

While Romans 8:14-25 is the clearest exposition of glorified believers as “sons of God,” there are further hints scattered elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 15:40 Paul contrasts the mortal earthly body with the immortal heavenly body to be received at the resurrection, and then states that believers will “bear the image of the heavenly man” (verse 49). Who is this “heavenly man”? Is it a reference to Jesus? Or is Paul comparing mortal existence to the archetypal creation body, the one we will receive anew when we become glorified “sons of God” as in Luke 20:36?

Summarizing the New Testament evidence, we noted that the concept of sonship is applied (a) to Jesus in a unique way; (b) to humans by virtue of creation and redemption; (c) to believers after the resurrection, when they will receive the heavenly, glorified body and will become sons and daughters in the full sense of the term.

Sons of God in the Old Testament

The Old Testament also contains three categories of texts. First, as in the New Testament, the word “sons” is applied to God’s people because of creation and redemption. Second, the king, as the representative of the people and a type of the coming Messiah, was a “son of God” in a special way (1 Chronicles22:9-10; Psalms 2:7; 89:20, 26-27) The third category entails texts that speak of heavenly “sons of God” (as mentioned in the previous post).

In Job, the earliest Greek translation translated "sons of God" as "angels of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1) and "my angels" (Job 38:7). The phrase "sons of the living God" in Hosea 1:10, however, refers to Israel. Here is more scripture as Israel as the son of God:

Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Deuteronomy 14:1-2, "You are the children of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

 

[phipps]

Were the Nephilim Hybrids of Humans and Fallen Angels?

First, the Bible teaches that angels are much more powerful than human beings (2 Samuel 24:16; Matthew. 13:39, 41, 49; 24:31; Luke 1:19, 20; 2:9, 10; 20:36; Acts 5:19; 12:8-12; 1 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Peter 2:11). If they bred with humans, we would expect the offspring to be a hybrid race of supermen. But biblically regarding the post-Flood Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 indicates that they were not a race of supermen. They were human and quite conquerable. Since Numbers 13 contains the only other use of the term Nephilim, there is reason to believe that the pre-Flood Nephilim were not supermen, either.

Second, Christ taught that angels are not sexual beings. Luke 20:34-36; Mark 12:25. In Matthew 22:30, Christ says, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” So the righteous who will be in heaven will not marry or be given in marriage just like the angels. Whether they are fallen or unfallen angels cannot marry. God only intended for procreation to take place in marriage. Therefore angels cannot procreate because they cannot marry. The Bible also indicates that angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:14). Non-sexual spirit beings would not have been sexually attracted to human women.

Third, as noted above, angels are much more powerful than humans. If angels chose to mate with human women, humans could do nothing to stop it. Why, then, would God judge mankind for the misbehavior of fallen angels?

By a process of elimination, the best view is that Genesis 6:4 refers to the corruption of the godly line through intermarriage with the ungodly. This is the correct interpretation based purely upon scriptural considerations.

 

[TokiEl]

Some Christians read Genesis 6:4 to mean that the giants were only the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However the Bible shows that giants lived on the earth even before the inter-marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The first part of Genesis 6:4 tells us, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them." So the giants/nephilim existed before and after the sons of God and daughters of men bore children together. So who were the parents of the nephilim before the sons of God married the daughters of men?

The first part of Genesis 6:4 tells us, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them."


This is how it is read.

There were giants/nephilim before the Flood... and also after.



Giants/nephilim came to be before the Flood because sons of God mated with women.

Also after the Flood there were giants/nephilim... but how they came to be is not mentioned.

Maybe some giants/nephilim survived the Flood or sons of God were at it again ?

Perhaps giants/nephilim genes were brought into the Ark by one of the women ?


What we know is that giants are common in folklore and megaliths are still seen and smithsonians are busy suppressing giant bones.

For some reason the existence of giants are above top secret... and that's why i think you're a troll.

 

[phipps]

Other Giants/Nephilim in the Bible.

When the Israelites were preparing to invade Canaan, they sent out spies to scout the land. The spies were awestruck by the size of the Canaanites. They called them Nephilim. “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” (Numbers 13:31-33). “The people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there” (Deuteronomy 1:28).

Please note that the Israelite spies were in no doubt about the humanity of these Nephilim. “The people are greater and taller than we.” They were very large people, but they were just people.

The Bible records that the Anakites/Anakim were people of tremendous size and strength. “a people great and tall, the descendants of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the descendants of Anak?’” (Deuteronomy 9:2). The Anakites came from Kiriath Arba, (“City of Arba”) later called Hebron (Joshua 21:11). There were three groups of Anakites—the Sheshai, the Ahiman, and the Talmai, all of whom descended from Anak, who was descended from Arba (Joshua 15:13-14).

In addition to the Anakites, Canaan was also inhabited by the Emites/Emim, Zamzummites/Zamzummim, and Rephaites, all of whom were giants. “(The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim” (Deuteronomy 2:10-11). The Zamzummites/Zamzummim were, “a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim” (Deuteronomy 2:20-21).

The Rephaites were a giant people that had lived in the area since before Abraham’s time (Genesis 14:5-6). One of the Rephaites was Og, King of Bashan. Scripture records that his bed was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide (Deuteronomy 3:11).

Of course, the Anakites, and the other tall, strong Canaanites, were mortal and could be defeated in battle. The Moabites, descendants of Lot, defeated and displaced the Emites, and the Ammonites, descended from Lot by a different son, defeated and displaced the Zamzummites. Israel’s victory over King Og was celebrated in song and story, and is mentioned at seders to this day (Psalm 135:10, 11; 136:17-22; Nehemiah 9:22).

The land of the Anakites was given to Caleb, one of the spies who was undaunted by the great size and strength of the Canaanites. In fact, Caleb and Joshua almost wiped out the Anakites. They drove the survivors out of the Hebron area and into Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Joshua 11:21-22; 15:13-14).

Later, we find the remnant of the Anakites joining the Philistines and waging war against Israel. Goliath, young David’s adversary, was from Gath and was apparently descended from the Anakites who fled to Philistia. Goliath was six cubits and a span tall (1 Samuel 17:4). If a cubit was eighteen inches, Goliath was over nine feet tall; a twenty-one-inch cubit would make him over eleven feet tall.

David’s combat with Goliath was not Israel’s only encounter with the giants of Gath. Four other Philistine fighters are identified as “sons of Rapha,” indicating that they were giants:

2 Samuel 21:16-21, "Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels, who was bearing a new sword, thought he could kill David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his aid, and struck the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him, saying, “You shall go out no more with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel.” Now it happened afterward that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant. Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant. So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him."

A parallel passage states that Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, “one of the descendants of the Rephaites,” indicating that the expression “sons of Rapha” does not mean the sons of a man named Rapha but rather the descendants of the Rephaites, meaning giants (1 Chronicles 20:4-8).

Summary

Moses wrote that giants lived before the Flood; he used the term "Nephilim" to describe them. When the Israelites found nine-foot-tall men living in Canaan, they associated them with the Nephilim that Moses had written about. But the Nephilim that the Israelites encountered in Canaan cannot have been the descendants of a discrete group that lived before the Flood, because everyone who lived before the Flood was destroyed in it, except for Noah and his family. And these Nephilim were not superhuman, because the Israelites defeated them and drove the survivors to the Philistine cities (and sometimes had to fight their descendants several generations later, as David fought Goliath).

A reasonable conclusion from the biblical witness is that people who lived before the Flood were of extremely large stature, and that very tall people persisted, in pockets and isolated areas, for more than a thousand years after the Flood. The tribes of giants that Israel encountered in Canaan were some of these people.

 

[TokiEl]

Moses wrote that giants lived before the Flood; he used the term "Nephilim" to describe them. When the Israelites found nine-foot-tall men living in Canaan, they associated them with the Nephilim that Moses had written about. But the Nephilim that the Israelites encountered in Canaan cannot have been the descendants of a discrete group that lived before the Flood, because everyone who lived before the Flood was destroyed in it, except for Noah and his family. And these Nephilim were not superhuman, because the Israelites defeated them and drove the survivors to the Philistine cities (and sometimes had to fight their descendants several generations later, as David fought Goliath).

You might think it is normal for some humans to be over ten feet tall with six fingers and toes and double row of teeth... but that's because you are a troll or mentally challenged. Besides it was God who led the battle against these freaks of nature... so it would be very surprising if the israelites did not overcome them.


You are one of the most stubborn stiff necked people ive ever come across.

Are you an african jew ?

 

[phipps]

Giants have always been around.

Giants have always been around … before and after the Flood as we can clearly read from God's Word.

Take Robert Wadlow for example. He was born in Alton, Illinois, in 1918. At birth he weighed a normal eight pounds, six ounces. At six months, he weighed 30 pounds. A year later, at 18 months, he weighed 62 pounds. He wasn’t fat; he was tall. He continued to grow at an astounding rate, reaching 6 feet, 2 inches and 195 pounds by the time he was eight. When he was 13, he became the world’s tallest Boy Scout. At 13, he was 7 feet, 4 inches tall. Eventually, Robert reached a height of nearly 9 feet! (In comparison, Goliath was about 9 feet, 6 inches.) Robert’s height actually qualified him as the tallest person in modern history.

But this oversize fame wasn’t always easy for him. His clothing required three times the normal amount of cloth, and his size 37 shoes cost thousands of dollars a pair—and that’s back during the Great Depression. When Robert turned 20, the International Shoe Company provided his shoes for free and hired him to promote the company. That’s all he did for an income. He visited more than 800 towns in 41 states and traveled 300,000 miles on his goodwill tour. The shoe company had to modify a car so he could get in, removing the front seat so he could sit in the back and stretch out his long legs.

Even though he was of enormous size, he was very good natured, intelligent, and gentle. People were always giving him shocked stares. They would ask him, “Does it bother you when everyone stares at you?” He would reply, “Oh, I just look above it all.” He tried to maintain a normal life, enjoying stamp collecting and photography. He’d even take pictures of people taking pictures of him.

Robert was a modern-day giant, with no need of fallen angels nor aliens to produce him or explain his existence.

Here are some YouTube video on Robert Wadlow.

There are plenty more videos of Robert on YouTube.

Videos of the tallest people in the world.

There are plenty more videos of the tallest people in the world too.

 

[TokiEl]

Giants have always been around.

Giants are not normal.

They came into being because sons of God mated with women.

Blood lines some more than others might pass on this hybrid heredity...

 

[phipps]

The book of Enoch

Biblically there is not a hint that the sons of God were fallen angels nor would God use a term of endearment for fallen angels. The term "sons of God" is term of endearment that God uses for righteous beings who are obedient to Him as I posted above.

So if its not biblical that the sons of God are fallen angels where do many Christians get the idea that the sons of God were fallen angels and had sex with human beings that sired half human half fallen angel hybrid giants?

Well, its from the book of Enoch. Can the book of Enoch be trusted though? Its not part of the inspired 66 books of the Bible after all. Here are some reasons why this pseudepigraphal book isn’t included in the biblical canon:

1. The last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, was written about 450 B.C. Enoch was written in the first century B.C. Jews believed that inspiration ceased with Malachi. They did not consider the book of Enoch inspired.

2. Christians agree that the Old and New Testaments — all 66 books — are inspired by God. Additionally, the apostles recognized these books as inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16). All others, including the book of Enoch, were rejected as not having been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

3. The book of Enoch is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Here are some examples:

a. The story of angels having sex with women contradicts Jesus’ saying in Matthew 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” This means angels are not sexual beings, fallen and unfallen.

b. Eighteen of these angels are listed by name in Enoch 6:3, 8; their leader is Semyaz. Not one of these names appears in the Bible. The giants they produce were 450 feet tall (Enoch 7:2). “These [giants] consumed the produce of all the people until the people detested feeding them. So the giants turned against [the people] in order to eat them” (7:3, 4). This is rather fanciful and against Scripture.

c. In Enoch 10:4, 5, “The Lord said to Raphael [a good angel] ‘Bind Azaz’el [an evil angel] hand and foot [and] throw him into the darkness!’ And he made a hole in the desert which was in Duda’el and cast him there; he threw on top of him rugged and sharp rocks.” According to Enoch, you can bind angels by throwing them into a hole in the desert.

d. In chapter 13, Enoch intercedes for Azaz’el.

e. In Enoch 15:9 evil spirits came out of the bodies of the giants.

“Many more fanciful and weird stories are contained in the book,” says Dr. Pfandl. “Jews and Christians, therefore, never considered the book as inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

In order to believe anything written in the book of Enoch, all of it has got to harmonise with the Bible not just some of it. The Word of God does not have half truths. All of the Bible is the truth and harmonises perfectly that is why, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Timothy 3:16). If it doesn't all harmonise, its to be rejected immediately.

The book of Enoch is a hoax and not of God and is completely false about many things including the sons of God, the daughters of men and Nephilim. It does not and never will harmonise with God's Word and is therefore not inspired of God.

 

[phipps]

Lost Books: Are they Really Lost?

Summary: Several books were written around the time of Christ but are not included in the Bible. What separates these books from the 66 chosen to comprise Scripture?

The phrase “lost books of the Bible” fills our minds with romantic images of dusty parchments and scrolls found by an Indiana Jones-style archaeologist in an ancient tomb. However, in reality all the “lost books” can be readily named and have been known by the Church for centuries. They shouldn’t really be called lost at all.

There are three main categories of lost books, as follows:

The Pseudepigrapha

Some of the books are called the Pseudepigrapha. The Oxford American Dictionary notes the word originated in the 17th century from the Greek pseudepigraphos, which literally means “with false title.”

Some people who doubt the validity of the Bible feel that these books pose a valid counter to the present makeup of the Bible. They say that because the Pseudepigrapha contains content that counters the existing canon, the decision to exclude the lost books is biased.

Some books have strong support from modern sources, such as the support the “Gospel of Judas” recently enjoyed from National Geographic. Yet all of them were written long after the original New Testament canon had been closed. These books were never accepted as genuine by the early Church fathers.

The Didache
Another “lost book" was written just after the time of Christ and is known as the Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” It is thought to have been written between 65 and 80 AD.

The Didache is a catechism or handbook of Christian procedures. Many of the instructions in the Didache are based on Biblical concepts but are added to with rituals and direction that are not supported in the Word of God, as we can see from the section on baptism:

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

Jesus gave no instruction in the Gospels about how or where to be baptized. Although He did encourage fasting, nothing was said about fasting as a prerequisite to baptism. In fact, Acts 8 tells the story of a man who wanted to be baptized as soon as he understood the good news. Philip, the man who was helping him understand Scripture, did not tell him to fast first, but instead baptized him immediately in the nearby river:

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:36-38).

All the other books of the Bible intertwine and support each other. This book cannot be included as it is not endorsed by the rest of Scripture.

The Apocrypha
Another group of books often called “lost books” is the Apocrypha. While the pseudepigraphical books were written within 200 years of the time of Christ (centred on the New Testament time period), the apocryphal books were written during the period of the Old Testament, but long after the original Old Testament Scriptures were completed.

The apocryphal books are rejected by both Jewish and Protestant scholars, but widely accepted by Roman Catholic scholars. The books include portions that support justification for both suicide and assassination, lying if the end justifies the means, prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and worship of idols. These and many other doctrines are acceptable to Roman Catholic theologians largely because the Roman Catholic Church accepts tradition as having equal authority with Scripture. Protestants, who respect only Scripture as the ground for belief, do not accept these writings.

None of these books call themselves inspired by God. Also, the suggested authors often did not live in the same era the books came about. Even the early Church believed these books to be fraudulent, and did not give them same authority as the inspired Scriptures.

God preserved and inspired the Scriptures over thousands of years.

Link.

 

[phipps]

Lost Books: Are they Really Lost?

Whether a book is considered “lost” depends on how we define the Bible. If it is a supernatural book inspired by God and preserved by God, then there cannot be any “lost books.”

Obviously, if God inspired His Word it would be up to Him to preserve His Word so that human beings would be able to read it and benefit from it. It would be counter to His character that God would produce a supernatural message for all humankind, and then allow parts of that message to be lost. The idea of “lost books” is not valid if we accept that God inspired and preserved His Word.

What if we think the Scriptures are merely a human invention of the early Church? Then the so-called “lost books” would be excluded by the early Church—but the early Church would be those who have the most right to define what Christianity is, because they are the original believers. So from a purely human perspective, if the early Church rejected a book from Scripture, it would have to be because that book does not teach what the early Church believed.

If the Bible is a purely human invention, then those who assembled it have every right to include or exclude whatever books they felt would express what they truly believed. The idea of “lost books” is not valid if we accept that the early Church assembled the Bible according to their beliefs.

So our inescapable conclusion is simply this: there are no such things as truly “lost books.” Both according to faith or logic, the concept cannot be supported.

The books that are being uncovered and promoted today as “lost” books usually support the heretical doctrines of various groups The Lord has inspired and preserved His Word down through the centuries, and continues to do so. The “lost books” are lost for good reason—they should never have been considered in the first place.

Link.

 

[phipps]

The only reason why some Christians think the book of Enoch should be trusted as God's Word.

The only reason for considering the Book of Enoch is a statement from the book of Jude: "Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him"" (Jude 14-15).

First, please note that Jude does not state he is quoting from a writing of Enoch. He states that he is quoting a statement of Enoch. Since there are multiple Enochs mentioned in the Bible, he makes it clear that the statement comes from the Enoch who was the seventh descendent from Adam. If it wasn't a quote from a book, then how did Jude know what Enoch said? The simple answer is that if we accept that Jude is inspired, then these words were given to him directly from the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 2:12-13). It is the same means how Moses, ascribed to being the recorder of Genesis, was able to write the words of people who lived hundreds of years before him.

Enoch 1:9 states, "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." The wording is similar enough to Jude to get people excited that this must be Jude's source. However, as George H. Schodde notes in his book on the Book of Enoch (1882), Jude's citation is not a literal reproduction. This then leaves supporters of the Book of Enoch with a quandary: is their copy a bad copy or will they say that Jude was bad at quoting (i.e. not inspired) which would then remove support for their book? Another possibility is that Enoch's statement was a part of Jewish oral traditions. The Book of Enoch recorded it as it was currently known and Jude wrote what was actually said. If this possibility was true, then it would say that Jewish oral traditions were remarkably good to retain a statement this close to the correct version.

And then there is another possibility that hasn't been resolved. In all the fragments of the Book of Enoch, both Aramaic and Greek, none contain Enoch 1:9. The only version to have it is the Ethiopian translations. There is insufficient evidence to determine if someone after Jude modified the text used for the Ethiopian translation to make it more realistic in appearance or if it is original. In fact, there is a large debate about whether a person knowledgeable of Christianity added "enhancements" to an older copy of the Book of Enoch, producing the current version. The lack of textual evidence makes it difficult to settle the questions.

 

[TruthExposer]

Genesis 6:4, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Giants/Nephilim existed before sons of God and daughters of men intermarried.

Some Christians read Genesis 6:4 to mean that the giants were only the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However the Bible shows that giants lived on the earth even before the inter-marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The first part of Genesis 6:4 tells us, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them." So the giants/nephilim existed before and after the sons of God and daughters of men bore children together. So who were the parents of the nephilim before the sons of God married the daughters of men?

my friend was a Nephilim in his past life

 

[phipps]

There are so many falsities (I can't post on most of them) in the book of Enoch as posted above, but I forgot to post on what it says about how sin came into this world. Its connected to the lie about the sons of God being fallen angels, daughters of men and Nephilim.

The Book of Enoch states that sin came from the intermixing of angel seed and man's seed. Lamech is told to hide so that his pure seed may be preserved. God would then wipe the world with a flood, thus removing sin (chapter 10).

The Bible states that sin comes from breaking God's law. "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Sin entered the world because Adam and Eve broke the commandment of God. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). So instead of sin entering the world through one man, the Book of Enoch has sin being taught to men by 200 fallen angels (chapter 8).

 

[Oceanic]

There are so many falsities (I can't post on most of them) in the book of Enoch as posted above, but I forgot to post on what it says about how sin came into this world. Its connected to the lie about the sons of God being fallen angels, daughters of men and Nephilim.

The Book of Enoch states that sin came from the intermixing of angel seed and man's seed. Lamech is told to hide so that his pure seed may be preserved. God would then wipe the world with a flood, thus removing sin (chapter 10). The Bible states that sin comes from breaking God's law. "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Sin entered the world because Adam and Eve broke the commandment of God. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). So instead of sin entering the world through one man, the Book of Enoch has sin being taught to men by 200 fallen angels (chapter 8).

All things considered, it's just unusual to me how you want to show us your personal standpoints in huge paragraphs without actually discussing it with other people. It's giving me "Comprehend this information, believe me, and go on your way" vibes. And you do this quite often which is also giving major red flags.

And regarding the "lost books" topic, many scriptures have been removed. White people burnt a lot of them, some are hidden within the Vatican, and God ordered one of his prophets to hide a few scriptures because there is some information we are not currently meant to acquire yet, which is why there are videos of people travelling and randomly finding pieces of scripture that is in Hebrew (the first language)

Next, regarding "sons of God" I personally think whites over the years have translated many things purposely incorrectly. Why everyone is referred to as "mankind", "sons of God", "every man for himself" I believe those are from patriarchy and not the original narrative- so for all we know the original text concerning the fallen angels could've said "angels of God" and regarding Israel, the original text could've said "sons AND daughters of God" or just simply "children of God"

 

[phipps]

@Oceanic

All things considered, it's just unusual to me how you want to show us your personal standpoints in huge paragraphs without actually discussing it with other people. It's giving me "Comprehend this information, believe me, and go on your way" vibes. And you do this quite often which is also giving major red flags.

If you've been to any of my threads I have discussed lot of topics with people here. I don't have a problem with discussions at all (I'm having with you). But because I post subjects that most are not taught in their churches (they are biblical though), my threads have sometimes lead to heated arguments and insults. It doesn't help that I am a blunt person and I am constantly correcting unbiblical truths here. I suppose that gets some people riled up. I have recent threads titled, Is God particular? and Judged by law and works. If you do go on those threads you will understand why I sometimes prefer to post on subjects without discussions. Sometimes I post on a subject where I have already disagreed with someone and I know we will never see eye to eye on the subject. After a while I will stop having that same discussion with them because we'll just argue again. Only God through the Holy Spirit can convict people of His truths from the Bible at the end of the day. Sometimes I will tell them I don't intend to have that same discussion with them ever again.

And regarding the "lost books" topic, many scriptures have been removed. White people burnt a lot of them, some are hidden within the Vatican, and God ordered one of his prophets to hide a few scriptures because there is some information we are not currently meant to acquire yet, which is why there are videos of people travelling and randomly finding pieces of scripture that is in Hebrew (the first language)

Whether many scriptures have been removed or not from the lost books, the remaining parts should be consistent with the Bible. Its not like they are in half sentences are they? I posted what the book of Enoch says about different things including about the sons of God being fallen angels and how sin came into this world. There are complete chapters on those subjects and they contradict the Bible.

And I disagree that God ordered any of His prophets to hide a few scriptures. That is contrary to God's Word that says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And 1 Timothy 2:3-4 says, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." God promised that He would lead us into all truth (John 16:13) by His Holy Spirit which is promised to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32). If we are genuinely seeking His will, He will reveal to us the blessings in the Bible. God has preserved His Word for millennia and centuries. The Bible has been translated in so many languages around the world so all mankind no matter what language they understand can get to know and accept Christ and His precepts and be saved. God does not want us to be ignorant about anything in His Word and Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets." His prophets then revealed/reveal these secrets to us. If certain truths are not acquired yet, I'm afraid, they are not meant to be.

Next, regarding "sons of God" I personally think whites over the years have translated many things purposely incorrectly. Why everyone is referred to as "mankind", "sons of God", "every man for himself" I believe those are from patriarchy and not the original narrative- so for all we know the original text concerning the fallen angels could've said "angels of God" and regarding Israel, the original text could've said "sons AND daughters of God" or just simply "children of God"

That would not be consistent with the entire Bible though would it? When we study the Bible we have to study what the whole of it has to say on a subject. So if we want to find out what the term "sons of God" means, we find out where its used in other parts of the Bible and under what context then compare scripture.

If with Israel "the original text could've said "sons AND daughters of God" or just simply "children of God" it would mean the same thing wouldn't it? In the Bible the term "sons of God" doesn’t mean just males. Many Bible translations use the phrase “children of God.” Galatians 3:26 in the KJV says, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” It is by faith that a man or woman becomes a “child of God.” And, of course, some verses do mention God’s adopted sons and daughters. “Even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:5 NKJV).

Galatians 4:5-7, "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through of God through Christ."

The inescapable conclusion from these verses and others is that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to the righteous children of God not fallen angels. God would not call fallen angels His sons or children. This is consistent with the entire Bible.

 

[TokiEl]

The inescapable conclusion from these verses and others is that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to the righteous children of God not fallen angels. This is consistent with the entire Bible.

Truly it absolutely refers to angels who mated with women.


That's why there are tares... and a serpent seed.

That's why there are demons and bulls of Bashan.


That's why there are aliens and anal probes. L0L

 

[phipps]

Human beings cannot procreate with another creature of any other kind.

When God created all living creatures He created them after their own kind, and only after their own kind. “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.” Genesis 1:24, and this obviously includes mankind.

1 Corinthians 15:39-40, “…but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”

So no human being can reproduce with another creature of any other kind:

Celestial: That is of heaven/spiritual world.

Terrestrial: That is of earth.

The bodies of the celestial and the terrestrial are different, and cannot reproduce, as Jesus confirms in Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:35.