Fallen angels, humanity and Enoch
- Thread starter Deadtosin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
What does it mean in Aramaic though? I tried to find a source online. Though I've somewhat studied Hebrew, I've never studied Aramaic and didn't manage to find a reliable resource. That's the best guess for the original language it was written in (And no one knows for certain what the original language was, that's only the most logical possibility according to what the scholars say) Different words can have entirely different meanings in the original tongue.
The word Amen for example. In Egyptian, it can mean "hidden" or "what is not seen" (Also, one of their gods had the word amen within it.....but we know that's not what we are referring to when we say it after a prayer). Completely different meaning in Hebrew, where it basically means "So be it" or "I agree". Names commonly get altered when going from one language to the other as well. Saint Peter in English, is San Pedro in Spanish. Yeshua, Jesus, Joshua......I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. Without knowing for sure what language the original book of Enoch is written in, the best approach would be to learn what the Aramaic meaning of the word "azazel" is, and even that might not be the correct interpretation for a literal meaning.
If it's authentically written by Enoch, it's probably a long dead language considering he was on Earth pre-flood, before the tower of babel and confusion of tongues.
The word Amen for example. In Egyptian, it can mean "hidden" or "what is not seen" (Also, one of their gods had the word amen within it.....but we know that's not what we are referring to when we say it after a prayer). Completely different meaning in Hebrew, where it basically means "So be it" or "I agree". Names commonly get altered when going from one language to the other as well. Saint Peter in English, is San Pedro in Spanish. Yeshua, Jesus, Joshua......I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. Without knowing for sure what language the original book of Enoch is written in, the best approach would be to learn what the Aramaic meaning of the word "azazel" is, and even that might not be the correct interpretation for a literal meaning.
If it's authentically written by Enoch, it's probably a long dead language considering he was on Earth pre-flood, before the tower of babel and confusion of tongues.
There is nothing to say that Jude quoted from "the book of Enoch" IT doesn't say "It is written" which is commonly used throughout the bible that prophecies were legit.
This book was proven to be written by multiple authors and not inspired by God. While the book is interesting to read it is not part of the bible due to several contradictions.
The book of Enoch attacks the deity of Christ. Enoch claims Jesus was created, but the bible says He is the "Alpha and Omega. This is just one of many contradictions in this book.
While Jude did comment on Enoch(which is not an exact quote) there is absolutely no evidence Enoch was the author of the entire book, and Jude never stated he quoted from the "book of Enoch" like those before Jude would state "It is written" to confirm factual prophecy.
This book was proven to be written by multiple authors and not inspired by God. While the book is interesting to read it is not part of the bible due to several contradictions.
The book of Enoch attacks the deity of Christ. Enoch claims Jesus was created, but the bible says He is the "Alpha and Omega. This is just one of many contradictions in this book.
While Jude did comment on Enoch(which is not an exact quote) there is absolutely no evidence Enoch was the author of the entire book, and Jude never stated he quoted from the "book of Enoch" like those before Jude would state "It is written" to confirm factual prophecy.
C
Determining Canonicity. What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Yahweh’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21) There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Yahweh God. We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details.
D
It is written is often used, but not always used. There are also instances of "It is written" that refer to books that are NOT in our Bible. The book of Jasher, book of Gad the seer, etc.....there's 10-20 instances of that if memory serves correctly.
The first section of the book of Enoch (The book of watchers), is the one that Jude supposedly quoted from.....and it isn't disputed as being older than Christianity as far as I know. It's the second one where the date is debated the most, it uses the term Son of Man. Some claim it's pre-christian, some say it was added later. Whether it attacks the diety of Christ or not depends on denominational beliefs, whether your a trinitarian or not, etc.... Some would consider it an attack on diety and others wouldn't.
I'm not saying it's credible, but I've always found it an interesting book.
The first section of the book of Enoch (The book of watchers), is the one that Jude supposedly quoted from.....and it isn't disputed as being older than Christianity as far as I know. It's the second one where the date is debated the most, it uses the term Son of Man. Some claim it's pre-christian, some say it was added later. Whether it attacks the diety of Christ or not depends on denominational beliefs, whether your a trinitarian or not, etc.... Some would consider it an attack on diety and others wouldn't.
I'm not saying it's credible, but I've always found it an interesting book.
It is interesting. I actually was reading it the other day. Well, watching it on Youtube til I fell asleep lol.
As for Jude's quote, he is repeating a statement of Enoch. Not from a book. Also, Isaiah 40:8 states that "the word of God lasts forever". If Enoch is a long lost inspired book then Isaiah would have contradiction. The bible has no contradiction.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18 that "not one jot or one little will pass from the law until all is fulfilled" Well, The book of Enoch was apparently missing in action during this time so that would kind of make Jesus a liar is Enoch is an inspired book.
We can also go to Deut 13 to "test" this book. God does not contradict himself yet there are many contradictions. Not just about the deity of Christ. Enoch is not consistent with the rest of scripture so it must be thrown out.
Enoch speaks ALOT about angels, and even mentions angels marrying human women. Yet Mark 12:25 states angels do not marry. Another booboo in the book of Enoch.
I am willing to say there may be some truths to the book, but that doesn't make it inspired. We also will never know what part of the book is truth and the other a fairy tale.
As for Jude's quote, he is repeating a statement of Enoch. Not from a book. Also, Isaiah 40:8 states that "the word of God lasts forever". If Enoch is a long lost inspired book then Isaiah would have contradiction. The bible has no contradiction.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18 that "not one jot or one little will pass from the law until all is fulfilled" Well, The book of Enoch was apparently missing in action during this time so that would kind of make Jesus a liar is Enoch is an inspired book.
We can also go to Deut 13 to "test" this book. God does not contradict himself yet there are many contradictions. Not just about the deity of Christ. Enoch is not consistent with the rest of scripture so it must be thrown out.
Enoch speaks ALOT about angels, and even mentions angels marrying human women. Yet Mark 12:25 states angels do not marry. Another booboo in the book of Enoch.
I am willing to say there may be some truths to the book, but that doesn't make it inspired. We also will never know what part of the book is truth and the other a fairy tale.
D
Oh ya, I agree that we won't ever be able to prove if the whole entire book is authentic no matter how much research is done, So far the only proof we have is the one verse also said by Jude as being authentic. We know Enoch said at least that line, but just because it's in the book of Enoch as we have it isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jude got it from there originally. It is interesting that the oldest text we have of it predates Jude though.
It's mainly the arguments I see against it as being debatable, that's the only reason I think it's worthy of discussion. I've only read the entire book a couple of times so I'm not saying there aren't any contradictions in there.....but so far I haven't had trouble finding a theological counterpoint to any of the contradiction claims I've seen so far. Like your point about "The Word Of God Lasts Forever".....well if it were authentically written by Enoch, it's lasted since before the flood so no contradiction there. It would only confirm what Jesus said, not make him a liar. lol. The book itself also states it was written specifically for a remote generation.
I'm also curious as to if you think that since the book of Gad the seer, the story of the prophet Iddo, the book of Jehu and others that are not in the bible.......though they are mentioned (As in "It is written in the book of...") yet completely missing, no copies of them at all.....would that also make Jesus a liar by that reasoning? That's just a rhetorical question, I know you don't think that of the Lord sis......but if you were to apply the reasoning you applied to the book of Enoch.....he would be by that logic.
Then you have the Mark 12:25 argument, well yes....the angels in heaven do not marry. But Enoch is speaking about fallen angels. We know that angels can and some have sinned because of 2 Peter 2:4.
It's mainly the arguments I see against it as being debatable, that's the only reason I think it's worthy of discussion. I've only read the entire book a couple of times so I'm not saying there aren't any contradictions in there.....but so far I haven't had trouble finding a theological counterpoint to any of the contradiction claims I've seen so far. Like your point about "The Word Of God Lasts Forever".....well if it were authentically written by Enoch, it's lasted since before the flood so no contradiction there. It would only confirm what Jesus said, not make him a liar. lol. The book itself also states it was written specifically for a remote generation.
I'm also curious as to if you think that since the book of Gad the seer, the story of the prophet Iddo, the book of Jehu and others that are not in the bible.......though they are mentioned (As in "It is written in the book of...") yet completely missing, no copies of them at all.....would that also make Jesus a liar by that reasoning? That's just a rhetorical question, I know you don't think that of the Lord sis......but if you were to apply the reasoning you applied to the book of Enoch.....he would be by that logic.
Then you have the Mark 12:25 argument, well yes....the angels in heaven do not marry. But Enoch is speaking about fallen angels. We know that angels can and some have sinned because of 2 Peter 2:4.
D
Care to point out where it says that? This is the verse most people quote as "attacking the diety of Christ" so I'm assuming it's the one your talking about.
"2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."
All it actually says is he was "named" in that hour, before everything else was created basically. There's room for debate about whether that verse has to be interpreted as he was created or not.....I'm not really interested in discussing that argument much personally, because no matter which way you go from there....you also have verses in the new testament like this to contend with:
John 8:42:
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
"
That could turn into quite a lengthy discussion obviously, lol. I think I'm just going to re-read the whole book later and try to find any of these "contradictions". If there are as many as people claim, there's got to be a part of Enoch that's easier to pick apart.
"2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."
All it actually says is he was "named" in that hour, before everything else was created basically. There's room for debate about whether that verse has to be interpreted as he was created or not.....I'm not really interested in discussing that argument much personally, because no matter which way you go from there....you also have verses in the new testament like this to contend with:
John 8:42:
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
"
That could turn into quite a lengthy discussion obviously, lol. I think I'm just going to re-read the whole book later and try to find any of these "contradictions". If there are as many as people claim, there's got to be a part of Enoch that's easier to pick apart.
My problem is that "angels can't breed but Enoch says they mated with women?" Check your own bible that's in genesis "and the sons of god saw the daughters of man and took all they chose and their offspring were strong men, giants and men of renowned. Angels cross breeding or "genetically mingling" with humans is in our very own bibles.
T
I want to point out that in no way am I going to list out all of the contradictions 
I think the best option like you said is to re-read and discern for yourself
I am not here to start an argument against or for the Book of Enoch, I like reading it, but would never preach/teach from it or call it Biblical doctirne
I think the best option like you said is to re-read and discern for yourself I am not here to start an argument against or for the Book of Enoch, I like reading it, but would never preach/teach from it or call it Biblical doctirne
R
I think the reason Enoch is so controversial is because it is addressed right from the start for "the elect", and if that's true, it's not meant for anyone else to acknowledge, embrace or understand. Immediately right after that statement in the first paragraph of the book, Enoch goes into parable mode and remains in it for the remainder of the book. So it must say something other than what it says on the surface.
The tens of thousands of Holy Ones/Saints in the book of Enoch seem to be the 144k on mount Zion with Jesus that this book (in my opinion) is exclusively addressed to. I believe it is one of their instruction manuals for what to do during the tribulation.
The tens of thousands of Holy Ones/Saints in the book of Enoch seem to be the 144k on mount Zion with Jesus that this book (in my opinion) is exclusively addressed to. I believe it is one of their instruction manuals for what to do during the tribulation.
It is only an interpretation that the "sons of God" were angels. It could have been they were desendents of Seth or decendants of fallen men(men who fell away from God).
So, if angels bred with human woman in the OT, and Jesus said angels don't marry/breed then the bible is a liar or your interpretation is false.
So, if angels bred with human woman in the OT, and Jesus said angels don't marry/breed then the bible is a liar or your interpretation is false.
first, angels are eternal that's why they weren't given to breed or marry, it says that in the book of Enoch. But we are talking genetic alterations we don't have to know how. We humans have that technology let alone demons.
Also, it's not only my interpretation, you can watch studies with experts like les feldic. it's not hard at all to see that the bible is talking about a different species. They have different physical characteristics and powers. But I'm on my phone so I'm at a disadvantage as to posting facts for you. I will say that your blatant "calling God a liar "twisting facts technique is a joke. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see God is talking about a different species mingling with the seed of man, les Feldic will even walk you through the ancient words used in the text. Yes we are talking nephilim and if you really read what genesis says about the sons of god going into the daughters of men, if you read that whole thing and can't see it clearly he is talking about a genetically different people then I would have to question A your motive or B your reading ability. Also just because YOU can't fathom or understand what God says correctly doesn't make Him a liar it would make you blind.
We actually have even more to go on. Real life. Every year a staggering number of people claim to have been abducted by aliens and there has been countless reports of a crossbreeding/genetic purpose behind it. All through history in fact we have similar stories. Of course we don't have aliens #the bible) but we do have demons. Satan is real, there is a whole lot going on and it's frustrating when people are so fast to close their eyes and cover their ears. If you don't want to dig deeper than what you were taught or see farther than where your pride will allow then please let the rest of us figure this out. There is so much going on and so much we dont know. It's exciting really
You need to go back and read. I never called God a liar. God doesn't lie and he makes no mistakes. So obviously it is interpretation that is wrong since God cannot lie. Understand? You're the one trying to incorporate an uninspired book into the bible, and you call ME blind? Genetically different people? Since when did God create another race of people? Man is made in Gods image. Nothing else is. Not even angels. The fact is the bible does not provide enough information about the Nephilum to assume exactly what they were, and depending on an uninspired book filled with contradictions to find the truth is treading in dangerous territory.
The fact you believe Les Felsdick's words shows me you are a bit misinformed. The man is a false teacher who even claims the apostles preached a different gospel than Paul.
He pretty much completely dismisses Pauls teachings.
He claims Adam ate the forbidden fruit because Eve was going to leave him. Where does the bible say that?
He preaches the gap theory which has no biblical basis.
This man is not an expert. He is a false teacher. Just because you agree with his teachings doesn't make either of you right. So be careful what you say to others, and make sure you aren't the one twisting words or believing someone who is in the wrong.
The fact you believe Les Felsdick's words shows me you are a bit misinformed. The man is a false teacher who even claims the apostles preached a different gospel than Paul.
He pretty much completely dismisses Pauls teachings.
He claims Adam ate the forbidden fruit because Eve was going to leave him. Where does the bible say that?
He preaches the gap theory which has no biblical basis.
This man is not an expert. He is a false teacher. Just because you agree with his teachings doesn't make either of you right. So be careful what you say to others, and make sure you aren't the one twisting words or believing someone who is in the wrong.