The Books of Enoch.

[Diakonos]

The angels and Adam and Jesus are all called "sons" of God because they came directly from Him.

This is wrong.

Please don't misunderstand what I said. I am not in any way placing Adam or the angels on the same level as Jesus. Jesus is supreme above us all. We are in no way His equal. The Hebrew author makes that clear (Heb 1). To the Jewish mind, a "son" of God was understood as something that has come directly from God. This usage of the term "son" has nothing to do with the supremacy or eternal state of the person it is applied to.

-Angels are referred to as "sons":

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:7 (this was before God created Adam and Eve)
When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

-Adam was referred to as God's "son"

Luke 3:23-38 (The genealogy of Jesus)
23 when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph......

...the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.



Jesus is referred to as God's son (except that Jesus is unique because he is the only begotten son)
Mark 1:1
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

We, the church are called "sons" of God
(Romans 8:14) “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”
(Romans 8:19) “For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.”
(Galatians 3:26) “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”



So you see, the term "son" (of God) is not exclusive to Jesus. Again, am not saying that we or Adam or the angels are divine in any way (or anything of that sort). When in reference to God, "Son" means something that is "of God", i.e. coming directly from God. Mankind is not "the sons of God" because they did not come directly from God...rather, they are "the sons of men" (Gen 11:5, 1 Kings 8:39, Ps 14:2, Pr 8:4, Eccl 2:3, Mk 3:28). Adam came directly from God (Lk 3:38)...and mankind came from Adam (Acts 17:26). The reason I mentioned these other uses of the term "son" in my former comment was to give examples that the term does often refer to angels. In Genesis 6, the angels are referenced with the same title they are referenced elsewhere in the Bible. And for further strength I included Jude's remarks on the subject:

Jude 6-7 "Angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh."

...hence, the Nephilim

 

[49]

No it is two different writers with two different witnesses Jude we know saw Jesus The book of Enoch we don't know who wrote it but it was not Enoch. Jude is inspired Enoch is not. Jude is called Scriptures Enoch is not.

we don't know who wrote it, but it was not Enoch

How do you know if you don't know?

 

[49]

That is not true. ReAD LUKE CHAPTER 4: 18 -21

Maybe it is true. Read verse 21.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus wasn't quoting...He was reading from the scroll.

 

[CS1]

we don't know who wrote it, but it was not Enoch

How do you know if you don't know?

Who wrote Matthew? who wrote Mark? Now who wrote Enoch a book named after a guy who did not write it.

 

[CS1]

Maybe it is true. Read verse 21.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus wasn't quoting...He was reading from the scroll.

in context to Isaiah

 

[iamsoandso]

we don't know who wrote it, but it was not Enoch

How do you know if you don't know?

In verses 1-3(beginning of the book) look at the usage of the personal pronouns "I",,,"He",,"Me" ect. the anonymous author goes back and forth from himself to Enoch... (Look at the different interpretations also) https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2126 http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

 

[KingdomBrat]

if you prefer the KJV because it lines with your mid-set Biblically that is not a good thing, the KJV should be read because it is true.

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

Jude verse 4 NKJV: For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.


The context here is the same.

No, I believe the KJV version is correct. It's our original version and the version we English first called the [Inspired Word of God].

 

[KingdomBrat]

Who wrote Matthew? who wrote Mark? Now who wrote Enoch a book named after a guy who did not write it.

According to one Church Father, Peter spoke the Book of Mark in Hebrew/Aramaic and Mark, Peter's Disciple, wrote it down on paper in Greek.

Papias on Mark and Matthew - New Testament
newtestamenthistory.blogspot.com › 2012/05 › papias-...
May 25, 2012 — In regard to Mark's work, Papias said that it was based on Peter's preaching: ... to the Mark of the New Testament, who played a central role in the early Church. ... Here Eusebius noted that this work was written in a Hebrew dialect


Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter's teaching

 

[Blik]

The whole Nephilim heresy was brought to prominence and promoted by now deceased (Chuck Missler) around 2000, he was the (Calvary Chapel) prophecy Guru, he wrote a few books "Return Of The Nephilim" and articles on the subject as seen below, way out in (Left Field)!

Koinonia House
Topical Bible Study: Aliens/Nephilim
Related Resource

Are aliens and alien abductions dealt with in the Bible?! Who or what are the “nephilim” in the book of Genesis? Are they still here? Are UFOs real? What does the phrase “as the days of Noah were” mean? Will these Nephilim play a part in a massive end-times deception?
Join Chuck Missler as he explores this controversial subject, and gives a Biblical context to the modern fascination with aliens and UFOs.

Articles

The Return of the Nephilim?
Chuck Missler delves into the controversial topics of fallen angels, Nephilim, UFO encounters, alien abductions, and how they might all be connected Biblically! Don't miss it!
Mischievous Angels or Sethites?
Chuck Missler examines the origin, nature, and possible goals of the Nephilim of Genesis. Were they fallen angels, alien beings, or evil descendants of Cain or Seth? What is their role in prophecy?
As The Days of Noah Were
Chuck Missler explores the controversial subject of alien encounters, and how they might be related to our biblical past, and prophetic future!

What I think, you think, or this Church Missler thinks has absolutely nothing to do with establishing the truth, scripture tells us the truth. Scripture tells us the Daughters of men married the Sons of God and produced children who were evil. The mystery is who the Sons of God were, and they are mentioned in Job.

 

[Blik]

No, I believe the KJV version is correct. It's our original version and the version we English first called the [Inspired Word of God].

The KJV was translated 1,600 years after Christ was born, and it most certainly is not the original bible. Scripture did not originate 1,600 years after Christ. It was translated from other texts, and reflects the biblical interpretation at the time, a time when murder of Jews was considered fine by many people because they were Jews. As am example, the word that came from the original word meaning Passover was translated as Easter, a word that men thought up, it did not come from God's inspiration.

 

[Scribe]

What I think, you think, or this Church Missler thinks has absolutely nothing to do with establishing the truth, scripture tells us the truth. Scripture tells us the Daughters of men married the Sons of God and produced children who were evil. The mystery is who the Sons of God were, and they are mentioned in Job.

Actually they are mentioned in Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD

Some KJV Margin note bibles have "by the name of the Lord" If they called themselves by the name of the Lord that would be the same as calling themselves "the sons of God" as in following the theology of Adam the son of God. They were believing the prophecy of Enoch about a coming redeemer who would come with ten thousands of his saints to judge the ungodly. They considered themselves separated from the ungodly in Cains city. Until they saw that their women were fair. The daughters of Cain as specifically mentioned by name in Chapter four and their names meant fair and pleasant.

If you stick the to context, chapter 4 when reading chapter 6 you don't need to explore other books by other authors to determine what the author is referring to. He expects you to know that he has already mentioned the sons of God in 4:26 as well as the fair women of Cains camp.

It is impossible to dismiss these facts as if they don't exist. That would be intellectually dishonest. They must be considered or one would be violating the rules of hermeneutics.

 

[KingdomBrat]

The KJV was translated 1,600 years after Christ was born, and it most certainly is not the original bible. Scripture did not originate 1,600 years after Christ. It was translated from other texts, and reflects the biblical interpretation at the time, a time when murder of Jews was considered fine by many people because they were Jews. As am example, the word that came from the original word meaning Passover was translated as Easter, a word that men thought up, it did not come from God's inspiration.

The origin of the English Translation, not Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin Vulgate/German..
Why?
Because my point is that a preacher today will take a KJV Bible from 1611 or a 2021 copy from the shelves off a book store and tell you it is the INSPIRED WORD of God!

That's my point!

Why some [[keep reading into my posts]] make me wonder about their cognitive ability to read, comprehend, and process data input. It literally baffles me!

 

[Dino246]

No, I believe the KJV version is correct. It's our original version and the version we English first called the [Inspired Word of God].

I would encourage you to do some homework on the history of the Bible in English. The KJV is far from being the first.

 

[KingdomBrat]

I would encourage you to do some homework on the history of the Bible in English. The KJV is far from being the first.

I know that!

My point really is not about the true origin of the English Translated Bible, but rather, the English Translated Bible that we have come accustom to [KJV]. And my point is, ever since us English speaking/reading peoples have had access to the [KJV}, we've ALWAYS called it the INSPIRED WORD of GOD!

 

[KingdomBrat]

And the reason for my mentioning how we've always viewed the KJV as the Inspired Word of God. If I use the KJV for my examples and someone else use a newer version like NKJV that adds words to the meaning of texts, Which version is the true Inspired Version of the Word of God?

 

[Dino246]

Actually they are mentioned in Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD

Some KJV Margin note bibles have "by the name of the Lord" If they called themselves by the name of the Lord that would be the same as calling themselves "the sons of God" as in following the theology of Adam the son of God. They were believing the prophecy of Enoch about a coming redeemer who would come with ten thousands of his saints to judge the ungodly. They considered themselves separated from the ungodly in Cains city. Until they saw that their women were fair. The daughters of Cain as specifically mentioned by name in Chapter four and their names meant fair and pleasant.

If you stick the to context, chapter 4 when reading chapter 6 you don't need to explore other books by other authors to determine what the author is referring to. He expects you to know that he has already mentioned the sons of God in 4:26 as well as the fair women of Cains camp.

It is impossible to dismiss these facts as if they don't exist. That would be intellectually dishonest. They must be considered or one would be violating the rules of hermeneutics.

Generally, your hermeneutics are sound, but you goofed on this one. Firstly, there is no descriptive statement in Genesis 4 about Cain's daughters being "fair". In fact, there are no "daughters of Cain" identified as such at all. Only two females are named: Adah ("adornment"), and Zillah ("shadow")(source: https://themeaningofthename.com) , those are four generations later than Cain, and it is not stated that they are descended directly from Cain. It's not sound methodology to cast an entire gender of one lineage in a certain light on such thin evidence.

 

[KingdomBrat]

If the KJV states:
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these[?], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

and the NKJV states
14. Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these [[men]] also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,


The NKJV adds MEN to the verse.

Do these 2 verses mean the same with MEN added to it?

If the NKJV has changed MEANING from the KJV, is the NKJV Inspired Word of God?

 

[Dino246]

And the reason for my mentioning how we've always viewed the KJV as the Inspired Word of God. If I use the KJV for my examples and someone else use a newer version like NKJV that adds words to the meaning of texts, Which version is the true Inspired Version of the Word of God?

I think this line of discussion is better addressed in a separate thread. It will derail this thread quickly.

 

[KingdomBrat]

I think this line of discussion is better addressed in a separate thread. It will derail this thread quickly.

I agree but the verse in question for both the KJV and the NKJV still are in the Thread reference of the person of Enoch.

 

[SophieT]

Some KJV Margin note bibles have "by the name of the Lord" If they called themselves by the name of the Lord that would be the same as calling themselves "the sons of God

'some' 'if' speculation.