Is the Book of Enoch true?

[Xalith]

Xavith, what Bible are you reading for #2. I do not get the implication of angels in the verses you referenced as you did.

I always read KJV. For some reason this site does not auto-link Jude and 1 Peter... so I'll paste them right here:

Jude 6:7:

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It says right there, "angels which kept not their first estate" ... "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha". Jude is comparing the Angels spoken of (the Fallen ones) to Sodom and Gomorrha in the sense that they "gave themselves over to fornication" and "going after strange flesh".

Now for 2 Peter 2:4-5 (sorry, I mis-typed in my earlier post, will edit later), says...

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter is obviously talking about "angels that sinned" that He threw into Hell.

#1 so are you a Hebrew scholar?
I only recognize people quoting Hebrew or Greek who actually know syntax to the languages. Everyone else is just dangerous.

I'm quoting a guy who IS knowledgable in Hebrew. Also, places like Biblehub support what I've said.

#3 was Noah from the line of Seth?

Yes, Noah was from the line of Seth. However, only Noah was saved and not the other "sons and daughters" that Seth had. This rules out the idea that "Sethites = Good, Cainites = Bad" because God killed them -all- except Noah and his family.

#4. Pure speculation.

Some speculation, perhaps, but very logical one.

 

[mmksparbud]

I guess there were 2 new things--the statue in Daniel and this Seth and Cain thing---never heard that explanation by anyone before. Doesn't matter who they were descendant from as God wiped out everyone as all but the 8 were evil. When God refers to these people, He calls them "men"--meaning mankind, not just males, of course. He doesn't call them hybrids, or mixed in any way, or other word--just the term men. If they were no longer fully human, why call them that?
(Gen 5:2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam, in the day when they were created.

H120

אדם

'âdâm

BDB Definition:

1) man, mankind

1a) man, human being

1b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)

1c) Adam, first man

1d) city in Jordan valley

Part of Speech: noun masculine

A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H119

Same Word by TWOT Number: 25a


So God was only angry with these half-human beings for tainting His bloodline through Adam yet doesn't mention them specifically?

(Gen 6:5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
(Gen 6:12) And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
(Gen 6:13) And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
The problem is evil, violence---not one word of corrupted blood lines.

The word demon is never mentioned until the New Testament--Matthew is the first to use the term.
However--

Psa_91:6 nor fromG575 a thingG4229 [2inG17223darknessG46551going],G1279nor fromG575 an adverse incident,G4850.4 andG2532the demonG1140 at midday.G3314.1
Isa_65:11 But you are G1473 G1161 the onesG3588 having abandonedG1459 me,G1473 andG2532 having forgottenG1950 G3588 [2mountainG3735 G3588 1my holy],G39 G1473 andG2532 are preparingG2090 [2to theG3588 3demonG1140 1a table],G5132 andG2532 fillingG4137 G3588 [2to good luckG5189.1 1a mixture].G2768.1

This is only found in the Apostolic Bible with Polyglot--never used in the Hebrew ir any other translation.

Again, Demons != Fallen Angels.

Fallen angels are demons yet they are not mentioned once in the OT.


cross-breeding---I am nit referring to interbreeding within the same species--or "kind"---I am talking about different species can not breed naturally--you will never find a goat/pig, a turtle/ape, a donkey/kangaroo--different breed of horses can interbreed--you can get a zebra/donkey---a lion/tiger--of course--even a Chihuahua/great dane--(that might need a little help with a step ladder and the female had better be a great dane!) I still have never seen an ape/human in spite of they're being labeled by science as both primates! These others are all within their own kind. Yet even with these, most can not reproduce after that. Any kind of dog/wolf will, but the mule, though in the equine family, can not. God said after it's kind. That imposed a limit on what can mix together. Anything else, can only be done through science altering the DNA manually.
We are crested lower than the angels, we are nit the same kind. I imagine that some fallen angels were seraphim and cherubim's, the resulting offspring would have sprouted wings??? Makes for great movies--Maleficent--Babylonian and Greek myths and so on--but not allowed by God's command of "after its kind, " which was pronounced on all of God's creation during creation week which would include man. Manual manipulation of DNA may very well have been going on in the pre flood days as Adam and Eve and their descendants were very intelligent and evil and had hundreds of years in which to carry on their "research." Experiments that are going on today, may have been going on back then--but this can not happen naturally and whatever is produced, can not reproduce.
As I said--we do not know how tall Adam and Eve were and how tall their children, which could have been taller than them. In todays world not all giants are hormonal problems, I mentioned the show "My Giant life" a reality show about very tall people today--they are not hormonal, just very tall. Pygmies are not hormonal--whole tribe of very small people. That was certainly happening back then, and those genes that got passed on down through Noah and his family would have remerged and as people tend to congregate in similar groups, families and tribes would have emerged with the same genetic traits. That dies nit make them half breeds of fallen angels--there has been no startling DNA revelations that there is anything other than human DNA in us. If that was something that was to happen today (as this guy says---then the appearance of fallen-angels crossbreeding again with humans would be prolific right now as we are in the last days and we'd be running around with wings---flying around.
And I am halting now, as my neck is killing me!!---have at it!

 

[mmksparbud]

I apologize for spelling errors--I try to proof read, but even when I do that 3-4 times, I will still miss some---the older I get the more dyslexic I type!!

 

[thesunisout]

None of us have said that we call the book of Enoch the Word of God. None of us said it is infallible. None of us have said that it is divine. I personally said that I read it as history as I would read any other history book.I read it as I would read Josephus which most studious Christians read.The Book of Enoch is NOT canon. I DO NOT take it as scripture. Do you understand what I am saying here? It is a HISTORY BOOK! I read Maccabees as HISTORY. That is how I know about how the miracle of Hanukkah( which is celebrated every year) was instituted. Try as you might, you will not find that in our canon.We never said the Book of Enoch was the Word of God.

Josephus is written by a historian, but this book is written by someone claiming to have the words of the prophet Enoch as revealed by angels. The very first sentence of the book makes that claim. It's not a history book, it's a spiritual book, and there are many places where it is claiming to record the words of God Almighty. If those are not Gods words, and God did not inspire this book, who did you think did? Any book falsely claiming to record Gods words is by definition written by a false teacher, and the bible warns us to stay far away from them.

This is not something I really want to argue about with you, sister. It's not really up there in importance level to me because I don't think it is going to cause you to fall. However, these so-called lost books of the bible do cause some weak Christians to stumble and fall because they believe that volumes like the book of Enoch prove that the bible is not the complete word of God. When they start to doubt that, they start to doubt what is in the scripture and that causes some to fall. I have personally seen a lot of bad fruit come from it, a polluting and corrupting of peoples faith. The book of Enoch also fuels certain theories about Genesis 5 which are not supported by scripture, and I have seen many Christians become attracted to these theories to the point of obsession.

I'm not saying you're doing any of that, but I don't believe in promoting these books to anyone. If anyone wants to read them, or even incorporate them into their worldview, they will have to work that out with the Lord..however, to introduce people to them, and give them a stamp of approval, when they can be spiritually damaging or destructive to peoples faith, I don't agree with that. You might be strong enough to deal with them, but many are not.

Romans 14:20-23, Romans 15:1

20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves.

 

[zippy2]

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

The 'sister' is correct.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Josephus is written by a historian, but this book is written by someone claiming to have the words of the prophet Enoch as revealed by angels. The very first sentence of the book makes that claim. It's not a history book, it's a spiritual book, and there are many places where it is claiming to record the words of God Almighty. If those are not Gods words, and God did not inspire this book, who did you think did? Any book falsely claiming to record Gods words is by definition written by a false teacher, and the bible warns us to stay far away from them.

This is not something I really want to argue about with you, sister. It's not really up there in importance level to me because I don't think it is going to cause you to fall. However, these so-called lost books of the bible do cause some weak Christians to stumble and fall because they believe that volumes like the book of Enoch prove that the bible is not the complete word of God. When they start to doubt that, they start to doubt what is in the scripture and that causes some to fall. I have personally seen a lot of bad fruit come from it, a polluting and corrupting of peoples faith. The book of Enoch also fuels certain theories about Genesis 5 which are not supported by scripture, and I have seen many Christians become attracted to these theories to the point of obsession.

I'm not saying you're doing any of that, but I don't believe in promoting these books to anyone. If anyone wants to read them, or even incorporate them into their worldview, they will have to work that out with the Lord..however, to introduce people to them, and give them a stamp of approval, when they can be spiritually damaging or destructive to peoples faith, I don't agree with that. You might be strong enough to deal with them, but many are not.

Romans 14:20-23, Romans 15:1

20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves.

My point is :
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Let everyone make up their own mind as you did brother. You may say it is not a history book, but you say it is not scripture. It is either one or the other. I read it as history. You know, I even get insight from reading autobiographies, like that of Billy Graham. That is not scripture. You can't put our Father in a box. He has all kind of ways to help us grow. Now you read some of the other books like Enoch and decided they were not for you. That is fine and good. If it does not edify you, then it does not edify you. It may edify someone else. You don't have to promote it. But, if someone else gains insight from it, they should have right to share it without prejudice. A lot people gain insight from reading the Book of Enoch. Our Father is able to guide us by His Holy Spirit.

 

[heatedmonk]

There are at least 44 verses pertaining to the Nephilim in scripture. There are also those called the Rephiam in Hebrew scriptures.
The apocrypha contains references to these beings as well though a debate continues as to their countenance on earth, their origin. Fallen angels is one such suggestion. Giants as described in scripture is another. They beget children with the daughters of men because they looked on human women and found them attractive.

 

[thesunisout]

My point is :
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Let everyone make up their own mind as you did brother. You may say it is not a history book, but you say it is not scripture. It is either one or the other. I read it as history. You know, I even get insight from reading autobiographies, like that of Billy Graham. That is not scripture. You can't put our Father in a box. He has all kind of ways to help us grow. Now you read some of the other books like Enoch and decided they were not for you. That is fine and good. If it does not edify you, then it does not edify you. It may edify someone else. You don't have to promote it. But, if someone else gains insight from it, they should have right to share it without prejudice. A lot people gain insight from reading the Book of Enoch. Our Father is able to guide us by His Holy Spirit.

The history you are getting from the book of Enoch is coming out of the mouth of the Lord God Almighty. Everything in this book is either directly from the Lord or from Enoch speaking from a revelation the Lord has given him. If they aren't actually Gods words then how is this not false teaching?

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The history you are getting from the book of Enoch is coming out of the mouth of the Lord God Almighty. Everything in this book is either directly from the Lord or from Enoch speaking from a revelation the Lord has given him. If they aren't actually Gods words then how is this not false teaching?

It says it comes from the angels.What do you call the watchers?

 

[thesunisout]

It says it comes from the angels.What do you call the watchers?

Yes, it says it comes from angels, kind of like the message of Revelation was sent and signified by an angel. As far as what watchers are, I believe they are angels. Handmaid, the question remains whether it came from angels or men, and I think that it claiming to have come through angels makes the question even more significant. You have said you read this as a history book, but the history contained in this book is being spoken either by the Lord Himself or by the prophet Enoch through a revelation the Lord is giving him. If these are not actually His words then how is it not false teaching?

 

[mikedsjr]

Thesunisout, you ought to be careful by saying the book of Enoch isn't a history book, but a spiritual book. By this standard, you make the Bible a non-historical book. It's all historical and all spiritual.

Handmaid, you say you view the book of Enoch as history. Do you view it all historical? Every last piece? Or only portions? So if I start to pick pieces out, you'll say it's historical?

 

[mikedsjr]

Let's hope we can agree on this.

What makes a book "heretical", if I may use that word, isn't that it doesn't contain any truth. They always do. But the truth is overlayed with false theology twisting the truth to something that's false and sometimes takes a lot of knowledge and effort to expose the false theology. Sometimes it's very easy.

 

[thesunisout]

Thesunisout, you ought to be careful by saying the book of Enoch isn't a history book, but a spiritual book. By this standard, you make the Bible a non-historical book. It's all historical and all spiritual.

Handmaid, you say you view the book of Enoch as history. Do you view it all historical? Every last piece? Or only portions? So if I start to pick pieces out, you'll say it's historical?

Mikedsjr, I take the bible literally; the events that are in the bible that claim to be historical, I believe are historical. I wouldn't call the bible just a history book, but it is a book of history. It is the word of God, which supercedes the other definitions. When I say spiritual, I mean, given by revelation; this does not preclude it from being historically accurate.

 

[thesunisout]

Let's hope we can agree on this.

What makes a book "heretical", if I may use that word, isn't that it doesn't contain any truth. They always do. But the truth is overlayed with false theology twisting the truth to something that's false and sometimes takes a lot of knowledge and effort to expose the false theology. Sometimes it's very easy.

To me, a heretical book would be anything which purports to be from God but really isn't. A so-called divine revelation which claims to bring new truth, or a new light on existing truth. Paul talked about a church receiving another spirit which they had not received, and another gospel and another Jesus which he did not preach. Satan is always trying to smuggle in the spirit of error by disguising it as the Spirit of truth. Some Christians are hardly able to tell the difference between the spirit of error and the Spirit of truth. Sometimes it really is difficult to tell the difference which is why we need the Lord to help us understand what is from Him and what isn't. I am not speaking directly about anyone in this thread, but I think one the greatest gifts that is needed in the church is the gift of discerning between the spirits. (1 Corinthians 12:10)

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Yes, it says it comes from angels, kind of like the message of Revelation was sent and signified by an angel. As far as what watchers are, I believe they are angels. Handmaid, the question remains whether it came from angels or men, and I think that it claiming to have come through angels makes the question even more significant. You have said you read this as a history book, but the history contained in this book is being spoken either by the Lord Himself or by the prophet Enoch through a revelation the Lord is giving him. If these are not actually His words then how is it not false teaching?

I do not count it as false teaching in that the words come either from Enoch or from angels he said that talked with him.Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel. Even in our Canon our Father sent messages/revelation to men through angels.Some things are written which are not Canon, but are not false either.I believe Holy Spirit does and will guide us to the truth. If we see angels talking to men in our Canon, it is likely they talked to men before the flood of Noah. Now, we have a very fuzzy account of those days from our Canon.And some do not want to think about the things that went on back then, which is sad because Lord Jesus said we will see a repeat of those days.History is very important.

 

[mikedsjr]

Mikedsjr, I take the bible literally; the events that are in the bible that claim to be historical, I believe are historical. I wouldn't call the bible just a history book, but it is a book of history. It is the word of God, which supercedes the other definitions. When I say spiritual, I mean, given by revelation; this does not preclude it from being historically accurate.

You said it wasn't history, thus my statement. Otherwise, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Handmaid, you say you view the book of Enoch as history. Do you view it all historical? Every last piece? Or only portions? So if I start to pick pieces out, you'll say it's historical?

Yes I count it as history because in totality it does not agree 100% with the Canon of scripture.

 

[thesunisout]

I don't think that this discussion is profitable for the saints at this point. Handmaid, I have the utmost respect for you as my sister in Christ. God bless.

 

[mmksparbud]

As far as the book of Enoch is concerned--the book is not written by Enoch. By someone else many, many years after the flood. Just because someone says they have been given some message from God doesn't make it so. Every lie has a little truth in it, which can make it harder to see the truth. Even today--all these date setters, insisting they got a word from God telling them the date when he would come--each has been wrong. Lives have been disrupted because of them. We have a long list of denominations because of believe in an individual who said they had messages from God, Joseph Smith being about the biggest. At the very time of Christ there were those that believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. Some embraced that belief and passed it on down--today it is being revived with a vengeance--some pointing to the fact that Leonardo DE Vinci believed it and they point to many things in his paintings that prove he did and that the Templars believed it also. They may be able to give convincing proof that they did believe it---does that mean they have proved the believe true? No, it means they may be able to prove that certain people believed that. If we want to believe the same thing, that's our choice. Does it go with what the bible says? They may even be able to show some scriptures that hint at a more than friendly sense of closeness between the two--does that make it true? But if that is what you want to believe, you will. It certainly doesn't make sense when you take the whole life of Jesus and everything else that is in the bible. But today, there are many people who firmly believe this.
Many people believe angels and humans mated and their offspring brought about the flood--sorry, it just doesn't jive with the whole bible, with common sense even--but you can find prove that many believe this, including the Jews--does that make it true? What it boils down to is this---is the believe a matter of salvation? Will that believe lead to your salvation or the loss of it? If it makes no difference to that point--then it is merely a matter of some interesting debates.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I don't think that this discussion is profitable for the saints at this point. Handmaid, I have the utmost respect for you as my sister in Christ. God bless.

I respect you also brother, though we disagree on this.But the saints have free will and can decide to continue this discussion if they want to. You, dear brother should unsubscribe if you so desire because it does not edify you.