Are these the biblical giants?



  • Anba Bola, therin lies the problem. It was found amongst the dead sea scrolls, so we do have something to compare one another with. As I said before the tradition told to me by priests in Ethiopia is that it came, as well as other holy scripture, to Ethiopia with the ark.

    Remnkemi, I kinda feel bad for you. I never said the bible was filled with "incorrect assumptions" but you went ahead and made that leap, what I did clearly say is that there are inaccuracies in that, and yes people like Fr. Thomas Hopko even agrees that the bible is not flawless. This is a protestant belief, not an Orthodox one. We do believe that the teachings and doctrine held within are indeed without corruption. But if you want me to go ahead and ignore clear historical inaccuracies, which you will find in any historical document, well I am just not going to do that because they are there. As I said before, which I highly doubt you had time to do in between posts, was to read some of Bart Ehrman's work that clearly and correctly points these things out. This does not discredit the bible in any way shape or form, the simple fact is if you read closely enough you will find them. If you think the whole of my argument lies with St. Jude, then your gravely mistaken or I have not made myself clear enough. However the one thing we can agree on is that neither of us want to be in an endless debate. I have said before, there is no need of discussing this, if you want to believe it then believe it, if not, then dont. Why you felt the need to copy and paste from an erroneous website to try and prove your point baffles me.

    But to say the least I personally believe it because other scripture supports this, and no not just St. Jude lol! Even if you completely forget the book of Enoch, Gen 6 clearly shows that indeed what Enoch spoke of, happened. BTW your criteria for canonization is off a bit.
  •    The claim that the book of Enoch is not quoted by St.Jude verbatim is very frail(1 Enoch 9 and Jude 14), The point you missed is that which version of the Book of Enoch are you using?The R H Charles Version, The Dead sea scroll version or The G’eez version.Of course we don’t find exact verbatim quotations in the New Testament from the Old Testament by different translations(King james version,New Living Translation,New Century version etc.),For instance let us see one quotation from the Old Testament,Matthew 2:18 from Jeremiah 3:15, “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, 
Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted,because they are no more.”
    1. New Living Translation of Matthew 2:18, “A cry was heard in Ramah—weeping and great mourning.
Rachel weeps for her children,refusing to be comforted,
for they are dead.      
    2. New century version Matthew 2:18, “A voice was heard in Ramah of painful crying and deep sadness: Rachel crying for her children.She refused to be comforted,because her children are dead."

    The translations are different but all of them have the same meaning,so should we question the authenticity of the Book of Jeremiah because the translations did not quote it verbatim?We usually have different translations with exact same meaning even in the rest of scriptures, if we use different versions like the Septuagint,Masoretic or the Peshita.

    Evidence 4
    The fragments of the Book of Enoch found in the Dead Sea scrolls are dated around 300-100 BC[Fahlbusch E., Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P-Sh, page. 411], which means the Book of Enoch is written centuries, before the birth of Jesus Christ from the Virgin Mary and also before the birth of any of Jesus’ Apostles.So, The author of the book didn’t copy anything from the Apostles,because it is at least 200 years older than any of the New Testament writings.The crux point here is that there is one verse which baffled scholars and theologians in the Book of Enoch.
    1 Enoch 62:9 R H Charles Version or Enoch 17:38-9 Ethiopic Version
    And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth Shall fall down before him on their faces, And WORSHIP and set their hope upon that Son of Man,"

    This is a direct prophecy of Jesus Christ to be worshiped and St. Enoch used the unique title “Son of Man” which could be used only when Our God took flesh from the Holy Virgin Mary,which is another big evidence that we can’t get around with.

  • Thanks sordoeht! I think what this boils down to is, what do you think is logical and reasonable? Gen. 6 supports the belief that angels descended from heaven, separate from satan, and had offspring with women. St. Jude, and in 2 Peter. I dont really think it is a big deal either way, but if you DO believe in this then it explains alot of unexplained things in our history. I am sure sordoeht would be able to elaborate much better on this subject than I can, he has much more knowledge than I do.
  • I do not wish to oppose anybody but I think that the righteous Saint Enoch spoke things to be transmitted by tradition rather than via lengthy written Scripture (if wrong please forgive me).

    Some reasons are: Enoch was not sent as a prophet or to teach the masses of his time. He was so righteous that God who promised His salvation to Adam and Eve would had revealed him details concerning Christ and then he was no more because he was carried by God while still alive to Heaven, till events of the end of time, to be sent back for a holy mission to accomplish before the glorious second coming of Christ, as written in Revelation.

    If he left lengthy teaching to be put later in the Scriptures we would logically expect two things: prophecies, teaching and works like those of other prophets (for ex. like the prophet Elia who was also carried to Heaven), and an important first book with full details concerning God's creation events, like Genesis starting with this verse: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I mean chronologically he was born much before the prophet Moses was born, thence he was entitled to be first source of the first and extremely important Scripture book to reach mankind.

  • John, that is a logical assumption but you are forgetting some things. Assuming Enoch wrote this and it survived, it would have to survive quite a long time, which I am sure it did survive for a time. But you must remember the book of Genesis was written by Moses, and he was not there to actually witness the creation. God gave this to Moses for a specific purpose, for people to know their origins. While we find repetitions in the Gospels, we do not find too many of them in OT scripture. My personal feeling is that this was also written, re-written, or given to Moses in some way and transmitted from then on. There are many prophecies within Enoch, not just of angels misdeeds but of Christ and the final judgment, read St. Jude. This book was supressed, much like the book of jubilees, also believed to be written by Moses. It was not uncommon for Jews to suppress or discredit anything that related or could point to Christ. There is a very specific message in Enoch that sheds light on our past and our future. Do I think it is a necessity to believe? No. This book does not pertain directly to anyones salvation. And even though I feel it is a very important scripture I feel it is best to reject something like this to be on the safe side, as opposed to accepting it and it being wrong.

    So really I feel this comes down to personal choice. We know this book came with the Jews to Ethiopia, as well as other books suppressed and destroyed by later Jews. We know this from the traditions we are told, wether you want to accept it as scripture is entirely up to the individual.
  • I have never heard Moses to be the possible writer of the Book of Enoch. According to the Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox church traditions, Enoch is the writer. I also do not have problems with the existance of the book,because many church fathers have qouted from it,but I question if the book that is out there is the uncorrupted original scriptuarl book that St Jude used. My second problem is, how did the book get to Ethiopia ( I reject the fiction of the ark of the covenant being stolen from Israel by King Solomon's illegitmate son) and my third problem is, if Enoch is the writer, how did the book survive the great flood? What are the probabilities that Noah took it with him into the ark??
  • Enoch’s Hebrew nameחֲנוֹךְ “hanokh” or “Chanok” means "initiated, trained, dedicate or teach." This word is translated "train up" or “Teach” just as in Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
    We can’t claim He is not a Teacher, when the name of his translation is “To Teach”, so He was a Teacher and definitely God would reveal  secret teaching to him,because He was righteous, Genesis 5:24”And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him”, and also John_s3000 we can’t pick and choose from the book of Enoch or Traditions that the things he said about Christ is correct and the other things, He said which doesn’t go with your belief is wrong.
    Ioannes, the other part, you mentioned is 2 peter, St. Peter made an allusion on the events and I will put it as the following:

    Evidence 5       2 Peter 2:4-7," For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell(Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5And 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;6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:"
    Here also Peter is also making a chronological order of what happened in the past of two major destructions of Biblical events through the cause of unrighteousness, the Flood (verse 5)preceding with the sin of the angels(verse 4) and saved Noah and later goes on to continue the unrighteousness done in Sodom and Gomorrah(verse 6) and saved Lot, The connections between the angels sinning and saving Noah mentioned by St. Peter in verse 4 and 5 should not be neglected and it would be preposterous to deny that this verse is not making an allusion of the detail description of the book of enoch event of the watchers.

    Evidence 6   The interesting thing about the above verse is that, there is a word that is only mentioned once in the entire Greek New Testament, "Tartarus"(verse 4) which is used in Greek mythology in which the demi-gods are kept as spiritual imprisonment and this demi-gods were off springs of divine beings and humans, So the Greek Genital Christians would understood him easily when St. Peter used the Greek word "Tartarus".

    Evidence 7   The other interesting thing about the verse of 2 Peter 2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell(Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" is that, it is derived from a detail allusion in the book of Enoch and what St. Peter did is, He shortened it, Enoch 10:11-2 R H Charles Version or Enoch 3:14-5 Ethiopic version, " Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them .....bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated"

    To conclude both St. Jude and St. Peter unequivocally used their inspiration from the Book of Enoch and hezekiah once you see all the evidences you will neglect, How it survived all this years?because it is a long and profound history.
  • I looked it up. All that was found of it among the dead sea scrolls are very small fragments which still wouldn't verify no corruption to the whole thing but only to certain fragments.

    Here is the text found among them:

    Because of this for all we know anything past the chapters found could have been added on to the original text. Also this would be inferring that the original text is canonical and written by Enoch. Enoch may not have been considered scripture but rather in the same level that the Shepherd of Hermas is held by Orthodox today. It isn't scripture, yet at the same time its not as if its not supposed to be read. That would explain why it isn't translated among the Septuagint I would think.

    Please forgive me if I seem stubborn, however I'm simply trying to engage in friendly dialog. My actual tone usually doesn't show in my writing, so please try not to misunderstand me.

    Please pray for me and forgive any ignorance shown in my post.
  • (Correct me if I am wrong). Isn't possible for the giants to be decedents of Adam and Eve up until the flood without angelic seed? Because scientifically speaking, since there was a canopy around the earth before the flood, the pressure on earth must have been MUCH greater than it is now. And with a higher pressure (to maintain the blood flow), giant creatures can live much longer (even though I am still not sure how). A study by scientists beneath the ocean found giant crabs, star fishes, and worms. Some examples are the giant squid "40 to 60 feet long", the Oarfish "10 to 50 feet long", and the sperm whale "up to 65 feet". ( Their size is remarkable and can be an explanation to why we found large human fossils. If you disagree please don't hesitate to correct me. God bless. Please pray for me.
  • The text makes a clear distinction between the humans and giants both the septuagint and the MT in Gen 6.
  • [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=10324.msg126333#msg126333 date=1294200379]
    Remnkemi, I kinda feel bad for you.
    Ioannes, the fact that you prefaced your response with a comment against me personally shows your argument is weak. Please stick to facts, truths and logic.

    I never said the bible was filled with "incorrect assumptions" but you went ahead and made that leap, what I did clearly say is that there are inaccuracies in that, and yes people like Fr. Thomas Hopko even agrees that the bible is not flawless. This is a protestant belief, not an Orthodox one. We do believe that the teachings and doctrine held within are indeed without corruption.

    So are you trying to claim that inaccuracies (whether historical or not) are ok? Are you saying that the authors of inspired scriptures made a mistake to begin with? If yes, then you have to respond Galatians 1:8. If the original authors were claiming truth and their writings are accurate - and now there are "inaccuracies - then that means something got corrupted along the way. Which, you at least agree, cannot be an Orthodox teaching. Are all Scripture passages we have 100% historically accurate? I don't know. What I do know is that the longer the time between a manuscript's date and the even it describes, the more likely legend or cunning stories develop and embellish. The Book of Enoch is at least 3000-4000 years from the earliest manuscript found.  That's plenty of time to make it a legend (ie, that Enoch wrote the Book), not to mention anything about the theological complications of the book.

    You should also notice that I didn't say historical accuracy was part of the standard of canonization. I only included 2 criteria: 1. A universal acceptance by the Church. 2. No contradiction to other parts of the Bible. It's historical and paprylogical accuracy only gives supporting evidence, for or against canonization of any book. It never gives conclusive evidence.

    So for argument's sake, I'll go along with any historical "inaccuracies", even though I personally think historical inaccuracies apply to the apocryphal books like the Book of Enoch, not canonized Scripture.

    If you think the whole of my argument lies with St. Jude, then your gravely mistaken or I have not made myself clear enough.

    Maybe I didn't understand you clearly. What I understood from your posts is that you (and others) believe that St Jude was familiar with the Book of Enoch and quotes "verbatim" but this isn't the only evidence for argument. You believe 2 Peter 4 and Genesis 6 corroborates the events in the Book of Enoch. If this is inaccurate or if there is more, please let me know.

    I respond by saying
    1. The events in Genesis 6 can be understood in another interpretation. We don't have to take "sons of god" to refer to angels. It can simply refer to humans, who are called gods in other parts of the Bible.
    2. Both 2 Peter and Jude speak of "angels who sinned" or "angels who left their proper place" and this doesn't conclusive say "angels who had sex with humans". Both New Testament scriptures stop at any mention of sex between angels and humans. This, in my opinion, only proves that the NT apostles probably used popular oral tradition of angels sinning but not the Book of Enoch which explicitly states sex between angels and humans.
    3. I think both 2 Peter and Jude use the title "angel" to refer to special men, as Genesis 6 did. Revelations 2-3 did the same thing. We don't have to take a literal interpretation of "angel" since Genesis 6 did not even use the word angel.
    4. See below. Angels cannot have sex with humans.

    Why you felt the need to copy and paste from an erroneous website to try and prove your point baffles me.

    Even if the website confused which angel was the head angel that told all the other angels to have sex with humans, it doesn't negate the fact that the website had good arguments, supported by canonical scripture, against the Book of Enoch. Regardless of who led the sexual acts, it still negates Matthew 22: angels don't marry (and subsequently don't have sex with humans). If you want other sources, I can look into it.

    What baffles me is your avoidance to explain the theological implications of angels having sex.

    Even if you completely forget the book of Enoch, Gen 6 clearly shows that indeed what Enoch spoke of, happened.

    Now who is the one taking a "leap" of logic? Genesis 6 clearly does NOT show or describe the facts of the Book of Enoch. Genesis 6:2 never says they were angels, like the Book of Enoch explicitly says. Genesis 6:2 never said angels had sex with humans, like the Book of Enoch explicitly says. Genesis 6:2 says "sons of god saw that the daughters of men were fair/beautiful." Even if the sons of god refer to angels, maybe the sin was simply that they coveted the daughters of men. Maybe it has nothing to do with physical sexual intercourse with humans. And quite LIKELY it has nothing to do with angels. And Genesis 6:2 specifically says "took wives" whomever they wanted. Maybe the sin was polygamy committed by holy, special men; not unnatural angelic sex. What Jesus Himself said was "men will become like angels: neither married nor given in marriage". Matthew 22:30 implies angels do not marry and do not have sex, something we will be like in heaven. This, clearly shows that Genesis 6 does NOT corroborate the Book of Enoch. Neither does Matthew 22:30.

    BTW your criteria for canonization is off a bit.

    Would you care to elaborate? I searched on this website where John_S2000, speaking against the Book of Enoch, quoted HH Pope Shenouda. Here's the link,9472.msg117281.html#msg117281. Both criteria for canonization that I mentioned are listed and HH adds another. So explain to us what the Coptic Orthodox criteria for scripture canonization is if what I wrote is "off a bit".
  • Ioannes gave you good evidence for the union between angels and human just from Genesis 6 which you will never go around with either allegorical or literal interpretation,Every time The word "Sons of God " (B'nai HaElohim, בני האלהים ) is always mentioned in the Bible (Job 1:6; 2:1;38:7, Psalms 29:1;89:6) it is always referring to Angels or divine beings, For instance Job 38:6,'Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (B'nai HaElohim)shouted for joy? 8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?"so we can't conclude, Genesis 6 is exceptionally referring to Humans, when it says  "Sons of God" by neglecting all the other verses of the entire Scripture, which always refer to it as angels or divine beings,why should we make an exception on Genesis 6?and if sons of God was referring to Humans, It would have been "B'nai Elohim" neglecting the "Ha" from the Hebrew word,
    Hosea 1:10,"Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God(B'nai Elohim).

    I believe God is not playing dice with us,because it would be like from all the 6 verses of the word Sons of God,all 5 are referring to Angels,but in Genesis 6 it refers to Humans when there is a clear word for Humans(B'nai Elohim) and we can't get around this crucial evidences whether we like Angels can't marry or not.

  • Since you are determined to use B'nai HaElohim as your main defense for the Book of Enoch, let's discuss. I have 2 main arguments against this theory: Strong's definitions and NT usage of titles

    First, let me preface by saying that I don't know Hebrew enough to know which of the verses are Bnai Ha Elohim or Bnai Elohim. Researching the 4 Hebrew texts in, all of them write BNIHALHIM in Genesis 6:2. That is neither bnai ha elohim, nor bnai elhoim. Maybe someone else more learned in Hebrew can verify if Bnai Ha Elohim or bni halhim is found only 6 times, all referring to angels, or if any of the above verse also use Bnai Ha Elohim or bni halhim. I could not find any references to verify Bnai Ha Elohim is used only 6 times.

    Now, let's look at Strong concordance. First Bnai. This is Strong's number H1121. According to Strong's outline of Biblical usage, the following definitions are given:
    1) son, grandson, child, member of a group
    a) son, male child
    b) grandson
    c) children (pl. - male and female)
    d) youth, young men (pl.)
    e) young (of animals)
    f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
    g) people (of a nation) (pl.)
    h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
    i) a member of a guild, order, class

    Immediately you can see, Ben can mean human male or angel. In the KJV, it is used 4906 times. Looking closer at the concordance, we see Genesius' Lexicon says, "The appellation/title "son of God" is given to (1) angels in Gen 6:2, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Ps 29:1:, 89, 7, (2) kings in PS 89:28, 1 Sam 10:6,9, 1 Sam 16:13,14, Isa 11:1,2, Ps 82.6, (3) men who piously worship God in Ps 73:15, Prov 14:26, (4) Israel is called son of God, the first-born and beloved in Hos 11:1, Exo 4:22,23.

    At least here, we can conclude Bnai Ha Elohim is not specific to angels.

    Let's look at Elohim, Strong's H430. We are given the following biblical usage:
    1) (plural)
    a) rulers, judges
    b) divine ones
    c) angels
    d) gods
    2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
    a) god, goddess
    b) godlike one
    c) works or special possessions of God
    d) the (true) God
    e) God

    Here we can see that Elohim can mean rulers or divine being, the first being humans, the later being divine or non-human.

    Now I am not saying Bnai Elohim cannot mean angel. As proof we can look to Daniel 3:25, 28. King Nebucadnezzar said the "the fourth looks like the a son of the gods". The Aramaic version of Daniel, which predates the Hebrew, is bar-elahin. This is very similar to Ben elohim. Both are plural,  both are translated as Son of god or Son of gods. The Aramaic does not have a definite article. But in Dan 3:28, we are specifically told that the "Angel" delivered the youth. So Daniel specifically calls the fourth person in the fire both "(a) son of (the) god(s)" and "angel". Obviously, it was not a human.

    What is the difference between Genesis 6:2 and Daniel 3:35? Both say son of god/gods. It is not just a matter of which language was used. The difference is that the so-called angels of Genesis 6 follow human or physical acts; sins which are not of their nature, violating Heb 1:14 while Dan 3 validates Heb 1, 14. Angels serve humans, not sin with humans.

    We must also remember that the title angel is used for God Himself. See Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22.

    Second, let's examine the New Testament usage of the title Angel
    Angle is used 186 times and it is usually refers to a heavenly spirit. But in Revelation 2, it refers to the bishops of the seven churches. Now if you're Protestant, you'll see remarks like that found in Genesius' lexicon, "angels.... are not presbyters or bishops, but heavenly beings who exert such a superintendace and guardianship over them that whatever in their assembly is worthy of praise or censure is counted to ... their angel." However, this is not the Orthodox understanding of Rev 2. St John the Apostle is writing to the bishops. So angel can refer to a human.

    Some think 1 Tim 3:16 refers to the Apostles after the Resurrection. "He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
    was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." Obviously, Christ was seen by angels before and after His Resurrection. If angels here really meant angels, it would be stating the obvious. But given the rest of the New Testament, the mystery of the Resurrection is that Christ appeared to His disciples, not to angels. It seems more likely that St. Paul refers to the Apostles as angels.

    In conclusion,
    1. Sons of gods can be a title given to angels, but not exclusively.
    2. Sons of god/gods is a title usually given to humans, especially Jesus Christ.
    3. Angels can be a title given to God, but definitely not exclusive.
    4. Angels are spirits, they temporarily take human form, and are capable of sinning. But nothing in the Bible, other than Book of Enoch, says angels sin by having sex with humans. The Genesis 6 argument in favor using the title "sons of god" to mean angels relies on the Book of Enoch to infer angelic sex with humans. Genesis 6, exclusive of the Book of Enoch with the rest of the canonical Bible, does not infer angelic sex.
    5. Angels serve and guard humans. If they don't and they sin, they are demons. No where in the Bible is there a third category of angels.
    6. Angels can be a title given to bishops or apostles. Hence they can refer to humans.
    7. Titles of humans, angels and God do not always correspond to their specific being/nature. The only way to know who exactly the title refers to is to examine the entire Bible and look for consistencies and contradictions of the title and the being it refers to.

    Now that I have responded to the B'nai ha Elohim argument, can someone reply to the theological and evolution argument I proposed?
  • Remnkemi, Just for your information, this argument was made popular by Michael Heiser a very well respected biblical scholar who is fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and a few others. I suggest you take a look at his work, since he is a professional, as opposed to relying on strong's concordance to support your very weak argument. Again, I consider this a dead issue and I will stick with the professionals, like Michael Heiser, as opposed to your very biased argument.
  • So no matter what references I use, my argument is weak because I don't use or refer to your approved references.

    Who has the very weak biased argument?
  • Rem, Many of us here have studied this issue thouroughly, just because you spout off some sources or copy and paste from a unverified source on a website does not mean you have any credibility on this subject. You came into this with the goal of "winning" the argument, not understanding it. Your sources are weak and unrealiable, and clearly biased. I just gave you one of the leading experts on this particular subjects, Michael Heiser, (, whom I am sure you will have a field day with. I gave you reliable sources, this man is the best on this subject and is an expert in many languages, and most of them ancient. I highly doubt you had time to do the proper research on him and his lectures. Then again, this isnt something you can google, then copy and paste as if you have done the work yourself.

    I suggest you do proper research before continuing this thread. Also check out the posts of sordoeht, read, learn and stop shoving your garbage down peoples throat. Now go CHECK THE SOURCE like a professional would do.
  • [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=10324.msg127082#msg127082 date=1295069866]
    Rem, Many of us here have studied this issue thouroughly, just because you spout off some sources or copy and paste from a unverified source on a website does not mean you have any credibility on this subject.
    The vast majority of my argument uses the Canonical bible to support my arguments. It's only when I spoke about the Book of Enoch and the Hebrew language that I used outside sources. If Strong's concordance is an unverified source, then you are the one who does not have credibility.

    You came into this with the goal of "winning" the argument, not understanding it. Your sources are weak and unrealiable, and clearly biased.

    YOU are the one who started this forum by blasting HH Pope Shenouda and the clergy who support the Seth/Cain explanation of Genesis 6. This was clearly based on your opinion that the Book of Enoch was authentic. You were biased by claiming the Book of Enoch should enjoy as much canonicity as the rest of the Bible. This clearly undermines the Coptic Clergy and the Coptic catechesis taught in Sunday School. My only goal was to provide an argument supporting the current Coptic thought.

    I just gave you one of the leading experts on this particular subjects, Michael Heiser, (, whom I am sure you will have a field day with. I gave you reliable sources, this man is the best on this subject and is an expert in many languages, and most of them ancient. I highly doubt you had time to do the proper research on him and his lectures. Then again, this isnt something you can google, then copy and paste as if you have done the work yourself.

    I could care less if Michael Heiser or any Joe Shmo knows every language in the world. It doesn't matter who makes the argument. If his argument holds merit and shows Orthodox understanding, then argue the facts of his argument on this site. Don't respond to my arguments by saying "Go read so and so to see how weak and biased your arguments are".  I’m sure if Lee Strobel wrote “The Case for the Book of Enoch”, he would simply write one page “Go read Michael Heisner”. That would surely be a best seller like the rest of his series. (Sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell)

    I suggest you do proper research before continuing this thread. Also check out the posts of sordoeht, read, learn and stop shoving your garbage down peoples throat.

    At least Sordoeht had the decency to actually present an argument. You, on the other hand, seem to only insult those who disagree with you and refer to an outside reference. This is exactly what happened on the homosexuality thread a few weeks back. It’s not “proper research”. That’s the garbage you are shoving down people’s throat. And if you bother to read the whole thread, you’ll see that my last post was a direct response to Sordoeht’s claim of Hebrew linguistics. As far as I can tell, I’ve responded to all logical claims supporting the Book of Enoch. On the other hand, I’ve requested more than once for anyone who supports the angel theory to respond to my evolution and theological argument. No one has yet responded. Why don’t you check out all the posts?

    Now go CHECK THE SOURCE like a professional would do.

    Really, professionals? Professionals like whom? Maybe you’re talking about professional debaters. Well if a professional debater was in a debate competition and it was his turn to respond to the opposite team’s argument and he simply stated, “Go read Joe Shmo. If you’re a professional debater, you would see how weak the opponent’s argument is” without actually arguing anything…. I’m sure he would get a lot of points for that response. (That was sarcasm in case you can’t tell)
    Maybe you meant a professional lawyer. After all, they are paid to argue and debate. I can just see it now. An defense attorney stands up and says, “Objection. Read IRS code 40859 (x) section 24”. The judge will immediately state, “Elaborate”. And this defense attorney says, “Your honor, if you’re a professional, you would research it yourself.” I’m sure the judge would say, “Good point.” (Again sarcasm)

    Professional debaters actually debate. Why don’t you go be a professional and actually argue facts or logic without insulting me personally.
  • Rem,  I never blasted anyone. We do not believe in infallability, I have every right to disagree on matters such as this. Until you grow up and stop with the confrontational arguments, I am done. You turned this into a mud slinging contest and I will have no part in it. I have said several times that this is not something we have to argue, it is personal preference wether you believe it or not, but you insist on me and maybe others giving in to your view. And yes I do not believe strong's concordance is something that can be relied upon to give any kind of accurate understanding to the original Hebrew and Greek words. Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context.

    If you want to believe what you want to, especially without actually checking the sources of sordoeht or the one I gave you, then why do you continue? This will be my last post on this topic. Kids lol.
  • Remenkeni,I think you are a bit biased in your argument about the “Sons of God” when you present your concordance and if my argument doesn’t satisfy you, you have to check what great Hebrew scholars like Michael Heiser(Phd) and others have to say about it,Michael Heiser is fluent in ancient languages,He studied Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Phoenician, the Aramaic, the Syriac, Moabite, the Ugaritic cuneiform, the Ancient Hebrew, Alexandrian Greek, the Aramaic, Akkadian and Sumerian the oldest language in recorded History and you can check his videos and websites. Go to frequently asked questions)
    2.Mike Heiser Genesis 6 hybrids, Sons of God, Nephilim 3 of 9(It is posted in you tube)

    If the Hebrew language doesn’t satisfy you, We can use the Septuagint which is older than the Masoretic in Genesis 6 and both the oldest Bibles which are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus both used Angels instead of “Sons of God”[ David R. Jackson Enochic Judaism: three defining paradigm exemplars 2004 p75] and I don’t know How you will get around this one too, when explicitly the oldest translations support the Angelic view.
    Evidence 8
    In Genesis 6, During the union between the Sons of God and daughters of men, the result was they gave birth to "Nephilim" directly translated in the Masoretic text and "Giants" in the Septuagint text respectively, The interesting thing about the Greek translation is that the offspring between the two were Giants ( "γίγαντες" or gigantes), which comes from the word  "γίγας" or gigas which means " Earth-born", if the giants were humans only there is no need for them to be called earth born, because ever human being is born on earth and the meaning is clear that the result of the off springs were born on earth instead of heaven, denoting the fact that one of their parent were divine and the other human.
    To conclude,Once again My stance is, the Book of Enoch has overwhelming evidences than any of the Deutro-cannonical books(Tobit,Judith,Maccabes,Wisdom of Sirach etc) even though it is not universally accepted by all Christian Churches with exception of only one of the oldest Christian Churces(The Ethiopian Orthodox Church) and maybe they accept it because It has been with them the whole time.
  • This is a selection from the raised difficult or unanswered issues I agree with:
    - mabsoota: angels cannot create a full human body for themselves on their own;
    - myself: the book should have been put at the front by Moses before Genesis or very early in it;
    - Ηεζεκιελ: the way how the book of Enoch survived the total devastation of the flood;
    - anba bola: we don't know if there were corruptions (or additions)
    - Remnkemi: the appellation 'sons of God' is not specific to angels

    Some medically based questions:
    1. Can you explain how come these fallen angels reproduce like humans do?
    2. Did they produce same species gametes to transfer human structurally compatible half DNA to the women's ova?
    3. Why were they only males, why no females? Didn't they reproduce before?
    4. How come the uteri of the pregnant women didn't explode from their giant sized babies, for them to be born fully formed at term?

    5. We know God prepared hell for satan and his angels, so where do these ones would fit in?
    6. Did Enoch book mention this same punishment, or another he mentioned only once?
    7. Did they end up joining the satanic legions? Were they their competitors?
    8. Are they still alive? Did all their progeny die (cf. nephilim)?
    9. Would you consider after all that these were demoniacal humans?
    10. Could they be aliens 'fallen' from the sky?

    Again, I still believe that most (if not all) idolatry are satan's inventions.

  • John_2000, You are demanding us questions,which are mysteries and not only mysteries but mysteries within a mystery and  needs more depth to explain?The muslims have difficult time to grasp the Mystery of the Holy Trinity,like How could God be 3 different distinct persons in One Godhead? ,but it wasn't difficult for you to grasp once you see the evidences from scriptures and I can come up with bunch of questions in which you will have no clue even to attempt it and you have to be God to answer them and that's not the point here about the Book of Enoch,Look at the Evidences that are presented here in the forum and try to refute those first one by one and then you have the right to ask those questions of yours.
  • sordoeht,

    I forgot to add 2 more points (see above). We now have 5 critical facts plus 10 questions. This is not for the sake of flooding the topic discussion with crippling questions. I believe these questions are important, let alone the 1st five points.

    There is no comparison between any Theological Mysteries and issues raised in this topic. The first is in the realm of God and only He would give us the ability and the information to understand some of them, according to His unreachable wisdom. While the latter is about creatures descriptions that would easily mimic ancient mythologies, the ancient Greek being one example.

    You can ask me and I would answer you if I can but this is not our current discussion.

    I have to say that evidences 5 and 6 you mentioned have cast more doubt, instead of convincing me more. Indeed, St Peter would have mentioned two chronologically distinct events instead of only one when speaking about fallen angels. Also, the term Tartarus you mentioned would be understood by the Greek people alone, so it's neither a useful nor an edifying idea serving everybody, or would the Greek of the time understand better if St Peter had used another description for satan and his fallen angels being cast down and tied till before they're thrown in hell?

    The Flood events evidently mean that the book of Enoch was transmitted as an oral Tradition. The Jews have serious books to study and explain Scripture, the question here is did they do this for the full current available written version of the book of Enoch? They may have much later removed some references to the life and resurrection of Christ but not references to His coming, His birth or His death. Why would they remove a whole book for few verses?

    I understand the flood eliminated all breathing flesh from the earth except all who were saved in the Ark. We find mention of the Nephilim and similar giants again in Scripture events later on, were some of them spared in the Ark too?

    About the book verses, I find it very difficult not to be selective.

  • This boils down to something very simple, which is why I do not like to discuss this topic, save a few people. Opinion. Many opinions here are interfering with facts. Sordoeht raised very good evidences and not one of them was addressed, rather people who do not want to believe in this continue to raise questions because they cannot perceive of such a thing. There are many more evidences to support what happened in Enoch, than there are against it. The most amazing thing about this is the hidden mysteries of mankinds past that this book explains. Where these highly advanced civilizations around there world actually got their knowledge from, amongst other things. But again, this is all opinion and we have plenty of evidence to support our belief, this does not mean anyone else HAS to believe in it. Hopefully everyone checks the source I gave, as well as sordoeht's, Michael S. Heiser an expert or should I say THE expert on this particular subject. He clearly demonstrates how the account in Gen 6 can ONLY be referring to angels and not the line of Cain.
  • Is there a copy of the book of Enoch anywhere in English to edifying the discussion? I think when debating it is important to read both sides of the argument before making conclusions. whether this book is real or not(as in a true account) does not help with salvation, so in the end it doesn't matter.
  • My aim is not to annoy you or attack your convictions but to understand more. I will read the reference mentioned when I find an online copy. Meanwhile I'd appreciate answering at least few of the questions raised in previous replies.

  • [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=10324.msg127374#msg127374 date=1295458470]
    My aim is not to annoy you or attack your convictions but to understand more. I will read the reference mentioned when I find an online copy. Meanwhile I'd appreciate answering at least few of the questions raised in previous replies.


    John, first you must go over what sordoeht said, and all the evidence he presented, check out Michael Heiser, who has done many lectures on this and IS an expert on this and then maybe many of your questions will be answered.

    The book of Enoch was debated not for its contents but for its origins. Today we know this for a fact, the book of Enoch arrived in Ethiopia along with all of the other Jewish Scripture. So we know that it can be traced to Ethiopia and from there to israel and the ancient jews, atleast according to Ethiopian tradition, the Kebra Nagast. The early church fathers that debated this issue were not aware that the Ethiopian Jews possessed a copy, at that time they were just starting to be converted and were still mainly jewish. So that has been answered, we can link it to the ancient jews who migrated from Israel to Ethiopia, which is also chronicled in the Kebra Nagast. MANY of the early church fathers not only believed the book of Enoch, but believed that angels did indeed come down unto the daughters of men, Gen 6. Even those who questioned the validity of Enoch, still believed this, like St. Augustine.
  • Ioannes,
    If you say I must.. no problem, I'll check Heiser's lectures and then be back here.

  • [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=10324.msg127389#msg127389 date=1295464131]
    If you say I must.. no problem, I'll check Heiser's lectures and then be back here.


    I have them on DVD but I dont think he actually has any of his lectures streaming on his sites.

    This is the only lecture I found of his on the subject
    That is part one of 9 I believe, what makes this interesting is that he is one of the few scholars that actually believes in Christ AND knows several languages, amongst them are Aramaic, Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Akkadian.
  • Just one point, I think there are a very great many scholars who are Christian and know ancient languages.

    Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek are very commonly known.

    Father Peter
  • I have seen a play list "Mike Heiser Genesis 6 hybrids, Sons of God, Nephilim"

    He has researched a lot but the whole work has presuppositions and a persistent orientation. A mistake he made at the start, he said on "man shall live 120 years" that it means life span, but what it means is: God states that humanity will have only 120 years left before the Flood to start.

    I respect his work and his effort, though it was not concrete enough for me to be convinced by the goal of his presentation. I also had an impression he is not adhering to sound Christian faith in parts of his lecture. I think his views are more deceptive than correct and may leave detrimental effects on others. Some agreed upon truth is mingled with some wrong 'cosmic knowledge', anyway thank you for the link.

Sign In or Register to comment.