Genesis 6:2 - Angels taking human women for wives?

Thanks, all. Very helpful, indeed. One more: So…nobody thinks the Antichrist will be the seed of the serpent, given his power (a man able to do great signs…having the number of a man (Rev 13:18) “Here is wisdom, Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man”…and, Isaiah 14:12-16 shown to die like a man in the end and go into hell) whose number we are cautioned not to take? Thanks, in advance…

1 Like

Thank you for your reply.

Thanks for your reply. It would appear that we have a few points that we disagree on. Perhaps you could point me to some source material that helped you arrive at some of your conclusions.

I have bullet pointed out the differences and tried to give a reasonable response with all due respect.

  • Daniel was written about 200 years before the earliest date for the Book of Enoch

Depending on who you consult Daniel is not the oldest apocalypse manuscript, Enoch is. Interestingly enough it was Daniel that almost didn’t make the cut, it was the last book to make the OT canon.

Daniel was considered the first apocalypse until the discovery of older fragments—the earliest layers of 1 Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls disproved this (Milik, Books of Enoch).

  • of the NT writers that you mention, only Jude actually uses anything from Enoch

I didn’t say that Jude, Peter, Paul, and Jesus quoted Enoch but that Enoch informed there understanding very similar to what you say About C.S. Lewis today. His writing informs many modern-day Christians.

From the footnotes of The Unseen Realm:

This sort of thing is common in human experience. For example, anyone who has read John Calvin’s thoughts on predestination, or a dispensationalist’s take on prophecy, will find it next to impossible to eliminate that material from their thinking while reading, respectively, the book of Romans or Revelation. First Enoch and other works are part of the thinking of Peter and Jude because they were well known and taken seriously by contemporaries. The content of 1 Enoch shows up elsewhere in these epistles. It is obvious to those who study all these texts, especially in Greek, that Peter and Jude knew 1 Enoch very well. Scholars have devoted considerable attention to parallels between that book and the epistles of Peter and Jude.

  • Nor did the Jewish leaders (outside such rather small sects as the Essenes) consider Enoch to be authoritative (nor did even the more liberal scholars who produced the Septuagint).

Again, you assume that the argument for Enoch is canonization, as I explained above it is not. I also pick up a hint that all Jewish religious leaders were in lockstep on their theology, again an oversimplification of want it meant to be Jewish.

  • The Jews widely considered God as having gone silent on them during that period of time.

I would have to have a better idea of what you mean by that.

  • Finally, none of the church fathers considered Enoch to be authoritative…

Again an except this time from Nickelsburg Commentary on 1 Enoch:

The situation was altogether different in the early centuries of the Common Era. Because the early church arose in the circles of apocalyptic Judaism, the Enochic texts and traditions were known and significantly influenced early Christian thought. Sometimes the knowledge of specific texts was direct; in other cases influence was indirect. Enochic ideas about the Chosen One/Son of Man left their mark on first-century Christian eschatology and christology. In the following two centuries various sectors of the Western church and their intellectual leaders alternatively embraced and distanced themselves from the Enochic tradition. Tertullian and Origen, in particular, turned to the primordial prophet as an authority to undergird their teaching. In time, however, the fortune of the Enochic traditions waned in catholic Christianity under the influence of Augustine, the church’s increasing proclivity for philosophical theology, and the widespread use of the texts in heretical circles.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. (2001). 1 Enoch: a commentary on the book of 1 Enoch. (K. Baltzer, Ed.) (pp. 82–83). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

  • the book of Jude was actually one of the last books to be accepted into the New Testament precisely because it quoted from Enoch.

I haven’t been able to find anything that would support that point. I did find this:

As canonical lists were made, indicating which books belonged in the New Testament, the inclusion of the Catholic Epistles was often disputed. The Muratorian Canon, a list expressing the views on canonicity of church leaders in Rome (about AD 180), included only 1 and 2 John and Jude. Origen concluded that 1 Peter and 1 John were the only undisputed writings of the seven, but he accepted all of them as canonical. All seven appeared in Codex Claromontanus (Egypt, sixth century AD), Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus (both fourth century), Athanasius’s thirty-ninth Festal Letter (367), Jerome’s writings (about 394), Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century), and Augustine’s writings (fourth-fifth centuries).

Comfort, P. (2005). Encountering the manuscripts: an introduction to New Testament paleography & textual criticism (p. 318). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

And this, which comes close to a Jude reject:

In fact, only a few other books were widely read in the Christian church—namely, 1 Peter and 1 John. The other General Epistles had a difficult time making it into the New Testament canon: James, because of its apparent opposition to Pauline soteriology; 2 Peter, because of its dissimilarity to 1 Peter; 2 John, 3 John, Jude, because of their obscurity.

It’s fun I think “Hey Jude” the Beatles song is better known than the book of Jude. The point be that it is still obscure :grinning:

As said in my opening remarks I am open to correction and critique.

1 Like

Cherry is on point here. There are references to this event in 1 Peter 3 and Jude. Jude having almost a direct quote from Enoch. Regardless of when Enoch was written Peter and Jude recognized truth within the narrative and felt that it was indeed accurate to quote. This supernatural view and understanding is universally accepted and quoted from many of the early church fathers as well as Jewish historians such as Philo. When you understand this point of view, the events of the Bible make more sense. Check out this book by Mike Heiser, Supernatural, or if you want a more scholarly version “The Unseen Realm” as well as “Reversing Hermon”. Warning: You may never look at your Bible the same!

1 Like

What a beautiful explanation and comforting explanation.

1 Like

Oops, I meant the one about the DNA reference is beautiful… As for the one above, I, too, enjoy researching historical documents that touch on or are referenced in the Bible. I believe this is part of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 12:4, that “knowledge shall be increased”). I think we lost, and are regaining, much that the early church knew.

1 Like

Thank you for helping the body of Christ not to panic about the things that are coming upon the earth. God has warned us about things that we could not even imagine until they became almost commonplace in the movies. Those who were not part of a cult would not even see the evil that we see and hear about so much today in the news…open violence that appears to be from non-human beings in their cruelty and perversions. Though iniquity abounds, even more so grace. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

1 Like