Titans and their origin

[Beck]

I completely agree that Jesus used the OT stories as allegories for truths he was teaching, but that tells us nothing about whether or not they were originally intended to be understood as literal historical narrative.

I agree, that is what I see when reading about any of those stories. For example the 'manna' from heaven given to the children in the wilderness. I can see that happening in a sence that they found some type of edible stuff and clamined that God sent it and don't know what to call it, but 'what is it'. All the other stuff about it only lasting for one day and then on a certain day it will last two days. Then a fire by night leading them in the wilderness all of this seem more figurative than literal, but that is the story that is told down through the history of the nation of Israel. To me if a author is to write down a historical narrative in detail then I wouldn't aspect to read that a fire lead them in the desert. I assume that the author is going to write it with much details as possible and in the way the Hebrews custom of story telling they delivered it with picture words.

Now are the hearers of these story tellers so irgorant to their own customs that they believe what they hear to be real?

Case in point: The fact that Jesus used the flood in his sermons doesn't necessarily imply that he believed it literally happened. But then again, he said nothing to suggest that he beleived otherwise. Personally, I think he was as ignorant as everyone else concerning things like the flood. This seems pretty obvious sense he believed a lot of other first century nonsense like the idea that demons cause disease.

And what about the stories of Christ walking on water? If anything if "metaphor" in the Bible, it must be that! And all the other miracles. And the story of his virgin birth. If we go this route, it seems we should toss out the whole book.

Now wait a mintue Brother You going to throw out the baby with the bath water. Hey agree I don't read the bible as much as a historical account, but rather reading it as a figurative narrative. That would include the virgin birth and the miracles. I guess the story of Jesus walking on the water seem to be a very detailed event, but that would go for allot of the events written in the bible even his resurrection.

Fundamentalism is a brain disease that destroys the ability to discern between "literal" and "metaphorical." Personally, I always thought that the throne itself, let alone the four creatures, is just a metaphor for God's sovereignty ... or is it? We'll never know what first century people really intended, will we? I suspect that the writers very well may have believed in a literal throne.

Brain disease you're in for it now just wait.

On the contrary, Enoch made it into the canon in various places, and was extremely popular in the early church. Here's what one intro says:

The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation.

Well you might see that I havn't studies the book of Enoch in deepth, you make a good point.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree, that is what I see when reading about any of those stories. For example the 'manna' from heaven given to the children in the wilderness. I can see that happening in a sence that they found some type of edible stuff and clamined that God sent it and don't know what to call it, but 'what is it'. All the other stuff about it only lasting for one day and then on a certain day it will last two days. Then a fire by night leading them in the wilderness all of this seem more figurative than literal, but that is the story that is told down through the history of the nation of Israel. To me if a author is to write down a historical narrative in detail then I wouldn't aspect to read that a fire lead them in the desert. I assume that the author is going to write it with much details as possible and in the way the Hebrews custom of story telling they delivered it with picture words.

Now are the hearers of these story tellers so irgorant to their own customs that they believe what they hear to be real?

I don't know how we could ever determine the answer with certainty. The Bible is a mix of myth, metaphor, and purported history. But it seems to me that you are taking a rather extreme position towards "myth and metaphor" that the vast majority of Christians throughout history would have rejected. And if you are correct, I would be inclined to toss it all out as myth and metaphor set, of course, in history like a historical novel ... and with about as much cogency. In other words, it reduces the Bible to a mere story with no compelling call on my life.

Case in point: The fact that Jesus used the flood in his sermons doesn't necessarily imply that he believed it literally happened. But then again, he said nothing to suggest that he beleived otherwise. Personally, I think he was as ignorant as everyone else concerning things like the flood. This seems pretty obvious sense he believed a lot of other first century nonsense like the idea that demons cause disease.

And what about the stories of Christ walking on water? If anything if "metaphor" in the Bible, it must be that! And all the other miracles. And the story of his virgin birth. If we go this route, it seems we should toss out the whole book.

Now wait a mintue Brother You going to throw out the baby with the bath water. Hey agree I don't read the bible as much as a historical account, but rather reading it as a figurative narrative. That would include the virgin birth and the miracles. I guess the story of Jesus walking on the water seem to be a very detailed event, but that would go for allot of the events written in the bible even his resurrection.

Well, the virgin birth was very "detailed" and is presented as historical narrative without a hint of being "figurative" as far as I can tell.

I don't think you have presented a coherent method to discern between fact and fiction in the Bible.

Fundamentalism is a brain disease that destroys the ability to discern between "literal" and "metaphorical." Personally, I always thought that the throne itself, let alone the four creatures, is just a metaphor for God's sovereignty ... or is it? We'll never know what first century people really intended, will we? I suspect that the writers very well may have believed in a literal throne.

Brain disease you're in for it now just wait.

Bring it on!

Well you might see that I havn't studies the book of Enoch in deepth, you make a good point.

You should read it. It's dated one or two centuries prior to Christ, and it explains where a lot of the NT ideas about heaven and hell and fallen angels came from, which is a big mystery sense those concepts are mostly missing from the OT but the NT presents them as common knowledge. So where did they come from? Pagan mythology ... and I can't see no reason anyone should be believing first century pagan mythology!

Great chatting!

[Beck]

I don't know how we could ever determine the answer with certainty. The Bible is a mix of myth, metaphor, and purported history. But it seems to me that you are taking a rather extreme position towards "myth and metaphor" that the vast majority of Christians throughout history would have rejected. And if you are correct, I would be inclined to toss it all out as myth and metaphor set, of course, in history like a historical novel ... and with about as much cogency. In other words, it reduces the Bible to a mere story with no compelling call on my life.

Yeah you're probably right about me taking the extreme position. I find that most don't agree with me. Most of them are fundamentalist.

Well, the virgin birth was very "detailed" and is presented as historical narrative without a hint of being "figurative" as far as I can tell.

I don't think you have presented a coherent method to discern between fact and fiction in the Bible.

Yeah what is a good method? If it quacks and walks like a duck then it must be a duck. If it's written in great detail it must be fact.

You should read it. It's dated one or two centuries prior to Christ, and it explains where a lot of the NT ideas about heaven and hell and fallen angels came from, which is a big mystery sense those concepts are mostly missing from the OT but the NT presents them as common knowledge. So where did they come from? Pagan mythology ... and I can't see no reason anyone should be believing first century pagan mythology!

Great chatting!

I have read parts of the book, but I think it would be good to read it all, Thanks

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Here's what the Book of Enoch says about the Watchers leaving who "left the high heaven, the holy eternal place" to have sex with women:

And I Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me -Enoch the scribe- and said to me: 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: And ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin: and inasmuch as they delight themselves in their children, The murder of their beloved ones shall they see, and over the destruction of their children shall they lament, and shall make supplication unto eternity, but mercy and peace shall ye not attain."

The book of Jude draws very heavily from this mythological book. In addition to his allusion to the passage above about angels having sex and children with mortal women, he quoted this whole chunk:

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

So it seems to me rather difficult to deny that Jude was endorsing the the idea that angels had sex with mortal women as taught in the book of Enoch.

I thought the connection would be much closer. I don't see the direct connection between the two though it could be implied. Enoch doesnt' say anything about 10,000 saints....etc. In Jude, doesn't say anything about fallen angels. Even if it did, it's likely a commentary upon those chapters in Genesis. The "ungodly" is those who are disobedient to the obedience of faith in Christ during that first century. Remember, "the LAW" of Moses and so forth are now abolished to the believer and the law of the Spirit; of justification and right-standing by Faith are established.

Though the reference to 'Enoch' is there, I would like to see a closer direct reference to the Genesis account in Jude in order to make the association.

Additionally, it may be the principles and spiritual elements of "defiling themselves with women" which are important and that are being called into attention.

Remember the example of Balak and Balaam towards the end of the wilderness wandering?

The Israelites were enticed by by those two to commit idolatry with the fake "gods" through the enticements of their women. The judgement was for the idolatry and impatience/disbelief as much or more than the activity with the women.

I wonder if "defiling themselves with women' in Revelation doesn't also have a similar meaning [to the first century readers] but now referring to idolatry with Rome? Obviously, both sons and daughters [brothers and sisters] were delivered [Ez 13] through this first century time period and it's not stated anywhere where they were to abstain from one another. Thus 'defiling themselves with women' seems possibly to be an intended association with the the idolotrous acts of the Israelites during the 'back 40' [last part] of the wilderness wanderings.

These, as well as stories from Gen 6, may be some of the principles for Pauls instructions to not be unequally yoked.... for what has light to do with darkness.

In the same way, REv talks about those who were 'virgins' and who were not defiled 'with women' which could mean that they were not deceived from the truths of the Living God and were not drawn back into either judaism or romanism. Rev 13:14

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they [the apostles and first century saints with whom the beast made war against Dan 7:21,25] loved not their lives unto the death.

REv 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REv 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

REv 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

REv 14:3, These are they which were not defiled with women; [not deceived by the beast] for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb [of Peace] whithersoever he goeth. [Even to death] These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Rev 14:10. Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Seems to have as much to do with spiritual virginity and abstinance from Rome, not sexual virginity.

I was reading over Colossians the last few days.

1If ye then be risen with Christ,
[Note, this is a post resurrection, pre-70 AD writing; thus is referring to a spiritual resurection and right standing with Him through believing in Christ's affirmed deity via his Resurrection]

seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

2Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

4When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. [1st century event]

5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

There seems to be an intended association to the things [on and of the earth] which were destroyed in Genesis 6.
These would be talking about things done apart from faith.

There may also be an implied association in verse 5 with Lamach and his declared 'mortification' of the man who had hurt him against understanding the reality of the Love of the living God, of his good purposes and promises through Eve.

23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man [I have mortified his effect on me by faith in the future seed of God promised to Eve] to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

If we mortify doubt and disbelief in the reality of the living God and of His Living super-natural transcendant Love then it will faclitate ceasing of actions and thoughts that stem from the "earth" or that are 'carnal', humanist and void of divinity. "Lord, I believe"..... Help thou my unbelief !!

[CWH]

"Defiled with women" is so easy to understand, why make it so difficult? The key word is "women" which is plural; therefore it means fornication i.e. those who slept around with women. It doesn't mean male sexual virginity taking into consideration that many of Jesus apostles were married men. Were Jesus apostles defiled by women as well? If so how can they be ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel in the kingdom of heaven? The other possible explanation is that the apostles and those who have given up everything include their wives to follow Jesus were considered as "not defiled by women" as they were free from spousal and family concerns.

God's Blessings to all.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

For the preterists:

I listened to a recent radio show who interviewed a book writer [Douglass Hemp] who's theory was that since Jesus stated in the Olivet discourse, that the end of the world [we know it as the end of the mosaic covenat age] would be like the days of Noe, that this declared that there would be aliens copulating with women on the earth. The speaker, writer declared that something similar is happening or about to happen.

But the 'prophecy expert' neglects that the point of the comparison is listed right in the text and it has NOTHING to do with "Nephilim" being on the earth, but refers simply to the element of surprise to come upon those in Judea who would not heed the apostles warnings.
The comparison with Noahs time is to emphasize that those who did not heed Noahs warnings were taken by surprise.

On a further comment about this writer's perspective;

He noted that from his perspective the reason for the judgment on the earth in Noah's day was to rid the earth of the genetic impurities and that Noah was the only genetically pure descendant of Adam.

If that would be accurate, then the Nephelim [and giants] would have been ceased from the earth at the time of Noah. But the writer also acknowledged that there were 'giants' after the flood. His theory of ridding the world of supposed alien genetic offspring is unsupported.

The surrounding verses and examples of men of faith calling on the name [character] of the Lord in Genesis and of faith in the Everlasting covenant promised to come through Eve paint a different picuture of what is occurring there.

The picuture is that the flood IMPROVED the world and environment from the intense labor of the pre-flood environment and lessened man's railing against God.

29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

Aside from the generational limitations of Jesus words AND asided from the intended instruction about the element of surprise evident from the additional context of the speech:

If Jesus intent when he mentioned the days of Noah was to refer to a compulating of 'aliens' and humans, then the copulation would be consistent with females only. The writer sensationalizes the alledged present harvesting of men also. Additionally, and more noticable is that since the giants didn't cease with the flood, the reference to the 'days' of Noe' in the Olivet having to refer to a time of alien bred Giants is inconsistent and unsupported by the fact of 'giants' existing after the flood.

The authors perspective [held by other futurist gloom and doom 'prophecy experts' such Mark Hitchcock] is little more than specualtive theorizing based on poor hermeneutics and futurist/dispensational eschatology, and is inconsistent and contradictory with other clarification and information in the texts.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I ran across this quote from Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3:1. He held the common view that Genesis 6 talks about fallen angels having sex with mortal women:

1. NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels (11) of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.

The footnote 11 says that "This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity."

[Beck]

I ran across this quote from Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3:1. He held the common view that Genesis 6 talks about fallen angels having sex with mortal women:

1. NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels (11) of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.

The footnote 11 says that "This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity."

Now that's a good find Richard. Would you think this same notion is also connected to how the gospel told the narrative of the brith of Jesus as from a virgin woman?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Now that's a good find Richard. Would you think this same notion is also connected to how the gospel told the narrative of the brith of Jesus as from a virgin woman?

The gods of Greek mythology impregnated mortal women. And it was the Greek text of Isaiah 7:14 which (mistranslated almah (young women) as parthenos (virgin). This, when read in light of Genesis 6, Jude 6, and Greek mythology, probably led to the doctrine of the impregnation of Mary by God.

[Beck]

The gods of Greek mythology impregnated mortal women. And it was the Greek text of Isaiah 7:14 which (mistranslated almah (young women) as parthenos (virgin). This, when read in light of Genesis 6, Jude 6, and Greek mythology, probably led to the doctrine of the impregnation of Mary by God.

That's what I was thinking...