nephilim

[Magenta]

Where in scripture is Satan called the morning star?

The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. source

 

[iamsoandso]

It is a baseless conjecture to say that Moses readers would have common knowledge that the phrase "sons of God" always meant angels based on their familiarity with the book of Job, as though they were all well read in Job or as though the impact of the book of Job had so permeated the culture that everyone knew what this meant based on the book of Job and therefore it needed no explanation.
You are imagining something that is not supported by anything but your imagination. It is not likely to be the case. These people out of Egypt were probably not at well read in the book of Job.

It is much more likely that the reason that Moses did not explain who the sons of God were in the immediate context of Gen 6:2 is because he had already explained them in Gen 4:26 when the at the beginning of the lineage of Seth the world had become two divided groups, those with Cain on the East of Eden and these who were following after faith in God and they began to Call upon the name of the Lord and as the Hebrew also translates "Call themselves by the name of the Lord." Having previously made this statement Moses does not feel the need to explain who the "sons of God" are as it is assumed that you grasped that when he made his point in Gen 4:26.

Moses had also mentions daughters only in Cain's lineage (no mention of daughters in Seth's) and these daughters had names that mean Fair, Pleasant and Beautiful. Therefore the reference to the daughters of men who were beautiful does not need further explaining because they also were previously pointed out in Gen 4:22 howbeit knowing the meaning of the Hebrew names is helpful to the English reader to recall the context when reading Gen 6:2 and remember that they were mentioned in 4:22.

If we take the "I am on a desert Island with no one to talk to and no previous knowledge or interpretations to consider" and no knowledge of Job approach to interpretation, it is most likely that the average person who looks back to see if they missed something when they read Gen 6:2 will find Gen 4:26 and come up with the interpretation I have just presented. And for that reason I find it the best interpretation to go with.

I also have the rest of the bible that continues to teach this "people who are called to be separate being led away into sin by ungodly wives/ungodly in general" motif that keeps showing up in scripture, which also supports this hermeneutic.

If this was an issue that we were trying to decide in our modern days it would be one thing but how they looked at it back then I think is more important to me. It seems obvious that around 3rd century bce to 2nd century ce this was a topic debated by them but before that time it seems that it was just common knowledge from the things written in different parts of the world. I understand that epic of Gilgamesh,Geek mythology,Egyptian ect. are pagan but to me it's odd that there are multiple peoples and religions seemingly talking about people crossing with gods/extraterrestrials ect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God

 

[Scribe]

If this was an issue that we were trying to decide in our modern days it would be one thing but how they looked at it back then I think is more important to me. It seems obvious that around 3rd century bce to 2nd century ce this was a topic debated by them but before that time it seems that it was just common knowledge from the things written in different parts of the world. I understand that epic of Gilgamesh,Geek mythology,Egyptian ect. are pagan but to me it's odd that there are multiple peoples and religions seemingly talking about people crossing with gods/extraterrestrials ect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God

That is correct, which is why the Jewish / Greek Syncretic sect behind the writing of Enoch were trying to add an interpretation to suggest that the Hebrew scriptures validated the Greek mythology of the gods mixing with humans and creating heroes. They thought they found that idea in the scripture but in reality they read their own ideas into it and missed the real message about the separation of Darkness from Light, godly from ungodly.

The book of Enoch was rejected as not from Enoch nor sound in its apocalyptical genre theology. It was never embraced as inspired but it was discussed as the views of these sects who were trying to explain their own theology concerning why the Jews were still suffering domination by the gentiles when they felt they were being faithful to the Law and had been cured of idolatry since the Babylonian Exile. They expected to be enjoying all the blessings promised to them for obedience including the long awaited Kingdom that was not yet restored. So they tried to explain things that would encourage people to believe that the Kingdom promised was still coming and they had to keep waiting for it. It would prevail in the end.

I don't think they expected anyone to ever believe Enoch wrote it and no one did. They could not give it a real authors name or he would have been stoned. But fast forward 2100 years and ignorance of the cultural context and people today are believing some stupid YouTube or Discovery Channel nonsense about it as "a lost book of the bible" It was never part of the canon. Some will embrace it just because it is old. But antiquity is never proof of authenticity. It was not written by Enoch. Therefore it is a lie, or a fiction at best.

 

[iamsoandso]

That is correct, which is why the Jewish / Greek Syncretic sect behind the writing of Enoch were trying to add an interpretation to suggest that the Hebrew scriptures validated the Greek mythology of the gods mixing with humans and creating heroes. They thought they found that idea in the scripture but in reality they read their own ideas into it and missed the real message about the separation of Darkness from Light, godly from ungodly.

The book of Enoch was rejected as not from Enoch nor sound in its apocalyptical genre theology. It was never embraced as inspired but it was discussed as the views of these sects who were trying to explain their own theology concerning why the Jews were still suffering domination by the gentiles when they felt they were being faithful to the Law and had been cured of idolatry since the Babylonian Exile. They expected to be enjoying all the blessings promised to them for obedience including the long awaited Kingdom that was not yet restored. So they tried to explain things that would encourage people to believe that the Kingdom promised was still coming and they had to keep waiting for it. It would prevail in the end.

I don't think they expected anyone to ever believe Enoch wrote it and no one did. They could not give it a real authors name or he would have been stoned. But fast forward 2100 years and ignorance of the cultural context and people today are believing some stupid YouTube or Discovery Channel nonsense about it as "a lost book of the bible" It was never part of the canon. Some will embrace it just because it is old. But antiquity is never proof of authenticity. It was not written by Enoch. Therefore it is a lie, or a fiction at best.

lol,Jewish thinking on what was the cannon was is something that was not an issue until after Jesus,before that time the Jews were the ones who were safeguarding Enoch,Jubilees ect. most of the Hebrew writings are not thought to be penned at the time of the event but passed down orally and written by scribes later. So books like second Samuel could not have been written by Samuel himself if he died in first Samuel ect....

 

[Scribe]

lol,Jewish thinking on what was the cannon was is something that was not an issue until after Jesus,before that time the Jews were the ones who were safeguarding Enoch,Jubilees ect. most of the Hebrew writings are not thought to be penned at the time of the event but passed down orally and written by scribes later. So books like second Samuel could not have been written by Samuel himself if he died in first Samuel ect....

At the time of Christ there already existed documented discussions on the views of Enoch and it was not considered authentic or scripture.

 

[iamsoandso]

At the time of Christ there already existed documented discussions on the views of Enoch and it was not considered authentic or scripture.

This is almost the same as what I said https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon in that they didn't establish it as not cannon until between 140bce to the 2nd century before that they saw it as a Hebrew writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch the discussion never came up until then.

 

[Benadam]

Genesis describes a world with two just two human cultures. Monogamists holding onto tradition handed down from Adam and Eve. Adam the only man who knew the unobstructed image of God. Seth his son in the image of his father Adam. Their lineage are the sons of God.

The other culture is polygamist. Brothers compete like animals. Wars from which fierce powerful men emerged who like their father were infinitely vengeful. Women too become shameless objects to attract the alpha males.

With the world described as having two human cultures, one monogamist one polygamist there is little reason to think that the polygamist women would present a temptation to anyone other than the men of the monogamist culture.

 

[luigi]

Why would there be a difference here in Job, morning stars=angels sons of God???
The Angels sang & the sons of God shouted It seems to me they are 2 distinct/different types of creature

I agree with you that the sons of God are another separate group than the angels. I wonder, as Job 38:7 describes "all" the sons of God being present at the formation of the universe, if this includes all who are to become sons of God, then time would not be a factor?

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[Child0fYAHUAH]

The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. source

The word Lucifer is only used once in all of scripture. It's a Latin word & shouldn't even be there. If you do a study of the original word used it appears many times & is always translated lightbearer.

 

[Child0fYAHUAH]

Using only scripture & not mans doctrine. The word clearly states angels are neither male or female. Yes, they can take the form of a human & even eat, but they cannot reproduce because scripture clearly states this. If you have a good bible study tool such as e-sword
you can do a search of any group of words in scripture. Son of God= Jesus/Yahshua & Adam... Sons of God=created beings but not angels.
When we are filled with the Holy Spirit we all become Sons of God. His created children.

 

[Dino246]

That is correct, which is why the Jewish / Greek Syncretic sect behind the writing of Enoch were trying to add an interpretation to suggest that the Hebrew scriptures validated the Greek mythology of the gods mixing with humans and creating heroes. They thought they found that idea in the scripture but in reality they read their own ideas into it and missed the real message about the separation of Darkness from Light, godly from ungodly.

The book of Enoch was rejected as not from Enoch nor sound in its apocalyptical genre theology. It was never embraced as inspired but it was discussed as the views of these sects who were trying to explain their own theology concerning why the Jews were still suffering domination by the gentiles when they felt they were being faithful to the Law and had been cured of idolatry since the Babylonian Exile. They expected to be enjoying all the blessings promised to them for obedience including the long awaited Kingdom that was not yet restored. So they tried to explain things that would encourage people to believe that the Kingdom promised was still coming and they had to keep waiting for it. It would prevail in the end.

I don't think they expected anyone to ever believe Enoch wrote it and no one did. They could not give it a real authors name or he would have been stoned. But fast forward 2100 years and ignorance of the cultural context and people today are believing some stupid YouTube or Discovery Channel nonsense about it as "a lost book of the bible" It was never part of the canon. Some will embrace it just because it is old. But antiquity is never proof of authenticity. It was not written by Enoch. Therefore it is a lie, or a fiction at best.

Generally I respect your views, but on this matter I request that you identify your source(s). By the way, there is a lot of good information available on YouTube, despite all the junk.

Whether the book was written by the Enoch of Genesis 5:18-24 is a secondary matter. Many books likely were not written by the person for whom they are named (Esther, Samuel, Titus, Philemon, etc.). That doesn't make them "a lie, or a fiction at best". It is foolhardy to treat as "fiction" every old book that is not part of Scripture, just as it is foolhardy today to ignore modern medical knowledge when you're sick or injured. There is a legitimate distinction to be made between canonical and non-canonical literature, but the latter is not synonymous with "not true"; rather, it simply means "not inspired".

 

[Dino246]

Using only scripture & not mans doctrine. The word clearly states angels are neither male or female. Yes, they can take the form of a human & even eat, but they cannot reproduce because scripture clearly states this.

Since you claim that Scripture "clearly states" them, could you please provide chapter and verse for each of two bolded assertions. Quotations would be even better.

 

[calibob]

Generally I respect your views, but on this matter I request that you identify your source(s). By the way, there is a lot of good information available on YouTube, despite all the junk.

Whether the book was written by the Enoch of Genesis 5:18-24 is a secondary matter. Many books likely were not written by the person for whom they are named (Esther, Samuel, Titus, Philemon, etc.). That doesn't make them "a lie, or a fiction at best". It is foolhardy to treat as "fiction" every old book that is not part of Scripture, just as it is foolhardy today to ignore modern medical knowledge when you're sick or injured. There is a legitimate distinction to be made between canonical and non-canonical literature, but the latter is not synonymous with "not true"; rather, it simply means "not inspired".

Or 'not approved.'

 

[Dino246]

Genesis describes a world with two just two human cultures. Monogamists holding onto tradition handed down from Adam and Eve. Adam the only man who knew the unobstructed image of God. Seth his son in the image of his father Adam. Their lineage are the sons of God.

The other culture is polygamist. Brothers compete like animals. Wars from which fierce powerful men emerged who like their father were infinitely vengeful. Women too become shameless objects to attract the alpha males.

With the world described as having two human cultures, one monogamist one polygamist there is little reason to think that the polygamist women would present a temptation to anyone other than the men of the monogamist culture.

This in no way explains how the children of a monogamist-culture father and a polygamist-culture mother would be anything other than normal human beings. Your version provides no explanation for them being mighty, men of renown, or, as many believe, giants.

 

[Dino246]

Or 'not approved.'

While I don't think "not approved" is necessarily incorrect, it doesn't align well with 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[Scribe]

Generally I respect your views, but on this matter I request that you identify your source(s). By the way, there is a lot of good information available on YouTube, despite all the junk.

Whether the book was written by the Enoch of Genesis 5:18-24 is a secondary matter. Many books likely were not written by the person for whom they are named (Esther, Samuel, Titus, Philemon, etc.). That doesn't make them "a lie, or a fiction at best". It is foolhardy to treat as "fiction" every old book that is not part of Scripture, just as it is foolhardy today to ignore modern medical knowledge when you're sick or injured. There is a legitimate distinction to be made between canonical and non-canonical literature, but the latter is not synonymous with "not true"; rather, it simply means "not inspired".

Wikipedia has done a fair treatment of this subject. The book of Enoch I mean.
I think that people can fairly complete understanding of the history of these writings as to the discussion about them from the Jewish religous leaders and then Christian church.

In the end they were rejected by the majority as apocalyptic literature written by a hellenized sect who wanted to get their own theological message out and also without getting stoned by using their own name.

 

[Scribe]

Generally I respect your views, but on this matter I request that you identify your source(s). By the way, there is a lot of good information available on YouTube, despite all the junk.

Whether the book was written by the Enoch of Genesis 5:18-24 is a secondary matter. Many books likely were not written by the person for whom they are named (Esther, Samuel, Titus, Philemon, etc.). That doesn't make them "a lie, or a fiction at best". It is foolhardy to treat as "fiction" every old book that is not part of Scripture, just as it is foolhardy today to ignore modern medical knowledge when you're sick or injured. There is a legitimate distinction to be made between canonical and non-canonical literature, but the latter is not synonymous with "not true"; rather, it simply means "not inspired".

The book of Enoch claims to be written by Enoch. It was written between 200-100 bc approximately so of course it was not written by Enoch. The falsity continues throughout the book.
If Jude quoted it, it might be for argument sake. Like when Paul quoted a philosopher.

Wikipedia has done a fair treatment of this subject. The book of Enoch I mean.
I think that people can fairly complete understanding of the history of these writings as to the discussion about them from the Jewish religous leaders and then Christian church.

In the end they were rejected by the majority as apocalyptic literature written by a hellenized sect who wanted to get their own theological message out and also without getting stoned by using their own name.

I could be wrong about the Hellenized part but the intertestamental period produced a lot of apocalyptic writings that had in common an attempt to teach a slant on that particular sects views on the kingdom of God and why Israel was not being blessed as the Law said they should be since the Babylonian exile and the restoration that was promised had not materialized and they were still under foreign rule.

What I have read in the past is that the writers behind Enoch had a mythological world view. This was not compatible with Jewish thought and was rejected by Jews and Christians until modern times when we find liberal theologians who do not believe in the inspiration of scriptures and who have ideas that Jews were no different in the development of their scriptures than other religions and they see no reason not to attribute a mythological interpretation to Gen 6.

This argument deprecates the literal interpretation, or even the inspired view of scriptures and considers the author of Genesis no more enlightened than authors of Greek myths.

It is a subtle attack on the inspiration of the Word of God to attribute Gen 6 to fallen angels and women having hybrid super humans. It makes a mockery of the scriptures and says they are no more believable than Greek myths. And of course it obfuscates the very important message that the Holy Spirit intended which was that of separation from sin and faith in a coming redeemer who will judge and set things right. I believe that the prophecy of Jude quoted by Enoch might have been passed down but again it is possible that Jude was quoting it from the book of Enoch to make a point. I have not decided on that one yet. Paul quoted from pagan philosophers to make a point, the saying about "slow belllies" but we know that he was not suggesting that they were inspired or even worth reading.

 

[Benadam]

This in no way explains how the children of a monogamist-culture father and a polygamist-culture mother would be anything other than normal human beings. Your version provides no explanation for them being mighty, men of renown, or, as many believe, giants.

Your first mighty man described himself as infinitely vengeful l he is also the first polygamist.

Gen 4
And 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 to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

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

 

[Benadam]

This in no way explains how the children of a monogamist-culture father and a polygamist-culture mother would be anything other than normal human beings. Your version provides no explanation for them being mighty, men of renown, or, as many believe, giants.

There is no reason to think that there are anything but normal human beings in the story.

 

[iamsoandso]

The book of Enoch claims to be written by Enoch. It was written between 200-100 bc approximately so of course it was not written by Enoch. The falsity continues throughout the book.
If Jude quoted it, it might be for argument sake. Like when Paul quoted a philosopher.


I could be wrong about the Hellenized part but the intertestamental period produced a lot of apocalyptic writings that had in common an attempt to teach a slant on that particular sects views on the kingdom of God and why Israel was not being blessed as the Law said they should be since the Babylonian exile and the restoration that was promised had not materialized and they were still under foreign rule.

What I have read in the past is that the writers behind Enoch had a mythological world view. This was not compatible with Jewish thought and was rejected by Jews and Christians until modern times when we find liberal theologians who do not believe in the inspiration of scriptures and who have ideas that Jews were no different in the development of their scriptures than other religions and they see no reason not to attribute a mythological interpretation to Gen 6.

This argument deprecates the literal interpretation, or even the inspired view of scriptures and considers the author of Genesis no more enlightened than authors of Greek myths.

It is a subtle attack on the inspiration of the Word of God to attribute Gen 6 to fallen angels and women having hybrid super humans. It makes a mockery of the scriptures and says they are no more believable than Greek myths. And of course it obfuscates the very important message that the Holy Spirit intended which was that of separation from sin and faith in a coming redeemer who will judge and set things right. I believe that the prophecy of Jude quoted by Enoch might have been passed down but again it is possible that Jude was quoting it from the book of Enoch to make a point. I have not decided on that one yet. Paul quoted from pagan philosophers to make a point, the saying about "slow belllies" but we know that he was not suggesting that they were inspired or even worth reading.

In Antiquities 1.3.1 Josephus recites the traditions the Jews held on the matter of angels/giants so I suppose the Jews believed this before about ad80'ish and then decided to not include them in their Cannon after this point? https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html