The Books of Enoch.

buncha nutters

Romans 8:14KJV
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Exodus 31:3KJV
3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

1 Samuel 10:10KJV
10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

2 Chronicles 15:1KJV
And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded:

2 Chronicles 24:20KJV
20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you.

Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Hear what you are trying to say, but all these are taken out of context to what you are using them for, in my opinion.

See this quite a bit, where Scripture is taken out of context in order to 'prove' a point. Most often, it is a singular verse each time, not what is before and/or after that particular verse. If read in entirety and in context, it goes a totally different direction. Not trying to be stubborn or come across as argumentative, but just do not see what you are presenting.

God bless, and thank you!

Good one Dino! This is a good point, as it is demonstrating again that 'the sons of God' is referring to angelic hosts.

First of all, none of those who decided what was spirit inspired, and what is non-spirit inspired were prophets. Therefore, none of them heard from GOD directly. They are the ones that decided for themselves what should be included, not the GOD. Who is a council, one that was not even put together, nor directed by the GOD HIMSELF, to tell you what is Spirit inspired and what is not?

There is a reason we were told to seek GOD,

Seek ye first the kingdom of GOD and HIS righteousness and all these shall be added unto you.

If all was said in the bible, why would the all knowing GOD not tell us to just read your bible? This is showing that HE wanted us to seek HIM, to see the discrepancies, and misinterpretations, and seek out the truth. Not rely on a counsel of men to tell you.

God's words state otherwise.

The Sons Of God were human men, that married human women

Teaching Angels have sex with human women, and maintaining human sperm is a fairytale in mythology, and false teaching.

Genesis 6:1-6KJV
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

"The Sons of God" took wives, Angel's don't marry humans, it's that simple.

Matthew 22:30KJV
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

You are being stubborn and ridiculous. I quoted God's words verbatim. It is quite silly to ignore completely a relevant passage because it doesn't line up with your understanding. Rather, change your understanding to conform to God's words!

As I have said before I think that these type threads are fascinating to me because they never follow groups of supporters or non-supporters aligned by the position they hold in eschatology. I notice that for the most part these type threads never evolve past the argument of the book of Enoch's validity and then into debating the content of what is in the book itself. In such it occurs to me that it is probably because the different camps in eschatology may see the book as indefensible based on their position and so it is rejected. At times I wonder if the book it's self had been read/studied by many who make comments in these threads based on their post.

If so I think these type threads would instead center around different topics other than the author being in support of fallen angels being the sons of God and more on the other topics in the book. I'll give an example of another from Enoch 10:12 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Enoch_(Charles)/Chapter_10 in that Enoch states that Semjaza and his associates would be bound fast for "seventy generation's" until they were judged which in Luke is the exact number of generation's from Enoch to Jesus in Mary"s line given by Luke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus ... It begs the question of why Luke is pointing out that there is 77 generation's from God to Jesus but from Enoch exactly 70 as in Enoch 10:12 and how did the author of the book know this before Jesus was born.

When the difference between views simply comes down to refusal [to acknowledge] there's no alliance with what is opinionated to what we read from the Word of God, the debate is over. It's reasonably possible to assume at that point, the opinionated view refuses to accept truth and logic. No need to continue and waste time, because [that's the intention] of the opposing view all along.

this is not about angels having sex again, is it? LOl because Job 38:4-7 has no context to Genesis chapter six.

Agreed about context!

But still intrigued by the view from the Torah's [specific] use of Nobles (in place of Sons of God) in Genesis 6.


יחיד = "Nobles" is the translation of the Hebrew cherem [Herem or cherem (Hebrew: חרם, ḥērem)] (occurring only in the plural) = Herem or cherem (Hebrew: חרם, ḥērem), as used in the Tanakh, means 'devote' or 'destroy' in an act of war.

Ultimately, the use of Nobles [specifically Cherem] here in Genesis 6 is to [SIGNIFY] an Act of War.

The Ancient Hebrew [יחיד] wants us to view this as War from the Fallen Sons of God (Job gives 3 examples) upon God Himself by trying to [Destroy God's Creation of Humanity]. This WAR ended with the Flood of Noah!

2 Peter 2 explains the conditions of the [sinful Earth], (before the LAW), including examples of Sodom, and sexual perversions, lusting after [STRANGE flesh (Angel with human)], and the Disobedience by those Angels still chained in a Darkness you can feel engulfed all around you like it's touching you until the Day of judgement!

If we understand that the Fallen Angels created the Act of War by breeding Giants to be demonic and destroy God's Creation, we understand why [After] the Flood from the lineage of Ham, we see God ordering Joshua to destroy the enemy-their possessions-everything-make it completely disappear, we see the Kingdom of Israel [Saul] is commanded to utterly destroy certain enemies like Amalekites. This is all remnant of that Act of War.

Like they say most people do things based on some type payoff so it either harms or supports a belief they already hold. Someone who has spent their life believing one way might not be convinced of writings that oppose their view so is Enoch(the book) preterist,dispensational Amil. ect? Who would gain anything in their position by endorsing it? If for instance the Jews acknowledged it would they not then need to find an Messiah coming seventy generation's after Enoch and then admit it is Jesus?

The problem with this understanding is it is not supported by the word of God.

You do not take what was said in Job and scribe it as parallel to Genesis 6 when it is not.
Elohim has many meanings gods, angels, and in some cases like gen 6 men.

Actually, it does, though not directly. It clearly identifies the "sons of God" as non-human entities in this case, which means that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 aren't necessarily humans, which is the point trutht7 is trying to establish. Job 38 utterly disproves the idea that "sons of God" can only mean "humans".

You are assuming rather than concluding.

Agreed, but the term Son's of God is only [used] four (4) times in the Old Testament. Once in Genesis and 3 times in Job. The three (3) in Job are more obvious. But we can also add that both Job and Genesis are written by [SAME] writer Moses. Maybe there's a connection there.

dear brother, you can't say "actually it does, though not directly". God did not mix words. God actually said it or HE did not.

Moses was the writer of genesis Who wrote Job the oldest book in the bible?
The author(writer) is uncertain (we know God is the author).

The name of the author is not indicated in the book. That Job himself could not have written all of it is shown by the inclusion of the record of his death. There is speculation it is Moses but we just don't know.

The reason why Genesis " son of God " is earthly men is that the context draws that truth out from all other words in that chapter and the previous chapter.

Just for the sake of argument because you are not going to agree with what I say as I am not with you, let's place everywhere you see in Genesis chapter 6 the words " sons of God" with "angel".

Then reread it.


two things happen:

1. confusion which God is not the author of

2. it makes angels the problem not the sin of man even though God said it was the man who caused HIM to be offended.

God has so much anger with angels he has to destroy all man or unless you think water will drown an angel a spiritual being?

no, actually I have read Genesis chapters 5-7.

Just so you know it is not the only time used in the Bible, it is also found in the New

and ANGELOS is never in context to aner or man.


You have no proof that Moses wrote JOB, that is speculation.