WHY the book of Enoch is FALSE or UNBIBLICAL, PLUS: “Gnostic Mysticism and the Nephilim” parts 1 & 2 + BONUS, by Ron Harnage
June 9, 2015 at 8:52pm
WHY the book of Enoch is FALSE or UNBIBLICAL
PLUS: “Gnostic Mysticism and the Nephilim”
Parts 1 and 2
(PLUS BONUS material at end)
by Ron Harnage
I’ve only included a few examples but there’s more in there. I think though, that this is more than any reasonable believer should need in order to see that this book is occultic and it is blasphemous. For example, we read in chapter 40 of the Book of Enoch….
1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude
2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things.
3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory.
4 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.
5 And the second voice I heard blessing
6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits.
7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord
8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have
9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.
The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. What blasphemy! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.
We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise.
Here’s chapter 48:1-3….
1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.
2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days.
3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? This is an attack on the deity of Jesus. Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. ‘Head of Days’? ‘Lord of Spirits’? These terms are NOT found in the Bible.
IF the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren’t. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur’an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God. In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.
I would also point out that this passage could have only been written after the coming of Christ, and the writing of the New Testament where this was obviously taken from. The Old Testament consistently uses son of man in reference to man, often as God speaking to a man. The Bible does not use ‘son of man’ as a title for Christ, until Jesus Himself declares Himself such in the New Testament.
We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:8-12
8 And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the
9 children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to
10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation
11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power
12 it is consuming me.
What…. Man’s wisdom came from a demon named Penemue? That’s crazy! Did ink and paper cause the fall of the human race? Whoa! It was Adam’s sin that brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12); not evil literature. Mankind is inherently evil of himself, prone to the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). The lost sin because they are sinners, born with a fallen nature, inherited directly from Adam!
Although demons definitely influence mankind to do evil, man was already fallen long before he began to pursue idolatry and witchcraft. Christ came and died not to save us from witchcraft, but from all sin. Also, notice in 69:6, that the Book of Enoch claims that a demon named Gadreel led Eve astray and introduced weaponry to mankind. How absurd. The Bible identifies the serpent which deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden as Satan (Ezekiel 28:13).
As a person progresses deeper into the Book of Enoch, they will eventually find the Books of Adam and Eve fascinating as well, and then they will be into New Age occultism without even realizing it. Don’t be fooled, the Book of Enoch is occult material, written by gnostics that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religion. Keep in mind the philosophies of the Gnostics laid the groundwork for what today is termed Luciferianism.
The book of Enoch consistently glorifies angels in the rightful place of Jesus, at best this is promoting angel worship which is nothing more than trafficking in demons … sorcery, which is why it is so highly utilized in the occult, with a whole realm of sorcery dedicated to it known as Enochian Magic. This should be more than enough right here to satisfy any questions on whether or not the book of Enoch is the inspired word of God, there are though numerous other contradictions and outright false teachings contained in this book.
Gnostic Mysticism and the Nephilim
This subject opens a whole realm of questions that need to be addressed in order to arrive at a biblically sound conclusion. So I did what I always do with a difficult subject, I completely discarded my own ideas and approached it like I had not dealt with this subject before, so I examined it from every angle and balanced it against scripture, and what God has taught me through His word. There are two main camps of doctrinal beliefs surrounding this issue. After closely examining both and spending all morning trying to make their entire teaching of either fit into scripture I came up empty handed on both sides, neither of them will completely line up with God’s word. It goes back to what you often find in the church concerning two sets of doctrines, often times one is counterfeit and the other is religious, both of them having some truth and both of them being unreliable because they focus on some scriptures yet exclude others, the whole counsel of God has to be considered. So what do we have?
Lets start with the occultic infiltrations so that we can whittle down the confusion a bit. A lot of the basis for the Nephilim teachings are extra-biblical and primarily are focused on the book of Enoch. Let us consider first that the book of Enoch has never been a part of canonical scripture. It wasn’t listed by the Jews in the Old Testament and I believe largely because it did not exist until the rise of Gnosticism that we see at the advent of Christianity, but lets start with the inception of it’s modern influence.
It begins with James Bruce, the discoverer of the book of Enoch. Tales of a surviving copy of the book in 1773 sent the Scottish explorer James Bruce to Ethiopia. There he found the Ethiopic church had saved the book and kept it alongside of the other books of the Bible. Bruce was able to retrieve three copies of the Ethiopic book.
In 1821, Dr. Richard Laurence, an Oxford Hebrew professor, produced the first translation. He had this to say about the timing of its writing: “Presuming therefore that the book before us (Enoch) was a composition of some unknown Jew or Jews. I shall therefore consider what criteria afforded us to determine at what period it may have been written … There exists sufficient internal evidence to indicate that it was written long subsequent of the commencement and conclusion of the Babylonian captivity. This book was written a few years AT MOST before the beginning of the Christian era.”
The earliest Ethiopic text was apparently made from a Greek manuscript of the book, which itself was a copy of an earlier text. The original text appears to have been written in a Semitic language, now thought to be a dialect of Aramaic that is commonly associated with the Essenes, who were a Gnostic sect. This would put it well after the rise of Christianity.
New Agers, Luciferians and other occultists use the book of Enoch to indoctrinate the unsuspecting into the occult by use of mysticism. When I was in the occult the book of Enoch was actually the first book in my library. I had it for most of my occult career. Along with other Gnostic books such as the book of Moses (The Assumption of Moses and the Testament of Moses), and the Greater and Lesser keys of Solomon, they are highly regarded in the occult world and they are heavily relied upon in a branch of witchcraft known as Enochian magic.
I think one point you may find interesting is what is commonly known about Bruce in the occult world. Bruce was a Scottish Rite mason and was steeped in occult philosophy which explains his obsession with finding the book of Enoch. Helena Blavatsky, plays a big role in this, as you may recall I mentioned in my note “Inside the Occult 2”, that she was the first female member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and a colleague of Aleister Crowley, the most famous satanist to date. Blavatsky created the first tenants of theosophy which were accepted as organized doctrines for Luciferianism.
Blavatsky gave high praise to the book of Enoch. In her book “The Secret Doctrine” volume 3 — and I quote, “Thus the book of Enoch is entirely symbolic. It relates to the history of the human race and their relation to theogony (basically theogony is Greek myths), the symbols being inter-blended with astrological and cosmic mysteries.” Blavatsky goes on to mention Bruce by name and grants him high regard and status in the occult world for his work. James Bruce introduced this book into the New Age movement and it has long been known to be a Gnostic text, and is highly regarded for being so.
Next question, who were the Gnostics? To put it simply, the Gnostics were the first Qabalists to incorporate Christian themes, which were in turn perverted to suit their own beliefs. This they then combined with Greek mythology and Egyptian paganism. What they produced was highly heretical literature that would be the first established beliefs in what would later be termed as Luciferianism. Many of their writings perverted the divinity of Christ and sovereignty of God, in fact making God the villain who was ejected from heaven and Lucifer the maligned and misunderstood hero and true reigning god. Qabalism goes back to ancient times, it is basically Jewish sorcery, where they have learned the paganistic practices of the heathen nations and incorporated it into their own culture, making their own cultural type of sorcery. The Qabalah itself consists of a large body of speculation on the nature of divinity, the creation, the origin and fate of the soul and also the role of human beings. It generally is subdivided into four sections: meditative, devotional, mystical and magical. It is for this reason that Qabalah is regarded as an occultic offshoot of Judaism.
The gnosis of the Qabalah is well recognized by Jewish scholars. From an article cited in the Jewish Encyclopedia, we see the intimate relationship between Gnosticism and the Qabalah: The Jewish Encyclopedia quotes the opinion that “The central doctrine of Gnosticism, a movement closely tied to Jewish mysticism, was nothing else but the attempt to liberate the soul and unite it with God; but apparently this was to be affected through the use of mysteries, incantations and the use of the names of angels (angel worship), etc. It will be seen how widely even this phase of Gnosticism differs from Christianity and identifies itself with the magical Qabalah of the Jews.” You can see how at the outset Gnosticism completely abandons salvation through Jesus Christ, and places it solely in the hands of the practitioner to somehow obtain salvation through magical means, you could not possibly get any more occultic than this.
Monsieur [Jacques] Matter states in “Histoire critique du gnosticisme”, that Jewish scholars fully understand that secret oral traditions of the Qabalah were previous to any Christian Gnosticism. In “Some Notes on Various Sects of Gnosticism and Their Possible Effects on Freemasonry”, D.F. Ranking notes that the secret oral tradition of the Qabalists confirms them as being Gnostics.
This claim to a secret oral tradition confirms the conception of the Gnostics as Qabalists and shows how far they had departed from Christian teaching. “For if only in this idea of one doctrine for the ignorant and another for the initiated, the Gnostics restored the very system that Christianity had come to destroy.” Author Nesta Webster concurs with [Jacques] Matter and other historians that Gnosticism involved an attempt to qabalize Christianity: “M. Matter was therefore right in saying that Gnosticism was not a defection from Christianity, but a combination of systems into which a few Christian elements were introduced. … The result of Gnosticism was not to Christianize the Qabalah but to Qabalize Christianity by mingling its pure and simple teaching with theosophy and even magic.” “For if only in this idea of one doctrine for the ignorant and another for the initiated, the Gnostics restored the very system that Christianity had come to destroy.”
I could include a great number of other secular historians and Jewish scholars that say the same thing, as a matter of fact you will not find one that doesn’t see that Gnosticism was but a new sect of Qabalism that arose to directly confront Christianity. The book of Jude quotes Enoch in verses 6, 14, and 15. Which he just as well may have taken from oral tradition. This does not mean that we should accept the whole book as the authoritative word of God and that it should be included in the bible. Jude’s quotes are not the only quotes in the gospels from an unbiblical source.
The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12. That does not mean we should build doctrines around Epimenides’ entire writings. The same can be said about Jude. Jude’s quotes by no means grant ‘carte blanche’ to the entire works of Gnostic literature, which is what I see happening in the church, not only with the book of Enoch, but other Gnostic writings as well. All Jude is saying is this particular passage is true. We do the same thing on Facebook everyday when we post clips and sermons from people that we don’t entirely agree with but what they are saying on a particular subject happens to be biblically correct. Evidently though, this was something that Enoch prophesied or the bible would not attribute it to him. Apparently, this may have been handed down by oral tradition, as was Genesis and the book of Job were largely taken from oral tradition until they became among the first scriptural traditions. We should treat the book of Enoch and other Gnostic writings as interesting but heretical documents that only entertain an acceptance of occult philosophies. Some of what it says is true but a great deal of it is false and I could easily do a lengthy note on just the heresies found in it. They are not the inspired authoritative word of God. They are however fulfilling the purpose for which they were created and that is to sow doubt and confusion along with occult teachings into the Body of Christ.
Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, a second-Temple Jewish writing, (Jude 14 = 1 Enoch 1:9) and another Gnostic work in Jude 9, possibly what early Christian writers identified as the Assumption of Moses. The honest problem facing the infant Roman Church of 390 A.D., when first assembling today’s Bible, was that the existing copies of 1 Enoch varied. There is no way of knowing which versions are the original and which are the errors, it does make it impossible to anchor beliefs or arguments on any given section. This alone is a legitimate reason to exclude it from the holy writ. When faced with the task of declaring what is and what is not the “inspired, infallible Word of God,” erring on the side of caution and certainty must be the case every time! (Only those who do not believe in the divine inspiration, and modern integrity, of scripture will be dissatisfied with this reasoning. )
The translation copies available (presumably) in 390 A.D., and especially those we have today, could not with any certainty also be classified as “infallible.” The church did in fact suppress The Book of Enoch. Realistically however, there was also a “point” to the canon. The goal and even eternal function in assembling the earliest Bibles was NOT merely sorting out what was inspired of God and what was not. They also had the specific intent of promoting and preserving a solid doctrinal foundation for all believers in Christ. Like Paul, they had to passionately argue against Gnosticism – “the doctrine of salvation by knowledge,” or the idea that gaining “superior” and/or “hidden” knowledge ensures one some higher spiritual position—as opposed to a simple obedient faith in Christ.
Gnostics strive for a mystical face to face experience with God that does not include the gospel of repentance or Christ as Savior. It is one of the most volatile combinations of witchcraft and self-justification ever produced. The Church strongly opposed Gnostics, labeling mystical experiences as ‘from God’ at one time, was forbidden. Putting a stamp of approval on such a wild tale (Enoch) would have too many people believing that they could experience God for themselves without any need for a savior or repentance. Those who experience visions or personal insights from mystical sources are dangerous to the gospel, because the very purpose is to instill the belief that supernatural experiences alone qualify one for salvation. They lead people astray by supporting beliefs and practices that are clearly not of God and that are centered around pagan philosophies.
This has been brought to bear on us in a very real way today as we can see that the Charismatic movement does highly esteem, and promote those who have had mystical experiences while at the same time disregarding any serious promotion of the gospel.
The truth is that Gnostics “strive for” experiencing God without knowing and submitting to Christ or His Body, the church. Even today, the wish to “experience God face-to-face” without Christ’s mediation (1 Timothy 2:5) is not just an honest effort to avoid false religion, but to not submit to any spiritual authority at all—whether it be God’s leadership, God’s Word or even God’s Christ! It should always be kept in perspective that “the ekklesia” was not Rome’s, or even man’s idea. Jesus said “I will build my ekklesia, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
The early disciples rightly opposed Gnosticism, but beginning with Paul’s letters, not with the Roman Church. Many who passionately promote (or just reprint and sell) 1 Enoch today do so not with the intention of promoting a deeper faith in God’s inspired Word, but more with the intent of undermining the Bible’s authority. 1 Enoch’s clear historical integrity but “lack of inclusion in the Bible” is often used to “springboard” arguments for other “favorite” heretical books, left out for all the right reasons.
Modern Gnostics are often fond of several other “gospels”, such as Thomas and Mary, both of which have heretical statements and theologies that clearly contradict the message of the gospel, proving they were NOT inspired by God, but definitely inspired … by Satan himself. Now, having established that the book of Enoch was from Gnostic literature we can proceed to look at the doctrines surrounding Genesis 6, having set the Gnostic myths surrounding it aside. This should be a more than reasonable course for anyone that considers God’s word to be the authoritative source of all truth.
I have a longer version of this article where I address all the refutations of Enoch promoters, this version is more summarized.
Gnostic Mysticism and the Nephilim
The Sons of God
In order to address some of the doctrines involving Genesis 6 we need to correct the usage of scriptural references that are being taken out of context. Since these theories are gaining ground as both Christian and popular media are promoting these themes far and wide, it is necessary to examine Genesis 6 again and see what exactly it teaches. This is the passage that has stirred the Nephilim controversy. And I see both sides singling out certain scriptures while ignoring others.
Here is the text:
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 a 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.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
A long-held view among some Christians is that the “sons of God” who fathered the Nephilim spoken of in the text, were in fact the formerly righteous descendants of Seth who rebelled, while the “daughters of men” were the unrighteous descendants of Cain, and the Nephilim the offspring of their union.
Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom, and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the “Angels” who fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God, probably in reference to their being formerly in a covenant with God (Deuteronomy 14:2,32:8); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people who did not worship God.
There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Enoch (Gen. 5:21-24; Heb. 11:5), and Noah (Gen. 6:8; 7:1; Heb. 11:7), as far as Scripture is concerned. Shall we conclude that these three men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen. 6:4)? Regarding Enoch, are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would have been nothing on earth after the flood but giants, for by Noah’s children the whole earth was replenished (Gen. 10).
The time of the marriages of the sons of God disproves the theory that they were the sons of Seth. Marriages of Seth’s sons could not have taken place during the first 325 years. He had only one son of marriageable age up to that time (Gen. 5:1-8, Enos). To say there were no such marriages before Enos contradicts Gen. 6:1-2 which shows that sons of God married daughters of men when they began to be born. Shall we conclude that daughters were not born in the first 325 years? Furthermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Gen. 6:8-9; 7:1; 2 Pet. 2:4—Gen. 6:1-2) makes it clear that this happened “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth.”
The doctrine of Serpent seed, dual seed or two-seedline, and by extension the Seth doctrine, is a controversial doctrine according to which the serpent in the Garden of Eden mated with Eve, and the offspring of their union was Cain. It has long been established as heresy by the protestant church. William Branham was not the first to preach the doctrine of serpent seed, but he was one of the major proponents of the doctrine in modern times. Branham was the most widely known minister of the 20th century to actually teach serpent seed and much of its spread can be attributed to him. The doctrine that Eve mated with the serpent, or with Satan, to produce Cain, also appears in early Gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Philip (c. 350); at first this seems to be the origin of this heresy but upon scrutiny we find that it originated with Qabalists….
This is known among Qabalists as “The Theory of Origins”. This is found in the Zohar, the principle literary work of the Qabalah. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai was one of the most eminent disciples of Rabbi Akiva, and is attributed by many with the authorship of the Zohar (“The Brightness”) or one could say the Illumination. According to popular legend, he and his son, Rabbi Eleazar ben Simeon were noted Qabalists, both figures are held in unique reverence by Qabalistic tradition. However, contemporary extracts from pre-published, closely circulated versions of the Zohar, indicate a 1200’s authorship by Moses de Leon, making the Zohar a Platonic metaphysical Jewish adaptation, but as far as it’s then-claimed ancient origin, a literary forgery. The Qabalah remained oral tradition for quite some time, it’s only evidences appearing in Gnostic literature. It would not be until the second century that even the Midrash would begin to be presented in writing. The Qabalistic theory teaches that God created two “Adams” (‘adam’ means MAN in Hebrew). To one he gave a soul and to the other he did not give a soul. The one without a soul is the creature known in Christianity as the serpent.
The Qabalists call the serpent Nahash (‘nahash’ means serpent in Hebrew). This is recorded in the Zohar: by extension it appears in Gnostic writings (e.g., the Gospel of Phillip, Epistle of Barnabas) and especially in Manichean doctrines; however, it was soundly rejected by mainstream Christian theologians such as Irenaeus in the 2nd century, and St. Augustine in the 4th century.
The angels interpretation was the position of early Hebrew scholars and was changed in later times as being interpreted as men. The Qabalah doctrine war could have precipitated this change as a move by the synagogues to combat qabalistic infiltration as this change and the doctrinal war occur at about the same time period just before and during the early days of the church.. This doctrine gained popularity among the Gnostics and almost simultaneously this war spread from the synagogues to none other than the early church at Rome where it won out over the angels interpretation, and remained unseated for over 2 hundred years. This teaching became so popular in Gnostic circles that a whole sect sprang up around it called Sethians. Sethians are so-called for their veneration of the biblical Seth, who is depicted in their myths of creation as a divine incarnation; consequently, the offspring or ‘posterity’ of Seth are held to comprise a superior elect within human society. Their beliefs were also strongly influenced by Platonism.
The Serpent Seed view, and its offspring, the Seth doctrine, were teachings clearly instituted by the Qabalah and promoted by the Gnostics. It should be apparent even to the most casual observer that this teaching sprang from practitioners of witchcraft. It was never considered as a Hebrew interpretation of Genesis 6. This view is entirely inconsistent with scripture as it is immediately overturned in Genesis 4:1, where we see that Cain was indeed fathered by Adam “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” The other points of this position are clearly unfounded, there was no covenant with God until after the flood. There were also no prohibitions on marriage, or any enforced celibacy, and there was certainly no prohibition on marrying a woman of any extraction. By extension this would also apply to the traditional Hebrew interpretation that ‘sons of God’ is defined as ‘judges’, and ‘rulers of high authority’ and therefore men. There certainly is no evidence that there were any class prohibitions either, on marriage. None of these would exist until Moses gave the law at Mt. Sinai.
These views would also render Abraham’s marriage to Sarah as prohibited and therefore ungodly and disqualifying the entire line of Israel that God has clearly ordained. There certainly was nothing in scripture identifying any broken prohibitions by men to indicate the extreme reaction we see in God’s judgment. What we do see is that mankind had entirely abandoned God in thought and deed to the point that their behavior, precipitated by some act in Genesis 6:2 that led to the utter rebellion God remarks upon in Genesis 6:5, it was spiritual and not physical results that brought God’s judgment on the earth. Genesis 6:5 – “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.”
Apparently Noah was not of any righteous lineage either because it very clearly states in v.10 that Noah FOUND grace in the eyes of the Lord. (This is the very first mention in all of scripture of anyone finding grace.) Therefore, he found grace with God, which would more than assert that he was lacking grace through his inherited fallen nature, as was mankind as a whole, however; he was the only one of his generation to actively seek out God’s grace. Had he not lacked grace he would have had no need to find it. As Jesus said, Mark 2:17, “When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” It had nothing to do with Noah’s genetics and everything to do with his soul.
Then God says exactly why he was destroying life on earth. Genesis 6:12, “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his WAY upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” Again nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with man’s spiritual condition.
We see that also in Genesis 4:6-8, “And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” Cain was offered the opportunity to repent and receive God’s grace. It was entirely the decisions he made in choosing to reject the opportunity to do so, and his following actions that led him into deeper sin and brought God’s judgment on him. Again like Noah, it had nothing to do with his lineage and everything to do with his spiritual condition. I find this position entirely consistent with the immutability of God’s unchanging nature. God has always been about righteousness extended to the humbly repentant.
The position of a righteous lineage through Seth implies no need of a Savior and renders the coming of Jesus as the Messiah as redundant. And would tend to make God a liar in giving the first promise of the coming of Christ in Genesis 3:15. Gnostic teachings often promote the concept of salvation without a need for a savior, it is the central theme of Gnosticism, and the Qabalah. So from this we can see that not only are the Serpent Seed doctrines unscriptural, but that they had their birth in the witchcraft teachings of Gnosticism and Qabalism. This would completely define them as heretical and doctrines of demons, no serious student of God’s word could possibly think otherwise.
This brings us back to defining the term ‘sons of God’. The Hebrew for the term ‘sons of God’ is ‘ben Elohim’, which means literally ‘sons of God.’ A key of biblical interpretation is to allow the Scripture to interpret itself [2nd Peter 2:19-21 –Ed.]. People fall into error when they try to make the Bible say something to fit their particular doctrinal position when the text does not say it. The only honest way to approach scripture is without any preconceived determination to either defend or refute a given position but to seek the truth of God’s word, whether we like what it says or not. God’s word always lines up, where ever we see an apparent contradiction it is always because of a misunderstanding through misinterpretation. I have found this to be the case every single time with what appears to be apparent contradictions and paradoxes. We can not cast aside ANY of God’s word simply because it doesn’t fit our preconceived notions. In this case, the text simply says ‘sons of God’. Now what does that mean exactly? In the Bible we see two separate usages for ‘sons of God’, an Old Testament and a New Testament definition. It is used throughout the New Testament to designate a believer that has received the Spirit of God, someone that has been born again. In the Old Testament this term only appears four times. There are three passages in Job that refer to the ‘sons of God’, that indicate that these were godly angels. I think it would be obvious here that no human would be presenting themselves before the Lord in heaven, much less a whole group of them because the apparent context here is before the throne of God, which immediately tells us that it is referring to spiritual beings.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
It would then be only reasonable to conclude that the Old Testament is being consistent in the usage of this term. Daniel 3:25, 28 also calls an angel “the son of God”, which is the only idea that harmonizes with this passage when coupled with New Testament passages of 1st Peter and Jude. 1st Peter 3:18-20,For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Although this passage is referencing Genesis 6,it becomes immediately obvious that it is not referring to angels, by the simple fact that Jesus died for the sake of mankind, salvation is extended to mankind, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate anything of the kind for Satan and his fallen angels, even though this has become a popular doctrine among the universalists. And we also see it referenced in 2nd Peter chapter 2:4: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment”; and Jude verse 6: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
It becomes rather difficult at this point to maneuver past these passages without discarding them. Even if one attempts to wrest a different interpretation of sons of God from Old Testament scripture it does not account for what we find in Peter and Jude. In “Angelology: The Doctrine of Angels”, Study By: J. Hampton Keathley III, he states:
“These angels ‘did not keep their positions of authority’ (‘ten heauton archen’). The use of the word ‘arche’ for ‘rule, dominion, or sphere’ is uncommon but appears to be so intended here. The implication is that God assigned angels stipulated responsibilities (‘arche’, or dominion) and a set place (‘oiketerion’). But because of their rebellion, God has kept or reserved (‘tetereken’ – perfect tense) these fallen angels in darkness and in eternal chains awaiting final judgment. Apparently some fallen angels are in bondage while others are unbound and active among mankind as demons.”
This gives us the Greek definition of the terms used in the epistles concerned as they were Greek texts and to further clarify I will give the King James English dictionary definitions to clarify the King James English being used. Peter does not specify the sin but Jude specifies it as them leaving their estate and abandoning their habitation. To give a fair rendering the King James Dictionary defines estate as: in a general sense, ‘fixedness’; a fixed condition; now generally written and pronounced ‘state’. And ‘habitation’: ‘1. Act of inhabiting; state of dwelling. 2. Place of abode; a settled dwelling; a mansion; a house or other place in which man or any animal dwells’. So they left both their state and place of being. This should adequately address any concerns over interpretation and definition of the terms being used. I will add that the additional sexual sin is only modestly implied by including the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. It is, however, more than clearly stated in Genesis 6, that this precipitated God’s judgment on the angels: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.’ ”
Another concern that has arisen over the ages is the credibility of these passages, most especially with Jude. However the fact that Jude more than appears to have been inspired by God has long been settled. This entire epistle is an open assault on Gnosticism and heresy of all stripes. Personally, for me this was one of the big questions I had when I first became a Christian, because I immediately recognized what Jude was quoting. I think the main point here is the motive behind it. Jude was informing readers that he had examined these Gnostic texts and shared what truth he had gleaned from them, but at the same time also condemned the very doctrines which they promoted. I would also at this point reiterate that Jude was not the only person to borrow from extra-biblical sources. We see Peter making one of the same references to Enoch.
Paul quotes Menander, Epimenedes, and other Greek authors; he also apparently uses Wisdom 14:22-31 as a source for his arguments in Romans 1:24-32, and Wisdom 2:23-4, for Romans 5:12-21. All of these sources stem from Greek philosophy. Does this reflect a belief that Wisdom was canonical, or worthy of being called Scripture? No: “Wisdom of Solomon” canonicity does not appear to concern Paul, but only the theological arguments in it.” This was a Greek work presented as written by Solomon himself, however we find it presenting the same philosophic principles found in Plato’s “Republic”. Paul was by no means authorizing this text as compatible with scripture, but in his efforts to reach the gentiles he used what was common knowledge among them at the time, much like today when you see a pastor use a theme from a movie to illustrate a sermon. Paul was out to make a point, as, most likely, were Jude and the others who quote or allude to extra-biblical literature. Truth and canonicity need not be mutually exclusive. We can borrow from the world’s wisdom but only when the real truth of God’s word is in agreement and further illustrated. Now, having dealt with the credibility of these New Testament passages we should no longer shun them in fear of condoning the book of Enoch, as none of the passages from Peter and Jude does so.
Additionally, some hold the view of these two passages as saying that ALL fallen angels are bound in Tartarus (the abyss), until judgment day. This has long been a cessationist viewpoint. This too, is obviously untrue as can be attested biblically by the exorcisms contained in the book of Acts alone, which are post-resurrection, along with the modern testimonies of many who have had experiences with these spirits. The experiences of both their victims and deliverance ministers would fill volumes and volumes of indisputable evidence. Combined with the exhortation of Jesus in the Great Commission to cast out demons, which He would not have commanded without reason and, Jesus clearly tells us that Satan and his angels are not consigned to hell until the judgment.(Rev.20:10, Matt 25:41) and Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 5:8 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” – There is little doubt that the devil still roams the earth.
There is also the position of the Divine Order that is used as a refutation in the sons of God debate. Yes, that God has a divine order to all things is more than clear in scripture. However this position falls apart as a refutation. It is clearly evident that through free will the divine order has been violated and continues to be so today. A third of heaven is in open rebellion to the divine order, all of earthly creation and most of mankind exist outside of the divine order originally established by God, and in the book of Job God says even the heavens are not clean in His sight (Job 15:15), to use divine order as a refutation clearly has no merit. Sin is nothing more than open rebellion to God’s divine order, there are billions of acts against the divine order every day, otherwise there would be no need for Christ as Savior. This is but another position that subtly attacks the deity of Christ. To use it in this context is an act that is in itself outside of the divine order.
Which brings us back reconciling Peter and Jude with Genesis 6. The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarifications is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, because they had been created, not born. Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom God had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5; Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1:16). There is no doubt at all that, in these passages, the meaning applies exclusively to the angels. A very similar form (‘bar elohim’) is used in Daniel 3:25, and also refers either to an angel or to a theophany (a physical manifestation of God). The term “sons of the mighty” (‘bene elim’) is used in Psalm 29:1 and also Psalm 89:6, and again refers to angels. Thus, in so far as the language itself is concerned, the intent of the writer was to convey the thought of angels—fallen angels, no doubt, since they were acting in opposition to God’s will. This leaves little alternative but to determine that in Genesis 6, yes, they were the angels that sinned and fell.
Those in opposition to this interpretation are fond of quoting Jesus in Matthew 22:30—For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. However; the key phrase here is “in heaven”, the divine state of being. I believe some of the misinterpretation can be easily dismissed if we take a closer look at what the Bible says about someone else who fell from their divine state: Ezekiel 28:14, “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” It is obvious that we would hardly still refer to Satan as anointed, yet the Bible clearly says so in this passage, not to describe his present spiritual condition, but to illustrate who and what he was. And again in Isaiah 14:12, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The Bible never again refers to him as Lucifer, which was his heavenly name. This is the only reference to it and elsewhere he is referred to as Satan (the adversary), and a host of other names as well, but we see also in this passage it is referring to his former divine state in heaven. This should readily clarify why the Bible is using the term “sons of God” in Genesis 6, and why it would still apply to angels even though no demon can be termed as a son of God. The Bible is describing their former spiritual state to inform us who and what they were just as it did with Satan. The implication here is so abhorrent that many in the church are set against it and understandably so. It was so evil in the sight of God that they became the only demons to be consigned to Tartarus until judgment day, and God destroyed almost all of mankind as a result of man’s involvement. This is why it is promoted in the New Testament as two of the three most severe examples of God’s judgment and a very sharp reminder of the judgment that waits all who abandon God.
Some also add that demons are (a.) unable to have sexual intercourse and (b.) unable to create. I have noted that without fail that this position seems to be held by those who have no experience whatsoever in the enemies’ capabilities. I have yet to see the first deliverance minister maintaining this position, and I would be very surprised indeed to find one. There is nothing to be found in scripture that says otherwise, as a matter of fact one of Satan’s biggest weapons is undeniably sexual lust. One of the common elements in demonic bondage are incubus and succubus demons. I also occasionally get women in deliverance that are being raped by incubus demons. This is a very real problem and anyone that has any lengthy experience in deliverance could verify this does exist. The Annunaki of ancient Sumerian texts is similarly defined as “those who from heaven to earth came”. No one can understand sex with fallen angels until they understand the pagan fallen angel worship that occurred in the pagan temple rituals where sex acts with the priest and/or priestess involved the fallen angel possessing the body of the temple prostitute, then the person engaging in this sex act with the priest or priestess was considered to be having sex with the fallen angel or as believed, the god or goddess of that particular temple. This still is practiced today in Hindu temples in order to achieve what can only be termed as possession by a witchcraft demon. There are also many examples in scripture of angels taking human form, albeit temporarily in order to carry out some function of God’s will.
The position that demons are incapable of any acts of creation is also a weak position. Man himself has been given creative powers that he uses extensively, artistry, technological advances, skilled craftsmanship and childbearing are all examples of creative ability in different forms. In both the counterfeit movement and the occult world it is more than attested that demons are capable of literally producing physical objects of all sorts out of thin air, they are also very capable of moving and manipulating physical objects (surpassing human ability and also breaking physical laws in doing so), including physical bodies by way of demonic manifestation and also with bringing in disease. The bible does not clarify in detail much of demonic behavior but we can rest assured that where ever we see the violation of God’s word we find that the devil is behind it. Therefore it is more than reasonable to conclude that demons are capable of all these things.
These are the only conclusions that fully satisfy all the scriptural passages in reference to this subject. In light of scripture, and in view of both early church history and occult history as it relates to Christianity, I can find no legitimate reason to draw any other conclusions.
– Original thread (with tons of horrible grammar abominations lol), by Ron Harnage:
One thing that’s makes this whole Nephilim sensation rather silly is it is a moot point. None of us will be here. They base it loosely on the locusts who ascend from the pit and this happens at a point in Revelation where it doesn’t even matter which end time view you may hold we are all gone by then. The only people who will witness it are the worshipers of the beast, and the remnant of Israel that gets saved. According to scripture, the locusts ascend from the pit at the 5th trumpet and they are the 1st woe. The 5th trumpet is also when the anti-Christ comes out of the pit and slays a majority of Christians worldwide. In Revelation 7:9 we see that the church is in heaven before the locusts are released.
Revelation 9:1 “And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. … 12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. 13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,”
The very next thing that happens is the day of the Lord and the salvation of Israel,
Revelation 6:9 “9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held…
:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.”…
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?”
And here we see that the church is in heaven before the locusts are released.
Revelation 7:9 “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands”