That said, my primary goal at present is to determine...
(1) how are the post-Flood giant bloodlines connected to the antediluvian ones (i.e. through the wives of Noah's sons OR did someone actually survive the Flood OR other?).
(2) what if any archaeological evidence exists that can be traced to the post-Flood giant tribes,
(3) what are the written languages of the post Flood giant tribes in the mid-2nd millennium BC (one of the many cuneiform dialects or possibly even hieroglyphics in the case of the Amalekites who lived on the Sinai Peninsula in the time of Moses?).
Also, thx for the suggestion about Guy Malone!
Angel-Gal might well have some input on that. She’s studied a lot of that ilk of thing.
But best ask her!
Guy Malone is the real deal. Authentic Christian, fun, zaney, decent bloke, solid researcher.
To: Quix
I am still interested—as mentioned previously—to see if I can find any defensible logic as to why and how early Church fathers and great and early Torah scholars dismissed Enoch so passionately. As far as I can tell, they all twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the fallen angel intermingle concept. Do you think Alamo-Girl would have any knowledge of that subject?
That said, my primary goal at present is to determine...
(1) how are the post-Flood giant bloodlines connected to the antediluvian ones (i.e. through the wives of Noah’s sons OR did someone actually survive the Flood OR other?).
(2) what if any archaeological evidence exists that can be traced to the post-Flood giant tribes,
(3) what are the written languages of the post Flood giant tribes in the mid-2nd millennium BC (one of the many cuneiform dialects or possibly even hieroglyphics in the case of the Amalekites who lived on the Sinai Peninsula in the time of Moses?).
Also, thx for the suggestion about Guy Malone!
Here’s my ignorant off the cuff responses to the following:
(1) how are the post-Flood giant bloodlines connected to the antediluvian ones (i.e. through the wives of Noah’s sons OR did someone actually survive the Flood OR other?).
QX I do not think/believe any of those running around on the surface interacting with humans survived the flood. IF they did, they must have been in sealed suberranian or subsea havens.
It has been stated that Noah’s purity of DNA was one of the criteria involved in his selection etc.
(2) what if any archaeological evidence exists that can be traced to the post-Flood giant tribes,
There’s LOTS of archeological evidence in California, China, Balkans etc. re giants 15 feet tall etc. You can track down their skeleton pics via dogpile.com.
Search for
GIANTS + SKELETONS + PICS
or some such
(3) what are the written languages of the post Flood giant tribes in the mid-2nd millennium BC (one of the many cuneiform dialects or possibly even hieroglyphics in the case of the Amalekites who lived on the Sinai Peninsula in the time of Moses?).
I don’t have any hint of anything in my noggin in those directions. Sorry.
The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians–precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels…
The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book’s teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it (Delitzsch, p. 223).
So the book was denounced, banned, cursed, no doubt burned and shredded–and last but not least, lost (and conveniently forgotten) for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence, the Book of Enoch found its way back into circulation two centuries ago.
In 1773, rumors of a surviving copy of the book drew Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant Ethiopia. True to hearsay, the Book of Enoch had been preserved by the Ethiopic church, which put it right alongside the other books of the Bible…
Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in obscurity. It is, in a word, old…
There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.
Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians’ acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible’s mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke’s verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him."
The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One"–the one promised in the Book of Enoch.
The Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly…" …
Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)–directly referencing the Enochian writings.
Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings.
Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of and supported the Enochian writings…
One by one the arguments against the Book of Enoch fade away. The day may soon arrive when the final complaints about the Book of Enoch’s lack of historicity and "late date" are also silenced by new evidence of the book’s real antiquity.
In a nutshell, Enoch I tells us that angels were assigned to earth to watch after the banished Adamic men. Instead, they acted willfully having sex with human women and producing bloodthirsty giants. And more, they taught man all kinds of forbidden knowledge such as war and weapons. All of this further explains Genesis 6.
The angels were seized and chained in darkness until the judgment and God took Enoch to be their advocate. Which he did, but their fate was sealed. The angels' plea was for their offspring. And, as I recall, the bodies of their offspring were destroyed by the flood but their spirits continued on the earth as the "demons."
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. - Mark 8:29-31