To:
greeneyes; bagster; steve w.; swordmaker; jockomanning;bitt
Just a note to explain my disappointed to see the Book of Enoch referenced or an explanation re those who may post objections to this book on the thread, the following link explains why some of us cannot treat the book as legitimate bible canon:
https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html
I do not treat the book of Enoch as biblical canon. It was interesting reading from a time period long ago. Just as I found A Tale of Two Cities to be interesting reading about a time long ago.
It did not seem to me that other people were necessarily saying that it was canon either.
And I think that the Q posts should also be taken with a grain of salt, since we often don’t know till after an event whether the cryptic messages have been interpreted correctly.
Nevertheless, all manner of Q stuff has been posted that is considered by many to be “out there”. So who would know that merely mentioning a piece of historical writing would be a bridge too far.
I am really sorry to have offended your sensibilities.
The “Church Fathers” and the Book of Enoch
It is not for me to say whether the Book of Enoch should be canonical or not or whether it is a "real" account or not, but I will say that one of my favorite Old Testament scholars, Dr James Kugel, holds it is great esteem--referring to it as part of the ancient Jewish writings along with the Books of Jubilees and Jasher.
FWIW, Dr Kugel believes the nephilim are indeed the offspring of human women and fallen angels.
"Kugel is Professor Emeritus in the Bible Department at Bar Ilan University in Israel and the Harry M. Starr Professor Emeritus of Classical and Modern Hebrew Literature at Harvard University."
And some versions are better than others.
Don't have my good one handy--it's the most expensive one. LOL.
Where it agrees with Scripture, it's worth pondering.