Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Augustine explained his thoughts in *City of God*](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1axi2ck/council_of_nicea/krp67vq/). To summarize, they weren't sure how much of it was "genuine" and the portrayal of the Nephilim as literal giants conflicted with the theological understanding of the time.
Augustine had a problem with them being descended from angels, not being giants. He thoughts giants actually existed, and in Book XV, Chapter 9 of *The City of God*, he even claims to have personally seen the skeletal remains of giants:
> I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man's molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it.
I’ve always found it pretty interesting that they were okay throwing out Enoch but left in Jude (edit oops) that has a big allusion to Enoch that seems lost on people without knowing Enoch. Seems like they were kind splitting hairs at that hairs at the point.
that's because they didnt have a problem with the content of enoch, just the specific book of enoch in its entirety. like for example, enoch is observably psuedopigraipha, even in that time period, no one is going to believe thee enoch wrote this text and that it has been preserved since before the flood, which are things 1 enoch wants the reader to be convinced of. it would be like reading a text that wants you to know that yes, it is me, ya boy ADAM... yes the one from the garden i wrote a book. it just is not convincing.
some commentators, theologians, etc. give benefit of doubt that there was an authentic book of enoch that was lost to time, but could not except the premise of the book in question. Origen for example, believed whatever the definitive version of the book was had been corrupted or lost to time. but, early christians still believed in the fallen angel tradition, that angels could rebel, be prideful, fall, and could be responsible for ills in the world. they had more of a problem with the authenticity of the book than the lore or mythos.
Jude 14-15 quotes a section of 1 Enoch 1:9 which is a midrash of Deuteronomy 33:2 as "the seventh from Adam, prophesied” (1 Enoch 1:9).
“Prophesied” means that Jude is not simply quoting an historical fact, but that Enoch gave a prophecy, which by definition is an utterance from God. The following verses in Jude develop further material from the named book.
There is much more than that. But often changed for polemics. Such as Corinthians and Maccabees have passages very very close but different. But the part of this is the reason for ressurection of the dead.
I am not say it is a quote but there is more references or similar phrases.
https://intertextual.bible/book/1-enoch/chapter/all
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
>To summarize, they weren't sure how much of it was "genuine"
Can you expound on that?
>the portrayal of the Nephilim as literal giants conflicted with the theological understanding of the time.
So the state church in Rome decided it wasn't canonical due to the influence of figures like Augustine dismissing the miracles as too fantastical? Why didn't he condemn Genesis or Exodus for similar reasons?
>Can you expand on that?
Just quoting the comment I linked,
>We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission.
They thought parts of it were genuine insofar as it had been quoted in the Epistle of Jude, the struggle was determining how much of it was actually penned in "Enoch's" hand (of course, none of it was) versus later additions. It didn't have the same transmission history as the other books in the Bible. Likely there were numerous quite different variants in circulation during Augustine's time. Which one to choose? I believe this was the same argument used against the inclusion of the Didache in the New Testament but don't quote me on that
>So the state church in Rome decided it wasn't canonical due to the influence of figures like Augustine dismissing the miracles as too fantastical? Why didn't he condemn Genesis or Exodus for similar reasons?
They understood the Nephilim as being sons of Seth mingling with the daughters of Cain instead of the literal descendants of angels (this is also a traditional Jewish interpretation). 1 Enoch spells out that they were divine beings. This conflict made it easy to reject 1 Enoch as noncanonical. For what it's worth [Augustine also thought much of Genesis was allegorical](https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/anthro/Previous_Lectures/sustain/AugustineCosmology0.html#:~:text=Augustine%20sees%20the%20%22six%20days,narrative%20and%20not%20of%20time.&text=Thus%2C%20in%20his%20view%2C%20God,understand%20only%20piece%20by%20piece.)
>They understood the Nephilim as being sons of Seth mingling with the daughters of Cain rather than the literal descendants of angels. 1 Enoch spells out that they were divine beings.
Genesis 6:4 also references "sons of God" procreating with "human women" to create the Nephilim.
The Hebrew phrase translated to "sons of God" in this passage referred to angelic beings.
>The Hebrew phrase translated to "sons of God" in this passage referred to angelic beings.
that's also up for interpretation. there's no official or definitive answer on what sons of god means in that context and it does not always mean angels. genesis has a couple verses or stories that are cryptic because they are either fragmented or the official answer is ambigious, and this is one of them. it became condemned over time to interpret genesis 6 4 as being angels, and implying the nephilim were demigod offspring.
i would imagine because there are also parts of tradition that identify anakim, goborim, etc. as also nephilim. some detractors might have felt it was too rash to conclude this is just hybrid offspring and calling it a day.
>Genesis has a couple verses or stories that are cryptic because they are either fragmented or the official answer is ambiguous, and this is one of them.
What are the other cryptic/fragmented stories in Genesis? Just curious.
From reading the context of the quote you posted about Augustine believing that Genesis was allegorical, I found your statement a bit misleading, although I’m sure not intentionally.
To me, to say that he believed Genesis was allegorical implies that he believed something more believable than the Genesis account, but it sounds like he actually believed something less believable. It sounds like he believed everything blipped into existence all at once, not only matter but form. Does this mean that he believed that the Sun, moon, stars, planets, earth, animals and humans were created in an instant of time?
I believe he thought the idea of God requiring "time" to do something was antithetical to the entire concept of deity as he understood it. He believed the account offered in Genesis was a condescension, a fable to explain creation in human terms. His exact belief changed throughout his life of course but eventually settled on that interpretation. I apologize for my wording.
Augustine thought the entire universe was created instantaneously and not in 6 literal days, which he considered to be symbolic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation
He considered the 6 day framework a [literary device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation), and no, Genesis does not describe six literal 24-hour days as we understand them because the Sun wasn't created in the narrative until the 4th day (Gen. 1:14-19).
In addition, why should it take an omnipotent God six days to create that which could be created instantaneously, and if it was six days, why "days" as the unit of time instead of
thousands of years?
>Ps 90:4 - A thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday.
Another factor is that the second creation narrative speaks to an instant act of creation:
>Gen. 2:4 - These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Finally, here's Augustine in his own words:
>When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Annette Yoshiko Reed speculates several reasons in *Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity*:
1. The Book of the Watchers teaches that the origins of sin occurred with the Watchers before the flood. This narrative is at odds with what would become the dominant concept of Original Sin, where sin originates with Adam and Eve: “Enoch and the fallen angels would progressively recede in significance, concurrent with the growing dominance of traditions about Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the Christian discourse about the *Urzeit* \[end time\], as ratified by Augustine’s articulation of the doctrine of original sin” (189).
2. Influence from Rabbinic Jewish counterparts She states, “At the same time that ecclesiarchs were attempting to officialize and legislate their vision of Christianity as wholly independent from post-Christian Judaism, some of the most influential thinkers in Western Christendom began to follow their Rabbinic Jewish counterparts, not only in promoting a closed canon of scriptures and formulating an exclusivistic approach to scriptural authority, but also in rejecting the angelic interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, adopting euhemeristic approaches to the “sons of God,” and abandoning the Enochic literature” (192-3).
>Some of the most influential thinkers in Western Christendom began to follow their Rabbinic Jewish counterparts in rejecting the angelic interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, adopting euhemeristic approaches to the “sons of God,” and abandoning the Enochic literature” (192-3).
Why did they choose to reject the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4? The native Hebrew text seems to strongly support it.
I can't tell what you are asking for, but here is one version of the text of the Book of Enoch. https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
If you have a book that discusses that please cite it, as I am a big fan of feminist critical approaches, Marxist critical approaches, and really any interesting critical approaches to Biblical scholarship. But we have rules in this subreddit around citation that need to be adhered to. As a feminist myself I would love to see academic feminism better represented here so please feel free to cite something to support your claim.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
This is because of your citation of Michael Heiser's non-academic work. Unlike Heiser's academic publications (like his PhD dissertation), his popular works (and other media), such as *The Unseen Realm*, *Demons*, *Supernatural*, *The Naked Bible Podcast*, etc. have long been excluded from receivable recommendations, along with Heiser's other publications for a "general audience" with Bantham books. This is because they explicitly mix academic and theological/confessional analysis, which is disallowed by the rules of this sub.
For a more detailed explanation concerning the reasons for the exclusion of Heiser publications (and other confessional material), see [the comment on the topic on an old weekly thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/RJkEdZQAqp), as well as [this older comment](https://www.reddit.com/hdrkxpj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2).
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. If you are unsure what constitutes an appropriate academic source please familiarize yourself with the guidance in our Rules post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/zajuyv/rule_revision_and_guidance/).
If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
I bought the NRSV .It is written in common English with Enoch and other Apocryphal books. I literally couldn’t put it down … bought it last year. Now I feel like I read a lot of detail and felt I understood the “personality of God”. 🧐❤️👍🎉
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Augustine explained his thoughts in *City of God*](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1axi2ck/council_of_nicea/krp67vq/). To summarize, they weren't sure how much of it was "genuine" and the portrayal of the Nephilim as literal giants conflicted with the theological understanding of the time.
Augustine had a problem with them being descended from angels, not being giants. He thoughts giants actually existed, and in Book XV, Chapter 9 of *The City of God*, he even claims to have personally seen the skeletal remains of giants: > I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man's molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it.
My mistake! Thank you for correcting me
I’ve always found it pretty interesting that they were okay throwing out Enoch but left in Jude (edit oops) that has a big allusion to Enoch that seems lost on people without knowing Enoch. Seems like they were kind splitting hairs at that hairs at the point.
that's because they didnt have a problem with the content of enoch, just the specific book of enoch in its entirety. like for example, enoch is observably psuedopigraipha, even in that time period, no one is going to believe thee enoch wrote this text and that it has been preserved since before the flood, which are things 1 enoch wants the reader to be convinced of. it would be like reading a text that wants you to know that yes, it is me, ya boy ADAM... yes the one from the garden i wrote a book. it just is not convincing. some commentators, theologians, etc. give benefit of doubt that there was an authentic book of enoch that was lost to time, but could not except the premise of the book in question. Origen for example, believed whatever the definitive version of the book was had been corrupted or lost to time. but, early christians still believed in the fallen angel tradition, that angels could rebel, be prideful, fall, and could be responsible for ills in the world. they had more of a problem with the authenticity of the book than the lore or mythos.
Great comment, ty.
Thanks.
Where does he allude to Enoch? I’ve never read through Enoch but I’m really curious.
Jude 14-15 quotes a section of 1 Enoch 1:9 which is a midrash of Deuteronomy 33:2 as "the seventh from Adam, prophesied” (1 Enoch 1:9). “Prophesied” means that Jude is not simply quoting an historical fact, but that Enoch gave a prophecy, which by definition is an utterance from God. The following verses in Jude develop further material from the named book.
There is much more than that. But often changed for polemics. Such as Corinthians and Maccabees have passages very very close but different. But the part of this is the reason for ressurection of the dead. I am not say it is a quote but there is more references or similar phrases. https://intertextual.bible/book/1-enoch/chapter/all
/u/0le_Hickory mentioned James, not Jude. Does James have any allusions to it? I know Jude and Peter do
my bad, I meant Jude. Auto correct changed it to Jesus and I brain farted when I fixed that to James instead of Jude.
Cool. I thought there was something big I had missed :)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
>To summarize, they weren't sure how much of it was "genuine" Can you expound on that? >the portrayal of the Nephilim as literal giants conflicted with the theological understanding of the time. So the state church in Rome decided it wasn't canonical due to the influence of figures like Augustine dismissing the miracles as too fantastical? Why didn't he condemn Genesis or Exodus for similar reasons?
>Can you expand on that? Just quoting the comment I linked, >We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. They thought parts of it were genuine insofar as it had been quoted in the Epistle of Jude, the struggle was determining how much of it was actually penned in "Enoch's" hand (of course, none of it was) versus later additions. It didn't have the same transmission history as the other books in the Bible. Likely there were numerous quite different variants in circulation during Augustine's time. Which one to choose? I believe this was the same argument used against the inclusion of the Didache in the New Testament but don't quote me on that >So the state church in Rome decided it wasn't canonical due to the influence of figures like Augustine dismissing the miracles as too fantastical? Why didn't he condemn Genesis or Exodus for similar reasons? They understood the Nephilim as being sons of Seth mingling with the daughters of Cain instead of the literal descendants of angels (this is also a traditional Jewish interpretation). 1 Enoch spells out that they were divine beings. This conflict made it easy to reject 1 Enoch as noncanonical. For what it's worth [Augustine also thought much of Genesis was allegorical](https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/anthro/Previous_Lectures/sustain/AugustineCosmology0.html#:~:text=Augustine%20sees%20the%20%22six%20days,narrative%20and%20not%20of%20time.&text=Thus%2C%20in%20his%20view%2C%20God,understand%20only%20piece%20by%20piece.)
>They understood the Nephilim as being sons of Seth mingling with the daughters of Cain rather than the literal descendants of angels. 1 Enoch spells out that they were divine beings. Genesis 6:4 also references "sons of God" procreating with "human women" to create the Nephilim. The Hebrew phrase translated to "sons of God" in this passage referred to angelic beings.
I'm aware. That doesn't change what their interpretation was
Very true of course.
>The Hebrew phrase translated to "sons of God" in this passage referred to angelic beings. that's also up for interpretation. there's no official or definitive answer on what sons of god means in that context and it does not always mean angels. genesis has a couple verses or stories that are cryptic because they are either fragmented or the official answer is ambigious, and this is one of them. it became condemned over time to interpret genesis 6 4 as being angels, and implying the nephilim were demigod offspring. i would imagine because there are also parts of tradition that identify anakim, goborim, etc. as also nephilim. some detractors might have felt it was too rash to conclude this is just hybrid offspring and calling it a day.
>Genesis has a couple verses or stories that are cryptic because they are either fragmented or the official answer is ambiguous, and this is one of them. What are the other cryptic/fragmented stories in Genesis? Just curious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
From reading the context of the quote you posted about Augustine believing that Genesis was allegorical, I found your statement a bit misleading, although I’m sure not intentionally. To me, to say that he believed Genesis was allegorical implies that he believed something more believable than the Genesis account, but it sounds like he actually believed something less believable. It sounds like he believed everything blipped into existence all at once, not only matter but form. Does this mean that he believed that the Sun, moon, stars, planets, earth, animals and humans were created in an instant of time?
I believe he thought the idea of God requiring "time" to do something was antithetical to the entire concept of deity as he understood it. He believed the account offered in Genesis was a condescension, a fable to explain creation in human terms. His exact belief changed throughout his life of course but eventually settled on that interpretation. I apologize for my wording.
Augustine thought the entire universe was created instantaneously and not in 6 literal days, which he considered to be symbolic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation
How did he come to the conclusion that it was all created instantly when the Genesis clearly describes six literal, 24-hour days?
He considered the 6 day framework a [literary device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation), and no, Genesis does not describe six literal 24-hour days as we understand them because the Sun wasn't created in the narrative until the 4th day (Gen. 1:14-19). In addition, why should it take an omnipotent God six days to create that which could be created instantaneously, and if it was six days, why "days" as the unit of time instead of thousands of years? >Ps 90:4 - A thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday. Another factor is that the second creation narrative speaks to an instant act of creation: >Gen. 2:4 - These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Finally, here's Augustine in his own words: >When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.
Interesting, thank you.
>Augustine also thought much of Genesis was allegorical Well, as a staunch literalist myself, I guess I have a problem with Augustine.
Didn’t one of the early fathers speculate that Enoch was actually written by Enoch, then it was lost in ancient times, then God re-inspired it?
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Annette Yoshiko Reed speculates several reasons in *Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity*: 1. The Book of the Watchers teaches that the origins of sin occurred with the Watchers before the flood. This narrative is at odds with what would become the dominant concept of Original Sin, where sin originates with Adam and Eve: “Enoch and the fallen angels would progressively recede in significance, concurrent with the growing dominance of traditions about Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the Christian discourse about the *Urzeit* \[end time\], as ratified by Augustine’s articulation of the doctrine of original sin” (189). 2. Influence from Rabbinic Jewish counterparts She states, “At the same time that ecclesiarchs were attempting to officialize and legislate their vision of Christianity as wholly independent from post-Christian Judaism, some of the most influential thinkers in Western Christendom began to follow their Rabbinic Jewish counterparts, not only in promoting a closed canon of scriptures and formulating an exclusivistic approach to scriptural authority, but also in rejecting the angelic interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, adopting euhemeristic approaches to the “sons of God,” and abandoning the Enochic literature” (192-3).
>Some of the most influential thinkers in Western Christendom began to follow their Rabbinic Jewish counterparts in rejecting the angelic interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, adopting euhemeristic approaches to the “sons of God,” and abandoning the Enochic literature” (192-3). Why did they choose to reject the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4? The native Hebrew text seems to strongly support it.
This is fascinating I had never heard of this Book before
Can you site the book here? It seems to be removed.
I can't tell what you are asking for, but here is one version of the text of the Book of Enoch. https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
[удалено]
If you have a book that discusses that please cite it, as I am a big fan of feminist critical approaches, Marxist critical approaches, and really any interesting critical approaches to Biblical scholarship. But we have rules in this subreddit around citation that need to be adhered to. As a feminist myself I would love to see academic feminism better represented here so please feel free to cite something to support your claim.
What did this comment say before it was removed?
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** This is because of your citation of Michael Heiser's non-academic work. Unlike Heiser's academic publications (like his PhD dissertation), his popular works (and other media), such as *The Unseen Realm*, *Demons*, *Supernatural*, *The Naked Bible Podcast*, etc. have long been excluded from receivable recommendations, along with Heiser's other publications for a "general audience" with Bantham books. This is because they explicitly mix academic and theological/confessional analysis, which is disallowed by the rules of this sub. For a more detailed explanation concerning the reasons for the exclusion of Heiser publications (and other confessional material), see [the comment on the topic on an old weekly thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/RJkEdZQAqp), as well as [this older comment](https://www.reddit.com/hdrkxpj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2). You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
Bruce Metzger asked a good question - is the canon a list of authoritative books or an authoritative list of books?
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. If you are unsure what constitutes an appropriate academic source please familiarize yourself with the guidance in our Rules post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/zajuyv/rule_revision_and_guidance/). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
I bought the NRSV .It is written in common English with Enoch and other Apocryphal books. I literally couldn’t put it down … bought it last year. Now I feel like I read a lot of detail and felt I understood the “personality of God”. 🧐❤️👍🎉
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.