High Fructose Corn Syrup?

Not sure if they are appearing nationwide, but I keep seeing these silly little commercials on TV trying to convince viewers that High Fructose Corn Syrup is safe and similar to sugar and honey. Yes a simple internet search will reveal to you a wealth of information on both sides of the argument, and the side against makes a much stronger case, in my opinion, than those who would support these current commercials. I wish to simply share one short, concise article I found on the subject, and hope those with a health conscious mind will ready further and decide.

One of the big issues that surrounds this product, is whether or not it indeed is chemically addicting, and leads to further cravings and ingestion of more and more, causing weight issues.

Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup

by Kevin Millard, Jul 4, 2007
(http://www.healthmad.com/Nutrition/Dangers-of-High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup.32885)

High fructose corn syrup is the new silent killer. Sadly, it is found in almost everything we eat. find out how to avoid it.

One of the greatest ways we can improve our health is to eliminate high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our diets.

What is HFCS?

HFCS is not the run of the mill corn syrup found on the grocery store shelf, nor is it the fructose naturally found in fruits and honey. HFCS is a highly refined clear liquid derived from corn starch. Food manufactures love to use it because of its long shelf life an it's relative low cost.

Why is HFCS Bad for us?

Since HFCS's widespread introduction in the 1980's North American obesity rates have skyrocketed. Obesity has been linked to may heath issues including heart disease and many forms of cancer. When HFCS is ingested, it travels straight to the liver which turns the sugary liquid into fat, and unlike other carbohydrates HFCS does not cause the pancreas to produce insulin; which acts as a hunger quenching signal to the brain. So we get stuck in a vicious cycle, eating food that gets immediately stored as fat and never feeling full.

Where is HFCS found?

HFCS is found in almost everything we eat today. However, the worst culprit has to be soft drinks. A single 12 oz can of cola has up to 13 tsp of sugar, most of it fructose from HFCS. There is HFCS hidden in many of our other food as well, like ketchup, relish, cookies, and most alarmingly in low-fat diet foods. Manufactures substitute HFCS for the fat in food like mayo and salad dressings, then mark them as diet foods.

How Can We Avoid HFCS?

Avoiding HFCS will take a lifestyle change for the better. The first food to go has to be the soft drinks; this includes fruit punch, fruit cocktails, and Kool-Aid since they are all laden with HFCS.

Second, eat more meals at home. Restaurant foods are mostly prepackaged foods reheated and served to you. Use of HFCS in these foods is wide spread because of their increased shelf life.

Third, diet while you shop. Since you are going to be eating most of your meals at home, you're going to want to fill your cupboards with the best foods. While shopping, read the labels, if HFCS, fructose, or modified corn starch appears within the first five ingredients place it back on the shelf an move on. Sounds easy right? Wrong. As you make your way through the store you will begin to realize just how much of what you have been eating on a daily basis contains HFCS.

Reducing HFCS will not always be easy, but the health benefits are well worth it. You will feel stronger and more vital, it will lift your mood and give you increased concentration. Limiting your intake of HFCS will not only shrink your midsection but also do wonders for your over all health.

An article discussing the commercials and the controversy can be found at

http://cbs5.com/health/high.Fructose.Corn.2.831352.html

You may also wish to check out CornSyrupKills.net

Nothing New about the New Testament

Back in the 1990's (and earlier of course), before the internet was such a huge part of everyone's life, and before anyone and everyone had a web page they called "home," most people or ministries that had anything to say, did it via a periodic printed and mailed newsletter or magazine. I was one of those types that also ran an underground music magazine from about 1988 through 1990, and a smaller newsletter from 1991 through about 1998 before launching finally moving most everything to a web page.

Well, I was digging through a filing cabinet today and found folder after folders of these printed newsletters and magazines from other ministries from back in the day, I ran across one that brought back thoughts and understandings that I have only in recent years really started to grasp, so I wanted to share some thoughts on the topic.

The articles in question come from the pen of one Steve Schlissel of Messiah's Congregation in Brooklyn, NY. He published the "Messiah Mandate" in various forms for many years, and the articles I am speaking of appeared in the third and fourth letters of 1998. Part one was entitled "All I Really Need to Know I Learn in the Old Testament" and part two was...maybe you guessed it..."All I Really Need to Know I Learn in the New Testament." You can click the links to go read them yourself (yes, of course they are now on the web...lol)

For a bit less than a year back in 1994, my family and I attended Pastor Schlissel's church, and were truly blessed by his preaching. While he may be considered somewhat controversial nowadays, I still consider him one of the best teachers I have had the pleasure of sitting under in my Christian life.

The articles make a strong position for the proper understanding and place of the Old Testament (OT), and how it not only contains all we need to know to preach the gospel, but that without it, the New Testament (NT) makes little sense. In today's church, there are more and more teachers that have basically thrown out the OT and focus mainly on the NT, as if the gospel originated and find its substance there alone. Even the practice of Bible companies making and distributing the little NT Bibles is a great injustice to the Word of God.

How would we look on it if say someone took the last three chapters of Pilgrims Progress and released it on its own and expected people to fully grasp what is being said. The articles go into much more excellent detail on the importance of returning to a view that see the Bible as one complete story, and not two main divisions, one old and out dated, and the other new and exciting. As it has been put before, there is nothing new about the NT; it is simply a expounding and opening of the mysteries of the OT.

When Christ and the Apostles went from town to town preaching the gospel, and pointing to the importance of the Scriptures, what Scriptures were they speaking of? The letters of Paul, Peter, etc.? Of course not, they taught all things from the written word of God, which at that time consisted of the writings of the OT (along with other Jewish writings that we have since deemed non-canonical).

For instance, in Acts 8:26 and following, we find the story of Philip and the eunuch, and we find Philip expounding the gospel and Christ from Isaiah and other OT books. Then we have the common verse in 2 Timothy 3:16, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc. When 2 Timothy was written in the mid 60's, it is true much of the NT had already been pinned, but we can't think for a moment that there was any kind of coherent collection of writings that even closely resembled what we now call the NT. There were letters circulating, and while what is being said by Paul here to Timothy may possibly be addressing and acknowledging some of these writings, we have to see the thrust of what is being said is directed at that which was commonly known as being the Scripture, which of course is the OT.

The book of Acts finds the Apostles preaching often in the synagogues and elsewhere, expounding from the Scriptures...the OT...and thousands are coming to Christ. One of the most interesting of sayings was when Paul said:

...because of these things the Jews—having caught me in the temple—were endeavoring to kill me. Having obtained, therefore, help from God, till this day, I have stood witnessing both to small and to great, saying nothing besides the things that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come, that the Christ is to suffer, whether first by a rising from the dead, he is about to proclaim light to the people and to the nations. (Acts 26:21-23)

Paul said that all of his preaching, on Christ, and even resurrection, was what came from Moses and the prophets. Even Peter, in dealing with issues of the last days things taking place in his time, tells them to remember that what he is saying is from the words of the prophets (2 Peter 1:2). He was not saying they were preaching of revealing totally new issues, but they kept harking back to the prophets of old, and what they said would happen in those last days.

We should surely view the NT as nothing really new, but just the writings of the infant church that assist us in the more clear revealing and fulfilling of the things prophesied of old.

So, could YOU mimic the first century Christians and preach the gospel and the message of salvation to others without relying on the NT?

Where two or three are gathered....? - OUT OF CONTEXT SCRIPTURE!

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

If I had a nickle for every time I heard someone use this verse to claim some kind of special presence or assistance from Christ whenever two or more Christian brethren assembled in agreement with each other for some reason, I could definitely enjoy quite a few Venti Starbucks beverages.

What exactly is being said in this verse that is so often used out of context? In order to grasp the context, you must start at the beginning of the topic, back at verses fifteen. If you have a Christian brother who has sinned against you, you are to go and tell him. If he he won't listen to youAgain I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
, then you are to:

...take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. (v. 16)

So right here we see why the two or three are mentioned to begin with, for the sole purpose of being witnesses against the sin of the brother in question. This standard practice hearkens back to the ancient Jewish practice and law established in Deuteronomy:

On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deut. 17:6-7)

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (Deut. 19:15)

Part of a legal hearing requires two or three witnesses for a case to be established. In Matthew 18, we are dealing with a case against a brother who has sinned. He has been approached by the one sinned against, then he has been approached with two or three others to witness his stubborn rebellion against repentance in the matter, and after those steps have been taken, by the word of the two or three witnesses, his sin is made public to the whole church body, and if he still is in rebellion and won't listen, then he is to be cast out, excommunicated from the body, and treated as one outside the faith, a pagan.

So, the two or three gathered together are not asking God for favors or prayers, but are in agreement over a judgment in the body. The Apostles were given the keys to loose and bind things on earth, and this is an example of that power in action. If you, as a member of a church, are processed legitimately through the Matthew 18 process, and are cast out, then it is indeed a fearful thing for you, as you have legally, by the very power and presence of Christ found present among the words of the two or three witnesses, been removed from the body of Christ for your rebellion.

One commentator states is clearly:

This is connected with the previous verses. The connection is this: The obstinate man is to be excluded from the church. The care of the church — the power of admitting or excluding members — of organizing and establishing it — is committed to you, the apostles (Mt 18:18). Yet there is not need of the whole to give validity to the transaction. When two of you agree, or have the same mind, feelings, and opinion, about the arrangement of affairs in the church, or about things desired for its welfare, and shall ask of God, it shall be done for them. See Acts 1:14-26, 15:1-29. The promise here has respect to the apostles in organizing the church. It cannot, with any propriety, be applied to the ordinary prayers of believers. Other promises are made to them, and it is true that the prayer of faith will be answered; but that is not the truth taught here. (Barne's Notes)

Many today have ignored the power the local, legitimate church body was given to bind and loose such things, pertaining to your very standing in the eyes of God.

Today, if someone disagrees with a church, they simply leave and move on to find one they agree with more fully. But don't be fooled, God doesn't look so simply at rebellion and lack of repentance as we might. If you leave a church in a rebellious manner, without resolving the issue via Matthew 18, your very salvation may be in question before God.

Matthew 18:19-20 is not a comfort for anyone that Jesus is present when they met; it is a call of judgment against those rebellious to the legal offices of the church established by Christ and the Apostles.

View Other "Out of Context" Verses
 

The Book of Enoch (Pt 6) - Genesis 6, Angels & Objections (Pt 1)

OK, so we have gathered a few objections to the angels and women understanding of Genesis 6. However, we have also received some from a reader, so I wanted to deal with them a little also.

But first, let us turn to the early church fathers again. I gave a couple quotes from them in the two part discussion on the Nephilim (see HERE), but here is quite a few more, only a couple I will share here:

The other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter...Just as with men, they have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice...Some of them have continued in those things for which God had made them. They have remained over the things to which He had ordained them. But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.142

The angels are likewise possessed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places. In like manner, also, the other angels, who did the will of their Lord, were raised to a higher rank because of their self-control. Bardesanes (c. 222, E), 8.725.

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards
subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Justin Martyr (c. 160) 1.190

...in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them... Irenaeus (c. 180) 1.524

To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge... Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) 2.446

I could quote many, many more as evidence that this was pretty much the common understanding amoung the Ante-Nicene fathers, but I will stop at this point. Like I said before, I do not hold the early church up as an infallible rule, but since so many other people look to them for defending other historic doctrines, it is at least prudent to look at their teachings in such matters as these.

Now, the first objection is edited and summed up like this:

Objection #1

How could a spiritual being, an angel, impregnate a woman. Angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot take on physical bodies at will, and they do not have the creative power of God to beget life on their own. In the case of mortals, God has determined how mankind shall reproduce, and it is He who gives life. In the case of these depraved angels, it would seem impossible for them to beget children through women, or any other creature.

Now of course this objection was a quick post summed up by the writer from a lecture heard on the topic, and does not provide much depth or defense for this position, but let us briefly look at it as it is simply stated.

Where do we find in the Bible any support for these claims:

1) Angels are spiritual beings and can't impregnate women
2) Angels do not/cannot have physical bodies (or not take them on at will)
3) Angels do have the ability to beget life on their own

Interestingly, we can easily dismiss part of point two from the Scripture. Genesis 18 tells of Abraham meeting three angels, in human form, whose feet he washed, and then sat eating and drinking with them. So they obviously can take on physical bodies when needed. Most commentators agree these three visitors were angels, and I will mention just one esteemed commentator:

Before Moses proceeds to his principal subject, he describes to us, the hospitality of the holy man; and he calls the angels men, because, being clothed with human bodies, they appeared to be nothing else than men. - John Calvin

This is further enforced as being the case when just one chapter later we find:

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Genesis 19:1)

And again, we find them in physical form, being touched, and eating with Lot. And then what are we to make of the exhortation in Hebrews 13:2:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

It seems plain that angels can, have, and will take human form to appear to us for various reasons. Do they have power to do so at anytime as they will? Who knows. I don't believe the Scripture says much of anything relating to this, for or against, so how can we just throw the whole topic out based on silence? We have evidence they can become physical, so that is enough to dismiss the second part of this objection.

So, if they are indeed able to take human, physical form, who says they cannot have relations with or procreate with mankind? Who says they are totally unable to procreate? How do we know they indeed cannot beget life on their own? Where in the canon of Scripture is this topic even addressed?

Such objections seems solely based on speculation, and as we see, these speculations fly in the face of the church historic.

You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator's angels have been changed into human form, and have carried about so real of a body that Abraham even washed their feet and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands. An angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.523.

So, we see the Scriptures do reveal that while angels are spiritual beings, some in the order of angels, can, have, and still do take on physical form to interact with mankind. We find no evidence from canonical Scripture that these beings are incapable of sexual relations or procreation, and therefore can make no clear doctrine on the topic.

So, in my mind, this objection is no real objection based on Scripture at all.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

Why the Constitution Party?

I thought I would share a writing I recently received from an associate regarding the Constitution Party:

by Paul Richard Strange, Sr. - My decision to join the Constitution Party was not an easy decision. The American political reality is that no alternative political movement has actually succeeded since the Republican Party first arose in the mid-1800’s. From that time to this, most citizens have preferred the stability of supporting one of the two major political parties over the major obstacles that the “new kid on the block” is bound to face.

What compelled me to actually become a Constitution Party member was whenever I asked myself the questions in my heart and mind about what the country we all love will look like if nobody is willing to help form a Constitution Party.

What kind of America will exist for the little people who deserve the constitutional liberties and economic opportunities that require that we overcome our national addiction to socialism? Can the nation continue this way? Is the current price of gasoline an omen of the reduction of the standard of living for middle America?

What kind of America will our grandchildren inherit if we never have a time when a single Congress controlled by either of the two major parties ever will justify the federal budget by any part of the Constitution in specific terms. In my entire lifetime, I have NEVER ONCE heard a journalist ask the presidential candidate of the two major parties in a national debate to explain where they find a right to abort babies in the Constitution, nor the right to give taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood in the Constitution, nor the unrelenting appetite of the obese federal government to usurp absolutely every privilege provided by our Founders for we, the people, and our state governments.

The question I’ve had to ask, “Can we really change anything as ordinary human beings who want the best of America to endure to the ages, and the worst things about America to be honestly exposed and corrected?” I believe that we can, but it takes the guts to think outside the box. Two parties that have no real competition, nor any accountability to the Constitution, cannot help themselves from always taking the paths of least political resistance.

My social critique is not simply to ignore our own tendencies as citizens. We have a First Amendment, email, and tools that previous generations of our people could never dream of. If we do nothing about socialism, nor to raise the standard of the Constitution in the public marketplace of ideas, we are many times more accountable than our parents and grandparents, who had no direct means to challenge the smoke-filled rooms, and force a constitutional renewal upon the nation!

Three things all of us can do, in my opinion:

(1) Purpose to read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights at least once or twice before we vote. (Even fairly slow readers like me can read these wonderful documents in less than an hour!); and

(2) Consider getting with a few friends who don’t normally care that much about politics, order a pizza, and read these documents, and discuss what it means. (It doesn’t have to be a boring night!); and, finally,

(3) Ask each other, “What would a constitutionally reformed federal government look like?”

All of these actions are in our best interests, whether or not you ever join a new party. They will help us renew the strong sense that this truly is our country, in a way that cannot happen by simply supporting the status quo!

I Voting Third Party A Wasted Vote?

by Chuck Baldwin - When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:

BALDWIN '08
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

Separation of Church and State?

The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the rights for anybody except the State!

Harry S. Truman
United States President
1945-1953

Was this man a prophet? How we've changed in the past fifty years

The Book of Enoch (Pt 5) - More Genesis 6 "Bonus Tracks"

Nephilim Skeleton Found!!

Proof positive of an ancient breed of giants in mankind's past, exactly as mentioned in Genesis 6!

OK, so this is an obvious fake photo, but it got your attention I assume.

We pick up with this part of our series on the Book of Enoch right where we left off in part four. In the previous part, we saw the behind the scenes history of what was said happened between the angels of God and the daughters of men, stopping right as the cries of men went up to heaven.

This is where additional "behind-the-scenes" information that fills in some gaps with how Genesis 6 jumps so quickly into God's plan to destroy mankind, taken from chapters 9-10 of The Book of Enoch

And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryings up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory standeth unto all the generations of the ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee.

The one thing that stood out to me in many of these type sections, is how the chain of command of things tends to go. Not just in the Book of Enoch but in other Jewish writings like it, we find how the Lord God has created and assigned angels to each task of universe management (sometimes it becomes so detailed as to sound pretty silly...but who knows). Here we find the cries of mankind being first brought to the attention of some of the key angels in God's command. Even the very angels who are said to have sinned with the women, as called the Watchers, because their job was to be mainly responsible for watching and protecting mankind on earth. now, the cries of mankind reach out to those above, and those named angels take the issue to the very throne of God.

The way they address the Lord is so amazing, and sends shivers down my spine to think of the reverance even they have when going into the presence of the Lord's throne. It doesn't say much for the way people today jump into the presence of the Lord in a haphazardly manner, as if he is just a good friend. Where is our reverence and awe in the Lord's presence? Well, not to digress down that avenue, let's continue

Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven, which men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these.'

Here we find a basic overview of the events being stated before the Lord God (as if he didn't already know what happened...which they point out to him themselves).

There is always one question I think of whenever I read when people seek to explain away the idea of Genesis 6 teaching a joining of women with angels. The most common belief is that the "sons of God" in Genesis is just the godly line of Seth, and their intermarriage with the line of Cain. Sounds like a plausible explanation, but how would such a union bring forth giants? If both groups who were joined were human, why would giants come forth from it? Just a thought I always had.

Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.

So, this would explain why we go from Genesis 6 saying their was this union of sons of God and daughters of men, to all of a sudden God declaring the need for a flood to destroy mankind in such a quick span of a few verses. Seems kind of drastic to say Seth's kids intermarried with Cain's kids, and therefore the whole earth needed destroyed because of it. However, if this alternate history is true, then obviously a union of men and angels, and the revealing of secrets and sins beforehand unknown to men, would provide more than ample need for wiping out all of those effected by these teachings.

Now, we find descriptions of the judgment to befall these wicked angels, and we find language pretty much identical to that spoken of in the Greek Scriptures (as mentioned in previous parts of this series).

And again the Lord said to Raphael: Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.

And to Gabriel said the Lord: Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy the children of fornication and the children of the Watchers from amongst men and cause them to go forth: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years.

And the Lord said unto Michael: Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgment and of their consummation, till the judgment that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore.

There is so much eschatological applications in this section, but I will refrain from going there ;-)

Hopefully, you can see that this alternate history not only fills gaps in the Genesis account, but makes better sense of many things in Genesis 6 and elsewhere. Again, I hope to uncover and discuss some of the objections to this view, but at this time do not have many in my own collection to choose from, so will eventually research and dig for more.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---