The Book of Enoch on Extraterrestrials

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
In other versions, the watchers are psychic entities.

Its sometimes difficult to discern what are non-physical and what are physical entities in ancient scripture.

Because the nature of reality is not a straightforward materialism, "entities" can be both. The nature of reality is psycho-physical. Its not purely physical and its not purely psychic. Daimonic entities such as aliens and angels can cross the threshold between mind and matter - taking symbolic forms that are in part culturally determined. They are from dimensions of the collective psyche, not from another planet. They are manifestations of archetypes of the collective unconscious. The ET hypothesis is such an oversimplification its laughable. Its a mistake to look at "angels" and "mysticism" through the modern terms of ET and technology. Such a simplistic literalistic view betrays a profound ignorance of comparative mythology, comparative mysticism, comparative religion, philosophy, parapsychology, ufology, etc.

Absolutely without a doubt one of the best, and most interesting threads I have ever read on this site! Star and Flag from me. Thanks for posting this!

Not one single "religious" person that I know has ever mentioned this subject and would most likely dismiss it as a fraud without any serious study at all. The typical "stick your head in the sand" response. I will be researching this subject now.

Originally posted by Coach Knight
Not one single "religious" person that I know has ever mentioned this subject and would most likely dismiss it as a fraud without any serious study at all. The typical "stick your head in the sand" response. I will be researching this subject now.

Are you sure, then, that you didn't miss some pages here. Maybe you went too fast.

You're right to a degree: Plenty of folk "religious" or "non" think the Book of Enoch is loony tunes...but not all.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Coach Knight
Not one single "religious" person that I know has ever mentioned this subject and would most likely dismiss it as a fraud without any serious study at all. The typical "stick your head in the sand" response. I will be researching this subject now.

Are you sure, then, that you didn't miss some pages here.

Maybe you went too fast.

You're right to a degree: Plenty of folk "religious" or "non" think the Book of Enoch is loony tunes...but not all.

Haha, good point. And I really didn't mean to offend any "religious" people. But I did actually mean that religious people that "I know" are that way. I'm sure there are many who are not that way, this forum is, as you said, proof of that. However, originally growing up in a very small rural town I can tell you that you would be ostracized and called a heretic for even entertaining the idea that there was truth in anything outside of the King James version of the Bible. Even other translations are frowned upon.

In any case, I am enjoying this area of study.

Originally posted by Coach Knight

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Coach Knight
Not one single "religious" person that I know has ever mentioned this subject and would most likely dismiss it as a fraud without any serious study at all. The typical "stick your head in the sand" response. I will be researching this subject now.

Are you sure, then, that you didn't miss some pages here.

Maybe you went too fast.

You're right to a degree: Plenty of folk "religious" or "non" think the Book of Enoch is loony tunes...but not all.

Haha, good point. And I really didn't mean to offend any "religious" people. But I did actually mean that religious people that "I know" are that way. I'm sure there are many who are not that way, this forum is, as you said, proof of that. However, originally growing up in a very small rural town I can tell you that you would be ostracized and called a heretic for even entertaining the idea that there was truth in anything outside of the King James version of the Bible. Even other translations are frowned upon.

In any case, I am enjoying this area of study.

Haha, you're right too...I certainly wouldn't bring the subject up around most of the folk around in these h'yah parts I live in I reckon'. Thank goodness for ATS.

Star & Peaceness.

One problem i have with the 'Aliens having sex' theory is hybridization. As humans we share 98-99% DNA with apes and yet firtilization is unlikely. One could imagine aliens semen encounting major difficulties with female human eggs and may i say that aliens enjoying a bit of hows your father is just an imaginative fantasy.

Saying that it could be possible if they were inseminating with hybrid sperm or that aliens took human form so that they could concieve children. Made possible due to the mega advanced technology.

It brings up more questions than answers IMHO.

Great post Sky

I had had to miss reading a few pages because every time I got to the bottom of one page up popped another couple and I couldn't keep up as I wanted to pop in a couple of things before I have to go.

Just because we date a book to be written at such and such a time, it does not mean that that particul copy is the original.

I suspect the Book of Enoch (and I think there are 2 books) goes back to the Babylonians etc because when one looks at some of Sitchin's illustrations of that era, one sees the part animal part man bodies depicted on them. The San people's cave art going back 40,000 years depicks half human half animal so perhaps those 'experiments' were much older than we know. Interestingly they also like to put together a man, lion, bull and a scorpion etc again symbols of something sacred coming through time. (Ezekiel's Chariot and fixed signs of the zodiac

Has anyone read Christian O'Brian's book The Genius of the Few, if you enjoyed Sitchen this book honestly is a must, because it gives other translations to words, a plausible and well researched historical picture of that era and comes up with a lot of information not generally available that perhaps should be.

Going back to Adam and Eve and God, its rarely ever questioned why would you 'make' people and then leave them in a garden, however nice? I am leaving out the 'serpent' because chatting snakes are ludicrous and actually also perhaps a bit insulting to the mentality of people reading about them. When they were removed from Eden I undertood they entered the land of Nod which was already inhabited by men and that was perhaps a reason why Cain was marked. If it was only his family in the vicinity he would hardly have needed marking they would all have known him personally.

I enjoyded Hancock's book Supernatural which gives a few plates of tipbits on the use of psychodaelic treats that from his research shows they were wuffed around the world by the religious - shamans throught time. Even the Israelites had a 'fondness' for a certain bush etc.

I think I was told the Book of Enoch was around for some 300 years after after Christ's death and at that poignant time faded and was not used. I wondered, apart from its information about the Angels etc if it also has a little to do with the fact that Enoch didn't die and possibly ascended to Heaven. People might have got miffed if they though God grabbed his favourites and didn't include them.

Its only comparatively recently that people have discussed these things. I remember at school, a convent, that when asked questions I frequently got the ruler and was prodded with the blasphemy stick.

I know there is far more to the word 'Serpent' because Christ himself said 'be ye wise as serpents' I suspect its in the translation.

Originally posted by DomCheetham
One problem i have with the 'Aliens having sex' theory is hybridization. As humans we share 98-99% DNA with apes and yet firtilization is unlikely. One could imagine aliens semen encounting major difficulties with female human eggs and may i say that aliens enjoying a bit of hows your father is just an imaginative fantasy.

Saying that it could be possible if they were inseminating with hybrid sperm or that aliens took human form so that they could concieve children. Made possible due to the mega advanced technology.

It brings up more questions than answers IMHO.

edit on 6-3-2011 by DomCheetham because: (no reason given)

Not really, for if one reads what the ancient texts says themselves, alot of those questions get answers. For instance, the Gods were not(Atleast the vast majority of them) described as looking like weird or "Classical" aliens known today via movies, but they were largely described as looking very Human, but generally just alittle above average height, and usually very whiteskinned and lightblonde or redhaired.
The sentence "Creating Man in our Image", says alot in the matter, and also explains alot.
The ET's indeed seem to have been another race, yes, but not another Species. And, as they are the same Species, offspring between one of these "gods" and- let us say- a Homo Erectus, would not have involved any more problems than a union between a Caucasian and a Pygmee(No, it is NOT meant as an insult).

That is a very interesting response. I guess we are kind of trained to look at things through a

technical lens. I believe we have never developed spiritual part of our brains.

I an assuming that is what the unused two-thirds of our brain was intended for.




reply to post by Student X

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by DomCheetham
One problem i have with the 'Aliens having sex' theory is hybridization. As humans we share 98-99% DNA with apes and yet firtilization is unlikely. One could imagine aliens semen encounting major difficulties with female human eggs and may i say that aliens enjoying a bit of hows your father is just an imaginative fantasy.

Saying that it could be possible if they were inseminating with hybrid sperm or that aliens took human form so that they could concieve children. Made possible due to the mega advanced technology.

It brings up more questions than answers IMHO.

edit on 6-3-2011 by DomCheetham because: (no reason given)

Not really, for if one reads what the ancient texts says themselves, alot of those questions get answers. For instance, the Gods were not(Atleast the vast majority of them) described as looking like weird or "Classical" aliens known today via movies, but they were largely described as looking very Human, but generally just alittle above average height, and usually very whiteskinned and lightblonde or redhaired.
The sentence "Creating Man in our Image", says alot in the matter, and also explains alot.
The ET's indeed seem to have been another race, yes, but not another Species. And, as they are the same Species, offspring between one of these "gods" and- let us say- a Homo Erectus, would not have involved any more problems than a union between a Caucasian and a Pygmee(No, it is NOT meant as an insult).

Evolution theory is better way of explaining how humans came to be without the need for silly ideas like gods, watchers and giants.

Don't get me wrong i like a good story but one should not think about it too much.

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No offense but I think I`ll pass on watching 17 videos now. I love succint information...summaries.

edit on 4-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Sometimes it takes reading or watching through a whole lot of information in order to get any idea of what this or that could be. So far the evidence points to the fall of angels, and the genetic cross breeding.

As far as I'm concerned, Angels are not human but are spirit beings with no reproductive organs, this is only assumed/speculated based upon biblical text; they don't marry because being married is the ONLY accepted method that God allows for sexual intercourse between humans. Thus, since those that find themselves in heaven, wont have a human body for no flesh can enter God's presence, then, this should be logical that Angels are not physical and can NOT have sexual relations in any way. As far as we know, from scripture, Angels were spoken into existence by God and did not procreate nor could they.

I believe we have to get to the bottom of this whole question, are/can Angels self procreate? If so, then the story fits like a glove, if not, then we have a Whole new different kind of celestial being. We MUST get this question answered or we'll keep going down the pervebial path of assuming.

This is my text from earlier in the thread, which is a mere attempt to logically try and record the events chronologically to grasp the very nature of angels which is, could Angels actually procreate through sexual intercourse.

(b) Before the war started with Lucifer & God, God gave all of heaven a one time, never to be revoked, no fine print, ultimatum; Stay with me, of go with Lucifer/Satan. There will be no coming back. Period. As far as I know, 1/3 of the angels followed Satan, leaving 2/3 with God.

(c) Satan was cast down to earth, or the war was started down here, which Genesis suggests in the original Hebrew in the words, void & darkness..

(d). God wins, presumably by a landslide, against Satan. He's permanently cast to earth, to walk to & fro but, can only address God by pure escort or some how approach him in a certain way; as we see in Job.

(e) The Angels that are on God's side are now forever bound to do what is right in God's sight/presence, this includes the very thoughts they have. God permeability branded his own spoken creation that will serve willingly and never turn against him, ever. On the other hand, the Angels that fell to earth, are the same, they will forever serve their cruel master, forever; whether by fear, or submission, they are bound.

Originally posted by DomCheetham
One problem i have with the 'Aliens having sex' theory is hybridization. As humans we share 98-99% DNA with apes and yet firtilization is unlikely. One could imagine aliens semen encounting major difficulties with female human eggs and may i say that aliens enjoying a bit of hows your father is just an imaginative fantasy.

Saying that it could be possible if they were inseminating with hybrid sperm or that aliens took human form so that they could concieve children. Made possible due to the mega advanced technology.

It brings up more questions than answers IMHO.

edit on 6-3-2011 by DomCheetham because: (no reason given)

yes... my very thoughts exactly! The only thing i've thought that 'might' be able to make this happen would be test tube experimentation aka .. test babies. Then brings up the question, why then would they take them as wives ?? Why not just abduct them and give them back ??

Professor Bart D. Ehrman wrote/recorded some interesting books/audiobooks about how we got to the Bilbe we have now - or rather the translation of the copies of copies, but NEVER the original texts. Without the original texts it is frustrating because I want to know the historical facts and cirmcumstances of those lives and times with accuracy.

Anyone mention or read The Henoch Prophecies?

www.theyfly.com...

Originally posted by DomCheetham


Evolution theory is better way of explaining how humans came to be without the need for silly ideas like gods, watchers and giants.

As the term says itself, The Evolution Theory in regards of Human Evolution, is- a Theory. And as such only speculation that have been tussed around long enough so that it eventually have become "truth". But it is hardly a 'better' option than that of- for instance- ET-interveening. It is just 'easier' for some to chose as a belief as they consider the Evolution-Theory more comforting than other options. But sure, I believe in Evolution, and I also believe it is how the majority of life on the Planet has evolved- Partly. Unfortunately, however, the theory in regards of Human Evolution has many holes, and one of the holes is that the Missing Link in Human Evolution has never been found. Never ever. It has been thought and claimed it has been found on several occasions, but on each and every of these occasions it has turned out to be either total hoaxes such as the Piltdown Man, or, turned out to be completely wrong.
Perhaps the reason they never find it is because the Missing Link left Earth a long time ago.

Don't get me wrong i like a good story but one should not think about it too much.

Well, this board is about thinking and pondering over things, plus, that mental approach is hardly beneficial for the intelectual growth. The World is filled with people that do not think about this or that too much, and that is also the reason Stupidity exists.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

That backs up what I am saying, the Book of ENoch was written originally in Hebrew, (not a ancient language nor the languge it would have been written in for Enoch) and only about 2000 years ago, thats not to say it wasn't documenting a "old clan tale" But it is written not in Enoichs time, far from it, so whatever the story is documenting it is in a vastly corrupted form from the original 'tale' being documented thousands of years after the supposed event.

edit on 2-3-2011 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

Sorry,but this sort of question always comes up when referring to "anything" related to the dead sea scrolls....Think please,if you were going to bury writings for future generations to find would you bury old text or rewite fresh ones before sealing them away,lol.....these scrolls were buried 2000 years ago and of course date to that time...but,what other peeps are saying is that 2000 years ago they already believed and read the Book of Enoch as well as many other books not in mainstream Bible. I too found it odd about the reference to the land of Dan way before Dan was born,lol......part of the book describes visions of events far into the future at Enoch's time and that might explain the reference to the "Land of Dan"

"And our sister Sophia (is) she who came down in innocence in order to rectify her deficiency. Therefore she was called Life, which is the mother of the living, by the foreknowledge of the sovereignty of heaven. And through her they have tasted the perfect Knowledge. I appeared in the form of an eagle on the tree of knowledge, which is the Epinoia from the foreknowledge of the pure light, that I might teach them and awaken them out of the depth of sleep. For they were both in a fallen state, and they recognized their nakedness. The Epinoia appeared to them as a light; she awakened their thinking

I am very curious about this part, Is sister Sophia the tree of life, if you were to die and become one with the tree of life than you are reawakened back to life would that having meaning as in what is written say visting sister Sophia?
Now if Epinoia came to you in an eagle form and showed how to be an eagle trained you, and well being an eagle you visit a golden city in a cloud, those who live in the city, are ancient people from the past who take turns
wispering to you and you return as a human again. is there any old meanings that reflect the eagle and a golden city and the name of the city?

What charactor would this person play from the past who would they be?

Originally posted by Student X
[
Because the nature of reality is not a straightforward materialism, "entities" can be both. The nature of reality is psycho-physical. Its not purely physical and its not purely psychic. Daimonic entities such as aliens and angels can cross the threshold between mind and matter - taking symbolic forms that are in part culturally determined. They are from dimensions of the collective psyche, not from another planet. They are manifestations of archetypes of the collective unconscious. The ET hypothesis is such an oversimplification its laughable. Its a mistake to look at "angels" and "mysticism" through the modern terms of ET and technology. Such a simplistic literalistic view betrays a profound ignorance of comparative mythology, comparative mysticism, comparative religion, philosophy, parapsychology, ufology, etc.

You might be surprised to find that I agree with you. I gave up the view of nuts-and-bolts UFOlogy a decade ago.

Originally posted by Coach Knight


Not one single "religious" person that I know has ever mentioned this subject and would most likely dismiss it as a fraud without any serious study at all. The typical "stick your head in the sand" response. I will be researching this subject now.

Side 1 (Religious) dismisses it because its not part of their particular book.

Side 2 (Atheists) dismiss it because its religious.

Thats the extent of utter stupidity we are dealing with here.

The book of Enoch sounds normal to me. Many take Chariots of Fire to be metaphorical. For what, I dont know.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Another great read sky

.

As for the giants....we have remains going back millions of years of ago or fauna and skeletal remains, where is this giant?

edit on 2-3-2011 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

Giant you say? Like this one?
theunexplainedmysteries.com...