How Wicked Were the People of Noah's Day? And Why No Detail?

The Scriptures do not support the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is not in lock step with the Word. Those are lies. Those lies have already been discredited. The fact you refuse to admit it does not change it.

 

Whose word, the spurious author of the book of Enoch? Or God's Word?

 

We see in animals that in the same species, some can be tiny while others can be huge. There are Clydesdale horses that are enormous, miniature horses that are tiny, Shetland ponies, Thoroughbred horses, etc. Did horse shaped demons need to mate with mares to make gigantic Clydesdale horses?

And how did the dinosaurs come to be? Did dinosaur shaped demons have to mate with a normal sized terrestrial bird to make a T rex?

How did the giant demons mate with human women, anyway? Or were they normal sized men in appearance when they mated? Wouldn't they kill the women they mated with? Wouldn't those women die in childbirth? How does a normal sized woman give birth to a giant baby, anyway? Wouldn't they both die during the birth process?

How is any of this clear? Have you ever had sex and given birth? If babies during gestational diabetes in their mother get huge from all the blood sugar being so high -- say up to 11 pounds -- they often are delivered via C section. Or if they are vaginally born they may be born with broken collar bones. And these are just normal human babies, not giant babies.

It is anything but clear why -- and how! -- giants would be born if it were possible for fallen angels to mate with human women.

 

That I "touted" the Talmud or Catholic doctrine is a stretch. I would be willing to look into many sources for *history* but not for *scripture*.

To say Jews find it controversial and speculative does not imply anything about what they all believe. It implies the opposite. If there is controversy, there have to be some arguing for and some arguing against.

 

I'm just a person who opened a can of worms and then didn't want to eat a worm sandwich after you shoved one in my face and told me it's yummy.

 

I suppose I have had a habit going back a couple of decades of flirting with the numinous but then rejecting it in skepticism. One could even dub it a form of postmodernist entertainment for a huge sector of our population. If you didn't know, this is a common tendency among atheists. My husband is an atheist, and he has science books and pseudo science books, strictly separated on his bookshelves. I am no longer an atheist, and I tired of my former pattern. I have only been Christian for about five years and have not yet decided on a denomination to join.

It is true that I have been drawn at times to what I feel may be lost history and lost continuity from Hebrew roots and Catholic roots. It is still true that I am *interested* in researching the entire *history* of both Judaism and Christianity.

It *was* true that I was drawn to the Catholic church. One reason was because it is very visual, and I have a son with autism. People with autism are visual learners much more than auditory learners.

After a while of considering the idea of attending Catholic church, I imagined what might happen with my son's anxiety and OCD. Even a good priest may make it worse because of not understanding autism. A bad one might manipulate him. There seems to be a lot of ritualism that would lend itself to anxiety and OCD, and it became a nighmarish vision. So I rejected the idea of attending a Catholic church with my son. I will not set him up for spiritual enslavement by means of his tendency to anxiety and OCD.

It still remains true that I am interested in Catholic *history*.

And it still remains true that I am always willing to consider new information. Considering new information does not mean that I need to immediately believe somebody's arguments about it.

I have never hidden anything about myself when I joined this board. I have made it clear even from my chosen online name here just who and what I am. Baptists have not rejected me for it.

 

I have been forthcoming about my beliefs and lack thereof. So now OfLivingWaters will you be equally forthcoming about your denomination and your doctrinal beliefs?

 

Scripture says "sons of God" and "daughters of men". OneBaptism from Scripture made a convincing case that "sons of God" meant descndants of Abel while "daughters of men" meant sons of Cain. The descendants of Abel became unequally yoked to the to the descendants of Cain. The descendants of Cain had fallen away into idolatry and apostasy. After the descendants of Abel became unequally yoked, they also fell away and became more corrupted and more violent.

I read through all of this from the older thread. Did you? I recall OneBaptism inviting you to respond with specifics. I know you went through some of the posts in that older thread, but did you go through the parts that involved the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Abel?

 

And you are what denomination, OfLivingWaters? You just attacked me for lack of doctrinal or denominational belief. Now you won't say what your denomination and doctrine is?

 

Gigantism - Wikipedia

 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...he_Impact_of_Past_Climate_on_Living_Standards

 

Why are we getting taller as a species?

 

6 Tall NBA Players Who Had Relatively Short Parents

 

Dr. Gabe Mirkin on Health, Fitness and Nutrition. | Andre the Giant and Acromegaly

 

There was nothing in my link to contradict Scripture. False accuser. You didn't know that intelligent design proponents acknowledge natural selection within species, just not evolution of new species?