HisWitness---I’ve only briefly skimmed over the posts—but some of your points are actually somewhat legitimate---however—I disagree with many of your conclusions. First you need to get your evidence straight----it was 200 angels that sinned in 1 Enoch not 100 (1 Enoch 6—200 descended in the days of Jared onto the peak of Mt Hermon).
Next—the whole point of 2 Pet & Jude is the certainty of God’s divine judgment, where the author uses a typical Jewish triad to make his case. In essence, God's future judgment of the wicked is certain (v. 3b) because God has consistently judged the wicked throughout history. As you stated “you must notice the word IF before the passage is to denote that if that event really happened then....... so both Peter and Jude were not saying that actually happened but IF it did then the same result would be as so with them also.”
You do realize that-- although the protasis (‘if’ clause) is limited to verse 4 ---the Greek structure of 2 pet 2:4-10a is one long conditional sentence, with the apodosis ("then" clause) not coming until v. 9. Thus making the protasis applicable to every point given until this clause is complete. In essence, the logic of your proposal in regards to the use of “if” would also have to apply to the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, & the rescue of Lot. Are you suggesting that they are only hypothetical examples as well?
Third, you keep insisting that 2 Peter & Jude are quoting 1 Enoch. While that is possible, they are more than likely referring to the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:2, 4 itself, which is referred to in many Jewish writings besides 1 Enoch ( Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17-19; 1QapGen 2:1; T. Reu. 5:6-7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10-14; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73). Admittedly 1 Enoch is probably the oldest record we have of the angelic Gen 6 interpretation, & the book itself was popular in Christian circles (which can be seen with Jude’s use in v 14-15)—there is no historical evidence that any other Gen 6 interpretation existed during the time of NT authorship, which allows Peter & Jude to directly refer to it (instead of extra-biblical lit.) & keep in line with their Scriptural examples of divine judgment. This is especially relevant when you consider Peter’s connection of the sinning angels with the flood & Jude’s use of “ton homoion tropon toutois” connecting the angelic sin of v 6 to the sexual sin of Sodom in v 7.
I am honestly wasting to much time on this when I need to be working--lol—but to answer your question---yes I believe Gen 6 refers to angels (that had fallen or are falling with the act of Gen 6)—this can be accomplished with an angelophany (ex Gen 18-19) or possession of human bodies. I dedicated a large portion of my Master’s thesis to defending the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 & am currently dedicating a large portion of my doctoral thesis to it. But I realize that no matter how much evidence I give, I will never be able to persuade everyone of my own understanding of the difficult passage. And since it is not a first-rate doctrine-- I don’t mind people disagreeing with me as long as they can support their own ideas. If you do respond to my post—I will try & respond back—but like I said I really need to be working—so if I don’t respond in a quick manner please do not think I am being disrespectful—God bless.
