WHO ARE THE NEPHILIM?

by Byron LeBeau

    This is a core question for the full understanding of our present predicament of experiencing UFO and abduction experiences.  It is so important to know the different dynamics, that I took the time to give some background in our co-authored book, THE CURS~ED NET, in which Richard Stout helped me bring forth the many areas that needed to be underscored regarding our present reality.  After giving some pertinent information about these so-called "Nephilim," I will expand the subject by giving some other information surrounding the sensitivity of these beings as mentioned in Genesis 6:4.  The EHIOPIAN BOOK OF ENOCH plus a cited mention of THE SLAVONIC BOOK OF ENOCH which may hopefully round out this subject.

     On page 28 of THE CURS~ED NET, there are two concepts that must be understood before proceeding: I.E., the difference of nephilim & nophelim.  Allow me to elucidate.  Nephilim is a word in the passive voice and has to do with being thrown down, as was the initial Fallen Angels, guilty perhaps of the sin of pride for not fulfilling the wishes of THE MOST HIGH in ministering to man.  Nophelim is in the active voice and has the connotation of voluntarily coming down (as was noted that the "GRIGORI" did, which was cited in the SLAVANIC BOOK OF ENOCH, (18:3.) The latter would be the FALLEN WATCHERS who - while watching over mankind, became enamored with the daughters of men, (and not just of Cain) and hence the perpetrators of Genesis 6:4.  The sin of the first group of those thrown down was recorded in the ETHIOPIAN BOOK OF ENOCH, chapter 67 (Richard Laurence translation,)and had to do with the sin of presumption for acting like "lords" (28.)

    When the fruit of the Nophelim died, (the hybrid Giants as alluded to in Genesis 6:4,) they, being earth born, remained earthbound as evil spirits (according to ETHIOPIAN ENOCH, chapter 15, and as Richard Stout and I emphasized in THE CURS~ED NET, these were the same wicked spirits that Jesus cast out in the New Testament, and who today - we believe - are the so-called 'familiar spirits' that have the literal ear of psychics and mediums, pretending to act like dead people, when they are - in reality - wicked spirits under the auspices of Satan who know many things (32.) 

     So what have others postured about THE ETHIOPIAN BOOK OF ENOCH, not being considered canonical...and therefore - perhaps not being trustworthy?  Well this is not the case for a number of reasons.  There are no simple answers nor soundbites that can sum up the importance of ENOCH.  There seems to be a lot of confusion as to why it is both holy and important; for instance,  R.H. Charles (scriptural scholar who also translated the ETHIOPIAN BOOK OF ENOCH, actually said that it had the WEIGHT of scripture!  The early Church Fathers (up to the third century,) had no problem with ENOCH's authenticity, people like Justin Martyr, Tatian, and even the heresiologist, Iranaeus, who had a devil of a time confronting Arianism and Gnosticism!  In fact, I have up on my website, WWW.BYRONLEBEAU.COM a web page called, "BIBLICAL PARALLELS TO THE BOOK OF ENOCH," that lists at least seven evangelists from the Bible, including Peter, James, Matthew, Paul, Luke, John & Daniel, who quoted Enoch (the 7th from Adam,) either directly or indirectly; check it out!

     WHAT ELSE DO WE SEE?  St. Jude,(v.14-15) in his New Testament letter, actually quoted the whole of chapter two of Laurence's translation of ENOCH, which infers - to me at least - that the ETHIOPIAN BOOK OF ENOCH can be relied on for its historical truth, similar to why the BOOK OF JASHER could also be relied on for its historical detail, as per THE BOOK OF JOSHUA as well as 2 SAMUEL, both of which referred their readers to this book of details of what they were stating!

     SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?  It seemed to have started with Julius Africanius, who somehow tried to convince people that the sons of God were rather the sons of Seth, thereby eliminating the sticky problems of spirit-angels having sex with the daughters of men.  BUT THIS ITSELF created its own problem, since people like J. Timothy Unrah and many others contended that this approach does violence to the words of scripture, since the phrase "sons of God" were always used to mean direct creations by God (as B'nai HaElohim.)  Unrah gives many examples to support this point of view, especially from JOB, chapters one, two & thirty eight.    This later view by Unrah has been punctuated by Chuck Missler in his book, ALIEN ENCOUNTERS, in the appendix, 'THE SETHITE VIEW,' where he makes it abundantly clear just how inferior the Sethite view is, a view which has no basis in the wording of the original Hebrew scripture.

    This did not stop the Roman Catholic Church, via St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas from trumpeting this false and inaccurate point of view, and sadly, right up to the present day!  This makes the whole dynamic of Genesis 6:4 a modern day tragedy when it comes to understanding our spiritual enemy, the spiritual wickedness from on high, as St. Paul described it, and as Richard Stout and I have clearly shown that this same phenomenon infests our very culture to this very day! 

ODDS & ENDS

    I had noted in my research that even the Catholic scholar, J.T. Milik, as finding that the BOOK OF ENOCH as being older than the Bible, (and perhaps the reason that the inspired author of Genesis felt that the details were so well known, that he could cryptically just allude to it as the Genesis author does.)

     What may be the underlining reason for the hostility and confusion is the fact that there were two Enochs in the Bible, one of the line of Seth (whose authorship was attributed to THE ETHIOPIAN BOOK OF ENOCH, but there was also an Enoch of the line of Cain, who may have muddied the waters of ENOCHIAN literature.  I can't prove this, but ENOCH III, may very well have been the work responsible for the anti-Biblical themes, inspiring John Chitty to write a heretical book called "THE BROKEN BIBLE."  (In said book, he calls God nothing more than an "advanced technological being," which to my mind indicates a type of evolutionary God...and certainly not the God Most High who had no beginning nor end!!!)