Noah’s Family Line Didn’t Have Sex with Fallen Angels?

This picture proves everything!
This picture proves everything!

(Gen 6:2) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

According to Murray, the antediluvian world was swarming with hybrid monstrosities sired by a demonic host. The madness was so widespread that only Noah’s family had pristine DNA, uncontaminated by Satan’s fallen angels. Though this fantastical idea isn’t found in the bible, Murray will cite the book of Enoch as proof of the debauchery.

It was because of these hybrids and not because of the wickedness of man that God sent the flood, albeit it was a local flood according to Murray. Or a universal one if you must (the Kenites and other races fit the definition of other flesh, right?) – Murray taught both simultaneously as every text in the bible has three levels of meaning.

Sound confusing? Put it on the shelf then for later.

Back to the story, I mean the bible. You see, Jesus needed a flawless gene pool in order to effect redemption…

Satan and his host knew the gig was up. They devised their own plan to counter God – he would have to convince the angels to rebel and begin to use their procreative parts to corrupt the gene pool of man. They almost succeeded in their devices until one man came along…

(Gen 6:9) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

According to Murray’s theologian of choice, E.W. Bullinger, the word “perfect” explains everything. It has nothing to do with Noah’s moral constitution. No, it means physically perfect… Noah’s mug be buff – and his DNA had absolutely no trace of devil blood.

Forget the fact that Noah was “just” and walked with God, this dude is only into women with an uncontaminated gene pool… that’s why Noah found grace.

God didn’t destroy the world because the wickedness of man was great… no, He destroyed them (collateral damage) because He gave those pesky fallen angels procreative parts and they began to make diligent use of it, and it repented Him because of that.

So God hatched a brilliant strategy, he would send a local flood (or a universal one to cover all possibilities) to wipe out these hybrid monstrosities and humanity will live happily ever after until the next influx of fallen angels decides to procreate.

According to Murray, the last days will feature fallen angels having sex on an unprecedented scale…

(Mat 24:37) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Mat 24:38) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark…

Okay, okay… it says here they simply were eating and drinking – that’s really a euphemism for something else more sinister if you catch my drift…

And who knows, if you don’t agree with the Chapel, you may either be a Kenite or the result of one these illicit unions…

But are fallen angels really able to do this? Did God by some strange act of providence give these evil beings procreative parts? The answer is an EMPHATIC NO!!!

(1Co 15:40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Celestial beings DO NOT HAVE the procreative function! How is that so difficult to understand?

(Luk 20:34) And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
(Luk 20:35) But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
(Luk 20:36) Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Whatever Genesis 6 is talking about I can assure you of this: it has NOTHING to do with fallen angels having sex and siring monstrosities.


Author: Timothy Campbell

Independent researcher exposing Joel's Army / Latter-Rain Movement, Christian evangelist and helping to expose the plot of the ages - the church will be here during the great tribulation (or Golden Age of Gaia) and will have resist the beast and his mark...

30 thoughts on “Noah’s Family Line Didn’t Have Sex with Fallen Angels?”





      1. No, actually that was my sarcastic embellishment – he didn’t quite say it that way, but yes, he turns the whole thing into a sexual issue when he talk about Noah being “perfect” in his generations.


    2. What do the Catholics teach?? Arnold Murray is a decent man, and has been for many years. Not looking for money like most. So you know the real deal correct? Man, I need to hear your beliefs.You must know everything. Catholics are the false doctrine. Pope’s? Praying to saint’s? Gold and precious stones, “material” things at the Vatican. Taking sides with known child molesters. Praying to Mary? Whats that all about? Calling Priest Father. When Jesus clearly states ” Call no one father, but THE father.







  2. There is no way you were a member of the Shepard’s Chapel. He may not have known everything and he may not have been perfect but he could give you a biblical lesson any day.

    Genesis 6 King James Version (KJV)

    1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    The son’s of God according to old testament scriptures are angels, in the old testament the term son’s of god is only used twice in the Scripture above and in Job 1:6


    Strong: H8549

    Orig: from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:–without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

    Noah was “perfect” in his generations. Noah was undefiled, without blemish, without spot, full complete in his generations.The root word of generations is “gene”.

    Back to the son’s of God, what does the scripture say, it says that when the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. and again it states and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.

    What does they bare children to them men? if there is no “sexual” connotation here then what does bare children unto them mean, also what does they took wives mean?

    My last question is who are the son’s of God if they are not angels, prove it with scriptures?


    1. I detail my experience with the Chapel on this blog – it began in early 1994.

      The sexual connotation is in reference to word, “perfect”. Noah was morally perfect. You read genetic perfection into the passage because of your mistaken premise that angels can have sex with women.

      “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.” – 1st Corinthians 15:40

      Newsflash, celestial bodies were not made with procreative capacity…

      “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” – Matthew 22:30

      There’s your proof.


  3. Most people who believe that men are saved by faith alone simply disregard the Scriptures that express water baptism as being essential to forgiveness of sins… What is the washing of regeneration?

    Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done , but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,(NKJV)

    God saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. What is is washing of regeneration?

    Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

    He saved us through the water of rebirth, not because we were born of water the first time. No one can be reborn of amniotic fluid, that would be the first birth… [post truncated, spam]


    1. Hi Steve. Why did you come to this blog to post an entry about baptismal regeneration? I was brought up in a very conservative Church of Christ and I am an aggressive opponent of their doctrine of regeneration which is Catholic and heretical. Let’s discuss the context of the article or I will delete any further posts.


    2. I know your a Catholic..Water baptism? I think faith is a little stronger. Of course getting baptized a good thing. But it is just symbolic . It’s in your life’s works and sin’s that you have ask forgiveness from. Catholics say the same thing’s. Rosary beads? Chanting in Church. A prayer is from the heart, not a chant. Eating unleavened bread and drinking grape juice. What is a pope anyway? I know the Catholic church is what a lot of Christians ran from, hundreds of years ago. So Murray or Catholic HMMMM Murray. I don’t know what you don’t understand about the fallen one’s? It’s right their in scripture. You take everything like it was 2015 back then, as many people do. When Jesus said to the crowd There is so much I could tell you but you wouldn’t understand. What do you think he meant? It meant 2000 years ago, people were uneducated by the most part. Thats why everything is in parables. It’s the same way in the Old Testament. Is it supposed to document how humans have DNA and Blah Blah. Of course not.You can’t read the bible like a story book. You have to understand what is being said. Or what is meant by it. If Murray has things you disagree with. Then why are you writing about him? He who cast the first stone.


      1. Not Catholic, where did I mention anything about water baptism – I went back and read the post, nothing there about water baptism… in fact, I believe water baptism is a sacrament, not necessary for salvation – salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone.


  4. The phrase “sons of God” in the book of Job is clearly in reference to angelic beings. The problem is using the book of Job to interpret Genesis. You can’t interpret the bible as if it were an algebra problem.

    It is highly likely that the writer of Genesis had no knowledge of the book of Job.

    The books are stand alone and while you can use other portions of scripture to inform your interpretation you must deal with each book on a one to one basis.

    Does ben elohim always refer to angelic beings in the OT? What does the rest of scripture have to say about angels having the capacity to procreate? The book of Job uses “sons of God” to refer to angelic beings – that in and of itself does not prove the true meaning of the phrase in Genesis 6.


    1. Regarding Job – it was an oral tradition many years before being written down, Moses may have known about the story of Job but no book of Job was circulating at the time when Moses wrote Genesis… The usage of “sons of God” in Job doesn’t demonstrate how we are to interpret Genesis 6.

      Some assert that either Moses wrote Job or that the book itself somehow informed Moses usage of the phrase “sons of God”. If either were so, it would strengthen the case for the interpretation but still not prove it.

      The usage of “sons of God” in Job most likely inspired the originators of Enochic Judaism to interpret the sons of God in Genesis 6 as fallen angels.

      Moses wrote the book of Genesis to God’s covenant people at the time when they were entering the promised land. The “sons of God” refer to God’s covenant people before the time of the flood.

      I learned this notion that you promote concerning the “sons of God” from Murray and Bullinger. It is a popular one. I myself believed it was true without the slightest reservation and taught it on MANY occasion – I later repented for that. Even after rejecting much of their false teachings I clung to this particular one until about 2007. At that time the Lord led me to seriously question the sons of God = fallen angels, hybrids, et al.

      The document (it has been updated) that led me to completely reject it is here:

      The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men

      The writer demonstrates what Enochic Judaism is, all my readers would do well to review. I have been meaning to put some information together about the madness of the book of Enoch. Your interpretation of Genesis 6 derives from Enochic Judaism.

      You still haven’t addressed the issue of how angels have procreative capacity and why the providence of God would allow for such. I have presented two NT texts that refute that notion.


      1. I didn’t say the story of Job wasn’t around at Moses time – I said the book of Job wasn’t, it was written later. Point being, Moses didn’t learn about who the sons of God were by reading the book of Job. Genesis and Job are independent of one another.

        I quote something that someone else has brought up to clarify positions on the interpretation of the text concerning Genesis 6.

        In Oxford in 1883, the revised translation of the Ethiopian book of Enoch was published. It became mainstream in theological circles in England at that time. The Slavonian Enoch or Enoch II was published in 1896.

        In those ancient writings (Enoch I & 2) we are told in detail about the activity of the fallen angels and their debauchery… though there are many other texts in the same tradition these are seminal pieces of Enochic Judaism whose English translations were published during Bullinger’s day.

        (Curious to note: Enoch I goes into great depth and detail about the constellations and information pertaining to them. Soon after the 1883 publication of Enoch I, Bullinger himself produced a work on the constellations called Gospel in the Stars.)

        You share the same position – that fallen angels sexually violated the human race, siring violent monstrosities and that this was the reason for the flood. That is more or less Enochic Judaism.

        Whether you studied the book Enoch and related texts directly or not is immaterial – you came to the same main conclusions about the meaning of Genesis 6.

        I do not consider this view to be biblical in the slightest sense. In fact there is a lot I will refrain from saying at this time about it’s harmfulness and all the bizarre conclusions it leads one to. The internet conspiracy theories about UFO’s, Nephilim, star children and every other manner of psychotic flaura and fauna that surround the view is proof enough for me of it’s origin.

        Which is precisely why I intend on hammering it over and over again.

        I gave my testimony of when I believed in it, how the Lord Jesus Christ delivered me from it and my subsequent repentance. I don’t know if you read that – you simply skipped ahead to where I referenced a document or quotation.

        In all of this we are explicitly discussing the meaning of the scripture in Genesis 6. In this article we are talking about the adulteration of the Hebrew word, “perfect” to mean something to do with Noah’s genetic purity. This adulteration flows logically from the hybrid presupposition which could rightly be called the serpent seed as well as it deals with the same main issue:

        The ability of fallen angels to have sex and the reason why God would have providentially allowed for this.

        Bullinger an Anglican clergyman at the time was no doubt influenced by the publication of the translation mentioned previously. Bullinger goes into extensive detail about this subject in his Companion Bible and other works and Murray follows in his train.

        You believe that fallen angels had sexual relations with women, monstrosities were sired and this was the reason for the flood. I take direct issue with this interpretation.


      2. “I blessed the Lord of glory, who had made those great and splendid signs (i.e. the constellations), that they might display the magnificence of his works to angels and to the souls of men; and that these might glorify all his works and operations; might see the effect of his power; might glorify the great labor of his hands; and bless him forever.” — Enoch 35:3

        This is the exact premise of Bullinger in the Gospel of the Stars: that the Zodiac is a corrupted form of wisdom that was possessed by the pre-flood patriarchs.

        The reality is that the Zodiac, or wheel of animals, is a pagan fabrication and imposition of lies upon random stellar patterns. Man projecting his false religion into the cosmos. You can’t reverse engineer it – it came from hell.


      3. Now we get to the good part, the defense and elucidation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You seem to be asserting that you have adopted Bullinger’s position concerning the Gospel in the Stars.

        Bullinger’s exact position: the antediluvian patriarchs encoded a primitive gospel and prophetic system within the constellations. This knowledge was lost and corrupted into the pagan zodiac system. The task of Bullinger and others such as himself is to recover this “lost gospel”.

        This is THE EXACT REASON I initially rejected Bullinger in April 2005! And I will detail why it is precisely another gospel.

        The truth is that the pagan zodiac system was created at the tower of Babel and there is not one trace of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in it!

        After that initial understanding the Lord illuminated a series of false teaching by Bullinger that I rejected in short order. I have been researching and exposing these things ever since, and will continue to do so because I see so many ensnared in these “religious” things that bring no honor to God.

        I will cover your response in detail as time permits – since this issue has now become a focal point I will bring the gospel in the stars article to the top in the next few days. The old testament is REPLETE with instances of the Hebrews worshipping the pagan zodiac which revolves around sun worship. They were judged harshly for this. All the curses of Deuteronomy came upon them for this very thing.

        Scripture uses certain constellation names such Arcturus, Orion and Plaides on numerous occasions – but where did such terminology originate? Did God create that terminology or was it already in use? Was he endorsing the names of these constellations by using them?

        The Hebrews were fascinated with the system of pagan sun/star worship – God had to remind them that he’s the one that made those. He by no means named the random star patterns – man did that.

        The heavens and the beautifully arranged stars in repeating patterns are one thing, the system of sun worship with all it’s pagan constellation signs is another. One declares the glory of God, the other is damned to hell. Those lights in the firmament were simply that. Stars. They were for signs in the sense that they denoted the season and times of the year.

        A constellation is a random grouping of stars forming a recognizable visual pattern. The pre-flood patriarchs may have recognized certain constellations for the purpose of demarcating seasons. I admit that possibility. But to assert that a gospel is encoded in the zodiac is ludicrous and patently false. This is what Bullinger and others did.

        These stars in the constellations can be untold light years apart. They are not a part of a system in any sense. Man created these random groupings of star patterns with names and a corresponding religion. That happened at the tower of Babel. God simply put the stars up there and one of their functions was as a “sign” to demarcate seasons.

        Bullinger and others come along and tell us the Zodiac is corrupted form of a pure religion found in the constellation signs that must be recovered. I take issue with that directly.


      4. Not happening.
        My time is more indispensable then allowing you to muzzle my explanations.

        I am Christian and support a posture accordingly. You say I am condescending but don’t acknowledge your own condescending words to me and others. Simply unbelievable. Yes, I labeled such endeavors correctly before.

        Furthermore you declare that Arnold Murray leads people astray but he never forced anyone to accept his teachings. Ultimately, no one has to listen. Make all the asinine assumptions you wish but he never stopped others from speaking. Case in point, look at this site!

        In contrast, you NOW decide what IS acceptable to utter without reproach or oversight. You vehemently control the conversation because you assume you have the right to do so. God granted free will not you. Yet, you take the liberty of singly deciding what I am allowed to say. It is not incomprehensible when I consider your position regarding God’s sacred Word and your acceptance of alterations and deletions by MEN to appease their own interpretations. Coward! you could not admit that on this very website within our discussion but had to email me PRIVATELY! That is the truth!!! What will you do, LIE AND DENY IT! Will you DELETE this part because it’s the truth???

        Might you ever consider a biblical answer!
        Pray tell me, did not the Jewish scholar argue scripture within the temple openly without restraint? Of course they did, even unto the point of a physical altercation. However, YOU will not allow me to speak when I am but a writer. Truly, the epitome of hypocrisy. But then again, I don’t imagine you would ever have the humble spirit to acknowledge the wrong.

        Publish this response or, as I assume you will do, add, delete, change or alter my words to fit your opinion and assumption. Be assured that I stand against you this day for such actions. May God judge between us when we appear before Him. I look forward to that day Aaron.


      5. That’s fine but you won’t come on here and spew ad hominem’s and expect me to publish it. I let you elaborate fully on doctrines that I consider to be false, unhindered for the sake of discussion about the text.

        There is actually a cut-off point E., where I will no longer tolerate disrespect and the re-iteration of the same false teaching. As the owner of this blog I have the right to delete posts, edit posts, et al. I’m sorry you don’t like that. You think I’m muzzling you? Far from it.

        I actually published a large portion of your comment. If you had addressed the issues I brought up I would have kept it, insults and all. I told you why I deleted it and that’s that.

        I have gone the extra mile not to be condescending towards you and all the commenters on this board.

        Do you want to provide some examples of where I was condescending towards yourself or anyone else? If I truly did so then I apologize. I may have said some sarcastic things but some of those remarks are very appropriate. Some of the things would be better of not said but the best I can do is try harder in the future to present the material in a more godly way.

        I call out Murray on his false teachings… is that condescending? Did I use any ad hominem remarks? No. I dealt expressly with the issues. Do I try to introduce humor and levity into the discussion, sure. Do my words get misinterpreted? Sure. But I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

        I will leave your comment intact just to prove a point – go to anyone’s blog and call them a liar, hypocrite and a coward and see how much traction you get. In your previous comment you asked if I had taken my meds and made several other disparaging remarks. I should have deleted the whole thing which I was about to do but decided to edit it down as I saw fit.

        Are you going to make the effort to be more respectful or are we going to have to discontinue the discussion? Either way, to God be the glory. My answers have been biblical but you chose to ignore them because you already have your set interpretation and that’s what this is all about. Good day.


      6. You said,

        “Publish this response or, as I assume you will do, add, delete, change or alter my words to fit your opinion and assumption. Be assured that I stand against you this day for such actions. May God judge between us when we appear before Him. I look forward to that day Aaron.

        Seriously, E, do you realize how you come across when you say things like this? I didn’t change anything to fit my assumption, I deleted it. I would never use rhetoric like this towards you or anyone else.

        Understand this please – you are not entitled to come to this forum and post just anything you want. Did I not make that clear earlier? Posts will be deleted, edited and amended as I see fit and that includes yours.

        You don’t realize the godly hatred I have for false teaching. You don’t realize the zeal I have to expose this doctrine you adhere to concerning angels having sex with humans, God has called me to it – does that mean I hate you? No. But like I said, there is a point where I draw the line – the combination of the insults with the reiteration of the same information without addressing the main issues I brought up is main reason I deleted it.

        You want to meet me before God on Judgment Day over this? Really E? Are you serious? We will individually stand before God and give an account for our own life. In what way have I harmed you personally? You need to keep things in perspective. What cosmic injustice have I committed against you?


      7. You say,

        “It is not incomprehensible when I consider your position regarding God’s sacred Word and your acceptance of alterations and deletions by MEN to appease their own interpretations. Coward! you could not admit that on this very website within our discussion but had to email me PRIVATELY! That is the truth!!! What will you do, LIE AND DENY IT! Will you DELETE this part because it’s the truth???”

        You certainly have produced a villainous straw man for yourself – I hope you enjoy your tirade.

        You are talking about the word Easter in Acts again, right? Or something else? I admitted right here on this website my position on that. I believe they were justified in their translation of the word paschal – and I gave my explanation.

        What is it I said in a private email that I will not admit on this site? I will admit it 10,000 times over. I can’t even remember what it was but I’m certain you are wrenching it out of context. Produce that email – let’s have a look at it in it’s proper light, we will go over it right now…


      8. I see no problems. A liar is someone who habitually and malignantly distorts the truth of which I am not. I don’t consider the KJV translators to be liars either – I’m sure a background check into their character will reveal that they were Christians of the utmost integrity.

        I will let you freely comment E. without moderation – just make an extra effort to stay within the bounds of conversation, no ad hominems, no insults. I said I would take extra precaution to be respectful and I expect the same.

        If you want a further elaboration on my position concerning the usage of Easter and why it’s biblical a flurry of recent comments between myself, Rai (Hebrew roots advocate) and Ed Chapman (same position as myself) on that article should make it even clearer than before.


      9. I believed my interpretation of the “sons” of God falls in line with what you’ve brought up – the sons of God were a tribe, they were primarily the sons of Enos (most, not all) but more specifically they were an antediluvian covenant people who began to intermarry with non-believers. This is a famous motif in Moses writings.

        After Enos we find that men began to do this…

        “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” – Genesis 4:26

        These men who called upon the name of the Lord were the “Sons of God”. They subsequently began to fall into apostasy and the flood resulted.

        Even in the New Testament believers are warned NOT to marry unbelievers –

        Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” – 2nd Corinthians 6:14

        This would apply in many ways but specifically in marriage. Perhaps Jesus warning in Matthew 24:37-38 is referring to this very type of apostasy…

        “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,”

        It would seem so to me. The apostasy that precedes Christ return will feature this same sort of sin that happened in Noah’s day and it has nothing to do with angels and women having sex and siring devil babies…

        Do you see how absurd that is? To assert that it to completely miss the essence of Jesus warning.

        I don’t think Jesus is referring to angels and women intermarrying here because if He wanted to clarify the issue he could have right here in one or two words. No, we are talking about marriage in the simple sense and somehow the apostasy was the result of it.

        Enoch was a “Son of God”. Noah and his sons, were the “sons of God”. Luke calls Adam a “son of God”. But especially Noah as we find that he was the main person who did not fall into the prevailing apostasy at the time. That is why he was “perfect”. Has nothing to do with genetics.

        And bare in mind the Torah was for those Israelites and was given to them AS they were entering into the promised land where they would have to abstain from intermarriage or cease to exist.

        Genesis 6 was an object lesson from Moses to the Israelites to abstain from intermarriage with the godless pagan nations whom they were about to be in contact with.


      10. Murray’s interpretation of Genesis 4:26 is insightful – he asserts that at this time men began to blaspheme God and take God’s name in vain. But what does this phrase really mean, “calling on the name of the Lord…”?

        A correct understanding of this passage will reveal who the “Sons of God” were.

        Murray’s premise on Genesis 4:26 derives from Bullinger who as we know teaches the Genesis 6 hybrid doctrine. Here’s what Bullinger has to say in Appendix 21…



        “Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah.” If this refers to Divine worship it is not true: for Abel and Cain both began, and their descendants doubtless followed their example.

        What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah. They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah. The Authorized Version suggests “themselves”, in the margin. But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words “their gods”; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.

        The Targum of Onkelos explains it: “then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord.”

        The Targum of Jonathan says: “That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord.”

        Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this. Rashi says: “Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord.”

        Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days.

        Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probable account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos.

        The name Enos agrees with this; for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable. The sons of men, as “Enosh”, are so called for a similar reason (Job 7:17; 15:14. Psalm 9:20; 103:15. Daniel 2:43). See Appendix 14.

        If Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, became the first idolatrous priest in Israel (see notes on Judges 18:30), what wonder that Enos, the grandson of Adam, introduced idolatry among mankind.

        Moreover, what “ungodliness” did Enoch, “the seventh from Adam” have to prophesy about in Jude 14, 15, if purity of worship was begun in the days of Enos, instead of profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord?

        Surely this is sufficient evidence that this profanation of the Name of the Lord was the reason why Enoch was raised up to prophesy against it.


        It would seem to me that idolatry began at the fall – it is speculation to pin the blame for the origin of idolatry on Enos. Enos came from a line of godly pre-flood patriarchs. It would be much more appropriate to assign the origin of idolatry to Cain and his descendants.

        I acknowledge how some commentators have viewed this passage but if we are to resort to that then my first question would be, how have other commentators understood this passage?

        The Septuagint translators didn’t view this passage that way.

        This view of Genesis 4:26 would be the natural interpretation for those who accept the hybrid theory of Genesis 6 as the one I suggested would end all dispute about who the “sons of God” were.

        The transliteration of Enos name lends nothing to the argument. There are much better transliterations than what Bullinger gives us.

        Bullinger citing a passage from the pseudipigraphal book of Enoch (Jude is citing Enoch) does nothing to strengthen his argument either, it rather reveals the origin of his bias in this regard.

        There are several good interpretations of what “calling upon the name of the Lord” could refer to but my position is that this is what distinguished the “Sons of God”…

        From the LXX:

        “And to Seth, to him also was born a son, and he called his name, Enos. This one hoped, therefore he called to himself the name of the Lord God.”

        The KJV agrees with this translation.

        Enos far from being the first idolater, hoped in the promise of God, the seed to come.

        Lastly, consider this passage:

        Deut 28:9-10 NKJV
        9 “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.
        10 Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you.”

        Moses using the same idea of a covenant people as in Genesis… the covenant people in those days were destroyed.


      11. You say,

        Furthermore you declare that Arnold Murray leads people astray but he never forced anyone to accept his teachings. Ultimately, no one has to listen. Make all the asinine assumptions you wish but he never stopped others from speaking. Case in point, look at this site!”

        When has any false teacher required that someone accept their teachings? That’s usually not how it works. The false teacher contrives a carnal doctrine and the smooth words makes the medicine go down. But you are right, no one has to listen – but he believes what he is teaching to be true and he insinuates that you’re a fool if you don’t accept what he’s saying… in short, he will be held accountable regardless if no one has to listen. Fact is, many have been misled, otherwise this blog wouldn’t be getting the traffic it’s getting.

        You hope my assumptions are asnine. But I can assure that the Lord Jesus Christ delivered me from this false system of religion and there was a lot of garbage that got took out a long time ago.

        The reality is that the Lord delivered me from so much false doctrine in relation to all of this that I have not had the time to develop the articles to the depth of your liking because there are so many points to cover… but I will. For now I am simply introducing the main ideas, the specificity will follow.


      12. I did not publish your content in regards to the sons of God. It didn’t address the main issues I brought up, added no new information and was too condescending. I left your response regarding the constellations and shortly re-edit a previous article on that and bring it to the top. Try again if you want.


      13. I know you say you take issue with some of Murray’s teaching but from what we’ve covered I would consider you fully steeped in his system. What are some examples of disagreements you have? Are they simply minor issues?


    2. “At the center of Enochic Judaism was neither the temple nor the torah but a unique concept of the origin of evil that made ‘fallen angels’ (the ‘sons of God’ also recorded in Gen 6:1-4) ultimately responsible for the spread of evil and impurity on earth. ‘The [Enochic] myths assert, deterministically on the one hand, that human beings are less the perpetrators than the victims of sin, which had its origins in the divine realm. On the other hand, they maintain that sin and evil originated not with God’s permission, but as a result of a rebellious conspiracy that was hatched behind God’s back.’

      Taking up traditions that predate the postexilic origins of the movement, Enochic Judaism gave them a different interpretation than that provided within the Zadokite tradition. The cosmic rebellion of the fallen angels was not simply, as in the Mosaic torah, one of the primeval sins that characterized the ancient history of humankind. By crossing the boundaries between heaven and earth, the evil angels led by Semyaz and Azazel broke apart the divisions set by God at the time of creation. According to the Book of the Watchers, it was the mother of all sins, the original sin which corrupted and contaminated God’s creation from which evil relentlessly continues to spring forth and spread.

      As God said to the angel Raphael: ‘The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin!’ (1 En 6:8). In the cosmic battle the rebellious angels were defeated by the good angels and imprisoned in chains ‘in a hole in the desert which is Dudael until the day of the great judgment’ (6:4-6). The giants, the monstrous offspring of the unnatural union between angels and women, were killed (10:9-10), but their immortal souls survived as the evil spirits and continue to roam about the earth (15:8-10). As disturbing as this idea can be, God’s reaction limited but did not eradicate evil, until God will put an end to this evil world and will create a new world qualitatively different from, and discontinuous with, what was before."Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, p. 6


  5. Deuteronomy 3:11King James Version (KJV)

    11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

    So how did these giants come about? Were they descendants of Adam? Also does marriage and procreation have to go hand in hand? Procreation is often a result of marriage but procreation does not require marriage. I am no scholar but these questions came to mind as I was reading this.

    Also Mr. Campbell although you seem well meaning your arguments seem to convey a immature attitude at times. I’m happy you have your blog and hope you are having fun doing it (sometimes I wonder) but sometimes people are too worried about proving a point and do nothing to further the kingdom of God but just cause discord. I am what those people call a “born again Christian” and while there are many truths in the Bible, the Gospel is the truth that is the most important. There are different interpretations of doctrine such as pre-trib vs post-trib, but what I believe concerning those do not determine my salvation. There are a lot of so called Christian preachers on TV and radio just looking to make a buck. Robert Tilton comes to mind. These people I can spot a mile away. I don’t include Arnold Murry among them. While his study may not have always resulted in the correct conclusion, I believe he was a sincere brother in Christ. Look, if he were infallible, he would have been the Pope. I don’t know your life but let me tell you that I have had a world of hurt that might have shaken another persons faith but these things have only increased it. It has also caused me to realize that most people in this world think way to highly of themselves. Christ was a servant. We all need to be humble servants of Christ to others. There is nothing wrong with the word “I” as long as it is not self serving. I must go as I am starting to ramble and must take my medication. Just kidding.


    1. These giants were human beings of exceptional stature, not demonic hybrids. You only see them as demonic hybrids if you assume that is the context of Genesis 6 which it is not. Also, genesis 6 says the sons of God took wives. The point being, Angels do not procreate, neither are they created with that capacity. Like Paul said, there are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial.

      Yes, I do have fun with the blog when I’m working with it – I haven’t for a while. False religion has an asinine, idiotic aspect to it so if I have to come down to the level of my content then so be it if it helps stir people up.

      If I’m present and argument that causes you to break free from the Chapel teaching you won’t call it sowing discord, you will thank the Lord Jesus Christ for delivering you from evil, demonic religion.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s