That's interesting. I wasn't tuned into this the last time I read Daniel, and I hadn't noticed. For "watcher" I see עִ֣יר in the Hebriew and "ιρ (Aramaic)" in the LXX. Most of my English translations read "watcher" apart from some of the usual ones that seem to like to change and confuse ("clarify").
One of my commentaries, Wendy L. Widder's ZECOT-Daniel, suggests that "The cosmic tree was a widespread motif in the ancient Near East. Given this and the relative clarity of the angel’s command with respect to the tree in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, it stretches the imagination to think that Nebuchadnezzar did not understand the general meaning of his dream." Elsewhere, there is also a suggestion that the wise men perhaps WOULD not interpret the dream, rather than "could not".
Daniel was alarmed at what he saw, but the king instructed him to proceed anyway, and Daniel did so and lived to tell about it.
A second commentary of mine, Mitchell L. Chase's Daniel commentary within the ESV Expository Commentary VII, suggests that Jesus, in Matt. 13:31–32, might have had this passage in Daniel in mind. Unsurprisingly, neither commentary examined the original language underlying "watcher".
The LEH Septuagint Lexicon didn't say much, but it is a Greek lexicon, not Aramaic:
ιρ N 0–0–0–3–0–3
Dn 4,13(10).17(14).23(20)
= עיר (Aram.) watcher, angel
It did, however, repeat the Aramaic key, עיר.
Using that, the HALOT yielded:
עִיר: עיר corresponding to Theodotion (ε)ιρ; Heb. עֵר; MHeb. עִיר (Jastrow 1075a, watcher, angel); JArm., DSS (Dalman Wb. 311b; Beyer Arm. Texte 655) awake, > angel; CPArm. (Schulthess Lex. 145a), watchful, clever; Syr. ʿı̄rā (Brockelmann Lexicon 523a); and Mnd. aiar awake, watchful (Drower-Macuch Dictionary 14b s.v. aiar3); NeoSyr. ʿirā clever, intelligent (Maclean 239a); Syr.: 1. wakening; 2. angel (Brockelmann Lexicon 523a); Bauer-Leander BArm. 180j!: pl. עִירִין: awake > watcher meaning angel Da 410.14.20; Sept. ἄγγελος, Theodotion ειρ (Theodotion ιρ), Aquila, Symmachus ἐγρήγορος, in the title of Codex Chisiani ἄγρυπνος, Vulgate vigil (Montgomery Daniel 231ff; Bentzen Daniel 43); Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000), 100 refers to Murray, Orientalia 53 (1984), 303–317. †
And BDB:
5894 † עִיר n. m. waking, or wakeful, one, i.e. angel (√ עיר, cf. Syr. ܥܳܪ wake, ܥܺܝܪ waking (PS), JAram. עִיר, NH עֵיר adj. awake);—abs. ע׳ Dn 4:10, 4:20; pl. abs. עִירִין v:14; Aq Symm. ἐγρήγορος; cf. Charles Dr; doubtful is the connex. with Ph. Zophesemim (Euseb.), i.e. צפי שמים watchers of heaven, as keeping watch over or spying out (Zim Jerem).
Not that that tells me much, but it's a good sign that "watcher" hasn't been erased from scholarly tools, and extra points for BDB -- the "Charles" reference has an attached comment mentioning Enoch(!), although it didn't copy over to here, it's late at night, and I want to go cook dinner.
Trying to open a discussion on this topic with modern theologians is like trying to talk to a mannequin. You're immediately categorized as a religious fear-mongering nut job.
Rocka, the force of this piece comes from a real frustration many Christians share: the sense that inherited assumptions go unexamined, that modern evangelical systems often rely on recent innovations while claiming ancient authority, and that African Christian traditions have been ignored or patronized by the West. Those concerns deserve to be heard. But the argument you build on top of them does not hold, and it collapses because it repeatedly conflates respect with inspiration, quotation with canonization, and historical development with manipulation.
The central claim — that “Enoch was good enough for Jude” and therefore must be Scripture — rests on a category mistake. Jude does not canonize a book by quoting a line preserved in an Enochic tradition. The New Testament regularly affirms true statements, prophecies, or insights without granting canonical status to the source as a whole. Paul quotes pagan poets; the evangelists report Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy; Acts preserves speeches without turning them into Scripture. Jude, under inspiration, guarantees the truth of what he writes — not the inspiration of every text he alludes to. Prophetic truth and canonical Scripture are not identical categories, and Scripture itself demonstrates that distinction.
The appeal to the early Fathers is similarly overstated. Some Fathers spoke positively of Enoch, some cautiously, some skeptically. Tertullian’s defense of Enoch is well known — and so is the fact that he explicitly admits most Christians rejected it. Clement and Origen reference it as illustrative or traditional, not as universally received Scripture. This is precisely why the Church clarified the canon over time: not because empire demanded control, but because pastoral and liturgical life required clarity about which texts uniquely bore apostolic authority. Development here is not evidence of corruption; it is evidence of discernment in response to disagreement that already existed.
Your framing of Rome as “curating” while Ethiopia “preserved” also oversimplifies history to the point of distortion. Ethiopia’s broader canon reflects a local reception history shaped by language, geography, and isolation, not a pristine snapshot of the apostolic library frozen in time. Other ancient churches — Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic — did not receive or retain Enoch as Scripture, and they did so long before imperial enforcement was even conceivable. If Rome were simply imposing an imperial canon, we would expect uniformity imposed on the East. What we actually see is broad, early convergence on a core canon across diverse regions, with Enoch consistently outside that core.
The suggestion that “Rome deleted what made empire uncomfortable” also fails on its own terms. The canon Rome received and defended contains texts radically hostile to empire: the prophets’ denunciations of power, the crucifixion of Christ by state authority, Revelation’s uncompromising portrayal of imperial violence, and martyrdom narratives that inspired resistance, not compliance. An empire seeking a manageable religion would not preserve those texts. Nor would it canonize letters that command obedience to God over rulers, or Gospels that proclaim a king executed as a criminal.
Your critique of modern evangelical inventions — altar-call reductionism, dispensational rapture theology, and Scofield-era eschatology — is largely correct. But it cuts against your own argument. Those doctrines did not arise because the canon was too small; they arose despite the canon, often in defiance of historic Christian interpretation. The answer to bad modern theology is not to retroactively canonize ancient texts never universally received, but to return to the Church’s actual interpretive tradition, which predates Scofield by over a millennium and rejected his framework outright.
Finally, the repeated insinuation that asking “who decided the canon?” exposes a hidden power grab misunderstands how authority works in Christianity. The canon was not decided by a single council, emperor, or professor. It emerged through centuries of liturgical use, apostolic succession, doctrinal testing, and cross-regional reception. The Church does not claim the authority to invent Scripture; she claims the authority to recognize what was given. That recognition was messy, contested, and gradual precisely because it was not centrally engineered.
You are right about one thing: Christians should read widely, think carefully, and test claims rather than outsourcing their minds. Reading Enoch as ancient Jewish literature can be illuminating. Studying Ethiopian Christianity is overdue. Questioning shallow evangelical assumptions is necessary. But none of that requires rewriting Christian history into a story of suppression, nor does it require treating Jude’s citation as a referendum on canon.
The real danger is not that people refuse to read Enoch. It is that suspicion replaces discernment, and that the Church’s hard-won clarity is recast as fear rather than fidelity. Christianity does not stand or fall on secret books, hidden patterns, or insider knowledge. It stands on the public, preached, suffered-for witness of Christ handed down in the Church, guarded not by empire, but by martyrs.
Enoch can be read, studied, and discussed without being canonized. Jude can be trusted without implying the apostles failed to recognize Scripture. Ethiopia can be honored without turning Rome into Babylon. And Christians can reject modern theological novelties without inventing an ancient conspiracy to explain them.
Pull the chain hard enough, and what rattles is not hidden truth, but the difference between historical complexity and a story that feels satisfying because it is simple.
Good to know! I understand it was written after the Jewish war with Rome and during the rise of the Rabbinic era. Hundreds of years after 1 Enoch and not part 9f the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Besides, Enoch is turned into a super-ArcAngel called Metatron in 3 Enoch and has become God's #2 in charge?
Dear Rocka, While I appreciate your enthusiasm with respect to 1 Enoch, I am not sure that your argument about its acceptance in the early church as Scripture has much weight. Jude does indeed quote 1 Enoch 1:9, but attributes it to Enoch himself, not to the document 1 Enoch. Beyond that, though Barnabus, Tertullien, Clement, Origen, and a few others refer to 1 Enoch, they never quote from it, though Tertullien does summarize some of the first part (Book of Watchers) in his work <On the Adornment of Women>. And Tertullien is the only one who makes an attempt to argue its inspiration, though Tertullien and the rest make a point that many do not accept it as scripture and this is in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, well before the fourth and fifth century discussions of the canon. The books of the Old and New Testaments get quoted often and extensively, though, in the church fathers. It seems as though the early church was consistent with the Jewish rabbis who did not accept 1 Enoch either, even though Jewish writings such as Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs did refer to 1 Enoch. Though the Abyssinian/Ethiopian church had its reasons for retaining 1 Enoch, the larger church did not “curate” it out, it just was not used like the others, and ultimately that disuse was affirmed. I think there might be a couple of reasons, one of which is that the gospel of Jesus Christ makes 1 Enoch irrelevant for the most part. We are no longer lorded over by evil angels. Jesus defeated them on the cross. All of the heavenly journeys, allegories, calendrical and astronomical materials in 1 Enoch are also irrelevant in light of the gospel. Maybe interesting to read, but not relevant, and at times theologically at odds with the rest of Scripture. I would be interested in your providing evidence from 1 Enoch itself to counter my views here. I am certainly willing to take them into consideration.
I did not say anything about Ethiopia "adding" to the canon. I said that they had their reasons for retaining 1 Enoch, which I don't know. What appears evident is that it was not retained in the great Church, East and West, or Coptic for that matter, which is also ancient and the closest geographically to Ethiopia/Abyssinia. There are differences in the Roman and Orthodox canons also. All though contain the 39 OT and 27 NT. So the same arguments you make about the Ethiopian canon could be made for say "the prayer of Manassah" in the Coptic canon. Each tradition has several books on the edges that are considered inspired, but others have chosen not to use them. Personally I have read all of them including the entirety of 1 Enoch, which I have also spent time studying (as well as Jubilees). I don't consider it "canonical" but I do consider it useful for understanding Jewish thought in the pre- and contemporary Jesus period.
The question of why 1 Enoch is important today is because a growing number of non-believers challenge God as being unnecessarily violent in the Old Testament. That Israel had to totally annihilate the Amorites, including women and children, without a reason. This is also occurring more frequently in media conversations.
Jude and 1 Enoch present a backstory on how the genetic line of humanity was contaminated and had become a threat to the very future birth of Jesus, as the bloodline had to remain pure to be the unblemished Lamb of God. God.
That is why the discussion is very relevant today.
I have read Michael Heiser's Unseen Realm and his detective work is all well and good, though there are many places where the threads are gathered from so many different places to weave his patterns as to be almost fantastical--hardly believable. His work on the divine council is virtually undeniable (as the wide scholarship attests), but the thread on the Nephilim/Anakim/Rephaim is less so, especially the notion that annihilating cities was intended to rid the world of the giants. It is certainly one explanation (I don't have any alternative to argue) but NOTHING is ever said specifically in scripture that that is the reason. Neither does 1 Enoch or any other ancient Jewish literature give this as the reason as far as I can tell (please give evidence to the contrary if you can).
So I will reiterate my previous point: now that Jesus has come, has died, has defeated Satan (and his angels/demons), for those who trust in what Jesus has done, 1 Enoch is interesting but irrelevant to the gospel. Jesus took violence into himself on the cross. It is finished. Let non-believers and the media challenge/debate all they want to; it is of no concern to me, despite my enjoying this particular debate!
It is the one book every Christian should study to arm themselves against the demons inhabiting AI so it has been deliberately mocked and shunned so that almost no Christian will.
Quantum computing (AI) is a host for the Nephilim...
It was easy to locate ... duh. Just a simple search showed that it originated in the 19th century with John Nelson Darby, based on his interpretation of Thessalonians 4:17.
Watcher (or holy ones) are also mentioned in the biblical book of Daniel 4: 13-17
That's interesting. I wasn't tuned into this the last time I read Daniel, and I hadn't noticed. For "watcher" I see עִ֣יר in the Hebriew and "ιρ (Aramaic)" in the LXX. Most of my English translations read "watcher" apart from some of the usual ones that seem to like to change and confuse ("clarify").
One of my commentaries, Wendy L. Widder's ZECOT-Daniel, suggests that "The cosmic tree was a widespread motif in the ancient Near East. Given this and the relative clarity of the angel’s command with respect to the tree in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, it stretches the imagination to think that Nebuchadnezzar did not understand the general meaning of his dream." Elsewhere, there is also a suggestion that the wise men perhaps WOULD not interpret the dream, rather than "could not".
Daniel was alarmed at what he saw, but the king instructed him to proceed anyway, and Daniel did so and lived to tell about it.
A second commentary of mine, Mitchell L. Chase's Daniel commentary within the ESV Expository Commentary VII, suggests that Jesus, in Matt. 13:31–32, might have had this passage in Daniel in mind. Unsurprisingly, neither commentary examined the original language underlying "watcher".
The LEH Septuagint Lexicon didn't say much, but it is a Greek lexicon, not Aramaic:
ιρ N 0–0–0–3–0–3
Dn 4,13(10).17(14).23(20)
= עיר (Aram.) watcher, angel
It did, however, repeat the Aramaic key, עיר.
Using that, the HALOT yielded:
עִיר: עיר corresponding to Theodotion (ε)ιρ; Heb. עֵר; MHeb. עִיר (Jastrow 1075a, watcher, angel); JArm., DSS (Dalman Wb. 311b; Beyer Arm. Texte 655) awake, > angel; CPArm. (Schulthess Lex. 145a), watchful, clever; Syr. ʿı̄rā (Brockelmann Lexicon 523a); and Mnd. aiar awake, watchful (Drower-Macuch Dictionary 14b s.v. aiar3); NeoSyr. ʿirā clever, intelligent (Maclean 239a); Syr.: 1. wakening; 2. angel (Brockelmann Lexicon 523a); Bauer-Leander BArm. 180j!: pl. עִירִין: awake > watcher meaning angel Da 410.14.20; Sept. ἄγγελος, Theodotion ειρ (Theodotion ιρ), Aquila, Symmachus ἐγρήγορος, in the title of Codex Chisiani ἄγρυπνος, Vulgate vigil (Montgomery Daniel 231ff; Bentzen Daniel 43); Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000), 100 refers to Murray, Orientalia 53 (1984), 303–317. †
And BDB:
5894 † עִיר n. m. waking, or wakeful, one, i.e. angel (√ עיר, cf. Syr. ܥܳܪ wake, ܥܺܝܪ waking (PS), JAram. עִיר, NH עֵיר adj. awake);—abs. ע׳ Dn 4:10, 4:20; pl. abs. עִירִין v:14; Aq Symm. ἐγρήγορος; cf. Charles Dr; doubtful is the connex. with Ph. Zophesemim (Euseb.), i.e. צפי שמים watchers of heaven, as keeping watch over or spying out (Zim Jerem).
Not that that tells me much, but it's a good sign that "watcher" hasn't been erased from scholarly tools, and extra points for BDB -- the "Charles" reference has an attached comment mentioning Enoch(!), although it didn't copy over to here, it's late at night, and I want to go cook dinner.
Interesting indeed.
Trying to open a discussion on this topic with modern theologians is like trying to talk to a mannequin. You're immediately categorized as a religious fear-mongering nut job.
Their entire framework depends on the Western canon being the final authority. Anything outside of it is automatically dismissed as non-scripture.
When you point out that Ethiopia preserved an older tradition one that was never conquered by Rome, they struggle to even process it.
I’ve read the book of Enoch and it was an interesting read. I will go back and read the chapters you mentioned.
Rocka, the force of this piece comes from a real frustration many Christians share: the sense that inherited assumptions go unexamined, that modern evangelical systems often rely on recent innovations while claiming ancient authority, and that African Christian traditions have been ignored or patronized by the West. Those concerns deserve to be heard. But the argument you build on top of them does not hold, and it collapses because it repeatedly conflates respect with inspiration, quotation with canonization, and historical development with manipulation.
The central claim — that “Enoch was good enough for Jude” and therefore must be Scripture — rests on a category mistake. Jude does not canonize a book by quoting a line preserved in an Enochic tradition. The New Testament regularly affirms true statements, prophecies, or insights without granting canonical status to the source as a whole. Paul quotes pagan poets; the evangelists report Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy; Acts preserves speeches without turning them into Scripture. Jude, under inspiration, guarantees the truth of what he writes — not the inspiration of every text he alludes to. Prophetic truth and canonical Scripture are not identical categories, and Scripture itself demonstrates that distinction.
The appeal to the early Fathers is similarly overstated. Some Fathers spoke positively of Enoch, some cautiously, some skeptically. Tertullian’s defense of Enoch is well known — and so is the fact that he explicitly admits most Christians rejected it. Clement and Origen reference it as illustrative or traditional, not as universally received Scripture. This is precisely why the Church clarified the canon over time: not because empire demanded control, but because pastoral and liturgical life required clarity about which texts uniquely bore apostolic authority. Development here is not evidence of corruption; it is evidence of discernment in response to disagreement that already existed.
Your framing of Rome as “curating” while Ethiopia “preserved” also oversimplifies history to the point of distortion. Ethiopia’s broader canon reflects a local reception history shaped by language, geography, and isolation, not a pristine snapshot of the apostolic library frozen in time. Other ancient churches — Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic — did not receive or retain Enoch as Scripture, and they did so long before imperial enforcement was even conceivable. If Rome were simply imposing an imperial canon, we would expect uniformity imposed on the East. What we actually see is broad, early convergence on a core canon across diverse regions, with Enoch consistently outside that core.
The suggestion that “Rome deleted what made empire uncomfortable” also fails on its own terms. The canon Rome received and defended contains texts radically hostile to empire: the prophets’ denunciations of power, the crucifixion of Christ by state authority, Revelation’s uncompromising portrayal of imperial violence, and martyrdom narratives that inspired resistance, not compliance. An empire seeking a manageable religion would not preserve those texts. Nor would it canonize letters that command obedience to God over rulers, or Gospels that proclaim a king executed as a criminal.
Your critique of modern evangelical inventions — altar-call reductionism, dispensational rapture theology, and Scofield-era eschatology — is largely correct. But it cuts against your own argument. Those doctrines did not arise because the canon was too small; they arose despite the canon, often in defiance of historic Christian interpretation. The answer to bad modern theology is not to retroactively canonize ancient texts never universally received, but to return to the Church’s actual interpretive tradition, which predates Scofield by over a millennium and rejected his framework outright.
Finally, the repeated insinuation that asking “who decided the canon?” exposes a hidden power grab misunderstands how authority works in Christianity. The canon was not decided by a single council, emperor, or professor. It emerged through centuries of liturgical use, apostolic succession, doctrinal testing, and cross-regional reception. The Church does not claim the authority to invent Scripture; she claims the authority to recognize what was given. That recognition was messy, contested, and gradual precisely because it was not centrally engineered.
You are right about one thing: Christians should read widely, think carefully, and test claims rather than outsourcing their minds. Reading Enoch as ancient Jewish literature can be illuminating. Studying Ethiopian Christianity is overdue. Questioning shallow evangelical assumptions is necessary. But none of that requires rewriting Christian history into a story of suppression, nor does it require treating Jude’s citation as a referendum on canon.
The real danger is not that people refuse to read Enoch. It is that suspicion replaces discernment, and that the Church’s hard-won clarity is recast as fear rather than fidelity. Christianity does not stand or fall on secret books, hidden patterns, or insider knowledge. It stands on the public, preached, suffered-for witness of Christ handed down in the Church, guarded not by empire, but by martyrs.
Enoch can be read, studied, and discussed without being canonized. Jude can be trusted without implying the apostles failed to recognize Scripture. Ethiopia can be honored without turning Rome into Babylon. And Christians can reject modern theological novelties without inventing an ancient conspiracy to explain them.
Pull the chain hard enough, and what rattles is not hidden truth, but the difference between historical complexity and a story that feels satisfying because it is simple.
Of the three books credited to Enoch, I would be very careful with 3 Enoch.
3 Enoch is not in the Ethiopian Orthodox biblical canon.
Good to know! I understand it was written after the Jewish war with Rome and during the rise of the Rabbinic era. Hundreds of years after 1 Enoch and not part 9f the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Besides, Enoch is turned into a super-ArcAngel called Metatron in 3 Enoch and has become God's #2 in charge?
Dear Rocka, While I appreciate your enthusiasm with respect to 1 Enoch, I am not sure that your argument about its acceptance in the early church as Scripture has much weight. Jude does indeed quote 1 Enoch 1:9, but attributes it to Enoch himself, not to the document 1 Enoch. Beyond that, though Barnabus, Tertullien, Clement, Origen, and a few others refer to 1 Enoch, they never quote from it, though Tertullien does summarize some of the first part (Book of Watchers) in his work <On the Adornment of Women>. And Tertullien is the only one who makes an attempt to argue its inspiration, though Tertullien and the rest make a point that many do not accept it as scripture and this is in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, well before the fourth and fifth century discussions of the canon. The books of the Old and New Testaments get quoted often and extensively, though, in the church fathers. It seems as though the early church was consistent with the Jewish rabbis who did not accept 1 Enoch either, even though Jewish writings such as Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs did refer to 1 Enoch. Though the Abyssinian/Ethiopian church had its reasons for retaining 1 Enoch, the larger church did not “curate” it out, it just was not used like the others, and ultimately that disuse was affirmed. I think there might be a couple of reasons, one of which is that the gospel of Jesus Christ makes 1 Enoch irrelevant for the most part. We are no longer lorded over by evil angels. Jesus defeated them on the cross. All of the heavenly journeys, allegories, calendrical and astronomical materials in 1 Enoch are also irrelevant in light of the gospel. Maybe interesting to read, but not relevant, and at times theologically at odds with the rest of Scripture. I would be interested in your providing evidence from 1 Enoch itself to counter my views here. I am certainly willing to take them into consideration.
What makes you think Ethiopia added to the canon, and that the Western canon is the holy standard? By what authority?
I did not say anything about Ethiopia "adding" to the canon. I said that they had their reasons for retaining 1 Enoch, which I don't know. What appears evident is that it was not retained in the great Church, East and West, or Coptic for that matter, which is also ancient and the closest geographically to Ethiopia/Abyssinia. There are differences in the Roman and Orthodox canons also. All though contain the 39 OT and 27 NT. So the same arguments you make about the Ethiopian canon could be made for say "the prayer of Manassah" in the Coptic canon. Each tradition has several books on the edges that are considered inspired, but others have chosen not to use them. Personally I have read all of them including the entirety of 1 Enoch, which I have also spent time studying (as well as Jubilees). I don't consider it "canonical" but I do consider it useful for understanding Jewish thought in the pre- and contemporary Jesus period.
The question of why 1 Enoch is important today is because a growing number of non-believers challenge God as being unnecessarily violent in the Old Testament. That Israel had to totally annihilate the Amorites, including women and children, without a reason. This is also occurring more frequently in media conversations.
Jude and 1 Enoch present a backstory on how the genetic line of humanity was contaminated and had become a threat to the very future birth of Jesus, as the bloodline had to remain pure to be the unblemished Lamb of God. God.
That is why the discussion is very relevant today.
I have read Michael Heiser's Unseen Realm and his detective work is all well and good, though there are many places where the threads are gathered from so many different places to weave his patterns as to be almost fantastical--hardly believable. His work on the divine council is virtually undeniable (as the wide scholarship attests), but the thread on the Nephilim/Anakim/Rephaim is less so, especially the notion that annihilating cities was intended to rid the world of the giants. It is certainly one explanation (I don't have any alternative to argue) but NOTHING is ever said specifically in scripture that that is the reason. Neither does 1 Enoch or any other ancient Jewish literature give this as the reason as far as I can tell (please give evidence to the contrary if you can).
So I will reiterate my previous point: now that Jesus has come, has died, has defeated Satan (and his angels/demons), for those who trust in what Jesus has done, 1 Enoch is interesting but irrelevant to the gospel. Jesus took violence into himself on the cross. It is finished. Let non-believers and the media challenge/debate all they want to; it is of no concern to me, despite my enjoying this particular debate!
Rocka: you should do more research before making a post like this. Check out Wes Huff on YT: https://youtu.be/-1WUWW7ZCEc?si=3uJqc8ajqdO0UMlA
Lol.
So where do you consider the modern day Jews fit in in prophecy ? (please).
Te Book of Enoch explains everything that is happening with artificial intelligence right now:
Among the Most Fascinating Presentations on Book of Enoch, Fallen Angels, Nephilim, Giants, Spirits: https://old.bitchute.com/video/CVLBF3QP6PlE [54mins]
It is the one book every Christian should study to arm themselves against the demons inhabiting AI so it has been deliberately mocked and shunned so that almost no Christian will.
Quantum computing (AI) is a host for the Nephilim...
You wrote, "The rapture? Invented in the 1800s." How do I learn more about that, please?
It was easy to locate ... duh. Just a simple search showed that it originated in the 19th century with John Nelson Darby, based on his interpretation of Thessalonians 4:17.
Not so…
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj13e.pdf