Expert: Rev. Robert Woods - 8/8/2008

Question
I'm sending this to several experts in order to receive several opinions.

Are you familiar with G.H. Pember's "Earth's Earliest Ages"? I've read it several times and it seems shed some light on the questions I asked in church as a child, but were never answered satisfactory. For example the fossiliferous record, giants, and books mentioned in the bible but not included(i.e. Jude 14). On the other hand, it shares some of the same viewpoints as the apocryphal "Book of Enoch". Coincidentally, the Book of Enoch that I have seen seems to actually match almost verbatim the verse in Jude. And now my questions. 1. If certain books were well known and, in the case above, actually quoted in scripture can we give some validity to its truth? 2. If you are unfamiliar with the referenced material, what is your opinion of the Nephilim or giants as they are in the KJV in regards to the "sons of God" and "the daughters of men". 3. Are you familiar with the "gap theory" of creation? I do not refute that everything that we know was created in six days, but it does seem that there could be an interval of any amount of time between the first and second verse of Genesis. I would appreciate your opinions on these matters as they seem to be common points of contention when discussing religion amongst non-believers.

Answer
Blessings and thank you for your questions.

1.  I have not read the book you asked about.  However, I will attempt to get a copy.  It does sound interesting.

2.  Book of Enoch:  the book didn't make it into the canon, therefore it is not considered Scripture.  The Book of Enoch, was a Jewish writing (also known as 1 Enoch); it is a 5 part expansion on the brined biblical reference to the mysterious "Nephilim" (Gen. 6:1-4) It was familiar to several church fathers and it appears in the Old Testament canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) church. Despite the book's purported connection to Enoch, its style and grammar point to a composition date around 160 BC.  Jude quoted The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9) "See the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against them." (Jude 14-15) This does not necessarily indicate that Jude or the church fathers viewed it as part of the canon.

There are several books which could have made it and did not (see list at the end).  But, each were rejected for different reasons:

Old Testament: The Old Testament canon was finalized by two councils held at the city of Jamnia, one in AD 90 and the other in AD 118. The actual books which compose our Old Testament were in wide use for centuries before, and in fact had been translated into Greek 200 years before these councils met. They in no sense "created" the Old Testament.  The Book of Enoch has been proven to have been written in around 160 BC.  It was not part of the original books used by Jews in synagoges throughout the world so was easly dismissed by these councils.  Why add a book, even if it is good, that you know wasn't used throughout history as Scripture?

New Testament:  The early Christians quickly developed four criteria for accepting a book as Scripture. First, it must have been written by an apostle or based on his eyewitness testimony. Second, the book must possess merit and authority in its use. For instance, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ tells of a man who is changed into a mule by a bewitching spell but converted back to manhood when the infant Christ is put on his back for a ride (7:5-27). In the same book, the boy Jesus causes clay birds and animals to come to life (ch. 15), stretches a throne his father had made too small (ch. 16), and takes the lives of boys who oppose him (19.19-24). It was easy to dismiss such fiction.
Third, a book must come to be accepted by the entire church, not just a single congregation or area. And last, a book must be approved by the decision of the larger church, not just a few advocates.
Here is how this process unfolded. In the first century, a number of books were soon produced in response to the ministry of Jesus. As an example, Peter told his readers, "[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Thus Peter considered Paul's writings to be "Scripture."
Other less reputable books began to appear as well. Among them was the Protoevangelion, purporting to supply details of the birth of Christ; two books on the infancy of Christ, one claiming to be written by Thomas; and the Gospel of Nicodemus, sometimes called the Acts of Pontius Pilate. However, by the mid-second century only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted universally by the church. The other "gospels" simply did not meet the four criteria for acceptance set out above.
Note that this process was completed two centuries before Contantine. For example, in AD 115 Ignatius referred to the four gospels of our New Testament as "the gospel"; in AD 170, Tatian made a "harmony of the gospels" using only these four; around AD 180, Irenaeus referred to the four gospels as firmly established in the church.
The Muratorian Canon was established around AD 200, representing the usage of the church at Rome at that time. The list omitted James, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, and Hebrews (all due to authorship questions), though these were soon included in later canons. It excluded all gospels but the four in our Bible today.
The New Testament list we use today was set forth by Athanasius in A.D. 367. His list was approved by church councils meeting at Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397. Again, these decisions did not create the New Testament. They simply recognized what the Church had viewed as Scripture for generations.
F. F. Bruce was one of the world's foremost authorities on the creation of the Bible canon. His opinion should be considered: "One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. . . . what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."

Is the Bible True?  There's good evidence
Consider first the manuscript evidence (known as the "bibliographic" test by scholars). No original manuscripts exist for any ancient book. Writing materials were too fragile to stand the passage of centuries. This is the case for Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar, the writings of Buddha and the Koran just as much as it is for the Old and New Testaments.
However, we possess today some 5,000 ancient Greek copies of the New Testament, and 10,000 copies in other ancient languages. Latin and Coptic copies go back to the second century; fragments of papyrus documents go back to AD 130. Quotations in the writings of early church fathers date to A.D. 100. Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the third century; Revelation to the latter half. Complete volumes of the New Testament date to the 4th century.
Now compare these manuscripts with other ancient documents. Of Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have today only nine or ten good manuscripts, none copied earlier than 900 years after Caesar. For the Histories of Tacitus, we have only 4 of his 14 original books, none copied earlier than the 10th century A.D. For Aristotle's works, we possess only five manuscripts of any one volume, none copied earlier than A.D. 1100 (14 centuries after the original).
Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far surpassing that which exists for any other ancient book. And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original. Quoting F.F. Bruce, "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."
This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same which was first written by its authors.
It is estimated by experts that 97-99% of the original text of the Gospels is known to us in its original wording. In the remaining verses the uncertainties do not affect any fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. We may explain this accuracy by remembering that the Christians who copied the manuscripts through the ages themselves thought that the text they were reproducing was the very words of God himself, which would be enough to make anyone work carefully.
By the standards of ancient history we have far more manuscript evidence for the Gospels than for any of these classic works. In fact, if anyone wishes to claim that the manuscript evidence for the Gospels is weak, he or she will have to reject huge swathes of ancient history as well. Our modern translations of the gospels are not based on corrupted mauscripts, but on reliable copies of the original documents.

Is the Bible True - There's good archaeology
Let's look next at the evidence of archaeology. Such findings continue to confirm the geographical and historical veracity of the biblical texts. For instance, the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2ff) was once dismissed as historical fiction. Now archaeologists locate it in the northeast quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. I've seen it.
Researchers have identified the remains of Caiaphas, the high priest of Jesus' trial and crucifixion. They have discovered the skeleton of Yohanan, a crucifixion victim from AD 70, and note that these remains confirm the details of Jesus' crucifixion as it is described in the gospels. Archaeological evidence strongly supports the trustworthiness of the biblical narratives.
Is the Bible True - Consider prophecy
Last, consider the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. At least 48 major Messianic prophecies can be identified in the Old Testament. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled each one. Endeavoring to determine the odds of such a phenomenon, mathematician Peter Stoner isolated eight of these 48 prophecies. He then calculated the odds that any one person might have fulfilled them all.
Stoner determined those odds to be one in 10 to the 17th power (one followed by 17 zeroes). Visualize the number this way: take this number in silver dollars and lay them across the state of Texas. They will cover the entire state, two feet deep. Now mark one of those silver dollars. Blindfold a man and tell him he can travel as far as he likes, but he must pick up one silver dollar. What are the chances he will pick the one you marked? the same The same odds that the prophets would have had of writing those eight prophecies and having them all fulfilled in one person.2
Is the Bible true? Billions of people across 20 centuries can attest to the fact that the teachings of the Bible have been proven true and authoritative in their personal lives. But even such overwhelming subjective evidence to the side, there is still outstanding evidential reason to believe that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God.


Non Canonical Books:  Christian writings not included in the Bible

The Acts of Andrew: written in late 2nd or 3rd century, (also called the Gospel of Andrew) the Christian document was the account of the apostle Andrew's missionary journeys and martyrdom.  It seems to have utilized other Gnostic writings of the Acts of John and Acts of Peter as sources, it may have come from the same author, who was certainly not an eyewitness of the 1st century events.  No early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority or place among the Scriptures
The Acts of Paul: Mid 2nd century Christian writing of Paul's missionary travels. Only 2/3rds of this document have survived, primarily through three other documents: Third Corinthians (not the Bible one),, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and The Martyrdom of Paul.  According to Tertullian, a church leader in Asia Minor, admitted around 160 AD that he wrote the document and that it was mostly fiction, but that he did it "out of respect for Paul." Most scholars think that the description of Thecla's martyrdom may be true.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla: Mid 2nd century Christian document, supposed account of the apostle Paul's preaching and the martyrdom of a virgin named Thecla; Paul is depicted throughout as proclaiming a negative view of marriage and sexual pleasure (totally opposite of what he says in the Epistles of Scripture). It describes Paul as a small man in size, baldheaded, bowlegged, of noble appearance, with eyebrows meeting, and a rather hooked nose.
The Acts of Peter: late 2nd century Christian writing, based on the earilier Acts of John, narrates a fictionalized "miracle contest" between Simon Peter and the magician Simon Magus (contrast with Acts 8 in the Bible).  The concluding chapters, which seem at some point to have circulated separately from the rest of the document, describe Peter's death by upside-down crucifixion; these parts of the chapters may represent an authentic tradition as to his execution. Nevertheless, no early Christian writer considered Acts of Peter to have any place among the canonical Scriptures, possibly because it could not be clearly connected to an eyewitness.
The Apocalypse of Paul:  late 4th century Christian writing; also know as The Vision of Paul; a reworking of Apocalypse of Peter that claimed to have been unearthed in Cilicia of Tarsus, the apostle Paul's hometown. The ancient church historian Sozomen investigated this claim and found evidence that the document had originated during the reign of Emperor Theodosius I (378-395 AD); Paul clearly didn’t write it.  One variant copy, known as the Apocalypse of the Virgin, replaces Paul with Mary, mother of Jesus.  (This document is often confused with the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)  No early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority or place among the Scriptures
The Apocalypse of Peter: 2nd century Christian document; also know as The Revelation to Peter. Cited as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria and in the Muratorian Fragment, but although nothing in it contradicts the canonical New Testament, it was ultimately excluded for 2 reasons: 1. it was written around 135 AD, so Peter (who died in 60 AD) didn't write it, and New Testament documents had to be connected to an apostolic eyewitness. 2. It sometimes circulated with a docetic writing know as the Gospel of Peter.  The Apocalypse of Peter is often confused with the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, a Gnostic text)
Apocrypha - from the Greek meaning "hidden things"; religious texts, the authority or authenticity of which is questionable. Apocrypha can refer to any such texts not in an accepted Old or New Testament Canon. Formally, however, the word refers to books in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments that are not in Protestant Old Testaments, including the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Wisdom of Sirach), Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, and additions to the books of Daniel, Esther, and Psalms.  None of these writings appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. Recognizing that Jews had never recognized them as having equal authority, a gathering of Jewish rabbis in 90 AD (later known as the Council of Yavneh [Jamnia]) did not include them in their listing of authoritative texts. In the early 1500s, many Protestants chose to use the Old Testament Canon summarized at Yavneh instead of the Roman Catholic Church's; in 1546, the Catholic Council of Trent referred to these books as "deuterocanonical" - that is part of a "secondary canon."
The Assumption of Moses: reference to the now lost latter chapters of The Testament of Moses.
Epistle of Barnabas: Late 1st or 2nd century Christian writing; attributed to Barnabas, an associate of the apostle Paul . A prophecy within it seems to place its date between the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD and the Roman emperor building a pagan temple on its former site in 135 AD.  It was excluded from the New Testament due to 1. the recognition that, since the Jewish temple was not rebuilt "in this present time," it contained a false prophecy and 2 its persistent anti-Jewish tone.
Third Corinthians: mid 2nd century Christian writing that claims to be authentic correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians. This letter was part of a larger work entitled The Acts of Paul.
Didache: Greek for "teaching". It is a shortened form of the full title, The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles (also known as The Judgment of Peter); an early Christian manual of Church Order probably written in the late 1st century. According to the ancient historian Eusebius, some early Christians accepted the Didache as part of the New Testament canon, and although completely orthodox and in agreement with the canonical New Testament, it was eventually excluded because it could not be clearly connected to an apostle.
The Egerton Papyrus, fragments from a 1st or 2nd century document sometimes known as the Egerton Gospel (also Papyrus Egerton II), it's not know whether these were originally part of a complete gospel.  The papyrus includes 4 stories about Jesus, 3 of which appear in different forms in 2 of the canonical Gospels (Mark and John), and one of which -where Jesus stretches out his hand toward the Jordan River and talks about the bearing of fruit- does not have a gospel parallel. No quotations from this document appear in any early Christian writings; as such, there is simply not enough information available to make definite judgments about it.
The Book of Enoch, a Jewish writing (also known as 1 Enoch); it is a 5 part expansion on the brined biblical reference to the mysterious "Nephilim" (Gen. 6:1-4) It was familiar to several church fathers and it appears in the Old Testament canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) church. Despite the book's purported connection to Enoch, its style and grammar point to a composition date around 160 BC.  Jude quoted The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9) "See the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against them." (Jude 14-15) This does not necessarily indicate that Jude or the church fathers viewed it as part of the canon.
First and Second Esdras: Ancient apocryphal writing, accepted by the Russian (Slavonic) Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches as part of the Old Testament. For some, the canonical books of Ezra dn Nehemiah are called 1 and 2 Esdras, respectively; among these Christians, 2 and 2 Esdras are know as 3 and 4 Esdras, respectively.  Not excepted as part of the Old Testament by either the Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches.
The Gospel of the Ebionites: 1st or 2nd century document, survives only in fragmented quotations scattered throughout early Christian writings; appears to have been a variation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, edited to fit Ebionite theology.  According to the church Father Epiphaius, the Ebionites changed the text so that Jesus appeared to be a vegetarian and a created being, adopted by God at his baptism. . No early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority for believers or place among the Scriptures.
The Gospel of the Egyptians - 2nd century document frequently confused with a later Gnostic writing know as Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians; presented as dialogue between Jesus and a female dsicple named Salome; encourages all believers to practice celibacy. When Salome asks, "How long will death prevail?" Jesus replies, "As long as women continue to bear children." This attitude contradicts Jewish and Christian Scriptures' affirmation and blessing of sexual interaction between husband and wife.  Although many Christians were aware of the document in the 2nd and 3rd century. It was never considered to have nay place among the canonical Scriptures. Church Father, Clement of Alexandria cited it in one of his 2nd century writing, he made clear that it was not authoritative.  Clement in the same writing does make clear that Matt, Mark, Luke and John had been established as authoritative accounts of Christ's life at least by the 2nd century.
The Gospel of Gamaliel: 5th century Christian writing, heavily influenced by Acts of Pilate, combines the supposed workds of the Jewish rabbi Gamaliel with quotations from the gospel of John.  Nothing in this work is heretical, but it was clearly written long after the apostolic era and is not likely to represent Gamaliel's authentic words. No early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority for believers or place among the Scriptures.
The Gospel of the Hebrews: 1st century Christian writing; original form uncertain; survives only in fragmented quotations scattered throughout early Christian writings.  Some leaders intertwined the book with the origins of Matthew's gospel.
The Gospel of Matthias - Early 2nd century document, now lost, know to many early believers; tells of Matthias's supposed imprisonment by cannibals, from whom he was rescued by Andrew.  This text seems to have passed out of Christian usage because 1 no clear evidence suggested that the apostle Matthias actually wrote it and 2 it was used by heretical sect known as the "Nazarenes" (another name for the Ebionites: the Nazarenes are not to be confused with the present day Nazarenes or Church of the Nazarenes). While Gnostics embraced it, church fathers Origen and Eusebius dismissed it as heretical. No early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority for believers or place among the Scriptures.
The Gospel of the Nazoreans: also know as the Gospel of the Nazarenes; most likely an alternate title for the Gospel of the Hebrews.
The Gospel of Paul: alternative title for The Acts of Paul.
The Gospel of James: apocryphal Christian writing from mide or late 2nd century; an account, allegedly written by James the Just, of the life of Mary and the birth of Jesus.  Mary is said to have remained a virgin throughout her life; the siblings of Jeus mentioned in the Gospels were, according to this document, Joseph's children from a previous marriage.  The writing style suggests a composition date at least a century after the death of James the Just, author of the epistle of James and brother of Jesus. Although Origen viewed it as an authentic account of Mary's life, but he did not treat it as part of the New Testament canon.  In fact, no early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority for believers or place among the Scriptures.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: apocryphal Christian writing, mid 2nd century; an account, supposedly written by Thomas, of the childhood of Jesus; forms the source of many non-biblical legends regarding Jesus' early years.  In this text, the boy Jesus repeated uses miraculous powers to bring life to a dozen clay birds, strike another child dead, and stretch a beam of wood.  Although not necessarily heretical, this vision of Jesus differs radically from that of the Gospels, where his miraculous powers are restrained and always focused on helping others. The author's style of writing and lack of knowledge about Jewish traditions suggest that the document was written long after Thomas' death; it cannot be connected to any eyewitness account of Jesus' life. No early Christian writer or father considered this document to have any authority for believers or place among the Scriptures.
The Judgment of Peter, alternate name for the Didache found in Rufinus of Auileia's writings.
Judith, apocryphal book accepted into the Old Testament canons of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
L Source: scholarly term; shorthand reference to information about Jesus unique to the gospel of Luke
M Source: scholarly term; shorthand for information about Jesus unique to Matthew's gospel.
The Maccabees: prominent Jewish family, 2nd century BC.  Beginning with the revolt of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucid (Syrian) Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the family gained independence for the Jewish people that lasted until 63 BC, when the Romans conquered the Holy Land. The independence story is told through the holiday of Hanukah or the festival of lights.  Stories of this and the Maccabees can be found in 4 apocryphal books that appear in Roman Catholic ( 1 & 2 Maccabees) and Eastern Orthodox (1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees).  See Apocrypha
Oxyrchynchus 840 Gospel: 3rd century writingf, not actually a gospel, but a tiny papyrus fragment from an unknown source; describes a confrontation in the temple between Jesus and the Pharisees; its events do not contradict the canonical Gospels and seem to represent an expansion of the events describes in Mark 7:1-23.
Protoevangelium of James - alternative title for the Gospel of James.
Q: from German quelle meaning "source": it is a New Testament Studies term. According to the Da Vinci Code, Q is a hidden document, "a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in his own hand." The truth is, some scholars purpose the existence of a document simply called "Q" (which has never been found) in attempting to explain why so many of Jesus' teachings in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are similar, yet not identical.  The idea is that as the authors wrote, they used a common document, now lost, that had summarized Jesus' teachings.  Even if this document did exist at some point, its contents were far from scandalous; it was simply Christ's teachings as related by both Matthew and Luke,  If Luke used Matthew as a source-which is quite possible-then Q is not needed as an independent document. :
Shepherd of Hermas: 2nd century Christian apocalyptic document that addresses the question, "How does God forgive sins committed after an individual has been baptized?" Some early Christians accepted it as part of the New Testament Canon, but the book was excluded, primarily because it could not be connected to an eyewitness of Jesus Christ.  
Testament of Levi: late 2nd century BC Jewish writing; found in Dead Sea Scrolls, an apocalypse describing a vision in which the "heavens were opened" and an angel conducted the writer into heaven's first level.  No early Christian writer considered this document to have any authority for believers or any place among the canonical Scriptures.
The Testament of Moses: 1st century Jewish writing; presented as the last words of Moses to Joshua; written many centuries after Moses' death. Jude 9 may refer to a now lost ending of the book, often referred to as Assumption of Moses. This would not necessarily indicate that Jude viewed it as part of the biblical canon; rather, that the quoted portion represented a true and authentic Jewish tradition. No early Christian writer considered this document to have any authority for believers or any place among the canonical Scriptures.
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: late 2nd century BC Jewish writing, presented as the last word of Jacob to this 12 sons; actually written during the reign of the Maccabeean king John Hyrcanus, whom it depicts as the Messiah. In the 1st century AD, one or more Christian writers altered the document to depict Jesus as Messiah; this version appears in the Old Testament of the Armenian Orthodox Church, no early Christian writer considered this document to have any authority for believers or any place among the Scriptures.
The Vision of Paul: alternative title for The Apocalypse of Paul.

(this is not a complete list, there were many more writings of the early Christian Church)


3.  The Nephilim:  Nephilim is the Hebrew word for gaint.  Throughout history there have many explainations as to who they were.  Some say that this is nothing more than a word left untranslated by the Revisers.  Others say this is nothing more than the offspring of the with the Cainites and the Sethites.  These giants according to Martin Luther were "men of violence and tyrants.  
My view is that these were indeed offspring of fallen angels and women.  These offspring were gaints.  Since myth is often tied to a very small grain of truth, it would not surprise me to find that the belief in all of Greek, Roman and other Pagan gods started with this nephilim.  However, God did not like this union.  He forbid it from happening again and destroyed the earth with the flood which eliminated them from the earth.  Now this wasn't the only reason for the flood.

I hope this answers your questions.  If not, please ask again.