Steve Quayle's Film Partner Claims the "Book of Enoch" as "True Testimony" Written by Enoch on the Orders of God

​It seems that Simcha Jacobovici’s hidden agenda to Judaize Atlantis reached its intended audience. Since his documentary claiming that Atlantis was the Biblical city of Tarshish and that Atlantis was the source of Judaism aired on the National Geographic Channel on Sunday, the story has been picked up by conservative and evangelical publications such as World Net Daily and Breaking Israel News. From there, it has spread across the conservative social media landscape. I’ve seen dozens of Facebook posting about how Atlantis is “really” Jewish, or how Atlantis is “linked” to the Jewish Temple and thus to Christian Zionism and the Second Coming. (In short: The subtext is that Atlantis, being non-Arab, justifies the existence of Israel as a Westernized, non-Arab state by predating Palestinian claims by thousands of years.) Given that Nat Geo is a division of 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News, it’s hard to put down to coincidence a subliminal thread of conservative propaganda running through the documentary, particularly when the presumed audience for the program quickly picked up exactly the message they were meant to see. 

​It's hard not to draw parallels, albeit from a different angle, between this and white nationalist Richard Spencer’s reaction to the White House International Holocaust Memorial Day statement that purposely excluded mentions of Judaism and the Jewish people. Spencer, who claims to have worked with Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller when both were in college, praised the Trump Administration for the “de-Judificiation” of the Holocaust in a statement posted on the AltRight.com website he co-owns with fringe historian and Aryan culture theorist Jason Reza Jorjani. Criticizing the use of the Holocaust for moral purposes, Spencer claimed that “Trump’s statement becomes outrageous, as it dethrones Jews from a special position in the universe.” The Trump Administration said it purposely excluded mention of Jews because the Nazis killed other groups as well.
 
Since we’re on the subject of evangelical, conservative, white nationalists, and lunatic views on Judaism, I thought I would return to something that came up in evangelical Nephilim theorist Steve Quayle’s radio presentation the other day. I commented that Quayle seems to endorse wholesale the non-canonical Book of Enoch, a text rejected by the early Church for views that are in opposition to the narrative given in the Book of Genesis, as well as views opposed to what became standard theological ideas. I was surprised to see that one of his associates was even more explicit.

​In Quayle’s radio appearance, he pleaded for listeners to buy his products because he is a one man show, though he remembered at some point that he works with Timothy Alberino, the filmmaker behind his Nephilim-hunting DVD series. It turns out that last month Alberino appeared in a YouTube broadcast in which he offered the kind of full-throated defense of the Book of Enoch that ought to have evangelical Christians running screaming from the Nephilim theories, but sadly won’t.

In the Old Testament Age, everybody knew the story of Enoch, and they knew a lot more about Enoch than just that he begot Methuselah and then walked with God for 300 years and disappeared. That’s almost all we know about Enoch. It’s certainly not all they knew about Enoch, and again when I say “they,” I’m referencing the New Testament era and then the Old Testament era. The Hebrews knew a lot more than we know about Enoch, and that to me is apparent. They knew a lot more than we know about Melchizedek as well, and some of these other characters who are vaguely referenced in the Bible. So, what’s really interesting about Enoch is that we’re told that, in the Book of Jude, we’re told that he prophesied, which is a very important distinction concerning Enoch because if Enoch prophesied, the writer of Jude is saying that Enoch was a prophet, and in every case, what the prophets prophesied in the Bible, in the Old Testament, was written down. So, it’s logical to assume that if Enoch was a prophet and he prophesied, that his prophecy was written down. And furthermore, I think we can infer that if his prophecy was written down, and we have an ancient manuscript called the Book of Enoch, then it’s very likely that this is in fact his prophecy or a work which contains his prophecy. […] All of this leads me to the unassailable conclusion that the Book of Enoch is a true testimony of the prophecy of Enoch.

​So, to recap: Nephilim theorist Timothy Alberino, protégé of Steve Quayle, officially endorsed the Book of Enoch as a book that ought to be canonical because it is a true account of a prophecy uttered by one of God’s own prophets. He is literally rewriting the Bible!
 
But moreover, consider the slipshod logic he employs: (a) Enoch was a prophet, so (b) he must have recorded his prophecy, and therefore (c) a text passing under his name must be the genuine article. Even an amateur logician will recognize that these three claims have no logical connection to one another. Most importantly, there is no logical reason to believe that a given text passing under a writer’s name belongs to him. Following this logic, we should assume that all of the pseudepigrapha like the Book of Abraham (allegedly written by Abraham) and, more preposterously, the Life of Adam and Eve (allegedly recording the conversations of the title pair!) are real words of those named in them. This is illogical. But in the case of Enoch it’s even worse because Enoch’s prophecy was allegedly written before the Flood. How, pray tell, did such a true testament survive the Flood? Why did no later prophet, king, or priest make reference to it in the centuries after, not until St. Jude in the years after the book was already known to be circulating among the Jews? More important still: If this is a true revelation of God through a prophet, how do we account for the theological differences from mainstream Judaism and Christianity? Alberino seems to suggest that his own evangelical faith is flawed by failing to incorporate the differences in theology found in the Enochian corpus.
 
Since the Book of Enoch is large and heterogenous (usually considered a fusion of five earlier books), I will confine myself to pointing out that in Enoch, it is the evil wrought by the bloodthirsty giants that leads to the Flood, instigated by an appeal of the souls of the dead to God, and humanity is not corrupted through original sin but through Azazel’s teaching of technology and makeup. But in Genesis, God is angry at all of creation, not just the giants, and the theological framework is that humanity’s corruption derives from original sin, not evil angels. These details aren’t just cosmetic.
 
It’s good to know, though, that the Nephilim theorists are now open about their love of the Book of Enoch and are openly breaking from the evangelical Christianity they claim to embrace in order to make it easier to spin lucrative lies about demons and giants.