Very clever, but the ancient controversy between Catholics and Protestants over the inclusion of the Apocrypha is irrelevant to Enoch, which is not part of it.
(btw, you are incorrect. The Apocrypha was
completely excluded from the KJV in 1629. Before that (1611) it was "included" but separately, and labeled as non-inspired though of interest to the reader of the Bible, as it was in Matthew's Bible (1537), Taverner's Bible (1539), the "Great Bible", (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop's Bible (1568), as well as the versions of Tyndale (1525) and Coverdale (1535).
Incidentally, St. Jerome (340-420), the author/translator of the Latin Vulgate, said this concerning the Apocryphal books:"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
You might want to check out this link:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm In short, there are reasons why the works included in the Bible are included, and those that are not, are not.
Even if you consider 66 and only 66 works to be the Bible, is 1 Enoch not quoted in Jude 1:14-15?
Paul quoted Greek philosopher/poets Epimenides and Aratus (Acts 17:28) and Menander (1Cor 15:33). Should I form my beliefs based on their writings too? Because something is quoted in the Bible does not mean the rest of the work is divinely inspired.
If there were not individuals who were physical giants as a result of being nephilim, can you help me understand Numbers 13:33?
Sure. Here's the verse again:
"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."
The word "nephilim" means "fallen ones" or those who have fallen away from the worship of YHWH into idolatry, pagans. The Anakim were giants, that is clear from other passages. So the phrase in parenthesis is explaining why they would feel like grasshoppers before these pagans that God has commanded them to kick out of Canaan: among these pagans are Anakim giants. Otherwise, if both terms mean "giants", it is redundant and says nothing.
You could say it is explaining that Anakim were giants, but that is assuming that the writer was assuming that the readers would know that nephilim were giants and not know that anakim were, which is unlikely; the reverse is more probable.
I've referred to a number of pre-4th century works that back up an angelic ancestry view and a number of pre-4th century individuals who had an angelic ancestry view maybe. Do you have a pre-4th century source backing up a sons of Sheth and daughters of Cain view?
Most of those pre-4th c. individuals probably believed that the earth is flat and you can cure a flu by bleeding. No I am not going to waste time seeing if someone of that period wrote down this particular viewpoint.
Is there a place anywhere in the so called Old Testament that uses beney ha'Elohim to refer to men? You might be using Greek to try to interpet Hebrew.
I'm using the Bible to interpret the Bible. I understand your point that the Job passages are more applicable to Gen 6 because both are Hebrew, while the references I gave, being New Testament are in Greek. My response, already given, is that the Job passage refers to events and beings in Heaven, while the NT passages clearly talk about how someone on Earth gets to be known as a son of God and it is clearly stated that it is "on the Earth" that Gen 6:4 takes place.
If you're going to bring up languages, it is doubtful that Job was originally composed in Hebrew either, as it pre-dates Abraham, though of course it is included in the Hebrew canon in Hebrew.
As I have said, the Job passages are the best argument for your interpretation, but there is an alternate way to read the 2 "nephilim" passages that doesn't involve spirits copulating and procreating with human beings, which, as I have said, Jesus makes pretty clear doesn't happen, and creating people who somehow live through a flood that the Bible says killed all air-breathing creatures except those in the ark.
I don't know why I'm bothering to argue this, except that you asked. Like evolution, if your theory were proven, it wouldn't significantly affect my faith. It wouldn't be the first weird and unbelievable thing God has asked me to believe. Believing that He loved me enough to give his Son for me, when he knows my dirt at least as well as I do is weird and unbelievable enough.
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
) Also kind of stolen from my wife who said something similar to her mother about Catholicism. 
