Talk:Nephilim

Recent Changes (May 27, 2007)
Grifken 21:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

This page could be much improved, and as such I have started working re-writing a lot of it, whilst presenting both of the main positions on the subject. I am not trying to delete "opposing" viewpoints. The statement that "angels are not biological beings" may reflect a widely held Platonic belief that angelic beings have no material component, but runs headlong into Genesis 18:6-8 which states that the angels ate the food Sarah prepared for them, and Psalm 78:25 which says the manna in the wilderness was the "bread of angels". Its position in the article was rather strongly POV, and I thought it did not belong there.

I propose to re-write this page to outline the two historical schools of thought in the church: the angel-human hybrid and the Line of Seth interbreeding with line of Cain. We can have a section under each school for their primary arguments, where the "angels are not biological beings" would be appropriate.

Grifken 21:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Interesting point - I would suggest adding some of this argument for a "material component" of angels to the angel page.


 * I replaced the paragraph regarding other created men, which was deleted a second time. Reversing admin edits is forbidden. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

A lot more can be done to improve this article. I suggest that the long section of quotes from Enoch and Jubilees should be removed and replaced with summaries or short quotes in the section on extra-Biblical literature.

Grifken 00:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sons of God
Grifken 01:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT) It seems poor style to put the counter-argument for each of the three positions on the the Sons of God in this paragraph. It would make more sense to develop counter-arguments in the Controversy section. But whatever the boss wants goes, I guess...

Am I the only one who uses the comment section to discuss changes before making them? Grifken 01:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Mostly. Major changes are discussed, though. PrometheusX303 22:24, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Why would the mere mention of their marriage to the daughters of men as something special? Marriage_childbearing, had been taking place for more than 1,500 years. Comparison can be made with: Job 1:6; 38:7. Psalm 83:9. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6. Terms: beneh′ ’e•lim′ and beneh′ ha•’Elo•him′ occur in: "Sons of men" —Compare Psalm 4:2; 57:4; Proverbs 8:22, 30, 31; Jeremiah 32:18, 19; Daniel 10:16. The timing, vocabulary, and subject are related to Genesis. Consider Job is believed to written by the prophet Moses who would penned the inspired record of Job. 1 Peter 3:19, 20; 2 Peter 2:4, 5. Gib·bo·rim′ and hag·gib·bo·rim′ [Mighty ones] > Biblical Koine Greek: Gi′gan·tes (giants).

So the "Sons of God" thus must be fallen angels. Thank-you! --Anaccuratesource 02:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Other created men?
''Another logical interpretation for the Sons of God is they were other created men. It is largely assumed that Adam and Eve were the only humans created in the beginning, but the Bible does not describe every person on earth, nor even everyone that was important to God. Only key individuals or situations are included within the text, and we can not say with certainty that God only created one pair of humans.''

This is quite wrong.


 * When Adam was first created, "no suitable helper was found for him".
 * Eve is described as the "mother of all living".
 * The New Testament says "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."

If Adam were not the only progenitor of our race, these statements could not be true. --Oelphick 18:05, 27 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with you, Oel. I am of the opinion that it is either a social label (that may describe mighty men, or kings), or it may refer to some genetic variation of humans; i.e. Neanderthals (but then there is the question of how they survived the flood). --Soga 11:29, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Grifken 14:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

By suggesting that God created other humans besides Adam and Eve, the original author of this article steps out of the fold of orthodoxy, as the Scriptures clearly teach that all men die because of Adam's sin, because all men are sons of Adam.

Therefore, I will alter this paragraph to reflect Biblical orthodoxy. If the author can reference a published source that attributes Nephilim to other created lines, then we might add a reference to unorthodox opinions on the subject.

Grifken 14:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

General Content of this Article
There are many errors in this article. In the first sentence, it states that the Nephilim were called giants. This is not supported by scripture. "Nephilim" is fallen, or possibly feller: a tyrant or bully. Several English translations rendered the word "giants", but of late translators seem to prefer leave it untranslated. The "giants" translation may have come from the Greek old testament where "nephilim" was "gegantes" which looks like "giant" but in modern Greek would be "titans". In Greek mythos, the titans were the supernaturally powerful offspring of gods and humans.

The lead states that the Nephilim "appear to have made a resurgence after the flood but were killed and dispersed by armies of normal men and various tribes". Is there any support for this statement? The only mention of Nephilim on the earth after the flood is part of the bad report from the spies in Numbers 13. Their report is called "bad" (or "evil" depending on the translation) three times in short order, so it can hardly be considered a reliable source. Just because the Bible records the report, it doesn't mean it endorses the report.

The section on the characteristics of the nephilim includes several post-flood accounts and descriptions, but none of these are of the nephilim. The are the Emim ("terrors" if I recall correctly), and the "Rephaim" (these are the giants, and also tyrants), the "Anakim" (the people of Anak). None of these are linked with the pre-flood nephilim. The appears to be 2 possible reasons for the purported link of these peoples to the nephilim. Firstly the Anakim are linked to the Nephilim in Numbers 13, but again that is the evil report, so scratch that. Then the Rephaim are giants (in fact these peoples are generally described as being tall or large) and seem to have been thus matched with the Nephilim based on the English rendering of "giants" in Genesis 6. The apocryphal accounts of the nephilim ascribe great size, but this is not a title and is still not a link to the post-flood peoples mentioned. So that whole section is incorrect. The summary list of characteristics only has one entry that belongs as all the others deal with these other peoples, rather than the Nephilim.

"Still others hold that the Sons of God were other created men." I have never ever come across this before. Who are these others that hold this view? The view seems quite eisegetic, and actually counter to the Scriptural role of pro-genitors ascribed to both Adam and Eve. This really needs to be fleshed out more, to indicate where this view is coming from and why.

Anyway, that is probably more than enough criticism for now. I apologise if I seem to have "dismissed" somebody's hard work but I have actually been looking hard at Nephilim in Scripture lately so this is all fresh in my mind. Much of the latter portion of this article is more about giant humans in general than Nephilim specifically, and may be better suited to a "Giants" article. Is there currently such an article?LowKey 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just popped in and noticed that none of what I raised here has really been addressed in a substantial fashion. "Nephilim" has been changed to "Giants" in headings etc, but the content still says that the Bible called Nephilim giants, and still lists post-flood references to large-statured people as being references to the Nephilim.  Neither of these are true.  The Bible calls the Nephilim "Nephilim".  The only post-flood reference to the Nephilim is the "evil report" (which we know was an untrue report).  While apochryphal references and the common theme of mythology indicate that the Nephilim could well have been (and probably generally were) gigantic, this does not mean that all giants are/were Nephilim.  Genesis 6:4 has been nominated to support belief in post-lodd Nephilim, but no explanation is given why afterward should be taken to mean after the flood particularly as the flood as not yet been mentioned at that point.  I don't think such an explanation belongs in the lead, but it should be in the article somewhere.  I am loathe to make the corrections myself due to the "don't revert admins" rule. LowKey 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another follow up, still nothing. This article by Gary Bates of CMI, and the linked PDF of the "Sons of God" appendix fo "Alien Intrusion" specifically addresses the same points I raised above. LowKey 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made a few changes - pasting some of your text above into the body of the article. I altered the intro and I moved the section specifically about recent Giants to that page. Feel free to make improvements upon the article. It still needs lots of work.


 * I do however believe, based on (Genesis 6:4), that it is justified to assume that Nephilim were on the Earth after the flood, and the false reference to them from the spies at least acknowledges an awareness of them by the Israelites. I would ask that this assumption of their post-flood presence be preserved, although the certainty about their relationship to tribes was overstated.

--Ashcraft - (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing
ANCIENT PEOPLES TALKING ABOUT GIANTS:


 * - Kroni: He is the primordial manifestation of evil, and manifests in various forms of evil, such as Ravana and Duryodhana.”


 * - Hiranyaksha: A Datiya, He was slain by Lord Vishnu after he (Hiranyaksha) took the Earth to the bottom of what has been described as the “Cosmic Ocean.” His name in Sanskrit literally means "Golden eye".


 * - Oni: Depictions of oni vary widely but usually portray them as hideous, gigantic, creatures with sharp claws, wild hair, and two long horns growing from their heads. They are humanoid for the most part, but occasionally, they are shown with unnatural features such as odd numbers of eyes or extra fingers and toes. Their skin may be any number of colors, but red and blue are particularly common.


 * - Zipacna: He and his brother, Cabrakan (Earthquake), were often considered demons. Zipacna, like his relatives, was said to be very arrogant and violent. Zipacna was characterized as a large caiman and often boasted to be the creator of the mountains.


 * - Aztec mythology speaks of four previous ages, during the first of which the earth was inhabited by giants.


 * - Demigods in mythology

--Anaccuratesource 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * - Gilgamesh - Mesopotamian.
 * - Heracles. - Greek.
 * - Satyr. - Greek.
 * - Achilles. - Greek.
 * - Orpheus. - Greek.
 * - Ganas. - Hindu.
 * - Māui. - Polynesian islands.
 * - Aeacus. - Greek.
 * - Aeneas. - Greek.
 * - Amphion. - Greek.

The word Nephilim
Derived from the root Naphal meaning to fall, it's translated fallen in Isaiah 14:12. I believe the word Nephilim actually refer to the Fallen Angels and Gibborim to their offspring. None of the 3 Hebrew words translated Giant actually mean that, there are people in the Bible described as very large, but their all post Flood. The rendering of the word as Giant derives from the Spetuigant rendering, the Septuagint messed allot of things up.--MithirandirOlorin 02:14, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

I don't understand that explanation

Genesis 6:4: The Neph′i·lim (han·Nephi·lim′, “those who cause others to fall down.”) proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the [true] God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them, they were the mighty ones (hag·gib·bo·rim′) who were of old, the men of fame.

The rough word-for-word translation of the text of Genesis 6:4::

(The Nephilim) (proved to be/they became) (in the earth) (in the days,) (the those) (also/moreover) (after that) (so) (which) (continued to have relations with/came into) (sons) (of the God) (to daughters of) (the men) (they bore) (to them) (they) (the mighty ones) (who) (were of old) (men of) (the fame).

I believe taking into consideration the context of verse 4, one would most likely conclude that the Nephilim were not themselves fallen angelic "sons of God," but were the hybrid offspring resulting from their intercourse with "the daughters of men."

This followed the Greek Septuagint, supplementary information, "suggesting that both the “Nephilim” and “mighty ones” are identical by using the same word gi′gan·tes (giants) to translate both expressions." - Insight on the scriptures, volume two, under nephilim, page 492.

The Hebrew text seems to be drawing the reader's attention to abnormality as well as the ferocity of hybrids offspring. “Nephilim” means “Fellers,” or “those who cause others to fall down.” The Hebrew phrase highlights well their famed violent reputation and supernatural strength. --Anaccuratesource 22:59, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
 * I tend to agree with you Anaccuratesource.--Tony 11:33, 18 July 2011 (PDT)
 * The Septuagint is very problematic, to many Christians today want to use it to solve problems, when it's really the cause of many.--MithirandirOlorin 12:28, 17 January 2012 (PST)

Although some interpret the nephilim as fallen angels the fact the 10 bad spies reported seeing "Nephilim" in the land of Canaan; men of great size; seems to add much weigh to the nephilim being the hybrid offspring of materialized fallen angels and human women instead just materialized fallen angels.--Anaccuratesource 14:16, 30 June 2012 (PDT)no


 * That account also has some ambiguity to it. --MithirandirOlorin 16:08, 18 March 2014 (EDT)

The Nephilim perished

 * - The Bible shows us that the descendants of Cain and the Nephilim perished Genesis 6:12, 13, 17; 7:21; 9:11; 15-17; Matthew 24:39; 1 Peter 3:20.

And the spies that reported seeing the "Nephilim" were the "bad spies." 10 bad spies and 2 good spies? They saw giants and told the people they were actually the "Nephilim" (causing many people to lose faith)--Anaccuratesource 22:44, 29 June 2012 (PDT)


 * That article already states that, and it is acknowledged that all flesh died during the flood including the Nephilim that then existed. But the following verse simply can not be avoided - "and also afterward" in Genesis 6 must mean after the flood.


 * If indeed the Nephilim were a hybrid race, is there really any reason to assume that the same type of hybridization wasn't taking place after the flood as well? --Ashcraft - (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2012 (PDT)


 * - That's a good question. From my understanding of Jude 6 divine intervention occurred so that the demons are now "held" in "eternal bonds" or "chains." A parallel text said they have been thrown into "Tartarus" into "pits of dense darkness" "to be reserved for judgement. (2 Peter 2:4)

These wicked "spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19, 20) would be now greatly restricted. How so? Since their still creating havoc today and according to the book of Job (written after the flood) Satan (a fallen angel himself) was still able to enter and interrupt a gathering in Heaven. (Job 1:6-12)

This leaves me to the conclusion they were permanently restricted from materializing. Which seems logical to me since they were abusing a God-given ability.

They are limited but they can still possess people and animals under certain circumstances. The Hebrew phrase at Genesis seems to be connecting the two clauses into one thought. --Anaccuratesource 14:06, 30 June 2012 (PDT)


 * That's certainly a plausible theory, but it doesn't help answer how the Nephilim came to exist after the flood. Given the timing of the statement "and also afterward" just prior to God declaring he would destroy the world by flood, we would naturally conclude this means "after the flood". --Ashcraft - (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2012 (PDT)


 * I agree Chris, the Bible speaks clearly and there is no need for interpolation in this matter.Kaz 17:12, 3 July 2012 (PDT)


 * Another problem I see with this - is that in the retelling of this event by Moses in there is no mention whatsoever of the report being erroneous, but instead they are confirmed as being Anakites (We even saw the Anakites there), which is what was stated in the spy report from Numbers 13:33 - We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim) - the latter portion in parenthesis probably being an editorial insert by Moses. The Anakites are mentioned several other times and described as giants known as "Rephaites" in Deut 2:11. In Deut 3:11 King Og is said to be the last of the Rephaites whose bed was apparently 13.5 ft long.

--Ashcraft - (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2012 (PDT)


 * - Let me illustrate like this: if the phrase "And also after that" was a line between "point a" and "point b"; Where would the "point a" and "point b"is be? "Point a" was /before/ (not at/during) Noah had even built the ark, or when "were the Flood was even prophecize to occur. I am not going say where "point b" is. I will let you decide. However in truth can one be dogmatic that it incidated a time after the flood? --Anaccuratesource 10:09, 6 July 2012 (PDT)
 * - There was not any indication the report was true either.
 * - Og was a Giant. The belief he was a Nephilim is not confirmed in the Bible. The belief is mentioned in Rabbinic literature though. Of which its basis both Christ Jesus and the Apostle Paul warned us about. The Bible states the measurement of his bieber not his height.


 * It is true that "Point a" was before the flood. The Nephilim were on the Earth in the days when - "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." Since only the flood event comes after these days in the Biblical narrative, "and also afterward" must mean after this event. Given the timing of the statement, the only way that "and also afterward" can be interpreted any other way than "after the flood" is if you want it to mean something else. The most straightforward reading the text clearly indicates that "after the flood" was the meaning the author intended to convey.


 * How is Deut 9 not confirmation? In numbers it says that the Nephilim were descendents of Anak. Most Bible commentators agree that this statement was an editorial insert by Moses. It was he - not the spies - that made this connection for us. In Deut, Moses confirms that the Anakites are in the land, and it is clear from his description of the events that it was not the report that was the issue, but the people's unwillingness to go in and take possession because the occupants were described as strong and tall.


 * In Numbers 13:33 it says We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim).
 * In Deut 1:28 is says ‘The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites there.’”
 * In Deut 9:1-2 Hear, Israel: You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: “Who can stand up against the Anakites?” --Ashcraft - (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2012 (PDT)


 * - With due respect, I get where your coming from. I just personally don't agree it, I don't see "point b" as being after the flood. I believe it was an intermediate period leading up and finally finishing at the Flood. The whole thing really rests on a negative report given by and evidently that was intended to terrorize (Numbers 14:11). The language used in this report reflects that. Now just how trustworthy were these individuals? They after all embellished their report if we can even call it that. (Numbers 13:33b) the "like grasshoppers" phrase for example comes to mind. Otherwise, how do we know our teachers, our friends, our parents, our co-workers, etc., aren't Nephilims themselves? --Anaccuratesource 11:44, 7 July 2012 (PDT)


 * - The Bible doesn't mention a second coming of the "son of God" and mating with the "daughters of men." --Anaccuratesource 14:34, 7 July 2012 (PDT)

Hebrew records have always maintained that the second wife of Noah was a girl called Na'amah and that the seed of the Nephilim continued after the flood through her incestuous offspring with Noah's accursed grandson Cana'an. Paul said that "the oracles of God" are with the Jews, and Jesus said that "the Pharisees sit in Moses seat", so any bible believer should not ignore what little remnant of ancient wisdom we have to offer at least don't you think?Kaz 03:08, 9 July 2012 (PDT)


 * - Although I think we should respect for Jewish oral traditions, to what cost? It's sometimes helpful e.g., understanding certain historical matter, as what the First-Century layout of the temple was like and so forth. However, both the Apostle Paul and Christ Jesus warned true Christian about fabled Jewish traditions (Titus 1:14). Now the Apostle Paul said that "all scripture (referring to the Tanakh, the inspired Gospels and the inspired Epistles) is inspired of God" (2 Timothy 3:16-17) not all Jewish traditions, especially those passed on orally (which later formed the Talmud and other rabbinic literature). The Apostle Peter moreover said there were 8 survivors not 9 (1 Peter 3:20). The Bible explains Canaan was cursed by Noah for a gross and perverted act disgracing his great-grandfather Noah. --Anaccuratesource 19:25, 9 July 2012 (PDT)


 * - The Nephilim reappearing (because the flood killed "all flesh" minus 8 souls) really rests on an untrustworthy report from unfaithful men designed to strike fear into minds and hearts of the men and women of Israel. I don't think this is a reliable enough to say dogmatically new Nephilim can into being. Genesis 10 documents the genealogy of mankind. There was no mention of fallen angels (the "sons of God") re-mating with women ever again. I feel for new Nephilim to have appeared I have missed something in the Bible; something huge. Would that make the Great Flood of Noah's day somewhat pointless too? Your thoughts. --Anaccuratesource 19:25, 9 July 2012 (PDT)


 * - If Canaan's (K'naan) descendants were Nephilim. Where to Christ Jesus, David come into play they descend from Rahab a Canaanitess? --Anaccuratesource 19:36, 9 July 2012 (PDT)