|This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.|
NOTE - The talk page format was not followed when various editors originally posted the following discussions, so this archive is not in chronological order. Some of the very first posts from 2004 are in the middle of the page. --Ghostexorcist 13:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1 Some Perceived Problems with Article
- 2 Article Introduction
- 3 Notes?
- 4 An unfounded assumption
- 5 huh?
- 6 2 Lines
- 7 Dumb question
- 8 Page move
- 9 Nephilim art
- 10 Madeleine L'Engle's Many Waters
- 11 X-Men
- 12 Nephil, nephilim
- 13 Sons of the Bird
- 14 Pointless Paragraph?
- 15 Gibborim
- 16 Nephalem or Nephilim?
- 17 Nephilim in fiction
- 18 AOD?
- 19 Rephaim and Anak
- 20 Talmud & the Stowaway Giant
Some Perceived Problems with Article
In the section of the article "In the Bible" there's some unatrributed claims.
At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were heroes of old, men of renown
That needs to be below the quote and not next to it. That is commentary and not a part of the Bible.
Secondly, on the commentary. By itself, how is that quote a reference to the Nephilim? It merely says that the sons of heaven (or in the King James translation, sons of God) came in to the daughters of men. Other places in the Bible refer to human beings being the sons of God. So, this does not mean by itself that angels came down and mated with humans. Secondly, the passage never uses the word angel. Thirdly, even if angel is attributed as the correct word for the sons of heaven/God even that does not necessarily imply a literal physical angel with wings or whatever. Perhaps it implies an angelic human being? Eh?
Thirdly, we only connect this passage to (or mostly) Nephilim because of the Book of Enoch. Was not Genesis written way before the Book of Enoch?
Fourthly, the commentary below the Jude quote is inadequate and misleading. The wording in the King James Bible is
1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
(King James Bible, Jude)
There are a lot of "unnatural vices" as well as "going after strange flesh." I'm sure you can think of several things on your own when you hear those phrases. I see nothing to signify that this is talking about Humans wanting angel flesh.
Also, again. Consider the humans that we consider as angels. Consider the priests and the holy people who give into temptation and go after vice. Are they not leaving their first estate? Does this not conform to other parts of the bible. There's no reason to authoritatively interpret this to mean actual physical angels. The 2nd half of the sentence is metaphorical, there's no reason to assume that the 1st half isn't either. Bill Bisco
I don't really see what the problems are here. "At that time the Nephilim..." etc is from the Bible and is clearly referring to the Nephilim. This is pretty much the only time the Nephilim are addressed directly, and sure, it doesn't say 'At that time the Nephilim appeared on the Earth BECAUSE the sons of God went...' etc, but it is not unreasonable to make the connection, considering the wording and context.
What exactly is an 'angelic human being'? Would that not be like saying a 'feline human being'. You have angelic beings, and you have human beings. Apart from the Nephilim, never the two shall meet. The 'sons of God', although used to mean many things in the Bible, is often used to mean angel. Whether it means angel here or not, I'm not going to make any assurances, but it is not outside the scope of possibility to consider this. I'm not sure where your ideas of semi-angels (ie an angel, but not a literal angel with wings etc) come from, but I don't think they're particularly biblical.
In terms of the texts, it's hard to be sure what was written when. Everything was passed on and re-written and many stories were only passed on from person to person, never written. What we do know about the book of Enoch is that it was dismissed by the Jewish people mainly because it had a lot of messianic references, and it was dismissed by the Christians because it had a lot of mystical tones and had no points central to the Christian faith, so it has been largely ignored. In my experience of Christianity at least, a lot of people believe it to be a true holy text, but most believe it to be unimportant. But considering something as simple 'written before' is a very simplistic consideration of its authenticity.
And in terms of Jude, lets not forget that there is a pre-existing connection between Jude and Enoch in that the book of Jude specifically quotes Enoch. If that is not enough of a connection between the two, then look at the description of the prison for those angels - in everlasting chains under darkness. It bears a striking similarity to the prison which is described for the fallen watchers in the book of Enoch.
And which part is considered metaphoric? 'giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' If it's the eternal fire, that's one thing. Many would say that fire is literal, but it's moot because the eternal fire is the vengeance, the result. If we look at the actions that lead to that result, the fornication, going after strange flesh - these are surely literal. And they are considered to be the same actions that the angels took. So why would the actions of Sodom and Gomorrah be literal and the actions of the angels, which are not just sons of God, but literally angels here, be metaphoric.
I don't mean to be contrary, but I really see nothing no issue among the points you have raised.
Stev 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph should probably be edited in such a way as to summarize both the passages which are debated, and the reasons they are controversial. Summarizing all the interpretations (especially the more offbeat ones) is probably impossible even in a wiki article.
If I were to rewrite the introduction I would suggest something like the following:
Nephilim is a transliteration of the Hebrew word (הנּפלים, those causing others to fall) that occurs in two places in the Torah, and has given rise to a wide range of interpretations.
Genesis 6:1-4, speaking of the world before Noah's Flood, says that
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-- and also afterward-- when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. (NRSV)
Later, in Numbers 13:32-33, the spies that Moses sends to scout out Canaan report that:
"The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (NRSV)
Demmeis 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what happened to the Notes section? It may have been inadvertently deleted, as the superscript references ("example") lead nowhere now.
An unfounded assumption
In "Nephilim in parahistory," in referring to the theory of the Nephilim being Neanderthals or a Neanderthal/Homo Sapien hybrid, the writer states "This however is highly suspect due to the fact that angels are defined as being if not beings of light than at the very least more graceful versions of homo sapiens." Where does he maintain that angels are defined as "more graceful versions of homo sapiens?" Some Bible verses in which angels appeared to man describe men being filled with dread at the sight of them. In Genesis, these angels killed men by the hundred thousands (Isaiah 37:36). Where is his reference to this opinion that they are slender and graceful beings?
a response: the writer (who continually erases my corrections to the "nephilim" entry) has no source for this assumption.
"In light of the alien abduction scenario, some have speculated a form of artificial insemination being implemented, which isn't necessarily comepletely impossible considering that one of the fallen angels named Tamiel (also called Kasyade) taught men the science of abortion." makes absolutely no sense. what does artificial insemination have to do with abortion?16:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- They're linked in a lot of peoples' minds, both having to do with human intervention into the reproductive cycles. Also, in the case of external fertilization and implantation, the remaining fertilized ova that aren't implanted need to be disposed of in some manner, so they're often destroyed in a manner consistent with abortion if one believes life to start after conception. -Fuzzy 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Two lines in a book spawned a lot of creativity, see: Cultural references to Nephilim.
a response: If you do the research, you'll find a lot more than two lines, both in the Bible and throughout history. If you're interested, email me firstname.lastname@example.org
Could "Sons of God" simply refer to human males descended from Adam, while "daughters of man" would refer to females born by humans? The point of the passage would only mean that men and women would bear daughters who would proliferate the human race across the Earth; in some human villages, there would simply be taller or larger men who dwarfed the Hebrews in size, making them feel figuratively like insects. This might refer to racial characteristics of other larger human beings who were seen for the first time in these areas.((response: No, tradition, history, archaeology, all confirm the bible when it describes nephilim and giants. I included my email above, if you want to know more))
- Adam was the first human, not just the first Hebrew. The Hebrews came about after the flood, much later. Nephilim were before the flood. Peace.((response: And also after the flood, in Canaan))
- That's one interpretation. But given that Adam's son Cain goes off to the land of Nod and finds a wife there, it's not clear that all humans are descended from Adam. thx1138 12:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)((response: According to my understanding of history/Bible, it is. If he didn't marry a descendant of Adam, Cain married an offspring of the "sons of God." If you know otherwise, I'd be interested to see the source))
- If that were "given", but it's not... There is no ancient tradition recorded anywhere that Cain "finds a wife there"... There are plenty of ancient traditions recorded that Cain was allowed to marry his own sister (the prohibition against incest not applying until later) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You would definately have to concur that Cain took his sister as a wife. Setting aside Mythology and looking at the bible literally shows that God created one man and one woman. ARNO
- It's not a dumb question, it's quite reasonable I think. Job 1:6 uses the same expression 'sons of God' when relating the events leading up to the afflictions of Job. The sons of God (angels) were presenting themselves before the throne of God, including Satan, in the heavenly realm. That the Genesis account also mentions that the sons of God and daughters of men had relations suggests it was a remarkable event and not what had been going on until then. On the point about the line of Adam, regardless of what traditions say (and traditions say all sorts of things), the Biblical account states that he lay with his wife having travelled East, but not that he met her there. --Recurring 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is in fact one of the two oldest and most popular Christian interpretations. Ever since Origen many Christian exegetes have interpreted the "sons of God" as refering to the righteous humans (descended from Seth) and the "daughters of men" as unrighteous humans (descended from Cain). (Others, such as Augustine followed the Jewish tradition that "sons of God" refers to angels and "daughters of man" refers to humans). Later Christian theologians were pretty evenly divided between these views right down to the modern period. I don't have time to dig up sources for the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis 6, but there should be a section on it in the main articleDemmeis 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to do this myself, because Nephilim redirected to Nephilim (Bible), but since the biblical reference is the primary meaning of the term (all others derive from or refer to this origin), Nephilim should be the article name and all others should be qualified. So, I checked, and Nephilim had an edit history and so could not be moved-over. Believing that only a redirect with no edit history can be moved over, I moved Nephilim to Nephilim (old redirect) leaving a fresh redirect in the old article name, then tried to move Nephilim (Bible) over the top of this new redirect at Nephilim that now has no edit history. I have done this before, with 2000 AD. However, it won't let me overmove Nephilim (which is now a redirect with no edit history) with Nephilim (Bible). Can someone either fix this, or better, tell me what I am doing wrong so I can do it, and get it right next time? I just noticed that the error page says "Error: could not submit form", so maybe it isn't a procedural error of mine. I get the same error in FireFox (double-proxied) and IE (single-proxy). PhilHibbs 12:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"who cite the teaching of Jesus in the Book of Matthew that angels do not marry in the afterlife"
- where is that? - Omegatron 23:33, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (NKJV) chikalee517
What is the singular of Nephilim?
Edit: I removed my old text, since it was somewhat wrong (it was an adjective rather then a noun). I spoke to someone who is more expect then me in hebrew and he told me that the singular is Nephil (the i is like feel). נּפיל
Perhaps it should have two l's in english - anyone know the rules on that? I think also the plural form should have two l's. 03/27/05 11:495 pm EST
I believe there must be some classic, free artworks with Nephilim. I couldn't find anything good with Google. If somebody finds something, please add it here.
Madeleine L'Engle's Many Waters
Nephilim (and seraphim, but that's irrelevant here) figure quite prominently in the plot of L'Engle's Many Waters. The book takes place around the flood ... Should it be included in Culture References? 'I believe so. Please feel free to add it.22.214.171.124 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a somewhat recent story in the X-Men comic book series which explains the Nephilim legends in the context of the Marvel Universe. I beleive it should be added. There is already information concerning this developement on the Nightcrawler and Mystique pages. 126.96.36.199 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobody seems to know what the singular form of "Nephilim" is, Although following the trend of Anak to Anakim, Cherub to Cherubim and Seraph to Seraphim, perhaps "Nephil" might make sense.
First of all: Nobody? I'm sure a person with sufficient knowledge of the language can attest to nephîyl/nephil (הנּפל) being the correct (or wrong) singular form of nephilim.
- I've always used "nephil" as the singular, following the cherub-cherubim pattern. Also, once this matter is settled, houldn't the article be moved to a the singular form?
- No, it shouldn't be moved. The only references to them in notable sources are in the clearly plural usage - Nephilim. --User talk:FDuffy 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Second of all, this particular section doesn't seem very wikipedic: perhaps "Nephil" might make sense.
- Wouldn't the singular be nephilim, like 1 sheep, 2 sheep ?
"The Bible also says that angels cannot mate because they have no genitals." Where? I don't believe that it exists. The Bible says that angels don't marry. Is this extrapolation from what the Bible does say? Citation would be helpful. I think that someone should delete that.
- I've never seen that either. I've deleted the sentence. Besides, the Book of Enoch says they have sex. --francis 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In reference to hebrew the singular form should be "nephel" or "nefel" -- http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05309 -- Nicolas --11:40 (Paris) 8 december 2005
- No, they say "nephel" means miscarriage/abortion. The singular of nephilim is nephil (n@phiyl)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
I sort of have an in-between theory. I believe that they do what the greys do, which is artificial insemination (particularly because normal sex seems redundant, cumbersome, and somewhat contradictory to Lucifer's very attitude, which is portrayed as that of an elitist/fascist snobbery. he would not dirty himself up like that, that is the stuff the terran riffraf do so that he can be more outstanding in contrast). I also believe that it would be very naive to think of these B'nai Ellohim in a biological manner, which would be redundant for beings who are supposed to be given such privelages. Thus I suspect that they are cybernetic, with a minimum of biological matter for a nervous system (I do think they cannot be wholly aetherial, since H'Shem warns them that they will "die" in Psalms, suggesting that their bodies will die in the fires and they wander as ghosts for an eternity). If that is the case, then I even wonder if "hybrid" is the proper term, they may have merely created some gametes extracted from human DNA, certain traits switched on and off as is desired from the phenotype, and then re-inserted into the female for incubation. It is here where I like David Icke's view, because he claims that the nephilim are bred for the specific purpose of being possessed through hypnotic suggestion (he does not believe the "lizards" to be physical, remember, they are aetherial themselves, they merely possess bodies, though he says they can also make their hosts shapeshift existence being an illusion).
Just some thoughts, why not?
RoyBot 184.108.40.206 25 December 2005 19:01
A better question is Why? --User talk:FDuffy 15:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Truly, I am tired of the superstitious, elemental nature of Biblical enterpretation and how it has seeped into both the evangelical communities, and certainly the "Fundamentalist" communities (honestly, this very unsophisticated, bio-centric attitude that sees the world like this is VERY pagan in my definition of the word). Again, given the description of Sheten Helil, I cannot see him or his folowers doing something so self-degrading as copulating with animals (we are talking about a being who fell because of vain hubris, and seeing the human-or any wholly biological body, I just cannot think that A: They where biological, or B: They would want to involve themselves with the uncleanliness of biology). These are gods we are talking about, not some young gangster...
Also, I have simply been thinking about this and other theological issues like this for three years, and feel it a requirement to share some of this stuff. See my work on the following topics:
- Billy Meier (This relates the topic below)...
- Samyaza (Think, how could he have known this name?)
- Benjamin Creme (Had a long dialogue with one Sethie over Benji Creme's disturbing message)
- The Roswell UFO incident (Where I added some links to information concerning it's connection to Paperclip).
- Pantheism (Cosmotheism section, also argued in the forum against someone who said pantheism was not idolatry, where I added yes it was and more).
- Roy Masters (This man, amongst the likes of Dr. Gene Scott , Lyndon Larouche, Zeph Daniel, J. P. Holding, Michael S. Heiser, Lewis Lofflin and Manfred Davidmann, this man has been most infulential to my views, for nine years).
NOTE: Please do not take that word god as having anything to do with God, who is wholly transcendent, living in the Platonic realm, the physical universe eminating from Him, the gods themselves are his creations in his own image and likeness, as we were created. (See: thedivinecouncil.com and the site's author on Laura Lee, though I kind of dissagree with some of his reasoning, because how can non-physical beings physically materialize? That is rediculous, unless they ARE indeed physical but merely living in another dimension, I just think they are somewhere else, I also dissagree with his non-E.T. stance, given that he does NOT believe the existence of such as against God, citing a very old and obscure Church dogma to prove it, and secondly, since we where destined to become members of the coincil ourselves, then why could not they have begun in a similar way as well? God could have still created them).
So, that was just a longwinded way of answering why.
Ideocentric Roybot (220.127.116.11) 06:22, 03 January 2006
Sons of the Bird
In one of my favorite Heinlein stories, The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, the antagonists are a shadowy demonic crew who style themselves "the Sons of the Bird". They turn out to be creations of the "artist" who has created our world (perhaps our whole universe?) as a work of art, but are now considered "bad art" that must be eliminated before the work is judged; this elimination takes place in apocalyptic (though cryptic) fashion at the end of the story.
The account here of the Flood being a reckoning for the Nephilim brought this story to mind. Is there any evidence whether Heinlein had it in mind? --Trovatore 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- It seems extremely unlikely to me. Heinlein was certainly familiar with the Bible, but his use of it in his stories is very rare, and is usually confined to very well-known figures, used in very straightforward ways (such as Job or Methuselah). The Flood-Nephilim connection is not a common idea, and it seems very unlikely that Heinlein encountered it growing up in Bible-belt Missouri. — Lawrence King (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The Flood-Nephilim connection is not a common idea"... I take it you have never read the Book of Enoch, or very much related literature. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a myriad of specific verses that make this conenction quite explicit. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I did read bits of the various Enoch books and Jubilees, years ago. But I didn't know this was in them. So I agree with you that this is not a modern idea. However, I certainly don't think that something is "common knowledge" because it was in these two books, and as I said earlier, there is no evidence that Heinlein's knowledge of Jewish or Christian theology or theological speculation went beyond what was common knowledge in his era of America. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "sons of God" is sometimes translated into English as "sons of gods". The Hebrew word, "Elohim", is a plural form, but is often used with single verbs and adjectives (as in this case) when the single meaning refers to the "Godhead."
I don't think this paragraph has anything to do with the article. The Nephilim have nothing to do with the Trinity discussion. You might as well put this note under every quotation of a Hebrew scripture that uses the word "Elohim." --18.104.22.168 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Hebrew term "Elohim" means "God of gods" and is the first direct reference to God in the Bible (Genesis 1:1).
Hi, I came across this page Gibborim (biblical) while surfing pages related to the comic book series runaways. I've been trying to improve it, but I'm having trouble separting true Judeo-Christian belief from new age belief. Now I realize that it might just be another name for this page.
Should I just give up and make it a redirect page, or should I continue. Any help would be appreciated. Stephen Day 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Nephalem or Nephilim?
Hello,I have noticed something very interesting,the article says "In the video game Diablo II: Lord of Destruction the Ancients Ones are referred to as "Spirits of the Nephilim"."Well,I just went in to my game and saw the long speech,the altar of the heavens said"We are the spirits of the NephAlEm,the Ancient Ones...(Insert whatever they said here)"so,my point is,Nephalem or Nephilim? --22.214.171.124 13:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Nephilim in fiction
I'm moving these paragraphs here because they're totally unsourced, really goofy, and not actually about Nephilim in fiction. This is really interesting though; maybe somebody will take it upon themselves to source it and NPOV it and move it back:
There have been many interesting attempts to reconcile mythology with science; many have theorized that mythology can contain grains of truth in the form of a highly distorted "folk memory".
In this context, the Nephilim have been associated with the demi-gods of myth and legend, inhabitants of Atlantis that allegedly descended from extraterrestrials, and other such stories. One theory among those that accept the correlation between science and the Bible is that the Nephilim "giants" were actually surviving Neanderthals, or a Homo sapiens-Neanderthal hybrid.
It is believed by some people that modern man shared several thousand years of history with Neanderthals, and also that the Middle-Eastern region was home to some of the last surviving pockets of Homo sapiens neandertalensis or H. neandertalensis. Therefore, it is conceivable that a folk memory of these creatures survived by way of mythology. In addition, it appears that the very last Neanderthals adopted some of the technological and cultural innovations of their H. sapiens contemporaries. The theory is that surviving Neanderthals or hybrids might have been large, powerful men possessing the intellect and societal characteristics of our own species, which would explain their identification as "mightiest ones" and "men of renown." One flaw in this theory is that H. neanderthalensis were slightly shorter than H. sapiens. On the other hand, they were giants compared to their even shorter predecessors, Australopithecus and Homo habilis.
The Nephilim race play a large part in the video game Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness (2003). Should anything on that be apart of this article?
Rephaim and Anak
I think the article needs to mention the "Rephaim" mentioned in the Ugarit texts, and that the name of a tribe called "Anaq" in Palestine is testified in the Egyptian Execration texts.
Talmud & the Stowaway Giant
"This has led to a great deal of confusion, even to the point of medieval legends recounted in the Talmud of a giant stowing away on Noah's Ark."
I hate to be a 'cite references nazi', but I'd kill for a reference on this one. I'm researching the subject for a screenplay I'm writing, and this is the only reference I can find to this story, although my knowledge of the Talmud is quite limited. Does anyone know where this has come from or where I can get more information on this story?
Stev 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)