Talk:Nephilim/Archive 1

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)

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)

Article Introduction

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)

Notes?

Anyone know what happened to the Notes section? It may have been inadvertently deleted, as the superscript references ("example^[1]") 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.

huh?

"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)

2 Lines

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 mudskipper3@yahoo.com

Dumb question

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)

Actually, most ancient traditions record that Cain found a wife there. See the Midrash (not the article, the actual midrash). Many record that the wife he found there was lilith. --FDuffy 15:25, 2 January 2006 (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)

Page move

(from WP:RM)

Nephilim (Bible) → Nephilim

• 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)
  • Agreed. -- Naive cynic 19:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to, but I just wanted to mention the Nephilim only redirects to Nephilim (Bible), it does not disambiguate, so there isn't any reason not to move it. --Dyss 17:48, 28 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

Nephilim art

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.64.145.137.34 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

X-Men

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. 64.145.137.34 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Marvel version have their own page now (Neyaphem) -- Noclevername 05:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nephil, nephilim

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) [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.162.46.132 (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 69.248.43.27 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).

and...

• Roy Masters (This man, amongst the likes of Dr. Gene Scott [2], 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.

   Sorry,

   Ideocentric Roybot (69.248.43.27) 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)

It's far from a modern invention, I just found the explicit Naphilim-Flood connection in Jub. 7:21-25, for instance. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:48, 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)

Pointless Paragraph?

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." --216.45.139.148 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).

Gibborim

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? --203.120.68.75 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.

AOD?

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)

Singular

What is/would be the singular form in Hebrew? I assume Nephilim is a plural, like Elohim (I need this information for a work of fiction). Could someone provide the Latin (i.e. regular), Greek and, ideally, Hebrew script versions?

Thank you
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which etymology your using either נפל or פלא. נפל is averb though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The transliteration of the above Hebrew (נפל) is N-F-L, so using the niqqud from נְּפִלִ֞ים (N-F-L'M. "Nephilim") it would be rendered "Nephil." Latin (Jerome's translation) is gigantes meaning "giant." Greek (Septuagint) is the same, just the Greek version (γίγαντες, "gigantes"). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can Nephilim (the plural form) be used as a singular? The article says 3. Webster's 1913 Dictionary defines the word simply as "Giant." Thus, any especially tall, powerful, large, or mighty man would be described in ancient times as Nephilim. Nephilim may simply mean "giant," champion, or strong man. 4. The term might not refer to any specific race or group of people but is a label similar to "hero," a legendary figure, or "great man." Is that (plural form to mean one individual) just an instance of barbarism, or does the Bible use it in singular like Elohim?--87.162.33.234 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture section

I've removed most of this. Some was blatant self-promotion, some was pure trivia. I'm not convinced that any of it that is left is 'culturally significant'. WP:POPCULTURE says "should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." So, that still needs to be done for what's left. --Doug Weller (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug, if you're interested and have the time, the entire article needs to be re-written. It needs to begin with describing the oldest literature in which the term is used (Genesis, Jubilees, Enoch), the dates of these (all Second Temple), and the meaning of the word. The final article would be only a quarter the length of this. PiCo (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, PiCo, how about including some of the other editors on this little project you just announced? Or is it one of those "exclusive" projects? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get mad Til - it was simply that Doug started the thread and I was replying. I have the greatest respect for your knowledge of Jubilees/Enoch, and anything you have to say is always of value. PiCo (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am irritated beyond belief that you've removed the Pop Culture section! Regardless if YOU think it's trivial, it is not your right to censor what others have put out here as potential references to this topic in pop culture! I find it irritating, egotistical and ridiculous that you took it upon yourself to decided which references were worthy or posting and which were not. It is actually IMPORTANT to me and my project to know that there are comic books, books, tv shows and movies being made on the topic and for you to have just decided that they were self promoting and therefore not worthy is (something for the reader to decide based on their reason for looking it up!) nuts. Seriously, get a grip and PLEASE return the info to the page (you can put your comments on the "worthiness" on each reference if you want, but to delete it all is not your perrogative.). Some of us out here are actually researching stuff beyond the facts as YOU know them and would prefer the article to be overly inclusive rather than exclusive. Do you have any idea how much time doing research you have created for me??? UURRGGHHHH!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.6.4 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that it something is useful for someone's project has nothing to do with whether it should be in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia basically reporting on what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject. This does not mean that pop culture stuff shouldn't be in an article, but your needs are not a reason to include it. dougweller (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits linking Nephilim to UFO phenomena

I've reverted this. The bit about 'growing number' had no source. Superior Books and Xlibris are self-publishing houses [3] as is Anomalos [4] and ThinkAgain just seems to be the creation of the authors. dougweller (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nephilims in Sumerian creation myth

This should only be in the article if it can be based on reliable, academic sources. I was about to revert it myself, and have removed it from another [[Watcher {Angel}]]. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor that added them recently said they were from Sumerian translations, but none of the sites he provided gave those translations. If he can provide those translations that actually say what he's claiming, I'll shut up. As it is, he has provided thee websites as references in the article, all three use Zecharia Sitchin as acceptable sources (two mention him by name). A fourth source that he provided in an edit summary, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/, is a legit site, but he does not bring up the text that he is refering to, and it is his responsibility to show us the text that supports his claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why I keep removing the 'Nephilims in Sumerian creation myth' section

The three sites given as sources, http://theanunaki.blogspot.com/2009/04/anunnaki-and-creation-of-mankind.html, http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html, http://www.livingwithsoul.com/god-myth.htm all use ideas ultimately derived from Zecharia Sitchin. They do not actually present the translated Sumerian texts that would support their claims. The first site is on blogspot, which is not an acceptable source for wikipedia because anyone can start a blogspot page with anything on there (and it is not under any sort of review like wikipedia is). The second page is concerned with conspiracy theories about the 2012 armageddon, reptilians, and other fantasies. The third page cited is an advertisement, which is unacceptable. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ is a legitimate site, but the actual texts to support the claims I keep removing are never presented. It is not my job to look for the evidence of those claims, it is the job of the person making the claim to show his evidence. SO far, he has only been showing other websites that he agrees with that do not show their evidence either. If I said that novel Moby Dick has the character Darth Vader in it, it would be my job to show where in Moby Dick that Darth Vader is mentioned, and simply linking to other sites that say "Darth Vader is in Moby Dick" or "George Lucas was influenced by Hermann Melville" would not work because they are not actually showing where Darth Vader is in Moby Dick. If this happened, it would only be sane to assume that Darth Vader is NOT mentioned in Moby Dick. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Ian. I was in the process of reverting the page, but you beat me to it. The edit summary I left was thus: "The point is that this is Wikipedia and everything needs a source. Personal knowledge of the pervaliance of various gods in Summerian texts is not the same as a scholarly source attesting to that fact."

Those sources do sound very unreliable. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not the Annunaki or the Enuma Elish I have a problem with, its that they actually are not being brought up in their original form but in fantasy websites. If an example of the word Nephalim being used in Sumerian texts was found, or even a common intermarraiges of humans and supernatural beings leading to a flood could be found in the actual translations of the texts (instead of websites claiming to have read them), I would be fine with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

agree and would have reverted. Unfortunately Ian is now over 3RR (I can understand why but it creates a problem), and I've taken this to ANI [5] where hopefully someone will do something. If I wasn't involved I would have protected the page. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. I expect the IP to enter into dialogue here over the insertion of the section. For that reason I have not blocked the IP yet. Should no discussion take place, or the editing continues after the block expires, then a block will be enacted on the IP. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why I have putting back the 'Nephilims in Sumerian creation myth' section

It's me, the "unsourced-one"..:) Guys I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean and trustworthy, I also think it is very important. But looking at the tons of articles on Wiki, that have even less sources, claiming wilder things that we can imagine, I begin to wonder...If I didn't know that, this article is a part of "WikiProject Judaism", what is "a collaborative effort to "improve" the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia", and I didn't know that hebrews dont really like to remember the origins of their "own" stories, I'd be also much more understanding and helpful with sources and in everything you want from me. Since I'm just as much the same editor of Wiki as You are, personal opinions doesn't really matter, there's not any "leading-opinion" in a topic which nowone knows about wheter it is about a real thing or the whiole thing is just a fairy tale. In connection with an article like that, asking me to "prove" anything, and "show sources" about, I think is a little harsh from you. We don't have too many sources about it. We have the Bible, which tells us they are called Nephilims and they "had sex" with woman. Based on this, who on Earth can tell about any other source that, it is "not based on facts". Anyway, the story in the Bible is based on facts? Can you prove it? No, you cannot. It is just an idea about them, if they even existed. What you're doing with the immediate delete of my addition, saying that is "not proven" I think a little ridiculous. I know this Sitchin guy wrote two hundred books about Niburu and other things (I dont really believe in), but the FACTS he built his work on are FACTS. Of course he coloured them, made them ready to be sold for the brainless, but the Anuna gods, Enki, Enlil, the story of creation by them is existed and can easily be found in ANY sumerian source. Ian deleted my posts and proving that he thinks ALL the words came from me are Sitchin's, and deleted without thinking through, what parts of it is exactly wrong or misinterpreted, and what parts are 100% facts. If Ian liked this article and wanted to know the truth, he should be happy about getting a clue, where to search more. But he didn't do, he just deleted the whole thing, which SEEM to smell like Sitchin. To clear things up: Actually, very hard to find a text which DOESNT mention Anuna gods. Creation in the sumerian myths is something that anyone can read who has eyes, in many sources. If Ian would be a fair editor, even if he thought that all my words came from Sitchin, he could have deleted my insertions, adding a short sentence at the bottom of the page, that: "There are sumerian texts that are not just 2 vague sentences that we've been talking about here for pages, that - according some ezoteric/crazy/etc. guys - can explain the whole overcomlicated thing here.", or sg like that, not so ironic...:) But he just simply deleted my article, saying that he is not the actor of the article, but an editor of Wiki, he wont search for any clues, he just deletes what is wrong. But if he never searches, it is not easy to say what is wrong I think. Editors dont have just 2 options, "leave it or delete". An editor has the responsibility of correcting, what is wrong, and leaving what is right. I dont think my additions didnt contain ANY right, but Ian' s deletion of the whole thing tell everybody its wrong completely, which I didnt liked ,and put my article back as many times as he deleted it in his blind anger. im not a "pirate" on Wikipedia, I just would like everybody to know about an other possibility, that might explain some thing. Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Show us where in any Sumerian texts there is anything resembling the stories of the Nephilim. You have yet to show us anything. You have shown that you do know where to look for translations of Sumerian texts, so you have access to those texts, but you still do not show evidence for your statements. This is not about whether or not the Bible is "true." The issue is did the Sumerians have similar legends, which you keep saying but have not been able to show. Even if you realize that Sitchin is an unreliable source, the sources you provided use him as a source, which makes them unreliable. This isn't about if there texts that mention the Annunaki, we all know that there the issue is whether or not there are legends about the Annunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchers and the Nephalim. You have not shown any legends about them that are, you hve only shown sites that do not show any such legends either. It is not my job to search for clues for your claims, that is your job. You made the claims and provided unreliable sources for those claims, it is your job to look for reliable sources.

Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dick article to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the book Moby Dick? Would it be responsible for me to do so using websites that used material rejected by scholars, especially a personal website and a site advertising a book? Would it be responsible for me to tell others to go look in Moby Dick for Darth Vader instead of giving them the citation myself? No, none of those things would be responsible. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"...we all know that there the issue is whether or not there are legends about the Annunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchers and the Nephalim..."

That's exactly why I didnt like the way you've been handling my addition. You clearly state that you do know that Anunnaki legends are similar to the Nephilim story. I cannot understand you, when you've been working (=deleting) on this article for a while, but you still don't think its worth writing at least a single sentence about this? What is your point with this article? What is the point of all the article on Wiki? As an editor of Wiki, isn't it a part of your job to let Wiki readers get a full picture? A single sentence is not too much to write, if you have been always aware of that, there is a slight possibility that Anunnaki and Nephilim might be the same. That's what I dont like and feel a little arrogant that you delete something or not, but you never correct nothing? You were able to check my refs, in the same time you could also correct it, or write that single sentence, that would note the possibility of what we are talking about. But you just deleted the whole new content. If all the editors do like this, of course, a lot of unreliable information get blocked, but how many interesting, fresh, less dull (I mean, not copy-pasted from any encyclopedia) contain lost forever? Just because the author is not able to interpret it in the correct form, or an author uses one single unreliable refs, but on the other hand many new ideas - maybe very substantial - would be thrown out the window? Thats what I dont like the method you follow during editing. If you dont feel responsible for this, I think you are not the perfect one to be an editor here or anywhere. Anybody could delete things that not in the correct format without thinking it through, but that's far from the maximum, you could give. Just a few can feel Wiki their own, and only the ones who spare no effort, can making Wiki contains more colorful.

"...Show us where in any Sumerian texts there is anything resembling the stories of the Nephilim...Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dick article to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the book Moby Dick?"

What exactly you want me to show you? It is like you asked me to show, if "God" is mentioned in the Bible, or not. You can search anywhere, it is anywhere in the texts. Anunna gods are just like this, the are everywhere in sumerian texts, you dont have to search for them. Just the ones cannot see them without eyes. the resemblance I think is relative to the point of view, but in the case of Anunnaki and Nephilims it is more than obvious. Just like the Nagas in the Thai, Sri lankan, or Indian Nagas in Ramayana. I dont think I am the one who is aware of the resemblance of these to the Nephilims, but I cannott see any notes in connection with them. But you are all happy with the article the way it is now, because "It is not my job to search for clues for your claims". This sounds disappointingly snobbish and arrogant, from a scientific point of view, from one of the editors of Wiki, after writing "we all know that there the issue is whether or not there are legends about the Annunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchers and the Nephalim". I hope your point of view will change with time and your job can be really fruitful, and will expand from "deleting only" into "eternal and relentless searching and publishing for the any possible truth".

"Would it be responsible for me to do so using websites that used material rejected by scholars, especially a personal website and a site advertising a book?

In your opinion rejected by scholars means what? Wich shcolars and why? Galilei wasn't "rejected" by scholars? Who decided that? Are you self-confident and infromed about that enough, to decide what is the real thing behind rejection? And You can decide it, but me, I cannot? Can Wikipedia readers decide, what you think? The principle that you follow during editing is like that, in my interpretation: I decide for all the Wiki readers, what is ok and what is not. What I dont find ok, I dont let through, so it doesnt exist for them.

I think even the wildest ideas should be let through, but signalling that the possibility of being true is slight, if I think so.

One can never think, what the future brings, how science turn upside-down from one day to an other, and who will seem the silly one in hundred years, just like the way now we think of the ones who put Galilei aside and made him "rejected by scholars" of his time...To list all possibilities, even if some of them are just wild ideas, I dont think would mislead anybody, if we affix that : "according our present knowledge it cannot be proven".

"Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dick article to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the book Moby Dick?"

Your example with the Moby Dick is not really covers our case I think. The example is better, if you say: I make an addition to the article about Herman Melville, about that he wrote a book about Moby Dick, and Darth Vader is a character in it. Your reaction to my addition is similar to the one's who would delete the whole addition about the book Moby Dick, because the author mentioned Darth Veder in connection with it. Wiki just wouldn't tell anything about Moby Dick, because of that error, and because you are lazy to write an other, correct article, without the ref about Dart Vader. Thats the case if you are aware of the fact the addition has a "core of truth" in it, but is wrong with some details. Is this good for Wiki readers? Don't you think, the existence of the Moby Dick is important enough to be published even if the source is not 100% sure?

But in the end, you are right with that, we need one or two actual sentence which I promise I'll look for, and insert as soon as I find in the text. But anyone could do it, if he saw a short sentence referring to the "sumerian connection", and could expand it from that core information. But you deny to give that clue for a possoble future research. If you dont want to do it, at least let others do.

What makes it difficult, I dont really know, what to prove. If I find sentences about the Anunnaki, whats next? We get to know that they are like this and like that, but we dont know nothing about Nephilims, how on Earth we could characteristics of Anunnaki compared to the big nothing about Nephilims?

Thats why I think, Anunnaki should be the base of the whole Nephilim article, sumerian sources are much older and give much more information about Anunnaki, what they did, why they did, what was their personalities like. I think I could cite arond 10.000 sencences about their activities, but how we'll see any similarity to something that only contains 2 sentences (the version in the Bible)?

But I will look for some sentences, because you told me, and maybe I will be forced to correct my statements, and i will mea culpa than...But hard to think that apparently I'am the one who cares about the resemlances, others who know the same are silent. I thought Wiki is something that is developed together, putting matching pieces of knowledge together in a global cooperation, not commanding others, what and how to do... Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just done a JSTOR search on Nephilim and Anunnaki (and Anunaki just in case), and nothing at all showed up. And without anything there, I don't see it very likely you are going to find any reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the ref I gave, either search for 'Anuna' / Anuna gods or use this direct link to search results...http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?simplesearchword=anuna&simplesearch=translation&searchword=&charenc=gcirc&lists=Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But a JSTOR search on 'Anuna' and Nephilim also turns up nothing. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They should update soon than. :) Maybe a stupid question, but why do you think it should be in JSTOR? Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

JSTOR is a database of various scholarly journals, including journals about Jewish and Middle East studies, Anthropology, Religion, Archeology, and so on. If a scholar has written about the Nephilim being derived from the Annunaki, it would be there. As for the link you provided, the issue is not whether or not the Sumerians worshipped the Anuna gods/Annunaki (that is accepted), the issue is whether or not the stories about the Anuna are the basis for the story about the Nephilim in Genesis (which the link does not show). The flood story in Genesis is certainly derived from a Sumerian source through Babylon, but the intent is different: in the Sumerian stories the gods are tired of the noise made by the overpopulation, while in the Nephilim narrative the evil of the Nephilim causes the flood. I have found this essay, which points out that the story of evil half-human giants appears to be an isolate in West Semitic cultures, which means that they likely didn't get it from Sumeria through Babylon (or else it would have been found among the Canaanites as well). Sitchin did make up a lot of crap, and the connection between the Annunaki and the Nephilim appears to be one more thing he made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread is making me have horrible flashbacks of this previous discussion. Many claims are made, but are never supported with reliable material. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Zoltan, I've removed your recent edit. Please read WP:OR -- Wikipedia is not a place for original research - this applies to both articles and talk pages. The bottom line is without reliable sources [WP:RS]] which in this case would be academic sources this has no place on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to confirm my arguments, how should I do this than? All that you can read before my post, are opinions as well. I stated nowhere the last sentences are facts. The bottom line of my comment was my opinion, which I don't think is forbidden to express on a talk page, if it is, I cannot see the reason. I'm new to Wikipedia, could you help me out, I inserted the source, is it ok like this? I can insert other sources if you want. (But anyway I still cannot see, why a talk page - which is for discussing what can be a part of the article, right? - can only contain posts with references and sources? One cannot have "his own brain" to perform original thoughts without sorces, seeing connection between things, without reading it somewhere anywere before?). Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the Wiki rules, and now I feel much more informed! :) Our argument is about wether all these divine "species" the same or not. I was told to reedit my comment here, because it contained my opinion. Ok, I got that, opinions cannot be expressed on Wiki. But isn't that also a way of expressing an opinion, if we actually don't mention the other possibilities, suggesting that, there doesn't even exist any? Wouldn't they deserve the less a link in the Related topics?

I just read Wiki, and now I got to know that Book of Enoch is the first and perfect example under the article pseudepigraph...and it has a highlighted place in this article as a reliable source. Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nephilim article, following scholarly consensus, assumes the Nephilim were mythical beings and not historical ones. Genesis 6 is the first mention of them, and the Book of Enoch is the major development of the mythology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're saying, if there is a "scholarly consensus" in a field of science, it is valid ethernally? Poor Giordano Bruno was told the same, before being sent to the stake, by your intellectual ancestors. "Sorry Giordano, scholarly consensus says the heliocentric view is nothing else than a crazy idea...It should burn together with you! Step ahead!" You say, Nephilims "were" mythical beings and not historical. Ah, thats where our little argument is heading for... If something "'was", it cannot be mythical I think. But I start to see your point. You think mythology is something that for the kids and crazy dreamers, we've better not to take it serious? Nephilims should stay at their own place, in the myths? Thats why you try to keep this article the way you like it? If we are arguing about that, I just would like to know... We all know that, science has just begun to explore the Middle-Eastern and Asian sources in the last fifty years. Sumerian sources were impossible to translate until the recent past. According to biblical sources only, I would agree with you. But after reading the apparently same story about them, I just begin to think, Thats exactly why I wanted everyone to be able to do so. When we were schoolboys, we were taught that all the cultural roots of European culture are actually European, Greek or Roman. How about this now? It has changed a lot, but not because of the ones like you. If everyone would be like you, we couldnt even start a fire, without the approval of a "scolarly consensus". There might have been a scholar consensus, but times change, new facts appear, assumptions change. Seemengly, one thing doesn't change, your opinion, which you think is established by the "scolars", who think Book of Enoch an established source (of mythology). I can accept that, if you want to be blindfolded, and want to think myth is a myth, you are free to do so. You can think I'm just a crazy guy who spoils your day with his fantasies. But I'm not still here because of that. I'm here because I know stories about nephilims, other ones about Nagas, and about Anunnaki. If I read the same story in three culture's myths so far from eachother, do i really need sholarly consensus to say, tha "might be" (not are, I never stated that) the same. I wish you would be able to understand this, and you wouldn't think that, you know the right thing about all this, in the right and unquestionable way. Because the problem with this point of view is, it doesn't let even a clue for new ideas and (established) theories. How should science and "scolarly consensus" develop with time, if everything is carved in stone in Wiki? It will become a nice collection of dusty ideas, which are based on hundred years old "consensus", would that make you happy the way like that? If I put two apples side by side, do we need a scholarly consensus to determine them both as apples, or we can use our eyes to determine that? What I asked, and wanted to put into the article, was not that, these apples ARE the same, but just putting them side by side in this article, and everyone can decide - if he wants - whether they are the same or not. Try to answer to this, in your own human voice please, I haven't really liked to talk to this dry and lexical Ian "robot" thompson, I would like a human being to talk with, thanks. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I urge the above editor to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY and ensure that his future comments adhere to it. And the only one I see doing any "arguing" is the IP editor. Wikipedia is not a compendium of information, but rather an encyclopedia. As such, it is nlike all encyclopedias intended to reflect the current opinion of the scholarly community. The fact that you have drawn a conclusion that the stories are similar is not sufficient for the article to be changed to reflect your own opinion, however well founded you may think it. If it were, then virtually edvery article dealing with JFK or anyone else closely associated with any fringe theories wouild be awash in speculation about aliens, conspiracy theories, and lord knows what all else. If you can find an academic journal or other source as per WP:RS which makes the association explicitly and provides its reasons, fine, that is admissable. By the same token, if it is an idea which no respectable scholar has yet put forward, then there is a very real question as to why not. This is the reason we have a specific guideline dealing with material which has not received scholarly consensus, WP:FRINGE, which I suggest you read. But, at this point, that guideline doesn't really apply, because you have yet to point toward any reliable source as per WP:RS which says what you say. I would therefore also suggest you read WP:NOT and WP:OR. We do not pubnlish original research, which, by your statement, is what your own individual conclusion regarding the relationship of these subjects is. This is not saying I am completely unsympathetic with you. If you look at Talk:Atlantis, you will see a statement from me regarding what I think is the likely origin of that myth. You will also note however that I tacitly acknowledge that for that idea to be put in the article it would need reliable sources. For all I know, there may be some very good reasons why the scholarly community has not made that association. So far as I can tell, the same can be said about your conclusion. Because we don't want to be found to put forward conclusions which are not reliable or credited by any of the recognized experts or authorities in any field, we demand reliable sourcing, and, sadly, neither you nor I are reliable sources.

If you can find sourcing, which is what we want for anything added to any article, good, that is what we want. If you can't, then there is a real reasonable question why no one has published such a conclusion. There are other sites which do permit additions based on personal conclusions of editors. This is not however such a site. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced comments about the Ethiopian Church

Is there an Ethiopian Orthodox version of 1 Enoch completely different from the 1 Enoch known as "Ethiopic Enoch"? Because if not, we need some sourced evidence to show that the Ethiopian Church takes a non-canonical (in Ethiopia) 5th Century pseudepigraphon Conflict_of_Adam_and_Eve_with_Satan over 2 "canonical" (in Ethiopia) books. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

btw -- The Ethiopian Orthodox Church article cites a website (of said church) which confirms that the church believes the canonical (for them) Enoch, which makes the statements in the article very unlikely In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In ictu, The official Ethiopian Orthodox canonical Enoch is similar to the Greek, but a crucial difference is that it (like Jubilees) describes the Nephilim as hybrid descendants of Cainites and Sethites, not "Angels". I've seen you on the Amharic wikipedia (where I edit as User:Codex Sinaiticus) so I will link the official Orthodox Amharic text here for you to read (Henok at end of Section 3). Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Til, thanks. But I should admit that my command of Amharic is so far below-basic that would take me all day to decipher that. So can I understand you to be saying that e.g. Knibb's 1978 translation here is incorrect:

10 Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. 11 And the women conceiving brought forth giants, (This is leaving aside Knibb's footnote(7) re The Greek texts) Which means (from memory) that the translation in OTP1 is also incorrect? Though it's been a long time since I read it, and probably wouldn't have noticed a footnote to that effect. If Knibb and OTP are wrong then disappointing that there is no source in English for a fairly widely believed error. (not that most errors aren't widely believed) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche -- In the 1882 Malan, Book of Adam and Eve - Page vi he notes a "Said Ibn Batrik or Eutychus, physician, and also Melkite Patriarch, who lived in the ninth century ; when he wrote his Nazam al-jatvahir, or "String of Gems" as he called his "Annals of the World," from the creation to his own time." who based his work on Conflict... But that's Melkite, is there a reference source to show that the Ethiopian Church does not accept the teaching of one of its canonical books? I cannot find anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not follow what you are talking about. The canonical Oriental Orthodox text as I have linked is the official Bible, and the Book of Enoch (Henok) as well as Jubilees (Kufale) there states unequivocally that the Nephilim are hybrid descendants of Sethites and Cainites. This is what the O.O. Church says too, so there is no disagreement with the canon there. The disagreement seems to come from the Greek version, which calls them "Angels". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Til, forgive me if I'm being dense, these are my questions:

• 1 in Knibb 6:8] the Ethiopic text is the same as the Greek in saying "Angels", or has this htm been adulterated and that is not what Knibb says? If this htm has edited Knibb what does Knibb say in 6:8? Or is Knibb wrong??
• 2 Where is there a source by the Ethiopian Church which says that the Gen 6 "sons of god" were sons of Seth?
• 3 Where is there a source that says that the Ethiopian Church gives any credence to the 5thC "Conflict of A w S"?

I'm asking this not because I don't want what you're saying to be true, I'd love it to be, but where are the refs so they can go into the article? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1) That website purports to be a translation of the "Ethiopic" Enoch, but to all appearances, it is word-for-word identical with the 1908 Charles translation, which was mostly based on the Greek and Syriac versions. It categorically is NOT a translation of the canonical Ethiopic Orthodox version!

2) The canonical Orthodox Books of Henok (Mets'hafe Henok) and Jubilees (Mets'hafe Kufale) are the primary canonical sources stating the doctrine that the "sons of god" were "sons of Seth". I'll have to look around for a secondary source, but no doubt one can be found stating that the Ethiopian Church teaches this.

3) The "Conflict of Adam and Eve" isn't on any list of books withj official canonical status, but the literature is certainly known to the Church as literature (presumably as any other in the category of Ge'ez literature). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a secondary source for question #2 -- here is an official EOTC webpage that specifically addresses the question of why the offspring of Seth from Enoch are called "sons of god" in Genesis, and whether they are really "Angels" as certain other churches teach (note it concludes that the idea these "watchers" were "Angels" and not humans from Seth, is anther false teaching unsupported by Scripture) http://www.mahiberekidusan.org/Default.aspx?tabid=98&ctl=Details&mid=371&ItemID=75 Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Til, many thanks. I'm interested.

1. is there an English translation of the canonical version?

2. is there an English version available as a ref?

3. Who is the main EO writer who has used "Conflict.."?

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1,2 I don't know of any standard English translation of the canonical Amharic text of Henok.

3 - You may be asking me to delve into OR, and I'm limited to what I can say. The reason is that the EOTC has never even published the entirety of its "broad canon" in any language, but it is said to include several books attributed to St. Clement. You can read a translation of the Arabic Kitab al Magall, a book attributed to Clement that includes very similar language to Conflict with regard to the identity of the Watchers being Sethites and not really "angels". The interesting thing about the Ktab al Magall, is that it purports to be the teachings of St. Peter to St. Clement; in the book, St. Peter says he got part of it directly from Jesus, but most of it he says he got from a genealogical scroll that had been allegedly given Jesus as an infant by one of the Magi, and preserved by the early church. It's highly likely that something similar is in the "broad canon" EOTC writings of Clement, but nothing has been published. Suffice it for our article to say that the current Church definitely takes the same view of the "Angels mating with humans" thing being a western superstition, as the Amharic link I gave yesterday indicates. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1,2 - Okay. Perhaps I first need to understand which is the canonical one among mss A-Q Book_of_Enoch#Ethiopic? Re. OR, there is a way round the OR, issue; if the key verse of the canonical text of 1 Enoch is directly copied into a footnote, and the Ethiopian printer/date noted, then that cannot be OR; and if an English translation of that line goes into the main text that's completely legitimate, that's not OR, just a translation. People do that with German and Latin all the time, as long as the original German or Latin is in the ref footnote.

3, - Okay, forget about the article, just for my own interest can you name the EO bishop who cites from "Conflict" against the angels mating with humans view.

Btw - Thanks - this is interesting In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew text of Ezekiel 32:27

This: " As the text stands "And they shall not lie with the fallen mighty of the uncircumcised, which are gone down (yaradu יָרְדֽוּ) to the grave with their weapons of war:", but this could become the gibborim nepilim of the uncircumcised.K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst, "Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible", p.619"

The word uncircumised does not show up in a search of the book, I see nothing on page 619 either suggesting " this could become the gibborim nepilim". So why is this sentence in the article? Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. This is the state of that paragraph prior to my adding in the ref that the Massoretic Text requires a change to read in this manner:

<<<The original connection with fallen-ness seems to be through their identity as warriors, as in Ezekiel 32:27, where the warrior nations fall (npl) down into Sheol, the home of the gibborim nepilim, "fallen warriors". K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst, "Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible", p.619 >>> So does DDD p.619 support the comment as it originally was? If not you'll have to ask the person who wrote the original sentence. As for the word "uncircumcised" it is in the Hebrew text. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The ref I added: <<W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel vl.2 Translated J. D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983 p168, p176>>> is actually there in DDD p619 as "Zimmerli (1969)" which supports the use that the original poster made of it, except for DDD says "might be preserved" given Zimmerli is discussing a case made after emendment from nepolim to nephilim. DDD conclude that whether Zimmerli's alterations to the text are correct or not that MT nepolim "exploits the etymological significance of nephilim".

Also we all need to be careful with handing out "Original Research" charges, as whoever wrote the original sentence + ref was not doing "Original Research", but simply misread what DDD is saying about Zimmerli. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It was I as wrote it. The passage in DDD on which I was basing my sentence is this:

[]something of the older sense of the term might be preserved in Ezekiel 32:27, where the warrior nations "fall" (npl) down into Sheol, but are not privileged to lie with the gibborim nepilim, the "fallen warriors" ... Certainly npl is a keyword in Ezekiel 32 and exploits the etymological significance of Nephilim.

I take this to mean that the use of npl in Ezekiel, where it signifies a descent into the underworld for the slain warriors, casts light on the meaning of the same root in the nephilim of Genesis - they are the "might men of old," now in Sheol, but living in the mythic past of the author of Genesis. (It is my understanding that the author of Genesis was writing after Ezekiel 32, although not long after - probably no more than a century - but this, I think, is why the DDD speaks of "the older sense of the term" - Ezekiel is older than Genesis). So you can use this explanation to decide whether DDD p.619 supports my edit.

As for In ictu oculi's comment that the MT requires a change to read nepilim, I believe he's right. The MT at Ezekiel 32 says nopilim (I think), not nepilim. The DDD doesn't mention this fact, but it is a fact.

PiCo (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict, I didn't see In ictu oculi's latest comment. I'm be happy for him to edit the article as he sees fit. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

PiCo :) No problem, as I said I didn't consider it OR, and I didn't delete the DDD ref because it's still very relevant. You go ahead and edit.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources need to deal with the entire statement being cited - it should be easy for someone to check the source and say 'yes, that's what it says'. If we say 'something requires a change', it needs to say that. I get bothered by statements such as 'I take this to mean' - isn't that OR? It looks as though DDD is being interpreted and that's original research. I agree though that misreading is not OR. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Well in this case DDD is only recycling Zimmerli, so I wouldn't worry too much. There's plenty of totally unsourced material in this article, without making a meal of a reference that is less than perfect. btw PiCo whatever the wording in DDD might suggest, I'm fairly sure Zimmerli isn't arguing that Ezekiel is older than Genesis, since he'd have to make "Cherub in Eden" etc. prior Genesis too. Possibly the issue is more related to the St Petersburg Codex being 8thC. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Source for "ambiguity"? that nephilim can apply to sons of God

Does anyone have a source for the statement that there is ambiguity about whether nephilim apply to the sons of God or the offspring? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Eliyahu ben David

Are we sure we want to quote him? The man seems to be a complete nutter. There must be better people out there making the same point. PiCo (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

References to Sethites in Eth. canonical Bible

In octu, here's my best attempt at translating literally the canonical Amharic text I linked above.

Henok 2:1-3:

After mankind abounded, it became thus: And in that season, handsome comely children were born to them; and the Offspring of Seth, who were upon the Holy Mount, saw them and loved them. And they told one another, "Come,let us choose for us daughters from Qayel's children; let us bear children for us."

Henok 3:8-10:

"And speak the cleanliness of the Earth, that I shall heal the Earth that the Offspring of Seth destroyed, that I shall cleanse Earth. All mankind won't perish by all the secrets of the sins, whereby the Offspring of Seth, who are diligent for sin, killed, and that they taught to their children. By Azazel's works and teaching all Earth perished; and write upon him the sin of all persons,", He told him.

Henok 4:7-8:

"Go and tell both for him who perished with women, and for the Offspring of Seth, who did as Qayel's children do" they told me. "They married themselves wives, and were lost in a great destruction in this world."

Henok 4:23-27

I saw a vision where there was a chastisement, that I might tell and send upon the Offspring of Seth, who were in a Heavenly rank. And I awoke and came toward them; and all had been gathered and sat as they wept covering their faces in `Ubilsya'il, that is between Sinilir and Libanos. And I spoke before them all the vision that I saw while sleeping. I began to speak this word, which is a thing of Truth, and that I might teach to the Offspring of Seth who were upon the Holy Mount, who are diligent for their sin. This is the book where the reprimand was written to the Offspring of Seth, diligent for them sin...

Henok 4:29

As the Illustrious Lord has created me also, and given me a reasoning that I might teach the Offspring of Seth who were on the Holy Mount, I saw while sleeping the things I speak.

Henok 4:69

"Approach here and hear My Word, and go and tell the Offspring of Seth who are diligent for sin, Who sent thee to beg for them' He told me.

Henok 4:80-82

And now giant men birthed from the Offspring of Seth, who are their kindred, shall be called evil children in this world. And their lodging shall be in this world. As their fathers had been born from the Offspring of Seth who descended from the Holy Mount, evil children were born from the Offspring of Seth who are their kindred.

I have only got through chapter 4, and that's all I have time for now, but it seems there are many more such references to the Offspring of Seth in Henok and Jubilees, as well as throughout the Books of Meqabyan (and there is a standard English published translation of Meqabyan) Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Til, thanks for that - that is indeed plenty and proves your point. I hope you can actually use that translation somewhere later. That is indeed substantially different from the Ethiopic MSS used by RH Charles etc.

• (RH CHARLES) 7:2 And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other,Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.
• (WEBSITE VERSION) 2:1-3 and the Offspring of Seth, who were upon the Holy Mount, saw them and loved them. And they told one another, "Come,let us choose for us daughters from Qayel's children; let us bear children for us."

So what of A-Q is the Website pdf based on, and does the pdf display any publication year? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the "letter classification" of the Ge'ez text, that the canonical Orthodox Amharic translation was made from. I do know this is the official EOTC translation that was first made during the Haile Selassie years, when the deuterocanon was first published separately; and was later the same text as that included in the 81 book Bible published by the EOTC later on (I think that was around 1990 but I'll have to check). Remember that Charles, Charlesworth, and apparently also Knibb, stated that they made extensive use of the Syriac and Greek versions in their translations, thus their texts do not seem to follow the Ethiopic as much as they do those other translations, in many places. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Til. I think I've worked out what's happened. The pdf may well be the 1935 Buxton version (see Bible translations (Amharic)), the one that was printed in America in 1936, but withdrawn and reissued in 1962. Of course Charles, Black, E. Isaac (in Charlesworth), Nickelsburg etc. all use Syriac, Greek, etc. to supplement the later Ge'ez where possible. But I doubt they'd even look at Buxton's Amharic edition. The question is does the 1962 Tewahedo version follow the 1935 Haile Selassie/Buxton text, or follow the Ge'ez texts? And what do modern EO commentaries on Enoch say?In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think calling it the "Buxton version" or whatever is a misnomer because it is the translation from Ge'ez to Amharic commissioned by Haile Selassie I in Ethiopia, and not in the US. Reading that link carefully, suggests it was some different version that was published in the US. The deuterocanon including Henok, Kufale and Meqabyan, however, was first published separately, I think in the 1950s. The "81-book Tewahido Bible" that came out a few years ago includes the same text of the deuterocanon as published previously. I know I'm repeating myself, but I don't understand what further demonstration of the Ethiopic Orthodox doctrine it would possibly take to convince you that they don;t subscribe, and won't subscribe, to any notion of "angels breeding with humans". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that the "Buxton version" is a misnoma, which is why the section Bible translations (Amharic) reads First Haile Selassie Bible (1935) not "Buxton version". It's not an issue of convincing me, I believe you, and if I didn't one of my former tango partners was EO, I could ask her. It's an issue for Wikipedia refs of either (a) finding a publication date to support that the pdf on the link in Bible translations (Amharic) is the current Tewahido version (which it probably is)(b) a ref in any EO publication to use as a ref in Nephilim.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Til, time to finish up, thanks for your many comments. To demonstrate that what you're saying sounds completely reasonable and supported, I have made cautious edits to Nephilim, 1 Enoch, Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Bible translations (Amharic) in line with your translation above, but with and left in the text. I expect some more regular user of the pages will see those and fill them in. I would urge you not to waste your translation above on a Talk Page. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In ictu, I have a copy of the 81-book Tewahedo Amharic Bible right here, and I am assuring you that you can have good faith that the version of the Book of Henok there, is identical to the one on the pdf, and in fact appears to be a photo off-set of the same pages. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Til, I'll edit as you say! :) + would it be asking too much also to have Henok 2:2: and the Offspring of Seth, who were upon the Holy Mount as Amharic script? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for edits. I've added your translations in refs, as they will be lost on the Talk page. Dead Sea scrolls are earliest FWIW. It occurs to me that those street vendors selling copies to Dillman etc (A-Q) may have done so because the EO church had thrown them out exactly because of the sons of God reading. Touches on a major issue with all 19thC mss acquisitions in Greek too. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There must be a better font

The words "Mount Hermon" as seen on the main page, uses a font that confuses/merges the letter R and the letter M together. Some would take it as 2 letter N's. The same can be said when in some instances the number one and the small letter L are placed side by side, some fonts make both characters look exactly the same. Mpau0516 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean in "summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon", I don't believe there is any choice of font. It might be your browser. You could ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. We can't change it. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian language claim

Nephilim has a striking similarity with Albanian language word nefillim which means "in the biggining". Ne = in, fillim = beginning. Albanian language is a descendand of the old Pelazgic language in Balkans. It is thought to be the oldest language of Europe and root of most European languages. Someone with necessary knowledge should analyze and propose references to this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.53.86 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and put your stuff at the bottom so it doesn't get lost with other people's posts. Also, We don't analyze, we just report what reliable sources state. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite Evolution

Despite Evolutions rise, and the increase in more and more fossils being found. I just don't find them entirely separate. Supposedly, Modern man showed up at least 100,000 years ago, and Neaderthals were around till 60,000 years ago. Hmmm... If you really really read the text in Discover Magazine (May 2011, Pages 48-55, 76) "you are not human" you'll get your science fact/fiction equivalent of this story.

The article entails details that several migration of human ancestors left africa PROCEDING modern humans, 'those that came before' really left before us, we didn't leave them behind we just followed them out. and my final quote "They found that the Neanderthal Genome shows more similiarity with non-african modern humans throught Europe and Asia, than with African-modern humans, suggesting that the gene flow between us and Neanderthals most likely occurred outside Africa as humans were en route to Europe, asia, and new Guinea." My supposition, Since africa is where the evolutions accelerated, not only did we outgrow our neanderthal ancestors there through constant evolution that borders on the 'impossible' we bred back with them as we left.... Oh Wait this sound disturbingly close to the BIBLE~! better run away before some calls me a creationist. DISCUSS THAT HA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.81.211 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not publish original thought, original research, or speculation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Niflheim Tag Request

I accidently found “Niflheim” (one of the realms of Nordic tradition) looking for this page. A tag at the top of the page reading “Did you mean "Niflheim"?” should not hurt anything.174.25.129.229 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

They're false cognates, and from different mythologies, so... Unless they used near identical spellings in English, it really doesn't warrent a link based on one accident. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources of Scriptural Quotation

I believe it would be apposite to quote the Jewish Publication Society's Torah, rather than a Christian source. Does anyone disagree? Leegee23 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why here? that would be tantamount to a policy decision across Wikipedia to only use the 1917 or 1985 JPS/NJPS. Scholarly works, whether Jewish/Christian/agnostic generally use the NRSV or ESV, but Wikipedia doesn't have a policy. If there's a particular Jewish or Protestant or Catholic edge to an article maybe. But then read WP:RS we aren't supposed to be relying on Primary Sources anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More video games/comics blah blah

Can we please have a Nephilim in popular culture like Lilith in popular culture fork? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to seriously consider mentioning neanderthals

The first generation of hybrids that populated the planet had neanderthal fathers and sapiens mothers (sons of God, daughters of man). We know this because we recently sequenced the neanderthal genome and found admixture signatures in human nuclear DNA but not human mitochondrial DNA (which is exclusively matrilineal). In light of this new evidence, fossil hybrids that were previously considered controversial are now, in retrospect, rather obvious examples of admixed ancestors with less bias towards sapiens genes. There is limited evidence that more evenly hybridized populations may have persisted until very, very recently in certain parts of the world. I realize you probably aren't going to edit the main page just yet, but you should consider this a warning that at least a few theories long ago dismissed as crackpot are about to be dusted off and reassessed (see: Stan_Gooch#Hybrid-origin_theory). 00099a99000 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything at that link mentioning the article topic, Nephilim. If there is something somewhere else, we would have to avoid any Original synthesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance on Google books shows some stuff, but it's all kinda minor primary sources on the belief that neanderthals and nephilim are connected in some way. I'd wait until there's a secondary source describing that type of eisegesis, because if we describe a one guy's view, proponents of other views will edit war about their differing views; and if we go with a few different views we'll either violate WP:SYNTH (if we condense things the right amount) or WP:UNDUE (if we don't condense). A secondary source could easily be written (though I'm not finding any), as there is some diversity in the views: ancient astronaut, neopagan, new age, fundamentalist Christian, anti-Christian, anti-Semite, white supremacist, black supremacist... Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to link this page to the Neanderthal/Cro-magnon man hypothesis -- wikipedia's own article dates Neanderthals as co-existing with Cro Mangnons. I'd be interested to hear and discussions here on the talk page, I am reading about this connection at the momemnt and interested to hear from anyone else who has studied it. Charleswfox (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(sorry I got my notes in a twist the first try, 35000-10000 would be the dates of Cro-Magnon, not the dates of its overlap with Neanderthals, which would be only at the start of that period. So thats a long time for an oral tradition to persist before writing down in 3000BC. But no less probable than the alternative explanations I think!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.250 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have studied this connection, but we are very limited in what can be said here, by our Original research policy. Basically, it means we can't make any new point that an externally published source hasn't already made in relation to the article topic, Nephilim. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Til here. We really can only include material in this, the main article on a topic, if that material is in accord with not only WP:OR, but also any number of other policies and guidelines, including WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and others. It might certainly be possible to include such information in an article more directly focused on that particularly topic, such as, for instance, a book which clearly meets our notability requirements, or a separate article if it has been referred to by multiple sources in a way which does not violate WP:SYNTH and other policies and guidelines, but it would almost certainly be best to first create such a separate article, and then discuss adding relevant material to this article. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found a recent 2012 academic source that mentions the connection and have added it (HUMAN UNIQUENESS, THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND “ANTHROPOCENTRISM OF THE GAPS” IN THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE DIALOGUE, Joshua M. Moritz,2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01240.x). That's in a proper 40 year old jounral, impact factor 0.36, with professors from Harvard and Yale on its board. I hope this is useful and interesting to readers. (And thanks for pushing me to search properly for this.) Charleswfox (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you've got something like that mentioning the article subject, it would be great to add its take on it, but we can't expand that too much with a discussion of neanderthals citing sources about neanderthals, unless the same point has been made by a source referencing Nephilim. Discussion of neanderthals using neanderthal sources would belong on the neanderthals article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what this article is, (HUMAN UNIQUENESS, THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND “ANTHROPOCENTRISM OF THE GAPS” IN THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE DIALOGUE, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Wiley. Joshua M. Moritz,2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01240.x), which I put a link to put someone has removed the section again! I'll quote some of the text here, it's copyrighted but should be OK to quote a bit on this talk page to illustrate the relevance:

"The idea that there were (or are) other humanoid beings who once walked the earth is nothing new. The ancient Greeks wrote of strange humanoid races, including centaurs and mermaids, and some, such as the Milesian philosopher Anaximander, even suggested that human beings originally emerged from an aquatic ancestor. As the book of Genesis paints a picture of the earliest days of humanity, it tells us of an antediluvian race with imposing physical strength that appears to be unrelated to human beings: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. . . . These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). Much later, during the first century AD, the Greek historian Pliny the Elder wrote of other nonhuman races and humanoid “monstrosities” who lived in exotic distant lands. Pliny’s Natural History was handed down to geographers of the Medieval Era, and the Plinian races were held in the forefront of the minds of the early European explorers. In this way, as the first Europeans crossed the Atlantic into the new world, they were “already armed with cultural and physiological taxonomies into which racial ‘others’ and their traditions had long been inserted.” Thus Christopher Columbus, with his annotated copy of Pliny’s Natural History in hand, and fully expecting to discover [...] As the Modern Age awoke into history, the primeval accounts of other human-like peoples fast became legend. Legend became myth. And for over two centuries, as no human-like fossils had yet been discovered, the notion that “others” had once walked the earth passed out of the realm of empirical knowledge and into the domains of fantasy and speculation. [...] . In our discovery of the fact that at one time we, as human beings, were not alone in the universe, we ironically come closer to a more ancient understanding of the human place in the cosmos. Though Neanderthals may now take the taxonomical place of “the mighty men who were of old,” the “unique” human species may once again be regarded as one among many.

I'm not going to revert though as someone clearly has a good reason for wanting to remove the section, maybe we can have a discussion about it here instead of an edit war?

Charleswfox (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me so long to notice a response! It appears that the reference you found indeed does reference the article topic. My tentative suggestion for summarizing it in the text would be something along the lines of this: Some recent authors [insert 2012 ref here] have proposed that the Nephilim, the "mighty men of old", and similar legends represent a distant folk memory of remote times when other hominid types such as Neanderthals roamed the Earth alongside our own ancestors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the author of that article is an authority on Old Testament studies, and I doubt very much that he can even read Hebrew. Too tangential to include. PiCo (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The latest science news is now saying that Neanderthals did /not/ breed with H Sapiens, and the shared DNA is from a common ancestor, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9474109/Neanderthals-did-not-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html). Also new homonid species continue to be discovered (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8609192.stm) AFAIK the most recently exisiting hominid was H Floriens which was around in 10,000BCE, the time of cave art, early stonehenge building, and so probably language, folklore and religion. So it still seems at least conceivable that the nephilim are the folk memory remnants of /some/ hominid species, if not Neanderthal then perhaps a later or even undiscovered one. Can anyone find a better peer-reviewed paper than the Moritz paper which mentions this explicitly? (Or maybe it's time to write one... anyone fancy collaborating on that?) charles

Some more archeaological linguistics in the news today, http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/08/linguistic-archeology, suggests that langauge first appeared around about 10000-8000BC, which would overlap with at least some hominids (though in other parts of the world). Maybe there are are enough bits of research like this to warrent writing a little jounral paper somewhere, please message me if anyone is interested in doing this properly, charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.246 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Charles, as I said in May, you really should read WP:OR particularly WP:SYNTH, and WP:TALK. Do your sources mention the topic of Nephilim? If not, then there's not much point to bringing them up on Talk:Nephilim. Yes, your Moritz paper does mention the Nephilim, suggesting they are a folk memory of Neanderthals. So that one could potentially be used in the Nephilim article. PiCo thinks it is too tangential because Moritz might not be an authority in Ancient Hebrew, but I know of nothing in policy requiring expertise in Ancient Hebrew for a POV to be attributed to a source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the historicity of the Torah is questionable, it also struck me that some might have studied a possible link with late non Homo Sapiens Sapiens humans and uncommon (possibly mythical) beings, such as the Nephilim. Having found nothing about this on the article (unsurprisingly, though), I then fell on this discussion. I think that this reference seems worthy of a short mention, even if the author wasn't an Aramaic or Hebrew expert. This appears to me different from a fringe view, considering the notability of the discovery that humans may have met, and possibly interbred with other human species in the past. It also seems different than "biblical archeology" pseudo-science, as it is not enough to try to pretend that the account is historical, it is merely a possible relation with the accounts of those traditions. As such there's no need to expand on the topic either and reinterpret it, the reference can simply be mentioned... How about a single link to Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens in the See Also section, annotated with the reference tag? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So the latest, latest science from PlOS Genetics is now placing a latest neanderthal-sapiens interbreed date at 37,000BC , as reported in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2213219/Neanderthals-bred-modern-humans-Europe-recently-37-000-years-ago.html . Seems there are still papers coming out arguing both sides of this as of 2013. Nice link there by the way, thanks, interesting to see there are two other known interbreed flows with sapiens after the neanderthal one there too, a specimin of one, H. Denisovans, was found in 2010 and the other is yet to be discovered but is implied by the genetics. - charles

Its worth mentioning that compared to what we think was the average height and weight of a citizen of this region and time, based on archaeological remains (5'1" and 110lbs), the Neanderthal would be giants in the sense that they are considered to be roughly 5'4" and 170lbs). It might not seem like much, but think of someone 3 inches taller and 50% heavier than yourself. BruceTutty (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the lead

The lead seemed difficult to read and an attempt of mine to clean it up had been reverted. But someone improved it since, thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sirens = Mothers of Nephilim

I believe it is important to also mention that in the Book of Enoch, the women that mated with the fallen angels became Sirens, half-bird and half-woman.Twillisjr (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a secondary source to establish that one translation choosing the word "siren" matters. WP:No original research is used on this site, and that includes opinions. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fossils of Giants

Are there true Nephilim fossils? These hybrids had probably flawed genetic structure? Maybe that's why they are huge. [6]--AltıncıTas (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Editor2020 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll preface by stating that anything which appears in the article should reflect what is already published in reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:OR). Anyways, if by "true Nephilim fossils," you are referring to the remains of a human-angelic (or human-extraterrestrial/alien) hybrid, the answer is that the scientific community does not recognize anything of the sort as legitimate. Any assertions of this sort are regarded as pseudoscientific. However, prior to the development of modern scientific paleontology, people occasionally stumbled across fossils while digging wells, foundations for buildings, etc.. Scientists can now easily recognize these as the bones of mammoths and other extinct animals, but at the time, this scientific understanding did not yet exist and the bones were sometimes labeled as belonging to an extinct race of giants. If a reliable source can be found describing how a notable historical claim was made about a fossil discovery connecting it to the Nephilim, it could be worth mentioning in the article as a historical element in the interpretive history of the Nephilim tradition. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have indeed seen claims of fossil discoveries connected to the Nephilim, but they don't fall into the category of mammoth bones - such as claims of fossil discoveries of cone-head shaped skulls in Peru. Do we have an article on that claim? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you will read the article carefully, the view that the Nephilim were part-human and part non-human hybrids is but one common view. Another common and possibly older view is that they were hybrids of two human races stemming from Seth and Cain, who were fully human, though taller than their parents. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My responses: (1) We have an article about artificial cranial deformation that mentions the cone-head shaped skulls in Peru. I am not aware of any reliable source which has associated these skulls with the Nephilim. (2) The comment by AltıncıTas seemed to presuppose a non-human view of the Nephilim, so I answered accordingly. I agree (and am already aware) that other interpretations of the Nephilim exist. Regarding the Sethite and Cainite view, a mixing of two (purely human) ethnic groups would not produce skeletons that bear unusual characteristics identifying them as Nephilim, as these skeletons would look (and be) fully human. That said, it is possible that some archaeologist/anthropologist has identified a historical ancient Near Eastern group or "mixture of groups" as being at the root of the Nephilim tradition. If such an identification were made, then the archaeologically excavated skeletons of individuals belonging to that group could be deemed the remains of Nephilim in light of that presupposition. If so, it could be worth mentioning in the article, but only if any such claim has been published in a WP:RS. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I did a little follow-up on my suggestion that earlier generations may have mistakenly identified fossils of extinct animals as Nephilim remains. Sure enough, I discovered that Cotton Mather made precisely such a claim about some skeletal remains which are now known to be those of a mastodon. As the claim was made by a famous individual, it is historically significant so I have added it to the article. As there's really no other place to put it, I created a new section entitled "Identification with fossilized remains" which admittedly is a bit of an orphan as the article generally concerns biblical interpretation. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

aggeloi

Regarding the LXX Greek "Angels of God", if memory serves me correctly from Greek class years ago, aggeloi is also the Greek word for "Messengers" isn't it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. The basic meaning of αγγελος (plural αγγελοι) is "messenger." Occasionally the Greek Bible (Septuagint + New Testament) uses this word to refer to a human who acts in the capacity of a messenger. For example, the Gospel of Mark 1:2 describes John the Baptist as an αγγελος. The Greek Bible commonly applies it to spiritual beings who function as God's messengers, from which we get the English word "angel." The pertinent question with regards to the article is whether it is appropriate to translate 'οι αγγελοι του θεου as "the angels of God." Now I admit that I'm not an expert, and my Greek skills are shaky at best, but I'm following the precedent of some WP:RS which follow this translation: The Origin of Evil Spirits (pg. 207) and Exploring The Epistle Of Jude (pg. 127) Choosing another translation for αγγελοι which lacks precedent in WP:RS would be WP:OR, unless one or more WP:RS defend the alternative translation. In that case, it would be appropriate to note that the translation is a matter of scholarly controversy and present the various alternative renderings. As an aside that may have some relevance in supplying some context, Deuteronomy 32:8 shows a similar textual difference: the Septuagint employs "angels of God," a DSS Hebrew Deuteronomy manuscript reads "sons of God" (and the Masoretic text has "sons of Israel")! A scholarly source discussing this states that "'angels of God' and 'sons of God' are synonyms" (see A quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the explicit quotations in Hebrews). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Offspring of Seth.

A section of the article currently reads (in part): "The Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) fragment 4Q417 (4QInstruction) contains the earliest known reference to the phrase "children of Seth", stating that God has condemned them for their rebellion. Other early references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain, are found in...." A WP:OR tag was recently removed from this section (diff).

It's obviously true that 4Q417 mentions the "children of Seth" (though the assertion that it's the "earliest known reference" should really be supported by a reference). The text also mentions "carnal spirits" who "did not know the difference between good and evil according to the judgment of [God's] spirit." It is plausible that the textual contrast between the children of Seth and the "carnal spirits" means that its author would have agreed with the "mingling" view. But as far as I can tell, the text nowhere states this explicitly, or has anything at all to say about the Nephilim. Hence it's not clear from the text itself how its author would have understood Genesis 6:1-4. However, the article's current text implies that 4Q417 supports the view that the children of Seth mingled with the daughters of Cain. I'm inclined to attach a WP:SYNTH tag to this, unless a reliable source analyzing 4Q417 makes this connection for us. (My reading of 4Q417 is based on A New Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg and Cook (2005).) --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that a book came out in 2012, Forbidden Theology: Origin of Scriptural God by Miles Navarre that mentions on p. 252 that 4q417 contains the earliest known reference to "children of Seth" and connects it to the mingling view (with Cain's daughters that is.) This information is not necessarily dependent on us, at any rate, it's in the annals of literature. I am certain "carnal spirits" can refer only to humans, "carnal" is latinate for "fleshly" and the corresponding Aramaic idiom certainly means humans. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Forbidden Theology: Origin of Scriptural God qualifies as a WP:RS. Flipping through the book's introduction and table of contents via the Google Books preview, the author states that he owes all his "personal illumination" to Zecharia Sitchin, Erich von Daniken, Graham Hancock and others of that ilk....and the book seems to make Sitchin-like claims about the Annunaki. A more scholarly source would be (much) preferable for the purpose of citations. What you are saying here may indeed be correct, but like you said, it doesn't depend upon us, but rather upon what the reliable sources state. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't spend enough time finding one of the more scholarly sources that discusses this... Went in a little deeper and got one before long: in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiental Thought (2002), p. 399: "The mythological tradition adopted in 4Q417 1 I 15ff. on the primeval apostasy seems to be a parallel to the tradition of the fall of the watchers which is basically rooted in Gen. 6,1f4 and expanded in 1 En 15.[footnote]" This shows that scholars are well aware of this correspondence and the relevance of the passage, even though curiously this one utterly neglects to mention the fact that 4Q417 says anything about the "children of Seth", who are often identified with the "watchers". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait, yes he does, on p 393, where he also says when the sons of Seth fell into iniquity at this time, the pious im ruah "people of spirit" or sons of God ("obedient angels") included Enosh, and the "ruah bashar" or spirits of flesh are the "sinful humanity". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating this. If you have the time, it would be good if you could add this reference to the section. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

POV Intro

"The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɨˌlɪm/ were the offspring of the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' according to Genesis 6:4; and giants who inhabited Canaan according to Numbers 13:33" This is POV. It should say something more to the effect of "According to Jewish tradition, the Nephilim were the offspring of the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' according to an interpretation of Genesis 6:4; and giants who inhabited Canaan according to Numbers 13:3." The way it it is written now sounds like the Nephilim are actually mentioned in the Bible, which they are not. Rather, it is based off of folklore and ideology, not actual text in the Old Testament. I've made an edit to better show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbuttons (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Genesis 6:4, Revised Standard Version: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.

So maybe specify better what you mean, when you say they "are not mentioned in the Bible"? They are certainly mentioned in some translations. What the original Hebrew says, I couldn't tell you. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

'Nephilim' certainly are mentioned in the original, which is in the Hebrew language. Some sloppier translations may not translate the text correctly, and may omit the name Nephilim or may translate it as something else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention crazy theories?

Should we have a short section at the end mentioning that Nephilim have been the basis for many crazy/conspiracy theories? While the theories themselves are clearly non-verifiable, the fact that they exist and have become a minor culural influence certainly is. (For example I first came here while doing some background reading on conspiracy theories to base a prog rock album on -- I very much doubt they are true but they make for great story material.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.219.110 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Anything can be mentioned provided it is a) reliably sourced, and b) specifically mentions the article topic, Nephilim. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Could be, per WP:WEIGHT, yes, but small sourced and last. But I'm a bit concerned that such a section will be a bad edit magnet. It's easier to blank stuff than have a special fringe section and police it. We already had to fork off Nephilim in popular culture because of the constant barrage of IP additions. Why not spend time and energy actually correctly sourcing the real stuff in the article until it gets to something like the ABD entry on Nephilim. The ABD doesn't have a special fringe and fruit paragraph at the end, why should Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey I was going to say that! I agree entirely. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

For a long time we were assured that "fringe" was not a reason not to cover something, but now it seems the concept of "fringe" is gradually being extended to mean "we should not give any coverage, period." Once again, if it is reliably sourced and on topic, there should be darned good reason to exclude it, since in many cases "fringe" is used as a rhetorical phrase boiling down to "I personally don't like it and don't wish these sources to be mentioned." The recent edits did not have any sources that were on topic as they apparently made no mention of "Nephilim", and were correctly reverted. It does seem like the section on "conspiracy theories" might fit the scope of Nephilim in popular culture better than here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an issue over where to cover it. It's at Sitchin and the popular culture article. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the charts

There are two large charts in the article which present English, Hebrew, and Latin translations of a few verses concerning Nephilim. I propose that we take out the charts, and replace them with simple English quotations, because this is after all English Wikipedia. If there are any particular details of Hebrew or Latin texts that are discussed in reliable sources, we can summarize the issues involved in English and then link to the reliable sources involved. But it seems to me that we shouldn't simply arbitrarily show passages in this parallel form on Wikipedia. Seems like overkill. Anybody agree?Alephb (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but on my screen, the attempt to highlight the Hebrew terms actually just leaves them invisible (but highlighted). -Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. I feel better about this page already.Alephb (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Two Opening Quotes, and "Titans"

The article opens with two quotes about the Nephilim, almost but not quite identical, to material on an outside website that some relatively unknown group put online. It also claims that "some Bibles" translate as "giants or titans." Calling Nephilim titans is an odd way to import a word from Greek mythology into the Hebrew Bible, and I'm pretty sure that no reputable mainstream Bible translation (any one used by large numbers of scholars, Christians, or Jews) would make that move. As far as I can tell, the only reference given for the "titans" options is the apparently self-published website (see [[WP:SELFPUBLISH). So my intention is to replace the quotes with quotes from a more reputable translation of the Bible, one used by scholars, and to scrub the claim about "titans" until some non-fringe, non-self-published Bible translation can be found that uses "titans." Alephb (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. The first quote isn't actually limited to the verses cited for it. Alephb (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, please do. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, you might be interested in the comments on this talk page from 2010. The merry joker is no longer around, but the eye-blinking gentleman is, and he's very learned. PiCo (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the list of pages the eye-blinker has started, and it's incredible. As for the merry joker, I was aware that he was gone, but I do seem to run into threads that include him once a week. Alephb (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia staff won't allow referenced work that adds to an article, thus dening truth and making that article and their work a power play and a fruad.

In the subject line, why I stated this is because it is true. The article Nephilim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim) I added referenced edit that is constantly deleted because the author at Wikipedia don't want anybody to correct any mistakes he/she made. they would rather have lies and half truths in their articles, then the truth. They will next be putting that little green men from Mars is breeding with humans. On their home page they put "anyone can edit." which is a lie for as I said only a select group can edit an article, unless it is a period, or some low level nonsense. In the above article I put the edit "The word nephilim by the Hebraic/Aramaic (the original language of the Old Testament and not a translation) has the root meaning of "to fall". The meaning of the word has two meanings: 1. "to fall upon others in rapine violence"; a tyrant; a bully; a dictator. 2. "apostates fallen from true religion" (see Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, or New Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, or other such books)." Wilson's Word Studies is equal to Webster's Dictionary. So, this referenced work which critical to the article is not allowed because the staff does not want anything from outsiders to change, or correct their work. They would rather have half truths and lies. This edit gives a referenced concrete definition according to the original language and shows what is written, and Wikipedia doesn't want it in their article for they keep deleting it. THEY KEEP DELETING THE TRUTH THAT IS REFERENCED VIABLE WORK EQUAL TO WEBSTER"S DICTIONARY, AS SUCH THEY WOULD HAVE DENY WEBSTER"S DICTIONARY, WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA, ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA, ETC, AS VIABLE, ACCEPTABLE REFERENCED WORKS FOR EDITS. I recently was in a discussion with a person about this article. They had asked me why this definition wasn't in the Wikipedia article and that since it wasn't it must not be true. As such Wikipedia deliberately is keeping people from editing articles with referenced works that contribute to and gives truthful information so that an article gives lies that people swear by because they don't research the information themselves, rather they say since Wikipedia says so it is so, when it is a lie A FRAUD. I have spent more then 2 decades studying this subject (the Flood story of the Bible) and other stories and science. Yet, Wikipedia in their bid for power and control doesn't recognize, nor accept referenced documented material to be added to their articles, for how dare anyone challenge their power. If one goes on the internet they will find many articles on the descent of Wikipedia from the original design of it's creator to an oligarchy (a small group of people (governing body) who hold power and control; i.e. a dictatorship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.88 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We have no staff editors. I should have said that your last statement was unsourced. Your explanations of the meaning of the word contradicted the rest of the article and most other sources. Can you both quote Wilson and show us other sources meeting WP:RS who agree? We would need that to meet WP:UNDUE. And what is Hebraic/Aramaic? The Hebrew Bible is written mainly in Biblical Hebrew, with a few bits in Biblical Aramaic. I believe that the word 'Nephilim' is only written in Biblical Hebrew. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wilson's Word Studies is equal to Webster's Dictionary." Nonsense. It's just another obscure 19th century book about the Bible. Alephb (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

the word nephilim

Doug Weller, Yesterday I posted on this page the answers and referenced material you requested. Yet, you deemed to delete it. Well here it is again. You stated: "Your explanations of the meaning of the word contradicted the rest of the article and most other sources. Can you both quote Wilson and show us other sources meeting WP:RS who agree? We would need that to meet WP:UNDUE. And what is Hebraic/Aramaic? The Hebrew Bible is written mainly in Biblical Hebrew, with a few bits in Biblical Aramaic. I believe that the word 'Nephilim' is only written in Biblical Hebrew." This statement is has many points that ask for response and reply. First, what do you mean by: "most other sources."? What sources are you talking about? Your question on Hebraic/Aramaic shows your lack of knowledge and education. Hebraic stands for Hebrew. Your statement: "The Hebrew Bible is written mainly in Biblical Hebrew, with a few bits in Biblical Aramaic", I agree with and have so stated in a scholarly fashion: Hebraic/Aramaic, which you did not comprehend, thus showing lack of knowledge on the subject. Then there is your statement: "I believe that the word 'Nephilim' is only written in Biblical Hebrew." Again shows your lack of confidence in your knowledge on the subject. I don't believe, I know it is Hebraic (Hebrew), which is where the definitions that you rejected came from. I have spent over 2 decades on Biblical research, archaeology, and science. The proponents of the fallen angel mating with human women chiefly refer to and use the First and Second Book of Enoch, which is not and never has been part of the Bible, and is non-canonical, and was written in 200 a.d., well beyond the Old Testament period. These 2 books belong to a group of books called the pseudepigrapha. The word pseudepigrapha is a transliteration of a Greek plural noun that denotes writings "with false superscription". "The pseudepigrapha etymologically denotes writings falsely attributed to ideal figures featured in the Old Testament; like Adam, Noah, Seth, Enoch, etc."(see Volume I The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments, edited by James H. Charlesworth Doubleday & Company, 1983; page xxv). It is from the Second Book of Enoch that many derive their interpretation of fallen angels for the Flood story. The offspring of the fallen angels/human women were 300 cubits tall. A cubit is about 18 inches long, or 1 1/2 feet, making the offspring 450 feet tall. Despite this proponents of this theory use the Second Book Of Enoch as if it is part of the Bible, or in place of the Bible. If you are going to interpret an ancient writing, like the Bible, or Socratic Genesis Apochphron, you must refer to, and use the original language, not some later translation, like the Greek Septuagint, King James Version, NIV, etc., and you must use 6 contexts, as well as follow the literary structure of the story, which you do not. The "root" of the Flood story is Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium verse, which has a dual (2) propose. 1. is the prophecy of Christ. 2. The battle between evil and good. This verse is then followed by the 1st example, the story of Cain and Abel, and then is followed by the second example the 2 genealogy lines. This is the literary structure. The context of all this then ties in with the context of the word meaning of nephilim, and ties in with the New Testament mention of this time period. You asked for: "Can you both quote Wilson and show us other sources". The word nephilim by the Hebraic/Aramaic (the original language of the Old Testament and not a translation) has the root meaning of "to fall", the meaning of the word has two meanings: 1. "to fall upon others in rapine violence"; a tyrant; a bully; a dictator. 2. "apostates fallen from true religion" (Wilson's: " fallers, apostates fallen from true religion; and falling on men with violence and rapine, and causing them to fall; such were robust in body, and leaders of others. Gen.vi.4"). Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson, MacDonald Publishing Co.,ISBN: 0-917006-27-5, page 185 (New Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson, Kregel Publications 1991, ISBN: 0-8254-4030-0, page 185) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, James Strong, MacDonald Publishing Co.,ISBN: 0-917006-01-1, Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary "a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant" page 79 Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Book House,copyright 1979, ISBN: 0-8010-3801-4, "fallers, rebels, apostates" page 556 There are many other works as well. Today, I was looking in the highly acclaimed and used, The Pulpit Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis Exodus, H. D. M. Spence; Joseph S. Exell, MacDonald Publishing Co.,ISBN: 0-0917006-32-1, page 103 (page 101 -103) and was reminded of a fact that I knew concerning the word nephilim. "there were nephilim on the earth in those days and after those days, when the sons of god came in unto the daughters of men". Before the sons of god and daughters of men had offspring there were already nephilim on the Earth according to the Bible, as such they could not be the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men. The verse ties in with Genesis 4 the apostate line of Cain. The verse should read "there were apostates on The Earth in those days and after those days when the sons of god came in unto the daughters of men", which stays in the context of the story and literary structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.88 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see my comment at User talk:24.253.207.88. I mention that here in case your IP changes and you don't notice the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There are all sorts of problems with what you're trying to do here, but I see two really big ones.

First, you're entirely using 19th-century sources. You've got your Wilson's (1850), the Pulpit Commentary, authored in various parts of the 19th century, and Strong's Concordance (1890).

Second, and much more seriously, you are misrepresenting at least one of your sources. The Gesenius Lexicon is not from 1979, no matter what the copyright notice might say. It was translated into English by 1857. And you are blatantly misquoting it. Gesenius uses "fallers, rebels, apostates" to illustrate the view he does not hold. Gesenius himself prefers "giants." So you should not act as if Gesenius supports your view.

Here at Wikipedia, we don't just pick any old sources we like. We try to use up-to-date mainstream scholarly sources. Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses, that kind of thing. Until you start doing that, you're probably not going to have people accepting your edits. Alephb (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

My answer:

   Please see my comment at User talk:24.253.207.88. I mention that here in case your IP changes and you don't notice the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

       There are all sorts of problems with what you're trying to do here, but I see two really big ones.

       First, you're entirely using 19th-century sources. You've got your Wilson's (1850), the Pulpit Commentary, authored in various parts of the 19th century, and Strong's Concordance (1890).

       Second, and much more seriously, you are misrepresenting at least one of your sources. The Gesenius Lexicon is not from 1979, no matter what the copyright notice might say. It was translated into English by 1857. And you are blatantly misquoting it. Gesenius uses "fallers, rebels, apostates" to illustrate the view he does not hold. Gesenius himself prefers "giants." So you should not act as if Gesenius supports your view.

       Here at Wikipedia, we don't just pick any old sources we like. We try to use up-to-date mainstream scholarly sources. Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses, that kind of thing. Until you start doing that, you're probably not going to have people accepting your edits. Alephb (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Alphb you are bigoted and a misinterpreter. Here are 3 points for you on your statement: 1. Your first point, the disdain for the use of 19th century sources, shows an extreme bigotry for older works, and that, not only you, but all of Wikipedia staff holds such a stance and bigotry according to your final statement.

Many of these books, and others, are used in leading universities and by professors to produce modern publications and Master and Doctorate Thesis to get a degree. Besides this many scholars refer to them. By your statement, works like the Bible, writings of Josephus, Aquila, Socrates, and the Webster's Dictionary, are of no value and should not be referred to, or used. The only books that should be referred to is books written in the last decade from universities using only books written in the last decade as reference. A very limited view and extremely narrow minded.

It is like saying the American Revolution fought for the freedom of the citizens, the Civil War fought for the ending of slavery, World War II fought to end tyranny, despots, and atrocities, the act of Rosa Parks, or the work of Martin Luther King for equality, hold no value today because they did not occur in the 21 st century, and should not be used as a reference, or an example; i.e. should be ignored, pretend they never happened.

2. Gesenius' I did not state that it was written in 1979, rather that this is the publisher's copyright date. Do you not know reference data that is given that shows the reference. Things like the title, author, publisher, copyright date, and ISBN number if there is one?

Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures,(translated by) Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. LL. D, Baker Book House, 1979 (reprinted 1990), ISBN: 0-8010-3801-4, page 556 (for you first edition published by Samuel Bagster and Sons in 1847), you state that I am misrepresenting at least one of my sources, but I am not, rather it is you who is doing this to validate your lie. what is said: "(Hebrew spelling)m.giants Gen.6:4; Nu. 13:33. The etymology (since this word might be to big for you, it means, the history of the linguistic form of a word)of this word is uncertain..... I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters and Aqu.( I add so you will know Aquila)(Greek spelling of word)falling on, attacking is of intransitive signification......... were accustomed to render (Hebrew word spelling) fallers, rebels, apostates (support of my view of no mention of giant in his preference).

This coincides with Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies which states: "fallers, apostates fallen from true religion; and falling on men with violence and rapine, and causing them to fall..."

Even the highly used and referred to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance's dictionary states similar definition.

No where does Tregelles in the book Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon in the definition given there in state that he prefers giant only you do in opposition to the truth.

3.Your statement: "Here at Wikipedia, we don't just pick any old sources we like. We try to use up-to-date mainstream scholarly sources. Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses, that kind of thing. Until you start doing that, you're probably not going to have people accepting your edits." reveal the contempt for scholarly works, works that are used by universities and professors, as well as leading scholars to write the modern books and papers, as well as the common man, by all staff members of Wikipedia; a staunch contempt for highly referred and use reference works and books; i.e. bigotry. You would rather bury the truth then to give it. Think on this, by your statement, Webster's Dictionary Of The English Language holds no merit or value, and despite the multitude, including modern universities, that refer and use it, and, by your statement, should not be used for a reference source because it was not written in the 21st century. What a shame.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2017‎

Please, in the future, sign your posts. See WP:SIGNATURE, a behavioral guideline for Wikipedia editors. Also, avoid personal attacks and assuming bad faith of people who disagree with you. Both sorts of behavior run counter to Wikipedia policies. Alephb (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of refernced work on the subject of the article

What is the matter with you? Don't like the truth? I gave the Bible verse from the King James that matched the New Revised Standard Version that you used. I gave a reference work that is a leading source in the field to show that it was not just my interpretation in case you went that way. You deleted this the truth because you want to promote a lie.

Your article statement: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible.

   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.

       — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"

If you deleted my verse then you must also delete the statement and verse you gave for it states the same thing as the verse I used, "there were nephililm on the earth in those days, and after those days, when the sons of god came in unto the daughters of men...". By this verse the nephilim were already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with the daughters of men, (the same given in the New Revised Version "were nephilim on the earth in those days...."), The Pulpit Bible Commentary page 103 gives this statement that the nephilim were already on the earth as given in the Bible. (a leading scholarly reference work referred to the majority of pastors, professors, and scholars of the Bible, besides many other books used as reference, and by the very verse itself in many verse itself in many other versions)(I gave more information on this reference like authors, publisher, and ISBN). All, the verse , the statement and reference work were deleted because for 2 reasons: 1. it was not written by a Wikipedia staff member, 2. Wikipedia's stance is for the false and not the true.

In order for this to be different, you would have to rewrite the Bible, or change English language structure, or both. So, remove the New Revised Version verse and the statement related to it, or allow the changes I made. Or admit that you want false, deceptive writing in your articles that your staff wrote, just because your staff wrote it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please try to sign your posts in the future. You can do this by writing four tildes ( ~~~~) at the end of your post. Please do not engage in personal attacks in the future. Wikipedia has a policy on this: WP:PERSONAL. It is also a matter of Wikipedia policy that we should not make unprovable assumptions about each other's motives: WP:AGF. The Pulpit Bible is most certainly not "referred to [by] the majority of pastors, professors, and scholars of the Bible." Personally, I would recommend trying a more recent scholarly source, like the Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, the Oxford Companion to the Bible, the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, or the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, or something along those lines, or articles in leading scholarly journals like Vetus Testamentum or Journal of Biblical Literature if you want something more mainstream and up to date.

Wikipedia articles are almost never written by Wikipedia staff members, so whether you are a staff member has nothing to do with why your contribution was deleted. The language in your last paragraph easily falls afoul of both WP:PERSONAL and WP:AGF, so I would recommend toning down the rhetoric in the future. 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Alephb (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fallen angels section

Last sentence: "b Yoma 67, PRE22 and 1 QapGen ar ii 1 also identify the Nephilim as the angels that fell." Can this be changed to something I understand? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

After a little searching, I have formed the idea that this is likely technical nomenclature used by Biblical archaeologists, particularly students of the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Genesis Apocryphon. Maybe the Q is for Qumran, the city near where the scrolls were found?

Certainly this should be cleaned up, ideally by someone who knows something about the topic, which lets me out. --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

b Yoma 67 should be written Yoma 67b, and is an abbreviated reference to the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma, page 67b. Yoma 67b contains only an indirect allusion to the whole incident, speaking of "the affair of Uzza and Azael." It does not discuss who the Nephilim were, but simply alludes to traditional Jewish expansions of the Nephilim tradition. PRE22 should be written PRE 22, with a space, and means Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 22, a chapter in which PRE discusses the mating of angels and humans and expands on Genesis 6. It looks to me like PRE 22 identifies the children of the fallen angels as the Nephilim. 1 QapGen, which should be spelled 1QapGen, without a space, is an abbreviation for the Genesis Apocryphon, found at Qumran. The reference is to column II, where words are missing before and after the word "Nephilim," and as far as I can tell it is by no means clear that the Nephilim are identified as the fallen angels, and not their children.

Without citing some reliable source to back up the interpretation in the sentence, the whole sentence is WP:OR, and probably wrong at that. Alephb (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)