Concerning the Nephilim

[Lost_Wanderer]

When I first read them on the NAB, I understood them to be basically the offspring of angels and humans and as a result, have powers greater than humans.

However, in the following passages, they seem to be depicted as somewhat evil. Does being the son of a supernatural being and a mortal make you intrinsically evil?

Normally I don’t give much thought to the OT (that’s where I found them) but I’m writing a fictional story right now about people who descend from a line that originated from a union between mortals and supernatural beings (you can say they’re derived from the Nephilim). Hence, they’re capable of all sorts of powers such as strength, magic, extra-human features such as horns, tails, cute animal ears etc. I intend this story to have your typical message of “with great power comes great responsibility” but given the attitude the OT takes towards the Nephilim, does being the offspring/descendant of a supernatural being automatically make you evil and a child of the devil?

My second question was sort of inspired by that other one regarding mutation. Mine though is more of the fantasy version of that. If you were born with powers because you descended from a mortal and a supernatural being, will using them be a sin or does the fact that you have supernatural blood entitle you to their use?

 

[CesarAugustus]

In the Spanish Catholic.net forums, some years ago, a theologian had a very interesting thread about that.

If you know Spanish, you can learn something about that theme.

¡Blessings!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When I first read them on the NAB, I understood them to be basically the offspring of angels and humans and as a result, have powers greater than humans.

That’s one interpretation, but it by no means the only one.

Jesus tells us that in the resurrection we will neither marry nor be given in marriage but live like his angels in heaven. Thus, angels are implied to be under a ban forbidding marriage. Given that, if you take the OT to be referring to actual angels – they automatically are breaking a law that God gave them – not to mention that man and angels are different species wise, and that a perversion of sorts would be required for them to mate.

A second, plausible, line of thought is that men of renown and power often called themselves God. Demigod is a common theme in Greece, for example the island of Crete boasted that Zeus was really a man from their island who became a God. The problem of how did Zeus then make the world since the world had to exist before he was God, and who are his parents, (endless genealogies) becomes a problem.

A third line of thought, is that Adam was called Son of God – see genealogies in Luke – so that “son’s of God” are those who are blessed by God.
The Nephilim, then, are offspring of Adam’s good son’s line, and Cain’s daughters. The result was the strength and wickedness of Cain’s line mixing with the blessing of God on the Seth, and the other good sons – they fell into temptation of taking a woman for beauty, rather than holiness – and the result was that since the mothers do most of the raising – the children were raised cain-like. essentially stealing the blessing for bad purpose.

However, in the following passages, they seem to be depicted as somewhat evil. Does being the son of a supernatural being and a mortal make you intrinsically evil?

well, no – but given a bad parent, what are the chances the child will come out right?
Given that the body of man wasn’t made for the mating with an angel – there would almost certainly be malformed offspring.

My second question was sort of inspired by that other one regarding mutation. Mine though is more of the fantasy version of that. If you were born with powers because you descended from a mortal and a supernatural being, will using them be a sin or does the fact that you have supernatural blood entitle you to their use?

Well, I’m not into magic stories that much. I often end up quitting anime in the middle because it goes to far in a pointless direction. Instead of showing a triumph of the heart, it is often little more than attempting to attribute to God the sins of man.
Since Fantasy appears to be here to stay, I tend to like ones like “Hiraku No Go” which the spirit he meets is only an incidental backdrop, but the story itself is a deep character study on how power (in this case, the power to play GO) can affect a person’s life. It is well done and put out by Shonen Jump, if I remember right.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

well, no – but given a bad parent, what are the chances the child will come out right?
Given that the body of man wasn’t made for the mating with an angel – there would almost certainly be malformed offspring.

Well my story is much less about a direct parent-child relationship and more about the connection between being descended from someone and the person of the individual.

The thing I have always understood when I read myths about of the offspring of gods and mortals is that the powers of the gods are, in a sense, contained in mortal vessels. The ‘deformity’ is not really a deformity at all but something that puts them above the average mortal. However, like I said with ‘great power comes great responsibility.’

The question though is, does using powers derived from such a ‘deformity’ sinful?

Well, I’m not into magic stories that much. I often end up quitting anime in the middle because it goes to far in a pointless direction. Instead of showing a triumph of the heart, it is often little more than attempting to attribute to God the sins of man.

Really? I don’t what you’ve watched but all the ones I’ve seen so far only have a simple messages such as belief in oneself, belief in one’s friends, honor, family bonds etc.

 

[patrick457]

When I first read them on the NAB, I understood them to be basically the offspring of angels and humans and as a result, have powers greater than humans.

However, in the following passages, they seem to be depicted as somewhat evil. Does being the son of a supernatural being and a mortal make you intrinsically evil?

Normally I don’t give much thought to the OT (that’s where I found them) but I’m writing a fictional story right now about people who descend from a line that originated from a union between mortals and supernatural beings (you can say they’re derived from the Nephilim). Hence, they’re capable of all sorts of powers such as strength, magic, extra-human features such as horns, tails, cute animal ears etc. I intend this story to have your typical message of “with great power comes great responsibility” but given the attitude the OT takes towards the Nephilim, does being the offspring/descendant of a supernatural being automatically make you evil and a child of the devil?

My second question was sort of inspired by that other one regarding mutation. Mine though is more of the fantasy version of that. If you were born with powers because you descended from a mortal and a supernatural being, will using them be a sin or does the fact that you have supernatural blood entitle you to their use?

Well, there’s a diversity of opinion concerning who the “sons of Elohim” were.

1.) They were the progeny of fallen angels. In one example, the Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge’ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the Watchers or Egregoroi (Grigori), angels dispatched to Earth to watch over men.

According to 1 Enoch, they soon begin to lust for human women, and at the prodding of their leader Samyaza, they defect en masse to illicitly instruct and procreate among humanity, resulting in savage giants who pillaged (and ate!) men. Samyaza and his associates further taught their human charges arts and technologies that would otherwise be discovered gradually over time, not foisted upon them all at once. The worst of the arts that was taught man (by the angel Azazel) was the secrets of war.

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones. And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures.
And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal, (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven…

In answer to this God orders Raphael to “bind Azazel hand and foot, and put him in the darkness,” and then throw him into a pit in the desert (hence explaining the Scapegoat carrying the sins of the people offered “to Azazel” during the Day of Atonement), where he would stay until Judgment, when he would be thrown “into the fire.” He then commands Gabriel to cause civil war so that the Nephilim would destroy each other. Michael is to bind Samyaza and the other angels “for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation,” after which they would be sent down into “the abyss of fire”, where forever they will be tormented (cf. Jude 1:6). At this point God then sends down the flood to cleanse the Earth of corruption, and sends Uriel to warn Noah so as not to eradicate the human race.

 

[patrick457]

(continued)

The Book of Jubilees (ca. 2nd century BC) also contains pretty much the same story:

And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants.
And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth - all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men (was) thus evil continually. And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes.
And He said that He would destroy man and all flesh upon the face of the earth which He had created. But Noah found grace before the eyes of the Lord.

The Targum (Aramaic ‘translation’, or rather, paraphrase, of the Torah) Pseudo-Jonathan has two fallen angels who were in the Earth at that time named Shamhazai (Semyaza) and Uzziel (Azazel?), albeit some distinction seems to be made between them and the ‘sons of the great’ who fathered the Nephilim:

And it was when the sons of men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and fair daughters were born to them; and the sons of the great saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and painted, and curled, walking with revelation of the flesh, and with imaginations of wickedness; that they took them wives of all who pleased them. And the Lord said by His Word, “All the generations of the wicked which are to arise shall not be purged after the order of the judgments of the generation of the deluge, which shall be destroyed and exterminated from the midst of the world. Have I not imparted My Holy Spirit to them, (or, placed My Holy Spirit in them,) that they may work good works? And, behold, their works are wicked. Behold, I will give them a prolongment of a hundred and twenty years, that they may work repentance, and not perish.” Schamchazai and Uzziel, who fell from heaven, were on the earth in those days; and also, after the sons of the great had gone in with the daughters of men, they bare to them: and these are they who are called men who are of the world, men of names.
And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and all the imagery of the thought of his heart was only evil every day. And it repented the Lord in His Word that He had made man upon the earth; and He passed judgment upon them by His Word.

Which brings us to:

2.) The “sons of 'elohim” are mortal.

Whereas the idea that the Nephilim were human-angelic offsprings enjoyed some popularity in certain circles of Second Temple Judaism (ca. 515 BC-AD 70), later Judaism began to take a consistent view in disputing the idea that Genesis 6 refers to angels or that angels could intermarry with men, even coming down hard on anyone who teaches otherwise. Consequently, most Jewish commentaries and translations translate the Hebrew “sons of 'elohim” as being “sons of nobles,” rather than “sons of God.”

This is also the rendering suggested in the Targum Onqelos, Symmachus the Ebionites’ Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the Samaritan Targum which read “sons of the rulers” or “sons of the mighty,” where Targum Neophyti reads “sons of the judges.”

And Noah was a son of five hundred years, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And it was when the sons of men had begun to multiply upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of the mighty (b’nei rabrebaya) saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and took to them wives of all whom they pleased (or ‘that they chose’). And the Lord said, “This evil generation shall not stand before me for ever, because they are flesh, and their works are evil. A term (or ‘length’) will I give them, an hundred and twenty years, if they may be converted.” Giants were in the earth in those days; and also when, after that the sons of the mighty had gone in unto the daughters of men, there were born from them giants who from of old were men of name.

• Targum Onqelos

 

[patrick457]

(continued)

Likewise, a long-held view among some Christians is that the “sons of God” who fathered the Nephilim spoken of in the text, were in fact the formerly righteous descendants of Seth (who were called “sons of God” in account of their being righteous and their being in a covenant with the Lord) who rebelled, while the “daughters of men” were the unrighteous descendants of Cain, and the Nephilim - who may or may not be literally of gigantic physical proportions - the offspring of their union. This view dates to at least the 3rd century AD, with references throughout the Clementine literature, as well as in Sextus Julius Africanus, Sts. Ephrem the Syrian, Augustine, John Chrysostom, and the reformer John Calvin, and others. According to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, e.g., those who were descended from the accursed Cain or from any people who did not worship God. The “Sons of Seth view” is also the view presented in a few apocryphal works with a Christian tinge, including the Syrian Cave of Treasures, and the ca. 6th Century Ge’ez work The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan.

The Cave of Treasures present the good descendants of Seth and the evil descendants of Cain as living in separate locations: the Sethians were at the holy mountain near where Paradise (Eden) is, where they occupied the space left vacant by Satan’s army that fell from grace, and the Cainites down below the plains. Before his death, Seth made his family promise that none of them go down the mountain, as Adam made Seth swear that he keep his offspring away from Cain. It was when Tubal-cain (cf. Genesis 4:22) and Jubal (cf. Genesis 4:21) were the first men to invent musical instruments - which were, apparently, being operated and inhabited by evil spirits! - and the Cainites were living lives of sin (and the women were possessed as well and were being lascivious), that the noise of merriment reached the Sethians. A hundred men of war decided to embark down the plain. Jared and his son Enoch tried to warn them of the oath their ancestors swore, but the plea fell on deaf ears.

And when they saw that the daughters of Cain were beautiful in form and that they were naked and unashamed, the children of Seth became inflamed with the fire of lust. And when the daughters of Cain saw the goodliness of the children of Seth, they gripped them like ravening beasts and defiled their bodies. And the children of Seth slew their souls by fornication with the daughters of Cain. And when the children of Seth wished to go up [again] to that holy mountain, after they had come down and fallen, the stones of that holy mountain became fire in their sight, and having defiled their souls with the fire of fomication, God did not permit them to ascend to that holy place. And, moreover, very many others made bold and went down after them, and they, too, fell.

Eventually, as time passed, all the others decided to head down as well, leaving only Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah, and their families, as the righteous mountain-dwellers. Around here the author himself breaks the fourth wall and notes the impossibility of angels - or rather, demons - impregnating women:

And Methuselah and Noah remained alone on the mountain, for all the children of Seth had gone down from the skirts of the mountain of Paradise to the plain where the children of Cain lived. And men, the children of Seth, had intercourse with the daughters of Cain, who conceived of them, and brought forth men, giants and the sons of giants, who were like unto towers. Now because of this certain ancient writers have fallen into error, and have written, “The angels came down from heaven, and had intercourse with men, and by them these famous giants have been produced.” But this is not true, for those who have written in this manner did not understand [the facts]. Behold, O my brother-readers, and know ye that it is not in the nature of beings of the spirit to beget, neither is it in the nature of the devils–who are unclean beings, and workers of wickedness, and lovers of adultery–to beget, because there are neither males nor females among them. And since the time when the angels fell, not another angel has been added to their number. And if the devils were able to have intercourse with women they would not leave unravished a single virgin in all the race of the children of men.

 

[patrick457]

(Final!)

A recent interpretation has it that the “sons of God” were dynastic rulers (citing the Ancient Near Eastern idea of considering kings as children of the gods, and the legends of human-‘divine’ kings such as Gilgamesh), who built harems by taking wives. The sin here, then, would be polygamy, like Lamech who also “took wives” (Genesis 4:19).

For the record, as for the question whether “being the offspring/descendant of a supernatural being automatically makes you evil,” well, only if you eat human flesh and blood and/or loot and pillage and/or use possessed artifacts and/or abuse your royal authority.

 

[patrick457]

A second, plausible, line of thought is that men of renown and power often called themselves God. Demigod is a common theme in Greece, for example the island of Crete boasted that Zeus was really a man from their island who became a God. The problem of how did Zeus then make the world since the world had to exist before he was God, and who are his parents, (endless genealogies) becomes a problem.

That’s simple: Zeus didn’t create the world. According to the Iliad, Oceanus (and possibly his sister-wife Tethys), the world-ocean, was the father all the gods. In Hesiod, in the beginnning was Chaos, the void, from which Erebus, Nyx, Gaia, Tartarus, and Eros emerge. After these forces manifest on their own, they have children through various methods, including Pontus, Ourea, the Titans, and Aether. Alcman says that Thetis (distinct from Tethys) is the first goddess. Orphic poetry and the comedian Aristophanes meanwhile say that Nyx, goddess of night, is the first principle.

Zeus, son of the Titan Kronos, was considered to be the father of gods and men, but he was not the one who made the world (nor has any Greek, to the best of my knowledge, considered him such). He only became superior among the gods after he overthrew his own father Kronos in the battle of the Olympians against the primordial Titans (Titanomachia). And he only became king of the sky after the battle, when he shared the world - aside from Gaia, the Earth, which could not be claimed - with his brothers, Poseidon (who got the sea) and Hades (who got the underworld), by drawing lots.

As for Cretan Zeus: the Greeks, with one exception, were unanimous in recognizing the birthplace of Zeus as Crete; indeed, Minoan culture contributed many essentials of ancient Greek religion. According to the story, Crete was where Rhea gave birth to Zeus - the youngest of Kronos’ children, after she had sought her mother Gaia to devise a plan so that Kronos would get his retribution for his acts against his father Ouranos (Uranus, the heavens) - whom he castrated - and his own children, whom he devoured as soon as they were born, since he had learned from Gaia and Ouranos that he was destined to be overcome by his own son as he had overthrown his own father.

It was a 4th century BC writer named Euhemerus who proposed a theory that Zeus had actually been a great king of Crete and that posthumously his glory had slowly turned him into a deity. The works of Euhemerus himself have not survived, but later Christian writers took up the suggestion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That’s simple: Zeus didn’t create the world. According to the Iliad, Oceanus (and possibly his sister-wife Tethys), the world-ocean, was the father all the gods. In Hesiod, in the beginnning was Chaos, the void, from which Erebus, Nyx, Gaia, Tartarus, and Eros emerge. After these forces manifest on their own, they have children through various methods, including Pontus, Ourea, the Titans, and Aether. Alcman says that Thetis (distinct from Tethys) is the first goddess. Orphic poetry and the comedian Aristophanes meanwhile say that Nyx, goddess of night, is the first principle.

“The world, doesn’t have to mean the universe.”, there are many worlds in history.
I wasn’t thinking that deeply on the question, only that his becoming a God was after the effect of his humanity – and other “children”, I thought, could be found that would make the genealogy circular and therefore, endless.

Zeus, son of the Titan Kronos, was considered to be the father of gods and men, but he was not the one who made the world (nor has any Greek, to the best of my knowledge, considered him such). He only became superior among the gods after he overthrew his own father Kronos in the battle of the Olympians against the primordial Titans (Titanomachia). And he only became king of the sky after the battle, when he shared the world - aside from Gaia, the Earth, which could not be claimed - with his brothers, Poseidon (who got the sea) and Hades (who got the underworld), by drawing lots.

Hmmm…
Zeus is often assumed to be the God referred to as Dio – although the word just means “divinity” in general useage.

As for Cretan Zeus: the Greeks, with one exception, were unanimous in recognizing the birthplace of Zeus as Crete; …

OK.

It was a 4th century BC writer named Euhemerus who proposed a theory that Zeus had actually been a great king of Crete and that posthumously his glory had slowly turned him into a deity. The works of Euhemerus himself have not survived, but later Christian writers took up the suggestion.

Such as St. Paul, who says : Cretans, always liars…

Ah well, Patrick – you know your stuff!
Its been a pleasure reading your cross section of notes.

Although, The desert Goat offering isn’t referenced that I know of in the canonical books as being an offering to a fallen angel/demon in the desert. Looking at the Greek in the OT, on the scape goat, I don’t see a name. I haven’t checked the Hebrew – but where does the inference that the scapegoat was offered to the desert demon come from ? and what is the Logic behind sending the Goat into the desert unslain?

 

[patrick457]

Hmmm…
Zeus is often assumed to be the God referred to as Dio – although the word just means “divinity” in general useage.

Well, as you may know, Dios is the genitive of Zeus (nominative). It would seem that the earliest forms of the name are the Mycenaean Greek di-we and di-wo, written in Linear B syllabic script.

Zeus is often thought to be the Greek version of the Proto-Indo-European god of the daytime sky and chief god of the pantheon, whose name is reconstructed as Dyēus ph2ter ‘sky father’ or ‘shining father’. The god is known under this name in Sanskrit (cf. Dyauṣ Pitā or Dyauṣpitṛ of the Rig-Veda), Latin (cf. Jupiter, from Iuppiter, deriving from the PIE vocative *dyeu-ph2tēr), deriving from the basic form *dyeu- (“to shine”, and in its many derivatives, “sky, heaven, god”).

Rooted in the related but distinct Indo-European word *deiwos is the Latin word for deity, deus. Indo-European cognates include Sanskrit devá and Old Prussian deywis. Certain deities whose names come from *deiwos aside from the Vedic/Zoroastrian devas/daevas are the Baltic Dievas, and the Germanic god *Tîwaz (cf. Norse Týr, Gothic Teiws, Anglo-Saxon Tīw and Old High German Ziu).

The Greek theos (cf. Mycenaean te-o, Doric theus, Boeotian and Arcadocypriot thios, and Laconian sios) has a quite different origin (despite it and deus sounding almost the same): it is proposed to have come from Proto-Indo-European **dʰ(e)h1s-*, which survived in Phrygian deōs (‘to the gods’), Armenian dikʿ (’(pagan) gods’), and Latin feriae (‘festival’), fanum (‘sanctuary’), and festus (‘festive’). An alternative proposal has it being traced to *dʰewh2- (‘to rise in smoke’), whence also Ancient Greek thumós.

Such as St. Paul, who says : Cretans, always liars…

St. Paul was actually quoting from the semi-mythical philosopher Epimenides of Knossos (ca. 6th century BC). Which brings us to a paradox: Epimenides was from Crete, so did he lie when he made this statement?

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

– Epimenides, Cretica

Epimenides proposed that Zeus was immortal, against the general sentiment of Crete. Denying the immortality of Zeus by pointing out that his tomb exists, then, would be the lie of the Cretans. It appears that by “Cretans”, Epimenides intended those other than himself. The phrase was also quoted by the poet Callimachus (310/305–240 BC) in his Hymn to Zeus, with the same theological intent as Epimenides. The logical inconsistency of a Cretan asserting all Cretans are always liars may not have occurred to Epimenides, nor to Callimachus, yet.

 

[patrick457]

Although, The desert Goat offering isn’t referenced that I know of in the canonical books as being an offering to a fallen angel/demon in the desert. Looking at the Greek in the OT, on the scape goat, I don’t see a name. I haven’t checked the Hebrew – but where does the inference that the scapegoat was offered to the desert demon come from ? and what is the Logic behind sending the Goat into the desert unslain?

Well, in the Hebrew version, the goat is said to be la‘ăzā’zēl, “for/to ‘ăzā’zēl.” Who or what this ‘ăzā’zēl was is one of the mysteries of the Bible that puzzles scholars even today, and many interpretations have been proposed. Here are some that I know of:

1. ]The interpretation favored by the Mishnah, the Talmud, and some medieval Jewish commentators (such as Rashi) was that ‘ăzā’zēl refers to a locale in the desert where the goat is sent. Often it is presented as a sort of high mountain or precipice associated with harshness and ruggedness (cf. ‘az/‘ōz* ‘strong’, ‘ezûz ‘strength’), where the goat is pushed down, ritually killing it.
   *]In certain extra-biblical Jewish literature (such as 1 Enoch, 3 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Book of Giants) ‘ăzā’zēl is the name of a (fallen) angel (perhaps under the influence of the theophoric suffix -ēl). Hence, some scholars propose that ‘ăzā’zēl must be a supernatural being - perhaps a malevolent one - that is thought to dwell in the desert, the traditional haunt of demons (Leviticus 17:7; Tobit 8:3; Isaiah 13:21, 34:14; Matthew 4:1, 12:43, etc.). After all, ‘ăzā’zēl is in direct contrast with YHWH; would the Name be contrasted with something impersonal? In which case, the goat carrying the sins of the community are being sent back to where they are believed to come from.
   ]The interpretation favored by the Vulgate (hircus/caper emissarius ‘the goat sent away’, i.e. ‘(e)scape-goat’), and the Greek versions of Symmachus (eis tragon aperchomenon ‘the departing goat’; perhaps by breaking down ‘ăzā’zēl into ‘ēz ‘ûzāl?) and Aquila (eis kekrataiōmenon ‘the thing held’) would be that ‘ăzā’zēl is the name for the goat itself. The Septuagint also renders ‘ăzā’zēl as tragos apopompaios.
   ]‘ăzā’zēl is a rare abstract noun signifying ‘complete destruction’, ‘dismissal’ or ‘entire removal’, citing an Arabic cognate, ’azala (‘to banish, remove’).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, as you may know, Dios is the genitive of Zeus (nominative). It would seem that the earliest forms of the name are the Mycenaean Greek di-we and di-wo, written in Linear B syllabic script.

When I read regular Koine Greek, I often see Zeus spelled quite differently than dio.
I see it spelled: Ζεύ… – with a zeta, not a delta. The sound is also quite different.
“Dseus” sounding not “dio/a” sounding.

Yes, the -os ending is often genitive especially in Greek borrow words where the name is not intrinsically Greek.

I have also seen the name Dio show up in contexts where it clearly isn’t meaning Zeus (or at least, not Zeus alone).

Callimachus likely meant Zeus when he used it. I think Dio is more ambiguous than Zeus and the confusion or appropriation between the two is a later development. Scholars may differ on this point; do you do first hand research – or are you quoting from someone else?

Rooted in the related but distinct Indo-European word *deiwos is the Latin word for deity, deus. Indo-European cognates include Sanskrit devá and Old Prussian deywis. Certain deities whose names come from *deiwos aside from the Vedic/Zoroastrian devas/daevas are the Baltic Dievas, and the Germanic god *Tîwaz (cf. Norse Týr, Gothic Teiws, Anglo-Saxon Tīw and Old High German Ziu).

In other words, a sound alike to Dio existed in Latin. At a time when Rome was coming to power, and Koine Greek was the language of the Courts and Governments, the chance of it being used in both languages was high. I hadn’t thought of that before.

St. Paul was actually quoting from the semi-mythical philosopher Epimenides of Knossos (ca. 6th century BC). Which brings us to a paradox: Epimenides was from Crete, so did he lie when he made this statement?

No. But you’ve missed something.

The phrase was also quoted by the poet Callimachus (310/305–240 BC) in his Hymn to Zeus, with the same theological intent as Epimenides. The logical inconsistency of a Cretan asserting all Cretans are always liars may not have occurred to Epimenides, nor to Callimachus, yet.

There is no logical inconsistency. A man is a liar if he lies once – but he need not always lie to always, henceforth, to be a liar. Hence, any many saying “I am a liar”, is telling the truth.
It isn’t a paradox – its a tautology.
If the only thing the man ever said was “I am a liar”, it would be inconsistent.
So, the scriptures teach the truth about Cretans.

The more interesting angle is where St. Paul says that one of their own poets claimed “In him we live and move and have our being”. St. Paul clearly identifies this God with his own – “the unknown” God. Now, the God of the Jews – and our God – has a personal name that sounds very much like “Juah”; Not Dio or Zeus – yet Paul had no qualms about quoting this poet. Why don’t you look that up and tell me how he spelled the name of God – was it with a Z or with a D ? I bet on the latter;
Zeus isn’t known for wanting Lamb sacrifices like the Jewish God asked, does he?

 

[patrick457]

When I read regular Koine Greek, I often see Zeus spelled quite differently than dio.
I see it spelled: Ζεύ… – with a zeta, not a delta. The sound is also quite different.
“Dseus” sounding not “dio/a” sounding.

Yes, the -os ending is often genitive especially in Greek borrow words where the name is not intrinsically Greek.

I have also seen the name Dio show up in contexts where it clearly isn’t meaning Zeus (or at least, not Zeus alone).

Callimachus likely meant Zeus when he used it. I think Dio is more ambiguous than Zeus and the confusion or appropriation between the two is a later development. Scholars may differ on this point; do you do first hand research – or are you quoting from someone else?

In other words, a sound alike to Dio existed in Latin. At a time when Rome was coming to power, and Koine Greek was the language of the Courts and Governments, the chance of it being used in both languages was high. I hadn’t thought of that before.

No. But you’ve missed something.

There is no logical inconsistency. A man is a liar if he lies once – but he need not always lie to be a liar. Hence, any many saying “I am a liar”, is telling the truth.
It isn’t a paradox – its a tautology.
If the only thing the man ever said was “I am a liar”, it would be inconsistent.
So, the scriptures teach the truth about Cretans.

The more interesting angle is where St. Paul says that one of their own poets claimed “In him we live and move and have our being”. St. Paul clearly identifies this God with his own – “the unknown” God. Now, the God of the Jews – and our God – has a personal name that sounds very much like “Juah”; Not Dio or Zeus – yet Paul had no qualms about quoting this poet. Why don’t you look that up and tell me how he spelled the name of God – was it with a Z or with a D ? I bet on the latter;
Zeus isn’t known for wanting Lamb sacrifices like the Jewish God asked, does he?

I’m afraid I’m a bit lost. What are we talking about again?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m afraid I’m a bit lost. What are we talking about again?

Well, patrick, you’ve told the truth.

Descending from divinity (the Gods) – so: what the titles mean regarding the Nephilim, and what titles mean divine.

Dio , I hold means divinity. (Zeus is specific to Zeus, and isn’t really part of this thread). Hence being a son of divinity in some way is a topic of discussion “In him we live and move and have our being”

Secondly, we were discussing if it were a sin to use the powers given from being descended from divinity. I assumed you were speaking to that when talking about azazel, and therefore – if the Israelites were sending a sacrifice his way, this is very deeply connected with the OP. Hence I asked about the nature of the sacrifice – why is it not killed, but sent away ?

I’ll check what you have said against the Massoretic Hebrew; Your statements interest me, for various reasons both related and unrelated to this thread.

Thank you.

 

[thistle]

When I first read them on the NAB, I understood them to be basically the offspring of angels and humans and as a result, have powers greater than humans.

However, in the following passages, they seem to be depicted as somewhat evil. Does being the son of a supernatural being and a mortal make you intrinsically evil?

Normally I don’t give much thought to the OT (that’s where I found them) but I’m writing a fictional story right now about people who descend from a line that originated from a union between mortals and supernatural beings (you can say they’re derived from the Nephilim). Hence, they’re capable of all sorts of powers such as strength, magic, extra-human features such as horns, tails, cute animal ears etc. I intend this story to have your typical message of “with great power comes great responsibility” but given the attitude the OT takes towards the Nephilim, does being the offspring/descendant of a supernatural being automatically make you evil and a child of the devil?

My second question was sort of inspired by that other one regarding mutation. Mine though is more of the fantasy version of that. If you were born with powers because you descended from a mortal and a supernatural being, will using them be a sin or does the fact that you have supernatural blood entitle you to their use?

Its nonsense to think there was interbreeding between angels and humans!

 

[Bran_Stark]

I’m pretty sure the Nephilim were aliens myself.

 

[Vladd]

Well, there’s a diversity of opinion concerning who the “sons of Elohim” were.

1.) They were the progeny of fallen angels. In one example, the Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge’ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the Watchers or Egregoroi (Grigori), angels dispatched to Earth to watch over men.

According to 1 Enoch, they soon begin to lust for human women, and at the prodding of their leader Samyaza, they defect en masse to illicitly instruct and procreate among humanity, resulting in savage giants who pillaged (and ate!) men. Samyaza and his associates further taught their human charges arts and technologies that would otherwise be discovered gradually over time, not foisted upon them all at once. The worst of the arts that was taught man (by the angel Azazel) was the secrets of war.

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones. And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures.
And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal, (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven…

In answer to this God orders Raphael to “bind Azazel hand and foot, and put him in the darkness,” and then throw him into a pit in the desert (hence explaining the Scapegoat carrying the sins of the people offered “to Azazel” during the Day of Atonement), where he would stay until Judgment, when he would be thrown “into the fire.” He then commands Gabriel to cause civil war so that the Nephilim would destroy each other. Michael is to bind Samyaza and the other angels “for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation,” after which they would be sent down into “the abyss of fire”, where forever they will be tormented (cf. Jude 1:6). At this point God then sends down the flood to cleanse the Earth of corruption, and sends Uriel to warn Noah so as not to eradicate the human race.

So basically Azazel is Satan.

 

[Vladd]

So basically Azazel is Satan.

If Azazel was a master of war how did Raphael bind him? This is getting good! I haven’t read this part before!!! Please tell me more, I’m starting to like this!!!

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I’m pretty sure the Nephilim were aliens myself.

I’ve often wondered if the “Sky People” of Navajo lore were some odd manifestation of the Grigori. Same goes for Prometheus, who brought fire to mankind and taught people how to use it to cook with and heat/light their homes with it, according to Greek myths. There seems to be a lot of stories in a lot of cultures about some heavenly/godlike beings bringing some kind of civilizing skills to humans, which makes me wonder if there might not be some truth behind the stories.