Nephilim

  • Thread starter Thread starter akeylapratt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

akeylapratt

Guest
Why are the Nephilim referred to as famous heroes of men in Genesis 6:4 (“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”), but in the text of the Book of Enoch from the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are portrayed as wicked giants who tormented the humans, and were part of the reason why God sent the flood to cleanse the earth?

Can anyone qualify this discrepancy for me? Why the difference between these two texts? I understand that the Book of Enoch is not a part of the Catholic Canon, but I still think that it’s fairly relevant… if not in a religious sense than at least in a cultural one.

Not really an urgent question or anything, I’m just curious.
 
This is likely over-simplified, and bare in mind that I have a Protestant background, but here is my take for what its worth. Angelic beings have within themselves free will, as proven with the fall of Lucifer and his ilk.

Demons are angels too. It seems logical, therefore, that the Nephilim have the same “opportunity” to be good or evil.
 
akeylapratt said:
Why are the Nephilim referred to as famous heroes of men in Genesis 6:4 (“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”), but in the text of the Book of Enoch from the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are portrayed as wicked giants who tormented the humans, and were part of the reason why God sent the flood to cleanse the earth?

Can anyone qualify this discrepancy for me? Why the difference between these two texts? I understand that the Book of Enoch is not a part of the Catholic Canon, but I still think that it’s fairly relevant… if not in a religious sense than at least in a cultural one.

Not really an urgent question or anything, I’m just curious.
Click to expand...
This is what the dictionary does with that word: Nephilim definition -

(Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33, R.V.), giants, the Hebrew word left untranslated by the Revisers, the name of one of the Canaanitish tribes. The Revisers have, however, translated the Hebrew gibborim, in Gen. 6:4, “mighty men.”
My personal understanding is that the Nephilim are giants that were created by the union (sexual intercourse) of angels and humans. Those giants then went on to have relations with the human females of that day.
 
akeylapratt said:
Why are the Nephilim referred to as famous heroes of men in Genesis 6:4 (“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”), but in the text of the Book of Enoch from the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are portrayed as wicked giants who tormented the humans, and were part of the reason why God sent the flood to cleanse the earth?

Can anyone qualify this discrepancy for me? Why the difference between these two texts? I understand that the Book of Enoch is not a part of the Catholic Canon, but I still think that it’s fairly relevant… if not in a religious sense than at least in a cultural one.

Not really an urgent question or anything, I’m just curious.
Click to expand...
The book of Enoch is pretty hard to read. Samyaza was their leader not Lucifer as other have said. You might want to ask a Rabbi something like this. These stories the older they get the more away from the truth they get. It was summerian “Annunaki” from heaven yes another world interbreeding with humans.

Cheers
 
Here is what the Aquinas Study Bible says

6:4 giants: Giants means men brought forth into the world with immense bodies and endowed with great power. We read that there were many of this kind even after the flood, that is, in the times of Moses and David. (St. Bede) In the Hebrew, it has the following: Falling ones, that is, annaphilim. Instead of falling ones or giants, Symmachus translated ‘violent ones’. The name falling ones is indeed fitting both for angels and for the offspring of holy ones. (St. Jerome)
 
Could it be possible that the Anti-Christ will be a nephilim?
 
katholikos12 said:
Could it be possible that the Anti-Christ will be a nephilim?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Whatever they were, they don’t seem to exist today. What would make you think the Anti-Christ would be one of these.

One traditional account, advanced by St. Hippolytus of Rome, says that the Anti-Christ will be an Israelite from the tribe of Dan. Of course, Danites are about as scarce these days as Nephilim. [Edit: unless you believe the claim of the “Ethiopian Jews” to be descended in part from the tribe of Dan.]

Second Edit: I just thought of this. Is your question because of the modern belief that the Antichrist will literally be the son of the Devil? I would not take that idea literally, nor the idea of demons literally having sex with women who then give birth to giants. Demons are pure spirits and so incapable of natural human generation.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Demons are pure spirits and so incapable of natural human generation.
Click to expand...
The very description of nephilim, is that demons bred with women… If not that, then what were they? Was not Goliath and his brothers one?
 
katholikos12 said:
The very description of nephilim, is that demons bred with women… If not that, then what were they? Was not Goliath and his brothers one?
Click to expand...
If the nephilim were the offspring of demons breeding with the immediate female descendants of Adam and Eve, and if Goliath and his brothers were nephilim, then somewhere along the line the nephilim must have learned how to breathe under water.
 
Angels took on a human form and saw that women were beautiful and had sex with them. Those ravished women then gave birth to Nephilim who were free willed and could do either good or bad. But then again, I wasn’t there.
 
DaveBj said:
If the nephilim were the offspring of demons breeding with the immediate female descendants of Adam and Eve, and if Goliath and his brothers were nephilim, then somewhere along the line the nephilim must have learned how to breathe under water.
Click to expand...
huh?
 
DaveBj said:
A little event called the Flood. There were no nephilim on the ark.
Click to expand...
Numbers 13:32-33
"And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.

The Nephilim are demons offspring from human women. Demons did not die in the flood and neither did humans.

Therefore it could have happened again.
 
Need the Flood truly have killed everything? Has the Church spoken about how it is written and to be interpreted–like it has the Creation account, pointing out that it is not meant as a scientific account, being literal in truths but not necessarily in methods/technical detail? Could not the Flood be a similar parable?

Consider similar flood myths throughout the world, but also indications in Scripture like the Nephilim (which seem to reproduce naturally and thus may be a continuous population), and also considering that events like the Exodus and the Babylonian Exile speak of whole populations figuratively, while some number of the people remained (in Egypt, and in Israel).

Seems to me that the Flood need not be an absolute, singular event, but more of an encapsulation of a time period (symbolic as numbers are), reflected in the psyche of mankind throughout the world. Consider how similar events in our Western past linger in our psyche–the legacy of Troy, of the Roman Empire (dead some 1500 years but still very powerful in our cultural legacy), and our sense of absolute catastrophe and post-apocalyptic scenarios as a remnant of the nearly-civilization-ending sequence of barbarian invasions, fall of the Roman Empire, Viking and Hun/Tartar raids, Little Ice Age, and Black Death.

So whomever the Nephilim are, they could well be found before and after the Flood by natural means. Noah and his descendants demonstrate continuity with Adam through the line of Shem (the Semites, Semitic peoples). His story also demonstrates a Covenant with pre-Abrahamic people.
 
AV1 said:
This is likely over-simplified, and bare in mind that I have a Protestant background, but here is my take for what its worth. Angelic beings have within themselves free will, as proven with the fall of Lucifer and his ilk.

Demons are angels too. It seems logical, therefore, that the Nephilim have the same “opportunity” to be good or evil.
Click to expand...
That does make sense… actually a lot more sense than what my prof. was arguing, which was that everything that was not specifically Israelite (aka “Other”) was bad, and that this was reinforced in the Book of Enoch. I was having serious issues with this because as I said, that viewpoint simply isn’t there in Genesis, so his perspective isn’t consistent.

And the only background that matters to me is a thorough Christian background in studying the Bible =). I pay attention to both Protestant and Catholic interpretations.

Thank you, and God bless!
 
johnnyjones said:
Angels took on a human form and saw that women were beautiful and had sex with them. Those ravished women then gave birth to Nephilim who were free willed and could do either good or bad. But then again, I wasn’t there.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. …

Is an Angel allowed to take the flesh of Mankind ?

Scripture teaches, Christ said, that in heaven we are not given / taken in marriage, but with bodies like the angels.

That would seem to preclude sexual IC, by an Angel ?

Unless, the rules in the first age of Mankind were different !!
 
brb3 said:
Doubtful. …

Is an Angel allowed to take the flesh of Mankind ?

Scripture teaches, Christ said, that in heaven we are not given / taken in marriage, but with bodies like the angels.

That would seem to preclude sexual IC, by an Angel ?

Unless, the rules in the first age of Mankind were different !!
Click to expand...
I don’t know how else to interpret it when it is stated so explicitly. It seems blatant by the passages in Genesis that some sort of spiritual beings bred with women.

If the angel of the Lord can wrestle with Jacob, surely other spiritual beings can take on flesh form?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top