Origin of the Nephillim

[wllmjoseph]

Genesis 6 states "When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, *the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. It after this verse that saw how wicked and evil man was an makes preparation to start over again with Noah and his family. The Nephillim are referred to as the sons of heaven. Who were the Nephillim? Were they the angels of heaven or were they the demons that followed Lucifer?.

 

[BartholomewB]

In older Bibles, including the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the King James version, the Hebrew word “nephilim” is translated as “giants.” In more recent Bibles, the tendency is to leave the word untranslated. The short answer is nobody really knows who or what they were. It’s a mysterious word that occurs only three times in the whole Bible, once in Genesis 6:4 and the two other times in Numbers 13:33, where Nabre gives a footnote explaining it means “the fallen ones.” Does that help?

Numbers, CHAPTER 13

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

 

[Dan_Defender]

St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives.

 

[wllmjoseph]

That does help. Thank you.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Read the Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch( there are two others bearing this name from other languages). I believe chapters 6-12 speak about this but I am not positive, it’s been a while since I’ve taken a look. This goes much more into it. Also the Book of Jubilees which is known as “Little Genesis” which is strange since Jubilees is actually a little longer than Genesis) goes more into it.
Besides the Ethiopian Orthodox Church these books are not canonical however they were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls and were cited as scripture by Church Fathers. Actually I forgot which one, either Iraneus or Tertillian i believe who said about Enoch,the “Jews don’t accept it because it foretells Christ.” Also the Epistle of Jude directly quotes it.
Disclaimer however, the story of the Nephiliim is kind of bizarre. But it does give a fuller understanding of what the Jewish community would have regarded them as. And also remember, the Church only infallibly defined which books are canonical, but didn’t say “and no others” , and I believe these two could be a good example of books not in our Bibles that we cannot dismiss.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2126

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essay...ature-ot-pseudepigrapha/the-book-of-jubilees/

 

[thistle]

Angels/demons never interbred with humans.

 

[EZweber]

And also remember, the Church only infallibly defined which books are canonical, but didn’t say “and no others”

The canon of Scripture is closed.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Yah it is but that doesn’t mean nothing else can be. The Church defined what the canon is but never said nothing else can be. This is actually something Jimmy Akin says quite often on Catholic Answers Live. You should maybe call in and argue with him about it.

https://jimmyakin.com/2006/08/tritiocanonical.html

 

[wllmjoseph]

Yes, it does help. Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

Yah it is but that doesn’t mean nothing else can be.

It kinda does.

The Church defined what the canon is but never said nothing else can be.

Again, not true. From the Catechism:

[66] “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

That’s a quote from Dei verbum, the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation.

So much for “the Church doesn’t teach that there will be no further revelation”, eh?

This is actually something Jimmy Akin says quite often on Catholic Answers Live.

Here’s what Akin says in the article you cited: “While they do infallibly include the deterocanonicals in the canon, they do not appear to infallibly repudiate the possibility in principle of ever declaring other books to be canonical.”

In other words, he’s falling into the trap that many do: attempting to lean on “infallibility” while ignoring “authoritative teaching.” It’s the old, “well, ok, but… they could change it if they wanted to!” red herring.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Your quote from the catechism is speaking about revelation in the future as in after the last Apostle died.
The Book of Enoch and Jubilees are 200 years before Christ so I have no idea what difference that makes.
Your reading it as if it is saying revelation as in accepting texts that could possibly be scripture that were quoted by church Fathers as such is the same as the Book of Mormon…

 

[Gorgias]

Your quote from the catechism is speaking about revelation in the future as in after the last Apostle died.

Those extra books are not part of “public revelation”, as defined by the Church, wouldn’t you agree?

Therefore, “no new public revelation” == “no new naming of public revelation”. The date of composition of the books isn’t in play here – what is relevant is their (lack of) status as canonical public revelation. That won’t change.

The Book of Enoch and Jubilees are 200 years before Christ so I have no idea what difference that makes.

You seem to be under the mistaken notion that there’s a chance that something written before Christ’s ministry could be added to revelation, but something written after Christ’s ministry could not. That’s not what the Church is asserting.

 

[Mary888]

My 2 cents is that they are giants for the.spiritual.history of Christianity. The OT prophets, the Apostles,.the Holy Church Fathers, the Martyrs. Their dimension is given by the importance of their.knowledge of God.
And since I am a.Coptic.fan, also Virgin Mary, one huge giant Nephil woman, the brightest of them all. Archangel.Gabriel.seemed to know her and she bowed before Him and He before her.

 

[De_Maria]

So much for “the Church doesn’t teach that there will be no further revelation”, eh?

The Orthodox and other Ancient Churches have Bibles which contain books which predate the Catholic Bible. It is not “new” revelation.

So, he is correct. Unless you can provide something more substantial than your simple opinion, the Council of Trent IV says:

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

It does not anathematize the 88 book Bible of the Orthodox or any of it’s parts. Nor does it mention any other Bibles, of which I have heard, there are ancient Churches with valid Sacraments which have Bibles that have over 100 books.

But, if you can prove that the Church has condemned any of those, I’m all ears.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not “new” revelation.

So, he is correct.

No, he isn’t. We’re not talking about “newly written books”, we’re talking about “newly added to the canon”, aren’t we? These books aren’t part of the canon. We’re expecting no additional revelation. Therefore, no additions to canon.

there are ancient Churches with valid Sacraments which have Bibles that have over 100 books.

But, if you can prove that the Church has condemned any of those, I’m all ears.

Red herring. You’re trying to equivocate between Trent (which dealt with invalid ecclesial communities) and actual Churches (albeit not in union with Rome).

In any case, the question isn’t “books which have been condemned”, it’s “books which are canonical”. Those ‘extra’ books are not. The Church has already decided with respect to them, by virtue of not including them in the canon. The assertion being made – that they could somehow be added at some point in time – is spurious.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Yes but the Church never said and no other books at Trent.
The Council of Trent definitely could have, and would have known other books existed. How do I know? Because the Council of Trent did not condemn other texts that were very often in the Vulgate.
Texts such as 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh; which in the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 which was the only official Vulgate of the Church until the late 20th century included in an appendix to the Vulgate. All three are also used in liturgy. Had the Church been so rigid as you seem to imply, why would it have still promoted clergy and laity to read them?
Also the Latin Rite knew of Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees since they are included in some Vulgates in the middle ages.
The thing is, all of these texts named are viewed as scripture by some or all of Orthodox Christianity. The Church only affirmed the books it said were Canon without saying nothing else could be.
I could give a possible scenario where more books are added.
If the east and west ever were to be reunited, the Church wouldn’t force them to stop accepting books they have for millenia. Why would they even come back then? What your going to tell the Greek Church they need to stop using the books that were in the Greek Septuagint that we also use to defend having more books than Protestants. Is the Church really going to be worried about really uncontroversial books like 3 Maccabees? No. I can see if reuniting did happen Catholic Bibles could begin including them for the eastern groups, and with time could be known and loved to western Christians. It is possible at a Council down the road in that case the Church could say it has found these books are also Inspired and thus the Church accepts. Something like 3 Maccabees doesn’t introduce anything new doctrinally nor does it include anything outlandish or contrary to the faith.
My point is there are circumstances in the future that could see the addition of books.
You are reading into it in to much of a Protestant viewpoint.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I’ve never however heard of Bibles as large as you say here. However maybe that could be because some number books and call separate parts that are considered additions in some traditions such as the Catholic Church and the 3 additions to Daniel.
As far as I know the Orthodox aren’t all unanimous on the canon because they don’t really have a view of the canon like we do. It is less formal. Which actually was how the Catholic Church was until the Protestants kind of forced it to be formal.
Orthodox pretty unanimously however include 1 Esdras( 3 Esdras in Vulgate appendix), 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh( in an appendix to the Vulgate; in Eastern Orthodoxy many times as an additional chapter to 2 Chronicles), and Psalm 151(after the other Psalms and being noted as being outside the 150)in their Old Testament. The Greek Orthodox also include 4 Maccabees in an appendix to many of their Bibles. 2(4 Esdras in Vulgate appendix) is in many Slavic Bibles. Although there was a Synod of Jerusalem in the late 17th century which did speak of the canon, not all Orthodox accept it. Again Orthodox never really saw a need for it as they never had these bible only movements forcing them to make a formal judgement. So really a standard Eastern Orthodox Bible will contain 76 books give or take one.
The largest canon in the world is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which contains 81 books. It includes 2(4) Esdras, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and I believe 2 Baruch and maybe others I’m not remembering. They also have a broader canon which contains writings which may not be considered scripture however may be viewed as very good to read, and this includes even the Shepherd of Hermas and other writings from early Christianity.
It is interesting.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes but the Church never said and no other books at Trent.

The question isn’t merely Trent; it’s what the Church teaches in general. And, what it teaches is that we expect no further revelation until the eschaton. Therefore, the canon is settled.

The thing is, all of these texts named are viewed as scripture by some or all of Orthodox Christianity.

But not the Catholic Church. That’s the context we’re talking about, isn’t it?

I can see if reuniting did happen Catholic Bibles could begin including them for the eastern groups, and with time could be known and loved to western Christians.

“known and loved” =/= “accepted as canon”.

My point is there are circumstances in the future that could see the addition of books.

Yes, I understand that this is your point. I’m saying that you seem to be mistaken, given the teachings of the Church.

You are reading into it in to much of a Protestant viewpoint.

Umm… you’re the one trying to shoehorn the Council of Trent into the discussion, brother…

 

[Richard_White]

This Catholic Answers article explains the concept of the Nephilim very well. It’s probably about the best we can do with this ancient legend.

Explaining the "Nephilim" of Genesis | Catholic Answers Q&A

May God bless you all!

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

It is not “new” revelation.

So, he is correct.

No, he isn’t. We’re not talking about “newly written books”, we’re talking about “newly added to the canon”, aren’t we?

Correct.

These books aren’t part of the canon.

Not part of our canon, correct. But part of the Orthodox.

We’re expecting no additional revelation.

Correct.

Therefore, no additions to canon.

Non sequitur. You have agreed that we are talking about existing revelation which is included in the canons of other Churches. Yet, you included new revelation in your conclusion.

Red herring. You’re trying to equivocate between Trent (which dealt with invalid ecclesial communities) and actual Churches (albeit not in union with Rome).

No equivocation on my part. Although, above, you equivocated between new and existing revelation.

1st. Trent dealt with invalid ecclesial communities, true.
2nd. Trent also dealt with the printing of unauthorized, erroneously translated and incomplete Bibles.
3rd. As per incomplete Bibles, specifically the ones which did not include the Deuterocanonicals.

4th. And, as well, Trent also dealt with the accusation that the Latin Vulgate’s canon was false.

Thus, in Session IV, the Church made the infallible proclamation that anyone who denied the canon of the Latin Vulgate, was anathema.

Thus proclaiming the Catholic Canon correct, but neither alleging nor proclaiming the Orthodox canon, false.

In any case, the question isn’t “books which have been condemned”, it’s “books which are canonical”. Those ‘extra’ books are not. The Church has already decided with respect to them, by virtue of not including them in the canon. The assertion being made – that they could somehow be added at some point in time – is spurious.

The fact that the Catholic Church wants to reunify with all true Churches makes it obvious why the Church did not condemn their Bibles. Condemning their Bibles would make it that much more difficult to bring those Churches back into the fold. Thus, your claim that the Catholic Church would not at some time in the future, accept the Orthodox version of the Bible, is not well thought out.