The Catholic “New American Bible” has Genesis 1:3, 4 reading thusly:
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…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 the heroes of old, the men of renown.
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…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 the heroes of old, the men of renown.
The footnotes read:
[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation – the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.
[2] The sons of heaven: literally “the sons of the gods” or “the sons of God,” i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.
[4] As well as later: According to ⇒ Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites invaded Palestine and found there the tall aboriginal Anakim, they likened them to the Nephilim; cf ⇒ Deut 2:10-11. Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of giants, whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin. The heroes of old: the legendary worthies of ancient mythology.
So, according to this official Catholic Bible, “The sacred author incorporates,” “an old legend…from ancient mythology.”
This is said, merely asserted actually, to have been done so as to, “account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim…”
Well, the, “giants of Palestine” were not Nephilim.
The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s the note writer’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
The claim that, “the Israelites called the Nephilim” those, “giants of Palestine” is based on one single sentence from an, “evil report” not by, “the Israelites” as a whole but by merely ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
As for, “sons of heaven…sons of the gods…sons of God” being, “beings of mythology” well, Job 38:7 has them being non-human beings but then we need to know if by, “mythology” the endnotes are employing the academic meaning or the common parlance meaning.
As for, “As well as later” by directing us to post-flood days, that’s a tragic misreading of a text which does not even imply any such thing.
Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
Yet, we are told, “According to ⇒ Numbers 13:33” rather than, “according to one sentence in an, ‘evil report’ by ten unreliable guys’ whom God rebuked so no one should believe them.
As for, “found there the tall aboriginal Anakim” et al., actually, which the endnotes don’t note.
The ten actually merely asserted that Anakim are (in some unknown and un-biblical way) related to Nephilim which is impossible since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form: and that’s only in non-LXX versions.
As for, Deut 2:10-11: that’s all about Rephaim, not about Nephilim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Sure, “Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of,” whatever, “giants” means, “whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin” but there’s not even a hint of any such thought in the entire Bible.
Now, the, “Revised New American Bible” has the key text as:
When human beings began to grow numerous on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw how beautiful the daughters of human beings were, and so they took for their wives whomever they pleased….The Nephilim appeared on earth in those days, as well as later, after the sons of God had intercourse with the daughters of human beings, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
See, what I mean? Even going from, “(as well as later)” to more normative, “those days, as well as later” that’s still pre-flood, of course.
The notes are:
[6:1–4] These enigmatic verses are a transition between the expansion of the human race illustrated in the genealogy of chap. 5 and the flood depicted in chaps. 6–9. The text, apparently alluding to an old legend, shares a common ancient view that the heavenly world was populated by a multitude of beings, some of whom were wicked and rebellious.
It is incorporated here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation—the constantly increasing wickedness of humanity.
This increasing wickedness leads God to reduce the human life span imposed on the first couple. As the ages in the preceding genealogy show, life spans had been exceptionally long in the early period, but God further reduces them to something near the ordinary life span.
[6:2] The sons of God: other heavenly beings. See note on 1:26.
[1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5. In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.
[6:4] As well as later: the belief was common that human beings of gigantic stature once lived on earth. In some cultures, such heroes could make positive contributions, but the Bible generally regards them in a negative light (cf. Nm 13:33; Ez 32:27). The point here is that even these heroes, filled with vitality from their semi-divine origin, come under God’s decree in v. 3.
Much the same assertions. Note that the (il)logic is that such is the premise for the flood but Nephilim (by any name) get past the flood, past God. Yet, I suppose it matters not since as per the notes, this is all just made-up stuff anyhow.
As for, “The sons of God: other heavenly beings,” the “note on 1:26” read:
[1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5.
In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.
I would have actually appealed to Psalm 8:5 which is about that God created us, “a little lower than the angels.”
Well, we finally got an answer to key question 2, “What’s the note writer’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’?” sine reference is made to, “gigantic stature” (with “gigantic” still being vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage) yet, Gen 6 doesn’t provide us a physical description of them and the only other biblical reference to Nephilim is the, “evil report” which has them as being very, very tall so that’s unreliable.
The answer to key question 3 is, “No” since the answer to key question 1 is that, “the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ in English Bibles” is that it renders, doesn’t even translate, “Nephilim” in two verse and/but, “Repha/im” in the other 98% and never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply