Month: October 2024

L.A. Marzulli was on the show Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural! for an episode titled “WE FOUND THE NEPHILIM!”

It seems to me that whatever “WE” found, it is not Nephilim. Let us review some key points.

Marzulli notes, “Jesus tells us it will be like the Days of Noah when He returns. Of course, that points to the angels coming down in Genesis 6, having sex with the women, and the offspring are the Nephilim…The Days of Noah, presence of the fallen angels” and references the days of Noah many times during the discussion.

Yet, Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah is clearly just about people going about as business as usual while being unaware of coming judgement. And you can know that by reading the whole statement Jesus made and also the one He made in Luke 17 about how “it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”

Sid Roth tells us “Nephilim means giants” which is a meaningless statement since if Nephilim means giants then what does giants mean? That is merely a subjective, generic, vague and un-biblical English term that is best to ignore. Besides, we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim so if “giants” is supposed to refer to unusual height (just how unusual: one inch, one foot, various entire body lengths, or what?) then we cannot refer to them as such.

Marzulli replies, “L.A.: Well that was one of the characteristics. Later on, I think they became different characteristics” which is a clever loophole for getting around the fact that the Bible does not teach post-flood Nephilim nor a return of them—ever. If you claim that Nephilim were physically very, very tall (which is un-biblical) and that they survived the flood (which is un-biblical) or returned (which is un-biblical) or were born anew from further fallen Angel incursions (which is un-biblical) then you can be asked where they are since they would be quite easily identifiable.

When you realize that you have zero evidence (since all of that is un-biblical), you have to claim that they now have “different characteristics” (which is un-biblical).

Marzulli then plays upon a very, very common claim amongst neo-pop-researchers of Nephilim and giants, which is very, very common, very, very inaccurate and very, very problematic due to its implications, “I don’t know about you, when you study the Bible you see God says, destroy all the people in Canaan, destroy all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would God not have mercy on any of these people? There’s a good reason. Well, the reason simply is this. That we’re dealing with a demonic hybrid known as the Nephilim…when they push into Israel, the Land of Canaan, who were there? The Nephilim were there. And the mandate is always the same.”

In my book titled What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology, I get into all of these issues in detail. In this case, I provide many quotations since God tells us many times why He is thusly judging such people groups and He never once states anything about Nephilim nor relation to them nor their genetics—nothing.

Since there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim nor a return of them ever then these were not “demonic hybrid known as the Nephilim.” But then “who were there?” human people groups. But “Why would God not have mercy on any of these people?” He most certainly did: He gave them generations worth of time to repent, they did not, so they were judged.

This is very, very problematic due to its implications because when corrected, it has such teachers claiming that God is merciless and even a “moral monster.”

Marzulli further states, “If God could not get rid of them, they’d take over the earth. Not only that, they would pollute the genome of the Messiah. That’s really the end game, especially in Genesis 6 with the flood.”

Well, but God did “get rid of them” via the flood so that any claim of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed. Moreover, if God got rid of them via the conquest of the land then any concept of a return of them (say, in the eschaton) still implies that God failed.

Another issue covered in my book is what Sid Roth states about Marzulli as that he “has uncovered an amazing cover-up by our government, by the Smithsonian Institution to hide the evidence that Darwinism is a phony, and he’s going to expose it to you.”

Sid Roth states, “you have found some amazing research in newspaper articles from the 1800s and 1900s about these Nephilim…Tell me about the Smithsonian and the bones that they have found of what could be the Nephilim.”

Marzulli replies, “We discovered that case after case, after case, 9-, 10-, 11-footers were found. And the Smithsonian shows up and they confiscate the bones, and they put them in crates, and they’re carried away never to be seen again. We have case after case, after case.” Well, such is a puffing up the actual facts and also implying that Nephilim has something to do with unusual height.

Marzulli states, “I believe the tribes in North America and in South America are the remnants of the Nephilim tribes that Joshua and Caleb pushed out of the Promised Land when they conquered it about 3500 years ago.”

So, apparently, “tribes in North America and in South America” are “demonic hybrid known as the Nephilim” and, by golly, God attempted to be rid of Nephilim via the flood and then, or so some wrongly claim, via the conquest of the land but they somehow made it to the Americas so God keep failing.

Yet, Sid Roth has a moment of clarity and asks, “But wait a second, if they killed all the population, how could they migrate then?”

Marzulli replies, “They didn’t kill all the population. It would stand to reason as they begin to move in to the Promised Land, the giants see what’s happening, that the Israelites, first of all the power of the most High God, and they are annihilating all the tribes. So the Amorites and perhaps maybe the Perrizzites over here, some of these guys go, we got to get out of here. Some flee northward and we have a trail that we believe follows that.”

See what I mean? God failed since, “If God could not get rid of them, they’d take over the earth” but God did not get rid of them (and, by the way, they did not take over the Earth). So, apparently, the Israelites had “the power of the most High God” at their disposal but God’s power could not prevent that “the giants see what’s happening” and move to the Americas.

Marzulli also claims that “Canaanites were a Nephilim tribe” about which Sid Roth replies, “My goodness” and about which I will reply “his badness.”

Rid Roth then notes, that Marzulli sees “a tie-in with these Nephilim in the last days and the Mark of the Beast.”

Marzulli elucidates, “the Mark of the Beast has four characteristics…The fourth one, which is the most telling in my opinion, anyone who takes the mark winds up in the lake of fire. There’s no grace, no mercy. You’re in the lake of fire. And the same judgment that we see with the Nephilim in Genesis 6, Sodom and Gomorrah and what happens in Israel, the Promised Land when Joshua and Caleb came into the Promised Land, it’s always the same ending. If Nephilim is there the judgment is always the same. It’s total annihilation. There’s never a shred of grace and mercy.”

But, then again, since Nephilim supposedly survived the flood or returned thereafter and survived the conquest, etc. then it would seem that “total annihilation” does not mean “total annihilation.”

Over all, Sid Roth’s show is about making much ado about not very much—the odder, more outlandish and sci-fi the better—and so Marzulli was not challenged on even the basic points I just reviewed: with the exception of the one key question Roth asked which was more of a softball, as it turned out.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Augusta Press site posted an opinion piece by Joe Edge (“graduated from Evans high school in 2000 and served four years in the United States Marine Corps right out of High School”) titled The Nephilim were not mythical angelic offspring.

Edge sought “an objective examination of relevant Scriptures in context” which he concluded “proves that the Nephilim were not offspring of relations between fallen angels and human women.”
He quotes the Gen 6 affair as
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants 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. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
He notes that while “Jewish tradition is that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels who left their heavenly abode to have sexual relations with women, thus corrupting mankind and leading to the flood. There are many problems with this interpretation, chief of which is the fact that it is based on Jewish tradition rather than the Biblical text itself.” I will add that the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

He notes, “Genealogies…play a significant role…The two lineages of both Seth and Cain in Gen. 4-5 present a contrast between a lineage that was evil and curses and one that was righteous and would eventually include Noah, Abraham, David and Jesus.” He is clearly aiming at the Sethite view which is a late-comer of a view which, as you just saw, is based on myth and prejudice (and which only created more problems than it solved: so, more than zero) since it’s merely asserted that an entire lineage “was evil and curses [sic]” and the other entire lineage “was righteous” for which there’s literally zero indication. Consider, for example, how ungraceful it is to condemn an entire lineage based on that we can point to one single on record sin for Cain and one, or maybe two, on record for Lamech: to condemn an entire lineage as “evil and curses” based on two, or thee, sins by two members of that lineage is not only unbiblical, it’s worldly.

Edge goes on to “list of reasons I believe the ‘sons of God’ does not refer to fallen angels”:
The fact that the Nephilim were subject to God’s ensuing judgment prove that they were mortal rather than some supernatural half-breed. Gen. 6:1-8 is about humanity and its doomed outcome not angels and their punishment.

This is actually a mere assertion backed by a not very well thought out partial data point. There’s no linguistics or reading comprehension/hermeneutical requirement for any one statement to be all encompassing.

The Bible is more of an anthropological text than theological one in that its main focus is humanity: our creation, fall, history, redemption, destiny, etc. Thus, Gen 6’s context is to elucidate a styled second fall of humanity, in a manner of speaking, so that’s the main focus. Nephilim were part of the corruption of the time so a logical and hermeneutical conclusion is that they were thrown out with the baby water: also perished in the flood. Then, Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us that the sinful Angels were incarcerated: Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

Thus, “Gen. 6:1-8 is about humanity” and Nephilim’s “doomed outcome” and Jude and Peter note, “angels and their punishment.”

The next item on Joe Edge’s list is:

Contextually. there has not been any mention of angelic beings in the Old Testament up to this point. It would not make logical sense for this to be first mention of them.

It’s incoherent to argue lack of logic due to the first time someone/something is mentioned since the someone/something is always mentioned for the first time the first time that someone/something is mentioned. He might as well argue: there has not been any mention of the serpent in the Old Testament up to this point. It would not make logical sense for this to be first mention of it. Thus, that was a mere assertion.

Next is:

Nowhere in Scripture is it found that angelic beings have the ability to procreate as mankind can. Angels are spiritual beings not corporeal.  Jesus indicated in Matt. 22:30 that angels do not have sexual relations as humans.
He can only assert the former point after rejecting that such is what the Gen 6 affair was about and ignoring Jude and Peter. It’s incoherent to assert that “Angels are spiritual beings not corporeal” since humans can be spiritual beings but we’re corporeal. He seems to have confused spirit and spiritual. Yet, even then, there’s no indication that Angels are spirits and quoting one single badly translated English word doesn’t change the fact that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

As for, “Jesus indicated in Matt. 22:30 that angels do not have sexual relations as humans” well, He didn’t said any such thing and so that He indicated it is a merely subjective assertion. If Edge had actually quoted Jesus we would have instantly seen that His statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms in specifically referring to “the angels of God in heaven.” So, not all Angels at all times in all places not “do not have” but the loyal ones “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
He then notes “similarities…between Eve’s taking of the fruit and the language here” which is a non-issue since it works for both the Angel and Sethite views.
Now, recall that I noted “The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest…Christians commentators” well, Joe Edge ignores them and jumps circa 400 years past them and then another millennia into the future in order to write:
Augustine and the reformers Luther and Calvin all agreed that the correct interpretation was that the “sons of God” referred to the lineage of Seth while the “daughters of man” referred to the lineage of Cain. The intermarriage of the two lines led to unprecedented wickedness and subsequently the flood. Israelite law would later prohibit marriage outside of the Jewish people for the same goal of protecting the against calamity for the covenant people.
Firstly, Augustine was vastly influential and certainly popularized the Sethite view (although see my books’ chapter on his views since they were quite nuanced). There may be a key reason that he opted for the non-original, non-traditional, and non-majority view and that’s that he converted from Gnostic Manichean so Augustine wanted nothing more to do with it so, since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine wouldn’t.

While we’re at it, apparently the entire righteous Sethite lineage wasn’t righteous since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood, as Edge put it, “The intermarriage of the two lines led to unprecedented wickedness and subsequently the flood.”

He then moved on to:

The word Nephilim appears a second time in the Old Testament in Number 13:33. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” If the Nephilim are decedents of the Anakites then how did they survive the flood?
The Anakites were mentioned multiple times in Deuteronomy along with other Canaanite groups known for their size and military power. The Nephilim were not mentioned in any of those Deuteronomy passages. It makes logical sense that the Nephilim were a tall strong people that were part of the Anakites but not half angel abominations.
An alternative meaning to Numbers 13:33 is that the Hebrew spies were exaggerating. They could have used hyperbole as they did, referring to themselves as grasshoppers.  Either way there is no textual reason to interpret the Nephilim in Numbers 13 as being anything more than large humans.
It’s odd that he notes “The word Nephilim appears…in Number 13:33” but quotes a version that renders as “giants.” Yet, it’s odder still that he read “the descendants of Anak came from the” Nephilim” but then flips the script in asking about “the Nephilim are decedents of the Anakites” since the text has it the other way around.

As for “Anakites were mentioned multiple times…known for their size” very well then but the only thing we’re told about the size is that they were generically “tall” on average subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

He has Anakites existing before Nephilim but Anak, after whom they’re named, was Abra’s son and neither was born until centuries post-flood.

As for “Nephilim were…tall” he gets that from misreading what he quoted and from Num 13:33 which is just an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, his conclusion at this point that they “were part of the Anakites but not half angel abominations” is multitudinously fallacious—including that Anakim aren’t mentioned in the LXX’s version of the evil report.
As for the rest of it, it was more than exaggerating/hyperbole: it was a straight up and impossible tall-tale—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

He fairly enough notes “With only two references to Nephilim in all of Scripture, it is hard to determine” much about them. We can say that they lived strictly pre-flood, were offspring of son of God and daughters of men, were mighty and renown and centuries post-flood some guys made up a tall-tale about them.

Yet, Joe Edge even calls that simple outline into question by asserting “The text never even states that the Nephilim were the direct offspring of those two lineages but just that they were on the earth at the time.” Yet, the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.

He closes the article my opining “There is zero textual evidence to assume Nephilim refers to a race of half angelic half human creatures. That idea comes strictly from Jewish myth and has no hermeneutical standing in Scripture.” He can only say that after rejecting issues such as that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth and ignoring Jude and 2 Peter 2.
He leaves us with “Nephilim were decedents who resulted from inter-marriage between the women in Cain’s lineage and the men in Seth’s” which is odd since he just told us “The text never even states that the Nephilim were the direct offspring of those two lineages.”

By the way, apparently there weren’t any attractive male Sethites nor attractive female Cainites. Well, the Angel view makes sense of why it was only strictly males on one side of that equation and only strictly females on the other: again, Angels are always described as looking like human males.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Such is the titled of a video by the InspiringPhilosophy YouTube channel which led to the following discussion when a certain @tomcatpurr commented

I think its simply this, the sons of God are those who called upon the name of the Lord, then receive the Holy Spirit. The daughters of men are unbelieving women. When saved men marry unsaved women, children are more likely to not call upon the name of the Lord. After many generations there will no longer be any believers left, which is why God said my spirit will no longer strive with man, and why God had to start over with the flood. and will again by fire at the last day because the Holy Spirit will no longer reside among man.

I, @kenammi355, replied

So then, “those who called upon the name of the Lord” didn’t really call upon the name of the Lord since they were such terrible sinner since their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.

@tomcatpurr

No the people who called upon the Lord were good but died out until Noah was the only true believer left.

@kenammi355

I’m unsure you can support, “Noah was the only true believer left” and this is still attempting to support a late-comer of a view since the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

@tomcatpurr

Majority don’t mean anything when it comes to the truth. it was also a majority who said crucify Him.

@kenammi355

I’m still unsure you can support, “Noah was the only true believer left” and a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice and that only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero) don’t mean anything when it comes to the truth.

@tomcatpurr

Its pretty apparent when God says all creation is corrupt. but found grace in Noah.

@kenammi355

How is a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice and that only creates more problems than it solves “pretty apparent” based on “God says all creation is corrupt. but found grace in Noah”?

Again, you seem to be saying that “those who called upon the name of the Lord, then receive the Holy Spirit…saved men” weren’t calling on His name nor received the Holy Spirit nor were saved since, “all creation is corrupt” sans Noah.

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.