The following discussion took place due to the video Who Are the Nephilim?on the Church of the Eternal Logos YouTube channel—on which I have been a guest.
Due to the vid’s content I, @KenAmmi-Shalom, noted
My friend, 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”
@Sinha010 noted
If the Nephilim are just the disembodied souls of the possessed men why are they assigned a special judgement? They would also go to hades, but only some fo and others stay on Earth.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
There’s no indication of Nephilim as disembodied souls of the possessed men”: 1) demons didn’t even exist yet during pre-flood days and 2) Angels, even fallen ones, don’t/can’t possess anyone.
No indication “they assigned a special judgement.”
Presumably, they would go to sheol.
No indication any “stay on Earth.”
@TuckerHix
Have you, or anyone you can point to, ever done a video about who is a child of God, if any humans are not, what exactly that all entails?
@KenAmmi-Shalom
By “child of God” are you paraphrasing Gen 6 referring to “sons of God”?
@PeterA-r8x
Here’s a third theory. Even if they were the descendants of Seth, the Nephilim that resulted were “engineered” by fallen angels. This is a better theory than the Sethite one, but I suspect the direct fallen angel theory makes the most sense, backed by what some of the early Church Fathers stated. I suppose we will find out the whole truth when Jesus returns.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.”
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
@TheosisSeekerrr
question… if the holy spirit can use the theotokos to conceive christ without a “body” why cant angels do it? is it simply that they arent God and dont have that kind of power? just curious thanks
@KenAmmi-Shalom
But that’s not a cogent metaphor since Angels aren’t “without a ‘body’” rather, 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.”
@DavidJohnAr
with respect i don’t see why scoff so hard at the suggestion angels and humans and breed if you said angels have no body at all and it’s a huge category error cause they’re “noetic” but then concede that they literally ate food 🤔
@KenAmmi-Shalom
Indeed, that “angels have no body at all” isn’t biblical Angelology since 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.”
@dauntless1377
Why would it make the distinction that the men of renown were “in those days, and also after” if they’re just the sons of Cain? Can’t people today also be sons of Cain and “Giants”? Also, it’s clear that Goliath is much bigger than normal and implied to be a descendent of a nephilim. Why would the genetic lineage of Cain (if it’s just normal humans in these events), produce really big people? Like the people in Jericho and such.
@PeterA-r8x
Good point. This adds more weight to the idea that the “sons of God” were fallen angels. Needless to say, we can’t prove or disprove it but it makes more sense. As I stated earlier, the Orthodox Church does not define the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as a dogma. It is a fact that some early Church Fathers accepted this idea while others rejected it.
@KenAmmi-Shalom (to @dauntless1377)
I’m glad that you quoted the virtually useless modern English word “giants” since it only causes problems: people should just say to what they’re referring instead.
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
The Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
I’m unsure whence you get “implied to be a descendent of a nephilim” which would also be impossible since they didn’t make it past the flood, of course.
Of Nephilim you say “really big people” but the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Keeping in mind that “big” is as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as “giants”: what “really big people…in Jericho and such”?
@KenAmmi-Shalom (to @PeterA-r8x)
Good point. We’ve more than enough to go on:
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.
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. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.”
@TheosisSeekerrr
not going to lie, i used to be completley convinced of the angel human hybrid theory.. now after jonathan’s video and Fr SDY, im 50/50…. sethite view is way more coherent than i thought lol. excited for this ! (i do still believe giants exist btw)
@KenAmmi-Shalom
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
@TrevaLong
Humans mating with humans created giants? Excuse my ignorance but that doesn’t seem correct
@KenAmmi-Shalom
One issue is: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
For now, I’ll assume you’re referring to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
So, just in case, I’ll note that the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
@AvoidExcess
Curious what you’ll have to say. I think the Enoch stuff is fascinating and I enjoy going down the rabbit hole but I also think it’s unhealthy for people if they don’t have a solid theological framework. I treat it as a novelty for the most part but I am open to it. I appreciate Tim Alberino and the late Michael Heiser, they both know far more than I do, but my theological framework doesn’t involve Enoch like that, and I’m not going to change it so Enoch plays a bigger role. Way too many other things for me to read and study.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”
Alberino makes a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians. I mean, just in asserting that Nephilim made it past the flood he contradicts the Bible five times.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t altogether biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:
“Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy.”
“Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s ‘All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal.’”
I also included him in my book, “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?”
@Sinha010
Plenty of mythogies have gods take human forms and mate with humans. We have the stories of Theseus, Perseus, Heracles, etc. Also, the sodomites wanted to violate the holy angels who appeared as men. There is also the 2 angels who appeared with the angel of Yahweh that ate with Abraham.There is obviously a way for the angels to take a physical form, but the righteous angels just don’t do it for perverse reasons.”Nephilim” in the Greek uses the word “gigantes”, which were divine children of Earth and Sky made to fight in a rebel war against the Olympian gods. Not to mention, there are many Church Fathers who don’t believe in the Sethite tradition.
Don’t overstate your position when trying to prove someone else wrong.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
I’m afraid you’re causing a problem and then attempted to solve it.
You read of Angels who “appear” as men, presume they don’t ontologically “appear” that way, and then propose, “There is obviously a way for the angels to take a physical form” but it’s simpler than 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.” Thus, they “appear” that was since such is just how they are.
Good point about “gigantes” which means “earth-born” and denotes “divine children of Earth” daughters of men “and Sky” sons of God/Angels–but he careful since that’s only the case when in the LXX renders “Nephilim” but not when it renders “gibborim” nor “Rephaim.”
Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
@TheBombasticus
He wasn’t Orthodox, but Rob Skiba (RIP) did years of research on this matter. I haven’t seen anyone better than him that talk about this. You might want to look into his books, documentaries and presentations on YouTube.
Also, the sethite theory is just wrong.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
Yes, “he sethite theory is just wrong” but Skiba made a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians. For example, just on his mere assertion that Nephilim made it past the flood, he contradicted the Bible five times (Gen 7:7, 23; Heb 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20 & 2 Peter 2:5) does that matter to you?
@PeterA-r8x
Depending on which literature one reads from the early Orthodox Fathers, the “sons of God” are either angels from Heaven or the descendants of Seth. Take your pick. Please don’t be so arrogant to believe you have it right and others have it wrong. The Orthodox Church does not define the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as a dogma. Anyone who does is taking the risk of teaching a false narrative.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
Why would it be arrogant to believe that he has it right and others have it wrong? After all, you believe you’re right and he’s wrong: are you arrogant?
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.”
@DaveCg-yx5cq
You painted a clear perception of the Bible depiction of the men who descending from Seth being demonically possessed and then mating with demonically possessed women (of a decent of Cain). Having children who were rulers of an evil world, or giants of men. Thank you
@KenAmmi-Shalom
How could he have “painted a clear perception of the Bible depiction of the men who descending from Seth being demonically possessed and then mating with demonically possessed women (of a decent of Cain)” when there’s zero indication demons even existed in pre-flood days and zero indication of “descending from Seth being demonically possessed” nor of “demonically possessed women (of a decent of Cain)”?
@onside_cluster9843
I thought it was possessed because it says came into the daughters of man ( i mean thats a really round about way of saying sex)
@KenAmmi-Shalom
There’s no indication of possessed nor that possession was even possible pre-flood since demons didn’t even exist yet. Indeed, “came into the daughters of man ( i mean thats a really round about way of saying sex)” and the text makes that all the clearer, “attractive…wives…came into…bore.”
@Pik180
Enoch is highly actual and relevant.
@ChurchoftheEternalLogos
The book of Enoch is actual? How do you know?
@PeterA-r8x
Yes, the Book of Enoch is “real” in the sense that it is an actual ancient text. Whether it is divinely inspired Scripture depends on one’s opinion.
Here are the key facts:
It is a genuine ancient book. Fragments of it were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, confirming it was widely read by some Jews before the time of Jesus.
The New Testament references it. Epistle of Jude 14–15 quotes a prophecy found in 1 Enoch (specifically 1 Enoch 1:9). This shows that the author of Jude was familiar with the book, though quoting a work does not necessarily mean the entire work is considered Scripture.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
Also, “ancient” is subjective since, sure, it’s ancient to us but it’s still from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah which is more ancient still.
Indeed, “quoting a work does not necessarily mean the entire work is considered Scripture” as is the case with Paul quoting Greek poets–and it may be that what Jude quoted was 1 Enoch paraphrasing Deut 33:2, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.”
@Pik180 (to @ChurchoftheEternalLogos)
I mean it in the sense that Enoch (both the life of the patriarch and the contents of the book 1/2) are very significant to our times. Understanding what the nephilim are is relevant to our understanding of spiritual warfare, what Christ accomplished, scripture, how the antediluvian era of Enoch and Noah echoes our own etc. I say “actual” to mean “significant”/”relevant”/”noteworthy” – so maybe that’s the misunderstanding? We call things “aktuell” in German to say they’re relevant, ask your wife. I am not here to make any novel claims on the authenticity or canonicity of the Book of Enoch, if that is your concern. Forbearing further detail, I was introduced to the issue mainly from the Lord of Spirits podcast, but there’s also lots of crazies out there doing heterodox interpretations. With that said, I appreciate your coverage of the subject.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
You may find something in Enoch that’s relevant but as for “highly actual”: 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”
“the life of the patriarch and the contents of the book 1/2” are different categories since there’s no indication that Enoch wrote 1-2 Enoch.
As for “Understanding what the nephilim are” well, that should be “were” and you the only reliable thing 1 Enoch does is to affirm the Angel view. Other than that, it has them being MILES tall (great folklore, poor reality) and it has “unclean spirits”/demons being their disembodied spirits but that’s just part of the folklore: For a biblical view, please see my article “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?”
@betrayer1350
What would be the argument against the Nephilim being created through genetic guidance rather than direct copulation? I don’t even mean sci-fi type genetic manipulation – but just the most efficient and expert animal husbandry imaginable being applied to a human population.
Currently, even without any sort of intentional, directed eugenics, we have a decent number of people that are fully physically capable at over 7′. This is getting a little off topic but I have a strong suspicion that certain nations, such as China, are going to pivot hard into making reproduction almost entirely monopolized by the State (through the use of artificial wombs and such to attempt to alleviate the demographic collapse that seems inevitable with industrialization) and they will absolutely be trying to make super soldiers. This might be 50+ years out from now but I do think State or Corporate controlled reproduction will be a massive social issue in the 22nd century.
But, with that in mind, and seeing the sort of changes that we can induce with all the different domesticated animals, why couldn’t you breed humans to get 9 or 10 or maybe even slightly taller than that? I understand that at a certain point you begin to reach physical limitations inherent to bipedal, mammalian systems (blood circulation is a massive one), but I don’t see why you couldn’t get 10 foot tall people with maybe shorter limb to body ratios, very enlarged organs, a wider natural stance, etc. Just look at the kind of insanity we can get up to with dogs.
If this was discussed in the livestream, I apologize, commenting before I watch. I just haven’t really seen this idea discussed too much. People tend to take it into an “Ancient Aliens” kind of nonsense which is not at all what I am suggesting. Just that angelic beings are enormously intelligent, and that, to ancient man with very rudimentary knowledge of genetics, “the angels copulated with the women” may as well be the same thing
@KenAmmi-Shalom
The argument against the Nephilim being created through genetic guidance rather than direct copulation is that the text is about direct copulation, “attraction…wives…came into…bore.”
What do “people that are fully physically capable at over 7’…9 or 10 or maybe even slightly taller than that…10 foot tall” have to do with anything?
@KingPantocrator
The Sethite interpretation for Genesis 6 is questionable for several good reasons:
1. Referring to a group of people as the “sons of God” and to other group of people as the “sons of Men” doesn’t make much sense;
2. The term Sons of God elsewhere in the Scriptures refers to the angels as in The Book of Job, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Book of Daniel.
3. Book of Enoch clearly identifies Sons of God as angels and it is quoted verbatim in the New Testament by Jude and Peter plus is inferred by Paul and Jesus Christ Himself when He speaks of “My Fathers House has many rooms” or when He speaks of the “Chained angels in the gloomy darkness”
4. There’s no good reason why mating cousins ( sons of Seth and daughters of Cain) should give birth to giants which were of old men of renown, that cannot be said about miscegenation of the human genome by a foreign but yet compatible species made in the Image and likeness of God as well.
@ChurchoftheEternalLogos
Dude, you have not dove into this topic if you’re not aware that sons of God is used in scripture in reference to holy men as well. Yes, in other places there are references to angels, correct. I mention Jude in the stream. Your fourth point makes no sense. That is total speculation and opinion that angels can mate with women. Orthodox theology does not afford that possibility. You think Sethites mating with the women of Cain is ridiculous but angels mating with humans is plausible?
@KenAmmi-Shalom
Indeed, “sons of God” is used of Angels and humans so the issue is to what it refers in that which I term the Gen 6 affair.
“that angels can mate with women” is the logical–and bio-logical–conclusion for a few reasons including that, as you noted, it can refer to Angels, 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. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.”
Do you remember me? We did a show together, perhaps we can have an show discussing this in an iron sharpens iron manner.
@KenAmmi-Shalom (to @KingPantocrator)
The Sethite interpretation for Genesis 6 is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
1. It’s actually “sons of God” and “daughters of Men.”
2. Indeed.
3. Indeed, that’s part of the historical assessment of who took which view.
4. This one depends on what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
@DS-og8bf
No offense, but the Sethite theory is false and dangerous belief system that basically dissociates from the violence and impingement from supernatural forces that occurred in prehistory. That “sons of god” is the church tradition is only partially true and gained traction after St. Augustine. Before that the Greek Septuagint translates Deuteronomy 32:8 as “sons of god” as angels. In Job 38:4-7 the “sons of god,” translated from Hebrew,” means angels. Urgers Dictionary also states that “sons of god” were angels. Not to mention that the “sons of god” are interpreted as supernatural beings outside the Christian tradition by Josephus, and also the Caananites, Phoenicians, Ammonite, and Gnostic perspectives, many who would have had direct contact with the offspring of the “sons of god,” so they would know wouldn’t they? In Job the angels aka the “sons of god” were present during creation, which would align with them being created first and closest go God. That angels, or gods in polytheism, couldn’t have changed form or mated with human women is just presumption. You’re telling us that the supernatural beings that are in charge of destruction and creation of our terrestrial world, who are astral and heavenly beings, can’t fall from their own heavenly bodies and take on flesh and interact with humans? And that they also aren’t in possession of technology light years ahead of us mortals that would make giants human hybrids certainly possible? Along with the mixing of animals like the chimeras we see in ALL prehistorical mythology? I suppose they were just making stuff up as the status quo goes. I could even think of AI progressing to super intelligence would make these things possible in the not so far off future. And we’re going to go further and then deny that giants weren’t really giants? Even though they’re carved on Egyptian reliefs, all over Hindu temples, recorded in more text than I can list here including the stories that native American Indians have passed down in North and South America about man eating Giants that roamed the lands before recorded history. I could go on and on about it the evidence for another species is actually overwhelming, and it’s even all through the bible as Goliath’s brother was said to have six fingers and toes and double rows of teeth–the same description we find in other accounts. If you don’t understand the nephilim, genetic corruption, the reality of super natural beings, the bible just doesn’t make any sense. The Sethite theory is cope, and a projection of the current world where humans dominate onto the past where they were not dominate, but dominated by external forces and genetic corruption that was able to usurp all the kingships of earth through their use of illegal bioweapons, the giants. If this crime was true, denying it is dangerous because it’s coming back.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
You’re mostly on point.
It’s not a case of “supernatural beings…who are astral and heavenly beings, can’t fall from their own heavenly bodies and take on flesh and interact with humans” since every indication is that their “heavenly bodies” are “flesh” since all 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.”
There’s no need to go sci-fi with “in possession of technology light years ahead of us mortals that would make giants human hybrids certainly possible”:
1) The text is very clear that it was the good ol’ fashioned way “attractive…wives…came into…bore.”
2) What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree? See, statement such as “giants weren’t really giants” doesn’t mean anything until you define terms.
No reliable indication of “mixing of animals like the chimeras.”
One of “Goliath’s” sons, actually “was said to have six fingers and toes” but nothing at all about “double rows of teeth.”
@ChurchoftheEternalLogos (replying to someone other than me)
Are you aware of the differences of worldviews and paradigms, like the presuppositions embedded within? How can noetic entities have human progeny? The Orthodox worldview doesn’t even provide that as a possibility. You can refer to pagan traditions but that doesn’t prove anything, because their worldview is not the same as mine. The God who created the world is not the same as demons and spiritual warfare. Your response sounds more like the history channel and less like a serious critique.
@KenAmmi-Shalom
The biblical answer to “How can noetic entities have human progeny?” is that they’re not noetic:
The Orthodox worldview doesn’t even provide that as a possibility. You can refer to pagan traditions but that doesn’t prove anything, because their worldview is not the same as mine. The God who created the world is not the same as demons and spiritual warfare. Your response sounds more like the history channel and less like a serious critique.
And that ended the discussion since no more replies were forthcoming—at least not before YouTube shadow banned me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply